Caveman Eating in 2009

It is important to realize that most of the health and nutrition advice you get from your doctors and health counselors which is usually presented as absolute in fact is really just a bunch of theories constantly shifting with the scientific fashions of the moment.  One of the few ways we can begin to understand human nutrition unclouded by the haze of theory is from an anthropological and evolutionary perspective.  Here is an observation written by Dr. Loren Cordain which attempts to do just that:

A Diet Solution Based on Evolution

The scientific community almost unanimously agrees that the diseases and disorders that plague Western civilization – obesity, cardiovascular disease, and Type II diabetes – are related to our diets … and that they are avoidable. But nutritional experts are in complete disagreement over which type of diet is best for prevention and treatment.

The U.S. government recommends between 6 and 11 servings of cereal grains daily, 2 to 3 servings of dairy foods, and the limited consumption of fats and sweets.

Other nutritional authorities, such as Dr. Dean Ornish, encourage us to lower dietary fat to less than 10 percent of calories and to eat plenty of whole grains and legumes. Noted alternative health physician Dr. Andrew Weil agrees with Ornish’s advice on whole grains and legumes, but takes issue with his fat recommendation, saying it is too low and deficient in omega-3 fatty acids (the kind found in fatty fish like salmon).

Still other nutrition gurus, such as Dr. Neal Barnard, president of the private non-profit Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, caution us to eliminate all animal products from our diets, including meat, eggs, dairy, and fish. In stark contrast, Dr. Atkins told us to reduce our carbohydrate content to less than 100 grams a day and to eat all the fatty, salty meats and cheeses we desire.

Is there any way to make sense of all this? What is the optimal diet for improving health, losing weight, and reducing the risk of chronic illness?

The answer can be found by looking at the way our hunter-gatherer ancestors ate. These same foods – or their modern-day equivalents – are the ones that should serve as a starting point for our optimal nutrition.

Stone-Agers Living in the Space Age

Although we live in a world of vast cities and complex technologies, each of us has a Stone Age genetic makeup. DNA studies from diverse ethnic groups around the world confirm that the present-day human genome is virtually identical to that of humans living 40,000 years ago.

Beginning some 10,000 years ago, people left behind the hunting and gathering way of life and began to sow and harvest the genetic forerunners of today’s wheat and barley. Shortly thereafter, these early farmers domesticated farm animals. Five thousand years later, the so-called Agricultural Revolution had spread from the Middle East to Northern Europe and beyond.

But there has been very little time, evolutionarily speaking, for our bodies to adapt to this new way of eating. Although 10,000 years sounds historically remote, it is evolutionarily quite recent. Only 500 human generations have come and gone since agriculture began.

Cheeseburgers vs. Barbecued Buffalo

Cereal grains currently provide 50 percent of the protein consumed on this planet. Yet wild versions of this modern-day staple were rarely, if ever, consumed by hunter-gatherers. Dairy products weren’t part of humankind’s original fare, either. (It’s pretty difficult to catch a wild mammal, let alone milk one.) And except for rare treats of honey, refined sugars weren’t on the Stone Age menu. Nor were fatty meats, salt, yeast-containing foods, or legumes.

Obviously, the highly processed foods that now dominate the American diet weren’t part of the Paleolithic (Old Stone Age) meal plan. Hunter-gatherers probably wouldn’t have recognized pizza, chips, French fries, ice cream, soda, and the like as food at all.

Lean game and fish were their staple foods. Consequently, the Paleolithic diet was much higher in protein than the typical U.S. diet. Because game is so lean on a calorie-by-calorie basis, it contains about 2.5 times as much protein per serving as domestic meats. For instance, a 100-calorie serving of America’s favorite meat – hamburger – contains a paltry 7.8 grams of protein. Compare that with 19.9 grams in an identical 100-calorie serving of roasted buffalo. Game is also healthier. It contains two to three times more cholesterol-lowering polyunsaturated fats and almost five times more omega-3 fatty acids than meat from grain-fed domestic livestock.

The carbohydrate content in the average hunter-gatherer diet was extremely low. More important, it was made up almost entirely of wild fruits and vegetables. Their total fat content was similar to or slightly higher than current U.S. figures, and consisted of healthful, cholesterol-lowering monounsaturated fats, which comprised about 50 percent of total fats consumed. In contrast, the typical U.S. diet has less cholesterol-lowering mono- and polyunsaturated fats, more artery-clogging saturated fats and trans-fats, and seven to 10 times less heart-healthy omega-3 fatty acids than in hunter-gatherer diets.

The key to the optimal human diet lies in the evolutionary wisdom of our hunter-gatherer past. The best high-protein options are fish (particularly fatty northern fish such as salmon, halibut, mackerel, and herring), shellfish, grass-fed beef and pork, free-range chicken and turkey, rabbit, and any kind of game, either bought or hunted. (The gastronomically adventurous can find buffalo, ostrich, emu, kangaroo, and venison at many upscale supermarkets and health food stores.)

The Missing Link Between Diet and Disease

In the 1950s, when scientists were first unraveling the link between heart disease and diet, they found that saturated fat raised blood cholesterol levels and increased the risk for coronary heart disease. Dietary sources of saturated fat, such as fatty domestic meat, were deemed unhealthful, and rightly so. Unfortunately, the message the public and many nutrition professionals got was that all meat was unhealthful and promoted heart disease and cancer.

But it turns out that high amounts of animal protein are quite healthful for the human species. It’s the saturated fat that can accompany protein that causes problems. The grains fed to many domesticated animals turn healthful lean protein with a proper balance of good fats into a nutritional nightmare that promotes disease.

Consumption of lean meat actually lowers blood cholesterol levels and thereby reduces the risk of coronary heart disease. Consumption of lean animal protein elevates HDL cholesterol (the “good” cholesterol) while reducing triglycerides, LDL cholesterol (the “bad” cholesterol), and total cholesterol. In contrast, low-fat, high-carbohydrate diets tend to elevate triglycerides and lower HDL cholesterol. High-carbohydrate diets also raise small dense LDL cholesterol – one of the most potent predictors for atherosclerosis and heart disease.

Studies have also indicated that elevated dietary protein reduces the risk of stroke and hypertension and helps boost survival time for women with breast cancer. And a high-protein diet improves or normalizes insulin metabolism in Type II diabetics. In other words, lean animal protein is good for us and saturated fat is not.

Putting It All Together

The Paleo Diet is the unique diet to which our species is genetically adapted. This program of eating was not designed by diet doctors, faddists, or nutritionists, but by evolution and natural selection. It is based upon extensive scientific research examining the types and quantities of foods our hunter-gatherer ancestors ate.

