Why the 80/10/10 diet is NOT for everyone and not for everywhere and thus is claiming to much...
Well, I think it is time to make a balanced thread about the 80/10/10 diet and it's claims
which, to my opinion, are to generalizing and can't be supported, neither by it's own theory and nor
by any other theory around.
** I will slowly build up this thread with contra-arguments (and pro arguments, as much as I can find.). ,
and will also give SUPPORTING arguments a place.
** ALL people are invited to post about contra- and pro arguments...., i will process these at this
(opening) place, in the beginning of this thread.
** I assume that my contra-arguments are NOT handled by the 80/10/10 - book of Dr. Graham,
which is my main objection against this book: it's basis is to small, and it doesn't handle
enough the main questions which arise against it's statements, which shows a lack of imagination
and a lack of ability for whole integrated proper discussions.
If I am wrong, I will be glad to correct my objections, if people give quotes from the book...
** Don't get me wrong: I also have some big objections against for example Hippocrates Institute,
(they just ignore my mails, lol..) .I am not choosing a side, I only choose for wide discussions.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
contra-arguments against 80/10/10:
1. Geographical objections: 80/10/10 doesn't take into account that people are living in
different geographical places. MOST of the fruit in my country is not tree-riped , when bought by the
consumers. Fruit, when eaten unripe and/or not tree-riped, can be a damage for the body, robbing it
of nutrients of high value. If it isn't damaging, at least fruit, not eaten right from the tree/plant etc..
is less than optimal....
Eating tree-riped papaya in the tropics is a whole different thing to value
than the unripe ones having travelled for weeks in a box....
We also can talk about te loss in nutrients during the transport of these fruits..., wintertime (less
fruits...).
(according to Hippocrates institute..).
2. A minor point: The banana-hype.. This is about having critics on others, about
superfoods etc.., but apparently not looking close enough to one´s own behaviour..
- Unfortunately almost all banana's are monocultured hybrides, and the largest amount
of banana's is made from only 2 types (out of all the possible varieties which could exist,
if for money reasons not just a mere 2 types are being brought into production...) .
This makes the total banana population very sensitive for illness: one very good plague,
and it could be over with banana's.
It is always very good, BEFORE having a certain opinion, to try to falsify this belief.
I hope the falsifying of the BANANA HYPE is made possible by this reaction.
Eating many banana's is supporting the killing of biodiversity. Not for everyone.
3. Sweetness of fruit has been changed. MOST of the fruit-producers/tailers never heard from
80/10/10 or natural hygiene. Because sweet fruit sells better than the original less sweeter types
from the past, a lot of fruit is much more sweet than it used to be. This is in flagrant contradiction with
all the arguments natural hygients use, like "natural" and emphesis on the diets from the past.
4. Depleted soils.
NaturalNews) According to U.S. Senate Study Document Number 264, due to agricultural topsoil depletion, 99 percent of Americans are deficient in minerals and trace elements due to food crop topsoil depletion. No big surprise maybe, except this study was reported in 1936! Since then, there have been USA and UK studies that have shown disturbing decreases in the mineral contents of foods from the soil over the past 50 years.
Just keep eating your high fruits, no problem for anyone. But bashingother people for eating high
density foods (spirulina, chlorella etc..) without argumenting about the depletion of our soils, and the l
lack of nutrients in most of our common foods, is a bit without reasoning....
Most of our farmers are not so health-educated as we are, and I say I can't trust their soils to be top-
filled with nutrition.
5. The ape-argument. We should eat like apes, I read... Some also say we should only eat
what we can grab with our hands. If we eat like apes, in the same logica mentioned by these people
there is a good possibility we re-evolve back into apes (you are what you eat...). Everyone
their own pleasure, and some people are better of being apes,
but may we conclude this is not ideal for everyone?
Can I also say apes sometimes kill little animals and eat them? Should we do the same, following
their diet?
Some say we should not eat foods we can't grab. Is there, besides biological similarity between apes
and humans, not something like a difference called CULTURE?
We also make art, why shouldn't we evolve in the way we harvest our food?
Some foods are mentioned for apes and humans, others are ment for humans
which have been evolved in cultural ways..
BTW: Apes also use tools, for example in order to harvest ants with a stick....
