80/10/10: Exploring the Distinction Between Simple Sugars and Complex Carbs as Primary Fuel Source (WAS: How we add weight: what's healthful, what's not)

[Guest guest]

Yes, Erica, you have the distinction exactly. What all these people share is

a realization that high-fat, high-protein diets kill and that low-fat,

low-protein diets are healthful. Realizing that fuel (calories) can only

come from some combination of carbohydrates, proteins, and fats, and

essentially eliminating proteins and fats as primary sources, all these

people correctly conclude that the great majority of our calories MUST come

from carbohydrates, if we are to live healthfully.

 

In other words, their MACRONUTRIENT guidelines ... CPF ratio ... are all the

substantially similar. It's just that their chosen source for carbs is quite

different. [NOTE: CPF = Carbs/Proteins/Fats]

 

And indeed, ALL of these approaches to diet do produce wonderful results ...

to a point. But Pritikin already tried the high-starch approach. He achieved

his goal ... virtual elimination of heart disease. But over time, there were

" side effects " (what a euphemism, eh?) ... people began showing up with

other chronic and degenerative diseases.

 

I heartily recommend Ross Horne's books, better than almost any of today's

popular RF books by far and available free and online at

www.soilandhealth.org. Ross Horne was a Pritikin devotee, a genuine disciple

.... until he saw through is own experience and with his own eyes what was

happening. Let me know if you have any difficulty accessing any of his

books.

 

So Erica, you are indeed correct, the primary difference here is that Doug

is teaching people to consume simple sugars, in solution in water,

accompanied by soft, soluble, digestible fiber. In contrast, the others are

teaching people to consume complex starches, incapable of entering into

solution in water (molecules are too large), accompanied by little or no

soft, digestible fiber AND accompanied, to a degree, by hard, indigestible

fiber instead.

 

There is a great fear throughout the land, a fear of " sugar " . And among us

humans, where there is fear, there is blindness.

 

Consuming sugar in its refined form and in the presence of fat, as most

people do, is disastrous for human health. But consuming simple sugars in

their natural state, in solution in water, accompanied by Nature's moderator

.... soft fiber (guar, pectin, etc.) works wonders. And this is indeed what

distinguishes Doug Graham's 80/10/10 program from the rest. And as I've

written repeatedly, virtually all so-called " blood-sugar problems " are, in

fact, the result of chronically elevated blood fat. Cut the fat, vanish the

problem. No drugs or cleanses or blood analyses or killing agents (for

" candida " ) or anything else needed.

 

Regarding the " enzyme connection " , as I've written before, this is RF

mythology, an embarrassment every time I have to explain to a scientist or

other well-educated person that enzymes are not, primarily, what RF is all

about. I SO wish that RF teachers would learn something new, so they could

stop with all that discussion about enzymes and " life force " .

 

Thanks for writing!!!

Elchanan

_____

 

Erica

Sunday, September 23, 2007 11:18 AM

rawfood

[Raw Food] Re: How we add weight: what's healthful, what's not (

WAS: Is it possible to gain weight on raw food?)

 

 

>>> " Rather, it is intended as a guideline, a set of boundary conditions:

MAXIMUM of 10% of calories each from proteins and fats, MINIMUM of 10% from

carbs, primarily simple sugars. And although Dr. Doug Graham owns the

trademark on this name, this general guideline is, in fact, taught in one

form or another by Ornish, Esselstyn, McDougall, and many others. This is

what is learned in the China Study, the Framingham study. "

 

Elchanan, how can this be, though? McDougall, Bernard and others do not

teach 80% fruit or simple sugar. Their diets ARE low fat and vegan,

absolutely, but they teach grains (Doug is adamant against grains), beans,

and even some soy proteins. I would agree their diets are similarly vegan

and low-fat, but I wouldn't say the guidelines are the same. It is tough to

fail to note the tremendous success these trailblazing doctors have had with

a broad spectrum of serious diseases that plague our nation, and through

diet alone, but they really don't even " get " the enzyme connection, etc.

 

Erica

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

>

> Regarding the " enzyme connection " , as I've written before, this is RF

> mythology, an embarrassment every time I have to explain to a

scientist or

> other well-educated person that enzymes are not, primarily, what RF

is all

> about. I SO wish that RF teachers would learn something new, so they

could

> stop with all that discussion about enzymes and " life force " .

 

 

Whoah. Wait - Tell me more about why you don't think enzymes are

relavent or pertinent to raw foods-? Aren't enzymes the main

difference between a cooked apple and a raw (unpasteurized/un-

irradiated) apple? I've studied this for years and have never heard

that it's not pertinent at all. Will you explain further, please? Erica