With readily available modern foods, the Paleo Diet mimics the types of foods every single person on the planet ate prior to the Agricultural Revolution (a mere 500 generations ago). These foods (fresh fruits, vegetables, lean meats and seafood) are high in the beneficial nutrients (soluble fiber, antioxidant vitamins, phytochemicals, omega-3 and monounsaturated fats, and low-glycemic carbohydrates) that promote good health. And they are low in the nutrients (refined sugars and grains, saturated and trans-fats, salt, and high-glycemic carbohydrates) that frequently cause weight gain, cardiovascular disease, diabetes, and numerous other health problems.

You might consider it heretical to believe that lean meat is healthful while whole grains and dairy products are not necessarily so. But the basis for this conclusion comes from overwhelming evolutionary evidence that is increasingly being substantiated by human, animal, and tissue studies.  We all remain hunter-gatherers, displaced in time, yet still genetically adapted to a diet dominated by lean meats and fresh fruits and veggies.

In The Midst of a Crisis: The #1 Thing You Can Do For Your Health

Corrupt governments cannot rule unless their citizens give them that power.  Americans are starting to realize that they no longer want what their corrupt leaders choose to give them in the way of laws and government.  That is an amazing thing:  a government so displeasing to it people that they are rising up against that government.  And with this action we that back control of our lives–and nothing could be better for your health.  You will feel so much better mentally, spiritually and physically.  I urge you to not take it anymore and stand up to our arrogant, self-serving, corrupt “leaders.” Freedom Blogger Peter Ragnar wrote the following about doing just that:

Say NO! To Want You Don't Want

I feel encouraged after seeing massive, peaceful gatherings on Saturday, September 12th.  It just goes to show you that media coverage of the political realm doesn’t accurately portray the feelings and beliefs of the majority of the people.  Did I say “majority?”

“While many millions watched the protests on television…”

…millions who have no interest in politics lent heartfelt support and watched with a sense of encouragement.  While the media reported that tens of thousands had gathered in protest of a corrupt government, I found it interesting that large portions of the area around Washington, D.C. had to be cordoned off due to the swelling throngs.  Of course, when did any politician know the difference between 10,000 and a million?  It’s obvious they can’t count, any more than the media can tell the truth.

“I still feel encouraged.  Why?  Because the protests were non-political.”

Folks from all parties and those with no political affiliation, people who are religious and those who are non-religious, all made a huge statement.  The country is saying “NO!” to the powers that be.  “NO!” to blatant corruption.  “NO!” to special interests.  “NO!” to government waste.  “NO!” to taxes.  “NO!” to socialism.  “NO!” to a one-world order!

“Washington, what is it about ‘NO’ that you don’t understand?”

Are you folks blind and deaf, or are you just arrogant criminals?  As I watched the protests, I thought of something said by Alexander Solzhenitsyn, the Russian dissenter, which always stuck with me.  I paraphrase, “What a powerful thing it is for a man to say “no” with open hands.”  He encouraged freedom lovers, “Do not lie!  Do not take part in the lie!  Do not support the lie!”

Will and Ariel Durant wrote in The Lessons of History,

“The only real revolution is in the enlightenment of the mind and the improvement of character, the only real emancipation is individual, and the only real revolutionists are philosophers and saints.”

So, I feel encouraged that everyday people have decided to withdraw their support from the power-hungry elite, to say, “NO!” with open hands.

In Francis Dashwood Tandy’s writing Methods from the spring of 1896, we’re encouraged,

“If we wish to effect the abolition of the State through politics, we must first teach people how we can get along without it.  When that is done, no political action will be necessary.  The people will have outgrown the State and will no longer submit to its tyranny.  It may still exist and pass laws, but people will no longer obey them, for its power over them will be broken.  Political action can never be successful until it is unnecessary…”

I feel encouraged because the government has awakened a sleeping giant, more powerful than all the special interests in Washington.  This giant has now only to decide what methods it will employ to rid this nation of its cancer.  I feel encouraged because so many of us have said “NO!”

U.S. President Seeks to Ruin Your Health and Your Life

Recently financial writer Howard Ruff asked: WHAT IS OBAMA REALLY UP TO?

Obama has spent a large portion of his professional life working for ACORN or its subsidiaries, representing ACORN as a lawyer on some of its most critical issues, and training ACORN leaders. Stanley Kurtz’s excellent National Review article, “Inside Obama’s Acorn.” also describes Obama’s ACORN connection in detail. But I can’t improve on Obama’s own words: I’ve been fighting alongside ACORN on issues you care about my entire career. Even before I was an elected official, when I ran the Project Vote voter registration drive in Illinois, ACORN was smack dab in the middle of it, and we appreciate your work. – Barack Obama, Speech to ACORN, November 2007 (Courtesy Newsmax.)

The U.S. in Danger?

As a community activist for ACORN; as a leadership trainer for ACORN; as a lead organizer for ACORN’s Project Vote; as an attorney representing ACORN’s successful efforts to impose Motor Voter regulations in Illinois; as ACORN’s representative in lobbying for the expansion of high-risk housing loans through Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac that led to the current crisis; as a recipient of their assistance in his political campaigns — both with money and campaign workers; it is doubtful that he was unaware of ACORN’s true goals. In his few years (two) as a U.S. senator, Obama has received campaign contributions of $126,349, from Fannie May and Freddie Mac, second only to the $165,400 received by Senator Chris Dodd, who has been getting donations from them since 1988.

Obama’s closest advisers are a dirty laundry list of individuals at the heart of the financial crisis: former Fannie Mae CEO Jim Johnson; Former Fannie Mae CEO and former Clinton Budget Director Frank Raines; and billionaire failed Superior Bank of Chicago Board Chair, Penny Pritzker. Johnson had to step down as adviser on Obama’s V.P. search after this gem came out: An Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (OFHEO) report[1] from September 2004 found that, during Johnson’s tenure as CEO, Fannie Mae had improperly deferred $200 million in expenses, enabling top executives, including Johnson and his successor, Franklin Raines, to receive huge bonuses in 1998.[2] A 2006 OFHEO report[3] found that Fannie Mae had substantially under-reported Johnson’s compensation. Johnson received approximately $21 million in bonuses.

Obama denies ties to Raines but the Washington Post calls him a member of “Obama’s inner political circle.” Raines and Johnson were fined $3 million by the Office of Federal Housing Oversight for their manipulation of Fannie books. The fine is small change however, compared to the $50 million Raines got in improper bonuses by juggling the books. As a young attorney in the 1990s, Barack Obama represented ACORN in Washington in their successful efforts to make it easier for ACORN groups to force banks to make risky loans. This also paved the way for banks to package mortgages as investments, and for the Government Sponsored Enterprises Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to underwrite them.

