Periods - They May Be 'Normal', But Are They Healthy?

It's a long one! And no pics (answers on a postcard as to what I could have included!). And when I use 'we' in the article, yes I mean women, but hopefully men will also find the subject matter of interest.

Disclaimer: not a doctor, not a scientist, just a raw fooder who blogs. Some of the suggestions in this article are radical. They may be shocking, or, at the least, seem a bit barmy. Some might cause offence. Some might even be considered dangerous. I'm just presenting an...alternative view of something that is considered 'normal' in our modern, 'developed' society, and that (we've been brought up to think) is therefore healthy.

This is what we've been taught about menstruation:

• It occurs when an egg released from the ovary has not been fertilized.
• It occurs approximately 14 days after ovulation.
• There will be a flow of blood, and loss of womb lining.
• The blood flow will last for a few days.

We are taught that periods as described above are normal, that it is normal to menstruate monthly, and that normal = healthy. We have been taught that it is right to be concerned if, in a woman of child-bearing age, monthly blood flow is absent or even if periods have become 'scant' (when not pregnant, that is).
We have been told that ideas emanating from ancient times of periods being bad things, eg that a period is a 'curse', or that women having periods are 'unclean', are wrong, and that these 'negative' interpretations of periods came about through a combination of ignorance, superstition and patriarchal societies. We are taught to 'embrace' menstruation, celebrate it as being a healthy and integral part of being a woman (and we support companies making millions from the sales of pads and tampons to mop up the copious bleeding).
Consequently, women who make positive improvements to their diet, eg by significantly increasing the raw component and/or cutting out meat, alcohol, coffee etc in favour of fresh, whole foods in which fruits and vegetables predominate, are concerned when their menstruation changes, that is, the flow becomes much lighter and/or infrequent, or in some cases seems to disappear altogether.
I've always had nagging doubts about periods, from the age of 14 when they started. Surely it isn't meant to be like this, I thought. If we were all living naturally, in a 'Garden of Eden' (however that's defined), without pads, tampons, tissues (or even clothes?), would we all be running around dripping blood all over the place for a few days every month?
36 years later, my feeling is that...no, we wouldn't be. I'll be explaining why in this article, where I pull together a number of observations and writings from various sources that all suggest pretty much the same thing - that whilst a menstrual blood flow - that is, anything beyond a few spots of blood - may be normal, it's not healthy.
MONTHLY BLOOD FLOW - IT MAY BE 'NORMAL' IN OUR SOCIETY, BUT IS IT UNIVERSAL?
Human beings
'Black African females on a wholistic diet of natural foods do not menstruate...Menstruation by black African women is a recent occurrence...Haemorrhaging among black African women represents a deterioration of the race...'Fruitarian and vegetarian women, normally, do not menstruate. If they do menstruate it consists of one or two drops of blood (about the size of a pea) from the unfertilized egg.' (Dr Imhotep Llaila O Afrika, 'African Holistic Health').
OK...firstly, Dr Afrika's account appears to be anecdotal, rather than scientific. I've searched for anthropological studies confirming it, but haven't found anything, although neither have I found anything contradicting it. And (I can hear you shouting) sure - most vegetarian women do menstruate, and some have quite a heavy flow, but what is certainly the case is that I have seen hundreds of messages on raw food forums from those on fruitarian and raw vegan or low-dairy raw vegetarian diets reporting lighter, or absent periods. (Please note that 'fruitarian' is variously defined, eg a loose definition would be a diet where the greater part (eg 75%) is fruit (including non-sweet fruit such as tomato, cucumber etc, and nuts). I am not suggesting anyone eats 'nothing but sweet fruit'!)
'Few Navaho women wear undergarments and the great majority apparently do not use perineal pads during menstruation.' (American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, May 1951). That suggests the women's flow was very light then, although of course their diets in 1951 would probably have been quite different from the diet they follow today - I suspect things will have changed now...
