About Me

My photo
My life's purpose is best described by: Be the change you want to see in the world: Gandhi. Smiling is my "botox"-FORGET THE DRUGS AND SURGERY. I spice up my life, not my diet, which is SIMPLY DELICIOUS on its own. KISS: I Keep it simple sugars-from whole, fresh, ripe, raw, organic fruits (veggies,some nuts/seeds too). The 811rv motto is: simplicity at mealtime, variety throughout the year. My motto is: I live in my own little world, but it's ok they all know me there. At some point, you have to realize that some people can stay in your heart, but not in your life.

5/03/2008

One of my favourite Dr. D. posts (long, but worth it)

The following commentary is real. I am hoping that people will
read it with an open mind, and decide for themselves what value, if
any, is to be found in it.

In health abundance naturally,

Dr Douglas N. Graham


Hi Doug,
I hope you are doing well. I just ran across this (please see below)
and thought it might be of interest to you. I'm sure you're used to
this type of controversy in the raw food community - this is the
first time I saw it in writing. I hear this opinion among other raw
fooders.

For my own edification, I'd be curious to hear from you how this
thinking is refuted with sound biological/biochemical/scientific
fact-based evidence vs. just disagreeing and making broad general
statements. He says people come down with the same cancers and
other diseases after eating so much fruit over the years - but my
suspicion is that may only be true if people routinely have too
much fat in their diet combined with the fruit, and he doesn't seem
to make a distinction between types of sugars.

I've read 80/10/10 as well as many of your other works, and the
works of many other raw fooders. The only philosophy that has
made sense to me over the years is the basis of The 80/10/10
Diet. While I have personally not achieved that ratio yet on a
consistent basis, I definitely strive to move "in the direction toward"
that goal. To the extent that I do, I notice an overall positive
improvement in my physical health and well-being. When I'm "off"
- I notice the negative consequences of that, too - at times pretty
acutely.

Thanks,
N.D.


This Week's Q&A with Paul Nison
(Please e-mail any questions you have to paul@Rawlife.com)
(We will do our best to reply to all questions in a timely manner.)

Question
I was reading through a book from Douglas N. Graham and he
really supports the idea of eating a lot of fruit. He says that as
long as you also have greens and water you can eat as much fruit
as you want. I am a little confused here. I don't want to be a
fruitarian, but, I do believe that fruit is good for you and it should
be in your diet. I think a balance should be struck here. Dr.
Graham has a new book out supporting his 80/10/10 plan. I'm
sure you have heard of it. Do you have an opinion on this? I'm
thinking you might tell me that I would have too much sugar in my
diet if I would follow this plan. Please help me in figuring this out.

Answer
Hippocrates Health Institute did many studies on consuming too
much sweet fruit and confirms that sugar supports cancer and
other diseases in the body. A very active ,healthy person can get
away with eating a lot of fruit for a certain amount of time, but
they are asking for trouble in the future. Dr. Gabriel Cousens also
confirms in his book “Rainbow Green Live Food Cuisine” that too
much fruit does more harm than good. Fruit today has much more
sugar than ever before, and because of this it’s more than the body
can handle. Addiction to sugar has become a big cause of many
illnesses. From all my research, I found the Hippocrates Health
Institute way of eating, mostly greens, a little amount of raw fats
from a vegan plant based source and non-sweet fruits, is the ideal
diet for everyone.

Anything with a seed is a fruit, so non-sweet fruit would be
cucumbers, red peppers, etc.. I have seen many people thrive on a
high, sweet-fruit diet for the first few years but after that got the
same sicknesses as people eating a high processed sugar diet.
Fruit is a great food but eating too much can cause serious issues,
and my opinion is 80% sweet fruits is way too much sugar. Of
course there are other things to consider like, how much a person
is eating, how active a person is and what point they are starting
from with their health. Dr. Graham seems to do fine on this diet,
but I have never met anyone as active as he is. Even so, being more
active so you can eat more fruit is not a wise idea. The real issue is
overeating more than anything. Most people can enjoy a few pieces
of fruit each day (except people with cancer or other sugar related
issues) and be fine. But we have to be sensible out how much we
eat and control our sugar intake.


