What do you guys think about this type of diet as in terms of health/fitness?

It's a mostly raw plant based diet. I think it's quite similar to Scotts diet plan but is 100% vegan. You have to subscribe to watch the videos and it's free. He sends you 12 videos over 30 days, I think he makes some great points about stress and will power. I can't remember what video it was but he talks about how stress lowers your will power so to the point that it's very hard to do what you want. A scientific experiment was done on 2 groups of children and group 1 spent the whole day doing the worst subject in a class with an adult standing over them making sure they did the work while group 2 got to do whatever they wanted and enjoyed the whole day. At the end of the day they put group 1 in a room with a 1 way mirror and left them with a big tray of freashly cooked cookies and told them not to eat them, after 20 minutes the cookies were all gone. They did the same thing with group 2 and the children were very content and did not eat the cookies just talked about their fun day.

Some other interesting facts in the other videos, worth watching. I could link you guys up to all 12 videos so you don't have to wait the 30 days but I'll have to go through my mail and copy and paste all the links. Being on my I phone is a bit of a pain to do all that just now, I'll do it when I'm home if anyone interested?

http://www.thrivein30.com

A mostly raw plant based diet sounds terrible.

Yes but probably very healthy!

Oggy wrote:Yes but probably very healthy!

How do you equate this to being heathy?

I would say not not very healthy at all as the body cannot digest plant cellulose so a purely raw vegetable diet isn't going to be so good for the digestive system. Cue potential for Bowel Cancer if you followed this over a prolonged period of time.

Some vegetation is best raw and some cooked. Cooking can destroy vitamins and enzymes, but it can also increase the availability of nutrients.

i eat a lot of my veg lightly steamed which is a good compromise, but i also eat a lot of raw veg too. From my knowlegde raw veg isn't bad for the digestive tract.

Karlos wrote:Some vegetation is best raw and some cooked. Cooking can destroy vitamins and enzymes, but it can also increase the availability of nutrients.

i eat a lot of my veg lightly steamed which is a good compromise, but i also eat a lot of raw veg too. From my knowlegde raw veg isn't bad for the digestive tract.

In small amounts no but in quantity and over time it can't be good to be passing partially digested food as this can damage intestinal walls in a similar fashion to having too much fibre in your diet.

As you've already said though, lightly steamed has to be the way forward.

How would that equate to bowel cancer?

Rilla wrote:How would that equate to bowel cancer?

It's believed that damage to instestinal lining can increase the likelyhood of developing bowel cancer although it's not a given in every individual.

Raw veganism isn't very healthy.

For a start, humans evolved eating higher calorie foods that required cooking (i.e tubers, grains, meat etc) we simply don't have the digestive capability to get enough calories from raw plant material, you could from raw nuts and avocados but due to antinutrient content and the fact you'd be getting unbalanced nutrient intakes it'd be an unwise move.

A sensible diet of wholefoods, meat, fish, eggs, vegetables, tubers, grains (buckwheat, brown rice not doughnuts or white bread!) a few bits of fruit/berries.
Some raw plant foods, great, good for you....vitamins and phytochemicals, basing your whole diet and you're asking for trouble.

Anyone who promotes a strictly vegan/raw/carnivorous diet is being extreme and illogical, trying to polarize nutrition into 'good and bad' in an all or nothing viewpoint is a very bad starting point.
The healthiest people in the world eat a mixture of food sources.

Regarding bowel cancer, excessive abrasion from very high fibre diets can be a cause, although fermentation of undigested material is thought to be a bigger factor but is a complex subject, again you can't polarize into 'fibre is good or bad' it is multifactoral and needs more research.

Diet, especially the amount of starch and dietary fibre which escape digestion in the small intestine, are major determinants of colon function in man. These carbohydrates are the principal substrates for fermentation by the large bowel flora. Carbohydrate fermentation results in lowered caecal pH and the production of short chain fatty acids of which butyric acid may protect the colon epithelium from dysplastic change. Protein digestion and amino acid fermentation also occur in the large bowel but the nature of its endproducts varies in relation to the amount of carbohydrate available. During active carbohydrate breakdown amino acid fermentation endproducts such as ammonia are used by the bacteria for protein synthesis during microbial growth, but in carbon-limited fermentation amines, ammonia, phenols and indoles, etc, accumulate. Fermentation also results in changes in colon pH which alters the metabolism of bile acids, nitrate, sulphate and other substances. Fermentation is thus controlled to a great extent by substrate availability, especially of carbohydrates which are derived from the diet. The potential to induce mutagenic change in colon epithelial cells and promote tumour growth may readily be influenced by diet.

how did we evolve eating grains?

Grains have been around for 10-12,000 years whereas we have been evolving for about 1,500,000 years. grains are a late edition to our diet.

cleaver wrote:how did we evolve eating grains?

Grains have been around for 10-12,000 years whereas we have been evolving for about 1,500,000 years. grains are a late edition to our diet.

