Juicing

At around 6 o'clock each morning I make juice for Leigh. It's come to be a ritual, and something I love to do for him. Why? Because, although I make him salad each evening, he wouldn't pick up a piece of fruit (let alone a piece of raw vegetable) elsewhere in the day, and this is one more way in which I can get just a little more raw plant food into him. In fact, he's come to like 'green juice' so much that when in California last year he'd seek it out at the supermarkets there (OK - pasteurised, but it's a step up from Red Bull!).

Some people are so into juicing that they persuade others to drink nothing but juice for months at a time. On the other hand, the strictest Natural Hygienists feel we shouldn't be drinking it at all, as it's a 'fractional' (or 'fractured', or 'fragmented') food. So, yet another 'divergence of opinion', yet another raw food thing that we partake in enthusiastically, then find that, according to some 'experts', we're doing it all wrong...

So, here are some arguments for and against juicing, collected from various sources, that I hope will be of interest to all, and, at least, give those of you who are unsure just a little more information than you didn't have before, or hadn't considered, that will help you to decide whether you're going to be joining the next 90-day 'Juice Feast', eschew juice altogether, or...something inbetween?




IS JUICING NATURAL?

Sure, no electric juicers in the jungle. And doesn't sound very natural - eating one thing from a food and not the rest. So let's look at the animal world. Do animals juice?

Many bugs suck juice from plant foods.

Some varieties of moth drill holes into fruit and suck out the juice.

Fruit bats live mainly on fruit juice. They chew the fruit, swallowing the juice and soft pulp and spitting out the tougher parts.

Chimpanzees 'juice'. Stephen Walsh (Vegan Society): 'Chimps often chew fibrous foods to remove the juice before discarding the fibre.'

Gorillas juice in two ways: They chew fruit up into little balls and then dip them in water before sucking out the juice. And, they fill their mouths with a 'wadge' of leaves and fruit, using the mass of leaves to press against their teeth and palate to 'juice' the fruit, which they may suck on for a few minutes before discarding the fibre.

Clues from the animal world suggest that it might not be natural for human beings to live on juice alone, even for short periods, as we don't see mammals doing that. However, we do, as per the chimp/gorilla examples, see mammals that share physical characteristics with us ingesting juice as part of their diets. They are eating 'fractured' foods, ingesting foods that they wouldn't wish to eat whole, but rather than rejecting the food per se as (therefore) unfit for chimp consumption, they suck out the juice and discard the rest.

And, although we're not chimpanzees or gorillas, can we be sure that those living naturally in the past would never have bitten into an orange and sucked the juice? Never sucked the juice from pomegranate and spat out the pulp? Never sucked sugar cane grasses to have the sweet juice from something that was too fibrous to be chewed?

So, the pros and cons:

JUICING - CONTRA

Loss of fibre When the fibre 'buffer' has been removed, we can absorb sugars too quickly into the bloodstream. Ani Phyo explains: 'Fruit juices contain a lot of sugar that's been stripped away from fibre. A glass of orange juice is made from squeezing about five oranges. If you tried eating five oranges it wouldn't be easy, because the fibre would fill you up. Nature's perfect; she packages the perfect ratio of fibre to sugar in an orange. She never intended for us to strip away the fibre to take in all that sugar at once as a juice. It's the fibre that time-releases sugar into our bloodstream'. (This is certainly true, particularly in the case of fruit juices, and is why those with sugar issues should be cautious with fruit juice (and carrot and beet) and why 'juice diets' should always be greens/vegetable-based rather than fruit.) (And, re Ani's comment on eating five oranges - I hear you, 811-ers - I know it's not that difficult to eat five oranges, but I feel Ani's general point has merit.)

Loss of minerals via pulp Many foods, especially fruits, have the greatest concentrations of minerals in the skin, peel or pith. For example, most of the calcium in oranges is in the pith. And the UK National Heart and Lung Institute has confirmed that it is the red grape skin that contains the antioxidants.

Loss of nutrients via oxidisation For example, when an apple is cut it browns after a while. When juiced it browns almost immediately. (So always drink juice as soon as it's made.)

Bypasses chewing Salivary juices released in quantity through sufficient chewing help alkalise our food. Teeth and jaws benefit from chewing, and so do our facial muscles (some say 'more chewing, fewer jowls'...)

We might eat more of a food than we would be attracted to eat in its whole form This can be a 'contra' argument (see earlier article 'Too Much Of A Good Thing?') as well as a 'pro' (see later!).

Juice moves so quickly through the body that we absorb fewer nutrients than we would from the food in whole form Elchanan (Natural Hygienist): 'When we juice, food moves through our digestive tract at a speed approaching that of water. Contrary to the notion that we absorb more, we actually absorb less, simply because the food moves through so quickly. We are designed to digest different foods at different speeds, based upon their water, protein, fat, mineral etc content. When we turn our food into a flood, we miss a lot. Please note that I'm not saying juicing is 'bad'. I do enjoy an occasional juice, but the whole food will be preferable in general.'

(On the other hand, even if we do lose minerals, and speed of movement means fewer absorbed, these arguments could be counter-balanced by the fact that, when we juice, we may eat more of certain plant foods than we would have eaten whole. Also see the argument in the pro section further down that juicing releases more nutrients through the breaking down of cell walls...and isn't it just the case that so often with these 'should we or shouldn't we eat/drink' arguments we can go round and round in circles...?!)

Juicing creates waste Yes, the pulp gets thrown away. Although, it could be composted. And some people make cookies and burgers from it. As to whether these are good...down to personal taste.



JUICING - PRO

Juicing bursts open the cells so antioxidants can be absorbed (not sure about this one...I'd have thought that thorough chewing of whole foods and the normal processes of digestion could do this as efficiently. However, it's true that many of us have got into the habit of not chewing thoroughly, eating just a little too quickly.)

Juicing saves energy David Wolfe: 'Juicing and blending foods saves the body digestive energy, channeling more energy for healing and detoxification'. (Certainly true - the body has to do less work to break the food down.)

Releases chlorophyll Jason Vale: 'Chlorophyll is...the natural sunlight energy trapped within the fibres of the plant. When you separate the juice from the fibres you effectively release that liquid sunlight energy: liquid energy which improves the functioning of the heart, the vascular system, the intestines, the uterus and the lungs - the same liquid energy which can help assist the body to clean the blood and liver, strengthen the immune system and reduce high blood pressure. Chlorophyll has strong antioxidant properties and it can act as a natural defence against free radicals...' (Any science boffs care to comment?).

Increases carotenoid availability from carrots, lycopene from tomatoes etc (well, yes, it would, but 'more' of a nutrient does not necessarily mean 'good', especially if it's at the expense of nutrients lost in the pulp or via oxidisation that would work synergistically with the carotenoid, lycopene, that is, an imbalance could be created. Just a suggestion - I don't know that this would be the case.)

Means of obtaining nutrition from food we can't chew, or digest easily in quantity (eg tougher green leaves) Stephen Walsh (Vegan Society): 'Humans can only partially digest some of the harder fibres found in most varieties of commercial vegetables' (one argument is that perhaps we shouldn't be eating them in the first place. However, cue the juicing chimps!).

Juicing celery is a good source of natural sodium (Although those eating cooked food, and raw fooders who add salt to their food, however Celtic or Himalayan, are not going to be going short of sodium and are more likely having far too much, celery is a good natural source of sodium for high-fruiters who don't have added salt. I tend to forget about celery when it's in stick form in the fridge, but get my quota via juicing it with apples, spinach, pears etc.)

'Dr Norman Walker (juicing advocate) lived to 109!' (Well, no, he didn't, but he did make it to 99, which is excellent for a man of his generation. Juicing was one aspect of his excellent diet, which included lots of raw plant foods.)

May protect us from pesticides in non-organic food Dr NW above said that although sprays and pesticides will enter into plants and roots they will be absorbed by the fibres (which will be eliminated in the juicing pulp).

Tastes good! (Indeed it does, and it's a big plus for juice if it encourages someone who isn't enthusiastic about greens, celery, fruit etc in their whole state to consume more of them if juiced. As mentioned earlier, my husband's a good example of this. Here are the plant foods that went into his juice this morning and, beautiful though they are, he just wouldn't have grabbed a stick of celery, lettuce leaves or even an apple before leaving for work, but he does love his juice!)

JUICE DIETS/JUICE CLEANSES/JUICE FEASTS

A 'juice diet' normally lasts from a few days to a few weeks.

A juice diet is NOT a fast.

There is no such thing as a 'juice fast' - please help me to discourage people from using this term incorrectly, as it confuses.

