| Some raw-food associates
told me how much they liked Doug Graham's presentations over those of
the normal confused and incoherent ramblings of the average raw food guru,
and that he used the pseudo-dimension: "percent calories from xxx"
[hereinafter PCF]. I listened to a couple of Graham's lectures and
he seemed much more rational and intellectually functional than the average
raw food 'expert', with the glaring exception of his use of the fallacious
and misleading PCF concept. I e-mailed him and asked him to read
my critique of this nonsensical nutribabble and
respond in detail.
My intent was to examine this bogus concept in
a mutually-cooperative manner, given what appeared to be Doug's functioning
intellect, and that he would yield to the fundamental structure of arithmetic
and thus stop popularizing it further. His own intellectual integrity
would be enhanced as a result, also. Mutual cooperation is the only
way to examine any concept.
Strangely, it became more and more clear that
Doug's apparent intellect was illusory and probably the result of lucky
lifts of the better concepts in the raw food literature.
What followed was a bizarre game of hide-and-seek
from what initially appeared to Doug, but in reality turned up to be someone
on his staff who was seemingly really responsible for the insults, refusal
to deal with my concerns in an intellectually-honest manner, and apparently
who also forged his name on the e-mails.
As a result of several hard disk wipes, I no longer
have the first couple of e-mails, allegedly from Doug. My repeated
requests for the old e-mails have been totally and intentionally ignored,
as you will see below. However, the more recent ones have exactly
the same 'style' of superficial praise, total avoidance of the issue,
and attempts at usurping total control as the first superficial 'responses'.
The real writer apparently has no understanding of polite academic
debate, so was neither polite, nor academic.
The first "response" to my request that
Doug read and respond in detail to my critique was some initial praise
about my writings, but that the term PCF is used widely, and some other
evasive nonsense. My reply was to the effect that Doug had made
a whole career out of destroying very popular, but very erroneous, ideas
in public, like the human eating of animal products and cooking. Certainly,
as a raw food guru, HE knew that truth is not determined by the majority
vote of the ignorant. I asked again for a point-by-point response
to my critique, and for a detailed explanation of why he thought the concept
was valid. Both being absolutely imperative for a cooperative examination
of the issue by us. No real response to these simple requests ever
came.
So, these are the e-mails I do have. This
is after being previously insulted by being trivialized and ignored.
=====
From: "Laurie" <lforti@ecologos.org>
To: "doug graham" <doctordouggraham@yahoo.com>
Subject: percent of calories as xxx""
Date: Sun, 5 Dec 2004 07:32:42 -1000
I have not been able to follow up with our conversation
about "percent
of calories as xxx" due to a computer melt-down and various other
intrusions.
If you have our previous e-mails, please send me a copy,
as mine were
lost.
Pressing on: I have presented a detailed article on the arithmetic
absurdity of the new, intentionally-misleading, pseudo-unit from the
nutritional establishment: "percent of calories as xxx".
http://www.ecologos.org/pcf.htm
You have made some superficial, albeit polite, non-responses
wherein you
claim that since lots of people use it, that makes it valid somehow; this
is
nonsense, as you well know. Lots of people believe eating dead animals
and
cooked food is OK, too... Truth is not determined by the majority vote
of
the ignorant!
The proper and intellectually-ethical response will be an
attempted and
detailed refutation of -each- point I make in the article. Failing that,
it
would be honest to permanently discontinue the use of that
arithmetically-absurd unit, and advise your lecture attendees to do so
also,
as its use creates nothing but confusion and misunderstanding. There is
way
too much of this in contemporary nutribabble!
Now, I know you may be somewhat embarrassed by not being
able to deal
with 5th grade arithmetic, but that is quite common: ask the next 10
"adults" you see to add 1/2 + 1/3. But, that embarrassment is
far less than
supporting a false concept in public.
If you can't handle the arithmetic, consult your local 12
year old for
help; if that is too embarrassing, go to the nearest high school, change
your name and wear a disguise, but DO discuss the falsity and arithmetic
absurdity with someone qualified to teach arithmetic. Anyone with a grasp
of baby arithmetic will support my analysis fully.
IF you can refute any of my criticisms of the concept, please
do so,
recognizing that the search for the truth is a cooperative effort, and
correcting our false beliefs is a necessary part of developing intellectual
maturity.
