39 replies to this topic

[lucid]

Simply Raw: Reversing Diabetes in 30 Days

Just watched the full movie, below is the trailer:

My comments:
- Amazing blood work and weight changes
- The question of whether other carefully controlled/enforced diets could produce similar results is still left open
- Some unscientifically substantiated claims about raw food
- Only look @ 6 people
- Annoying comments from hippied out 'spiritual leaders'

Edited by lucid, 18 November 2008 - 04:47 PM.

[ajnast4r]

Simply Raw: Reversing Diabetes in 30 Days

this is a little tricky because by eating raw food you are doing three MAJOR things as well that in and of themselves are not dependent on raw food; a drastic reduction in total caloric & carbohydrate intake and a drastic increase in vitamin, mineral & phytochemical intake.

ide bet 20$ that those are the reasons for the drastic changes... not the super magic enzymes in raw food.

Edited by ajnast4r, 18 November 2008 - 06:18 PM.

[DukeNukem]

These people would have gotten significantly superior results with better proteins (meats and fish) in their diet, as well as more fats, including saturated fats.

This diet push the raw food agenda. But raw food should rightly include raw dairy, eggs, and fish. The raw diet diet without these proteins is a protein-deficient diet. To illustrate this point, a baby of vegan parents died after just six weeks of being on a vegan diet, with no quality protein sources.

[ajnast4r]

These people would have gotten significantly superior results with better proteins (meats and fish) in their diet, as well as more fats, including saturated fats.

This diet push the raw food agenda. But raw food should rightly include raw dairy, eggs, and fish. The raw diet diet without these proteins is a protein-deficient diet. To illustrate this point, a baby of vegan parents died after just six weeks of being on a vegan diet, with no quality protein sources.

agreed about proteins & saturated fats... 2 things raw/vegan diets are severely deficient in.

disagree about meat proteins... totally unnecessary if eggs are included in the diet.

[sthira]

These people would have gotten significantly superior results with better proteins (meats and fish) in their diet, as well as more fats, including saturated fats.

This diet push the raw food agenda. But raw food should rightly include raw dairy, eggs, and fish. The raw diet diet without these proteins is a protein-deficient diet. To illustrate this point, a baby of vegan parents died after just six weeks of being on a vegan diet, with no quality protein sources.

I'm sure you've probably read the book, but I'm curious what you think about Colin Campbell's work in The China Study. He asserts that incomplete plant proteins may be healthier than the complete proteins found in animal meat. As you may know, after a 20-year study, Campbell found that people "who ate the most animal-based foods got the most chronic disease … People who ate the most plant-based foods were the healthiest and tended to avoid chronic disease. These results could not be ignored."

[Mind]

after a 20-year study, Campbell found that people "who ate the most animal-based foods got the most chronic disease … People who ate the most plant-based foods were the healthiest and tended to avoid chronic disease. These results could not be ignored."

I would have to see the details of the study to see what was controlled for. If the meat eaters ate more calories (maybe above RDA), and or ate a lot of refined carbs as well, then that could account for the difference more than just meat itself. Just speculating.

[Mind]

after a 20-year study, Campbell found that people "who ate the most animal-based foods got the most chronic disease … People who ate the most plant-based foods were the healthiest and tended to avoid chronic disease. These results could not be ignored."

I would need to see some of the finer details of the study in order to draw any conclusion. What did they control for. If the meat group ate more total calories (maybe a lot more than RDA) or if they consumed more refined carbs, that would account for much of the difference in chronic disease prevalence (more than just meat itself).

[lucid]

Simply Raw: Reversing Diabetes in 30 Days

this is a little tricky because by eating raw food you are doing three MAJOR things as well that in and of themselves are not dependent on raw food; a drastic reduction in total caloric & carbohydrate intake and a drastic increase in vitamin, mineral & phytochemical intake.

ide bet 20$ that those are the reasons for the drastic changes... not the super magic enzymes in raw food.

I am very inclined to agree with you ajnast4r, there was a lot of raw food voodoo talk going around. Here is a good site discussing some of the raw food propaganda put forth in the film.

That said, the results that they achieved in the film were extremely dramatic, If nothing else could be taken away from the film, then perhaps there is something to appreciate about the power of having a rigorous diet boot camp. However I am not aware of any similarly drastic results coming from rigorous diet boot camps or health resorts.

Edited by lucid, 18 November 2008 - 11:14 PM.

[VictorBjoerk]

http://www.welikeitr...d/before_after/

before and after pictures:)

[Forever21]

Angela was featured on CNN.

