Live Longer by Eating Less on a Raw Food Diet (Putting it All Together)

[robh]

My body gives me very clear indicators when it goes through the transition period that most of us call "detox". I get tired. I feel achy. My nose starts to run. This is when I know my body is changing and healing.

Using these indicators, I have learned that I heal the most when my body is low on energy. I can be free of these symptoms for weeks on a 100% raw diet. Then, I go one day without eating and boom, it hits me. After the "healing session", I tend to permanently drop a few pounds and I feel even better than I did before.

My first point is that my body (maybe not all bodies) seems to achieve health when faced with a situation where it has fewer calories than it requires.

For my second point, I would like to bring up Luigi Cornaro. Luigi was an Italian nobleman that lived in the early 1500s. Here is a little snippet from his Wikipedia page:


Finding himself near death at the age of 35, Cornaro modified his eating habits on the advice of his doctors and began to adhere to a calorie restriction diet. His daily initial self-allowance was 14 ounces (about 400 g) of solid food and 17 ounces (about 500 g) of wine. He later reduced his daily intake to no more solid meat than an egg.

On a diet of cooked food, animal proteins and alcohol, Luigi Cornaro was able to gain back his health and live to the age of 98.

My hypothesis is that I eating fewer calories than we require kicks our bodies into a special mode where it tries to become more efficient. It gets smaller so you can live on less. It clears your head and makes you smarter so you can discover new food sources.

Hence, after decades of this conditioning, the body becomes so healthy and so efficient that our years can be extended. I think these are the effects that Luigi Cornaro was trying to tell the world about.

I would like to start wrapping this up by combining the concept of eating less with a nutritionally-dense diet of raw and living foods. Can you imagine how long Cornaro would have lived if he only ate raw and living foods? We know how detrimental cooked foods and alcohol are to our health. This guy lived 100 years (almost) eating the stuff. If we took his concept and applied it to a raw food diet, can you imagine what might happen?

If you get one thing out of this post, I want you to know that achieving great health will be hard if you are constantly eating. If you really want to go for it, put the food away, pick up your water bottle and balance your raw diet with a lifestyle that includes fasting.

[MysticTree]

I don't like the term detox at all. I think it is a false description of what is happening.
There has been a fair bit in our mainstream "quality" (I use the term advisedly) press about reducing the amount we eat to promote longevity. When the world population is about to become a real problem, living longer seems to be the opposite of what the world needs.

[Living Food]

My next point is all conjecture and probably will not sit well with a lot of raw foodists. I think Luigi Cornaro probably experienced "detox". Boom, I said it. "A cooked fooder cannot rid his body of toxins!," you scream. You are right. You cannot detoxify your body if you continue to feed it toxins. How, then, can some live so long in a toxic condition?

What you all like to call "detox" is probably just the body "going through changes". When a raw fooder of several decades does a deep fast and his body exhibits these detox symptoms, is his body ridding itself of aspirin he was given as a child? Probably not. What we call detox is probably a process that the body goes through when it sees the need to change. You present it fewer calories than it needs, hence, something has to change in order to survive. It gets trim and efficient so you can live on less. It clears your head and makes you smarter so you can discover new food sources.

Detox IS real. The simple fact of the matter is that when you are not digesting, you are detoxifying. Therefore, you can still rid your body of lots of toxins by eating cooked food if you don't eat very much of it. Even just by eating less of the crap that most people call food these days you are saving your body a huge toxic burden.

It still shocks me that people deny the fact that toxins can accumulate in your body and impact your health. It's a scientific fact as well as common sense, and thousands upon thousands of people have dramatically increased their health and recovered from "fatal" or "incurable" diseases through smart detoxification protocols. But I don't have the time to argue about the reality of the accumulation of toxins and their effect on health. Anyone with the inclination to research the subject thoroughly will quickly discover the truth.

Digestion puts a massive burden on your entire system. Calorie restriction leads to a longer life span because it spares you much of that massive burden, as well as the free radicals that are created during digestion and nutrients required for digestion (just make sure you get enough nutrients in your diet - sprout + weed juices and algae are unbeatable in this regard), not to mention the fact that you get to avoid all of the toxic junk that is in most food these days.

Anyway, a sproutarian diet is by far the best, because it not only gives you the best nutrition possible with a minimal amount of toxins, it also allows you to survive and even thrive on a minuscule amount of food and save your system lots of digestion. And there are many other benefits too that you'd have to experience to believe.


When the world population is about to become a real problem, living longer seems to be the opposite of what the world needs.

Contrary to what the media would have you believe, the world can support a population much larger then our current one if we would stop being so wasteful in terms of space, food, energy, and destroying the environment. If we lived in harmony with the Earth it could easily support billions more then the present world population.