6. Age. Where are the older natural hygientists? Yes, you young ones look all
very pretty, I admit (lol..). Mostly because of the fact you don't eat processed- but only whole foods.
But where does it go after the age of 60? I am aslo a little afraid that every natural hygienist
developping cancer or other serious illness , will have no courage to share in his/her community,
because there is only one perfect diet, and if you get cancer you must have done something wrong
etc, because fruit is the most easiest to digest etc.....The intolerance also works WITHIN the own community, there will be no place for so
called "losers", only the prospering will be in the picture..
7. Bashing Hippocrates What most strict diet pushers won't know, why should you study
ouside your own range, is that the OFFICIAL Hippocrates diet is also 80 10 10, only not with high
fruit, but with healthier slow carbohydrates from algae, sprouts, greens etc.....
Before accusing Hippocrates that this is not possible (like Patenaude does, indirectly..)
it could be a good idea to contact them and ask about a breakdown and to explain these numbers.
No, Hippocrates is also not good in outwards communication and keeping an good imago in the
rawfood-world, they just seem to be busy with healing (quite important, not..?)
Ever noticed that almost no-one actively defends or supports the Hippo-diet at this place,
compared to the hyperactive pushing/defending hygienists?
Because the Hippo's know the diet is self-evident, like all things closer to truth...
Further is the accusation of pushing products, when talking about Hippocrates, completely
besides the truth: most of what they advise is not a moneymaker for them (greens, cucumbers, high
sprouts and wheatgrass) and even most of the supplements on their website don't even name the
ingredients, not smart if you want to sell much. Of cause all these points are known and considered
by the one's with negative info about this institute.
*8. Bashing TCM (Traditional Chinese Medicine) herbs, spices etc...Bashing 5000 years of Chines Medicine, because one person, not even a real Doctor, is
saying herbs are irritating, gives me a weird feeling of imbalance.....
There are thousends of studies about for example curcuma, most of them done by universities
and Doctor's, who don't have interests and benefits in selling this spice....
There is almost no illness which doesn't benefit from Curcuma, neither a bodyfunction
in healthy people which isn't waiting for Curcuma. There is no moneytrack behind these studies, the
same is the case for many other studies about herbs and spices. It is a shame to me
for bashing these beautiful products, and an insult right into the face of a part of our sparkling
natural environment.
9. Environmental objections
I think our environment has changed a lot since the times of our apestadium, ans so an ape-diet
(fruit & greens) is NOT enough to balance the changed environment.
I name a few things like: stress, polution in all natural elements, EMF-radiation...,
So 80 10 10 is not for everyone and everywhere...
* More and more animals are getting cancer now, no matter they are eating their natural diet, without
superfoods! It is not enough for them!!
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17358-hidden-cancer-threat-to...
NO DISCUSSION POINTS:
- Whether we used to be frugivores or ominvores in the past, seems not to be a usefull argument by me.
Our knowledge about food has changed so much since the past, so does our culture.
Relying on the past, is more believing than knowing.
I think the presence should have more weight , the past is gone and with it a big part of the
evidence.
Also, when there should be proof for a specific diet in the past, this doesn't say that our bodies and our circumstances, how they are at this time, NOW, would trive with that same diet.
* To be continued....
which, to my opinion, are to generalizing and can't be supported, neither by it's own theory and nor
by any other theory around.
** I will slowly build up this thread with contra-arguments (and pro arguments, as much as I can find.). ,
and will also give SUPPORTING arguments a place.
** ALL people are invited to post about contra- and pro arguments...., i will process these at this
(opening) place, in the beginning of this thread.
** I assume that my contra-arguments are NOT handled by the 80/10/10 - book of Dr. Graham,
which is my main objection against this book: it's basis is to small, and it doesn't handle
enough the main questions which arise against it's statements, which shows a lack of imagination
and a lack of ability for whole integrated proper discussions.
If I am wrong, I will be glad to correct my objections, if people give quotes from the book...
** Don't get me wrong: I also have some big objections against for example Hippocrates Institute,
(they just ignore my mails, lol..) .I am not choosing a side, I only choose for wide discussions.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
contra-arguments against 80/10/10:
1. Geographical objections: 80/10/10 doesn't take into account that people are living in
different geographical places. MOST of the fruit in my country is not tree-riped , when bought by the
consumers. Fruit, when eaten unripe and/or not tree-riped, can be a damage for the body, robbing it
of nutrients of high value. If it isn't damaging, at least fruit, not eaten right from the tree/plant etc..
is less than optimal....