April's pics looks like mom and daughter. lol

[wydell]

I am not a proponent of raw food nor am I against it, but I don't think we would really know what would yield better results unless those folks were divided into two groups, and a study was done.

I know I would probably lose too much weight on a raw food diet, so it's probably not for me. I think it's a great concept for people who are carrying around excess weight though.

Also, I don't know that a vegan baby illustrates the point. A baby has a lot different needs then an obese, diabetic adult.

These people would have gotten significantly superior results with better proteins (meats and fish) in their diet, as well as more fats, including saturated fats.

This diet push the raw food agenda. But raw food should rightly include raw dairy, eggs, and fish. The raw diet diet without these proteins is a protein-deficient diet. To illustrate this point, a baby of vegan parents died after just six weeks of being on a vegan diet, with no quality protein sources.

[niner]

Ages ago, Paul Bragg recounted a similar tale. He knew a couple who were diabetic and in terrible condition, and he put them on what I recall as something like a raw diet. They had a remarkable improvement. I kind of discounted it at the time, mainly due to some of the kooky ideas in "The Shocking Truth About Water", where I read it. This book was given to me by a junky friend. He seemed to believe Mr. Bragg, but didn't exactly live the lifestyle. He liked to shoot up PCP, among other things. These days, considering some of the data that's come out of Helen Vlassara's lab, I'm more inclined to believe in the groovosity of Raw. It isn't about magical vitamins, "live" enzymes, or other similar Unicorns & Leprechauns stuff. It's about the pro-inflammatory endogenous AGEs that form when food is heated. Of course, most of the people in the before and after site linked above lost a ton of weight, so they are obviously getting less total calories. Another thing that must be having a huge impact is a major reduction in carbs and simple sugars.

[DukeNukem]

These people would have gotten significantly superior results with better proteins (meats and fish) in their diet, as well as more fats, including saturated fats.

This diet push the raw food agenda. But raw food should rightly include raw dairy, eggs, and fish. The raw diet diet without these proteins is a protein-deficient diet. To illustrate this point, a baby of vegan parents died after just six weeks of being on a vegan diet, with no quality protein sources.

I'm sure you've probably read the book, but I'm curious what you think about Colin Campbell's work in The China Study. He asserts that incomplete plant proteins may be healthier than the complete proteins found in animal meat. As you may know, after a 20-year study, Campbell found that people "who ate the most animal-based foods got the most chronic disease … People who ate the most plant-based foods were the healthiest and tended to avoid chronic disease. These results could not be ignored."

The problem with Campbell's work is that there's not much science backing it up, only his judgment of the situation.

Here's a blog entry about it, for example:
http://www.proteinpo...ategorized/397/

While there are certain aspects of Campbell's work I find compelling (mostly relating to dairy), it is patently obvious to me (and backed up in dozens and dozens of studies) that humans are not meant to be vegetarians, since this was not our evolutionary path.

[DukeNukem]

Ages ago, Paul Bragg recounted a similar tale. He knew a couple who were diabetic and in terrible condition, and he put them on what I recall as something like a raw diet. They had a remarkable improvement. I kind of discounted it at the time, mainly due to some of the kooky ideas in "The Shocking Truth About Water", where I read it. This book was given to me by a junky friend. He seemed to believe Mr. Bragg, but didn't exactly live the lifestyle. He liked to shoot up PCP, among other things. These days, considering some of the data that's come out of Helen Vlassara's lab, I'm more inclined to believe in the groovosity of Raw. It isn't about magical vitamins, "live" enzymes, or other similar Unicorns & Leprechauns stuff. It's about the pro-inflammatory endogenous AGEs that form when food is heated. Of course, most of the people in the before and after site linked above lost a ton of weight, so they are obviously getting less total calories. Another thing that must be having a huge impact is a major reduction in carbs and simple sugars.

Keep in mind that most people in this poor state of health will of course benefit from a raw diet, because practically any semi-healthy diet will be superior to what they're currently eating.

I'm totally for raw veggies and fruits, over cooked. There's no question raw is better. But, too many people on a raw diet are also vegetarians, and that's where they make a mistake. A vegetarian diet is basically a high-sugar diet, and a high-sugar diet is not healthy. My brother, 6 yrs younger than me, has been a vegetarian for 20 years, and looks 10 years older to me. AGEs has devastated him, not to mention he doesn't get nearly enough saturated fat or protein.

It's funny when I hear vegetarians say, "Well sure, you need to supplement with protein powders." Is this what vegetarian caveman did, too?

