Low Fat Raw Vegans

Low fat? What about protein? I'm always curious how this works, because I don't know of any good RAW protein sources. Everything I can think of needs to be cooked. Also, why low fat? The body needs fatty acids for proper function. Not trying to bash, just genuinely curious, because it just sounds unbalanced, which is unhealthy.

Most vegetables are 10%+ protein, and can be eaten raw. Legumes and grains (many of which are more than 10% protein) can be soaked or sprouted and eaten raw. While it is not a diet I follow myself, I do know that some people are quite healthy on this type of diet. There is some movement away from 100% raw diets, to so called "high raw" diets, which include some cooked foods, typically cooked legumes.

And in case you're wondering, the World Health Organization sets protein needs at right around 10% of calories--so according to them, if you're getting enough calories, this type of diet would contain sufficient protein.

The majority of high protein vegetables (legumes, nuts and seed) are extremely high fat. If the goal is 80/10/10, I don't see how you could hit 10% protein without exceeding 10% fat, which is actually well below the WHO recommendation, which is 20%.

It's possible... just not easy. http://www.amazon.com/80-10-Diet/dp/1893831248/?tag=eded-20

Why yes, I have the same raw eat patterns as Squirrels. Yes, I am a vegan.

Gorllias have the same eating patterns as low fat raw vegans too

Gorillas aren't vegans, they eat termites, grubs, worms, and snails. They don't actually drink water, either, they get all of their hydration from the food that eat. You sure you want to continue comparing yourself to the way gorillas live and eat? They don't have the same internal organ structure we do, either.

I think I would compare my internal organ structure to a gorilla before a squirrel and that is what I was replying about

Gorllia's are close to being raw vegans minus 3% of bugs
Western lowland gorilla (Gorilla gorilla gorilla):

This subspecies consumes parts of at least 97 plant species. About 67% of their diet is fruit, 17% is leaves, seeds and stems and 3% is termites and caterpillars.

http://www.seaworld.org/animal-info/info-books/gorilla/diet.htm

They are similar, but not identical. Their intestines are much larger than ours, for one thing, relative to overall body size.

I think at some point, for some, nutrition becomes what defines them.

I see the distinction between, for example, a "regular" vegan and a "Low Fat Raw Vegan" as the same as the difference between someone running marathons in ~4-5h to stay in shape, and someone training to get close to 2h. They just don't have the same goal in mind.

Running is healthy, but is running 5 minutes/miles THAT much healthier than running 9 minutes/miles?

Also, I really don't think that comparing for example the lfrv population to the entire global population when it comes to health benefits is that wise. Chances are that if you are that OCD about what you eat, you do a lot of other things right (like sleep and exercise), or at the very least that you are definitely a concerned person when it comes to health. To be fair, I would compare those people to omnivores, but only those that are equally concerned about health issues, just hold different beliefs.

And a way to do that would be to check for top level athletes, and while it is true that there definitely are Vegans, paleos, pescatarians, primal, etc... The vast majority is still the average omnivore.

Also, since the discovery of fire, to cook things amongst other things, a couple of thousand years ago, I don't think that Raw Diets, or even vegetarianism for that matter, has established itself through natural selection and evolution as the clearly superior option. Heck, even the opposite occurred! Check the appendix for example, that is useless now, yet it was used to digest branches and leaves before.

Some people define themselves with the activities they do, their jobs, their stamps collections, whatever. I think it's commendable to define yourself through what you choose to eat (or in this case, not to eat), but I find it quite dumb to try by all means to justify it as the "healthier" choice, since it's probably not any better, once everything else is considered.

ETA : On the frutarian site, at some point the guy talks about what technically is a fruit and not a fruit, since the English language abuses the term sometimes. When you are wondering about those fine points, you can't possibly justify it purely with health concerns. It's a lifestyle, conviction, and beliefs at this point.

Something he doesn't mention but is interesting, is that purely from a biology point of view, strawberries are not really fruits. The fruit itself it the small seeds on the exterior of the strawberry itself. Those "seeds" actually contain the real seeds. Do you think they should stop eating strawberries?

The earth provides balanced nutrition for us if we seek it. Plants (especially leafy greans) have tons of protein. Anyone who takes on this type of lifestyle does their homework. Anyone who is unwilling, obviously will not.

I give kuddos to those who do it, or even attempt it.

lizziebeth1028 wrote: »

sounds like torture. what are the benefits? especially of eating such a low amount of protein? i can never understand restrictive diets.