View Full Version : Gabriel Cousins and High glycemic fruits
08-31-2005, 03:17 PM
I just finished listening to an interview with Gabriel cousins and a caller asked about Candidas. He was adamant about sugar feeding candidas and that sugar is sugar regardless if it is fruit or not. My question is for those of you have been raw for a while or maybe the fruitarians. What is your view point on this? In your opinion does this guy know what he is talking about?
My concern is at one point I had symptoms of candidas but I never got an actual exam, so I don't know for sure. He said people who have been eating all fruit have come to him for help because they later developed candidas.
I have been eating a lot of fruit lately, probably high glycemic stuff. Bananas especially.
Thanks for your input,
Unless you are alergic to chlorophyll (very rare), then there are a whole host of reasons why you should include substantial amounts of chlorophyll-rich foods in your diet (e.g. mostly from dark green leafy vegetables. Chlorella and Spirulina are also extremely rich sources of chlorophyll, although these algaes should be consumed with sensible restraint. Wheatgrass juice is another source of chlorophyll).
Chlorophyll has numerous benefits for the human body, but one of them is that it helps to keep parasites and yeasts at bay (it's not an outright preventative, but it is helpful).
I really cannot see the wisdom (even though I am aware of the excessively-idealistic arguments in favour of it) of avoiding chlorophyll-rich foods in favour of consuming only fruits (which, by and large, do not yield significant quantities of chlorophyll).
Candida overgrowth is an extremely contentious issue and it is very difficult to know which of the various hypotheses is correct. It is probably the result of a combination of several factors, so one viewpoint is not necessarily wrong, but may be incomplete or invalidated in circumstances where other required co-factors for yeast overgrowth are not present, in order to combine to produce overgrowth. Cousens may, or may not, be 'correct', but one should be very cautious of pointing the finger at 'sugar' itself, without also considering other factors in each individual case (note that I am not saying that this is Cousens' own line of thought). Theoretically, if I consume entirely fruit, with little or no dark-green vegetables, then yes, I will indeed be consuming a great deal of sugar, but I will also be failing to consume a decent amount of chlorophyll, with all its helpful, 'protective' benefits.
Low levels of healthy intestinal flora have also been suggested as a contributory factor to candida overgrowth, since these allegedly serve to 'compete' with candida when they are in healthy abundance. However, this would not specifically support or undermine the 'too-much-reliance-on-fruit' argument for candida overgrowth. Dr. Douglas Graham also has some hypotheses on candida, involving fat consumption:
...nothing is ever as simple as it seems - would that it were! :(
08-31-2005, 05:49 PM
I used to suffer from candida and got healed by eating a high-fruit and low-fat diet. This is not an isolated
example, there are multiple testimonies, you can easily find them on various sites. Dr Graham is well known to
have helped people with candida in a matter of days, and as you know, he recommends a high-fruit, low-fat diet
known as 811. Why is this so? This was actually well explained a number of times on various fruit-lovers boards,
including Dr Graham's and Nora Lenz's, highly recommended places to visit. I will just say briefly here, that
fruit does not cause candida overgrowth, it is the fat in one's diet that does it. Candida is beneficial for our
body, because it feeds on sugar, when the body has not digested properly, and in this sense, prevents from sugar
overload, which would otherwise cause very serious problems. Excess fat in one's blood acts like soap in a bath,
it makes sugar stick to it, and so body cannot digest it properly, which in turn leads to candida overgrowth.
Reduce the amount of fat, and body will digest the sugar efficiently, and the excess candida will die out, as simple as that.
Quote (from: http://www.foodnsport.com/mambo2/in...id=35&Itemid=25):
"Excess fat is the culprit in candida, not sugar, per se. When fat levels in the blood rise, so does blood sugar,
because excess fat inhibits insulin from performing its function of escorting sugar out of the bloodstream. The
excess fat lines the blood vessel walls, the cells, insulin receptor sites, the sugar molecules themselves, and
the insulin with a thin coating of fat, thus blocking and inhibiting normal metabolic activity.
Too much sugar in the blood is as life threatening as too little and can result in serious illness or death.