[pobuoy]

Alot of people tend to to think raw food is better than cooked food, however i tend to disagree. Numerous studies have shown the nutritional benefits of cooked food which include the breakdown of plant cell, walls, breaking down proteins into amino acids, and making certain nutrients more bioavailability. Ive included a few links as well to supplement my argument. There is nothing wrong with a good salad or an uncooked piece of fruit, but you'll probably extract more nutrients and have an easier time digesting food when it is cooked as opposed to raw. This also applies to meat as well.

http://www.scienceda...71224125524.htm
http://www.halalvita...com/cooking.htm
http://jn.nutrition....ull/128/10/1716

[Forever21]

A vegetarian diet is basically a high-sugar diet, and a high-sugar diet is not healthy.

Hmm very interesting. Besides fruits, starchy veggies & grains, what are the high-sugar food in the vegetarian diet?

My brother, 6 yrs younger than me, has been a vegetarian for 20 years, and looks 10 years older to me. AGEs has devastated him.

How & where is he getting these AGEs from?

[DukeNukem]

A vegetarian diet is basically a high-sugar diet, and a high-sugar diet is not healthy.

Hmm very interesting. Besides fruits, starchy veggies & grains, what are the high-sugar food in the vegetarian diet?

My brother, 6 yrs younger than me, has been a vegetarian for 20 years, and looks 10 years older to me. AGEs has devastated him.

How & where is he getting these AGEs from?

It's really simple: All vegetarian foods become sugar in our body -- mostly glucose and fructose, both responsible for AGE effects. This sugar must be dealt with, and that means insulin production. Insulin on its own is a pro-aging hormone.

With proteins and fats/oils, insulin barely comes into play, and AGEs is much less of a concern. People with diabetes, who are autopsied, have yellowed organs, due the advanced AGEs. For the same reason, most vegetarians, due to their preference for carbs, experience this AGEing effect faster than people who eat higher ratios of fats/oils and proteins.

Edited by DukeNukem, 21 November 2008 - 07:50 PM.

[Forever21]

Thanks Duke.

Could you please comment on this?
http://www.lef.org/m...03_awsi_01.html


What would you say an ideal anti-aging diet look like?

Edited by Forever21, 21 November 2008 - 05:52 PM.

[DukeNukem]

Thanks Duke.

Could you please comment on this?
http://www.lef.org/m...03_awsi_01.html


What would you say an ideal anti-aging diet look like?

The headline of that LEF article is "Eating Food Cooked At High Temperature Accelerates Aging." Based on what little I've looked into this issue, it makes sense to me. For years, I've avoided anything blackened, burnt, charred, etc. Almost surely, IMO, eating raw meats/eggs is best for health as long as they are clean, but few of us can do that (certainly not me). Sushi, minus the rice, is likely the healthiest way to consume quality proteins.

[DukeNukem]

Thanks Duke.

What would you say an ideal anti-aging diet look like?

o High fat, including saturated fats (animal and plant based, like palm and coconut oil), and a good ratio of o-3's to o-6's, and plenty of o-9's. Probably 50% of daily cals from fat/oil. This is basically what I shoot for.

o Moderate protein -- 35% cals from varied protein sources, mostly animal/fish proteins. I do eat free range, grass fed goat cheese occasionally.

o Low carb -- Pretty much no grains. Only high water volume, whole, organic vegetables (like a salad -- make fruits a rare treat, and not many berries each day). No potatoes or starchy carbs. Don't fall for whole grain carbs -- they are only slightly better than non-whole grain carbs, in that they all digest into sugar.

Here's an example of of two people on this type of diet that are older than me:
http://www.marksdail...-washboard-abs/
(70 yr old)
More on de Vany: http://www.arthurdevany.com/?page_id=2

But Duke, what about all those good phytonutrients you're missing out on!?!? Supplements to the rescue.

Edited by DukeNukem, 21 November 2008 - 08:13 PM.

[ajnast4r]

Thanks Duke.

What would you say an ideal anti-aging diet look like?

o High fat, including saturated fats (animal and plant based, like palm and coconut oil), and a good ratio of o-3's to o-6's, and plenty of o-9's. Probably 50% of daily cals from fat/oil. This is basically what I shoot for.

o Moderate protein -- 35% cals from varied protein sources, mostly animal/fish proteins. I do eat free range, grass fed goat cheese occasionally.

o Low carb -- Pretty much no grains. Only high water volume, whole, organic vegetables (like a salad -- make fruits a rare treat, and not many berries each day). No potatoes or starchy carbs. Don't fall for whole grain carbs -- they are only slightly better than non-whole grain carbs, in that they all digest into sugar.

that diet is pretty much opposite of what we're taught in school through any ADA accredited program... I'd be interesting in reading what swayed you in that direction?

