80/10/10--I'm doing it!

holothuroidea

You can start by eating 32 oranges for breakfast.

Ouch, hello kidney stones!

Hello to kidney stones, goodbye to tooth enamel.

Also I hope you've got a good supply of Tums handy.

I should be able to counter the acid by mixing them with a pound of sugar, right?

That might work but you have to eat a mono-meal for breakfast. Only oranges. Otherwise it will be too much of a strain on your digestive system to produce more than one digestive enzyme at a time. If you want to absorb all the nutrients from your oranges, you can't eat anything other than oranges.

(This is an actual thing that raw foodists say, I did not make this up).

neanderthin

You can start by eating 32 oranges for breakfast.

Ouch, hello kidney stones!

Hello to kidney stones, goodbye to tooth enamel.

Also I hope you've got a good supply of Tums handy.

I should be able to counter the acid by mixing them with a pound of sugar, right?

That might work but you have to eat a mono-meal for breakfast. Only oranges. Otherwise it will be too much of a strain on your digestive system to produce more than one digestive enzyme at a time. If you want to absorb all the nutrients from your oranges, you can't eat anything other than oranges.

(This is an actual thing that raw foodists say, I did not make this up).

LOL, I'm sure they do.

SanteMulberry

Hi, everyone

New to the board here. I decided that, for the New Year, I would do 30 days of 80/10/10. I've been mostly raw for about a year and a half now, but I've lost my passion for it, so I'm hoping this will help. So far, I'm doing okay. I'm definitely not hungry. If anything, I find it nearly impossible to eat enough food to hit my targets! I've been coming in at closer to 15% fat most days, though, so I need to get that under control. I'd love to hear from anyone who has tried this approach or is currently living it. I'm especially interested in hearing how you structured your food intake and which foods gave you the most bang for your buck.

Thanks!

Ameyls

No. Please tell us that you were just joking. You are young so perhaps you won't get too sick but you will certainly get muscle wasting (and that will produce flab and regain). I don't think you will like the results. Why not follow a more moderate MFP course for losing perhaps a half-pound per week (I notice that you don't have a lot to lose on your profile page). And then add a bit of weight training? You will almost certainly like the results better.

ash8184

Here is some info for you and anyone else who needs a little more education on 80/10/10: http://fullyraw.com/

albertabeefy

I don't really understand what you're getting at here. What about veganism do you believe needs to be supported by clinical trials/epidemiological studies?

What I'm saying is that many people claim veganism is healthier than a balanced diet that includes meat, dairy, fish, eggs and poultry. I'm saying there is no evidence to that claim. I'm also saying that a vegan diet not supplemented by B12 will result in a B12-deficiency, period, and there are many clinically-reported cases of death due to these deficiencies while on a vegan diet. Do you claim otherwise? If so, please support that scientifically.

You have a choice. You can eat something that requires you to kill an animal, or you can eat the same amount and quality of nutrients from plant sources. (Barring, of course, some magical mystery meat vitamin... which has never been proven to exist).

Really? Where does someone who eats NO ANIMAL PRODUCTS get B12 then? The do NOT get sufficient from plants, seaweed or anything else. Unless you eat plant matter without cleaning it, eating the fecal-matter it is fertilized in, you cannot get enough B12 from plant matter alone. This is validated by vegan doctors and dieticians. If you DISPUTE this, please use a scientific source for your claim. I can even use VEGAN sources for my claim: http://www.veganhealth.org/articles/vitaminb12 is just one of MANY.

If you choose to kill animals instead of eating plants, that's an act of violence. If you've ever killed an animal yourself (I have), you'll understand that.

First, I have killed animals myself, numerous times, for my own food. I have no issue with it and do not consider it violence. The idea it's violent to kill an animal for food is an OPINION, not a fact. You're entitled to your OPINION, but not entitled to try to force it upon others.

This is not something we need to use science to prove.

You cannot prove your opinion is right or wrong, as it's an opinion. I do not share it. The vast-majority of the world does not share it. There is nothing about your opinion that makes it fact.