These changes created the conditions that ultimately led to the current financial crisis. Obama continues to blame Bush for the mess he “inherited” (which he helped create HJR). No matter how he describes himself, Obama has been a radical activist for most of his political career. That activism has been in support of organizations and initiatives that at their heart seek to tear the pillars of this nation asunder in order to replace them with their demented socialist vision. He has already pointed out the alleged “deficiencies” in the constitution, namely that it didn’t “mandate redistribution of income,” a pure socialist objective. Their influence has spread so far and so wide that despite their blatant culpability in the current financial crisis due to Obama’s influence, they are able to manipulate Capitol Hill politicians into cutting ACORN a $140 billion piece of the bailout pie! Working in cahoots with the Federal Reserve, Obama announced they would spend almost a trillion dollars on a so-called “stimulus” program.

I say “so-called” because this program was not designed to produce any economic stimulus. First, spending money to stimulate a sick economy is discredited “ Keynesian economics.” As the Japanese found out recently, “priming the pump” didn’t work in the past, it won’t work in the future, and it doesn’t work now. Second, most of the stimulus money was “back-loaded,” which meant that only five to ten percent would be spent in 2009, and the rest would be spent years down the road. The current stimulus effect was near non-existent. Already the usual cast of characters is telling us the stimulus is not working because “they underestimated the seriousness of the crisis,” and the “stimulus was too small,” so expect Obama Stimulus #2! The money they threw at the automobile industry had socialist strings attached. Basically, government bought control. They then fired the CEO of General Motors , and would not give them the money unless they agreed to manufacture the kind of cars his environmentalist constituents wanted built, regardless of whether or not consumers wanted to buy them. The government and the unions ended up owning 89 percent of General Motors (or Government Motors), and “secured creditor” bond holders were wiped out. The American automobile industry was summarily “socialized.” The banks are under the thumb of government too.

There were more shotgun marriages (Bank of America had to buy Merrill Lynch with inadequate stockholder disclosure of Merrill’s big problems). When billions were given to AIG, they were no longer permitted to reward the managers and successful sales people, with bonuses they thought they had earned. Many had worked for a dollar a year, plus bonuses, but the government “cancelled” those earned bonuses. How Obama expects AIG to ever make any money to repay taxpayers when their best people have been disincentivized and have run for cover, I’ll never know. In any event, government is systematically buying control of major industries . Barney Frank, one of the more powerful members of the Democratic caucus in the House, has been talking about controlling executive compensation even when the companies haven’t taken any government money. In other words, the government plans to bully even private companies to which they have given no money.

Printing all these trillions of dollars (we don’t actually print much money anymore; only about five percent is printed, minted or coined; the rest is created by a keystroke on a computer) only guarantees all this “stimulus” will only stimulate inflation and the size of government.

Obama has painted himself into a corner. If he thinks he has troubles now, wait and see how the people feel when inflation really starts taking off and his plan is laid bare for the devastating mess he has created. Yes, the Obama-induced advance of socialism will make things a lot worse in America, and the government will control more and more of your life in an attempt to “fix” the varied problems it created. Yes, Obama scares the wits out of me. If he isn’t the anti-Christ, he will do until one comes along.

The End of the World As We Know It

Our economic health as a nation can have a powerful influence on our physical and mental health as individuals.   As a society, there can be little doubt that we are approaching a major economic sea change which will result in the end of the world as we know it.  How we adjust as individuals to the changes that are on the horizon will be perhaps more important than the food we eat.  Syndicated columnist Paul Craig Roberts bluntly addresses the issue of our economic health in the following head-on observation:

There is no economy left to recover. The U.S. manufacturing economy was lost to offshoring and free-trade ideology. It was replaced by a mythical “New Economy.”

The “New Economy” was based on services. Its artificial life was fed by the Federal Reserve’s artificially low interest rates, which produced a real-estate bubble, and by “free market” financial deregulation, which unleashed financial gangsters to new heights of debt leverage and fraudulent financial products.

The real economy was traded away for a make-believe economy. When the make-believe economy collapsed, Americans’ wealth in their real estate, pensions and savings collapsed dramatically while their jobs disappeared.

The debt economy caused Americans to leverage their assets. They refinanced their homes and spent the equity. They maxed out numerous credit cards. They worked as many jobs as they could find. Debt expansion and multiple family incomes kept the economy going.

And now suddenly Americans can’t borrow in order to spend. They are over their heads in debt. Jobs are disappearing. America’s consumer economy, approximately 70 percent of gross domestic product, is dead. Those Americans who still have jobs are saving against the prospect of job loss. Millions are homeless. Some have moved in with family and friends; others are living in tent cities.

Meanwhile, the U.S. government’s budget deficit has jumped from $455 billion in 2008 to $1 trillion this year, with another $2 trillion on the books for 2010. And President Obama has intensified America’s expensive war of aggression in Afghanistan and initiated a new war in Pakistan.

There is no way for these deficits to be financed except by printing money or by further collapse in stock markets that would drive people out of equity into bonds.

The U.S. government’s budget is 50 percent in the red. That means half of every dollar the federal government spends must be borrowed or printed. Because of the worldwide debacle caused by Wall Street’s financial gangsterism, the world needs its own money and hasn’t $2 trillion annually to lend to Washington.

As dollars are printed, the growing supply adds to the pressure on the dollar’s role as reserve currency. Already America’s largest creditor, China, is admonishing Washington to protect China’s investment in U.S. debt and lobbying for a new reserve currency to replace the dollar before it collapses. According to various reports, China is spending down its holdings of U.S. dollars by acquiring gold and stocks of raw materials and energy.

The price of 1 ounce gold coins is $1,000 despite efforts of the U.S. government to hold down the gold price. How high will this price jump when the rest of the world decides that the bankruptcy of “the world’s only superpower” is at hand?

And what will happen to America’s ability to import not only oil, but also the manufactured goods on which it is import-dependent?

When the oversupplied U.S. dollar loses the reserve currency role, the United States will no longer be able to pay for its massive imports of real goods and services with pieces of paper. Overnight, shortages will appear and Americans will be poorer.

Nothing in Presidents Bush and Obama’s economic policy addresses the real issues. Instead, Goldman Sachs was bailed out, more than once. As Eliot Spitzer said, the banks made a “bloody fortune” with U.S. aid.

It was not the millions of now homeless homeowners who were bailed out. It was not the scant remains of American manufacturing [General Motors and Chrysler] that were bailed out. It was the Wall Street Banks.