Eating tree-riped papaya in the tropics is a whole different thing to value
than the unripe ones having travelled for weeks in a box....
We also can talk about te loss in nutrients during the transport of these fruits..., wintertime (less
fruits...).
(according to Hippocrates institute..).
2. A minor point: The banana-hype.. This is about having critics on others, about
superfoods etc.., but apparently not looking close enough to one´s own behaviour..
- Unfortunately almost all banana's are monocultured hybrides, and the largest amount
of banana's is made from only 2 types (out of all the possible varieties which could exist,
if for money reasons not just a mere 2 types are being brought into production...) .
This makes the total banana population very sensitive for illness: one very good plague,
and it could be over with banana's.
It is always very good, BEFORE having a certain opinion, to try to falsify this belief.
I hope the falsifying of the BANANA HYPE is made possible by this reaction.
Eating many banana's is supporting the killing of biodiversity. Not for everyone.
3. Sweetness of fruit has been changed. MOST of the fruit-producers/tailers never heard from
80/10/10 or natural hygiene. Because sweet fruit sells better than the original less sweeter types
from the past, a lot of fruit is much more sweet than it used to be. This is in flagrant contradiction with
all the arguments natural hygients use, like "natural" and emphesis on the diets from the past.
4. Depleted soils.
NaturalNews) According to U.S. Senate Study Document Number 264, due to agricultural topsoil depletion, 99 percent of Americans are deficient in minerals and trace elements due to food crop topsoil depletion. No big surprise maybe, except this study was reported in 1936! Since then, there have been USA and UK studies that have shown disturbing decreases in the mineral contents of foods from the soil over the past 50 years.
Just keep eating your high fruits, no problem for anyone. But bashingother people for eating high
density foods (spirulina, chlorella etc..) without argumenting about the depletion of our soils, and the l
lack of nutrients in most of our common foods, is a bit without reasoning....
Most of our farmers are not so health-educated as we are, and I say I can't trust their soils to be top-
filled with nutrition.
5. The ape-argument. We should eat like apes, I read... Some also say we should only eat
what we can grab with our hands. If we eat like apes, in the same logica mentioned by these people
there is a good possibility we re-evolve back into apes (you are what you eat...). Everyone
their own pleasure, and some people are better of being apes,
but may we conclude this is not ideal for everyone?
Can I also say apes sometimes kill little animals and eat them? Should we do the same, following
their diet?
Some say we should not eat foods we can't grab. Is there, besides biological similarity between apes
and humans, not something like a difference called CULTURE?
We also make art, why shouldn't we evolve in the way we harvest our food?
Some foods are mentioned for apes and humans, others are ment for humans
which have been evolved in cultural ways..
BTW: Apes also use tools, for example in order to harvest ants with a stick....
6. Age. Where are the older natural hygientists? Yes, you young ones look all
very pretty, I admit (lol..). Mostly because of the fact you don't eat processed- but only whole foods.
But where does it go after the age of 60? I am aslo a little afraid that every natural hygienist
developping cancer or other serious illness , will have no courage to share in his/her community,
because there is only one perfect diet, and if you get cancer you must have done something wrong
etc, because fruit is the most easiest to digest etc.....The intolerance also works WITHIN the own community, there will be no place for so
called "losers", only the prospering will be in the picture..
7. Bashing Hippocrates What most strict diet pushers won't know, why should you study
ouside your own range, is that the OFFICIAL Hippocrates diet is also 80 10 10, only not with high
fruit, but with healthier slow carbohydrates from algae, sprouts, greens etc.....
Before accusing Hippocrates that this is not possible (like Patenaude does, indirectly..)
it could be a good idea to contact them and ask about a breakdown and to explain these numbers.
No, Hippocrates is also not good in outwards communication and keeping an good imago in the
rawfood-world, they just seem to be busy with healing (quite important, not..?)
Ever noticed that almost no-one actively defends or supports the Hippo-diet at this place,
compared to the hyperactive pushing/defending hygienists?
Because the Hippo's know the diet is self-evident, like all things closer to truth...