I await your detailed response.
"Let Us Have The Truth though The Heavens Fall!"
Laurie
=====
No response.
=====
From: "Laurie" <laurie@ecologos.org>
To: "doug graham" <doctordouggraham@yahoo.com>
Subject: Bogus PCF concept.
Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2005 14:41:12 -1000
I must apologize for the long delay in our e-mail conversation
about
"Percent calories from xxx" which was caused by horrendous connectivity
issues lasting months. Living in a tent on top of the world's most active
volcano does not lead to a high tech, megabit lifestyle<g>.
To review, I have written a detailed critique of the
arithmetically-absurd concept: "Percent calories from xxx",
which is
currently in vogue in nutribabble circles. http://www.ecologos.org/pcf.htm
As a result of 'technical difficulties', I have lost our
previous e-mail
exchanges on this issue; could you please send me this? Thanks.
Since you are propagating this arithmetically-absurd concept
in public,
I am trying to relieve you of the future embarrassment caused by such
propagation in an attempt to support your intellectual integrity.
To date, you have not responded meaningfully to my detailed
analysis of
the PCF mythology, other than saying that a lot of people use it. I am
sure
you would agree that the truth is not determined by the majority vote
of the
ignorant.
To deal with the issue in an intellectually-honest manner,
it is
necessary for you to write a detailed analysis of WHY the concept is valid,
in your view; AND refute ALL my arguments as to why it is an
arithmetically-absurd concept that should be abandoned for the sake of
meaningful communication. Thus, we may be able to analyze both 'sides'
of
this issue and come to a mutual conclusion. Failing to support your
position and/or refute mine compels you to accept my position and stop
propagating this false concept.
Now, I understand that the average 'adult' is totally innumerate;
they
can not add 1/2 + 1/3. If you have forgotten the 5th grade concept of
'percent', perhaps you could visit the local school and get a refresher??
It's not your fault that the educational system in the US has been
intentionally disassembled post-Vietnam, nor that the average 'adult'
does
not use percentages in their "real life".
Laurie
=====
No response.
=====
So another copy of
the last:
From: "Laurie" <lforti@ecologos.org>
To: "doug graham" <doctordouggraham@yahoo.com>
Subject: Bogus "Percent calories from xxx" propaganda
Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2005 08:09:18 -1000
=====
A response??
From: "Laurie Masters" <LaurieM@vibrantliving.org>
To: <lforti@ecologos.org>
Subject: Fw: Bogus "Percent calories from xxx" propaganda
Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2005 10:56:00 -0800
Laurie, hi.
I am Laurie Masters, Doug Graham's editor. I have been party to all of
your communications with Doug about percentage of calories. I have read
many of your writings over the years, and it is clear that you are a
seeker of truth and have a lot of excellent and carefully considered
points to share on many subjects.
This is the one and only reply of any substance that you will receive
from anyone on Doug's team. I am not going to take the time to make my
points hang together well. Here are some quick and dirty thoughts...then
I will get back to work.
1. Colin Campbell's brilliant new book The China Study uses the
percentage of calories model throughout, to excellent advantage. He is
one of the finest, most respected researchers on the planet. Enough
said.
2. We understand that our digestive system is not a bomb calorimeter.
3. We know that "calorie-equivalents" of protein/fat/carbs are
not
"equivalent" in any meaningful sense.
4. We are more than aware that protein, fat, and carbs are NOT all used
for energy.
5. Of course caloric density and actual quantities must be considered
in
addition to percentages. Without them, percentage of calories can
generate major misperceptions.
Still, thinking in terms of percentage of calories consumed can be of
tremendous value in getting people to think about what they are eating.
a.. People have been taught in terms of weight percentages, rather
than calories. In the case of high-water-content foods, this model has
the potential to give equally absurd and misleading messages. For
example, people think they are drinking low-fat "2%" milk, when
35% of
its calories are from fat.
b.. A huge faction of the raw-food world (I will not mention names)
is
teaching people to think in terms of "percentage of high-fat foods."