According to Bloomberg.com, Goldman Sachs’ current record earnings from their free or low-cost capital supplied by broke American taxpayers has led the firm to decide to boost compensation and benefits by 33 percent. On an annual basis, this comes to compensation of $773,000 per employee.

This should tell even the most dimwitted patriot whom “their” government represents.

The worst of the economic crisis has not yet hit. I don’t mean the rest of the real-estate crisis that is waiting in the wings. Home prices will fall further when the foreclosed properties currently held off the market are dumped. Store and office closings are adversely affecting the ability of owners of shopping malls and office buildings to make their mortgage payments. Commercial real-estate loans were also securitized and turned into derivatives.

The real crisis awaits us. It is the crisis of high unemployment, of stagnant and declining real wages confronted with rising prices from the printing of money to pay the government’s bills, and from the dollar’s loss of exchange value. Suddenly, Wal-Mart prices will look like Neiman Marcus prices.

Retirees dependent on state pension systems, which cannot print money, might not be paid, or might be paid with IOUs. They will not even have depreciating money with which to try to pay their bills. Desperate tax authorities will squeeze the remaining life out of the middle class.

Nothing in Obama’s economic policy is directed at saving the U.S. dollar as reserve currency or the livelihoods of the American people. Obama’s policy, like Bush’s before him, is keyed to the enrichment of Goldman Sachs and the armament industries.

Matt Taibbi describes Goldman Sachs as “a great vampire squid wrapped around the face of humanity, relentlessly jamming its blood funnel into anything that smells like money.” Look at the Goldman Sachs representatives in the Clinton, Bush and Obama administrations. This bankster firm controls the economic policy of the United States.

Little wonder that Goldman Sachs has record earnings while the rest of us grow poorer by the day.

Committing for Good Mental Health

In times of social, political and economic stress the human animal tends to revert to basics, a kind of survival mentality–and what do we need most when times are tough?  To work longer hours?  More television viewing?  New cars?  No–committed, meaningful, long-term  relationships with our fellow humans.  Over the past several decades, a growing number of Americans have decided that married life is not for them, while those who choose to tie the knot have waited longer than before to get married.  Although there are many explanations for the trend, including more educational and vocational opportunities for women and changing social mores, economic conditions have also played a role. Among other things, the boom of the last few decades has made it easier for individuals to set up home and live on their own.  Now, though, with the economy undergoing a hard landing and millions of jobs being lost, perhaps forever, could that be setting the stage for a far-reaching change in attitudes about the benefits of being (or staying) single?

In other words, could hard times lead people to gravitate towards more committed relationships, which offer economic, social, and emotional advantages that are often unavailable to those who live on their own or in more casual arrangements?  Here is an Associated Press report about relationships in the downturn economy which indicates a basic shift in human interaction may be on the horizon:

Credit the recession for “stay-cations” and bringing us more game-night parties at home.  But also give it a shout for spurring more first dates.  Economic woes, it seems, unleash something practically primal in many of us who find ourselves without a partner: a hard-wired desire for companionship.  Some singles are now hunting for dates with the same fervor others are showing hunting for jobs.  On matchmaking Web site eHarmony.com, membership is up 20% despite monthly fees of up to $60, and activity has soared 50% since September at OkCupid.com.

Something That’s Genuine
It’s not just the frequency of our dates that’s changing it’s also the people we’re choosing to spend time with. “They’re looking for something that’s genuine in a world that isn’t very secure,” said Bathsheba Birman, co-founder of the Chicago dating event Nerds at Heart. “With headlines full of why you can’t trust established institutions that you thought you could … people are re-examining their own values.” Attendance at the monthly gatherings, where mostly young professionals pay $25 for a drink and a chance to spend the evening clustered around trivia and board games was more than double expectations in April and has stayed high since.

Brain Chemicals
“Misery loves company, especially if the prospect of romance and or sex looms large,” said Craig Kinsley, a neurologist at the University of Richmond. “Really, dating, rather than being considered as expensive, can be a thrilling and inexpensive distraction. Like getting drunk without the wallet-hit or hangover.” Kinsley said stomach-fluttering first dates also release brain chemicals that can temporarily erase worries, even about 401(k)s and layoffs and falling portfolios and upside-down mortgages. Still, Sam Yagan, the founder and CEO at OkCupid.com, sees the changing dating climate as a matter of dollars and cents.

The way he figures it, a man can spend $100 buying drinks at a bar trying to pick up a stranger and leave with little more than a cold shoulder. But, when he’s in a relationship, a Saturday evening can be as simple as Thai noodle takeout, Netflix and some fun under the covers. All in all, Yagan said, that’s “more bang for your buck.” It’s more than just the recession. Experts say changes in behavior can relate to other world events with upticks when news is bad. Last fall, comparing periods when the stock market fell more than 100 points and when it rose by the same amount, eHarmony found more members searched for matches when the financial news was grim. Activity also grew in the days after a tragedy like the Virginia Tech shooting, while it stayed the same during “good” global events, like the Olympics.

Unlike those one-day or weeklong events, the recession already has spanned more than 18 months, and its effects are expected to last just as long and that likely will mean more discernible changes in human behavior. “It ends up being a reminder that you need to look for the important things in life,” said Gian Gonzaga, eHarmony’s senior research scientist. “It isn’t that surprising when you see people gravitating toward the most fundamental human relations.”

Stress That Comes With Fear
But the trend isn’t uniform. Recessions can make some romances more challenging, experts say, especially for those who’ve already said “I do.” The stress that comes with fear, financial problems and economic uncertainty can drive a wedge between partners. And the most committed bachelors aren’t developing a sudden hankering to buy princess-cut engagement rings. Instead, the shifts are subtle: a devoted singleton going on more first dates; casual daters seeking long-term relationships; partners who might not have been attractive a while back someone younger or older, someone who lives in a “geographically undesirable” area looking much better.

Supplements May Do You More Harm Than Good

We dump various quantities of chemicals into our bodies because our healthcare providers tell us to do so in the name of nutrient deficiency–but it is never explained to us that modern medical science has practically no true understanding of human nutrient needs or how those nutrients function once they are placed inside our bodies.  Take a look at what Nora Lenz has to say about this very important health consideration:

Since we hear so much about nutrient deficiency, it may come as a surprise to learn that it is similar to protein deficiency, in that it is so rare in our culture that it more accurately belongs in the category of ‘medical myth’ than practical reality. Nutrient deficiencies are the nonexistent WMDs of the health world. When people go to war with imaginary enemies, they very often end up only destroying themselves. Those who consume a healthy diet of fresh whole foods such as vegetarians and vegans and especially raw vegans who feel the need to “prevent” nutrient deficiency with fake and fractionated nutritional supplements or superfoods are only going to prevent their own health improvements. Supplementation as a concept is as flawed as the idea that drugs can cure disease. Both of these ideas are based on belief, not on knowledge or reason. It is belief that allows people indulging the same lifestyle mistakes to convince themselves that a microbe is responsible when they get sick. And it is belief that causes even so-called nutrition experts to conclude that a deficiency existed in a symptomatic individual just because symptoms go away after the ingestion of a supplement. Most often, when you ask supplement advocates for proof that deficiency is a real concern, this is what you’ll get. This is not proof, it is nonsense.