The population isn't a problem at all, it's merely the way that the population chooses to live that is the problem.

[robh]

I agree that detox is real. I also believe that toxins accumulate in the body and that they are expelled in this healing process that occurs when we are not digesting. We are on the same page in that regard.

Detoxification, however, is one of the tasks being performed during this period. Multitude of tasks are being performed during this time. Does that task set always include detoxification? Early on, I am sure getting rid of toxins is high on the list of priorities. But with anything, the need to detoxify should attenuate as fewer toxins are present and no new toxins are being introduced. We have given this ugly term that really does not describe a beautiful and wonderful process that does SO much more.



Anyway, a sproutarian diet is by far the best, because it not only gives you the best nutrition possible with a minimal amount of toxins, it also allows you to survive and even thrive on a minuscule amount of food and save your system lots of digestion. And there are many other benefits too that you'd have to experience to believe.

I am a believer, trust me. I frequently think our forum's resident sproutarians, the benefits they boast about why their bodies are so vibrant and healthy. In the above quote, I have bolded the reason why I think this is the case; it allows you to live on less (just like the Italian guy). The only thing better than sprouts would be juiced sprouts and grasses. That would require EVEN LESS digestion. I think you and Mr. Raw are living proof that hypothesis.

I have no doubt that eating a minimal amount of food on a sproutarian diet is the best way to gain health. I think we need to acknowledge, however, that there are other ways. Drinking juiced fruits and vegetables would certainly require very little digestion. Eating minimal food on an 881 diet would improve health. Eating a minimal amount of food on a 100% raw diet would also improve health.

Obviously, these methods are different rates of healing due to the amount of digestion required and the density of the nutrients. The best method being juiced sprouts, greens and grasses.

I personally have given thought to eventually living on mainly grass juices, juices from micro-greens, juices from sprouts and supplementing other foods (as little as possible) if I cannot get everything I need from the juices. To be honest, I am not ready to take that plunge. As a result, I have not done the research. It is possible that I could live 100% on a diet of juiced grasses and sprouts. (I will get there eventually, I have no doubt.)

[MysticTree]

the world can support a population much larger then our current one if we would stop being so wasteful in terms of space, food, energy, and destroying the environment. If we lived in harmony with the Earth it could easily support billions more then the present world population.

The population isn't a problem at all, it's merely the way that the population chooses to live that is the problem.

Totally agree with that but the majority don't want to down size like I have.

[HippieChick]

I love this thread. There is much information to ponder. Thanks!

[Living Food]

Multitude of tasks are being performed during this time.

Yes.


Does that task set always include detoxification? Early on, I am sure getting rid of toxins is high on the list of priorities. But with anything, the need to detoxify should attenuate as fewer toxins are present and no new toxins are being introduced. We have given this ugly term that really does not describe a beautiful and wonderful process that does SO much more.

Even after years on the raw food diet you will still be detoxifying. The amount of toxins that end up in our bodies is horrifying. You know how when you start exercising you tend to make large progress at first, but then slow down until you are making progress at a much slower rate? The same happens with detox. Frankly, we'll never be done detoxifying, because even if you eat the cleanest diet and drink the best water possible there will be lots of environmental pollution to deal with, no matter where you live.


I have no doubt that eating a minimal amount of food on a sproutarian diet is the best way to gain health. I think we need to acknowledge, however, that there are other ways. Drinking juiced fruits and vegetables would certainly require very little digestion. Eating minimal food on an 881 diet would improve health. Eating a minimal amount of food on a 100% raw diet would also improve health.

There are plenty of ways to gain the benefits of eating very little. We've seen that even people who eat cooked foods can experience those benefits. The difference is that the sproutarian diet is absolutely loaded with vitamins, minerals, enzymes, hormones, oxygen and other phytonutrients that you could never get in the same quantities anywhere else, and most important of all is the vital energy of these foods (whether you "believe in it" or not). I don't think that anyone should allow themselves to constantly be hungry just to gain the benefits of eating less, unless they are fasting. On the sproutarian diet, you will slowly experience a decrease in appetite to the point that you can eventually live on sprout juices with no hunger whatsoever. I doubt that any other diet allows you to decrease the amount of food you need while you are still eating plenty. It's the beauty of sproutarianism - on any diet you can decrease your food needs to some degree just by choosing to eat less and forcing your body to become more efficient, but as a sproutarian your food needs will be decreased even if you stuff yourself at each meal, until you find that you just don't need much food at all. Your body becomes far far more efficient all by itself.