DG: The following comments are not meant as attack. I do not wish
them to be construed as such in any way. I was asked to respond
with facts and science, and have done so. The response may not be
what you wish to read. I have never told anyone what to think, but I
do encourage every person to think for him/herself. Hopefully my
responses will be thought provoking, informative, and possibly
definitive.

I have responded line by line to PNs comments, in an effort to be
as clear and concise as possible.


PN: Hippocrates Health Institute did many studies on consuming
too much sweet fruit and confirms that sugar supports cancer and
other diseases in the body.

DG: To my knowledge, HHI has never done even one true study.
They have analyzed the results of some of their clients, and drawn
conclusions. No actual studies were ever performed, no valid
science was utilized, no blind or double blind research was
created, evaluated, or even considered.

HHI never intentionally gave any client "too much" sweet fruit in
order to see what would happen, or ever utilized the low-fat
approach when utilizing moderate quantities of fruit.

While I agree that "too much" sweet fruit is bad for anyone, "too
much" of anything is bad for anyone. "Too much" inherently implies
a problem.
I am not recommending "too much" fruit, but rather suggesting
that most people do not eat enough fresh fruit.

Sugar does not "support" cancer. This “fact” has never been shown
ever, anywhere, by anyone. What has been shown is that cancer
cells, like all cells, fuel themselves with sugar. But then, all people
have roughly the same blood sugar levels, regardless of the diet
they eat, except for people who eat high levels of fat. These people
tend to have higher than normal blood sugar levels, thus providing
excess fuel for cancer cells. Blood supplies sugar to all cells of the
body. There is no way to stay alive without blood sugar. Therefore,
it is impossible to "starve" the cancer cells without also starving all
other cells of the body, including vital cells such as brain and liver
cells. We would have to kill ourselves In order to starve cancer cells
of sugar. Blood sugar does not come solely from eating sugar. In
order to regulate and stabilize blood sugar levels at all times, if we
do not eat sufficiently of carbohydrates, the body will manufacture
sugar from the protein and fat we consume.

"other diseases." It is not possible for me to comment on this
phrase, as I have no idea what other diseases PN is referring to.


PN: A very active, healthy person can get away with eating a lot of
fruit for a certain amount of time, but they are asking for trouble in
the future.

DG: "Get away with?" What does that mean? If it is taking them
down a precipitous road, then they are not "getting away" with
anything. I have been following this program in excess of 20 years.
When is the future going to take me down, what trouble am I
asking for, how far down the road is this predicted trouble, why
haven't I heard about it, why are Pritikin, McDougall, Ornish,
Esselstyn, Campbell, and the others unaware of it, how did PN get
privy to such info, and what qualifications does he have to make
such a sweeping statement?

PN: Dr. Gabriel Cousens also confirms in his book “Rainbow Green
Live Food Cuisine” that too much fruit does more harm than good.

DG: Ah, one source. An MD, says that "too much fruit does more
harm than good." I agree. "Too much" of anything does more harm
than good. And how, exactly, do we quantify harm and good? How
do we quantify "too much?” On my CD, "How much fruit is too
much?" I explain in depth exactly how to measure and monitor “too
much,” and respond to most of the unfounded fears that people
express about fruit eating.

PN: Fruit today has much more sugar than ever before, and because
of this it’s more than the body can handle.