'Among one primitive people in the Australian bush country who live entirely on fruit, the menstrual period lasts about twenty minutes and approximately a tablespoon of blood is expelled...The women of the American Indian of the Great Plains who lived on a simple diet and were exceedingly active, had a short, uncomplicated menstrual period, scarcely noticeable.' (Dr Bieler, MD, 'Natural Way to Sexual Health' 1972).
Animals
In most cases, it's not relevant to look at animals, as most don't experience ovulatory cycles as we do.
One exception is non-human primates (eg gorillas, monkeys). However, it's debatable whether observations of primates in captivity are relevant, as they will be living unnatural lifestyles (and in many cases following unnatural diets) in the same way that women in the developed world are.
But studies of primates in the wild are interesting:
'Studies have found that gorillas, chimpanzees and orangutans do shed, following non-fertilization of the egg, but that there is either a very small amount of bleeding, or no bleeding observed (my italics)...The menstrual cycle lasts 31-32 days...menstrual bleeding is minimal.' (Tim Knight, University of Washington, 'Gorilla Natural History')
'Gorillas. In captivity, the first menstrual flow reportedly occurs between six and seven years of age. (Dixson, 1981). Menstrual bleeding has not been observed in wild mountain gorillas at Karisoke;' (my italics again) (Peter Thorpe Ellison, 'Reproductive Ecology and Human Evolution')
'NO BLEEDING OBSERVED'
Note that the two accounts of gorillas in the wild conflict. One says they do not menstruate. The other chooses its words more carefully. It says 'no observed flow'. This carries the implication that the researchers recognize that there could actually be a small amount of bleeding, but it's so small that they weren't able to detect it.
In the same way, women who think they haven't menstruated at all may actually have lost a drop or two of blood but haven't noticed it. For example, it could have been lost within a flow of wee, or not noticed on coloured underwear. ARE INDIGENOUS WOMEN (AND GORILLAS IN THE WILD) WITH LITTLE OR NO (OBSERVED) BLEEDING UNHEALTHY?
The gorillas are obviously healthy. And the lifestyle of the indigenous women, or at least those studied relatively early in the 20th century, will almost certainly have been free of many of the things in the developed world linked with illness, eg refined sugar, white flour, processed foods in general, not to mention alcohol, tobacco, prescription drugs etc and they will have been living outdoor lives.
Healthier than us? Or less healthy. Not a difficult one to answer.
In the 21st century 'developed' world, the women most likely to report light or 'absent' periods are so often the healthiest. They're often athletes - women at the peak of physical fitness. And/or they're women who have at least eschewed the disease-causing substances listed above and following diets high in raw plant foods. They may eat voraciously, but they eat healthily.
In general, the less healthy women are, the better the diet, the more they are likely to be plagued by heavy periods. Studies have shown that overweight women tend to have heavier periods.
And, the more body fat, the younger the age girls will start bleeding. Body fat is of course not necessary for ovulation, as, if it was, starving women throughout the world would not be having children, and clearly they are. It could be that young girls whose 'periods' have not started may well have started ovulating, but with no (observable) blood flow (yet) and, yes, these will tend to be the slimmer girls. As, an increase in body fat is often accompanied by an increase in toxicity and you will see later in the article why I'd tentatively suggest at this point that this could account for the link between body fat and bleeding. (Note I am generalising - slim women can have high levels of toxicity too!).
And of course the higher the blood loss the more likely there is to be anaemia caused by a loss of iron.
ARE WOMEN WHO DON'T HAVE A 'FLOW' INFERTILE?
If there is no ovulation (more later) then, yes, they would be infertile.
But there are many accounts of women who have either not had periods, or have not had any 'flow', or have had periods infrequently, having no problems becoming pregnant, so clearly they have been ovulating and fertile. The indigenous women reported as having little or no flow, and the gorillas with little flow, or no 'observed' flow, have borne children - in fact I'd guess fertility rates in these groups are far higher than in our society.
Natural Hygienist Herbert Shelton: 'I personally know of one woman who is the mother of five children and she has never menstruated in her life. I know another who menstruated during her adolescent period and married a man who had changed his way of living to a truly natural lifestyle. She joined him in his health regime and became a fine specimen of health and ceased menstruating. Thereafter she had three children, all delivered naturally and painlessly and never menstruated again in her life.' (Shelton advocated a high-raw low-dairy vegetarian diet.)