His Unorthodox Dietary Regimen

Take Joe, your average raw vegan. Joe’s been raw for a few months and has recently begun to experience symptoms. Since Joe follows all the raw websites that tell us how difficult it is for raw vegans to get “all” their nutrients, he worries about deficiencies. So, naturally, when Joe notices the symptoms, deficiency is the first thing that enters his mind. Joe makes an appointment to see his naturopath and explains his unorthodox dietary regimen. Joe’s naturopath is entirely supportive of Joe’s raw diet, but she is “aware” that raw vegans at risk of not getting all their nutrients. She immediately orders blood work and is not surprised to find that Joe is indeed “deficient” in certain nutrients. She prescribes supplements, which Joe dutifully takes. Joe’s symptoms go away. Joe is now certain that he did the right thing in going to the naturopath. In a few weeks’ time Joe goes back to the naturopath for follow-up and tells her about the abatement of symptoms. She does more blood work which shows that the previous “deficiency” has been “cured”. Both doctor and patient are now thoroughly convinced that disaster has been averted. Joe bristles to think what might have happened if his naturopath hadn’t correctly diagnosed and resolved the problem. The naturopath congratulates herself once again for having chosen a career that gives so much meaning and purpose to life.

In spite of the fact that it might seem “obvious” that nutrient deficiency is indeed what Joe was dealing with, the fact remains that between the appearance of symptoms and the apparent happy ending, there are literally dozens of mistaken assumptions that have been made by both Joe and his doctor.

The questions that thinking people need to ask when they hear a story like this are:

1. What are the other factors that might have caused Joe’s symptoms?
2. What standards were used to judge Joe’s apparent “deficiency” and are they reflective of what is optimal for the human body? How do we know this?
3. Are the nutrients from the supplements in Joe’s bloodstream doing what they’re supposed to be doing, or are they there being ushered out as waste?
4. Is the fact that Joe’s symptoms went away after supplement therapy proof that there was a deficiency? If not, what other factors might have caused the cessation of Joe’s symptoms?

A Miracle Supplement

This is only the short list. Let’s take question #4. The answer is “no” — the fact that the symptoms went away after supplementation is not proof that there was a deficiency. Symptoms are the result of complex chemical processes that are taking place in the body. When a new chemical is introduced, the processes and the symptoms are changed. Sometimes symptoms go away completely, sometimes they go away temporarily or partially, sometimes they change into other symptoms, and sometimes they continue unchanged. When they go away, this is presumed to be proof that they were caused by a deficiency of whatever nutrient is purported to be supplied by the supplement. When they don’t go away, people typically keep trying new things until they find one that “works”. Then when they find something that requires their bodies to perform a more important function than what it was doing with the symptom (the more important function being the elimination of the supplement), they pronounce to the world that they have found a miracle supplement that makes them feel great.

Just as aspirin doesn’t ‘cure’ a headache, supplements do not cure symptoms, or restore healthy nutrient levels in truly deficient individuals. The chemical process that causes aspirin to make a headache go away is actually similar to the one that causes symptoms of “deficiency” to go away after the ingestion of supplements. People come to believe that supplementation cures deficiency by the same false and erroneous thinking that leads them to assume that symptoms are caused by deficiencies in the first place. It is pure belief and assumption, like the situation with our friend Joe. Residues of supplements may end up floating around in the bloodstream, and they can be measured by a doctor who will declare their levels either sufficient or insufficient (based on faulty standards derived from studies on sick people), but the fact is that fractionated nutrients do not perform their appropriate functions in the body. That they are in the bloodstream is by no means evidence that they are doing what they’re supposed to do. Everything we eat, drink and breathe ends up in our blood. Our bloodstreams constantly carry both nutrients and waste in and out of our bodies. When our blood is examined for a specific substance, how is the examiner to know whether that substance is on its way in to the body, performing a valuable function, or on its way out as waste?

Changing Those Bad Habits

Our paranoia surrounding nutrient deficiency needs to be replaced by rational thinking, and factual evidence. When the detectives on TV want to solve a murder, do they rule out the least likely suspects first? No. When we have a symptom, we need to look at what is most likely causing the problem, not something that is highly unlikely. How do we know that nutrient deficiency is unlikely? Because for most of us, even though we think we’re living healthfully, we may have hundreds of diet and lifestyle habits that bear negatively upon our health. You don’t have to be Columbo to figure out that it’s far more likely to be these habits causing your problems than nutrient deficiency. An appropriate response to the initial onset of symptoms, therefore, would be to say to ourselves: “What parts of my diet and lifestyle are not conforming to those which build health?” Having arrived at the answer, we would then go about changing those bad habits. An even more appropriate response to the onset of symptoms would be to stop eating. Eating should never be done when we have a symptom, since symptoms are signs that our bodies are conducting important work. We should not give our bodies more work to do with they are already busy. Food does not give us energy until it has been digested, absorbed, assimilated and converted to useable fuel, and that takes 1-24 hours or more of WORK for our bodies. It should be noted, incidentally, that symptoms which are attributed to deficiency GO AWAY when symptomatic individuals fast on water only. If a deficiency truly existed, symptoms would get worse if a person was to ingest no nutrients at all, but this never happens. Over and over again, fasting practitioners report that they see people who fast getting relief from symptoms that were previously and erroneously attributed to deficiencies.

All disease has a common cause, and that cause is the accumulation of toxins and waste in the body. Disease is caused by excess, not deficiency. The excess fat, protein, toxic ingredients, unrecognizable chemicals and indigested waste that our bodies must eliminate everyday causes our organs to not function optimally. Non-functioning organs cannot absorb nutrients properly. Nutrient deficiencies, when they truly do exist, are issues of assimilation, not intake. That means they are not related to the quantity of nutrients that are consumed in the diet. They are caused by all the excess that is consumed that causes organs to be compromised to the point of not being able to properly use the nutrients that are coming in. Does it make sense to pump more nutrients into a body that is not capable of assimilating them? Or does it make sense to remove the cause of the malfunction so that our bodies can use the nutrients we eat?