[sthira]

These people would have gotten significantly superior results with better proteins (meats and fish) in their diet, as well as more fats, including saturated fats.

This diet push the raw food agenda. But raw food should rightly include raw dairy, eggs, and fish. The raw diet diet without these proteins is a protein-deficient diet. To illustrate this point, a baby of vegan parents died after just six weeks of being on a vegan diet, with no quality protein sources.

I'm sure you've probably read the book, but I'm curious what you think about Colin Campbell's work in The China Study. He asserts that incomplete plant proteins may be healthier than the complete proteins found in animal meat. As you may know, after a 20-year study, Campbell found that people "who ate the most animal-based foods got the most chronic disease … People who ate the most plant-based foods were the healthiest and tended to avoid chronic disease. These results could not be ignored."

The problem with Campbell's work is that there's not much science backing it up, only his judgment of the situation.

Here's a blog entry about it, for example:
http://www.proteinpo...ategorized/397/

While there are certain aspects of Campbell's work I find compelling (mostly relating to dairy), it is patently obvious to me (and backed up in dozens and dozens of studies) that humans are not meant to be vegetarians, since this was not our evolutionary path.

Have you read the book?

[DukeNukem]

These people would have gotten significantly superior results with better proteins (meats and fish) in their diet, as well as more fats, including saturated fats.

This diet push the raw food agenda. But raw food should rightly include raw dairy, eggs, and fish. The raw diet diet without these proteins is a protein-deficient diet. To illustrate this point, a baby of vegan parents died after just six weeks of being on a vegan diet, with no quality protein sources.

I'm sure you've probably read the book, but I'm curious what you think about Colin Campbell's work in The China Study. He asserts that incomplete plant proteins may be healthier than the complete proteins found in animal meat. As you may know, after a 20-year study, Campbell found that people "who ate the most animal-based foods got the most chronic disease … People who ate the most plant-based foods were the healthiest and tended to avoid chronic disease. These results could not be ignored."

The problem with Campbell's work is that there's not much science backing it up, only his judgment of the situation.

Here's a blog entry about it, for example:
http://www.proteinpo...ategorized/397/

While there are certain aspects of Campbell's work I find compelling (mostly relating to dairy), it is patently obvious to me (and backed up in dozens and dozens of studies) that humans are not meant to be vegetarians, since this was not our evolutionary path.

Have you read the book?

Yup. Within a month of when it came out.

[DukeNukem]

Thanks Duke.

What would you say an ideal anti-aging diet look like?

o High fat, including saturated fats (animal and plant based, like palm and coconut oil), and a good ratio of o-3's to o-6's, and plenty of o-9's. Probably 50% of daily cals from fat/oil. This is basically what I shoot for.

o Moderate protein -- 35% cals from varied protein sources, mostly animal/fish proteins. I do eat free range, grass fed goat cheese occasionally.

o Low carb -- Pretty much no grains. Only high water volume, whole, organic vegetables (like a salad -- make fruits a rare treat, and not many berries each day). No potatoes or starchy carbs. Don't fall for whole grain carbs -- they are only slightly better than non-whole grain carbs, in that they all digest into sugar.

that diet is pretty much opposite of what we're taught in school through any ADA accredited program... I'd be interesting in reading what swayed you in that direction?

Here's the ADA's recipe of the day (and since it might change tomorrow, I'll post it in full):
http://www.diabetes....Promo=HOME_rotd

Blueberry Banana Loaf
whole-wheat flour 1 cup
all-purpose flour 3/4 cup
baking soda 1 tsp
cinnamon 1/2 tsp
salt 1/4 tsp
rolled oats,quick- cooking 1/2 cup
margarine 3 Tbsp
sugar 1/3 cup
large egg, or 1/4 cup egg substitute 1 ea
mashed bananas (about 2 bananas) 1 cup
fresh lemon juice 1 Tbsp
fresh or thawed blueberries 1 cup

Calories 115
Calories From Fat 26
Total Fat 3 g
Saturated Fat 1 g
Cholesterol 13 mg
Sodium 145 mg
Total Carbohydrate 21 g
Dietary Fiber 2 g
Sugars 7 g
Protein 3 g

This recipe is a diabetic disaster zone (way too many carbs, which will dramatically raise insulin, exactly what a diabetic does not want to do), and is just par for the course for groups like this. I have zero respect for the ADA. They are outright clueless and hazardous to people's health.

