attn: E re: Dr. Cousens program . . . thoughts? [s]

[Guest guest]

Leslie writes:

 

E~

You provide so much valuble information to this list & you are quite an

inspiration! I appreciate you.

 

I get confused by the various schools of thought regarding eating raw & I am

still trying to understand your way of eating.

 

I am wondering what your thoughts are on Gabriel Cousen's Rainbow Green Live

Cuisine?

His approach is different than yours (he minimizes the use of sweet fruit).

_____

First, Leslie, thank you so very much, both for your appreciation and for

asking this question. There are so many perspectives out there that directly

conflict, and I realize that it's enough to make anyone's head spin.

 

Second, behind your question about the differences in the programs, I

anticipate a second, more fundamental question, namely, whom should I trust?

So I'll try and address that a bit, as well.

 

I share some comments, then following is a repost on basically the same

question, dates March 19.

Elchanan

_____

My perception of Gabriel is that he is very smart, well-educated, and deeply

dedicated to his pursuit of spirituality and his healing work with people. I

admire and respect his work, which is truly his life's work.

 

For purposes of your question, we disagree, I believe, on two points.

 

First, Gabriel has long ago adopted the Ayurvedic way, or school of thought,

for understanding how we function. This school of thought classifies humans

into subgroups, vata, pitta, kapha, etc. (In fact, from writing bios when I

had him come and speak in the past, Gabriel first found RF because he was

seeking a way of eating that would give him sufficient energy and stamina to

engage in long meditations regularly.

 

Anyway, based upon out particular type, we are advised to make certain

dietary and lifestyle choices. The science is then used to support and

elaborate or embellish how to create a program for each type.

 

More on this distinction in the repost, below.

 

Recently, someone in our group called Gabriel's facility, Tree of Life

Rejuvenation Center, to inquire about putting together an eating program for

herself. She was told that the best thing, and in fact the necessary thing,

would be to go there and discover and learn about her type, that a program

would follow quite naturally from that information.

 

That Gabriel's dietary recommendations are inadequate, however, seems clear

on their face, in that he almost always recommends extensive

supplementation. Aside from being very expensive, for me this constitutes an

open admission that the recommended diet falls short of meeting our needs.

 

Second, we disagree specifically in our understanding about how the human

body digests, absorbs, takes up, and uses sugar, particularly fruit sugar.

And the difference really has nothing to do with sugar per se, but rather

with the role of fat alongside the sugar. (I wrote on this in a post or two

about diabetes and blood sugar, this is just a brief recap.)

 

It is constructive at this point to distinguish two terms, absorption and

uptake.

 

- " Absorption " refers to transfer of material (hopefully only nutrients, but

often including toxins/foreign matter) FROM the digestive system into EITHER

the blood stream OR the lymphatic system.

 

- Waterborne material is absorbed into the blood, which consists

primarily of water.

 

- Fat borne material (e.g., fat-soluble vitamins such as A, D, E, K) is

absorbed into the lymphatic system for further processing before it enters

the blood stream. This distinction in itself is crucial for the present

conversation.

 

- " Uptake " refers primarily to transfer of material FROM the blood INTO our

cells (tissues, organs, etc.)

 

In order for sugar to be used as fuel and converted into thermomechanical

energy (chemically " burned, " or oxidized), it must enter the body (typically

as food), exit the digestive system into the blood, then exit the blood into

a cell. ONLY inside a cell can the sugar be burned and converted into

energy.

 

Note that uptake, namely, the movement of sugar FROM the blood stream INTO

cells, is facilitated n large part by the hormone insulin. Insulin is

secreted in the pancreas, one of the endocrine glands.

 

When blood fat is elevated above " normal, " the effects of insulin are

inhibited, and the body has difficulty moving sugar (glucose) from the blood

and into the cells. The PERCEIVED result is abnormally elevated blood sugar.

Responding to this condition, the body then enters a " fight or flight "

response, in which the adrenal signals the pancreas to make additional

insulin. Eventually, the insulin level reaches a level where the blood sugar

transfer into the cells is accomplished.

 

In a healthy person, sugar travels about freely and easily, spends a

relatively short amount of time in the blood until it is needed. When the

blood sugar runs a bit low, as when activity increases (exercise), the body

naturally draws upon its built-in reserves, glycogen and then fat stores,

for additional fuel. At some point in this process, the body seeks resource

replenishment by signaling hunger.

 

In contrast, fat lingers in the blood, it does NOT require frequent

replenishment, and in fact frequent fat replenishment is at the heart of

virtually all " blood sugar problems. " The blood fat level just keeps going

up!

 

What Gabriel and the entire medical establishment seem to overlook is this

key piece of the process, that fat remains IN the blood stream for hours and

hours. So if you eat an avocado at noon and then fruit at 5 pm, your body

will almost always encounter at least some difficulty with sugar uptake.

 

Do this several times daily for a long enough period, and you will be

entitled to purchase a diagnosis such as hyper/hypoglycemia, diabetes,

chronic fatigue, Candida, etc.

 

THE CRUCIAL DIFFERENCE

The crucial difference in our perspective is this, then:

 

- Gabriel sees improper blood sugar management and perceives a blood sugar

problem.

