80:10:10 and the crazy pregnant lady doing it

Irresponsible considering there's another life in the balance.

WTH? No there isn't.

Life doesn't begin until after birth.

ETA: Have you ever seen an ultrasound by chance? The baby's heart forms around 5 weeks.. I consider that life. (Actually, I believe life begins at conception.. buuuuuut for the sake of argument..) the baby just doesn't magically become "alive" when it is born. It kicks and moves the whole pregnancy. movement = life. heart beat = life. pregnancy = another life DEPENDS on you for survival.

Irresponsible considering there's another life in the balance.

WTH? No there isn't.

Life doesn't begin until after birth.

LOL @ trying to start a debate

but anyway

biological definition of living. If it does the following (or will do as an adult) it's alive:

1. respiration - check.
2. nutrition - check. through the placenta, but it's still nutrition
3. sensitivity - yep this develops earlier for some senses than others but they're all developed well before birth
4. growth - check
5. reproduction - it will do this is if it survives to adulthood, the same is true of all immature organisms and if you exclude unborn babies from counting as being alive on this basis you have to exclude all pre-pubescent children, baby animals, plants that are not yet flowering, etc etc etc.... which is not what biologists do. It has the potential to reproduce, therefore it ticks this box re being alive.
6. excretion - also through the placenta but it still does this
7. movement- it actually starts doing this really early on in pregnancy, the heart is beating by 2 weeks, it has active nerve cells by this time as well, and actual movement in the sense of moving it's little tiny limbs, that starts around 8 weeks

So yes, it's alive

In fact, the blastocyst that the baby develops from is alive, as are sperms and eggs. There is no point in gestation where the unborn baby suddenly comes alive, because biology doesn't work like that. I'm not getting involved in any abortion debates, but the question regarding that is about at what point in the child's development you consider it acceptable to kill it. Prior to people having the knowledge of how to do an abortion, many societies considered it acceptable to kill newborn babies, especially using methods that prevented them from ever taking their first breath (although others like leaving them outside in the cold to die of exposure were also used). If anyone is framing the abortion debate in terms of "at what point is the baby alive" then they are totally ignorant of biology. It's alive and has been right from the start.

BTW the above is plain biological and historical facts, I am not presenting an argument for or against abortion. There are other factors to be considered, but the question "is the unborn baby alive" has already been answered by science.

Irresponsible considering there's another life in the balance.

WTH? No there isn't.

Life doesn't begin until after birth.

If that is so, then why do you have to kill it?

Irresponsible considering there's another life in the balance.

WTH? No there isn't.

Life doesn't begin until after birth.

I take my own issues with the 80/10/10 approach, particularly with some of the fanatics who push it, but I find it very interesting that this woman is being so vehemently attacked, yet scores of pregnant women are downing every single piece of cheap, low quality, nutritionally lite piece of processed food they can get their hands on, gaining way more weight than they need, and yet almost nobody ever calls them out.

The United States of Obesity indeed.

Unfortunately being crazy does not preclude you from getting pregnant. She may have been crazy before her pregnancy and that's where I'll stop talking because this site does not allow political topics.

I personally don't think she's hurting herself or her baby. I say get out of people's lives and let them live it their way. If your NOT paying her to live then back off telling her how to do it. This goes for any and every one. It's def. not your business or mine. I don't understand the need to belittle people for the way they live their life, oh and the baby, it's still her business not the world's

Thats true.

If people are genuinely interested about a high carb raw vegan diet, they should research it, before criticising it. As aforementioned, there are a number of extensive scientific studies on the topic, such as in the books The China Study or 80/10/10, among many others. How can one intelligently argue about something which they do not yet know?

My only concern is how is she going to meet the increase production of albumin when her blood volume increases? Don't know if anyone has ever read the Brewer's Diet, but that was one of his hypothesis that a low protein diet could possibly increase the chances of eclampsia.

I've read about that as well, i.e the possible link between lack of protein and pre-eclampsia. I've also seen research papers suggesting that pre-eclampsia happens in response to the baby getting insufficient nutrition in the uterus, which could be due to poor maternal diet, but also could be due to placental insufficiency (which has nothing to do with the mother's diet)

Irresponsible considering there's another life in the balance.

WTH? No there isn't.

Life doesn't begin until after birth.

If she's made the choice to keep the baby then she should be feeding him or her responsibly from the get go.