Yeast, or candida, is a constant presence in the blood; it serves as a life preservation mechanism, blooming when
there is an excess of sugar in the blood stream to bring blood sugar down to a non-threatening level. When the
sugar is distributed and used by the cells of the body, the yeast quickly dies off as it is supposed to.
If fat levels stay chronically high due to a poor diet, sugar will remain in the bloodstream and feed the large
candida colonies instead of feeding the 18 trillion cells of your body. Starved for fuel, these cells can no longer
metabolize energy, and you become tired, and feel rundown. Because all carbohydrate, fat, and protein that we eat
is converted to simple sugar (glucose) if it is to be used by the cells for fuel, the way out of this cycle is
not to eat less sugar, but to consume less fat. When fat levels drop, the sugar starts to get processed and
distributed again, and the yeast levels drop because there is no longer excess sugar available."
Cousens recommends a low-fruit high-fat diet, and he believes that sweet fruit is bad for you. In my opinion,
sweet fruit is the ideal food for humans, we are natural fruit eaters. We are born with a sweet tooth, all
babies and small children love fruit (and often are forced by their SAD parents to eat all sorts of unconsumables,
I put all the theories behind, though, and take my personal experience as a judge. I feel fantastically on a
high-fruit, low-fat diet. Give me too many nuts, and I get pimples, feel lethargic. When I am hungry, I crave
sweet fruit, when I am thirsty, I crave juicy fruit. I would feel sick if I was deprived of the aboundance of fruit that I am enjoying now.
I have never felt better since I incorporated lots of fruit in my diet. And, I suffered from candida, when I was raw and low-fruit and high-fat. My candida went away on a high-fruit diet. I do not need a better proof. Of course, there are many wonderful stories of others.
Pictures speak more than words:
Nora Lenz (at 47):
Jamie (at 39):
Gosia (myself, at 41)
08-31-2005, 06:04 PM
As you can see, there are widely-differing, strongly-held beliefs about this issue. These are two of the strongest models in today's raw & living food community. It seems that many people are proponents of either Natural Hygiene/Doug Graham's way, Dr. Cousen's way of low-glycemic eating, or Ann Wigmore's wheat grass/rejuvelac/juicing variety of eating. Each is convinced that theirs is the right way and each camp has plenty of examples to support their view.
I, personally, feel that I must find what resonates for me and try it myself before passing judgment. For me, at this time, the strict Ann Wigmore way holds no appeal. I began eating raw using Alissa's guidance, but at about 6 months, I began eating more simply and adding more fruit. Even though I'm not convinced NH is the way, I admire Nora Lenz, Janie (and Gosia!) and others who are thriving living like this. What prevents me from jumping in wholeheartedly are two things: 1) I don't live in a tropical climate, and 2) I can't fathom how eating dozens of bananas a day is "natural" especially since they're been hybridized/modified from their original state (the seeds have been bred out of them). While I have not closed the door of NH, and do eat much more fruit than greens, I am very interested in Dr. Cousen's teachings and hope to visit Tree of Life Center and read his books in depth.
I believe that this is what we mean we say that we all must choose our own path.
With all that said, my own story re: candida is that it did not respond to the low-glycemic approach but was eliminated by using Doug Graham's low-fat method.
I wish you the best in your quest for ultimate raw health -- but, by the way, I do urge you to be tested for candida so that you're absolutely certain that you have it; it's really the only way to know for sure.
08-31-2005, 06:23 PM
to add something. RawTruth reminded me of that (thanks!). I must mention that I did not jump into high-fruit diet, because I read of it, or because I decided to follow Dr Graham or someone else's approach. I think I would hate following some diet, I hate restrictions. This transition happenned totally spontaneously. I simply enjoyed eating fruit, and followed this instinct.
I believe that it is important to allow yourself transition spontaneously, at a pace that your body is willing, without trying to speed up the process. I believe that this is the key to success.
08-31-2005, 06:24 PM
I don't do a high fruit/low-fat diet but I do eat a lot of fruit. I also have bouts with candida in the form of vaginal yeast infections and oral thrush.
When I eat a lot of fruit, it never bothers me. But if I eat a lot of fat, fat/sweet combos or cooked junk foods, then it flairs up with a vengence!