A fast, as has been clearly understood for the past few thousand years means total abstinence from food, so that the body consumes for energy accumulated waste material and fat reserves and, because there is nothing to digest, can devote itself to the process of healing (given sufficient rest). It also demands considerable self-discipline, as no food is taken.

Fasting is the most effective way for the body to cleanse, to heal. Fasting is documented to have achieved amazing results, and if the word 'fast' is used to describe diets that are in no way a fast, that's a pity, as some people who could benefit enormously from fasting will be led into thinking 'fasting - yeah, I've done that...'. For anyone who would like to know more about the benefits of fasting, see the relevant section at http://www.rawfoodexplained.com/. For an introduction (24-hour fasting), see my article here.

Juice is food. Hence, if you are consuming juice, you are not fasting. Those on juice diets are consuming often very large quantities of food in juiced form. Juice feast is accurate! Juice diets are sometimes referred to as 'juice cleanses', which is better, as although the juice itself does not 'cleanse' the body, it does help the body cleanse itself; it gives the digestive system a relative rest, in that it does not have to work nearly as hard as usual to break down food, thus allowing the body to divert more energy than usual into 'housecleaning'. Although not as effective as fasting, a juice diet can still confer considerable benefits.

Juice diets for healing

Here's a testimony from a forum contributor (copied and pasted many moons ago - no source - if you're reading, do tell me who you are!) to the virtues of juice in helping the body to heal: 'In just the last few months I have seen green juice put a pound a day on an emaciated woman who hadn't been able to gain weight by any other means in over ten years, completely and instantly get rid of one woman's coffee-withdrawal migraine headaches (carrot and celery), cure my own three-day-long toothache with just one giant glass (kale, cucumber, celery) and relieve one man's chronic constipation (carrot and spinach).'

(I'm going to put on my Natural Hygiene (oriented...) hat here and say that, rather than there being any specific things about these particular foods that would have healed these specific complaints, it would likely have been the general effect of ingesting raw (ie undamaged) plant foods and the general benefits of juice diets, that would have resulted in the body healing itself of these ailments. Do steer clear of taking a specific juice as a 'medicine'. Drink a particular juice for as long as you enjoy it. If we religiously continue to imbibe a particular juice when we have lost an actual desire for it, when our bodies are no longer welcoming it, just because we think it's 'good for us', or because it's going to 'cure' us of this or that, we may do more harm than good (eg skin colour change from excess carotene is not a myth!).

Short juice diets are commonly used at natural healing centres as part of a range of treatments for cancer and diabetes. However, note they are normally 'green-juice'-based diets. A prolonged period on fruit juice (stress - fruit juice - not fruit) is not a good idea, as the presence of so much fructose without the fibre 'buffer' could well cause problems for the body.

Are juice diets natural? Nothing in the animal world indicates that it is natural for us to live on juice alone for weeks at a time. But, for those who are ill, as I suggested in the last article on cancer, sometimes 'unnatural' treatments may be necessary to help the body heal itself of something unnatural living has created. And for those who may not have major illness, but are feeling out of sorts, with minor ailments, a juice diet could be a good idea. I don't see any pressing reason for a healthy person on a 100% raw food diet to live on juice for a couple of weeks, but neither do I see any particular reason not to.

A 'juice feast' has through popular usage tended to be the term for living for prolonged periods on juice alone, eg for more than one month. I can only suggest anyone considering living on juice alone for such a long period very carefully review the pros and cons. I'll come off the fence and say that I would never do this, and go with Natural Hygienist Hannah Allen's advice here: 'Habitual use of large quantities (my italics) of juiced foods is highly inadvisable. Juices bombard the body with large quantities of fragmented nutrients in much the same way as food supplements do, and the effects can be negative and even positively harmful. In addition, the body is deprived of the opportunity to chew, assimilate and metabolise the complete foods which are sources of optimal health.'

***

So, having said that I make juice for Leigh each morning, didn't say whether I drink it as well. Certainly do!

I used to gravitate towards the 'anti-juicing' arguments, but probably for no other reason than I didn't have a juicer. My 'views' changed somewhat after attending a course at which raw food chef Russell James made us a green juice every morning and I was...sold. Juicer in place within days of arriving home.

If you're a healthy raw fooder who doesn't juice, I can see no particular compelling reason to start doing so. On the other hand, if you're a healthy raw fooder who does juice, I can see no particular compelling reason to stop. Many Natural Hygienists do themselves drink juice occasionally - it's simply that they don't feel it's something we should do a lot of, or that it can ever be as good as eating the foods whole. Agree. For me a pear/celery juice is so much more delicious than eating a pear, then a stick of celery, and I'll happily trade that against the loss of fibre and nutrients. Occasionally.

***

For an earlier article on the benefits of 'green juice' particularly (and information about juicers), see 'Drink Your Greens' here.

And for those of you who are wondering what 'Natural Hygiene' actually is, see here. Lessons 1 and 2 give a good overview (note there is no longer a newsletter)

A Fool For Fruit Pt 3 - Should Fruit Eating Carry A Health Warning?

Disclaimer: if you or someone you know is suffering from serious illness, please note I am not medically qualified ; also that significant lifestyle changes should not be made on the basis of any information in this article without consulting a health professional. Please note that some conventional medical practitioners will view some of the contents of this article, and even non-conventional cancer treatment in general as 'quackery', so do visit your MD/GP and consider their recommendations. Also please remember that only some cancers have been linked to diet. If you are interested in finding out more about 'natural healing' treatment centres (some of which combine conventional medical treatment with non-conventional treatments), please contact me via the main website at http://www.rawforlife.co.uk/.



The 'fruit warners' say that high-fruit diets (typically consisting of lots of sweet fruit, lots of greens, other vegetables and a little fat eg in the form of avocados, nuts and seeds) are dangerous.

So many are the ailments attributed to fruit, that I've chosen here to focus on the two biggies. First, the one that seems almost designed to wipe that smile off the happy little raw fruitie's face - the big C! Second, diabetes/'sugar issues', for, as we all know, fruit contains (crucifix and garlic at the ready!)...sugar!

But, although I'm concerned about the effect of these warnings on healthy raw fooders, it will be necessary to discuss fruit with regard to unhealthy people, as this, it seems to me, is where some of the scariest statements about fruit have emanated from.

So, let's grab the durian by the spikes and start with...


CANCER

Is it dangerous for cancer patients to eat lots of fruit?

There are many case studies to suggest that the raw food diet, especially when implemented following fasting, can, as one of a range of natural 'treatments' and/or lifestyle changes, help the body heal itself of many tumours.

However, when we hear reports of those who claim to have healed cancer through fasting and diet alone, these are often cases where the cancer had not reached a life-threatening stage. Where tumours are advanced, and negatively affecting the work of vital organs, 'unnatural' treatments may be needed to remove (and quickly!) what a long period of unnatural living has created, and it would be irresponsible of me not to suggest that those with tumours should give conventional medical treatments consideration along with any other. But, once the tumour has gone (through whatever means) a change of lifestyle must be implemented, that is, conditions for health established.

The Hippocrates Health Institute, Florida, which includes amongst its non conventional treatments a raw food diet, has had considerable success with cancer sufferers. One reason would be that the raw vegan diet that is part of the treatment there excludes the foods commonly linked with illness, assisting rather than stymieing the attempts of the body to heal. It allows the body to undertake some serious house-cleaning, then rebuilding.

The raw vegan diet advocated by Hippocrates includes 'greens', wheatgrass, sprouts, nuts and seeds, but is low in fruit; Hippocrates teachers believe that a high-fruit diet is not suitable for people with cancer.

Others who have experienced success with the raw vegan diet as part of a range of treatments for cancer, such as Thomas Lodi at The Oasis of Healing Center also feel that fruit should be restricted, at least in the short term, to those fruits relatively low on the glycaemic index (GI), such as green apples and berries. (Note, however, that pears, cherries, peaches and bananas are also 'low GI'. Whilst watermelon is 'high', the 'high GI' league tends to be dominated by cooked processed foods such as breakfast cereals, white rice and white bread).

But interestingly, there are accounts of people claiming to have healed their cancer on high-fruit diets. Please note - 'claim'. For example, early this century, naturopath Johanna Brandt from South Africa described how her stomach cancer went whilst on a mono-diet of grapes. This was poo-pooed by doctors at the time, but the efficacy of a temporary mono-diet (where only one food is consumed) is recognised by many experts in natural health today, and of course in recent years scientists have come to recognise the role of antioxidants in grapes and other fresh fruits and vegetables in preventing and fighting disease.

The medical doctor Kristine Nolfi ('Raw Food Treatment of Cancer') claims to have healed herself of breast cancer with 'a meal of fruit in the morning, and in the evening, and a meal of vegetables at noon'. Without knowing quantities, this sounds like a diet of at least half fruit (by calories). More recently, Belgian naturopathic doctor, Jan Fries, (the 'Dries Diet') has had considerable success with over 300 cancer patients following a high-fruit diet.