I think that other raw vegans also experience a decrease in appetite eventually, but nowhere near to the same degree as a sproutarian does.


The only thing better than sprouts would be juiced sprouts and grasses.

Absolutely. Try to juice 32 oz of green sprouts and 6 to 8 oz of grass juice every day and you will find your appetite decrease dramatically no matter what else you are eating. And the health and spiritual benefits are beyond amazing.


The best method being juiced sprouts, greens and grasses.

Yes.


(I will get there eventually, I have no doubt.)

This makes me so happy to hear. You will experience amazing benefits living on grass and sprout juice (I'm not even there yet but my life is 1,000 times better then it ever was). But don't wait until some future date to get started, start today even if only with 2 oz of grass juice a day, and slowly build your way up to higher amounts. See the sprouting for juicing (http://www.rawfoodtalk.com/showthread.php?68827-Sprouting-for-Juicing&highlight=sunshinemn) thread. The sprouting! (http://www.rawfoodtalk.com/showthread.php?64973-Sprouting!) thread has tons of good information, but sadly it's so big that it's almost impossible to find any one specific bit of information in it anymore. If you read the whole thing start-to-finish you will learn lots from it, though (I read the whole thing and that's what influenced me to become a sproutarian. It was half the size then that it is now, but I would have gladly read the whole thing even if it was 10 times as long as it is now. I actually wish it was :D).


I personally have given thought to eventually living on mainly grass juices, juices from micro-greens, juices from sprouts and supplementing other foods (as little as possible) if I cannot get everything I need from the juices. To be honest, I am not ready to take that plunge.

That's why you should start (slowly) incorporating sprout juices into your diet right now. You will never be able to comfortably live on sprout juices alone unless you drink lots of them until they start to decrease your appetite and requirement for food tremendously (they can do that for many reasons), or unless you go on an extensive series of very long water (and to a lesser degree juice) fasts. I personally believe that very abruptly forcing your body to live on much less food then it has been (via lots of very long fasting sessions) is far less healthy then allowing your body to decrease its food requirements on its own (sproutarianism with lots of green sprout juices). You don't even have to be a sproutarian if you have lots of sprout juices (those give the main benefits), although being a sproutarian would give you the most benefits the quickest.

[robh]

Apparently, my subscription to this thread didn't work. Kinda odd.

The benefits of wheatgrass are immensely attractive. I think the 8 oz you recommended yields enough B12 that I wouldn't need to use nutritional yeast. Also, the vitamin C is off the charts so my daily "couple o' oranges" would no longer be a requirement. I think it also has vitamin E which eliminates the need to ensure I have almonds or sunflower seeds everyday. I think protein, interestingly enough, is in there too. It just goes on and on like that. Drinking 8oz of wheatgrass juice a day would literally cut the list foods that I "need to eat" every day in half.

I have some research work ahead of me to learn how to do it, but wheatgrass juice is first on the list. I plan to start at a low daily amount and work my way up like you suggested in another thread.

We are kind of getting off topic here, but it's nice to see people pondering the idea that eating less can improve your health. It is kind of a weird connection and I don't think a lot of people get it. Hence, they try to raw food diet, eat constantly and never reap the full benefits and never get "hooked". In the back of my head, that's kind of why I would recommend a 30-day juice fast to people who are interested in raw food. 30 days "eating" very very little food should surely produce the benefits required to blow their mind.

[michigan roman]

ive got to leave for work right now , but i just saw thread title ' live longer by eating less ' and wanted to say THATS RIGHT ON THE MONEY IMO

[MysticTree]

My subscriptions aren't working at all. Only helpful thing is the tick on the unread threads lists. Helps me pick them out from all the dross.

[Dirkg]

This thread has lots of useful info and dare I say, food for thought. Calorie Restriction has lots of benefits including longevity - this is a well researched scientific fact that I wish more people knew about. Most people even think fasting is bad for you. IMO raw food followers generally tend to be more holisitc health conscious and in touch with their bodies so its not surprising to see this here.

[robh]

Calorie Restriction has lots of benefits including longevity - this is a well researched scientific fact that I wish more people knew about.

It's funny. This fact came up on one of those *other* raw food boards where the diet consists of 3000 calories of food everyday (they eat a lot as opposed to a little).

The response on that board (because they eat so dog gone much) was that these studies and the science that established these finding were based on cooked food diets. Therefore, cooked fooders eating less makes them live longer because they are consuming fewer toxins.

I think if every raw fooder lived into triple digits, we would have heard all about it. It seems that people who have been raw for many years and have exposed their bodies to fewer toxins should live longer, if the above argument is correct. To me, it seems that this is not the case. Raw Fooders tend to live a typical number of years.

