The Two Sides of the Raw Food Movement

[Guest guest]

This item found, seemed worth reproducing for interested parties (As you see

from the note at the bottom of the article, Patenaude allows the copying

provided due credit is given.)

 

Btw, if _very_ interested, you can sign up for his free newsletter.

 

Peace,

River

----

 

The Two Sides of the Raw Food Movement

 

Where Do You Stand?

 

by Frederic Patenaude

 

The newcomer to the world of natural health is often confused by the myriad of

different diet philosophies out there that all seem to contradict each other.

Every year we hear about a new diet to add to the endless list of those already

in existence; Mediterranean, South Beach, Atkins, Blood Type, Macrobiotics and

all of the others that have been long since forgotten.

 

When a person is interested in the raw-food diet, it seems that the confusion is

even bigger! In this tiny niche market of the natural health world, the

promoters of the raw-food diet haven't even agreed with each other on what

really constitutes the raw food diet.

 

For example, there's the Hippocrates program, which proposes a diet consisting

mainly of sprouts, vegetables and very little fruit.

 

There's the Rainbow Green Diet, which eliminates fruit for a while and focuses

on vegetables, seaweeds, spirulina and other " green " foods.

 

Then there are those who promote a diet that includes lots of " super-foods " such

as coconut oil, cacao beans, maca powder, and other such exotic ingredients.

 

We also have the instinctive eating movement that recommends eating raw foods in

their natural state (no juicing, blending, mixing, etc.), but also often include

raw meat and fish in the fare.

 

Some raw-foodists eat raw dairy, insisting that we need some animal foods in our

diet in order to thrive.

 

Then there are those who recommend a fruit-based diet, and a rarer few who

recommend an all-fruit diet.

 

There's natural hygiene, which insists on eating foods in their natural state

and avoiding strong irritants such as garlic, hot peppers, spices and salt.

 

Then, of course, there are those who take no position at all and just recommend

that people find out " what works for them. "

 

So the newcomer, who is faced with all of these different diet philosophies, has

no choice but to wonder who's right and who's wrong. It seems like choosing the

'right' diet is such an insurmountable task, that perhaps the best thing to do

is just try a little bit of each of these different approaches and come up with

a workable program.

 

In my experience, this approach leads to a lot of frustration, if not sheer

failure. That's what I was doing for many years, trying a little bit of each

raw-food or diet approach in the hope of eventually coming up with my own

program. That's until I realized that there are not actually that many options.

The different philosophies give themselves different names when in fact they are

basically promoting the same thing.

 

Before examining diets in the raw world, let's take a look at the other more

popular diets out there. One has to wonder: with so many possibilities, who's

right?

 

THE MEDICAL MODEL

 

For almost 150 years, the medical model for dieting has been recommending a

high-fat, high-protein, low-carbohydrate diet. It started becoming popular in

1860 when Londoner William Banting lost 50 pounds on a high-protein diet that

consisted of dry roasted lean meat, soft-boiled eggs and vegetables. He wrote a

book in 1864 called " Letters on Corpulence " that became an instant bestseller.

 

By 1880, " Banting " is America's foremost weight-loss program. A little later,

another doctor by the name of James Salisbury started promoting a diet

consisting mainly of hot water and minced meat patties (the famous Salisbury

steak) for health and weight loss.

 

When Dr. Atkins wrote his " Diet Revolution " in 1972, he didn't invent anything

new. He just kept on promoting the medical model for weight loss, which has

always consisted of calorie-reduction in the context of a high-fat, high-protein

diet.

 

Since then, most diets are just a variation on the same theme, with a different

degree of restrictions and a new gimmick. The Zone Diet, the South Beach Diet,

and even the Blood Type diet are just variations on the medical model for

dieting.

 

Challengers to the medical model for diet and weight loss have always

recommended a low-fat diet. Generally, their books are not as in vogue as the

other diet fads I mentioned, but their program is based on more solid science.

 

Proponents of the low-fat diet include Dr. Dean Ornish. Dr. Ornish was the first

to prove through extensive research that coronary heart disease can be reversed,

by making comprehensive changes in diet and lifestyle, including a low-fat

vegetarian diet.

 

Other proponents of the low-fat diet include Dr. McDougall, who has recommended

a low-fat diet for decades and whose results are well documented

(http://www.drmcdougall.com/).