Take a typical "large" raw-food salad with 44 ounces of "vegetables"
and
"just" 12 ounces of fatty foods. 12 out of 44 is already plenty
high in
fat (27%)...but in reality the meal is three-quarters fat:
Vegetable salad (44 ounces): 12 oz. lettuce, 24 oz. tomatoes, 4
oz. celery, 4 oz. cabbage=239 calories, 25 calories fat
Fat accompaniments (12 ounces):=20
A "sprinkling" of 40 pine nuts (4 ounces)=763 calories,
649 =
calories fat
2 tablespoons (about 2 ounces) of flax oil=240 calories, 240 =
calories fat.
1 avocado (6 ounces)=284 calories, 219 calories fat.
Total: 1526 calories, 1133 calories fat (74% of calories)
The above is by no means an exaggerated example of the fat proportion
raw fooders are eating, consistently, at every meal, day in and day out.
(If anything, the proportion of vegetables/vegetable fruits may be
skewed to the high side). When people see this, they are dumbfounded.
Their eyes open and they begin making healthful changes. Their cells
become reoxygenated; their candida, fatigue, and other blood-sugar
problems disappear; and they stop whining that raw food doesn't work.
There is great value in getting this message across to people, in our
opinion.
We realize that you would love to go several rounds on this matter, but
I have already written far more than I intended to.
Peace,
Laurie Masters, freelance editor
Precision Revision
LaurieM@VibrantLiving.org
408-289-1011
"I turn what you wrote into what you meant!"
Hmm, still, no honest
response from Doug. Is he just disinterested in his own intellectual
integrity and public image; has he actually hired this evasive, non-responsive,
insulting person to protect him from his fans and fifth grade arithmetic??
Does he not care if he propagates nonsense in public as long as
the sales are up?
By: "I
have been party to all of your communications with Doug about percentage
of calories", does she mean she diverted
his e-mail and forged his name on the previous non-responses?? Note
the superficial complement, quite similar to those on "Doug's"
original e-mails, and then the attempted take-over of absolute control.
LM seems to have control issues, in addition to arithmetic ones.
=====
Having been repeatedly
trivialized and mistreated by yet another jejune "response"
I respond:
From: "Laurie" <lforti@ecologos.org>
To: "Laurie Masters" <LaurieM@vibrantliving.org>
Subject: Re: Bogus "Percent calories from xxx" propaganda
Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2005 16:13:27 -1000
> I am Laurie Masters, Doug Graham's editor.
One of the functions of an editor is
to correct errors in facts and
logic.
> This is the one and only reply of any substance that you will receive
from
> anyone on Doug's team.
I have not initiated conversation with
"anyone on Doug's team", I have
written to Doug directly, as it is his intellectual integrity on the line,
and I expect the respect of his personal responses and a cooperative effort
to deal with the issue. It is in his best interests to do so.
I have no interest in the opinions, evasions, or obfuscations of
"anyone on Doug's team".
> I am not going to take the time to make my points hang together
well.
Trivializing the issue will not solve
it; I am tired of being insulted
like this.
1. Colin Campbell's ... Enough said.
Repeating the errors of others does
not make them correct; truth is not
determined by majority vote of the ignorant.
But, thanks for the connection; I will contact him and see if he
is any
more intellectually honest.
> Still, thinking in terms of percentage of calories consumed can
be of
> tremendous value in getting people to think about what they are eating.
Arithmetic absurdity is not a teaching
tool. You do not understand the
issue; it violates the fundamental structure of arithmetic. The people
who
made this up to obfuscate the contents of fruits/vegs vs. animals foods
do
not have the authority to change the structure of arithmetic.
> a.. People have been taught in terms of weight percentages, rather
than
> calories.
And, weight percent is the STANDARD
comparative metric in ALL of real
SCIENCE. "Nutrition" is not a science.
> In the case of high-water-content foods, this model has the potential
to
> give equally absurd and misleading messages. For example, people
think
> they are drinking low-fat "2%" milk, when 35% of its calories
are from
> fat.
It really IS only 2% fat. 2 grams
of fat in 100 grams of milk.
The percent of calories is misleading and arithmetically absurd, because
an infinite number of "foods" with widely differing compositions
will
produce the SAME "%cal from xxx..." Thus, the concept is quantitatively
meaningless.
> b.. A huge faction of the raw-food world (I will not mention names)
is
> teaching people to think ...
I have never seen any raw food guru
make ANY attempt at teaching people
to THINK; their raps contain horrendous errors at the most fundamental
level
and most could not pass an 8th grade science quiz. Yet, they babble on,
mindlessly repeating the most outrageous nonsense; "living enzymes",
"Brix =
nutritional quality", this PCF thing, ...