So some are claiming that their bodies have healed themselves on a high-fruit (or even all fruit) diet whilst others are warning against 'high fruit' for those with cancer. How can we reconcile such seemingly conflicting opinions?

The answer could lie in the typical diet of the cancer sufferer...

Often, they will be, or at least will have been just prior to embarking on treatment at a healing centre, on a standard cooked diet. And, at the healing centre, fruit may well be restricted. Now, healers give a variety of reasons for restricting fruit, and these are then reported (and, unfortunately, often misreported via chinese whispers) on the raw food forums.

And one that I've seen time and time again is 'sugar supports cancer'. That's certainly a fact. Strangely, it's rarely followed by the following facts: 'sugar supports healthy skin', 'sugar supports a healthy heart', 'sugar supports healthy kidneys', 'sugar supports a healthy brain' (etc). Everything we eat is converted to sugar (glucose) - it's what our bodies run on! All cells are fed by sugar, whether we eat fruit or not! Fruit gives us glucose directly, whilst our bodies need to work a little harder to convert the complicated sugars from other foods into glucose.

Excess sugar ('spikes') can be a problem for cancer patients, as 'spikes' stimulate the production of insulin (see Dr Neal Barnard's explanation of this process in the 'Diabetes' section later in this article). Cancer cells have a high number of insulin receptors, so gulp up any excess sugar.

According to many natural health experts (and that's not just those following high-fruit diets) it's not sugar that's the problem per se, or at least not the natural sugar found in whole fruits, as, if we are eating correctly - if our bodies are working correctly - eating lots of fruit should not create excess sugar in the body. Rather, the blame lies at the door of something else in the average cooked food diet...

Dr Doug Graham ('80/10/10 Diet')...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. ..Eating whole, raw fruit only results in sustained high blood sugar if you are also eating high fat.' (note 'whole' - the fibre of fruit acts as a buffer for the sugar, slowing its release).

So, it's not the fruit that's to blame - it's the excess fat in the blood which causes the sugar to 'back up' (more on this later).

And it's not just sugar levels that are adversely affected by a high fat diet. Researchers have found that cancer cells thrive in an anaerobic environment (one where the oxygen content is low). Dr Doug again: 'Eating a high-fat diet decreases the oxygen content of the blood and tissues and creates an ideal environment for cancer cells to flourish.'

This could explain why Johanna Brandt was apparently successful on her grapes diet. She wasn't eating any fat (although I think it very likely she would have introduced a little after becoming well). It could also explain why Kristine Nolfi was successful. She says she was following an 'exclusively raw fruit and vegetables' diet, so it's reasonably safe to assume that it would have been low in fat. And the fruit-based Dries diet, although vegetarian rather than vegan, has a relatively low amount of fat.

Dr Doug's explanation, and these accounts, suggest that it could be possible for a high-fruit diet to help the body heal itself of (some) tumours, but probably only if the sufferer was following a 100% raw low fat diet not only whilst being treated but also in convalescence and, ideally, thereafter. However, I can also see that, whilst someone is ill, whilst their bodies are not working properly, whilst there may still be fat in their bodies, from a previous diet, that will not allow them to process sugars properly, a 'transition period', where at least the 'high GI' fruit (or lower GI fruit in high quantity) is restricted, might be necessary. And, indeed I can understand those helping cancer suffers to heal being pragmatic, that is, recognising that some of their patients are unlikely to adopt an all-raw vegan diet once out of the centre and may well eat those fatty foods again, and consequently 'playing safe' re advice on consumption of certain fruits.

Nevertheless, the personal accounts mentioned suggest a cancer patient who is committed to switching to a raw vegan diet after healing could be restored to health on a high-fruit diet. Note the word 'could', and the disclaimer at the top of the site! I'd like to tell you of a natural cancer healing centre where the raw vegan diet is high rather than low fruit, but I haven't found one. And, if someone were to set one up, would there be the market? I can quite understand that cancer sufferers, and those advising them, would be more likely to 'go with' the raw food diet that has the well-publicised track record than the more contentious one. For most, the raw food diet itself is radical enough, let alone a variant of it. Johanna Brandt and Kristine Nolfi were both doctors. They would have had the knowledge not only to evaluate conflicting advice, but likely the confidence to try diets which, at that time, must have seemed shocking to many.

In researching this article, I did receive a little encouraging feedback from the forums. One contributor cited the case of a young Italian man, Paulo, who attributed the healing of his mouth cancer to fasting followed by a high-fruit diet.

Perhaps, with the growing popularity of high-fruit diets we will see more reports from those who have seen their bodies heal themselves of cancer on a high-fruit raw diet. I hope so.

Is there any justification for suggesting to healthy raw fooders that high-fruit diets lead to cancer?

This statement is made from time to time on the forums, either explicitly or implicitly, with never a shred of evidence to back it up.

So, different ball game. We're not looking at ill people now, but healthy people on a raw vegan diet, whose bodies should be functioning reasonably well, through their following a diet absent of those foods commonly linked with illness. In particular, I'm talking of those on a low-fat raw vegan diet of the sort advocated by Dr Doug Graham - high in fruit and greens, with a little fat, and hereafter referred to as the '811'-type diet - as those following this sort of diet are so often the targets of the warnings about fruit. (And I'd like to edge into this group myself...although I have just a bit more fat than the 10% (by calories) maximum recommended and my diet departs from 811 in a number of ways, it's still a long way from the cheese melts I used to consume in cooked vegetarian days!).

It's a big leap, and to my mind an incorrect leap, from adopting a 'play safe' approach with cancer patients on, or recently on, cooked-food diets, to warning healthy raw fooders that eating 'too much' fruit is going to 'give' them cancer!

What appears to be common to various schools of thought within the raw food movement is that tumours may start to grow when the body simply cannot cope with the deluge of toxic matter inflicted upon it. Its ability to eliminate the nasties within its daily detoxing depends on two things: the energy available, and the amount of toxins coming into the body. This explains why people who have a relatively poor diet, but high energy through scoring well in other aspects of healthy living (such as fresh air, sunshine, positive thinking etc) may be tumour-free whilst those on a good diet whose energies are sapped through overwork, negative thoughts and don't get enough fresh air (um - says the computer-potato writing this) can succumb to illness.

Consequently, there is nothing to fear from fruit-eating! This is because an 811-type diet will not only exclude the toxins that scientists have linked with cancer (cooked fats, processed meats, acrylamides produced by grilling, baking etc) but will, as fruit is so easily digested, provide the body with more energy than the average diet, better equipping it to cope with any non-diet toxic elements and, yes, any dietary toxic elements such as traces of pesticide in non-organic tropical fruit.

There are no scientific studies I've found linking high fruit-eating with cancer. The only foods that have been linked with cancer are those typical of that consumed on the standard cooked-food diet.

In fact, science overwhelmingly supports the idea that fruit will protect against and help the body fight cancer.

For example (and there are many examples!), scientists at Cornell University, New York, have found that chemicals in the flesh and skin of apples called flavonoids and polyphenols have an antioxidant ability. Antioxidants (all together now!) protect from cancer by 'mopping up' free radicals responsible for cell damage. The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition (Sept 03): 'We propose that the additive and synergistic effects of phytochemicals in fruit and vegetables are responsible for their potent antioxidant and anticancer activities, and that the benefits of a diet rich in fruit and vegetables is attributed to the complex mixture of phytochemicals present in whole foods.'

Cancer associations (and governments) are, based on scientific research, urging people to increase their fruit and veg consumption. Have you heard any of them accompany this with 'oh, but on no account eat too much fruit, as that would be dangerous.'?



DIABETES/'SUGAR ISSUES'

Is it 'dangerous' for diabetics to have fruit?

American Diabetes Association: 'Wondering if you can eat fruit? Yes!'

They also say this:

'Questions about fruit keep coming up. Will fruit juice increase blood glucose levels more quickly than a piece of fruit? (...) All carbohydrates, whether rice, potatoes or fruit juice, raise blood glucose about the same....'at about the same speed and about the same amount.

However, that varies based on several factors - whether you eat a piece of fruit after a high-fat meal or sip fruit juice on an empty stomach, what your blood glucose is when you eat the fruit, whether the fruit is cooked or raw, how much diabetes medication you have in your body, etc.'

'after a high fat meal'? Hang on...that reminds me of someone!

Dr Doug Graham: 'I have worked with many diabetics over the past twenty-five years...In every instance...without exception, the use of a low-fat raw vegan diet predominated by sweet fruit has resulted in stabilization of blood-sugar metabolism. Most of my clients were able to completely eliminate their need for insulin and other related drugs within a few weeks or less. (...) Eating whole, raw fruit only results in sustained high blood sugar if you are also eating high fat.'