DG: Which fruit can you name that has "much more sugar" than
ever before? I find that most fruit today isn't as sweet as the fruit I
remember from my childhood. I find that when I go to places in the
world where fruit is produced that it invariably tastes sweeter than
the stuff I buy in the markets in most of the US. Are Delicious
apples sweeter than they were 50 years ago? Are Cavendish
bananas sweeter than they were 50 years ago? Navel oranges? Bing
cherries? Is that what PN is saying? Currently, I can find no
evidence that fruit is sweeter than it used to be. I do know that a
few new varieties of fruits have come on to the market, that are
noticeably sweeter than their predecessors. Grapefruit is the main
example, though there are at least 4 or 5 others. I have heard
leaders in the raw movement state that bananas are 50 times
sweeter today than they used to be. Let's do the math.

Assume the only food you could find in nature was bananas, and
assume you are a moderately active man, requiring 3000 calories
per day. At 100 calories per large banana, you would have to eat
30 bananas per day, if that was the only food you ate.

It is possible to eat 30 bananas per day, though admittedly some
people would find it daunting, at least at first. In a survival
situation, however, we could all learn to eat that many, if that was
what was needed to meet our calorie requirement. A petite woman
might only require 2000 calories per day, or 20 bananas. Now, if
bananas are 50 times sweeter today, and since their primary
calorie source is carbohydrate, it would mean that bananas of the
past only supplied 2 calories each, barring the 4 calories that
would come from protein, and the fraction of a calorie that would
come from fat. At six calories per banana, (2 from carbohydrates
and 4 from protein) In order to meet her calorie need, that petite
woman would have to eat roughly 333 bananas per day to meet her
calorie needs. The man would need to eat 500 bananas per day.
Do you still believe that bananas are 50 times sweeter than they
used to be?

If so, please also consider the ramifications of the nutritional
content of the fruit that is being implied. A piece of fruit with .5
grams of carbohydrate, 1 gram of protein, and a negligible quantity
of fat would provide 66% of its total calorie content from protein!
Now that would be a truly amazing food. I mean, we are talking
about a fruit that has more protein per calorie than meat, pork,
fish, eggs, and almost every cut of poultry. To think that there are
raw food leaders that state that ALL FRUIT used to be this rich in
protein is astonishing to me. Do you ever wonder why no one else
in the entire world seems aware of this monumental historic fact?

PN: Addiction to sugar has become a big cause of many illnesses.

DG: Although the above statement sounds reasonable, it is flawed
in a variety of ways. Addiction to sugar is its own problem, if such
a thing exists. Sugar consumption is natural and normal for
humans, as is breathing air. Are we addicted to breathing air?

What is sugar addiction, I wonder? What type of sugar is PN
speaking of? Does type of sugar matter? Is he talking about
carbohydrate addiction, and if so, is he including alcohol addiction?
Do he distinguish between complex and simple carbohydrates, or
between refined and whole carbohydrates? What specific illnesses
is PN referring to? Is there a reason he is being so vague? Is he
referring to a physical addiction, or a psychological one? There is
profound scientific evidence to show that it is physiologically
impossible to become physically addicted to anything, and that all
addiction is psychological. At that point, it isn’t the substance, but
the susceptibility of the person that is relevant.

There certainly is sugar in the non-sweet fruits PN recommends,
and also in the greens he recommends. Are those sugars not part
of the same problem that he mentions, “addiction to sugar,” and if
not, how and why are they different from the sugars in fruit? Does
it matter whether the sugars PN refers to are incorporated into
whole foods, or if they are refined in some way, such as the sugars
in the refined supplements PN sells?

PN: From all my research, I found the Hippocrates Health Institute
way of eating, mostly greens, a little amount of raw fats from a
vegan plant based source and non-sweet fruits, is the ideal diet for
everyone.

DG: “From all my research” is a phrase commonly used in the raw
movement. What does it really mean, do you think, and is it the
same thing as what it implies?

Dictionary definitions of the word include:
diligent and systematic inquiry or investigation into a subject in
order to discover or revise facts, theories, applications, etc.

And:
Scholarly or scientific investigation or inquiry.

Is PN actually asking us to believe that he engaged in “diligent,
systematic, scientific investigation?”