B12 is made by bacteria, not animals. It's very possible to get natural sources of B12 on a vegan diet. However, having to supplement with B12 does not mean that a vegan diet cannot be healthy.

Unless you're ingesting fecal matter, it is NOT possible to get B12 on a vegan diet without supplementation. See my link above or look at what vegan doctors like McDougall, Barnard, Esselstyn and others do... all insist on B12 supplementation.

Veganism is decidedly unnatural, humans are behaviorally omnivores. It's unnatural for us to refuse any valid food source. Your appeals to nature are going to fall on deaf ears with me. I don't care if veganism isn't natural, that doesn't negate why I do it.

OK, we agree there. I have no issue with people choosing veganism, or having their own opinions. I take issue with people believing their opinions are somehow "morally superior", "factual" or "correct" when they are simply opinion.

I take issue with your reciting vegan OPINION and claiming it to be FACT, when it is clearly NOT fact.

I already said I appreciated the debunking of The China Study, the articles you linked to have good points. Good points swimming in a sea of misinformation that needs debunking in and of itself.

Nobody has debunked it yet. Campbell doesn't even try, because he cannot.

What exactly is it that you want me to show you? That WAPF is biased and full of misinformation? Do you want me to go through all your sources and tell you all the things on THOSE websites that stand to be debunked?

I don't care what you think about WAPF or their "bias". There is NO bias in the articles from Science-Based medicine, yet you only cite reference to Weston Price? Red Herring, much?

I never challenged what you said. I just stated that your sources were biased and full of crap. That doesn't make the The China Study any less debunked.

There is simply no way that all those sources were biased and full of crap. The idea you'd claim that without reviewing their studies shows that YOU'RE biased, not the sources I cited. The fact that you don't even review the science there or attempt to rebut it shows your own bias.

Here's the thing: I've READ the China Study - both the book (which is only very-loosely based on the actual Cornell Project Campbell supervised) and the actual study itself - in full. I've reviewed Campbell's incredibly biased data, and noted for myself before even seeing websites that he omitted entire counties worth of data to try to make his points in his book.

I've also reviewed all the studies, literature, articles, etc., posted on all the websites I've linked you to. I looked at them with a completely unbiased eye, in-fact. I doubt very much you can say the same. There are some claims on the Weston A Price site that are not strongly warranted, but the criticism of the China Study, and criticisms of a vegan diet stand on a solid foundation of evidence.

On the other hand, I have yet to find ONE site dedicated to the argument that veganism is healthier than a balanced diet that includes animal products, that uses any scientific data.

That's what I'm saying.

I'm not biased. I reviewed it all with a researchers eye. It's apparent by your statements and obvious bias and opinions (which you claim are facts) that you are neither un-biased, nor well-informed. I'm not trying to be rude, but it's simply the truth.

SanteMulberry

Here is some info for you and anyone else who needs a little more education on 80/10/10: http://fullyraw.com/

I looked at it. That Kristina woman is definitely emaciated. She is literally skin and bones. Sad.

thisismeraw

80 carbs, 10 protein, 10 fat. Not what I'd call very balanced. I wouldn't get very far consuming 25 to 30 g's of protein a day.

Generally, these diets are very high calorie so people can get their protein minimums.

...I still think it's a poor choice, though, the ideas behind it are based on really flimsy reasoning and bad interpretation of data. I put raw veganism right up there with WAPF and paleo in the hierarchy of ridiculous diet ideas but at least those diets are capable of providing a person with all the nutrition they need.

Cholesterol, It's what cells need.

Yeah, good thing our bodies synthesize it all by themselves and we don't need to eat it ever.

But no, it's not "toxic."

Vegans really are a weird cult.

Not really. Most of us are just compassionate people who advocate for nonviolence. People who are doing plant-based diets or advocate for it for (misguided) health reasons seriously need to stop hijacking the word "vegan."

You're comparing paleo to raw veganism?

^ That's what I'm saying ... I follow the Primal diet (close to Paleo). Honestly I don't even care if there is science or no science behind it ... I feel like a brand new person eating this way. The health benefits inside & out are incredible. But Primal/Paleo makes sense ... you don't really need science to tell you that in the paleolithic era they didn't eat bread, spaghetti, poptarts, etc.