Viktoras Kulvinskas in 'Survival in the 21st Century' reports the case of a woman treated by Dr G S White, who changed her diet to vegan. '[She] flowed bright blood five or six days of each month [and] had such severe cramps that she could not hold her position as stenographer. [He treated her for six months, after which her]periods changed to half a day mucous flow with no blood at all. She was able to resume her work and did so for two or three years. She married and has had three daughters. Each of them had a mucous flow for about half a day each month and are in perfect health. One is married and had a healthy baby girl.'
Thomas Lodi MD ('Get Fresh' magazine, Summer 08): '...it has been my experience over the past eight years working with women eating raw, vegan diets that the menstrual cycles become scant and few, while quality of life and fertility not only persist but improve.'
HAVE WOMEN ALWAYS HAD A MONTHLY BLOOD FLOW?
Simple answer is: we don't know.
Not many ancient writings discuss menstruation. The stock answer to this is 'ah, that's because it was taboo.' What if, what if...it's because it didn't actually used to happen much?!
Here's a mention:
Leviticus 15:19: 'And if a woman has an issue, and her issue in her flesh be blood, she shall be put apart seven days; and whosoever toucheth her shall be unclean.'
Note the word 'IF'. Not 'WHEN'. This suggests that perhaps women didn't habitually menstruate. ('Unclean' as used in those times meant 'unhealthy'). Also, elsewhere in Leviticus, it describes the period as the 'blood of the purification'. As if the body is cleaning itself via the blood flow.
In ancient Japan also, menstruating women were segregated. After their period of seclusion ended, they had to wash in the river or sea.
We've been taught that people then knew less than we do nowadays. Could it be that they actually knew more? I'll explain why I think that could be the case...
'WOMB LINING' PUZZLE
'Little bleeding', 'no observed flow', 'tablespoon of blood', 'half a day mucous flow' - doesn't seem to make sense, does it, when we've been led to understand that the 'womb lining' has to be shed each month. But, many women in developed countries following healthy diets/lifestyles, some indigenous women, and gorillas, don't seem to be shedding any womb lining, but are still having babies!
Why is that many, if not most, women in developed countries do appear to shed a lot of gunge along with the blood, but the most natural-living women don't appear to?
One theory, (and this is backed to some extent by scientific observations of monkeys), is that the womb lining can, instead of being shed, be reabsorbed by the body when not needed as a bed for the fertilised egg.
'If the endometrial tissues are not needed - in a truly healthy woman, as in animals in their wild state, those tissues are mostly reabsorbed. What remains is expelled over a short period of time as a slight mucus discharge.' (Dr H G Beiler)
So - could it be that the womb lining that the average woman has built up contains toxic substances due to things ingested and the body is saying 'No way - don't want that reabsorbed thank you!' and chooses instead to dump it? It's certainly likely that, in the average woman, the womb lining will contain toxic substances, as, when pregnant, it develops into the placenta, and we know that toxins on the placenta can be harmful to a developing baby.
Of course, if the egg has been fertilised, the lining will need to stay. But it's possible that the body could find other ways to detox itself of any poisons in early pregnancy, eg via morning sickness (discussed later).
And/or perhaps it's simply the case that the unhealthier the woman, the thicker the womb lining will become. And, connected with the argument above, this could be because a lot of material/blood is being deposited there that is not deposited in the healthier woman, or the primate.
SO WHY DO THE BODIES OF 'CIVILISED' WOMEN GENERALLY BLEED SO MUCH?
'Civilised', 'developed' - difficult to choose words that won't offend someone, but...you know what I mean, I hope.
Most women in our society don't bleed just a drop or two, or very lightly, as do many women living natural lifestyles, and primates. They bleed lots. Yes, the blood does flow. And very few men reading this will have any idea just how much! For days - often a week.
So here come the radical views. They're mainly writings from early in the 20th century (as, from the later 20th century, when radical feminist writings took hold, anything suggesting that menstruation was anything less than a wonderful thing would have been 'deposited' on from a great height - would anyone have dared?) Basically, the idea presented in the following writings is that of menstruation as 'dis-ease'.