Yea that threw me off as well. Genetically we're 98,4% the same as chimps and 99,99% the same as the CroMagnon man...

Quinoa is older, is it not?

ollie wrote:Quinoa is older, is it not?

not a grain

cleaver wrote:how did we evolve eating grains?

Grains have been around for 10-12,000 years whereas we have been evolving for about 1,500,000 years. grains are a late edition to our diet.

Grains have been around longer than humans. (if you wanted me to get picky)
You are referring to the practice of agriculture no doubt, you'd actually be suprised the impact of 10,000 years on our dietary abilities, the core genetics don't change but epigenetic changes allow adaptation, humans are on of the most adaptable species. (in line with pigs and rats, all three species are highly successful)
Before that wild grains were collected, true that we didn't start consuming grains as a staple until several thousand years ago but who here follows the standard food pyramid? consuming 60-70% of your diet as wheat certainly isn't likely to be nutritionally balanced, one of the problems is overdependance on grain foods.

The argument about a foods place in evolutionary terms is somewhat misleading, for example many people following 'paleolithic' eating regimes presume that because early man hunted animals it is perfectly acceptable to eat a high fat diet of fattened pork, eggs, butter and steak.
We didn't drink milk through a large part of our evolution but almost all europeans have the genetic adaptation (albeit a simple mutation of a childhood expressed gene), it is a nutritious food for those it causes no problems, should we not drink it because it's not what we evolved on or should we take the food on it's own merits?

I don't actually recommend a large proportion of grains in the diet, i'd suggest tubers as a better carbohydrate source and i certainly wouldn't recommend grains to people with IBS/gut problems but remember many 'modern' grain related problems have occured due to modern processing of grains (or at least lack of, where it matters) this is the suspension of sprouting, fermenting and letting the dough stand, modern loaves are quick baked with fast acting yeast which was developed for increased production speed with world war 2.

Remember that there are 'psuedograins' (i.e buckwheat) that are nutritonally superior without so many antinutrients or problematic structural proteins (gluten) as the true cearals (i.e wheat, rye, oats)

good response mate, picky is good when you can explain your argument as well as that

My only gripe now is milk. Whilst I love a bit of bitty I really cannot understand our obsession with cows milk. Whilst it's full of nutrients I do not believe that we absorb them very well at all. I do agree that many people can now tolerate it, but that does not make it good for you. Rather like wheat in that respect.

Yoghurt is actually much better than straight milk.
Far easier to digest, the calcium and phosphorus are much more bioavailable, mild increase in B vitamins.

I personally very rarely drink milk, i like a bit of gold top once a month or so but i have lots of yoghurt.

cleaver wrote:good response mate, picky is good when you can explain your argument as well as that

My only gripe now is milk. Whilst I love a bit of bitty I really cannot understand our obsession with cows milk. Whilst it's full of nutrients I do not believe that we absorb them very well at all. I do agree that many people can now tolerate it, but that does not make it good for you. Rather like wheat in that respect.

Gluten and lactose are both common alergies, many people who would not show up on a medical test as celiac will still have a increase in cortisol/prolactin from gluten. Same goes for dairy with women suffering from both more than blokes, if you have no issues with dairy then I can not see why it can't help make up a varied diet. Being Celiac myself I would ban gluten from the whole country

Pain wrote:

cleaver wrote:how did we evolve eating grains?

Grains have been around for 10-12,000 years whereas we have been evolving for about 1,500,000 years. grains are a late edition to our diet.

Grains have been around longer than humans. (if you wanted me to get picky)
You are referring to the practice of agriculture no doubt, you'd actually be suprised the impact of 10,000 years on our dietary abilities, the core genetics don't change but epigenetic changes allow adaptation, humans are on of the most adaptable species. (in line with pigs and rats, all three species are highly successful)
Before that wild grains were collected, true that we didn't start consuming grains as a staple until several thousand years ago but who here follows the standard food pyramid? consuming 60-70% of your diet as wheat certainly isn't likely to be nutritionally balanced, one of the problems is overdependance on grain foods.

The argument about a foods place in evolutionary terms is somewhat misleading, for example many people following 'paleolithic' eating regimes presume that because early man hunted animals it is perfectly acceptable to eat a high fat diet of fattened pork, eggs, butter and steak.
We didn't drink milk through a large part of our evolution but almost all europeans have the genetic adaptation (albeit a simple mutation of a childhood expressed gene), it is a nutritious food for those it causes no problems, should we not drink it because it's not what we evolved on or should we take the food on it's own merits?

I don't actually recommend a large proportion of grains in the diet, i'd suggest tubers as a better carbohydrate source and i certainly wouldn't recommend grains to people with IBS/gut problems but remember many 'modern' grain related problems have occured due to modern processing of grains (or at least lack of, where it matters) this is the suspension of sprouting, fermenting and letting the dough stand, modern loaves are quick baked with fast acting yeast which was developed for increased production speed with world war 2.

