Please please keep in mind that I am not in anyway "knocking" dr graham or 80/10/10 in anyway...Im am honestly just confused by the lack of obvious validity I am seeing in his arguments in chapter one.
If you guys could help straighten me out I would greatly appreciate it, Im really confused.
1 - Could you do it without the use of a tool
I noted that Dr Graham seemed to base quite a few arguments on the "Could you eat it in its natural state without the use of a tool,container,heat etc etc.
- Maybe I am misinterpreting it...and I hope I am...but ...if we aren't supposed to eat anything that doesn't require a tool of one type or another...then.. we shouldn't be eating nuts with shells on them, or pineapples, or cantaloupe, or watermelon....etc etc....because we can't get into these things without a "tool".....
How did you guys interpret this??
2 - Nuts and seeds - Grains? .....
My question is this...Dr Graham defines grains as..seed...grass seed to be exact....why is it that we should eat...flax seed..or chia seed...but we shouldn't eat "grass seed".....and no I am not advocating eating "Grass seed"(grains)..that sounds kinda nasty
But his statements "for" seeds and nuts...was that..they are hard to digest...but we should still eat them??
I was thoroughly confused about that.... It would make much more sense to me if he said we shouldn't be eating seeds at all..of any kind(nut,fruit seed,grain/grass seed etc). But how can he say that we "should" eat seeds and nuts...(but I couldn't find any apparent reason why we should do this)....but we shouldnt eat..."grass seed"
3. - Using a childs "instincts"
Most of you have read the book and saw the analogy of the child in a room with a goat and a banana...which will he eat and which will he play with....
...If you stick a child in the yard with...grass...dirt...rocks...bugs....and a banana
Which one would you parents bet he would eat? (My money is on the rock ;))
Frankly...the argument against grains was weak at best.....Again..did I misinterpret it?
Im not knocking what he is saying....but it bothers me that he can take a valid argument..and back it up with an in-valid example...
P.S. On the plus side...I loved the introduction :) ...and alot of chapter one made alot of sense and just clarified some important things for me :) Im looking forward to reading the rest of the book...I just feel like I need to solidify these things before I continue reading .....Note..I may just be misinterpreting these arguments :)
All great questions. I think its really important to question.
At first I was intrigued that a doctor wrote 80.10.10. -- Then I noticed that Dr. Grahm is a CHIROPRACTOR!
You what though? The guy looks to be in killer shape. To me that's the biggest credential.
I've been challenged by this very new lifestyle - had a slip tonite - but keep getting better at it overall. I FEEL 1000% better when I stick to it.
The argument that humans have been probably cooking (some) food for roughly .1% (1/10 of 1 percent) of time, combined with how I feel and look when I eat that way is pretty compelling to me.
Bradley. Great points. To clarify, please tell me what you mean by .1% of "time'. Do you mean of ALL time of recorded life in general (54 - 500 million years?), or "time of humans as we call them on this earth (40 - 100 million years, or more) ? Just that I love details.
It was from a Doug Graham video I watched. It was a very rough estimate of 10,000 years out of I think 10,000,000 years of humanity.
Dr means someone holds a PhD. MD means someone is a medical doctor.
It's not his fault you don't know the difference.
He did it to trick people into thinking he's an MD? Did he tell you this?
Pineapples, we maybe wouldn't find as easy to eat. But his argument is that nuts shouldn't and wouldn't be eaten in large amounts, because we would have to work very hard to crack them open using rocks. Rocks are pretty basic tools - they don't require intelligence to make them, they are ubiquitous in nature. We can use rocks to eat things like melons, When they are ripe, they open up easily, sometimes even if just dropped from the ground (which ripe fruit does).
We would be more likely to eat the fruits that were easier to eat, but would we would eat other things too.
as for the childs instincts, I think he makes a fairly good point here; Many children will experiment and explore nature when left to their own devices, through their mouths for a while. In childhood development, there is a stage where exploration of the world involves using the mouth. So a child may try eating grass, small pebbles, dirt and even perhaps bugs. But the point is, would they make it a food. The point he was making about the rabbit and the peach was that children know the difference between when something is or isnt a food. A very young child may even try licking or nibbling at an animal (although not usually), but this wouldn't be to eat it. And they would learn very quickly through furballs and their weak teeth and the animal biting back, that this wouldn't be a good idea. Just as a child would learn quickly that grass isn't satisfying as a replacement for meals, and rocks, dirt or bugs are not foods fit for a meal. Their experimentation is just that. Experimentation. But if you left a child for a while with a load of peaches, or a living animal, or some raw grains (or even cooked grains in their plain, uncondimented state), you can be sure that most children would go towards the peaches eventually. They might try the rice for a bit, but would get bored quickly with its bland taste. The colourful peaches with their sweet taste and smell would be much more attractive when they were really hungry.
Dougs book is by no means scientific and by no means complete. It is just a good guiding introduction to getting you thinking about listening to the feedback from your body. If you really analyse it, there are heaps of flaws. I don't think grains, particularly gluten grains, are an optimum food. But Dougs arguments are pretty weak. The easiest and most obvious factor that he points out is that they cannot be eaten raw. That is pretty much true. That is its strongest point. Some of his other points, like that they are low in vitamin C, are pretty weak. Dates contain no vitamin C for example, yet they are a fruit.
I agree that it is a shame the book wasn't written with stronger, more scientifically accurate arguments and references. But no book will ever be perfect or a panacea. It's just a good intro to thinking about Natural hygiene, instincts and raw foods.
If you don't like these arguments for eating fruit, find better ones! Surely they exist. It's all just attempts to explain the obvious, that fruit is our natural food. :)
I also felt the same way about those arguments, however, I don't think his potential inability to solidify his arguments nullifies what he is saying. Perhaps there are many reasons out there for not eating grains, for example, and he just failed to really get that across with more solid information. It is true that a lot of people may regard this as a fad diet, however, and as such you should always be sure to inquire for yourself about everything. I am personally transitioning to being completely 811 from a month's time of being raw vegan because I do believe that so many people truly benefit from this diet. If this works for me, hopefully, when I acquire my Ph D., I will be able to do work to prove its efficacy because it is a personal goal of mine to cause an even greater shift in the revolution of the American Diet.
it's hard to say why natural = good anyways
imo we should just use nutritional studies, rather than paleontology, to determine which foods are best for us. makes sense, right?
i never argue all early hominids were naturally frugivores (or even veg) and therefore we should be too because you can get so shot full of holes on that one that you're going to need more than the 30bad recommended allotment of water intake to stay hydrated!