'Menstruation is a haemorrhage. No authority on earth can successfully maintain that a haemorrhage is natural and normal, no matter in what part of the body it occurs.' (Dr G R Clements, 'Female Degeneration')
'Women are beginning to see the mistake of not questioning every aspect of their mental, physical and bodily circumstance. If one wrong condition in the body is not alleviated, it will compound itself and lead to other, worse conditions...when the organs of elimination are overburdened, the body stores some of the waste and then seeks other avenues (not designed for elimination of waste disposal.) (Dr Schroyer, 'The Physiological Enigma of Women').
'...toxic blood seeks an outlet through the womb via the menstrual function...The quality of menstrual blood varies according to the chemistry of the toxic material. Bright red, profuse, odourless blood accompanied by severe uterine cramps indicates that the preponderant irritant comes from improper digestion of sugars and starches. The offending toxins are acids which have failed to be completely oxidized to carbon dioxide and water. On the other hand, if the menstrual blood is dark and odorous, clotted and stringy, the toxins of protein indigestion or putrefaction are present...thus it is obvious that under chemical duress the uturus, which nature developed as the organ of reproduction, can become an organ for the elimination of putrid waste.' (H G Bieler, 'Natural Way to Sexual Health'). (Old Jewish writings from the 'Talmud' also distinguished between different colours of menstrual blood).
Interestingly, in 'Diseases of Women and Children', Dr Tilden related the amount of menstrual bleeding to the amount of discharge women produce at other times of the month, which he felt was also a means by which the body eliminates toxic matter. (The Old Testament records that the ancient Israelites viewed any discharge, from men or women, as unhealthy, and is in fact similar to the modern 'alternative' health view that when the body discharges, via whatever outlet, it is trying to purify itself, to clean itself of toxic substances.)
To many feminists, the idea of the menstrual blood as being 'impure' is heresy, but...'The toxicity of menstrual blood has been well substantiated. Mach and Lubin (Journal of Pharmacology and Experimental Therapy 22:413 (1924)) showed that the blood plasma, milk, sweat and saliva of menstruating women contains a substance that is highly toxic to protoplasm of living plants. This toxic substance is not present during the intermenstrual periods.' Even the sweat and saliva! And these toxins are not present when not menstruating. It's as if the body is 'gathering together' toxins in the period preceding menstruation, prior to expulsion at menstruation, to get the body all nice and clean again for possible impregnation the following month. But, sure, the study's old, and if anyone knows whether any subsequent studies have refuted it, let me know.
MORE ON DIET
Health researchers and writers Leslie and Susanna Kenton found their periods changed after switching to a diet high in raw fruits and vegetables:
'Women on an all-raw or high-raw diet often report that menstrual problems such as bloating, pre-menstrual tension and fatigue improve greatly after two or three months. For some of them the improvement is so dramatic that they are not aware of their periods until they arrive. This is something we discovered ourselves and at first we thought we were unique. Then we spoke to numerous other women who said they had had a similar experience. Heavy periods become lighter - a period that lasts six or seven days can be reduced to as few as one or two. In some women, particularly those who do not eat meat, dairy products or large quantities of nuts, periods even cease altogether.'
Bellgene Chung, who healed herself of cervical cancer, and believes raw food helped her do that, has researched menstruation and diet:
'Menstruation (bleeding) is NOT a necessity following ovulation...We have been conditioned to believe that menstruation goes hand in hand with ovulation...Most women, including myself, experience menstruation because they are not truly clean on the inside...Menstruation is the body's desperate attempt to free itself from toxins, and many females experience PMS in addition to the needless bleeding. Abdominal pain (cramping), headaches, fatigue and irritability do NOT signify an optimal state of health, yet most of us brush these symptoms off as the norm. If you feel such symptoms, this is how your body is communicating that it wants you to change what you are doing; we must listen to Nature's messages...Presently, on a mainly raw diet, I do not even realize that I am menstruating until I feel moist and decide to take a peek'.