Further is the accusation of pushing products, when talking about Hippocrates, completely
besides the truth: most of what they advise is not a moneymaker for them (greens, cucumbers, high
sprouts and wheatgrass) and even most of the supplements on their website don't even name the
ingredients, not smart if you want to sell much. Of cause all these points are known and considered
by the one's with negative info about this institute.
*8. Bashing TCM (Traditional Chinese Medicine) herbs, spices etc...Bashing 5000 years of Chines Medicine, because one person, not even a real Doctor, is
saying herbs are irritating, gives me a weird feeling of imbalance.....
There are thousends of studies about for example curcuma, most of them done by universities
and Doctor's, who don't have interests and benefits in selling this spice....
There is almost no illness which doesn't benefit from Curcuma, neither a bodyfunction
in healthy people which isn't waiting for Curcuma. There is no moneytrack behind these studies, the
same is the case for many other studies about herbs and spices. It is a shame to me
for bashing these beautiful products, and an insult right into the face of a part of our sparkling
natural environment.
9. Environmental objections
I think our environment has changed a lot since the times of our apestadium, ans so an ape-diet
(fruit & greens) is NOT enough to balance the changed environment.
I name a few things like: stress, polution in all natural elements, EMF-radiation...,
So 80 10 10 is not for everyone and everywhere...
* More and more animals are getting cancer now, no matter they are eating their natural diet, without
superfoods! It is not enough for them!!
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17358-hidden-cancer-threat-to...
NO DISCUSSION POINTS:
- Whether we used to be frugivores or ominvores in the past, seems not to be a usefull argument by me.
Our knowledge about food has changed so much since the past, so does our culture.
Relying on the past, is more believing than knowing.
I think the presence should have more weight , the past is gone and with it a big part of the
evidence.
Also, when there should be proof for a specific diet in the past, this doesn't say that our bodies and our circumstances, how they are at this time, NOW, would trive with that same diet.
* To be continued....
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Mark on -
When you move an animal from it's origin, you don't change it's diet. Unripe fruit should not be eaten. I agree. No matter where I lived, I always had access to ripe fruit.
-
Permalink Reply by Debbie Took on
-
I am high-fruit, rather than 811, but always find these statements about fruit interesting.
Who does actually eat unripe fruit??!
I buy plenty of unripe fruit - bananas, papayas, persimmons, to name but a few.
Actually, as papayas have been mentioned, my supermarkets do from time to time sell 'tree-ripened papayas', but when they don't, - no prob!
I just buy them unripe, leave them at room temperature and they are beautifully ripe within a few days.
Climacteric fruit (about two-thirds of fruit) ripens off the tree. Sure, we all have this romantic idea that a papaya picked off the tree is going to be infinitely better than the (according to some) dreadful dregs we are left with that have been shipped however many miles.
But is this really true? A giant papaya that came all the way from Formosa (that I ate in February) had me in raptures it was so delicious!!
Those on high-fruit diets are accustomed to the dire warnings about all the nutrient loss that occurs through shipping. Could someone please supply scientific proof of this, eg for one fruit even - actual measures of all the levels of different vitamins and minerals, in grams, micrograms, whatever, when picked off the tree, and a measure of all the levels of different vitamins and minerals when it's in the home of us poor saps?
I'd genuinely like to see these figures, because, to date, I've heard these sorts of statements many times, but never seen any evidence to back them.
So, yes...'supporting argument', please, LightLover!
-
Permalink Reply by Mark on
-
Exactly. That's Clements pushing that biased agenda. I don't know who in their right mind would eat unripe fruit.
-
Permalink Reply by Constantin on -
I think this thread is a great idea! Just to clarify for other readers and myself in your future pro and contra arguments--you've read the entire book?
-
Permalink Reply by Apple-Man on -
Alternate titles for this discussion:
"Why True health Is NOT for everyone and not for everywhere..."
"Why perfect health is NOT the default state for all living creatures..."
"The art of putting excuses before your quest for health..."
-
Permalink Reply by Bella_2009 on -
:D
-
Permalink Reply by Casandra Willis on -
What if it is ?
Hundreds of years of living the life of "omnivores" and our species is riddled with disease and malnutrition. (I'm talking about whole-food eating omnivores rather than processed and chemically treated, pre-packaged crap). Years upon years of people living the life of "frugivores" and they possess no diseases or debilitating ailments...
