Don't you think we are shooting ourselves in the foot by calling our diet "the raw food diet". A lot of people on here, including the creators of the website call themselves "Raw Vegans" and say that it is the true raw vegan diet unlike the rest of them. This is an unnecessary battle in my opinion, which brings more negativity than positivity. And by including ourselves in the "raw food" movement, we are lumping ourselves with the rest of the other raw food diets that fail people such as high fat, paleo, stimulant based or low calorie based. Constantly people are posting articles to this site about why "raw vegan" diets fail and most of them do not even address the fruitarian lifestyle. But because we classify ourselves as raw foodists we are in the firing line.
I also think that raw food is not the focus of our diet. If you go around saying you're low fat raw vegans then that's a bit better but it's a bit of a complicated name for a fruitarian. Fruit is our focus, and most fruit you come accross is raw anyway. It's not all that bad when it is cooked (like in a tin or something). So the raw part I don't think we should focus on when advertising it but of course it is important that people know raw is important at some point. Much like how eating enough is important but we don't go around calling ourselves high calorie low fat raw vegans do we? A raw foodist to me is someone who eats raw food. Could be so many different things. A fruitarian is a fruitarian. There is no confusion. The more we detach ourselves from the "raw food movement" the better I think.
Perhaps you can find some reasons for why we should refer to ourselves as raw fooders as we advertise the diet. I can think of a few.
Permalink Reply by Diospyros on Well I'm already confused as to what you mean by fruitarian. Does a fruitarian eat fruit only or includes greens or seeds? Depends on who you ask!
Permalink Reply by Liam G on Well I think if you call yourself a fruitarian or anything else. It doesn't have to mean that you only eat fruit 100% (in the case of fruitarians)of the time but most of the time because that's what our diet is mostly about. Maybe some people would see it differently but I don't see that as a huge problem. I think the idea of living off fruits intrigues people like it did me. But the term raw food is getting a lot of bad press these days.
I see your point though
Permalink Reply by Jacob on We had some long and extensive discussions on the Swedish 30BaD about about this and we couldn't really come to an conclusion.
Fruitarians are often associated with skinny deficient only fruit-eaters that have a bad reputation overall.
Raw Food'ism are the mainstream that can lead into 811 but are a unnecessary U-turn that's really not needed to do. If we could tap into people with 811 before they started with junk-rawfood it would be great.
But what should we call ourselves? Elefferve'ers (LFRVers)? *lol*
Permalink Reply by Jacob on Permalink Reply by Liam G on I agree about the high carb thing. Yes we are also restricting protein and it is equally important. I guess for some the term "low fat" attracts them. But for me it actually almost threw me off because it sounded like a raw food diet corrupted by mainstream thoughts. Because I didn't really understand that low fat was important and it sounded like a mainstream diet because we hear low fat everywhere all the time on tv.
Yes I found a few fruitarians on youtube a few months before really taking an interest in this lifestyle and I didn't think they looked healthy and I thought they were a big crazy because they didn't actually explain anything at all. So I was put off. But if we all started using the term fruitarian more then we could give it a better impression. Or we could use the term fruit based diet or high carb raw vegan yes.
Vegafruitarian? :D
I agree that we can attract people that are already raw fooders into this diet by using the term raw because that's what will appeal to them.
Permalink Reply by Liam G on Yeah 80/10/10 I don't have many problems with.
Plus, as I understand it, the term low-fat raw vegan was basically just invented as a counter to the high-fat methods of other raw foodists.
Well that makes sense. One problem is though, is that a lot of high fat raw vegans I don't think realise they are high fat. I think we only use that term.
Permalink Reply by Diospyros on "I guess for some the term "low fat" attracts them. But for me it actually almost threw me off because it sounded like a raw food diet corrupted by mainstream thoughts."
I agree, HCRV is a good alternative. It emphasise abundance rather than restriction.
Permalink Reply by Ryan | on 
Permalink Reply by TheBananaGirl on OOh I like "High Carb raw vegan" that's cool! Lets change it :D
So smart Jacob!
Permalink Reply by TheBananaGirl on Permalink Reply by TheBananaGirl on 
Permalink Reply by pradtf on jacob chase wrote:
I actually like "high-carb raw vegan", or just HCRV for short. Low-fat implies a restriction of fats, which is true for this diet, but we also restrict protein, and the emphasis is that we want to get an ABUNDANCE of energy from an ABUNDANCE of carbs. Plus if we say high carb, it necessarily implies a comparative lowering of the other two caloronutrients, whereas "low-fat" could mean a 100% protein diet.
very logically presented imho, jacob!
the point regarding lf and lp is quite relevant. hence, lfrv should really be lplfrv which is a bit mouthy, whereas hc really expresses lplv more concisely. the acronym bears its own uniqueness as well!
(i also like hcrv because is an acronym for honda crv and we just got a nice 1998 one!).
in friendship,
prad
© 2013 Created by TheBananaGirl.
Powered by