(re PMS - could it be that we also accumulate psychological toxins...building up just pre menstruation, to be expelled (phew!) at menstruation?)
SO WHAT HAPPENS AT PREGNANCY, OR AT THE MENOPAUSE?
These are my suggestions only; they've come from my 'wrestles' with the various theories.
When we become pregnant, we stop ovulating. So, there's no longer any egg released to be fertilised. So there's no unfertilised egg to be shed. So there's no monthly 'loss' which the body can efficiently take advantage of to offload toxic matter. And the womb lining can't be discarded, as if it was the embryo would go along with it.
So...if the theories above are correct, the body could have a problem, in that it may have accumulated toxic matter, but its monthly outlet via the uterus and vagina, is firmly closed. So, it will have to find some alternative way to expel any gathered toxins. Cue morning sickness. As a non-doctor, non-nutritionist, non-scientist, I'm going to suggest that morning sickness could be a wonderful outlet for detoxification.
And others feel similarly. Natural Hygienist Joyce M Kling: 'Morning sickness is a body purification effort to create a better environment for the fetus.' Some say that morning sickness is all down to 'hormones'. Well, I don't see why hormones can't be involved in the purification process, and I can only say that if I were pregnant I would not do anything in any way to stop or 'cure' morning sickness, if it occurred. That is because I believe that anything that suppresses morning sickness will mean that unwanted toxins may stay in our bodies - with possibly adverse consequences for the unborn baby. Not proven by science. Just the theory of a madwoman.
Menopause: as in pregnancy, the body is no longer ovulating, therefore no monthly loss of unfertilised egg, so, again, if the theories above are correct, that exit for toxins is again closed. Thus the body will look for other ways to detoxify. I'd suggest that one way in which it will do this is via the skin - cue 'hot flushes'.
FOR THOSE WHOSE PERIODS HAVE GONE AWOL (OR AT LEAST APPEAR TO HAVE) ON RAW
First, watch very carefully! It could simply be that you have had a tiny blood loss, but that this is so far removed from a period-as-you-know-it, that you haven't noticed. A spot or two, or perhaps a pink discharge, around the time that you'd expect a period, could well mean that ovulation has taken place 14 days previously.
If you've detected nothing for months, not even a spot, I'd understand why you might feel concerned. After all, a teeny amount of bleeding at least is reassuring to our conditioned minds that ovulation has occurred, and it's good to know that it is occurring if we wish to become pregnant at some time. So the key thing then is to establish whether you are in fact ovulating.
The accounts I've described suggest that, if you feel healthy generally, there is a far higher likelihood that you are ovulating and that all is well, than not. Please don't worry if anyone on a conventional diet tells you that perhaps you are not ovulating because you are 'starving' yourself, or 'malnourished'. That theory really doesn't hold water, because millions of starving, malnourished women in the world continue to have babies, so clearly ovulate. Secondly, even if it were correct, you are just about as far from being malnourished as it is possible to be. People on standard cooked diets are often 'malnourished'. If you are on a diet high in raw plant foods, you are likely to be in the best health you've experienced for a long time.
So, having said that you're very likely to be ovulating fine, how can you know for sure? Here are two things you could do to know for 'almost sure'! Firstly, you can take your temperature daily and see if there's a slight rise mid-cycle. The rise indicates ovulation. Secondly, observe the state of vaginal discharge/mucus daily (if any - see Tilden above!). At ovulation it should change from being relatively opaque and thick to thinner and transparent with the consistency of raw egg white (sorry, lifetime vegans who've never had an egg - you'll have to get hold of one.). Try putting some of the mucus on a tissue and folding then unfolding it - if you see any 'strings', and it's thin and transparent, it's likely ovulatory mucus.
If you've detected nothing, not even a spot, nor a temperature rise, nor a change in mucus, then it would be wise to follow Thomas Lodi MD's advice: 'absence of menstruation can sometimes (my italics) denote an underlying hormonal problem...consult a suitably qualified holistic physician who can carry out the relevant checks.' Bear in mind, in the UK at least, medical doctors will rarely act until periods have been absent for six consecutive months.