B12 provides us with a good illustration of this. We are often told that vegans need to supplement B12 because plant foods do not provide it. Yet roughly 95% of all individuals who are diagnosed with B12 deficiencies are meat eaters. Acid-forming foods like meat and dairy products inhibit the stomach’s ability to create the catalyst (called “intrinsic factor”) that B12 requires to perform its function. The issue is not that sufficient B12 is not being ingested, it’s that the body is unable to use it because of excesses in the diet.

Sheer Arrogance and Folly

Additionally, it should be remembered among raw fooders that deficiencies are always gauged against standards that are established as “normal”. This is done by examining the blood of apparently “healthy” individuals, and arriving at averages. Since 98% of our populace dies prematurely of degenerative disease, however, this data cannot be regarded as reliable. We cannot know what optimal nutrient levels are by assaying the blood of individuals who are slowly dying of degenerative disease! Even if we examine the blood of people who are living very healthfully and enjoying an exceedingly high level of health, we are faced with the other obstacle I mentioned: among the millions of different chemicals present in our blood at any given time, how can we tell the difference between what is vital to the functioning of our bodies and what is waste that is being eliminated? Doctors and others make a gigantic leap of logic when they assume that a nutritional supplement that is in your bloodstream is “curing” some imagined “deficiency”. Nothing of the sort has ever been definitively established, nor could it ever be. We can’t possibly know what optimal nutrient levels are. We haven’t even identified all of the nutrients in foods. It is estimated, in fact, that we only know about 10% of them! Considering this, is it not sheer arrogance and folly to think we can re-create the delicate balance of nutrients our bodies need by extracting them one-by-one from food and putting them in the form of a pill?

What little we know of nutrients does include the fact that they work in concert with each other. Without the naturally-occurring chemicals that act as catalysts to other chemicals, vitamins, minerals and other micronutrients are so much useless waste to our bodies.

The mutated, hybridized, cultivated food that is offered to us in modern supermarkets is nutritionally inferior and out of balance, of this there is no question. Yet, how are we to know which parts are there to the extent that they should be, and which parts aren’t? Can we make up for this lack of balance by taking a pill which contains all the nutrients we know to exist (10%, remember)? Pills can’t return balance to the foods we eat, nor can they re-establish the balance to the chemistry in our bodies.

They Kill Their Nutrients with Fire

Here’s another point to consider. If you put all the various diets that everyone in our culture eats on a scale from 0-100, with “0″ being the worst junk imaginable and “100″ being optimal, you’d find that even the most health-conscious naturopaths, herbalists and nutritionists might come in somewhere around 35, at best. These are typically the people who warn us about nutrient deficiencies. Now we raw fooders/fruitarians aren’t anywhere near optimal on that 0-100 scale because of the sub-standard food we’re forced to eat, but at least we’re eating according to our biological design. This offers us such a huge advantage that if we’re eating mostly fruit, some greens and modest amounts of nuts, properly combined, most of us can easily put ourselves in the 80’s. Why on earth are we allowing 35’s to tell US that WE need to worry about nutrient deficiency? They are the ones who should worry, because they kill their nutrients with fire, and they labor under the feloniously false idea that human beings are omnivorous.

What can we do to assure ourselves that we won’t become nutrient deficient? Well, we raw fooders are already doing the #1 thing — eating biologically appropriate, raw food. In addition, we can strive to eat fresh, ripe, tasty food because these are indicators that the nutrients are there. We can eat wild fruit whenever we have the opportunity, because wild fruit grows voluntarily (where conditions are most favorable), it must find its own water (deeper roots mean more nutrients), and it is not treated with chemical fertilizers and other harmful substances. We can also make sure that we get sufficient rest, sleep, exercise, sunshine and fresh air because doing so helps our organs to perform optimally and gives our cells the best opportunity to utilize the nutrients we eat.

Real Causes of Disease

Raw fooders have much more pressing issues to concern themselves with than nutrient deficiency, like learning about the real causes of disease. Disease is a result of excess, and this fact is ignored by doctors, naturopaths and nutritionists. If in every case where deficiency was blamed for disease, the excesses that are being indulged by the patient were stopped, the disease would stop as well. The most important thing to remember is that if we follow health-building habits (which raw fooders do, more than anybody else), our bodies will become very efficient at extracting and using the nutrients that we consume in food.

The Youngster Inside of You

Author Matt Monarch who writes frequently on the raw food movement and natural health practices has this to say about:

How to Become Younger
In my opinion, eating consistently is one of the key ingredients to health and longevity. When I say eating consistently, I don’t mean sticking to a 100% Raw Food Diet, always. I mean eating the same kinds and quantities of food every day, no matter what type of diet you eat. For example, you could be on a 100% Raw Food Diet eating three times a day on Monday and seven times a day on Tuesday. Or you could be eating 16 ounces of food, twice a day with the same amount of fats and carbs in each of those meals, EVERY SINGLE DAY.

When you make any PERMANENT improvement in your intake, you will become younger (regenerate) and go through detoxification. A ‘true’ improvement in diet is when you ALWAYS and FOREVERMORE eat fewer kinds and quantities of foods than before.

When you go from almost any cooked/processed food diet to any 100% Raw Food Diet, it is generally an improvement. Therefore, often a new 100% Raw Food Eater can overeat massive amounts of food and still become younger. However, this does not last forever. As you detoxify more and more, your body becomes cleaner and more efficient. Your body ‘evolves’ and doesn’t need as much food (fuel) as it used to require, to maintain high energy levels.

Pick Any Diet
In my book ‘Raw Success‘, I introduce the concept of ‘Stabilizing Out’. You can pick ANY IMPROVED DIET YOU WANT – vegan, macrobiotic, raw, whatever – and if you eat the same kinds and quantities of foods every single day, then you will become younger, detoxify and at some point, you will catch up with the diet that you are doing and stabilize out at that CONSISTENT diet (where the massive detox will slow down). All intake of food produces fermentation and gas (waste) in the body. The better your diet (meaning the fewer kinds and quantities of foods you eat), then the less waste is produced in your body. Since with an improved diet there will be less waste consistently entering your body, your body now has the space to dump out the old waste produced from our past poor food choices.

As I said before, you can choose ANY IMPROVED DIET YOU WANT. You can seriously take your diet to eating just one small 5oz meal a day or even less than that (if you keep up with the detoxification) if you choose (in ‘Raw Success’ I discuss all of the benefits and consequences of doing something like this). The key for ultimate health is to drink vegetable juices/green smoothies/energy soup and other ‘ocean mineral rich’ foods/supplements alongside whichever diet you choose, to make sure you are getting all of the nourishment that you need. The solid food you are eating is mainly working as a detoxification regulator. The true nourishment can come from the vegetable juices, which are easily absorbed into the body.

