boutenko family aka the 'raw family'. ive met em all and lovely folk they are. and if you ask them personally if they eat cooked food they always say 'yes'. exception being victoria and she claims its cos she eats too much and doesnt exercise enough.
but let me tell you folks, if your as obese as victoria is, you are chewing a heck of a lot of calories to just maintain that weight and its IMPOSSIBLE to stay that weight on just raw plant foods alone. youd literally vomit on the amount of nuts/seeds/oil needed to support that sort of caloric excess.
my sincere advice to victoria is the same i gave sergei and valya, 'if you want to be slim, trim, fit and 100% raw vegan like natures design, simply get enough cals from your fav sweet fruits for starters.."
we need to hold the raw authors to a higher standard. what does it say about our raw movement when the 'raw family' females are chronically overweight from eating cooked food?
victoria boutenko has sold more raw food books than anyone in history. people constantly tell me 'well the raw diet sounds great but how come that victoria lady is obese!!!!..she is fatter than most people you see at mcdonalds!! etc'
it pains me to hear this and see victoria on stage and promoting the benefits of a raw food diet but she is obese...
Permalink Reply by B on December 8, 2009 at 1:37pm
The Boutenkos are obviously spreading a positive message whether or not they are following it.
This is the issue. If they choose to eat cooked food, that's fine, there's nothing wrong with that if that's what they choose to do and are transparent about it. However Victoria describes cooked food eating as an addiction, yet she herself has admitted only recently she eats cooked now. What does this make her then according to her definition, or does she see things differently now? This would all be quite confusing for her followers, and may leave them wondering whether being 100% raw in the long term is a good idea (am I going to become obese?) or even possible. 100% raw may not be for everybody, but many in the raw movement now are leading people to believe that it can't be done, same with being a vegan. This isn't the case, but since there are certainly more ways to do a raw diet wrong than there are effective long term approaches of doing it, many may be discouraged from even considering giving 100% lfrv a fair try.
Permalink Reply by B on December 8, 2009 at 5:56pm
I will tell you Into Raw I've spent more time than I'd have liked confronting Paul Nison on his blog regarding his recent remarks claiming that no long term 100% raw foodists where known to exist and that since he had failed on a 100% rv diet and now surrounds himself with people who agree with him that vegan diets do not work. I endured plenty of criticism for this and was never given a response to my questions by Paul, but it seems because of the efforts of others and myself, he is at least for now less outspoken on this issue and concedes now that 'if 100% rv works for you I don't have a problem with that'. I did not confront him in an attempt to change Paul Nison's habits but merely to point out that his statements were unfounded and illogical.
Making an observation about an obvious inconsistency between another's philosophy and habits does not mean we have to take them to task, it is their responsibility to live up to their word or not, not ours.
However those that make misleading or false statements about raw food or veganism should be confronted. This is what I do and will continue to do. As far as I know Victoria has not made any such claims, but if she does I will be among the first to write her a letter on the subject.
I do not have the 12 steps to raw book currently, but I do recall reading in it something to the effect of there are two types of eaters: healthy eaters, who eat when hungry and stop when satisfied, and compulsive eaters, people who will continue to eat if food as long as there is food on the plate, eat for emotional comfort, etc. She said the first category could get away with eating small amounts of cooked food on occasion, while the latter should be go to all efforts to avoid any cooked due to their addictive personality tendencies. She said she fell into the latter category. It doesn't get any clearer than that what she is claiming to be with respect to her diet. This is not to say that her viewpoint may change, but I think this would be unfortunate because I think this zero tolerance policy for cooked food is the most effective approach for most people and their unhealthy approach to eating to staying 100% raw.
What one person looks like or what they say, shouldn't influence someones entire decision as to whether they convert to raw or not. If it does, then this would be the person that is also likely to jump off a bridge if you told them too. They will soon learn in time, just like the majority of us who started out on high fat raw did.
That example is absurd, and it is extremely optimistic of you to assume that most people who start out on high fat raw will end up at lfrv when many of the most prominent and/or long time leaders in the raw movement right now use and/or endorse cooked food in the diet, including Nison, Clement, Cousens, Gianni and the Boutenkos. How are people to be blamed for not believing that a 100% raw vegan diet is possible or desireable when most of the visible leaders in the movement hold this belief? Many of us encountered Doug Graham through one or more of these figures, myself included. But had they been saying that a 100% raw diet doesn't work all along, how many of us would be here now?