I think eating all the time (even if it's raw food) will slow the rate of healing and detoxification.

The culture I live in seems to condition people to eat eat eat. 12pm is lunch. 5pm is dinner. You just woke up? It's time for breakfast. Because of this, I'm not sure I even know what hungry feels like. I've tried fasting but I encounter feelings that I associate with hunger and cave in.

Anyway, I just wanted to bring the topic up. See if anyone else has thoughts on the topic.

[Conscious Midwife]

I'm enjoying the discussion here.

[Living Food]

I think eating all the time (even if it's raw food) will slow the rate of healing and detoxification.

It will.

That's one reason that sprout juices are so important, they give you the absolute best nutrition you could possibly get and they require virtually no digestion (hardly any more then water), + once you've made them a large part of your diet for a while then you can easily be satisfied with just a glass of sprout juice + some algae. I find that if I get a little hungry, a glass of sprout juice fixes that. But if I'm busy and kept away from my sprouts for hours and get really hungry, a glass of sprout juice with algae fills me up just like a big meal.


The culture I live in seems to condition people to eat eat eat. 12pm is lunch. 5pm is dinner. You just woke up? It's time for breakfast. Because of this, I'm not sure I even know what hungry feels like. I've tried fasting but I encounter feelings that I associate with hunger and cave in.

Frankly, when I went sproutarian I ate as much as I wanted, sometimes too much. But after I reached the point where I was drinking lots of sprout juices everyday my hunger was dramatically reduced and if I'm not exercising heavily I can easily get by on 2 meals a day.

Once I reached that point, fasting became quite easy. I just finished fasting on sprout juices and algae for the past 5 days and I felt INCREDIBLE! Virtually no hunger at all, and when I did get some I just had some juice with algae. And the mental clarity + energy was amazing.


Raw Fooders tend to live a typical number of years.

True, and yet I think most of them have a better quality to those years then do most cooked fooders, due to less toxins in the diet and eating food that still has enzymes. But eating a lot does put a lot of stress on your body, whether it's raw food or cooked (raw food obviously being better).

But just eating raw fruit, vegetables, and unsprouted nuts and seeds has nothing on the sproutarian diet. If everyone went sproutarian the life expectancy would shoot up and Big Pharma would be out of business because no one would ever get sick (and lots of other things would happen too - no wars, for example). If everyone went raw their quality of life would be greatly improved but nothing like if they were sproutarian (I've been "standard raw" and a sproutarian, I know).

...Not that I'm recommending a diet other then what Alissa says, of course...that would be against the rules...*wink*

[MysticTree]

and of course longevity has a lot to do with your own genetic make-up as well. Some people just go on and on and on living even though they have a "dreadful" lifestyle.

[Dirkg]

It's funny. This fact came up on one of those *other* raw food boards where the diet consists of 3000 calories of food everyday (they eat a lot as opposed to a little).The response on that board (because they eat so dog gone much) was that these studies and the science that established these finding were based on cooked food diets. Therefore, cooked fooders eating less makes them live longer because they are consuming fewer toxins.I think if every raw fooder lived into triple digits, we would have heard all about it. It seems that people who have been raw for many years and have exposed their bodies to fewer toxins should live longer, if the above argument is correct. To me, it seems that this is not the case. Raw Fooders tend to live a typical number of years.I think eating all the time (even if it's raw food) will slow the rate of healing and detoxification.The culture I live in seems to condition people to eat eat eat. 12pm is lunch. 5pm is dinner. You just woke up? It's time for breakfast. Because of this, I'm not sure I even know what hungry feels like. I've tried fasting but I encounter feelings that I associate with hunger and cave in.Anyway, I just wanted to bring the topic up. See if anyone else has thoughts on the topic.While there are no long term studies on the effect of CR on humans, I think it's well established that it has benefits. I don't think it has anything to do with cooked/raw, but about triggering your body's natural survival responses by not over feeding it. E.g. A simple thing like fasting is known to increase HGH, one of the very few things apart from exercise which can do so. Struggle is good for survival, being stuffed and sitting on your couch is not! It's actually quite interesting that when you compare health of primitive societies to ours, after taking out factors such as disease caused by infection, natural factors etc, they were actually healthier. Same applies to people living today in tribal areas, those not eating a western diet etc.I need to learn about benefits of sprouting and whether it can become a main source of nutrition, I never really thought about that till now.

[Dirkg]

I think the problem is we do t kow what hunger truly feels like. We eat because we want to, and we dont stop when we are full. Listening to your body is I think a key part of health, and it's not easy.Food used to be a necessity, and it still is for billions who go hungry :(, but it's also a source of pleasure and its hard to deny that.