20% Margin for Error
There is about a 20% margin for error at your stabilized out, consistent diet. If you have been on a 100% Raw Vegan Diet for 10 years and you eat a McD’s Hamburger, there is a big chance that you may end up gravely ill. This is because you were edging up to that 20% margin of error. If somebody that has been on a 100% Raw Food Diet for 50 years ate that same hamburger, there is a GREAT chance that could kill them. The longer someone is 100% Raw, the more damaging past food choices becomes to them. The 50-year 100% Raw Food Eater would be eating out of their 20% margin for error range and it could kill them. If you used to eat vegan junk food for years on end, and then improved your diet to a 100% Raw Food Eater and stabilized out on this 100% Raw Food diet, after 4 – 12 years (depending on who you are: weight/age etc.), your body will have detoxified a lot and is now cleaner and doesn’t need as much food. The 20% margin for error will have shifted from the intake of a ! ‘Junk Food Vegan’ to a ‘100% Raw Food Eater’. Those vegan junk foods are now tapping closer to the edge of that 20% margin and will now most likely leave a 100% Raw Food Eater like this feeling extremely ill, whereas before they improved their diet, they would have had no problem with those vegan junk foods.

If you eat poor food choices from your past and break that 20% margin for error, it can be dangerous. If you go in the other direction of that 20% margin and CONSISTENTLY eat less than your stabilized diet, then you will detoxify and become younger again. When you eat less like this, it shifts that 20% margin, so your body requires less and less food. Again, you can seriously take your diet to eating one small 5oz meal a day or even less than that, if you choose. In ‘Raw Success’ I discuss all of the benefits and consequences of eating very little like this.

The further you take your diet by eating fewer kinds and quantities of foods, the less leeway you’ll have with that 20% margin of error, and the more consistent you’ll want to be with your diet if you want to feel good. Check out this excerpt from my book Raw Spirit:

Dangerous Deviation
In Hilton Hotema’s, ‘Man’s Higher Consciousness‘ book (my FAVORITE Raw Food Book) there was a story about a man (Luigi) who only ate 12 oz. of food once a day for many decades. Before this regimen, he was very ill and nothing could be found to cure his sickness except these small meals once a day. Years later, a friend of his challenged him to eat 16 oz. of food. Neither of them thought much of the dare, but after eating those extra 4 oz., the man became grievously ill. He had become “locked in” and any deviation was dangerous. After readopting his previous quantities, the man recovered and continued thriving.

After you stabilize out on ANY diet for a long period of time, at some point the ‘Becoming Younger Process’ ends and you will start to age again. In regards to your stabilized out diet, the fewer kinds and quantities of food you eat, the slower this aging process occurs. If you wanted to restart the Detoxification and Becoming Younger Process again, you would then need to start CONSISTENTLY eating fewer kinds and quantities of food again. The main issue here is that the less you eat, the more sensitive you become to environmental and other toxins, which have the potential to accelerate aging also. In my book ‘Raw Success’, I discuss in great detail how to find an optimal balance between your food intake and the environment around you.

There is no need to JUMP into eating small quantities of food on a 100% Raw Food Diet or even eating a 100% Raw Food Diet at all. In the long run, it is key to eat the same kinds and quantities of food every single day. It’s not all just about eating 16oz of Raw Foods 2 – 3 times a day, because eating 16oz of almond butter is very different to eating 16oz of watermelon. 16oz can be an ideal average meal size (quantity) – eating just almond butter is not really advisable though in terms of the kinds of foods ingested!

Eat the Same Thing Every Single Day
I feel my BEST when I am consistent. I practically eat the SAME thing EVERY SINGLE DAY. Dr. Norman Walker states in one of his books that he ate the SAME breakfast for over 12 years. When I am consistent, I eat the same amount of carbs and fat each day. I blend a couple of apples with a couple of tablespoons of nut butter and I add a SMALL handful of dried fruit to that mixture as my lunch every day. My salad later in the day generally consists of 1/2 an avocado, a bit of nut butter with a certain amount of vegetables, every single night. You may think that this gets boring. Absolutely NOT!!! I get excited when it is mealtime. I switch up the fruits, nut butters, and veggies to make sure I am getting a wide variety of nutrients. However, I eat the SAME AMOUNT of fat, carbs and veggies EVERY SINGLE DAY. That is what I mean by consistency!

When I eat consistently like that, I feel my best. When I eat more than that, I don’t feel as well. When I eat less than that, I have MASSES of energy. When I eat less than that consistently, I detoxify and become cleaner faster.

In the beginning when you choose an improved consistent diet, it may feel difficult to get used to an empty stomach feeling. Additionally, you will most likely go through mood swings and emotional issues may rise to the surface. In the beginning, it can be ok to slip around with the QUANTITIES of food, because it can take MANY YEARS to stabilize out on your new improved diet and to shift that 20% margin for error.

Eat Less and Less as the Years Go By
After many years of being stabilized out on a particular diet, your body will now take advantage of this consistency and become cleaner and more efficient on its own. At that point, even when eating your consistent intake, your body will now give you signs, such as sluggishness, which are an indication of your body asking you to eat even less food because you don’t need as much anymore. This is around the point where the ‘Becoming Younger’ process ends and we start to age on our particular consistent diet. This is where your absolutely consistent stabilized diet (lets call this a ‘0% margin’) starts to raise to 1%, then 2%, and so on, as you pollute your body with this consistent unwanted extra fuel. This may extend its way up closer and closer to the 20% margin for error, at which point you will age more and more. This is why it is important to eat less and less as the years go by.

Fasting–Today but Not Tomorrow

Author Mike Howard who writes frequently on weight loss and healthy living has this to say about:

Repeated Intervals of Feeding and Fasting

Intermittent fasting (IF), a dietary strategy that involves repeated intervals of feeding and fasting has gained popularity in the past couple of years, with proponents claiming a wide range of health benefits from insulin control to fat loss to defense against a host of diseases.

Just a Fad?

The question is:  is it a fad or is there sound research to back up the hype .  There are various permutations of intermittent fasting, with the most popular being alternate-day fasting (ADF). Promoters of this lifestyle claim that IF will increase longevity, burn fat, improve heart/lung function, improve insulin control, decrease inflammation and decrease cancer risk.

One of the hallmarks of IF is it’s ability to to prevent aging symptoms of the brain and nervous system. Many who have undertaken IF have reported feeling more “freedom” from not having to eat so often and also a sense of accomplishment and control from being able to sustain such a regimen.