You will not turn back their tide of nonsense with a bigger one
of your
own.<G>
It is a fundamental FACT of chemistry that all chemical reactions,
including digestion and assimilation, occur because of exchange of physical
material, which is measured in grams, for example. Chemistry happens
molecule by molecule, gram by gram.
Digestion does NOT proceed as a function of the internal percentages
of
an arithmetically-absurd construct.
> ... but in reality the meal is three-quarters fat:
No, "3/4 fat" means
75 g fat/100 g total.
If you fail to understand the profound difference between an unspecified
percentage, which is ALWAYS percent by weight throughout all of real science,
and the PCF spectrum, then you need to seek out an grade school arithmetic
teacher to help you by that snag. Freely interchanging wt% and PCF is
a
SURE sign that the person does not understand the underlying arithmetic;
they are not synonymous.
> Vegetable salad (44 ounces): 12 oz. lettuce, 24 oz. tomatoes, 4
oz.
> celery, 4 oz. cabbage=239 calories, 25 calories fat
> Fat accompaniments (12 ounces):
> A "sprinkling" of 40 pine nuts (4 ounces)=763 calories,
649
> calories fat
> 2 tablespoons (about 2 ounces) of flax oil=240 calories, 240
> calories fat.
> 1 avocado (6 ounces)=284 calories, 219 calories fat.
> Total: 1526 calories, 1133 calories fat (74% of calories)
Now, let's see what really happened in real
chemical terms: grams.
The kind of 'ounces' for the oil was conveniently ignored, above.
| |
pro |
fat |
cho |
| lettuce |
4 |
1 |
11.2 |
| toms |
5.5 |
2 |
31.4 |
| celery |
0.8 |
0.2 |
3.4 |
| cabbage |
1.4 |
0.2 |
6.1 |
| nuts |
13.2 |
69.3 |
21.9 |
| oil |
0 |
56 |
0 |
| avo |
3.4 |
25. |
14.5 |
| |
|
|
|
| totals |
28.3 |
153.7 |
186.2 |
| real %'s |
7.7 |
41.7 |
50.0 |
so, your claim: "in reality the meal
is three-quarters fat" is
absolutely wrong.
In addition, the example is absurd;
it would make more sense to tell
people to not eat nuts and avos if that is your recommendation.
Nuts/seeds should not be eaten since they contain far too much
protein
and fat to be digested. In addition, the oil coats the chewed particles
and
that further reduces digestibility. Then there is the cortisol issue.
All these are verifiably valid reasons not to consume nuts/seeds
and
they do not require betting one's credibility and reputation on a
nonsensical, intentionally misleading concept and demonstrating ignorance
of
grade school arithmetic.
> The above is by no means an exaggerated example of the fat proportion
raw
> fooders are eating, consistently, at every meal, day in and day out.
I am, and I live with several, raw fooders, and that diet is totally
ridiculous and certainly not a common one. Perhaps in the cold,
but we are
tropical apes and living in the cold temperatures is the problem which
results in excessive fat consumption.
> There is great value in getting this message across to people, in
our
> opinion.
The message is: do NOT eat excessive
fat and/or protein. That "message"
is not achieved with phony arithmetic hand waving that negates the
credibility of anyone propagating it.
> We realize that you would love to go several rounds on this matter,
...
NO; I would like Doug to honestly examine
this issue.
> but I have already written far more than I intended to.
This is not about quantity; it is about
quality.
I have no interest in 'communicating' with you; did you really
forge
Doug's signature to the previous e-mails?? Why don't you respect my request
for the past set of e-mails??
> Laurie Masters, freelance editor
Ah, no relevant education?? How many
years did you sit in college level
chemistry classes?? More than my 7?
Laurie
=====
Wait, could this be an honest response from
Doug??
From: "Laurie Masters" <LaurieM@vibrantliving.org>
To: <lforti@ecologos.org>
Subject: Fw: Bogus "Percent calories from xxx" propaganda
Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2005 23:46:24 -0800
Laurie,
- You would like Doug to reply. My mother would like me to go to
Catholic church. Both are not going to happen.
- You make plenty of great points. Have you ever noticed that your
presentation style generates less-than-receptive audiences?