[Living Food]

I need to learn about benefits of sprouting and whether it can become a main source of nutrition, I never really thought about that till now.

Go to the sprouting! (http://www.rawfoodtalk.com/showthread.php?64973-Sprouting!&highlight=sprouting%21) thread ot learn more about sprouting. The thread is huge but the whole thing is full of good information, so read the whole thing (eventually) if you have the time.

As for it being a major source of nutrition...it is. Sprouts, grasses and weeds (wild greens) are the most nutritious land foods on the planet, and if you top that off with some algae and sea veggies (the most nutritious water foods) then you'll get the absolute best nutrition you possibly could.

[Living Food]

and of course longevity has a lot to do with your own genetic make-up as well. Some people just go on and on and on living even though they have a "dreadful" lifestyle.

It's a pity that most people end up coming to this lifestyle because they're sick...I can only imagine how healthy those people who never get sick even with a horrible lifestyle would be as sproutarians. But sadly you can't convince them to try it (I've tried), because they figure there's nothing wrong with their current lifestyle - because they never get sick. Maybe they'll learn in 50 years.

At which point they'll wish they had done it 50 years ago.

[MysticTree]

It's a pity that most people end up coming to this lifestyle because they're sick...I can only imagine how healthy those people who never get sick even with a horrible lifestyle would be as sproutarians. But sadly you can't convince them to try it (I've tried), because they figure there's nothing wrong with their current lifestyle - because they never get sick. Maybe they'll learn in 50 years.

At which point they'll wish they had done it 50 years ago.
So many never need to learn.

[robh]

and of course longevity has a lot to do with your own genetic make-up as well. Some people just go on and on and on living even though they have a "dreadful" lifestyle.

I have seen this too. It makes me wonder how much these people are eating.

I agree it's genetic. Some people (like me) are programmed to eat. My mom said that's the first thing I was good at right out of the womb ("chow hound" I think was her term). Yet there are other people that just don't like to eat. They take a bite or two and the rest is left to waste. Those people are always thin, wiry, hyper and bouncing off the walls with energy. It kind of seems like you have the thick, large people (the eaters, like me) and you have the thin, skinny people.

How many large old people do you see? I don't think people get smaller when they get older. I think the larger ones die first. It's a morbid thought (especially given my genetic disposition). I think it all boils down to the rate at which you go through calories. If you eat more calories per day, you live less.

I don't want to live 100 years, frankly. I think it would be sad to see everyone I know die and be left alone. My goal is more above achieving health and improving my quality of life. I'd love to be a 70-year old that looks and acts 30 (I'd be okay with 40 too).

I think putting these concepts together, I see what I need to do to reach those goals. Now I need to learn how to eat less and stay satisfied (quality of life and all that). To be honest, the juices Living Food is promoting sounds like something I should try.

[MysticTree]

I'm not even just talking about eating. My ex husband drinks a bottle of whisky a day and smokes 20-40 fags a day and he is fit as a very fit flea. That is his genetic make-up. Not fair but that is so.

[D'vorah]

My father eats tons of food, and lives on a cooked southern diet of fried food, meat, bread and dairy. He's turning 90 later this month.

Of course, I don't advocate this diet, and I've tried for years to get him to eat more fruits and veggies and clean up his diet, but he stauncly refuses.

Just sayin'.

[lafsalot]

It's a pity that most people end up coming to this lifestyle because they're sick...I can only imagine how healthy those people who never get sick even with a horrible lifestyle would be as sproutarians. But sadly you can't convince them to try it (I've tried), because they figure there's nothing wrong with their current lifestyle - because they never get sick. Maybe they'll learn in 50 years.

At which point they'll wish they had done it 50 years ago.

No matter how well intentioned you are, the harder you try to convert people over to your way of thinking/lifestyle, the harder it will be to get the desired results you'd like to see. Such attempts often alienate/polarize people, and make them less likely to want to - it's just human nature.

I have found that holding onto the "other people should be doing this" or "other people shouldn't be doing that" way of thinking only serves to make me create more unecessary frustration for myself, so have since opted to just live by example.

[Living Food]

so have since opted to just live by example.

Me too. People don't like being told they're harming their health.

When I said "I've tried", that was a long time ago and I don't bother to do that anymore - now people come up to me asking how in the world I'm so healthy and energetic. They don't normally do anything about it when I tell them, but at least they think about it as opposed to just rejecting it becuase they don't like people telling them what to do.

And recently I've been getting quite a few people into sprouting (without preaching to them, they just want to do it after hearing why I'm so healthy) - normally pretty small-scale, but it's a start.