Raw veganism is just ridiculous, in my opinion. Mostly because the reasoning behind it makes absolutely no sense. I may take a little heat for this but I'll go as far as saying all vegan, vegetarian, raw, etc. diets are stupid in my eyes.

Sorry but I'm glad I don't know you in real life. Vegan, vegetarian and raw are all stupid? Wow. Vegan, vegetarian and raw can all be extremely healthy diets.

To me primal and paleo are not good choices. Sure, our ancestors ate that way but we have evolved. We don't HAVE to consume meat. Millions get by and are incredibly healthy without it. For some reason I get the impression from you that you think your way of eating is far superior to all others.

No we could just all consume fake "meat" made from soy which I don't believe to be particularly healthy. I eat meat because I WANT to, not because I HAVE to. I think you're trying to say that nobody should eat meat just because we don't have to. Good thing is I can do what I want to.

& Yes I do believe if someone chooses to eat those ways for health reasons, its stupid. Restricting meat in hopes that you'll be more healthy or lose weight faster IS stupid and quite ignorant. If you read the rest of my posts, you'd see what I meant.

Lastly, I don't believe my way of eating is superior to anyone actually. As I stated in a later post, I couldn't care less if someone lived entirely off cookies. If someone asks, I'll give my opinion but as far as thinking I'm better, not even close. However I do think my eating is better then people that eat nothing more then junk and I think I'm healthier then them, but that's actually a fact rather then an opinion so.

NOt everyone who chooses not to consume meat eats the fake meat products. Restricting anything for weight loss is a bad idea in my books but not consuming meat could mean a healthier person. For example, I get terrible stomach pains from consuming too much meat.

Your food choices may be better than those consuming all crap foods but it isn't necessarily better or healthier than someone who choose a vegan, vegetarian or raw diet. All diets can be healthy.

I never said everyone shouldn't eat meat because we don't have to. Far too often I hear people saying (not neccessarily you) that you can't get certain nutrition without consuming meat or animal products when you definately can (and that's not meaning those meat substitutes). Not every vegan or vegetarian eats that crap.

neanderthin

Here is some info for you and anyone else who needs a little more education on 80/10/10: http://fullyraw.com/

More info.
http://rawfoodsos.com/

albertabeefy

I never said everyone shouldn't eat meat because we don't have to. Far too often I hear people saying (not neccessarily you) that you can't get certain nutrition without consuming meat or animal products when you definately can (and that's not meaning those meat substitutes). Not every vegan or vegetarian eats that crap.

Technically you could be a vegan eating nothing but Lay's potato chips and Coca Cola ... but you'd certainly NOT be healthy.

I think it's easier for someone to have a healthy diet as a vegetarian (especially ovo/lacto/pesco) than as a strict vegan. To get proper nutrients and macronutrient profiles as a vegan takes a little more planning and a lot more knowledge, as well as supplementation that may not be necessary on a healthy diet that includes some animal products.

holothuroidea

What I'm saying is that many people claim veganism is healthier than a balanced diet that includes meat, dairy, fish, eggs and poultry. I'm saying there is no evidence to that claim. I'm also saying that a vegan diet not supplemented by B12 will result in a B12-deficiency, period, and there are many clinically-reported cases of death due to these deficiencies while on a vegan diet. Do you claim otherwise? If so, please support that scientifically.

I don't claim otherwise, and at this point I feel like you are willfully misunderstanding me as I have made clear many times that I do not think a vegan diet is healthier than one that includes animal products.

I don't claim that vegan diets shouldn't be supplemented with B12, that would be irresponsible, I was merely pointing out the fact that there are vegan sources for B12 .

Really? Where does someone who eats NO ANIMAL PRODUCTS get B12 then? The do NOT get sufficient from plants, seaweed or anything else. Unless you eat plant matter without cleaning it, eating the fecal-matter it is fertilized in, you cannot get enough B12 from plant matter alone. This is validated by vegan doctors and dieticians. If you DISPUTE this, please use a scientific source for your claim. I can even use VEGAN sources for my claim: http://www.veganhealth.org/articles/vitaminb12 is just one of MANY.