I love Rawtruths posts, though and it's true...3 pioneers of the raw food "movement" who all have differing views on which way is best for ridding of candida and other ailments. You have to find the one that works best for you through experimentation.
08-31-2005, 08:59 PM
Thanks everyone for your well-thought out responses. I think it is safe to say it is the fat that brings on symptoms due to several of your testimonies. I would rather hear your experiences than read it somewhere else. I always thought candidas was caused by too much yeast, white flour products, and sugar, or at least aggravated by that stuff. Which still could be true. I have finaly decided to eat mainly raw now and I have been upping the green veggies lately and cutting back on the nuts. I do eat a lot of bananas but I also eat other fruit as well. There are so many different opinions out there when it comes to health, but one thing I know is eating raw is way better than the way I used to eat.
Cousens recommends a low-fruit high-fat diet, and he believes that sweet fruit is bad for you.
In which book does Cousens recommend a high
fat diet? Could you tell me his recommendations?
In every book I've read by Cousens, he
recommends a diet of 15% to 25% fat,
and he specifically says not to eat more
than 25% fat.
Also, He says that sweet fruit is essential and
must be included in a healthy diet.
09-01-2005, 03:27 PM
Thanks, Mike, for pointing that out. I sure never got that impression, but, since I didn't have any books here right now, I couldn't dispute it. Perhaps it's just a matter of what someone "heard" about his approach rather than them having read it themselves.
Would you mind explaining very simply what he considers the ideal living foods diet?
09-01-2005, 03:51 PM
I agree that sugar is sugar.
I agree with RT, that different people have different approach. I agree with her that eating tons of genetically modified bananas is not very healthy.
I do not have candida and never will. But two my freinds got rid of it by eating raw, pribiotic food and low GI food in general.
Would you mind explaining very simply what he considers the ideal living foods diet?
Hi Raw Truth,
The ideal diet as described by Cousens is 100%
raw vegan. It includes plenty of green juices and
green juice fasts.
He fasts for one week on juices, and he does this
four times a year.
Cousens ideal diet is Rainbow Green Phase Two.
Phase two includes every food in phase one, 1.5,
two, and the minimal use table.
This is a link to the phase chart=>
Cousens says that the exact percentages of
carbs-fats-proteins vary for each unique person.
Some may require more protein than others. He
says the percentages vary and run between 50%
to 80% carbs, 15% to 25% fat, and 15% to 35%
protein. (People who need to eat 35% protein are
You can eat the high glycemic fruits listed in
the minimal use chart, and they are very
healthy. Cousens' doesn't want the high
glycemic fruits to be the foundation of the
09-01-2005, 06:32 PM
Cousens has openly criticized high-fruit diet, it is not some secret. He even published on his website a special issue letter/article devoted to this criticism. In his latest book, in paragraphs where he lists the foods, he puts vegies and nuts first. Fruit, if they are mentioned, are listed accordingly to those more and less desirable, sweet fruit belonging to the second group. This is in total contradiction to the high-fruit diet, in which you can eat ANY (raw, ripe) fruit and as much as you wish for, and sweet fruit is the most desirable food (greens is the other important component), the foundation of the diet.
Also, it is not a secret that the diet recommended by Cousens is high-fat. This comes from the simple mathematical equation which tells us that the bulk of calories can only come from fat or sweet fruit, as other types of food are low in calories. Delete the sweet fruit, and the diet become high-fat, as simple as that. For example, Phase I has virtually none calorie-dense foods, but fats. Phase 2, which has the highest amount of fruit in it, allows only "minimal use" of sweet fruit. For this reason, Cousens' approach has been labelled a raw vegan version of the Atkins diet:
"When I was on what I called the raw version of Atkins, I should have said raw "vegan" version of Atkins. It amounted to that, in my opinion, but it is actually called the Rainbow Diet officially, designed by Dr. Gabriel Cousens.
When I was on the Rainbow Diet, my fat levels were around 70-85 percent! Think about it, it's all raw, making use of nuts and seeds as a staple food. Sure, I ate huge quantities of vegetables, around two pounds a day, but the problem with veggies is they have very little calories. So my fat percentages are still extremely high even with the high vegetable consumption. Cousens doesn't tell you this, I had to figure it out on my own.