And many scientific studies have confirmed a causal relationship between fat consumption and diabetes.

Dr Neal Barnard, MD, ('Breaking the Food Seduction') explains: 'Here's the problem: insulin is the hormone that escorts sugar from your bloodstream into the cells of the body. It is like a doorman who turns the knob on the door to each cell, helps sugar go inside, and then closes the door. (...) But everything changes when you eat fatty foods..., or when you gain a significant amount of weight. Insulin can't work in an oil slick. When there is too much fat in the bloodstream, insulin's hand slips on the knob. Unable to open the door to the cells, insulin lets sugar build up in the blood. Your body responds by making more and more insulin and eventually it will get the sugar into the cells (...). Cutting fat from your meals improves what is called insulin sensitivity, meaning that insulin efficiently escorts sugar into the cells of the body.'

As with cancer, it's not the fruit that's to blame, but the standard high-fat cooked food diet. And, as with cancer, I can see the logic in advising diabetics on a standard cooked diet, or recently on one, to 'play safe' with fruits that are high GI, although of course they would also need to restrict their intake of other high GI foods, such as white bread and white rice. However, reports from diabetics who have switched to a raw food diet indicate that this 'transition period' may only be a matter of weeks, and Dr Doug Graham's success with diabetics persuades me that recovering diabetics should, after the transition period, be able to eat the fruit they like, as long as they are on an all-raw low-fat vegan diet.

(Note Dr D was careful to say 'most' diabetics. Most (95%) of diabetics are 'Type II', and the work of Dr Graham, Gabriel Cousens ('There Is a Cure for Diabetes') says that Type II diabetics can be healed through a change of diet. Type I diabetics will, as I understand it, always need to take insulin, but can greatly reduce their dependency on it on a high-fruit diet. The young natural hygienist, Robby Barbaro (www.RobbyBarbaro.org), is a shining example of a Type I diabetic who has greatly reduced his need for insulin on the '811 diet' - 80% sweet fruit!


Will eating lots of fruit give healthy raw fooders diabetes/sugar issues?

First, let's be clear that I'm talking fruit here.

The American Diabetes Association statement made a distinction between fruit and fruit juice. Not only will a blood sugar rise be sustained if there is lots of fat in our blood, but it may be excessive if the sugar is consumed in any form other than within a whole fruit, for example as processed sugar, isolated fructose, or within juice. Dr Doug: 'The soft water-soluble fiber in whole fruits allows their sugars to absorb slowly and gradually.'

A study from the journal Diabetes Care (2008) concluded: 'Consumption of green leafy vegetables and fruit was associated with a lower hazard of diabetes, whereas consumption of fruit juices may be associated with an increased hazard...'. And this is one reason why extended mono diets of fruit juice are not a good idea.

Dr Doug and others promoting a low-fat raw vegan diet say unequivocally that healthy people on a low fat raw vegan diet should not develop 'sugar issues' from fruit-eating.

Raw food promoter Frederic Patenaude: 'I've known many people who are absolutely convinced that whenever they eat a lot of sweet fruit, their blood sugar "goes out of wack''...In reality, in a fairly healthy individual, blood sugar will remain stable no matter how much fruit is eaten. I have tested this myself by testing my blood sugar throughout the day, and I found that it didn't matter how many bananas I ate: my blood sugar remained normal throughout the day. In fact, even when I eat more than 20 bananas in a day (which I do regularly), my blood sugar stays absolutely normal.'

(Although bananas are the low side of medium GI, he did eat an awful lot of them!)

And Fred goes on to quote Steve Pavlina, professional author and speaker, who trialled a high-fruit, low fat diet: 'my blood sugar remained incredibly steady throughout the trial...eating this way gave my blood sugar more consistency than ever. I couldn't spike my blood sugar on this diet if I tried.' And, last summer, I tested my own blood sugar after a couple of weeks on a diet that must have been 80% sweet fruit (including melons, papayas and mangoes). Normal. And, if Type I diabetics such as Robby Barbaro can thrive on a diet high in sweet fruit, I can't see any logical reason why a non-diabetic healthy raw fooder should 'get' diabetes or 'sugar issues' on a high-fruit diet as long as the diet isn't also high in fat.

And look at this....According to a study published by the American Chemical Society, anthocyanins in cherries appear to help the pancreas better regulate insulin levels in the body - these delicious and beautiful fruits are gifts for our bodies!

***

There are all sorts of unhealthful ways of living apart from poor diet that can make us ill, so, yes, even high-fruit-low-fat-vegan raw fooders can get ill too! But I'm convinced that fruit would not be the culprit in such cases!

Whilst I can understand (although lack the knowledge to fully evaluate) the arguments of those who feel temperance in fruit may be desirable at least in the short term for those whose bodies aren't working properly and for those whose diets are high in fat, I've seen no evidence to suggest that a healthy raw fooder on an 811-type diet has anything to fear from eating as much fruit as they desire.

I'm not saying a high-fruit diet is the only way to be successfully raw. But what does concern me is that some of those who are attracted to fruit have been persuaded to restrict the very food that their bodies are obviously crying out for. And others aren't eating any at all! The zenith of this madness (well, I hope it's the zenith!) is encapsulated in a recent youtube video, in which a 'raw fooder' dispenses 'advice' to others, saying that he eats no fresh fruit or vegetables at all (those fruit/veg he does eat are dehydrated powders, marketed as 'superfoods'). What kind of a 'raw food diet' is that? (Edit - May 09 - the same raw fooder today posted a video reversing what he had said, admitting he'd wasted a lot of money and was sorry for leading people astray. He then took the new video down several hours later.)

I believe the blanket warnings of the 'fruit warners' are unjustified and that healthy raw fooders can eat freely of fruit, provided it's accompanied (as it is on 811-type diets) by lots of green leaves, perhaps some vegetables (eg 'non-sweet' fruit, such as tomatoes and cucumbers), and a little (but not too much) fat.

I don't know of any scientific studies that have linked high consumption of fruit (as opposed to processed sugar, isolated fructose, fruit juice etc) with illness. What is it that the raw food world 'fruit warners' have found that the university research departments have missed?

So I'll stand by the Foolish Claim I made at the beginning of 'Fool for Fruit' Part 1:

'If a healthy person (that is, a person without a serious pre-existing health problem*) on a raw food diet, is attracted to, has desire for, has appetite for, enjoys the taste of, what most would consider a large quantity of 'fruit in general', or a particular fruit, then it is healthy (not dangerous) to eat that quantity'.

*and there is evidence to suggest eating lots of fruit will be no problem in at least some of those cases.


How about celebrating with some of these?








'Thank you's to: Dr Doug Graham (his book '80/10/10 Diet', from http://www.foodnsport.com/), Mario Coss (his article 'The Villification of Fruit' at http://www.positivelyfalse.com/) and my raw food forum friends for suggesting names of those who have healed while on high-fruit diets.

Test

Test

A Fool For Fruit Pt 2 - 'Too Much Of A Good Thing?'

A few rather vocal people in the raw food world have been warning all raw fooders of the dangers of what they describe as 'overeating fruit'. In general (the advice varies) they feel that we shouldn't be eating more than a piece of fruit a day. One quite well-known raw fooder voiced his opinion that eating 15 bananas was 'crazy'.

Well...the raw food diet itself is 'crazy' to a lot of people out there, so it's interesting to hear one raw fooder telling others that their way of eating raw is 'crazy'.

There are many people thriving on high-fruit diets who believe we cannot 'overeat' on fruit, and, you might expect that, as a fruitie, I'd be giving the same answer. However, my feeling is that it is certainly possible to 'overeat' fruit, in some circumstances. But, equally, there will be instances where eating a large quantity of fruit is very far from 'crazy'.

My Foolish Statement (see Pt I) included the words:

'is attracted to, has desire for, has appetite for, enjoys the taste of'.

And my premise is that we can use these concepts as measures to assess whether or not we are 'overeating' fruit.

But, before going any further, must stress I'm discussing 'overeating fruit' within the context of a raw food diet - that is, a diet where no cooked food is eaten. I've heard several people complain that fruit makes them feel 'bloated', but on investigation have found they're on a high-raw rather than all-raw diet. Now, the cooked food commonly eaten in high-raw diets is baked (starchy) root veg and/or cooked grains. If fruit is eaten with, shortly following, or even within a few hours of this sort of food, there'll likely be problems. Fruit and starch are not a good combination digestively; the starch may be incompletely digested, resulting in discomfort. Also, heavy food in general stays in the digestive system a relatively long time. Fruit digests quickly, wants to exit quickly, but its exit is blocked by the heavy food. Result - fermentation, gas, blow-up, even pain. But it's not the fruit that's the culprit - it's the cooked food! (Note those on all-raw diets may experience similar if fruit is eaten with or shortly after relatively hard-to-digest food, such as nuts.) So, if you hear people warning against 'too much' fruit, do enquire as to their own diets - have they really given fruit a fair test themselves?