[lucid]

Nice find Duke, that is a pretty terrible diabetic recipe; pretty funny that they can get away with printing that stuff. Looks tasty though

[DukeNukem]

Nice find Duke, that is a pretty terrible diabetic recipe; pretty funny that they can get away with printing that stuff. Looks tasty though

Here's the problem with the ADA in a nutshell: They still buy into the myth that fat makes people fat. Therefore, they only recommend low-fat recipes/meals. Here's what happens all too often when you cut out fat: carbs take their place.

But, carbs are what make people fat. The problem is that this fact goes against intuition, and so despite countless studies showing that a low-carb, higher-fat diet is healthier and causes people to lose bodyfat much faster, the myth doggedly persists.

Hell, I practically drink olive oil and MCT oil from the bottle (in fact, I often do). I eat tons of animal protein (beef, chicken, turkey mostly -- but a LOT). I don't use low-fat of anything. I do not avoid saturated fats -- I only avoid trans fats and processed omega-6s (most vegetable oils). I NEVER do aerobics. I only go to the gym to lift weights an average of 6 times a month, and only for 45 mins per visit (short, but intense workouts). I do not eat grains or starchy carbs period, with rare exceptions (cheating). Yet, I have 10% bodyfat, HDL at 93, triglycerides at 53, and my recent heart imaging test showing me to be as clean as a whistle.

[wydell]

I do not eat grains or starchy carbs period, with rare exceptions (cheating). Yet, I have 10% bodyfat, HDL at 93, triglycerides at 53, and my recent heart imaging test showing me to be as clean as a whistle.

Do you still eat oatmeal or did you drop that?

[DukeNukem]

I do not eat grains or starchy carbs period, with rare exceptions (cheating). Yet, I have 10% bodyfat, HDL at 93, triglycerides at 53, and my recent heart imaging test showing me to be as clean as a whistle.

Do you still eat oatmeal or did you drop that?

Oops, that's right, I still do. That's my one grain exception, and I only use 15 grams per day. It's really not an oatmeal meal anymore, because once it's all mixed it's basically just a sludge that is dominated by the flavor of the heaping spoon of cocoa powder that's part of the 15+ things I add to it, including EV coconut oil, EV olive oil, and EV palm oil.

There's no better way to lose fat than to go low carb. Quite simply, when carbs are eaten and blood sugar rises, all fatty acids in the blood (which are available for energy) are tucked back away within fat cells, unavailable for fat burning. People who keep eating carbs hardly ever give their body a chance to burn their stored fat. When a person avoids raising their blood sugar levels, they remain in fat burning mode.

Edited by DukeNukem, 22 November 2008 - 04:09 AM.

[ajnast4r]

This recipe is a diabetic disaster zone (way too many carbs, which will dramatically raise insulin, exactly what a diabetic does not want to do), and is just par for the course for groups like this. I have zero respect for the ADA. They are outright clueless and hazardous to people's health.

have you ever tried to tell a 65 year old type 2 diabetic patient to stop eating snacks... let alone to stop eating carbs? recipes like that, imo, are given out under the very realistic assumption that most people simply are not willing to make drastic dietary changes... even if it kills them. recipes like that just offer a more healthy alternative to whats at the bakery. also the ADA does not teach that fat makes you fat (common misunderstanding), it teaches that caloric excess leads to weight gain, that fat is the most calorie dense macronutrient and therefor requires the least amount of abstaining to create an adaquate caloric deficit.

saying the ADA is outright clueless and hazardous is just not correct. Whats currently (not the old pyramid) being modeled as a healthy diet by the ADA is in sync with everything modern medical science is able to prove will decrease disease and extend lifespan... While i do NOT believe and nor does the bulk of credible scientific evidence show that the low carb/high fat diet is optimal, i dont doubt that it can work for some people... you being the perfect example.

[Shepard]

This recipe is a diabetic disaster zone (way too many carbs, which will dramatically raise insulin, exactly what a diabetic does not want to do), and is just par for the course for groups like this. I have zero respect for the ADA. They are outright clueless and hazardous to people's health.

have you ever tried to tell a 65 year old type 2 diabetic patient to stop eating snacks... let alone to stop eating carbs?

What people forget is that diabetics are already screwed. Simply cutting carbs doesn't work like it does in normal people. Cut carbohydrate intake abruptly in a person that is glucose intolerant with high basal insulin levels and see how well it works out. The ADA diet is about keeping glucose levels as stable as possible to maintain quality of life. It's not treating the root cause, it's about a general recommendation that is not immediately life threatening. It's far from optimal, but what if they recommended low carb diets? A little hypoglycemia-induced coma on the drive to work is always nice to have now and then.