Remember that there are 'psuedograins' (i.e buckwheat) that are nutritonally superior without so many antinutrients or problematic structural proteins (gluten) as the true cearals (i.e wheat, rye, oats)

Top post that, almost precisely the conclusions i've come to. Especially considering the fact that human evolution is speeding up (much to my surprise), and this is mainly due to man made dietary and environmental changes, i.e agriculture, pollution etc. It seems very illogical to completely disregard dairy and grains considering the huge selective pressures they must have exerted at specific points during the past 14k years. Whilst suggesting they be staples in the diet is pretty dumb, we are more than capable of utilizing grains, if treated properly before consumption, without detriment to health. I agree with regards to tubers before grains as well, personally i believe it would be tubers, grains and then fruits in order of preference of carbohydrate source.

Alex wrote:I would say not not very healthy at all as the body cannot digest plant cellulose so a purely raw vegetable diet isn't going to be so good for the digestive system. Cue potential for Bowel Cancer if you followed this over a prolonged period of time.

Is that how our ancestors evolved with bowel cancer and all other animals die as a result of bowel cancer or did GOD make us humens special lol?

Anyway, he isn't saying to eat a 100% raw food diet but at least 70-80% like Scott's plan. The only difference is he recommends a 100% vegan diet as if you watch his videos he talks about the oil industry and how much money goes to waste on farming animals + animal feed to yeald such little food when we should be farming more crops to feed ourselfs with locally grown food rather than feeding animals and getting such little return.

I still eat meat but not so much because it makes me aggressive and I don't think it's good to eat a lot but I still eat some. I think vegans are a bit exreme but this guy makes some very valid points and if we all followed a 80% vegan diet it would make a huge difference to the ecconimy, but we'ree all glutinous bast*rds in the west!

Oggy wrote:

Alex wrote:I would say not not very healthy at all as the body cannot digest plant cellulose so a purely raw vegetable diet isn't going to be so good for the digestive system. Cue potential for Bowel Cancer if you followed this over a prolonged period of time.

Is that how our ancestors evolved with bowel cancer and all other animals die as a result of bowel cancer or did GOD make us humens special lol?

Seems that you have things back to front!

Oggy this post makes no sense at all, what are you trying to say?

Oggy wrote:

Alex wrote:I would say not not very healthy at all as the body cannot digest plant cellulose so a purely raw vegetable diet isn't going to be so good for the digestive system. Cue potential for Bowel Cancer if you followed this over a prolonged period of time.

Is that how our ancestors evolved with bowel cancer and all other animals die as a result of bowel cancer or did GOD make us humens special lol?

Seems that you have things back to front!

Anyway, he isn't saying to eat a 100% raw food diet but at least 70-80% like Scott's plan. The only difference is he recommends a 100% vegan diet as if you watch his videos he talks about the oil industry and how much money goes to waste on farming animals + animal feed to yeald such little food when we should be farming more crops to feed ourselfs with locally grown food rather than feeding animals and getting such little return.

I still eat meat but not so much because it makes me aggressive and I don't think it's good to eat a lot but I still eat some. I think vegans are a bit exreme but this guy makes some very valid points and if we all followed a 80% vegan diet it would make a huge difference to the ecconimy, but we'ree all glutinous bast*rds in the west!

We are by default carnivores so our digestive system has not adpated in the same way as herbivores to be efficient at digesting plant material. To my knowledge we a re one of the few carnivores that also chooses to eat pant material in any quantity so in theory would could well argue that we were made a little different.

Oggy wrote:

Alex wrote:I would say not not very healthy at all as the body cannot digest plant cellulose so a purely raw vegetable diet isn't going to be so good for the digestive system. Cue potential for Bowel Cancer if you followed this over a prolonged period of time.

Is that how our ancestors evolved with bowel cancer and all other animals die as a result of bowel cancer or did GOD make us humens special lol?

Anyway, he isn't saying to eat a 100% raw food diet but at least 70-80% like Scott's plan. The only difference is he recommends a 100% vegan diet as if you watch his videos he talks about the oil industry and how much money goes to waste on farming animals + animal feed to yeald such little food when we should be farming more crops to feed ourselfs with locally grown food rather than feeding animals and getting such little return.

I still eat meat but not so much because it makes me aggressive and I don't think it's good to eat a lot but I still eat some. I think vegans are a bit exreme but this guy makes some very valid points and if we all followed a 80% vegan diet it would make a huge difference to the ecconimy, but we'ree all glutinous bast*rds in the west!

Have you ever considered that it's not [insert external factor] that makes you aggressive? As a human being you've been gifted with choice, options and a sentient mind - I suggest you use it to control the way you interact with people.

Alex wrote:We are by default carnivores so our digestive system has not adpated in the same way as herbivores to be efficient at digesting plant material.

Not quite. We are by default omnivores - our teeth prove that.

Well man never evolved eating cooked food before we had fire.