***

That over with, lets say we're on a 100% (or almost...) raw food diet. We're enthused by those waxing lyrical about fruit. And they all look so sparkly-eyed, glowing, healthy, vibrant, and, as we're the type that never does anything by halves, let alone 'gradually' (what's that?!), we...launch right into it!

• Day 1 We're following a menu plan because we want to do things perfectly - we're a bit anal like that (we ignore the word 'suggested'). Menu says 'kiwi fruit'. We're not that keen on kiwi fruit and would prefer papaya. But the plan says kiwi fruit, so kiwi fruit it is. Kiwis in soup, kiwis in salad, kiwis in smoothies...

• Day 2 The plan says bananas today. We've had them for breakfast, in lettuce wraps for lunch, and look forward to reporting in to the fruitie forum on how many bananas we've eaten! The triathletes there seem to live on bananas. We run, don't we? But, although bananas were tasting good this morning, they're really not now...So we mix them with strawberries and make a giant smoothie. Six more down the hatch!

• Day 3 We ditch the menu plan - we're an independent thinker! We see mangoes at the supermarket. They're ripe, look so beautiful -altogether very enticing. And...expensive. We notice nectarines have been marked down. Conscious that our partner has been commenting on the price of 'all this fruit' and that we'll win brownie points if we can show we've 'saved money', we leave the mangoes and buy nectarines. They taste bland.
  
  


• Day 4 The big box of cherimoyas we ordered has arrived. We love cherimoyas and eat four on the trot. We don't have a great desire for any more, but they're quite soft, and will surely go off in a day or two, and we've had it drummed into us that on no account must we 'waste' food. So we eat another four. Then we feel a bit sick.

Spot the error this enthusiastic new fruitie has made?

(Any resemblance to characters living or dead, eg the writer of this blog, is entirely coincidental.)


In each case, we're eating either a large quantity of a fruit that we don't actually desire in the first place, or we're eating way beyond the point at which desire for it ceased. We haven't, to use an oft-misused phrase, 'listened to our body'. Instead we're eating for Other People's Reasons.

About twenty years ago, Severen L Schaeffer wrote a book sub-titled 'A Revolutionary Approach to Nutrition & Health', called 'Instinctive Nutrition'. In fact, the central idea is not so revolutionary. It's basically saying that we will, instinctively, be drawn to the foods that give the nutrients our bodies need at any one time. Schaeffer makes it clear that we can only be confident our bodies are drawing us if the foods we are attracted to are raw foods. If we're drawn to any other sort of food...that's our devious minds getting in the way!

Instinctive eating theory explains why sometimes a fruit will taste delicious to us one day, and perhaps 'so-so' the day after. And why celery may taste good on the first stick, but unpleasant by the third. Some vitamins and minerals can be stored, and our body's storehouses might be so full of a mineral contained in one fruit that we may experience no enthusiasm for it for months, but, when reserves run low, develop a passion.

Schaeffer also tells us to look out for the alliesthetic 'taste change' that occurs when our body has had enough of whatever nutrients a particular food gives us.

Let's say there are 15 bananas in the kitchen. They're very spotty and will be past their best soon. Schaffer's theory says that if we really feel like those bananas we should start eating! But we should stop eating at the point at which the bananas stop tasting good to us. (Note that if we try to disguise the taste of the bananas by whizzing them up in a smoothie with other things, we are unlikely to be able to detect the taste-change point.) If we are still enjoying the bananas after the sixth or seventh, then - sure - eat more! But the theory also says that, if we really don't feel like eating them at all, it's far better to throw them out - put them on the compost - rather than put them into our bodies.

So, we shouldn't be eating large quantities of any fruit (or indeed any raw food) if true desire is not present. One of my favourite books of dietary (and non-dietary) instruction - The Essene Gospel of Peace - says 'for all that you eat...without desire, becomes a poison in your body.'

If we eat large quantities of a particular fruit when our bodies haven't set up any significant desire so to do, we could receive too much of certain nutrients, and not enough of the ones we do need. I'm not suggesting that problems would necessarily be serious, but could be enough perhaps to make us feel a little out of sorts and (incorrectly) deduce that the high fruit diet 'isn't working'.

Some people are concerned that they might obtain 'too much' potassium on a high-fruit diet. Although significant symptoms of potassium overload, even in those on high-fruit diets, are unknown, a fruitie expert told me that it is possible (although rare) that someone making an overnight switch from a diet with added salt to one without any might have a temporary excess of potassium in the short-term while their bodies are adjusting to the change. However, 'instinctive eating' theory does rather come to the rescue here, in that if we eat only those foods for which we truly have appetite, we have a built-in safety valve. As, if the body of a high-fruiter raw fooder really did have too much potassium, then it should set up a desire for, motivate a search for, fruits and other plant foods that are relatively low in potassium, and, say, higher in sodium, and if we follow our true appetites and select fruits we're truly attracted to rather than eating for Other People's Reasons, we should be OK.

A Fairtrade Banana Eating promotion was to have had an event where one million bananas would be eaten by 10,000 people - 100 each. It was stopped by doctors who said that high amounts of potassium from so many bananas could be fatal. I agree with the doctors. This would be a great example (glad it didn't happen) of people eating huge quantities of bananas almost certainly way past the point of true desire, not because they felt like doing so, but...to create 'news' for a promotion. But, if someone genuinely felt attraction and appetite for 100 bananas...

The high-fruit diet should, therefore, work beautifully for us, provided we select only fruits for which we have genuine desire, and stop eating them when that desire is no longer present.

And the good news is that nature has provided us with a variety of fruits from which to choose, and they will contain different levels of vitamins and minerals. And, sure, the majority of them don't grow near me in the UK, and I'm very glad that those living in the parts of the world that we migrated from thousands of years ago are sharing them with us!

Here's a beautiful account of 'instinctive eating' in action:

Victoria Boutenko ('12 Steps to Raw Foods'):

"When my family had been on raw food for two months, my children began craving different fruits. Sergei asked for mangoes and blueberries and Valya asked for olives and figs. The kids' cravings were so strong. I had to hustle to keep up with them. For example, I gave Sergei a mango. He ate it and wanted more. I bought him a whole case of mangoes thinking that would last him a week. He sat down and ate the entire case in a day, skin and all. He then said 'I wish there were more mangoes,' so I bought him another case.

The same thing happened with blueberries. I bought him a two-pound bag of blueberries and he ate it in one sitting. Valya liked figs. She'd ask for fresh figs, dry figs, black figs. She could never have enough figs; she also liked eating olives. During our travels that spring, we visited our friend Marlene. Marlene had a beautiful olive tree. There were olives underneath the tree already starting to rot. Valya said, 'I want to try them. Oh they are delicious.' I tried them. To me they were too bitter. Valya enjoyed the olives so much that she gathered them up in plastic bags to take with us.

The next step on our trip was a visit to Dr Bernard Jensen, a world famous clinical nutritionist. We asked Dr Jensen what Sergei needed to eat for diabetes. He looked in his books and told us that the best thing for diabetes is mangoes and blueberries. Wow. Then we asked him what Valya needed to eat to help her asthma. He said figs and olives."

How sad it would have been if Victoria, as a new raw fooder, had said to Sergei, 'Well, the raw food expert, X, warns that too much fruit isn't healthy, so one mango's all you're allowed.'

If our bodies are telling us, via desire, via taste, via pleasure, that a relatively large amount of a particular fruit is right for us, I suggest we eat in line with their directives. As, if we don't, and stop before their needs are satisfied, we will be dissatisfied. If we obey the diktats of someone else rather than the calls of our bodies, we could run short of certain nutrients. Some theorise that in these instances the body will then set up a search for what's missing. We may prowl around for more food, in a bid to find those missing things, and will be soft targets for the seductive calls of the mind...'aha, the raw food diet isn't satisfying you, is it?'

So, in short, let's eat lots of fruit if we have a genuine desire for that fruit, and enjoy every bite! And, if we don't, let's not.

And that's why I feel it's a pity to hear a raw fooder tell other raw fooders that eating 15, 30, whatever, bananas is 'crazy'. If, say, an active person has a desire to eat that many in a day, then what would be wrong with that? (By the way, a lot of high-fruiters 'mono-eat', that is, eat just one type of fruit in a day, or for several days, until their bodies signal a desire for another food - see 'Mono-eating - Or Just Eat An Apple Or Five'.)