I believe however that the vast majority of women on raw vegan or low-dairy raw vegetarian diets who are experiencing scant, or no (observed!) blood flow are doing so for the very best and healthiest reasons rather than there being anything wrong.
CONCLUSION
Was pristine woman walking in paradise dripping blood for a few days each month? I don't think so.
Are periods normal? Yes - in most 'developed' societies, and particularly amongst women on standard cooked omnivorous diets. Are they healthy? Periods-as-generally-understood? I don't think so.
Do I still have them? Well - er... yes. At 50, I do still have periods, but obviously have mixed feelings here! Pre-raw, I was rather pleased that my body was still bleeding each month, but now I'm obviously not so sure. It's all slightly confused by the fact that I'm an old hag and therefore may not be ovulating regularly, but I can say (way-hay!) that, since raw (I'm almost 100% raw, but my diet's not perfect), my periods are much lighter and more infrequent. Phew.
The main aim of this article has been to challenge the prevailing view of periods as 'healthy', to challenge the things we've been brought up to believe about them, and to reassure those women whose menstrual flow has changed since going raw that this is probably not something to be concerned about, that it is just as likely (if not more likely) to be a sign that health is improving, rather than the opposite.
It's also been to suggest that a flow of blood is our body's taking advantage of this outlet to eliminate toxins. Perhaps periods - the pain, the blood flow, PMT - were rightly named a 'curse' - a curse on us for falling short of living how we are meant to live - physically and psychologically. But, as Proverbs 26:2 says 'as the bird by wandering, as the swallow by flying, so the curse causeless shall not come.' Curses have causes. Remove the causes and the curse goes.
When we go raw, we are going out of step with what 99% of the world says on diet. In this article, I've taken the same path on menstruation. I hope I have, at least, provided food for thought.
POSTSCRIPT
This article received more comment, here, and on raw food forums, than any other article I've written. The majority has been positive (thank you).
Predictably, the content of some of the negative comments has indicated that posters have not actually read the article carefully. In some cases what I have said has been misrepresented. Just to clarify, I have suggested (and have made it clear that I do not have medical qualifications) that minimal bleeding (along with no bleeding) may well be a sign of good health, but that the 'flow' most people understand as a 'period' is unhealthy. I do not advocate that anyone 'targets' to eradicate all bleeding and feels that they have in any way 'failed' if that has not been achieved!
I have also made a clear distinction between menstrual flow, and ovulation, and again it should be obvious to anyone who has read the article that I regard ovulation as healthy, and lack of ovulation as unhealthy.
I am always open to critical comment, as long as the poster has read the article and the comment is positive, constructive, and substantiated. Indeed, if there are any flaws in my logic, I would like to be made aware of them, and will research further.
And although the majority of comments have been positive and open-minded, I was sad to see the article denounced on a cooked vegan forum for being a possible trigger for eating disorders! Nowhere in my article do I suggest anyone starves themselves - one of the many wonderful things about the raw (or high-raw), vegan (or 'low-dairy vegetarian') diet is that we can eat all we like, enjoy our food, 'eat freely', without any issues. 'Eating disorders' are firmly linked to the crazy diet and lifestyle we think of as 'normal'. In the event that someone did totally misunderstand what I am saying in the article and develop an 'eating disorder' as a result, that surely has to be weighed against its effect (hopefully) in helping to move women away from the standard cooked diet (often high in processed food and fat) that is causing unnecessary suffering and premature death to millions.
And, finally but very importantly, if English is not your first language, and you have used a Google translation, please bear in mind that meanings can be changed significantly in translation! I've just seen my article discussed on a Danish forum and was horrified to see (OK, on translating the Danish back to English) a poster saying that I'd said that the eggs (my italics) we emit are a consequence of poisons in the body! Of course I've said nothing of the sort.