[lafsalot]

My father eats tons of food, and lives on a cooked southern diet of fried food, meat, bread and dairy. He's turning 90 later this month.

Of course, I don't advocate this diet, and I've tried for years to get him to eat more fruits and veggies and clean up his diet, but he stauncly refuses.

Just sayin'.

My great grandfather, as well as most of my great aunts and uncles, were centenarians and grew up on the very same food (except you forgot to mention the sausage gravy :lol:). They were all fit and spry well into their late nineties and were still driving cars (at least during daylight hours). GGF even initiated and got a divorce from his second wife when he was 98!

[Living Food]

Of course, even the (taboo) food you're mentioning was much more wholesome and nutritious decades ago. And they had far fewer environmental toxins, got far more exercise, probably didn't have to deal with being on drugs (pharmaceuticals), had much less EMR to worry about, etc.

And their parents had it even better then them, so their genetic makeup was better.

[lafsalot]

Yes, the food was more wholesome, however, most of the men left grade school (some as young as nine) to work underground in the coal mines. W re: to mines - although those operating today as still bad, the ones back then were far worse.

[Living Food]

Better genetics back then.

Luckily, genes can be turned on/off with diet, exercise, and your thoughts + emotions, and certain algae supplements (AFA for sure, probably chlorella too, but I'm not sure about spirulina) can actually improve your genetic makeup + DNA.

To tie into the main topic of this thread, eating less food is one of those things that modulates genes.

[MysticTree]

Yeah much better. Atom bombs going off, widespread nuclear testing, Love canal, thalidamide-type attitudes to marketing drugs, DDT, agent orange etc. Etc. Etc.

[Living Food]

Atom bombs are still going off every day (not going to get into that) + nuclear testing is still going on.

I doubt that most people at that time had exposure to Love canal and Agent Orange (minus those in the military who went to Vietnam, obviously), although now Monsanto is trying to engineer seeds that are resistant to the herbicide 2,4-D so that farmers will start spraying insane amounts of it on their fields...2,4-D is one of the two ingredients of Agent Orange.

But I do get your point. Actually I was thinking back further then the 1900s when many families still grew their own food and family farms were everywhere - and people actually knew how to grow crops. Plus all of the other things I listed 2 posts ago.

[MysticTree]

Atom bombs are still going off every day (not going to get into that) + nuclear testing is still going on.I doubt that most people at that time had exposure to Love canal and Agent Orange (minus those in the military who went to Vietnam, obviously), although now Monsanto is trying to engineer seeds that are resistant to the herbicide 2,4-D so that farmers will start spraying insane amounts of it on their fields...2,4-D is one of the two ingredients of Agent Orange.But I do get your point. Actually I was thinking back further then the 1900s when many families still grew their own food and family farms were everywhere - and people actually knew how to grow crops. Plus all of the other things I listed 2 posts ago. and where in this country at least there was huge pollution from burning coal in the cities and food was adulterated with a wide range of fairly dreadful things and the chemists could sell anything as a cure all no matter whether it contained arsenic, morphine etc etc etc. Those who lived to an old age did so by avoiding death during wars, dangerous occupations and any number of other hazards. Yes, I think the gene pool was healthier then but it's difficult to compare.

[Living Food]

All of the above is going on today - although certain occupations like coal mining may not be as prevalent as they were back then.

We definitely have it far worse - more pollution, more EMR, less exercise, food is adulterated with far worse things and has virtually no nutrients, still plenty of wars, and I'd say that the drugs sold by the pharmaceutical industry are quite possibly more harmful then what chemists back then were selling; even if they're not, virtually everyone in America today is on one or more drugs (some people are on half a dozen or even a dozen different ones!) whereas far less people would have needed them back then.

The people - especially children - on psychiatry drugs like ritalin + prozac is absurd (over 1 in 4 children, some as young as 3 years old).

[MysticTree]

Not in all countries are children medicated as much as they are in the US. Bad genes aren't removed from the pool as they were in the past either. So whilst those are not being removed we are also not concentrating genes that would protect us from the modern world. The way the world is going violence -wise, I just hope I'm not going be around when it becomes personally impacting. A common adulterant in cheeses was lead btw.

[lafsalot]

whereas far less people would have needed them back then.


Not true. I can recall my relatives telling me about the big "consumption" (TB) outbreak that killed many of their friends/other family members at the turn of the century in their small rural community. In urban areas, 70 to 90 percent of the population was infected! Typhoid fever (from drinking contaminated water) and pneumonia also resulted in many deaths.

Agree w you about the over treatment of children who reportedly have ADHD.

[lafsalot]

Sorry, I inadvertently posted twice.