But, the 'fruit warners' say it would be wrong to eat that many bananas (and if anyone's heartily sick of the b-word, substitute any other fruit!). They warn, either explicitly or implicitly, of all sorts of health horrors in store for those 'overeating fruit.' In Pt 3, I'll be discussing further whether there is justification for making healthy people on a raw food diet nervous of eating more than a piece of fruit a day.

Coming next...

A Fool For Fruit Pt 3 - Should Fruit Eating Carry A Health Warning?

A Fool For Fruit Pt I - The Fruit Warners

Too many times now, raw fooders have contacted me via the RawforLife website and said that they are 'eating very little fruit'. Why? Because they've been persuaded that anything more than a small amount of fruit, perhaps a piece a day, is 'over-eating fruit', and will result in all sorts of adverse health consequences.

A few days ago, after encouraging a raw fooder to eat all the fruit she desired, and feeling elated at her evident relief and joy, it was a tad depressing to see a host of messages on raw food forums issuing strong directives not to 'over-eat' fruit, and even saying that high-fruit diets are dangerous. Not even 'can be', or 'in some cases', but 'are dangerous.'

Now, the posts did contain advice (non-fruit-related) that made good sense, and, if acted on, could have a beneficial effect on the health of many reading. But these statements warning everyone about eating what was described as too much fruit run counter to the experience (and that includes long-term experience) of those on high-fruit diets. One poster named three people who shared his opinion and informed readers that 'it is foolish to claim they are wrong.'

Well, throwing caution to the wind...here's my Foolish Claim about fruit:

'If a healthy person (that is, a person without a serious pre-existing health problem*), on a raw food diet, is attracted to, has desire for, has appetite for, enjoys the taste of, what most would consider a large quantity of 'fruit in general', or a particular fruit, then it is healthy (not dangerous) to eat that quantity.'

*and there is evidence to suggest eating lots of fruit will be no problem in at least some of those cases - more in future Parts.

In other words, I'm suggesting that, in the majority of cases...

if someone feels like lots of fruit, and they eat lots of fruit, that's not 'over-eating fruit'.

if someone doesn't feel like lots of fruit, and they eat lots of fruit, that could be 'over-eating fruit'.

Those warning everyone about the (according to them) dangers of fruit-eating have become increasingly vocal. In many cases this is causing unnecessary anxiety to those new (and not so new) to raw food. I especially feel for those for whom the discovery (or rediscovery) of the delights of fresh fruit played a major part in their going raw (and in the transformation of their health), and are now bewildered.

It's sad to see those people drastically reducing their consumption of a food they so enjoyed eating - one of the very best things they can give their bodies - and at the same time spending a fortune on 'superfoods' and supplements (see 2008, August archive).

For the purposes of discussion, I will be using the terms 'high-fruiter' and 'fruit warner'.

Definitions as follows:

High-fruiters

Raw fooders for whom at least two-thirds of food (by calories - roughly!) is fruit.

This group includes '811'ers - those who follow the teachings of Dr Doug Graham, who advocates at least 80% fruit. High-fruiters generally also consume high quantities of green leaves (an athletic man might consume several heads of lettuce a day) and a little fat (in the form of nuts, seeds, avocados etc). Note the majority are not fruitarians, or at least not in the sense that the world would understand the word. They don't live on fruit alone; their diet is fruit-based.

Generally, this group believes that the raw food diet can supply all the nutrients needed by their bodies and that, although a few supplement for B12, in general supplementation should not be necessary.

Fruit Warners

Raw fooders who eat very little fruit and warn others not to 'over-eat' fruit.

They also tend to consume lots of green leaves, but generally have more fat than the high-fruiters. Some follow a 'Hippocrates'-type diet, high in sprouts and wheatgrass juice. Some include cooked food, so would be more accurately described as following a 'high-raw' diet rather than a raw food diet.

Generally, this group believes that the raw food diet cannot supply all the nutrients needed by their bodies, and most, if not all, supplement - not only with B12, but also with various green (and white) powders, liquids, dried algae etc.

Note here we have a negative correlation. The more fruit eaten, the less the perceived need for supplements. The less fruit eaten, the more the perceived need for supplements.

Here's another. The more fruit eaten, the fewer supplements taken. The less fruit eaten, the more supplements taken.

Of course, correlation does not imply causality.

Division, unity...

Wouldn't it be great if raw fooders could forget their differences and come together in the interests of unity? Then perhaps the most vocal could focus simply on communicating those things we can all agree on. 'Eat raw!' springs to mind.

In fact, there was a meeting, held at the Hippocrates Institute, with the objective of promoting 'unity' in the raw food world. This is a laudable aim, and hats off to the person who came up with the idea. As the meeting was held in 2006, this is old news, and I wouldn't be mentioning it were it not for the fact that the meeting was referred to in a recent 'fruit warner' post, and those who have gone raw since 2006 might like to know more.

The meeting, billed as a 'historic Summit' included raw food leaders 'from eight countries', and was set up for 'establishing scientifically common standards for optimum health.' At this meeting, various 'standards' were agreed, amongst which were ones we can surely all agree on, eg the optimum diet should be 'high in nutrition', 'provide excellent hydration', etc. But 'standards' also agreed were:

'the addition of superfoods and wholefood supplements is advised', and that (the raw food diet should) 'contain only low to moderate sugar'.

The second of these effectively vetoes the high-fruit diet! And in so doing, is at odds with the teachings of many well-known raw food 'leaders', not to mention the diets of thousands of raw fooders all over the planet doing very well on high-fruit diets.

So I decided to find out a little more about the delegates (or at least the US/UK ones) who 'agreed' these 'standards. I found that several followed the 'Hippocrates' low-fruit diet and that some had businesses selling supplements. Fair enough. However, absent from the delegates list were high-fruiters, who of course by definition would never have given their agreement to the first of the two 'standards' quoted above. Neither did the list include any Natural Hygienists. who favour a high-fruit raw diet, and are also unlikely ever to have agreed (if they had been present) to the second 'standard' on superfoods and supplements either.

Unfortunately, Dr Doug Graham, one of the world's best-known raw food leaders, and an advocate of the high-fruit diet, was unable to attend, as the meeting was held in January, and he holds his Costa Rica retreats in January. But there are many other high-fruiters in the raw food world who surely could and should have been invited. Apologies to the organisers if in fact they were invited, but couldn't attend. (And if so, what a pity).

Now, I'm not sure that that panel of delegates would have been representative of opinion in the raw food world three years ago, and it certainly isn't now. Although I know this wouldn't have been the intention, referring to this meeting in a 2009 'fruit warning' communication does have the potential to confuse, as not everyone is going to notice the small print, eg the date (I missed that first time around!), and it could certainly give the impression to many that these 'standards' are consensus amongst 'raw food leaders' today, when patently they are not.

So, I very much hope that, should this Summit be repeated, the list of delegates can be more representative of the divergence of opinion in the raw food world on fruit (and supplements, for that matter). Dr Doug Graham is an obvious candidate for an invitation. But there are many other names that would qualify and should be considered by anyone planning such an event in the future. Some of them are luminaries, some aren't. Some have letters after their names, some don't. What they all have in common is that they are living testimonies to the high-fruit diet and, whether or not they have businesses, have written books, made videos, are all teaching others in various ways, if only by good example. (And if no one else can make it, I can! Quite fancy a trip to Florida.)

***

Now, one way in which I differ from certain other fruit enthusiasts is that I believe people can thrive on all sorts of raw food diet, and that high-fruit isn't the only way, or even the best way (is there even a 'best way'?). This is based on my observations of others, and my own experience. I spent the first year of raw very happily on a relatively-high-fat, raw gourmet, raw choc, lowish-fruit sort of diet. I felt healthier than since childhood, all sorts of ailments cleared up, and I had no problems staying raw (certain 811-ers who have difficulty believing that's possible on any diet but 811 will have to decide whether I'm a fibber or an oddity).

My own diet is around two-thirds fruit - on average. Some days I seem to live on persimmons. Other days just a little fruit. But I'm eating a lot more fruit now than when I first discovered raw. Why? Firstly because the longer I've been raw, the more fruit I've desired. Interestingly, it was only after moving from 95% to 100% raw that I fell in love with fruit completely, and my body started singing for it!

Second reason for eating more fruit? Vanity. I noticed that the high-fruiters looked particularly healthy and vibrant. In general.

So - I like lots of fruit. Others I know don't. Fruit doesn't rock their boat. And they're doing fine on that. There are accounts from history that suggest that human beings can thrive on all sorts of plant foods (and even two or three foods only) as long as they're not damaged. So, all sorts of raw food diet can be good. I can think of lots who are great examples of the raw food diet who don't eat much fruit.