HI EVERYONE!  12th April 2017 - Thank you all for your comments of the last eight years.  I've published most of them (bar the really crazy ones, although I think I've included a couple of those even...), and replied, but....it's eight years ago now that I wrote this article, so can I ask for no more comments please?  I hope the article continues to be of help/interest/comfort, but I am going to have the draw the line re answering now.  Thank you for your understanding, and best wishes!

Spinach And The Oxalic Acid Thing

Oh, don't we raw fooders love our spinach! It's usually up near the top of any poll of raw fooders' favourite foods, and, raw and cooked alike, everyone knows spinach is 'good for us'.

And it is. But there's one little 'spanner in the works' that pops up with some regularity on the raw food forums, and that's....the oxalic acid thing.

Oxalic acid is contained in many foods eaten by raw fooders, and 'significant' amounts have been found in spinach, kale, Swiss Chard, 'fat hen' (lambsquarters), watercress, purslane, parsley, beets, bell peppers, tomatoes, sweet potatoes, cabbage, cacao, nuts (eg almonds, cashews), seeds (particularly whole sesame seeds), buckwheat, some fruits (eg plum, starfruit, mango, most berries), some pulses, ginger. Wow - all those! So do we need to rule all those foods out of our diet? In most cases, no.

Oxalic acid has been shown to bind with calcium (and magnesium, iron, sodium and potassium) in the intestine, thus interfering with the absorption of these. And it's also been linked with the formation of kidney stones. Aargh!

So - do we need to worry...about spinach?!

OK. My throat always 'burns' when I eat Swiss Chard, which is my body telling me the oxalic acid in Swiss Chard is too high for me. It sometimes burns after beets. It's burned after spinach very occasionally (when mature/seeded), but for some reason only when blended or juiced (and not always). It's burned (lots) after black sesame tahini, but not after white sesame tahini (although made with whole seeds).

Now, to anyone reading whose throat doesn't 'burn' after these foods (the majority, I'm guessing!), I'm not going to claim that my body is 'cleaner' or more sensitive in any way than yours. It could simple be that, being an older woman, I'm being given a clear message to stay away from certain foods at certain times as I need all the calcium I can get! Those who have been following an all-raw diet for a while, who can be said to be reasonably in tune with their bodies' actual rather than perverted desires, who haven't experienced any such sensation from these foods, are most likely going to suffer no adverse consequences from continuing to eat them.

And, although my body does appear to protest against the oxalic acid in certain raw foods at certain times, many raw food experts feel that it's cooked, rather than raw oxalic acid, that causes problems:

David Wolfe ('Sunfood Diet Success System') says that the oxalic acid only binds with calcium in the body when it is cooked, and that this can lead to kidney stones. Although, he does go on to contradict himself slightly by warning readers to avoid even raw oxalic-acid-containing foods if they experience kidney pains hours after eating.

Tonya Zavaste also believes that it's cooked oxalic acid that's the issue. 'When cooked, it is not actually a nutrient in the body, so the body naturally processes it into the most convenient form to be excreted, usually through the urine. Oxalic acid will combine with other substances during this process and forms a salt known as an oxalate. Oxalates combine with calcium to form calcium oxalate. Kidney stones are 70-90% calcium oxalate.'