 

Also, in the low-fat camp we find T. Colin Campbell who conducted The China

Study : the most comprehensive nutrition study ever conducted. We also have most

of the vegan and vegetarian doctors who wrote books and did their own research,

such as Dr. Klaper, Dr. Neal Barnard, Dr. Joel Fuhrman, and many others.

 

When we look at it like that, and if we go past the small differences regarding

details, we can roughly see the following picture:

 

We have the medical model that's promoted through most " research " we hear about

in newspapers, popular magazines and fitness centers. This model usually

recommends a high-fat, high-protein diet and calorie reduction, or a variation

on that theme.

 

Then we have the " alternative " model, which is promoted by various doctors and

serious researchers and is backed up by an extensive amount of data. This model

recommends a plant-based, low-fat vegetarian diet.

 

FOCUS ON RAW

 

In the raw-food movement, it may seem from the outside that there are many

different options available, and this all seems very confusing to the newcomer.

 

A closer look at the different raw-food diets promoted, however, reveals that

there are basically 2 different options presented, with others that find

themselves in-between.

 

1- *The high-fat, raw diet*. This approach generally promotes eating a vegetable

based diet. Although the promoters of this diet do not like to say it, it is

also a very high-fat diet.

 

2- *The fruit-based, low-fat diet*. This approach recognizes the problems of

eating large quantities of fat, even though this fat may come from natural

sources such as avocados, nuts, seeds, etc. Instead of making fat the main

source of calories, this approach recommends fruit as being the main source of

calories.

 

In a raw-food diet the foods that provide calories are basically limited to two

options: fruit or fat.

 

Why is that?

 

The fact is, that fruit is the only real source of carbohydrates in the raw

diet. Complex sugars such as bread, pasta, potatoes, etc., are generally

avoided. Although some vegetables contain carbohydrates, they cannot be

considered to be a significant source of them. They are so low in calories that

it would be impossible to eat enough of them to meet our caloric needs. To get

2000 calories, you would need to eat about 50 heads of lettuce, or over 75 raw

carrots. It simply isn't gonna happen.

 

The alternative is to eat fatty foods such as avocados, olive oil, nuts and

seeds. When a raw-food person says that he doesn't recommend eating a lot of

fruit, then by default, it means that he recommends a high-fat diet. There is

simply no other way around it!

 

WHICH SIDE ARE YOU ON?

 

Once you understand that all these endless dietary approaches can really be

filtered down into just two, you have to decide where you stand.

 

Which raw diet are you going to follow? The high-fat diet, or the high-fruit

diet?

 

In my experience, trying to find middle-ground has been a frustrating endeavor.

The reasons why are a little scientific. Let me explain:

 

On a high-fat diet, insulin sensitivity is greatly reduced, meaning that simple

sugars do not arrive to their destination (the cells) as rapidly. When a person

on a high-fat diet eats a lot of fruit (sugar), they often get symptoms of

hypoglycemia, candida, concentration problems and more.

 

The equation is: high-fat diet + fruit = disaster.

 

On a low-fat diet, however, we find that all those symptoms disappear, even

though a lot of fruit is consumed. Insulin works efficiently to transport simple

sugars to the cells. Concentration increases and blood sugar is stable.

 

Those results are perfectly congruent with all of the research done by the

various doctors mentioned earlier, who promote a low-fat diet. Trying to mix

different approaches together will end up being disastrous.

 

Why not choose one and really stick with it?

 

YOUR TIME TO DECIDE

 

If you want to eat a raw-food diet, you have the choice between a high-fruit,

low-fat diet, or a high-fat diet. The choice is yours, but don't take your

decision lightly.

 

Personally, the answer is obvious. The low-fat diet makes the most sense, is the

easiest to practice, the most rewarding in terms of health results and energy

levels, and the one that is most congruent with the most progressive scientific

research.

 

To me, the high-fat raw diet is just a variation on the medical model of diet

and weight loss. It doesn't make sense and isn't giving the kind of results we

would expect from a successful program.

 

So decide, where do you stand?

 

--

 

WANT TO ADD THESE ARTICLES IN YOUR E-ZINE OR WEB SITE? You can, as long as you

include this blurb with it: Frederic Patenaude, is the author of the

best-selling e-book " The Raw Secrets " and is known for his no-gimmick, BS-free

approach to health and nutrition. You can get a free subscription to his

" Outrageous Health & Success " ezine by visiting http://www.fredericpatenaude.com