Ancient Justification

There appears to be some ancient justification for intermittent fasting as some claim it is similar to how our Paleolithic ancestors ate and our systems are thus designed for such eating patterns.

The actual human data on IF is scarce, and no study to date (to my knowledge) has had a control group – which leaves only speculation as we don’t know if there is an advantage to daily caloric intake.

The few studies that have looked at IF have shown:

* Weight loss

* Improved insulin sensitivity

* Improved fat burning (oxidation)

On the downside, studies have also shown increased hunger throughout the duration of the fast.

Whom Might Benefit?

According to nutrition researcher Alan Aragon, IF may benefit the following people:

* Those who have steady glucose control (not prone to hypoglycemia)

* People who are not prone to binge eating

* Those who don’t have the time/inclination to prepare and pack food

* Those who drive and/or travel a lot.

* Those who are not as concerned with gaining muscle I would personally include those who exercise fairly vigorously more than 2-3 times per week.

You Still Need to Eat Healthy

* IF has the potential to impart health benefits such as improved insulin sensitivity, fat loss and prevention of mental decline.

* We don’t know if IF works better than calorie restriction, with research showing parallel benefits of calorie restriction.

* Exercise can probably replace the benefits derived from IF/calorie restriction

* IF may not be a sensible approach long-term.

* There doesn’t appear to be any physiological advantage to IF

* IF may be helpful for people trying to break a weight loss plateau.

* You still need to eat healthfully! Fasting does not negate the need for nutritious diet.

A Quick Look at … Detox Fasting

On the Road to Good Health ...

Detoxing is a heavily discussed topic in the natural health field. Achieving detox through fasting is a commonly recommended approach on the path to good health. It is a technique that should be addressed with caution, and with the help of a health professional for advise and monitoring.

Fasting is primarily the act of willingly abstaining from some or all food, drink, or both, for a period of time.

A fast may be total or partial concerning that from which one fasts, and may be prolonged or intermittent as to the period of fasting.

A complete fast in its traditional definition is abstinence of all food and liquids except for water.

Liquid fasts are a popular form of DETOX DIET. Proponents contend that abstaining from food detoxifies the body and improves greater health. Because less energy is expended on digestion of foods, it is contended that the body has more energy to expel toxins as well as to recover and heal itself from the stresses digestion places upon it.

Other proponents claim that protein sparing minimizes muscle loss as the body adapts to the lack of incoming protein by drawing upon almost solely fat for energy.

Despite their popularity, however, detox diets are not supported by the traditional medical field which claims that a healthy human body is capable of eliminating the toxins it encounters on its own. Judging from what I see some folks put in their bodies, they may have a hard time eliminating those poisons without a little help … What do you think?

The Low Down on High Raw … Raw Food, That Is

A lot of my patients and readers have been asking about putting more raw food in their diet…or going “all raw” or “high raw,” meaning eating exclusively raw foods or a high percentage of overall nutrient intake as raw food, respectively. Here is an article on the pros and cons of eating raw food by researcher Cathy Wong:

The raw food diet is a diet based on unprocessed and uncooked plant foods, such as fresh fruit and vegetables, sprouts, seeds, nuts, grains, beans, nuts, dried fruit, and seaweed. Heating food above 116 degrees F is believed to destroy enzymes in food that can assist in the digestion and absorption of food. Cooking is also thought to diminish the nutritional value and “life force” of food. Typically, at least 75% of the diet must be living or raw.

The Benefits of the Raw Food Diet

Proponents of the raw food diet believe it has numerous health benefits, including:

• Increased energy
• Improved skin appearance
• Better digestion
• Weight loss
• Reduced risk of heart disease

Going raw ...

The raw food diet contains fewer trans fats and saturated fat than the typical Western diet. It is also low in sodium and high in potassium, magnesium, folate, fiber and health-promoting plant chemicals called phytochemicals. These properties are associated with a reduced risk of diseases such as heart disease, diabetes, and cancer. For example, a study published in the Journal of Nutrition found that consumption of a raw food diet lowered plasma total cholesterol and triglyceride concentrations.

The Food

Unprocessed, preferably organic, whole foods such as:

• Fresh fruits and vegetables
• Nuts
• Seeds
• Beans
• Grains
• Legumes
• Dried fruit
• Seaweed
• Unprocessed organic or natural foods
• Freshly juiced fruit and vegetables
• Purified water
• Young coconut milk

At least 75% of food consumed should not be heated over 116 degrees F.

Makes a great salad dressing ...

The Preparation

Specific cooking techniques make foods more digestible and add variety to the diet, including:

• Sprouting seeds, grains, and beans
• Juicing fruit and vegetables
• Soaking nuts and dried fruit
• Blending
• Dehydrating food

The Equipment

• A dehydrator, a piece of equipment that blows air through food at a temperature of less than 116 degrees F.
• A good-quality juice extractor for juicing fruit and vegetables
• A blender, food processor, or chopper to save time
• Large glass containers to soak and sprout seeds, grains, and beans
• Mason jars for storing sprouts and other food

The Dangers

Some people experience a detoxification reaction when they start the raw food diet, especially if their previous diet was rich in meat, sugar, and caffeine. Mild headaches, nausea, and cravings can occur but usually last for several days.

The raw food diet may not be appropriate for certain people, such as:

• Children
• Pregnant or nursing women
• People with anemia
• People at risk for osteoporosis – A Washington University study found that people following a raw food diet had lower bone mass. Bone turnover rates, however, were similar to the group that ate a standard American diet.

Considerable time, energy, and commitment is needed to be healthy on the raw food diet. Many of the foods are made from scratch. Some ingredients may be hard to find, such as Rejuvelac (the fermented liquid drained from sprouted grains), sprouted flour, date sugar, young coconut milk, carob powder and Celtic sea salt. People must be aware that certain nutritional deficiencies can occur on the raw food diet, including:

• Calcium
• Iron
• B12 – The Journal of Nutrition study found that a raw food diet increased levels of homocysteine due to vitamin B-12 deficiency.
• Protein
• Calories

Critics of the raw food diet say while it’s true that some enzymes are inactivated when food is heated, it doesn’t matter because the body uses its own enzymes for digestion. In addition, cooking makes certain phytochemicals easier to absorb, such as beta-carotene in carrots. Another critique is that the human body has changed in response to eating cooked foods. Some of these changes are that are jaws and teeth have become smaller, our stomachs have shrunk, and our small intestines have grown longer, lengthening the digestive surface area. According to other alternative diet theories, such as macrobiotics, Ayurveda, and traditional Chinese medicine, a raw-only diet may not be appropriate for people living in colder climates or for people with certain constitutional types.