 

- I see improper blood sugar management and perceive a fat overdose.

 

From Gabriel's perspective, one would naturally avoid or minimize fruit

consumption.

 

From my perspective, one would naturally avoid or minimize fat consumption.

_____

 

Posted Saturday 3/19/05 3:22 pm

The high-fruit way...Jennifer's brilliant questions :)

 

Jennifer asks:

 

4) Have you tried eating the other way, a la Gabriel

Cousens, for example, and if so, what was the result? I was

very influenced by his work and feel that he genuinely

believes in what he is doing and suggesting to others. Why

are these two raw food philosophies so different?

 

First I would not call Gabriel's approach THE other way, but merely Another

way.

 

To the limited extent that I am acquainted with Gabriel personally, I like

him. And in the past I have sponsored and hosted him as a speaker on several

occasions. Yet it is clear, as you observe, that he and I point down

different paths, both of which may rightly be called " raw foodism. " I shall

attempt to outline some of the differences between our two views, however,

obviously it would be better to invite Gabriel to represent himself.

 

As I understand Gabriel's approach, he has adopted, at least in large

measure, the Ayurvedic model for understanding the design and nature of our

species. According to this model, our species may be subdivided into several

types, such as vata, pitta, kapha. Each type then has certain prevailing

characteristics and, accordingly, is best served by eating certain foods and

making various other lifestyle choices.

 

At the same time, Gabriel also has extensive education and training in

Western medicine, and therefore he has a considerable general science

background. My sense is that he has attempted to interweave these two

models, the Ayurvedic and the medical, along with other inputs, into a

generalized approach for healthful living. However, as I understand his

work, the Ayurvedic model always remains predominant, and everything else

eventually conforms to that model.

 

Gabriel also sells large quantities of supplements, though I have met people

who visited his Tree of Life Rejuvenation Center and bought few or no

supplements.

 

My education in basic science and in the nature of science (as opposed to

some particular field such as " medical science " ), and also in mathematics,

leads me to understand that all human models of reality are inherently

severely limited. Reality is always seems to present a far more complex and

interwoven tapestry than any theory can ever describe, much less explain. So

rather than rely upon any such model a priori, I choose simply to begin by

observing Nature, and of course by seeking out others who do or have done

similarly. In other words, I am, first and foremost, making my best effort

to come into this exploration tabula rasa, with a clean slate and free from

bias, to the extent I am able.

 

So when I hear that we are to be subdivided into types (Ayurvedic types,

blood types, Aryans and inferior types, Chosen People and everyone else,

Believers and Nonbelievers, etc.), I look into Nature and seek to discover

other species, in fact any species at all, that exhibits such distinctive

subspecies typologies. To date, I have found none.

 

Therefore, in order to adopt such a typological model of humanity, I would

first have to decide that humanity exhibits a capacity for subtyping unlike

anything else observable in Nature. This requires a leap of faith that I am

unwilling to make. It just does not make sense to me.

 

So I do not attempt to perceive things in terms of the Ayurvedic model or

any other model. I simply look at what exists, and observe and think and

eventually synthesize, all to the best of my ability. And of course I listen

to others.

 

Some of you may notice that the nature of the questions I ask/answer differs

from those raised by most people. This occurs because I really am thinking

differently than the " norm " in our society. And one of my greatest joys

occurs when I have the opportunity, not to teach others knowledge or what to

do. but to teach others how to think. For I perceive this as a rapidly

diminishing capacity among our species at the present.

 

Anyway, when I see that we need oxygen and water most of all, I take this at

face value, I need no model in which to understand it further. Similarly,

when I see that we burn glucose as fuel, I take this at face value. I do not

ask " where do you get your protein, " for I have observed that protein is in

virtually everything we eat. But I DO ask, " where do you get your fuel? " For

not all the foods we eat contain the same quantity, type, or quality of

fuel. And I know, again through simple observation, that we consume far more

fuel than any other substance, other than oxygen and water.

 

Based upon these rather simple and straightforward observations, I formulate

certain equally simple questions:

 

- What foods are high in oxygen and water?

- What foods are high in bioavailable simple sugar?

 

and so forth. I just think differently, I believe it's fair to say. I am not

alone or unique in this, there are many others who think similarly And

EVERYONE can learn to think with this sort of clarity and

straightforwardness. One must simply seek, the rest will come.

 

 

 

--

---------------------[ Ciphire Signature ]----------------------

vlinfo signed email body (9209 characters)

on 23 March 2005 at 02:33:00 UTC

rawfood

-------------------------------

: Ciphire has secured this email against identity theft.

: Free download at www.ciphire.com. The garbled lines

: below are the sender's verifiable digital signature.

-------------------------------

00fAAAAAEAAABc1UBC+SMAAEwDAAIAAgACACBZ36NZd8ice9rJ4ZlYrt6BrEjH8O

zzmKDQLsTNDUWDmAEAhgSkE5NuzzvORJkeFIi/NVXB9GCG1XVfaMj+yPGZ0X03rZ

IGseBBttqQFW6fIxjE0ha2246Ea9bPIgBgv9lFnw==

------------------[ End Ciphire Signed Message ]----------------