It's funny really. On one hand, PN has repeatedly insisted over the
years that there is no "one way" that is correct for everyone. On the
other, he now declares the HHI method is "ideal for everyone."

Yet PN has obviously misrepresented the viability of the HHI diet.
HHI uses a great many supplements in their program. In fact the
director of HHI has publicly declared that their raw food diet is
"nutritionally inadequate," and that "supplementation is necessary."

The HHI diet provides calories from three sources: "mostly greens,
a little amount of raw fats from a vegan plant based source and
non-sweet fruits." The non-sweet fruits provide roughly 20-25
calories per average-sized unit. The greens provide roughly 75
calories per pound.

A voracious eater with a large appetite might be able to eat 10
tomatoes, 10 peppers, and 10 cucumbers in a day, and also 2-3
pounds of greens, but I would imagine that that would represent a
daunting task. Even so, all of that food would only add up to 750-
975 calories. Where does the petite woman get her other 1250
calories, and where does the man get his other 2000 calories, if
not from fruit? From fat, obviously. This means that their diet is
roughly 65-70% of calories from fat, exactly as I described it in The
80/10/10 Diet. I would hardly call a diet that is 65-70% fat by
calorie to be, “a little amount of raw fats."

Essentially, this diet thumbs its nose at the world's most successful
and most respected health scientists, and recommends a diet that
uses 50% more fat than the Standard Western Diet, and in the
process, btw, roughly double to triple the quantity of salt.


PN: Anything with a seed is a fruit, so non-sweet fruit would be
cucumbers, red peppers, etc..

DG: Here are a few dictionary definitions of "fruit," none of which
seem to agree with PN's definition that "Anything with a seed is a
fruit."
2. the developed ovary of a seed plant with its contents and
accessory parts, as the pea pod, nut, tomato, or pineapple.
3. the edible part of a plant developed from a flower, with any
accessory tissues, as the peach, mulberry, or banana.
4. the spores and accessory organs of ferns, mosses, fungi,
algae, or lichen.

The American Heritage Science Dictionary - Cite This Source -
Share This
fruit (frt) Pronunciation Key
The ripened ovary of a flowering plant that contains the seeds,
sometimes fused with other parts of the plant.
Fruits can be dry or fleshy. Berries, nuts, grains, pods, and drupes
are fruits.
◇ Fruits that consist of ripened ovaries alone, such as the tomato
and pea pod, are called true fruits.
◇ Fruits that consist of ripened ovaries and other parts such as the
receptacle or bracts, as in the apple, are called accessory fruits or
false fruits.
See also aggregate fruit, multiple fruit, simple fruit., See Note at
berry.

Our Living Language : To most of us, a fruit is a plant part that is
eaten as a dessert or snack because it is sweet,
but to a botanist a fruit is a mature ovary of a plant, and as such it
may or may not taste sweet.
All species of flowering plants produce fruits that contain seeds. A
peach, for example, contains a pit that can grow into a new peach
tree,
while the seeds known as peas can grow into another pea vine. To
a botanist, apples, peaches, peppers, tomatoes, pea pods,
cucumbers, and winged maple seeds are all fruits.
A vegetable is simply part of a plant that is grown primarily for
food. Thus, the leaf of spinach, the root of a carrot, the flower of
broccoli, and the stalk of celery are all vegetables.
In everyday, nonscientific speech we make the distinction between
sweet plant parts (fruits) and nonsweet plant parts (vegetables).
This is why we speak of peppers and cucumbers and squash—all
fruits in the eyes of a botanist—as vegetables.

I have always made the distinction between botanical and culinary
definitions, in an effort to maintain clarity in my writing. If we wish
to call "anything with a seed" a fruit, then almost all plants would
technically be fruits. I believe, as educators, we can be a bit more
precise.


PN: I have seen many people thrive on a high, sweet-fruit diet for
the first few years but after that got the same sicknesses as people
eating a high processed sugar diet.