People who don't eat animal products get B12 from supplements.

First, I have killed animals myself, numerous times, for my own food. I have no issue with it and do not consider it violence. The idea it's violent to kill an animal for food is an OPINION, not a fact. You're entitled to your OPINION, but not entitled to try to force it upon others.

When have I tried to force it on others?

If you look at the dictionary definition of violence, killing something when you don't need to definitely fits it.

Unless you have so many food allergies that your diet would be severely limited without animal foods, or you live in a food desert and have inadequate access, you don't need to eat animals to live. That's a fact.

You cannot prove your opinion is right or wrong, as it's an opinion. I do not share it. The vast-majority of the world does not share it. There is nothing about your opinion that makes it fact.

You're telling me that the vast majority of people in the world would look in a slaugherhouse or a factory farm and see no violence?

Even if you don't want to call it "violence," you must still understand how being vegan and reducing demand for animal products lessens the amount of animals that have to suffer.

Unless you're ingesting fecal matter, it is NOT possible to get B12 on a vegan diet without supplementation. See my link above or look at what vegan doctors like McDougall, Barnard, Esselstyn and others do... all insist on B12 supplementation.

Like I said, I was just pointing out that there are vegan sources for B12.

OK, we agree there. I have no issue with people choosing veganism, or having their own opinions. I take issue with people believing their opinions are somehow "morally superior", "factual" or "correct" when they are simply opinion.

I take issue with your reciting vegan OPINION and claiming it to be FACT, when it is clearly NOT fact.

Facts:
Eating fewer animals means less animals will suffer. (I've edited out "violence" for you).
You don't need to eat animals to be healthy.

Sources:
Supply and demand economics, and that animals suffer by being farmed and killed.
Every vegetarian and vegan who lived many years healthfully.

These are not opinions, and nobody has said anything about moral superiority.

Nobody has debunked it yet. Campbell doesn't even try, because he cannot.

It absolutely has been debunked. Campbell can't support his own claims in that book, not even with his own research.

I don't care what you think about WAPF or their "bias". There is NO bias in the articles from Science-Based medicine, yet you only cite reference to Weston Price? Red Herring, much?

There is simply no way that all those sources were biased and full of crap. The idea you'd claim that without reviewing their studies shows that YOU'RE biased, not the sources I cited. The fact that you don't even review the science there or attempt to rebut it shows your own bias.

I've read those articles, and long before you posted them. You're assuming that I haven't, I guess because I haven't mentioned anything specific? It really wasn't my point to.

My only point was that as much as there is vegan propaganda, there is anti-vegan propaganda (propaganda being misinformation used to promote a specific cause). I was just mentioning it to caution people who went to read your articles to beware of that.

My intention was not to rebut the analyses of the articles you referenced. I already said like a million times that I agree. I really think you don't want to hear what I'm saying. It seems like to you I'm just a vegan so everything I say must fit the vegan dogma.

I'm vegan. I'm also a scientist. I also really hate that vegans promote a lot of propaganda, I think it's bad for the cause.

Here's the thing: I've READ the China Study - both the book (which is only very-loosely based on the actual Cornell Project Campbell supervised) and the actual study itself - in full. I've reviewed Campbell's incredibly biased data, and noted for myself before even seeing websites that he omitted entire counties worth of data to try to make his points in his book.

I've read them too, and I agree with you.

I've also reviewed all the studies, literature, articles, etc., posted on all the websites I've linked you to. I looked at them with a completely unbiased eye, in-fact. I doubt very much you can say the same. There are some claims on the Weston A Price site that are not strongly warranted, but the criticism of the China Study, and criticisms of a vegan diet stand on a solid foundation of evidence.

I still agree with you, here.

On the other hand, I have yet to find ONE site dedicated to the argument that veganism is healthier than a balanced diet that includes animal products, that uses any scientific data.

You wont find them because they don't exist. You also won't find any evidence that animal products are a requirement for a balanced diet. The truth of the matter is that humans are well adapted to a variety of diets, from no-animal to all-animal, it's one of the advantages of being omnivorous.