Farewell
-----
Note that, apparently, Doug has no interest
in the subject, his intellectual integrity, or that LM has diverted my
attempts to communicate with him. SHE is in control!! And,
of course, the obligatory personal insult.
Then, another (forged) "response??
From: Drdouggrahamuk@aol.com
Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2005 05:22:29 EST
Subject: Last Word: Bogus "Percent calories from xxx" propaganda
To: LaurieM@VibrantLiving.org, lforti@ecologos.org
Each of us must present to the world the face that we feel will
be the most
useful in communicating our desires to the world.
While I understand the % wt concept, it is misleading, imo, without
including the % cal concept, and visa versa. It is just as easy to misunderstand
issues of caloric density as it is food quantity.
By presenting both % wt and % cal in my book I believe I have covered
both
methods fairly, and adequately to clear make my point while utilizing
portion
methods that laypeople can understand.
Thank you for your interest and concern Laurie.
In health abundance, naturally,
Dr D
Dr. Douglas N. Graham
President, Healthful Living International
http://www.foodnsport.com
http://www.healthfullivingintl.org
http://www.rawstock.us
All raw, all the time, count on it
Be sure to visit http://www.organicathlete.org
=====
Ah, they are
facing the world with what they "feel" instead of what they
think. Concepts, presented in a book/lecture on health should be
very carefully thought out; one does not understand human diet or biochemistry
by "feelings". Beware of people who tell you what they
feel instead of what they think. Feelings are generated internally,
by the distorted culturally-programmed ego, and have absolutely no relation
to the physical/chemical reality in which we exist.
Clearly, from the intellectual evasion and dishonesty,
the trivialization of a fundamental error, and the patent refusal to communicate
on this issue in a polite, honest manner, the Graham staff is incapable
of logical thought.
While I understand the % wt concept, it is misleading, imo, without
including the % cal concept, and visa versa. It is just as easy to misunderstand
issues of caloric density as it is food quantity.
That proves, as I suspected
by his lecture, that Doug (IF that was really from him,
and IF he gives his own lectures<g>) simply does not get the percent
thing as taught in 5th grade. One can not have personal 'opinions'
about baby arithmetic.
Note the uniform statement of personal belief,
NEVER supported by fact or logic.
Ah, there is a book and profit involved, no wonder
they can not deal with this issue honestly; they'd have to admit the book
is useless.
I guess I'll
have to buy a copy and write a line-by-line critique of that, also...
But, wait, sh/e does not tell me the title. And, most of the
books on sale at Graham's site are listed without authors, publisher,
or pages; a sure sign of abandoned intellect.
Stay tuned, folks...
=====
The day I published
this page, I was given a copy of Graham's "eNewsletter
#46" and was shocked to find, [emphasis mine -ljf]:
"* REQUEST FOR TESTIMONIALS *
Write a testimonial for Dr. Graham's newest book, "The 80/10/10 Diet"
subtitled, "Fruit or Fat" and win a free autographed copy!
Dr. Graham is about to release his next book, entitled "The
80/10/10 Diet". He wishes to put comments from everyday
people, real people, true comments, on the back cover, inside covers,
etc. So, he is running a contest.
He knows it is a bit early, since you haven't yet read the book,
but maybe some of you can guess what "Fruit or Fat" is going
to be about. If you feel so motivated, please write up something
that you think is appropriate for this type of use. Try to make
it something that you would want to read, or something that you think
might influence you if you read it. It could be about weight
loss, muscle gain, health, energy, attitude or whatever you like. Mentioning
benefits is good. It could be just a few words or as long as you like.
It would probably be a good idea to include at least one of the
following phrases, but it is not mandatory:
Dr Graham, or, Dr Graham's program low fat raw vegan diet
Some mention of the benefits you have gained following 80/10/10 or a fruit
based raw vegan program.
Contact Dr. Graham at <drdouggrahamuk@aol.com>.
Gasp, is there no
limit to their dishonesty??
"Write a testimonial" for a book that
one has not read and has yet to be published? Isn't that - oh I
don't know - really, really dishonest?? Right, let's all "guess
what" the book will be about and then praise it?
"... make it something that you would want
to read, or something that you think might influence you if you read it."
What??
Gee, I am a
"real" person, I have given him lots of "true comments";
do I win the contest?? Nope, I didn't even "win" the simple
courtesy of a logical response to my graciously pointing out the arithmetic
absurdity of the PCF hoax. Who is kidding whom here, folks?