DG: Health is about so much more than diet. A smoker, for
instance, will likely develop emphysema regardless of the diet s/he
follows. The irksome thing is that my VegSource.com board has
been in existence for almost a decade now, with many people on it
following 811 for almost that long, and they have yet to show, "the
same sicknesses as people eating a high processed sugar diet." I
wonder how long it takes before my health decline will begin? To
point to diet when lifestyle is so obviously a major factor in health
represents poor logic, at best.

PN: Fruit is a great food but eating too much can cause serious
issues, and my opinion is 80% sweet fruits is way too much sugar.

DG: Obviously, this is a reference to The 80/10/10 Diet, and one
which clearly shows PN's lack of understanding of the concepts
involved in that program, and the likelihood that he has not read
the book. Since the world's authorities are in agreement that 10%
of protein by calorie is more than sufficient, and 10% of fat by
calorie is more than sufficient, I wonder how PN can come to any
conclusion other than to recommend 80% of the diet, by calorie, be
sourced from carbohydrates?

The funny part about it is that any time we eat fruit that is sweeter,
we invariably eat less of it. Sugar is satiating, a fact we all learned
as children, when our mothers would say to us, “don’t eat sweets
before your meal, it will spoil your appetite.” This means that
humans have a natural, built-in ability to regulate their sugar
intake in order to meet and accommodate their needs, as
recognized by the “sweet tooth.” We have no such ability to
regulate our fat intake, however, as demonstrated by people’s
inability to maintain a healthy weight when they incorporate a diet
that is high in fat.

PN: Of course there are other things to consider like, how much a
person is eating, how active a person is and what point they are
starting from with their health. Dr. Graham seems to do fine on this
diet, but I have never met anyone as active as he is.r,

DG: There are two models in health care; the medical model and
the health model. The medical model suggests that conditions for
health, when one is healthy, are different than those required for
health when one is attempting to regain health. Therefore,
according to the medical model approach, healthy children should
drink milk because it is good for them, but sick kids should avoid
milk because it will congest them. Drugs will make a healthy
person sick, but make a sick person well, or at least that is the
system utilized by the medical model. PN is relying upon your
acceptance of the medical model when suggesting that our
caloronutrient ratio should vary depending upon our health and
activity levels.

The health model asserts that the conditions required for health
when healthy and those required to regain health from sickness are
identical, and need only be modified to meet the needs of each
individual at any given time. Hence, we all need sunshine, fresh air,
exercise, sleep, etc, but in varying amounts at different times of
life. Had PN utilized this logical and proven health model, he would
see that the only variation required among adults is the total
calorie intake, and not caloronutrient ratio.

Regarding my personal fitness level, on average throughout the
year, I am lucky to get in one hour of physical activity per day.
Certainly this is not a prodigious amount of exercise. I have a
sedentary job, spend more time in the kitchen than in the gym
each day, and love spending time with my family. I do stay active,
and on a regular basis, but it is a small part of each day.

If PN has never met anyone as active as myself, he must live in a
very secluded world. I personally have met countless thousands of
people who are far more active than myself. Today, instead of
getting any physical activity at all, for instance, I have chosen to
write this response.

PN: Even so, being more active so you can eat more fruit is not a
wise idea.

DG: I certainly am not more active in order to eat more fruit, nor
have I ever recommended such an approach, but I do find that
being active leaves me with a greater overall calorie requirement
than if I was sedentary. Because I cannot obtain those calories from
greens and non-sweet fruity vegetables, and because I choose not
to obtain those calories from fat or complex carbohydrates, fruit
becomes the obvious and only healthy choice. Of course, eating
more total calories means that I take in more nutrients in total
than a person who eats fewer calories. In theory, consuming more
total calories in the form of whole fruits and vegetables, hence
more total nutrients, is a good thing in terms of overall nutrition.

PN: The real issue is overeating more than anything.