Indeed, Dr Gabriel Cousens ('Conscious Eating') says 'organic oxalic acid, defined as that which occurs in nature in its raw form (my italics), can actually be beneficial to the system.'

Natural Hygienist Nora Lenz says that oxalic acid is at a low level only in young or baby spinach but higher in mature spinach and other chewy leaves (which is what I've found).

And Dr Norman W Walker (the famous advocate of raw foods and juicing who lived to 99) explains why oxalic acid can in fact be a very good thing! He says that it is encourages peristalsis (the wave-like motions that push food through our digestive systems). Slightly contradicting others quoted above, he says that the oxalic acid in raw veg does combine with calcium, but that if both elements are in raw state 'the result is a beneficial constructive combination.' But he also warns that 'when the oxalic acid has become inorganic by cooking or processing the foods that contain it, then this acid forms an interlocking compound with the calcium, even combining with the calcium in other foods eaten during the same meal, destroying the nourishing value of both. This results in such a serious deficiency of calcium that it has been known to cause decomposition of the bones.' So, again, thumbs up for raw, thumbs down for cooked.

I believe that 'instinctive eating' can come to our rescue here.

We should avoid foods that result in uncomfortable sensations in our mouth and throat. This may seem like common-sense, but, for example, have you ever felt a 'gritty', 'chalky' feeling in your teeth when eating certain foods, or shortly after them? Well, rather than saying to ourselves 'oh, it's making my teeth feel gritty', and continuing to eat, we should...stop eating. It's been suggested that this sensation is due to oxalate crystals leaking out of food as we chew. And if we do experience the 'burning' sensation in our throats, however mild, we should stop eating immediately, rather than ignoring it. When I last experienced it, in a spinach and banana smoothie, I ignored my body's messages and, being a greedy pig, drank the whole lot. That was daft.

However, if we do experience these sensations, my feeling is that we shouldn't over-react and 'ban' these foods wholesale from our diets. As I suggested earlier, it could be that our bodies are fine with them sometimes, but not at others.

Some advise 'rotating' greens just in case. To me, that all seems a bit complicated.

As well as simply stopping eating when we experience adverse sensations, I believe a more workable policy is simply to eat freely of foods when they taste good to us, and stop eating at the point at which they start to taste 'so-so', that is, when the 'instinctive eating' 'alliesthetic taste change' occurs that tells us we have had enough.

So, with foods such as spinach, we should eat as much as we like - the words 'we like' being key. Packing in tons of spinach when we really don't feel like it - because we've been persuaded by someone else we should - because it's 'good for us', because we're trying to meet a stipulated poundage/percentage of greens or whatever, is, in my opinion (following the principles of instinctive eating), not a good idea, as we'll likely be ingesting far more of it than our bodies actually want.

We should eat young leaves rather than old, tough leaves. Again, this seems like common-sense, but unfortunately raw fooders try to circumvent common-sense and dupe their bodies by chucking into the blender things their bodies would never have been naturally attracted to.

When we go raw, there's so much information, so much conflicting advice, so many dire warnings...it seems that for just about every food there'll be someone saying we shouldn't eat it for this reason or that. This can make us feel unnecessarily anxious.

Provided we eat foods that we are genuinely attracted to, and in amounts only up to the point at which we are still enjoying the taste, only positive effects will result from our raw food diets. I have spinach at least every other day, sometimes consecutive days, and sometimes lots!

As a further comfort, consider this, from Dr Doug Graham: 'Typically, foods that have high oxalic acid also have high calcium. They buffer each other.' So, even if oxalic acid is affecting calcium absorption, that's outweighed by the fact that there's so much more calcium in spinach than the average vegetable in the first place that there'll still be plenty absorbed!

So, if warnings about oxalic acid have in any way put a damper on your spinach-eating, I hope this article has reassured. In general, we should continue to eat and enjoy raw, undamaged, young spinach for all the very good things contained in it!

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?