What if it is true? And yet one continues on the path of omnivorous living... what are the consequences?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arnold_Ehret
http://www.whale.to/a/frugivore_h.html
http://www.ecologos.org/omni.htm
http://www.beyondveg.com/billings-t/comp-anat/comp-anat-1a.shtml
http://www.sunfood.net/fruitarian_diet.html
Unfortunately we have evolved into a needy species that requires someone to "tell" us how to live, how to eat, and what we are. Nothing is written in stone that tells us we are omnivorous or frugivorous. This is something that we need to figure out on our own. Research, studies, and your own personal experiences will determine your own educated conclusion... is your own truth not the best truth?
-
Permalink Reply by Bart M on
-
Those who claim an omnivorous diet of our ancestors have the same burden upon them.
The unfortunate truth is that we simply can not prove exactly what our ancestors ate and did not eat millennia ago. And so the concept of burden of proof is of not much use where there is no proof to be had.
That's why I personally did not require proof in my quest for health. When I read about a raw diet, it made sense to me even though it was not proven. So I tried it. It did not work for me that well. then I read about the low fat raw diet, and it made even more sense to me in spite of also lacking definite proof. I tried this as well and it has worked for me wonderfully.
If any reader has all the success they desire using a diet where on average most of their calories come from fat, then by all means I congratulate them, and would not encourage them to change.
-
-
Yup, people who blindly go around repeating the phrase "species specific diet" in the name of 811 are definitely too hard core about it, imo. For me, this concept is not a conclusion but a hypothesis, and as such, it is of vast usefulness: By testing this hypothesis myself, I came out a much healthier person.
-
Permalink Reply by telefunken on -
glad you are here Bart. well said. : )
-
Permalink Reply by yoda on -
Bart M, that is probably the most sensible thing I have ever seen anyone say about 80/10/10, so good to see someone actually considering 80/10/10 rather than taking it as a bible, and it is working for you. That is great.
-
Permalink Reply by Burke Bryant on -
Funny you mention that.... the tobacco for many years stated that smoking cigarettes was not cancerous, I recall many people making the same argument you make above.. then there was cancer... Oooops. Does the sun revolve around the earth or vice versa? They re-wrote the history books because the blunder of being wrong was finally proven in regards to their "Solid" theory on that.. Don't always beieve what you read, and make sure your sources are at least creditable when taking it into account. ADavid Wofe does this same thing, claiming that our "Ancestors" did this and that for hundreads of years, sorry I call "Bullshit" on that one. Who is still around and/or alive to solidify that redderick?
If it feels right try it out, test the waters, experience the results, and for God's sake have some common sense when doing it.
-Burke Bryant
Latest Activity
How come we have to say something when someone sneezes but not when someone farts?
Pretty interesting. It was hard to tell what he was for and against though, haha. I would hope to be in as good condition as him when I'm 91..... or better :j
Ah, true!? Do you normally get a ton of applicants Loren?
wow thats hardcore what religion? did you read a lot of books?
thanks markus I want to get the meat out too but that would be awesome for a quick and easy drink, i want one
You probably were just paranoid.
Thank you for telling her "God Bless You." Nice to know manners and politeness still exist. Keep spreading them. =)
I guess if you think of it as eating raw as what God intended, and makes us the purest version physically of what were meant to be, then maybe it is a way to get closer to God and clear away the distracting mess of sickness, and the hormone and em...
Here is Part 4 to the Stanley Bass interview. Many people have asked me what I think about this interview, I will be posting a video reply in my next episode after this one.
The sun (or bright snow, bright sky, light bulbs, etc.) totally make me sneeze. It seems to be genetic- my dad does it too. It's called "Photic Sneeze Reflex":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photic_sneeze_reflex
Speaking of strange conditions, my b...
Just the white coconut dont think I would cope if the shell was still intact :S
I've been trying to crack it open from the side I think thats my problem, I’m buying more tomorrow so I’ll try cracking it from the top. I’m loving coconuts at the mo...
haha yeah thats true too
how do you get the noodles to not be so watery? mine are always real watery after I spiral them. it looks delicious :)
NOOOOO
My mom says indians in the jungles will risk their lives trying to find it they will go to where the modern man is, all naked, looking for it
YES YES YES
Community by WLIR:
© 2009 Created by Dhrumil