DG: Let’s look at the original question again, and then read the
above response.
“I was reading through a book from Douglas N. Graham and he
really supports the idea of eating a lot of fruit. He says that as
long as you also have greens and water you can eat as much fruit
as you want. I am a little confused here. I don't want to be a
fruitarian, but, I do believe that fruit is good for you and it should
be in your diet. I think a balance should be struck here. Dr.
Graham has a new book out supporting his 80/10/10 plan. I'm
sure you have heard of it. Do you have an opinion on this?”

Is the real issue, as PN suggest, “overeating more than anything”?
Or is switching the subject to a completely different topic than the
questioner wrote about simply an avoidance tactic? I see nowhere
in the question anything about over-eating, do you? In fact, I
believe the question either asks if PN has an opinion of The
80/10/10 Diet, or if he has an opinion about eating a diet of
fruits, vegetables and water. How did the real issue become over-
eating?

My weight has remained stable for the past 20+ years. I do not
believe I am over-eating, nor do I believe I am recommending that
anyone over-eat. I never eat till I hurt, and I never hurt myself with
my food choices. What type of over-eating is PN referring to? I am
not aware of there being any over-eating in The 80/10/10 Diet, or
any recommendations to do so.


PN: Most people can enjoy a few pieces of fruit each day (except
people with cancer or other sugar related issues) and be fine.

DG: The American Cancer Society recommends that people with
cancer eat all the fruit they care for, as does the American Diabetes
Association and the American Heart Association. I don’t know
what other sugar-related conditions PN might be referring to. The
National Candida Society does not seem to make specific dietary
recommendations, but exists solely to refer clients to treating
professionals. Certainly, had PN read The 80/10/10 Diet, he would
know that I took the time to address each and every issue and
opposition to fruit-eating, one at a time, in depth. I wonder what
information PN has access to that these esteemed organizations
and the hundreds of thousands of doctors, scientists, and
researchers that support them don't have that enables him to make
such sweeping diagnostic and prognostic statements

PN: But we have to be sensible out how much we eat and control
our sugar intake.

DG: What is sensible about a diet that is 65+% fat by calorie?
What is sensible about a diet that admittedly requires
supplementation in order to be considered nutritionally sound?
What is sensible about a diet that intentionally restricts fruit
consumption, on of the only foods that is universally considered a
health food?
What is sensible about a dietary approach that excludes fitness?

I agree, we should be sensible about how much we eat.
Maintaining a healthy body weight, and a healthy level of body fat,
are prime requisites to healthy living.
As mentioned previously, my weight has remained stable,
essentially unchanged, over the past 20+ years. Has PN maintained
his weight over the last decade, or has he steadily gained weight?
The director of HHI told me not long ago that he has gained over
50 pounds during the last decade from the 135-pounds that he
had maintained for the decade prior.

Why should we "control" our sugar intake, but not our fat intake?
We have an innate desire to eat sweets, but no ability to even taste
fat.
We have built-in blood-sugar monitoring systems in our body that
make it almost impossible for us to over-eat on sugar.
No such mechanisms are available to help us regulate or monitor
our fat intake.

I wonder, would PN recommend that chimpanzees “control” their
sugar intake?


Hope this helps,

Dr D

5 comments:

Martin said...

great replay

Margi said...

This is great. I had never seen this before. Thanks for posting!

Ana said...

Via, Hi! I've been trying to post comments on your blogs, but they don't seem to be getting through (or else you're heavily censoring me! Ha Ha) Would you please let me know if you receive this? My email is anamarhaba@yahoo.com. Thanks! ....ana xxoo

radiantwoman said...

Thank you for posting this. It is a great help for me to read all of this when I just begin to eat more and more raw. Thanks thanks.

Aranka said...

Just the article I was waiting for. I watched Paul Nison's video, and enjoyed his humour, but when I went to his website, saw all those gadgets and supplements to buy...another salesperson? So I was disheartened, and now I know why.
I'm on 811rv from now on, no more oils and fats above 10% averaged by the week.
Thank you very much for posting this.