Sweet fruit is not allowed on the diet, although later I did try variations, where I lowered my intake of nuts/seeds and tried to consume more fruit, but with disasterous consequences. Couldn't focus/concentrate and energy was very low.
Anyway, on this Rainbow Diet, I believe the high fat levels prevented me from consuming enough calories. I believe this is probably why some people on Atkins lose weight, but they consume animal foods, which might make it more fattening than my diet, I don't know. I didn't like looking emaciated and I lacked energy.
It proved to me that fats (nuts/seeds/oils) should not provide the bulk of calories. I would rather the bulk of calories come from sweet fruit.
Actually, the sugar from fruit is not a problem as long as you keep your fat levels low. I found this to be absolutely true from experience. You can go over to Dr. Doug Graham's raw food/sports board and find many others that are not having any problems and are experiencing great results with a fruit based diet. People with diabetes have cured themselves with this fruit based diet. See, it's not the sugar that is the culprit, it's the fat that blocks the insulin receptors that is the problem. Instead people blame the fruit because they do not want to give up their precious overconsumption of fats. Fat is the easiest way to get calories into the body with the least amount of effort. With the diet I am on now, it's more work, but I am better nourished. No other diet works as well for me.
I don't believe grains are a natural food for humans. They can be a nice addition to a vegan diet, but I am seeking optimum health and I never felt like I had it when I experimented with grains in my diet.
That humans are not frugivorous many would argue with you, including Dr. Graham. Even the frugivorous apes eat other things besides fruit. We CERTAINLY descend from frugivores and benefit from eating a lot of fruit. No other food digests as easily, not for me at least. Name a source of calories (vegetables are not a signigicant source of calories) that is healthier than fruit? Fruit is raw, and there is benefit from that, as well as thousands of phytochemicals, antioxidants; very nutrient dense when compared to other sources. The problem is more people are unaware of how to consume enough fruit. It takes some practice. Since adopting a fruit based diet, my health has never been better. But to each his own."
"I believe that around 10-20% calories from fat is the ideal range. Not just from what I have read but from my experience. At one time my fat levels were well over 40 percent; and for a time even much higher, when I was on a raw version of the Atkins diet. This was excess nut and seed consumption. The result was I couldn't consume enough calories and lost too much weight, became very emaciated looking. The diet was not sustainable. I became undernourished. Lowering my fat down to 30 percent helped, but I didn't see great results until I got below 20% fat. My total calories increased because carbs, especially from fruit, are easier to digest than fat and protein. I found that with low fat consumption I can consume a lot of fruit, and that keeps me well nourished and hydrated during the day. Try consuming a lot of fruit, like the other primates do, on a high fat diet, like the other primates do not do. It does not work well at all. You get very spacey and cannot focus."
All the best,
Also, it is not a secret that the diet recommended by Cousens is high-fat.
This comes from the simple mathematical equation which tells us that the bulk of calories can only come from fat or sweet fruit, as other types of food are low in calories.
...When I was on the Rainbow Diet, my fat levels were around 70-85 percent!
Think about it, it's all raw, making use of nuts and seeds as a staple food.
Anyway, on this Rainbow Diet, I believe the high fat levels prevented me from consuming enough calories.
It's not a secret that Cousens' Rainbow Green is
low fat. His book says it is 15% to 25% or 30% fat.
What is your mathematical equation?
I have successfully done phase one and kept my
fat intake at 25% or lower.
If someone is eating more than 30% fat, they are
not eating the Rainbow Green diet.
Phase One is simple and easy to do. Nuts and
seeds are not the staple.
I found it easy to eat adequate calories. Plus, you
don't need to eat as many calories as someone on
a cooked food diet.
Grapefruits, berries, apples, pears, peaches, plums,
cherries, etc... are all sweet fruit and you can eat
as many of them as you want on Rainbow Green.
09-01-2005, 07:45 PM
no, it is not all you can eat.
From the chart that you posted:
Phase I: vegetables , sea vegetables, non-sweet fruit (tomaotes etc), superfoods (all negligable calories), fats (the only calorie dense food listed), sweet fruit excluded.