Humorously,
the following quote appears in the same newsletter: "Do you
know anyone who intentionally wants to be wrong? It would mean losing
face, big time, to admit that you were wrong about your diet for years
and decades on end, meal after meal."
As it will, Doug, when you are finally forced to deal with your willful
blind spot in 5th grade arithmetic.
Here is some more
of Doug's muddled thinking:
Fruits, fruits, more fruits, and fruitarianism
Dear Dr. Doug,
I am considering becoming a fruitarian, for ultimate health and nutrition.
I have heard that we are designed to eat fruits only, and that eating
anything else results in a health compromise. Do you have any advice?
Fruity Fiona
DG> Dear Fruity,
DG> I do not, nor have I ever, recommended a diet exclusively
made up of fruit. This is because everyone I have ever met that
attempts to sustain themselves on exclusively fruit for an extended time
runs into serious health challenges.
Does this correlation
indicate that these people simply did not approach a fruitarian diet with
nutritional requirements in mind? Does it mean they abandoned rationality
and pursued a dietary dogma, instead of an intelligently-planned, healthful
diet? Did they simply ignore the quality issue, as Tom
Billings always does when he ignorantly and repeatedly blames a "diet"
for the failures of the specific individuals?
DG> Those who attempt to live on just one fruit, such as watermelon,
oranges or tomatoes, run into similar health challenges, but more rapidly
than those who vary their fruits. I have seen people irrevocably lose
their health in this fashion, and I have seen people die by clinging to
this premise of eating only fruit.
Eating just one food
is foolish, since different "foods" have differing nutritional
compositions, so it is pretty well understood that a variety of "foods"
is better to consume than one specific cultivar. Why is the
quality of these foods always ignored in these anti-fruitarian diatrabes?
Were these supermarket fruitarians that failed; no surprise there.
Did they eat only healthy, highly-mineralized fruits, or supermarket
garbage? Why is quality simply ignored by a self-appointged
nutritional "expert"?
DG> There are many ways of defining fruit. Culinary experts define
fruit by the way a food is used in the kitchen. Hence for them,
a pineapple is a fruit.
This isn't about the
"culinary arts", it is about nutrition and biochemistry.
DG> Botanists use more technical methods of classifying foods,
and for them a pineapple is a vegetable but the tomato is a fruit.
The botanical definition
of fruit is a "ripened ovary that usually contains seeds".
Here, pineapple is called a "multiple fruit",
while DG claims otherwise. He simply does not do his homework before
using 'technical' words incorrectly, thus demonstrating a lack of intellectual
integrity and lack of care if his written output is valid, or not, as
clearly demonstrated by his brilliant handling of the PCF issue at the
top of this page.
DG> There are those in the health movement that have taken the
liberty of defining nuts and seeds as fruit, ...
Indeed, nuts/seeds
and grains fit the botanical definition.
DG> ... and even a few folks I have met refer to vegetables
such as celery as a fruit.
Sheer nonsense; why
mention it? To further confuse the reader?
DG> I tend to use the culinary definition, but recognize that
there are still three types of fruit.
Of course, use a scullery-maids'
definition instead of a definitive scientific one. DG's contempt
for science is amazing, especially so when talking about and misrepresenting
scientific topics.
DG> Sweet fruits run the gamut from melons to dried fruit. They
all have a sweet taste, and tend to fall into four (not extremely distinct)
groups: melons, sub acid, acid, and sweet. These are the fruits typically
referred to when someone speaks of eating fruit. Vegetable fruits include:
tomatoes, okra, peppers, cucumbers, squash, and aubergine. Botanically,
these foods are all fruits, as the seeds are inside. They do not provide
the simple carbohydrates that sweet fruits do, hence it is difficult to
access sufficient calories from eating them.
The frequent use of
"they", "these", "these", "they",
"them" without clear reference to the intended set is impossible
to follow. If he is saying that squash is somehow deficient in calories
compared to juicy fruit, that is dead wrong, as the complex carbs are
digested into simple ones; he should know this. Oh, wait, that is
science.
DG> There are also fatty fruits.
So, is it 4 or 5 groups?