[MysticTree]

One of my grandmother's sisters died from TB.

[Gianni]

In the majority of the animal models of longevity, extended lifespan is believed to be related to lower levels in a growth factor called IGF-1 (insulin-like growth factor-1), which is produced primarily in the liver. In calorie-restricted animals, levels of circulating IGF-1 decline between 30 percent and 40 percent.

However, Luigi Fontana of Washington University found no difference in IGF-1 levels between people on calorie restriction and those who are not. In other words these Cronies had similar levels to SAD eating couch potatoes.

Fontana explained that there are two major influences on IGF-1 levels: calorie intake and protein intake, and so he looked at the influence of protein.

Fontana had been following a population of strict vegans for several years. They tend to eat less protein than the CRONies from the CR Society, so he compared IGF-1 levels between the two groups. The strict vegans took in about 10 percent of their total calories from protein, whereas those on calorie restriction tended to get about 23 or 24 percent of calories from protein. He found that the vegans had significantly less circulating IGF-1, even if they were heavier and had more body fat than CRONies,

Previous research from Fontana's group had found that a diet lower in protein might protect against some cancers. These more recent findings suggest lowering protein also might be important to longevity.

[lafsalot]

Great info, Gianni! Thanks for sharing.

[Gianni]

You're welcome, lafsalot.

It sure does give us food for thought when someone asks, "Where do you get your protein?".

[robh]

I am kind of leaning on this Italian nobleman as an example of some who has lived longer by eating less. He was also from an area where longevity is not uncommon because of the foods available in the area.

I think it is generally an accepted fact that eating less may extend your life (improve your health), but what information backs that up? Is it the studies on CR animals that Gianni is talking about? I'd like to read more and potentially have more examples.

[Living Food]

I think it is generally an accepted fact that eating less may extend your life (improve your health), but what information backs that up? Is it the studies on CR animals that Gianni is talking about? I'd like to read more and potentially have more examples.

I've been reading lots of scientific studies (I've read dozens today alone) looking for information abut sprouts + wheatgrass to convince other people, if I come across anything involving calorie restriction I will let you know.

[robh]

I found this to be very informational.

http://www.soilandhealth.org/02/0201hyglibcat/020127shelton.III/020127.toc.htm

I have only started reading some bits and pieces. I just noticed this one "Repair of Organs and Tissues During Fasting".

[MysticTree]

I think having children really does give people an impetus to want to live longer. I don't have any and I don't mind how long I live as long as I can get about and do the things I want.

[Dirkg]

The best understood scientific theory of why we age is Telomere shortening. There are plenty of articles in scientific and popular press about this.

There is some evidence longer telemeres are linked with CR, and other favors such as not smoking, reduced saturated fat etc, but this process is not fully understood.

I think in the next decade or so we might very well be on the verge of a major breakthrough in understanding disease and aging. These are still medical mysteries, all medicine knows today is how to treat symptoms with drugs, and very little about cause or prevention. Doctors esp in western medicine do not focus on the cause, only on what to prescribe.

[michigan roman]

i hypothosize our souls eternal and between body spans we travel to stars as light or energy without matter to recharge ourselves with star light like you recharge a battery . then with soul full recharged we make attempts to become a sperm in a males body that can then attatch onto a womens egg which is needed to start growth of a new body with . the soul providing the energy that makes a bodys heart and nervoous system twitch , that energy absorbed out of stars . and reason our bodies age is because our souls run out of star light charge , obviously diet n exercise factors too but souls charge by far most important factor . but if you believe in this hypothosis of mine quest becomes how to recharge the soul with star light while still maintaing a body on your self / soul . figure out how to recharge soul and you shall become able to make your body last forever

[MysticTree]

i hypothosize our souls eternal and between body spans we travel to stars as light or energy without matter to recharge ourselves with star light like you recharge a battery . then with soul full recharged we make attempts to become a sperm in a males body that can then attatch onto a womens egg which is needed to start growth of a new body with . the soul providing the energy that makes a bodys heart and nervoous system twitch , that energy absorbed out of stars . and reason our bodies age is because our souls run out of star light charge , obviously diet n exercise factors too but souls charge by far most important factor . but if you believe in this hypothosis of mine quest becomes how to recharge the soul with star light while still maintaing a body on your self / soul . figure out how to recharge soul and you shall become able to make your body last forever

We don't try to become an egg? I don't think we try to do anything. Whatever happens, happens. There is no need for a body to last forever. Why are so many people fixated on immortality?

[robh]

I think having children really does give people an impetus to want to live longer. I don't have any and I don't mind how long I live as long as I can get about and do the things I want.

I have kids and I cannot say that I want to live longer because of it.