We human beings are considerably less rational in the way we make decisions than we like to think, and the way prominent figures appear and what they say has an enormous influence on how others make decisions, that is why celebrity endorsements are so effective in advertising campaigns. It is not practical to expect that everyone will do their due diligence and research the issue, people have busy lives. If raw foods does not seem worth their time researching because of what many leaders in the movement are now saying, whether or not this is actually the case, then most people won't.
Permalink Reply by B on December 9, 2009 at 9:11am
Thank you for the kind description!
Whether it was kind or unkind for me to say your example still does not logically follow.
Then perhaps we should not listen to anything they say and disregard their teachings as a load of bullshit. What right do these people then have to be leaders in this field if they themselves can't even get it right?
I'm not certain if you are being serious or sarcastic here. Whatever the case, it does of course not logically follow that if some people's ideas are based on false premises than 100% of everything they claim is untrue, I barely need to point this out. This does not mean that it isn't disturbing that many of these figures portray themselves as raw food leaders while promoting dubious practices based on false premises. Skepticism rather than total disregard for whatever certain people say is the approach I prefer anyways.
I for one have never and will never listen to anyone of them. I believe what my body tells me, it's that simple.
It is an easy thing to say once you have been established on a feasible raw program like 811 for a certain period of time. If I had not seriously taken into consideration what all the different leaders were saying, including Doug Graham, of whom I was an extreme skeptic, I would not be here, few of us would be. I had to try 811 out for myself of course, but I also felt better initially on Gabriel Cousens phase 1 diet, how could I have known then that he was on the wrong track? Were it not for what certain leaders were saying I never would have come to 811 on my own, never. If our instincts could be trusted 100% when starting out then there would be no need for a raw food movement.
Permalink Reply by B on December 9, 2009 at 9:49am
Well you're one of the lucky few of us I guess. :)
Indeed, cooked food IS an ADDICTION. AND furthermore, if she is eating cooked food again, then wouldn't she ultimately be admitting that she is an addict? Truly, if you USED to be an alcoholic, then you STILL ARE an alcoholic, even if you have been dry for years. Once you go back, you will easilly be hooked again. Same for any addiction, EVEN cooked food.
Shall we, for argument sake, look at her situation as one of the situation of an addict that has "fallen off the wagon". Then maybe she should be confronted; a raw food intervention of sorts. I like the idea of having a raw food dinner party, and inviting the whole Boutenko family, then having an intervention.
These are some great points, for sure, but the MAIN issue, I will agree, is that they are profiting from deception. If you cannot practice what you preach, then you need to get down off the soap box. BUT if you have fallen off the wagon, maybe you need support.
Speaking of support, the 30BAD community has been a wealth of support, for many as well as me. But recently, I have noticed a few discussions that were not very supportive at all. There were comments made that would not make a person feel very good about themselves. It's pretty hard to bounce back if your self esteem is crushed. There are lots of us here that USED to be much bigger, ate cooked food, ate cooked vegan junk food... and have before and after pics of their own. We are ALL here together because of the raw lifestyle, we all came from different paths, yet we got here nonetheless. I know many of us have fallen off the wagon along our journeys, AND many of us have posted here for words of encouragement, and have gotten it.
There is definitely cause for confusion in the example Victoria leads by. Thus causes concern for the WHOLE raw foods lifestyle.
NONETHELESS, there is more propaganda out there for people to believe about the proper diet and foods, mainly promoting and encouraging the SAD diet. The medical industry WANTS us to believe that veganism is bad for us, because otherwise they would be out of a job. The fact that an author that promotes this healthful lifestyle, but doesn't promote it by failing to practice her methods, then YES, this IS a problem. In a society where information is precious, we need to be able to trust the source in which it came, I will agree, that profiting from deception is NOT trustworthy. I know, though, that the intentions are genuinely good, or at least in the beginning they were. Is it true, that money corrupts...then has the profits caused this shift?