Some people start low-fruit and then switch to a diet that includes more fruit, and prefer that - it suits them - that's the sort of diet that keeps them happy on raw. Some people start high-fruit, then switch to a diet that includes less, and prefer that - it suits them - that's the sort of diet that keeps them happy on raw.

But, some people who've chosen to eat very little fruit seem to be so convinced that they are 'doing raw right' and others are 'doing raw wrong' (and, so, might I add, are some of the high-fruiters as well...) that they are expending lots of energy telling those who do have an enthusiasm for fruit that not only should they not 'over-eat' fruit but are warning them either directly, by association or via hints, that all manner of awful things are likely to happen to them if they persist in this unhealthy practice.

I don't think it wise to eat large quantities of a fruit just because someone else has convinced us it's a good idea, or to try to meet a calorie target, if one does not genuinely desire that particular fruit in that quantity (see Foolish Claim earlier). I can see that, in a small minority of cases, an individual's past medical history may 'contra-indicate' the consumption of a large amount of a nutrient in a particular food. I also think it possible that such an individual's body might not set up a desire for large amounts of that food anyway. But - sure, a debatable, and hope you'll stay with me for when I discuss that in future Parts.

But the fruit warners are issuing blanket directives - they are saying 'you should not'. Ever. To everyone. Without knowing anything about the size, energy requirements, nutritional needs, physiological quirks, general state of health, appetites or taste preferences of their 'audiences'. They may have their opinions as to what is or isn't 'the ideal diet' but to start frightening healthy raw fooders who love and are obviously thriving on fruit into 'limiting' their fruit intake, to have people start to feel anxious about eating fruit for goodness sake, and to say that high-fruit diets are dangerous, is going too far.

And, although I'm only a small voice compared with some, I'll not sit back and watch people who do desire lots of fruit, whose bodies are crying out for it, denying themselves fruit, thinking that they 'shouldn't' have more than one mango, finish the punnet of cherries, spend a day mono-eating bananas, whatever, because of the pronouncements of what amounts to a very small group of people, without speaking out.

I've not come across any research yet that persuades me that blanket warnings to everyone saying 'you must not over-eat on fruit' are justified. I've not come across any research that suggests that it is correct to warn people in general not to have more than one piece of fruit a day. I've not come across any research that advises an average, healthy person to limit their fruit consumption, and that 'too much' fruit is 'unhealthy'.

I'll be looking at this in more detail in future Parts, but just a few points about...

Studies

If you ever hear someone refer to a 'study' that has linked fruit with such-and-such an ailment, find out if the study was actually about fruit.

Was the study about fruit, or was it about sugar? 'Sugar' covers a multitude of toxic substances, eg sugars extracted from foods (not just fruit of course), that is, stripped of the nutrients and fibre that came with them then heated, sugars processed into syrups, combined with additives etc. I'd guess 95% of the 'sugar' ingested by the average person (on a standard cooked diet) in a scientific study is not going to have been consumed within a fruit.

Was the study about fruit, or was it about fructose? Fructose is the name given to the sugar in fruit. But if the fructose ingested has been extracted from fruit, it has not been ingested in its naturally-occurring form. My googling reveals that fructose as found 'normally', that is, within fruit, is handled easily by our bodies. It's when it's extracted from fruit then added to other foods, usually as a 'sweetening agent' and sometimes as a preservative, that problems arise.

Was the study about fruit, or was it about fruit juice? Fruit juice is a fractured food; it is part of a fruit. And I'd guess that the fruit juice ingested by the people in these studies will have been pasteurised (cooked).

A raw fruit is a package of nutrients, all of which are there in precisely the right proportions to work together well in our bodies. The sugar is part of the fruit, and is there along with all the other vitamins, minerals, other nutrients (including some that scientists might not have even discovered/named yet), and the fibre.

High intake of unnatural substances like refined sugars, fructose (isolated from the fruit) and fruit juice will cause problems for the body.

But if anyone can show me a study that is truly scientific, that is, using good sample sizes, with carefully-matched control and experimental groups, or perhaps a longitudinal study of 'high fruit eaters' v 'low fruit eaters', that supports the idea that high consumption of whole fruit is unhealthy, please let me know; I can easily build it into the subsequent Parts of this article where I will be discussing the various health issues the Fruit Warners would have us believe that raw fooders as a group are going to run into if they 'over-eat' fruit (and if you're a bit late, I can edit).

As, I haven't found one yet.

Disclaimer: Debbie Took is not a doctor. Please assume she is talking out of her bottom. Anyone who is tempted to eat lots of fruit on the basis of this article is advised to consult a health professional first.

Coming up:

A Fool For Fruit Pt 2 - 'Too much of a good thing'?

'Healthy cooked food' - a contradiction in terms

When I first went raw, the words 'healthy cooked food' would have been the last anyone would have expected to hear from a raw fooder's lips. But in the last year or two things they have been a-changin'... 'Cooked food is poison' isn't pc. People say it alienates, antagonises. Although I suspect any disadvantages might be cancelled out by the advantages of 'shock-value', OK, I'm willing to go along with the current train of thought on that one. But now the pendulum's in danger of swinging just a little too far the other way; I'm hearing an increasing number of raw foodists (including some quite well-known ones) talking of 'healthy cooked food', and...I think a rallying call's due, troops!

We all understand the term 'healthy cooked food' as used by the world out there, and as used by ourselves before we went raw. It's used sometimes when describing a food that's preferred, for health reasons, to other foods in its group. For example, omnivores might describe fish as healthy compared with beef or pork. Or, it might be used to describe foods cooked in a way that minimises nutrient loss. For example, steamed vegetables might be described as healthy compared with fried or roasted.

It's great news to hear raw food teachers encouraging people not only to increase the raw in their diets, but, recognising the majority are not going to be going 100% raw, or at least not this week, also advising that, when cooking, people choose the gentler cooking methods. It's only when raw fooders use the words 'healthy cooked food' that I take issue. As, these words are not only inaccurate, but they confuse, and instead of leading people (gently, in time...) towards our core message, it could lead them away, that is, back into a mainly-cooked diet where they feel there is no need to make any further changes as, because it's (for example) mainly steamed and baked food, it's 'healthy'.

The words 'healthy cooked food' dilutes our message. What are we so afraid of? I'll discuss that later, together with some suggestions as to what words we could use to help the people we want to help yet not compromise on what we have learned to be true.

For anyone who has any doubts that 'healthy cooked food' is a contradiction in terms, please consider the following. And anyone who has no doubts - perhaps this will help you make your point when next you hear a raw fooder use those words.

All cooked food is damaged to some degree. All methods of cooking damage and/or destroy precious nutrients in our food. And because cooked food has nutrients missing, those present are in different proportions than those the food was designed to give - that is, too much of certain things and not enough of others. This imbalance has consequences for our bodies. As we know from chemistry lessons, chemicals need other chemicals in precise proportions for specific reactions to occur. And if something is missing in a food (eg B vitamins in cooked grains) our bodies may raid their own reserves in order to metabolise other substances in the food.

The foods that are most often described as 'healthy cooked foods' are steamed vegetables, and baked root vegetables, eg potatoes, sweet potatoes. They may be 'healthy' from a cooked-food-eater's point of view, in comparison with other cooked foods, and, sure, there's a difference between steamed courgettes and a deep-fried Mars Bar, but how can a raw fooder, someone who understands what cooking does to our food, describe these cooked foods as 'healthy'?

STEAMING

When steamed, food is heated to a very high temperature - 212 degrees F. Oxidisation is a big problem, with nutrients carried off in the steam. Contrary to what some claim, vitamins are also lost to water, as water usually collects at the bottom of the steaming bowl.

From old sources: A study at the University of Wisconsin showed that cabbage, when steamed, lost 22-43% of nutrients (amongst these - protein and calcium). Ragnar Berg ('Vitamins'): 'the mere steaming of vegetables for five minutes dissolves out so large a proportion of the inorganic bases that the residue contains an excess of acids.'

More recent sources say that steaming destroys various vitamins, most notably Vitamin C. And in a study published by Journal of the Science of Food Agriculture, researchers investigating effects of various means of cooking broccoli found that steaming caused an 11% loss in certain antioxidant compounds.

Sure, steaming may not be as bad as boiling. But still not a 'healthy' thing to do to our food.

Edit May '10 -

I offer you this contribution to the 30BaD forum from 'Carl Andrews':

'One of my brothers is a top ranked chemist here in Texas who runs a large water municipality. Although he is a SAD [standard American diet]eater himself, he was telling me some interesting things this past weekend about testing for chemicals in food, acrylamide in particular. It turns out tests conducted by the World Health Organization did in fact show acrylamide in boiled food.