DG> These are true fruits, but provide more fat than most fruits
(all fruits provide some fats). Akee, avocado, breadfruit, durian, and
olive are a few examples of fatty fruits. They tend to be low fat/high
carbohydrate or high carbohydrate/lower fat (in the teens).
"Low fat/high
carb" and "high carb/lower fat" are somehow different?
Notice, DG never uses numbers to express a numerical
concept since he is innumerate as this page clearly demonstrates.
DG> Fruits come closer to meeting our nutritional needs, on
every level, than any other group of foods.
Yet, he curiously,
and without any logical reasons, rejects fruit diets.
DG> If you are an active person, however, or live in a warm
climate, it will readily become apparent to any person who eats only fruits
that they are gradually running low on certain vital minerals.
"Readily apparent";
apparent, how?? What is the body's signal for low calcium, iron,
phosphorous, magnesium, ...??
DG> These minerals ...
Which minerals?
DG> ... are best provided via the consumption of tender green
leafy vegetables. I recommend that about 1-3% of one’s total caloric
intake come from such greens. For most men, that equates to almost a pound
of greens per day, on average, less if you are a woman.
Without specifying
which minerals he is referring to, one can not look up specifics in food
composition tables, thus his unsupported claims remain unsupported.
DG> Often, a person will embark on an all fruit program and
feel quite well.
Since we are frugivorous
apes, this is no surprise.
DG> Their mistake is when they make long term decisions based
upon a short term experiment. We would expect anyone who reduces the fat
content of their diet by eating more fruit to feel better initially. High
carbohydrates and low fat in the diet suits us extremely well. However,
undermineralization will take a subsequent toll on one’s health.
When health problems finally do hit overzealous frutarians, they often
respond to the problem by eating more fruit.
More fruit means more
nutrients; which minerals does DG claim are insufficient in fruit?
In "organic" fruits? No one knows, neither does he. If
he knows, why doesn't he tell us??
DG> Picture a man in a lifeboat who has succumbed to drinking
seawater. After drinking the seawater, he will get thirstier. Drinking
even more seawater will only exacerbate the problem.
Invalid analogy.
DG> Consuming young tender greens does not have to be a daily
part of one’s lifestyle. When plain lettuce or celery sounds and
tastes appealing, you can be sure that you are ready for some greens.
Many people find that after eating fruit for a few days or weeks, greens
are really a welcome treat.
Many people find greens
repulsive; does that mean they ate too much in the past? Or, is
it the poor quality?? Why does DG never mention either quantity
or quality, the two most important aspects of nutrition?
DG> It is important for me to stress that health is not created,
nor does it hinge, exclusively upon the consumption of healthy food. Health
requires a full spectrum approach, and one's health can only be as good
as one's weakest lifestyle link.
Irrelevant to fruitarianism,
or diet in general.
DG> A varied diet of fruits, vegetables and a moderate amount
of nuts and seeds tends to result in the best of health and nutrition.
Yet, no reasons are
ever given.
DG> Whole fresh ripe raw organic plants are the most healthful
for us.
Plants? Roots,
stalks, stems, leaves, bark, ...
DG> While simplicity at mealtime usually provides the conditions
required for ideal digestion, variety in the diet yields optimum nutrition.
Apparently by the "shotgun"
approach, rather than any specific reasons. DG generally has no
reasons, nor does he reason.
DG> Optimum health also cannot be achieved without the inclusion
of a daily fitness program. We are designed to be fit, and without fitness
activities our consumption of foods must be minimized, hence nutrition
is compromised. The rhythmic motion of many fitness activities enhances
the peristaltic action of the intestines, helping to move food along for
optimum digestion.
What "fitness
activities" do the chimps and gorillas follow?
DG> In closing, I would strongly recommend against the 100%
fruitarian experiment. I do believe that eating the fruit of the season
is a good program. In mango season, for example, mangoes predominate heavily
in my diet. In persimmon season, I will make many a meal of just persimmon.
Some days I eat fruit only, for sure.
Still no reason(s)
for this dogma.
DG> Overall, however, I eat about a pound of greens per day,
and recommend that young tender greens, or shoots, comprise about 2% of
your total caloric intake.
Still has not learned
the required 5th grade arithmetic to see the fallacy in that PCF thing.
>DG In health abundance, naturally, Dr Doug
But, certainly not
factually, rationally, scientifically, or logically.
|