I sometimes say that I dislike books. A lot of books tend to sell you an idea much like any sales man sells a product. “You need this madame”. Inserts a few logical sounding reasons why this is the best for them and everyone and why every other company is selling something worse that will not be any good for them. Because they have these reasons they're absolutely sure of themselves 100%. That's a rather big claim don't you think? To be so closed minded I don't find very scientific. To be fair a lot of authors aren't like this and will find potential flaws in their arguments even when they are very convinced of their theories. I appreciate this in an author. I don't believe 811ers do this very often. So I want to provide (what I hope is)an educated critic of the 80/10/10 diets beliefs.
For starters. I think 80/10/10 or Fruitarian is a great diet which will work great for probably everyone, but who knows? There might be that 1% that needs the diet adjusted a little. We're not all perfect sadly. My criticism is more about how the diet is promoted and how other diets are bashed than the diet itself.
Some claim that this diet is in our genes. That's it's our natural diet and that we once ate this way and should return to it. Back 2.5 million years ago we were likely Fruitarians yes. Back when we were chimpanzee like. There is some argument that homo erectus could have been Fruitarian but I could argue against this. For now I'll just say it's irrelevant. We are not Chimpanzees, Australopethicines or Homo Erectus. We are homo sapiens. Furthermore, that point is rather irrelevant since the kind of fruit we likely ate was much similar to the kind of fruit you would find in the wild today. Quite different. It's tough (harder to digest)and bitter. The kind of fruit we eat today is domesticated. There is even good argument for how cooking made us evolve into what we are today. This doesn't go against 811. It just means the decrease in % calories used digesting could be spent elsewhere. Raw fruit has the same qualities. Probably why we cultivated it.
Some claim raw food is easier to digest. Not many fruitarians tend to focus on this or use it at all to be fair. I'll run over it nevertheless in case someone is still sticking by it. Raw fruit is indeed easier to digest than cooked grain, meat or legumes. I don't think cooking would help fruit be digested much easier so it would be pointless. The process of cooking breaks foods down making them easier to digest not harder. It's why our ancestors started doing it and became evolved like I was talking about earlier. Raw meat is not easier to digest than cooked. Neither are raw beans or grains any easier to digest than cooked. All of these things are harder to digest in their raw form and it has been proven. Even if the so called enzymes aid your digestion, it doesn't mean they're making food easier to digest than it would be if it were cooked.
Some say “the body runs on glucose”. Why are we eating so much fructose then? Half (often more)of fruit is fructose and from what I can see it doesn't not convert to glucose. Also, the body runs on more things than this even if you are Fruitarian. How do you think you lose excess fat? You burn it. You burn it as fatty acids alongside glucose and/or fructose. The less intense you exercise, the bigger percentage of fat you will burn. More intense activity requires more glycogen.
Some will talk about how other animals eat raw food, so we should, and that the only appealing raw food is fruit. Well I agree with the second point but not the first. It sounds logical but where's the proof? You can't just jump to the conclusion that something is bad just because we're the only ones doing it. I don't see the sense in that.
Some people will quote some scientific paper they've probably never seen but heard of. Indeed paper is the word because it's apparently so old there's no computer record of it at this time. The paper talks about how when certain foods are cooked they create a white blood cell increase like when you have an infection, have heavily exercised or are pregnant. It's termed Digestive Leukocytosis. Firstly this is just a response and not a long term effect. A healthy response. Our white blood cells obviously don't kill all that much in our food or the world would not be very populated. Do you think intense exercise is bad? If foods other than fruits and vegetables were consumed raw (likely)and didn't create that response (in the experiments)then does it really tell us a great deal about how toxic a food is? As much as this study suggests that cooked food isn't perfect, I don't think this is a great study to use in arguments for eating raw food. You can't even show it to people. They have to take your word for it.
Denatured protein. What does this mean? Does it mean the protein is not usable? I don't think so. Ever seen a protein deficient cooked foodist? Your body can still use the amino acids but the proteins lose one or perhaps two of their structures and therefore their functions. What kind of functions? Are they beneficial to health? I'm not too sure. Bit complicated for me. Perhaps these functional proteins are the enzymes raw foodists talk about but what do they do? Some say that denaturing anything is bad because nature is good. Is nature really good? Death is natural. Poison berries are natural. What about all those natural disasters? Nature is nature. It's neither good or bad.
I want to know. What condition does eating cooked food cause? This has to apply to fruit too. I really dislike the term “raw vegan”. More the raw part. Fruitarians aren't just raw vegans. They eat mostly fruit and veg. They should probably call themselves Fruitarians instead of associating themselves with other not so healthy raw vegans. This isn't about raw food. It's about fruit. There is nothing that great about raw food in general. Fruitarians should talk about how hydrating fruit is, how it gives you everything you need, that it's easy to digest and tastes good. People may not be so sure that it gives you everything you need at first but they'll likely see your other points. Talking this way doesn't make you sound like you're in some cult or anything. It's scientific. I'm afraid there aren't any cultures you can refer to or scientific papers that back up the diet as a whole. Neither is there much of an evolutionary argument. We learnt a lot of our knowledge from doctors studying low fat starch diets. Are they really that bad? Do you really get that many more benefits from eating a fruit diet than a starch one? If so, what are they? In my experience I do think an all fruit diet is better, but I have nothing much to go by other than it's easier on digestion and is more hydrating than a starch diet like the Mcdougall diet. People have cured cancer, reversed heart disease and diabetes on starch diets. I really don't think they can be that bad. In Asia people live to great ages on diets comprised of mostly starch. Like Harley puts it, “results over theory”. I know this is a Fruitarian site but freaking out about cooked starch is a bit overboard. Starch is good, fruit is better.
Again I fully support the 80/10/10 diet. I think it's great because of the many reasons low fat vegan (starch)diets are healthy and a few more. I just don't think it is promoted in quite the right way. I'm open to criticism on this. I'm not saying I'm 100% certain on all this. Please show that kind of open mindedness back.