I'm not biased. I reviewed it all with a researchers eye. It's apparent by your statements and obvious bias and opinions (which you claim are facts) that you are neither un-biased, nor well-informed. I'm not trying to be rude, but it's simply the truth.

I never said you were biased. I said that some of the sources you linked to were.

None of my statements have indicated that I have an obvious bias. You have no idea what my level of informed-ness is. So that's not truth, that's opinion.

You've assumed a lot about me just because I'm vegan. You attacked me on points that I never tried to make. You've assumed that I'm biased without listening to a word I've said, you've accused me of being incapable of even posing an argument. You've done all of this not based on anything I've said, just based on the fact that I'm vegan. And then you preach about how unbiased you are.

jofjltncb6

80/10/10 is a raw vegan diet fad...I will just politely say that setting percentages for macros doesn't work and that this diet highly ignores the fact that protein and fat are ESSENTIAL nutrients whereas carbohydrates are non-essential and should be determined based on physical activity.

These type of dieters do ridiculous things like eating nothing but fruit in ridiculous amounts all day and often these people have serious fears (orthorexics) about fat and consumption of animal products as being "toxic"

Consumption of animal products IS toxic. That is the ONLY place Cholesterol is found. And, what is the number one cause of death in the US right now? Heart disease. What causes heart disease, you ask? Cholesterol.

In...

...to catch up on this groundbreaking revelation that dietary cholesterol alone has been definitively linked to heart disease. Looking forward to reading the cites that will certainly be provided in one of the six pages I haven't read yet...(right? They're in those other six pages, right?)

Crankstr

80/10/10 is a raw vegan diet fad...I will just politely say that setting percentages for macros doesn't work and that this diet highly ignores the fact that protein and fat are ESSENTIAL nutrients whereas carbohydrates are non-essential and should be determined based on physical activity.

These type of dieters do ridiculous things like eating nothing but fruit in ridiculous amounts all day and often these people have serious fears (orthorexics) about fat and consumption of animal products as being "toxic"

Consumption of animal products IS toxic. That is the ONLY place Cholesterol is found. And, what is the number one cause of death in the US right now? Heart disease. What causes heart disease, you ask? Cholesterol.

In...

...to catch up on this groundbreaking revelation that dietary cholesterol alone has been definitively linked to heart disease. Looking forward to reading the cites that will certainly be provided in one of the six pages I haven't read yet...(right? They're in those other six pages, right?)

NO.

obsidianwings

I thought the 80 would be protein. LOL.

Me to
Dafuq is this?!


Will read the rest of the thread soon, sure to be entertaining haha

Contrarian

Yeah. This is ****ed up.

theCarlton

This thread is one year and 3 months old. But the OP still logs in! Wonder how things worked out.

jofjltncb6

This thread is one year and 3 months old. But the OP still logs in! Wonder how things worked out.

If MFP was somehow able to compel OPs to provide an update on their threads a year or two later, it would be the single most useful thing to happen to MFP since...well, ever. It would go a very long way to eliminating some very pervasive and persistent "bad ideas"™.

dressagester

I am a vegan.

Dietary cholesterol does not affect serum cholesterol.

80/10/10 is a raw vegan diet fad...I will just politely say that setting percentages for macros doesn't work and that this diet highly ignores the fact that protein and fat are ESSENTIAL nutrients whereas carbohydrates are non-essential and should be determined based on physical activity.

These type of dieters do ridiculous things like eating nothing but fruit in ridiculous amounts all day and often these people have serious fears (orthorexics) about fat and consumption of animal products as being "toxic"

Consumption of animal products IS toxic. That is the ONLY place Cholesterol is found. And, what is the number one cause of death in the US right now? Heart disease. What causes heart disease, you ask? Cholesterol.

oddyogi

Did someone say bacon?!

redraidergirl2009

Did someone say bacon?!

No, do you think that's funny?

willdob3

It's a diet that follows the idea of the ratio of nutrients to support health is 80% carbohydrates, 10% protein and 10% fat.

That is seriously unhealthy.