My brother explained the confusion over it. Yes, acrylamide has in fact been found in boiled and steamed food - and at higher concentrations than the EPA deems safe in drinking water. He said the only reason it isn't always found in boiled food is because the two tests used for acrylamide in food are notoriously insensitive. They are almost useless at detecting concentrations below a certain level. The significant detail, though, is that almost every level below those test-detection ranges is still considered a carcinogen by the World Health Organization. As soon as a more sensitive test is had, my brother says - and the EPA has recommended that one be developed due to the "inadequacy" of the current tests - as soon as a sufficient test is available, boiled and steamed will officially join all other cooked foods as containing cancer causing levels of acrylamide. The upshot: anyone eating boiled or steamed food thinking he isn't getting acrylamide, and at carcinogenic levels, is fooling himself...'


BAKING

When baking, food is cooked to extremely high temperatures - anywhere from 300 to 600 degrees. Protein is denatured, rendering it less assimilable by the body.

Vitamins are destroyed. Arthur M Baker, MD and naturopath: 'vitamins are heat-labile, with thiamin (B1) and vitamin C being the most susceptible to baking losses. When the pH of the baked product rises above 6, nearly all of the thiamine is destroyed. In high-protein cookies, calculations revealed thiamin losses exceeding 90%.' (When B vitamins are cooked out of our foods, our bodies will raid their own reserves of them in order to metabolise the food.)

Arthur M Baker again: 'Bake some yams or sweet potatoes. Notice the sweet sticky goo oozing from the skin that partially turns to ash from the excessive heat. You're witnessing sugar molecules (carbohydrates) caramelising, fusing together like sticky molasses. Similar to protein coagulation, caramelization also occurs on a microscopic level when all foods are sufficiently heated, whether or not it is witnessed. When complex carbohydrate sugar molecules are caramelized or fused together, amylases (digestive enzymes) cannot cleave them into constituent simple sugars for use as an energy source. Not only are they unavailable, but the heat turns them into an ash-like toxin.'

Baking is one of the cooking processes found by scientists to produce acrymalides, linked with various forms of cancer. And laboratory studies suggest acrylamides could be the cause of 'benign and malignant stomach tumors and damage to the central and peripheral nervous systems. Acrylamide occurs in baked potatoes,...' (Gabriel Cousens, 'Rainbow Green Live-Food Cuisine'). Acrylamide forms when certain carbohydrate-rich foods are fried, baked or roasted.' Note that it has been found that acrylamide levels appear to rise the longer the food is heated (not a great ad for slow-cooking).

So, baking might not be as bad as roasting, deep-frying or barbecueing. But it's not a healthy thing to do to our food. (Oh and if anyone says to you 'but potatoes have to be cooked', there's an answer to that - here.)

Blanching

Before summing up, a word or few about 'blanching'. Not quite in the same category as steaming and baking, as we can all agree these are methods of cooking. But, some people seem to think 'blanching' isn't cooking.

And 'blanching' is most certainly cooking.

Recently, I heard a raw food chef instruct readers to pour 'nearly boiling water' over green veg, leave it soaking 'for one minute' and then 'plunge it into cold water' (the idea being to tenderise the veg and give it a bright green colour). He then said that this would not 'negatively affect the nutrients'. Perhaps he felt that because the veg would not continue to cook in its own heat once immersed in cold water that no damage would be done?

'Blanching' will most certainly 'negatively affect nutrients'.

Vegetables that are blanched before freezing (a common processing technique) can lose up to one-third of their antioxidants (US Journal of Science of Food and Agriculture). A study of blanching of artichokes carried out by University de la Frontera, Chile, 1997, showed a 16.7% loss of Vitamin C. A study of blanching of potatoes carried out by Loughborough University of Technology 1989 showed nutrient loss. 'Depending on the method of blanching, commodity and nutrient concerned, the loss due to blanching can be up to 40% for minerals and vitamins' (Food Processing, Principles and Applications - Ramaswamy & Marcotte 06).

And I carried out my own experiment by plunging some soaked mung beans in 'nearly boiling water' for 'one minute', then seeing if they would sprout. I sprout mung beans regularly, and, always, within a few days, I have a jar full of long-tailed sprouts. But this time, after three days, 90% of the beans had failed to sprout.

But, really, do we need these scientific studies, or our own experiments, to tell us what should be pretty obvious? We all know that various nutrients are lost in boiling water, paricularly Vitamin C and B vitamins. Raw foodists know from various studies that nutrient loss starts to occur when food is heated at somewhere between 105 and 120 degrees Fahrenheit! So how can there be no nutrient loss when vegetables are cooked in 'nearly boiling water', even if it is only for a minute?

If I was immersed in 'nearly boiling water' for 'one minute', then placed in cold water, I don't think I'd be 'refreshed'. I think I'd be...dead.

So please be content with the colour of veg in their natural state, and, if a vegetable is too tough un'blanched', then don't eat it (or perhaps spiralise it). 'Blanching' is cooking.

*****

So, returning to the steamed veg, baked potato thing - 'healthy' cooked foods? Sure, 'healthy' as the world understands it, but raw foodists know better.

Now, it's at this juncture that I need to stress a few things, to minimise the chances of my being misunderstood.

• Is a high-raw diet with a little steamed/baked food a good diet? YES! It's light years ahead of the average diet health-wise. If I could get half my family and friends onto such a diet I'd die happy (well, hope I die happy anyway!).

• Is it a good idea to help those who are not ready and/or not willing to go raw to stop eating the most harmful foods and replace the most destructive cooking methods with less (or at least marginally less!) destructive cooking methods? YES! And if what we say and do has helped them make good decisions we'll have done them a huge service, and may have helped transform their health.

• Am I just bashing those who choose to eat a little cooked food? NO! There are many who feel that the inclusion of a little cooked food gives them just the flexibility they need to stay, happily, 'high-raw'. And that's nothing but good! And it may be that eating all that raw makes up for any deficiencies/imbalances in the cooked food and that their bodies have sufficient energy (from the raw!) to detox any toxins created via normal daily detoxing. But - that still doesn't make the cooked food in itself healthy.

My objective only is to ask that raw foodists who are using the term 'healthy cooked food' think about their use of language, for, as we know, the words we use, the way we put things, matters. The language we use habitually can affect the thoughts of others, and our own thoughts!

As raw fooders, we have a very special message. Did 'the lights go on' for you when you found raw food? Did it make 'perfect sense'? If it did, have you ever thought that maybe you have a responsibility to be a living testimony, to spread the word? There are thousands, hundreds of thousands (millions?) of people out there telling people best not to eat meat, to cut down their dairy, to steam their veg rather than fry it, etc. It's old news. Even the people sitting in McDonalds right now know that. As raw fooders we're saying something different, something radical. We're saying: 'don't cook your food'. Simple as that. It will ring true with everyone who's ready to receive it, and, if we feel someone isn't (and - warning - difficult to know!), then we can disguise it, soften it with a more gentle approach, and I'll be describing some.

We can join those others who are pointing the way towards healthy eating, and say the same sorts of things, but should do so in a way that communicates that unique message of our own, which is: 'cooking damages food'. We should be able to sense whether the strident approach might actually be the right one, or whether (more likely) it's a case of 'gently does it'. But, whatever approach we take, it's possible to help others move forward with their diets without diluting our special message, and confusing with words that we know simply aren't true.

I hope some of you will help me to encourage raw fooders you hear using the words 'healthy cooked food' to come up with alternatives. Here are a few. Perhaps you can suggest others (let me know).

• 'less unhealthy foods'
• 'less harmful ways of cooking'
• 'better ways of cooking'

Allof these can help point to better choices of food, and gentler ways of cooking if people want to have cooked food, without using a phrase that, for a raw foodist, can't be right...

I do appreciate that some may fear the reaction of others, and may be concerned that if we say what we really think we may 'turn people off', off what we have to say, and off us... So, if put on the spot, and asked whether any cooked food is healthy, how about this?

'Well, this may seem strange, but no cooked foods are healthy. However, it's certainly true that some cooked foods are less unhealthy than others.' (said with a smile!)

No one is likely to be offended or alienated by this. Whilst they may be momentarily taken aback by the first statement, the second statement will have a softening effect. They're on familiar territory. You might then discuss different cooking methods. Alternatively, or additionally, their interest may be sparked by the first statement and they may say so. It's then up to you to judge whether they would welcome further discussion. And, even if they make no comment at all, you've planted a seed, and they might just mull over what you have said - if not now, in ten years time.

And, using such words, we are remaining true. We aren't compromising. Or diluting. We're saying it as it is, but in a gentle way.

A way that opens doors.