Phase 2: vegetables (low in calories), just a handful (6) of fruit , all sweet fruit (15 listed) which are the staple in high-fruit diet, are listed under "minimal use".
calorie intake =(aprox) "fat" calorie intake + "sweet fruit" calorie intake,
as other raw foods have negligable calories.
Now, forget the theory. Love eating fruit? Love eating heaps of sweet fruit such as grapes, mangos, melons, figs , papayas, all day long? Then, you are not eating Rainbow Green diet. ;)
09-01-2005, 08:43 PM
Yikes! It's War of the Chart!
I don't know about the Rainbow Green diet. I've read part of Cousens' books but plan to read more.
What I do know is that I now eat lots of fruits, few nuts & seeds, a fair amount of avocadoes, and I don't count calories nor do I believe in counting calories. So ... I'm not even trying to understand both of your points about calorie intake. I just don't think counting calories is valid in the raw & living world.
To each his or her own.
p.s. Gosia - I do wish that you had identified where those two quotes came from, though. If they were off of a message board, they're 2nd hand and those people can't be questioned further about their experience. Further, since they're rather derogatory in nature, they kinda turn me off. I don't think someone needs to put down Cousens' method in order to believe in Graham's method. I really don't believe that there's only one way for all people. And, as far as I can tell from afar, both men seem to be respectful of each other. So, why should their followers tussle?
09-01-2005, 09:25 PM
if you would like to question the author of the quotes, talk to Karl on vegsource.
Cousens had written a letter in which he openly criticized high-fruit diet, which I believe, could be considered derogatory to fruit lovers. On the other hand, quoting Cousens and other similar links on vegsource is not welcome. For example, Mike has been repeatedly asked to refrain from posting his messages with links there.
If you have impression that I am Dr Graham follower, it is incorrect. I do not follow him, or anyone for that matter. I love fruit, I enjoy eating fruit, and excluding/minimizing sweet fruit from the diet I consider a total nonsense.
I would find it hard to jump into someone's approach, and I believe in a more natural approach to eating, free of restrictions, and based on spontaneous transition coupled with opennes to change. I like Alissa's unrestricitve approach, and Nora Lenz's fruit-loving approach. But, of course, I have my own.
I do not believe in counting calories either. I simply eat foods that I love, which happens to be the fruit. But, I do not negate my mental abilities altogether. If something does not make sense to me, and it is possible to explain my intuition with the help of my mind, then I will use my intelect. My intuition is my drive, my intelect is my servant.
And, in this particular issue of exclusion (or minimizing the use) of sweet fruit from the diet, it is very clear to me, based on my common sense, my personal experience, many personal experience of others, and my ability to think logically, that it is not the optimal approach.
Oh, and I am quite happy to agree to disagree and end this discussion now, unless you want to talk about fruit and other yummy foods, naturally.
there's plenty of reason to look into Green Diet.
one size fits all raw diets are a thing of the past.
great way to represent Mike!
it's good to see you again Gosia
09-04-2005, 05:22 PM
It's good to see you too!
09-04-2005, 08:21 PM
WOW!!! So much info.....I am currently searching for a cure to this foot-skin rash I've had for years. It is only on 1 foot, and does not spread. I am visiting an intergrative medical Dr. this week and hope he runs tests for candida...now I'm scared of which is the right info? Guess I'll have to find what works for me! Seems like fats may cause the problem, with fruits adding to it because of stored fat in the blood??! Maybe?? I know I love fruit, and the idea of giving it up to get rid of this rash makes me really sad....but my rash causes me alot of pain at times because of the blisters that form.....so I WILL do whatever it takes. Glad to hear everyone's opinion so I can make an informed choice. THANKS! Now, everyone play nice!
09-04-2005, 10:23 PM
I dont think you should worry to much ,though, it seems like many high-gly. fruits are tropical , mabye (unless you live in the tropics) you could try to eat other local fruits that might have less sugar - green apples , grapes , I love figs (I think theyre moderate) melons are in season !
bananas are white - I prefer to eat more vibrant colors .........but there still pretty healthy!
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.1.4 Copyright © 2013 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.