As far as this thread goes, living longer is a result of better health. Better health for me, means a better quality of life. That's what I am after.

I do not think that I could be considered 'old', but I can tell that the quality of life is degrading as I put more years on. Going raw has made my body feel like it's 10 years younger (and I don't even fast).

I didn't get a chance to read about the organ repair during fasting (I forget the wording). That seems to be a clue to me. If you continue to fast and your body continues to repair, you will be healthier because of it.

[MysticTree]

I have kids and I cannot say that I want to live longer because of it.

As far as this thread goes, living longer is a result of better health. Better health for me, means a better quality of life. That's what I am after.

I do not think that I could be considered 'old', but I can tell that the quality of life is degrading as I put more years on. Going raw has made my body feel like it's 10 years younger (and I don't even fast).

I didn't get a chance to read about the organ repair during fasting (I forget the wording). That seems to be a clue to me. If you continue to fast and your body continues to repair, you will be healthier because of it.

Maybe because my father died when I was in my early 20s I feel that if I had children I would want to maximise my time with them ... maybe it's just me.

[sport]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pfna7nV7WaM
I do not know if I posted this link before but I found this program very interesting as an alternative to Calorie Restriction. If he can do this on cooked food just imagine what we can do using the same principal on raw. Watching this may be the best spent hour in a long time.

[robh]

sport, that link doesn't work.

I have trying to identify what triggers me to over eat.

The first, and most obvious, is this empty feeling I get in my stomach that I have called “hunger” for my entire life. Dealing with it is hard. It is uncomfortable. The only way that I’ve really been able to get past it is to drink some water and ignore it.

The second is a feeling of dissatisfaction. During this time, I am not hungry but I feel I must continue to eat a variety of different food until I’ve found what I’m looking for.

The third is just plain old gluttony. I will be content, full and satisfied but then, I think about something that I know tastes good. I find that I want it just to experience the taste.

In an ideal world, I would eat x, y and z and not have to think about food until the next time my body needed food. Knowing what to eat, how much to eat and knowing when to eat are all the major issues for me.

I really need to work on these triggers before I can successfully reduce my intake of food down to what I need.

Does anyone have any advice?

[MysticTree]

I think 2 & 3 are very closely linked. The first one is the least difficult for me. Allowing yourself to "eat that tomorrow" works quite well most of the time. Today, as I was fasting my way through work I caught sight of my pot of raw olives and tub of raw pistachios which I keep in my desk for "emergencies". I felt quite a pang and that was followed by monkey mind saying I'd fasted lots this week and those raw goodies were innocent and yummy. So I just told myself that those raw foods would still be there in my desk tomorrow when my fast is over. It sounds very simple but for the most part it works for me. When it doesn't work then I do find I don't go too overboard like I might otherwise.

[SekhemNefer]

I agree that detox is real. I also believe that toxins accumulate in the body and that they are expelled in this healing process that occurs when we are not digesting. We are on the same page in that regard.

Detoxification, however, is one of the tasks being performed during this period. Multitude of tasks are being performed during this time. Does that task set always include detoxification? Early on, I am sure getting rid of toxins is high on the list of priorities. But with anything, the need to detoxify should attenuate as fewer toxins are present and no new toxins are being introduced. We have given this ugly term that really does not describe a beautiful and wonderful process that does SO much more.



I am a believer, trust me. I frequently think our forum's resident sproutarians, the benefits they boast about why their bodies are so vibrant and healthy. In the above quote, I have bolded the reason why I think this is the case; it allows you to live on less (just like the Italian guy). The only thing better than sprouts would be juiced sprouts and grasses. That would require EVEN LESS digestion. I think you and Mr. Raw are living proof that hypothesis.

I have no doubt that eating a minimal amount of food on a sproutarian diet is the best way to gain health. I think we need to acknowledge, however, that there are other ways. Drinking juiced fruits and vegetables would certainly require very little digestion. Eating minimal food on an 881 diet would improve health. Eating a minimal amount of food on a 100% raw diet would also improve health.

Obviously, these methods are different rates of healing due to the amount of digestion required and the density of the nutrients. The best method being juiced sprouts, greens and grasses.

I personally have given thought to eventually living on mainly grass juices, juices from micro-greens, juices from sprouts and supplementing other foods (as little as possible) if I cannot get everything I need from the juices. To be honest, I am not ready to take that plunge. As a result, I have not done the research. It is possible that I could live 100% on a diet of juiced grasses and sprouts. (I will get there eventually, I have no doubt.)


I have to say that I doubt living on Sprouts is a healthy diet that leads to longevity. I've studied Nutrition (even though I ignored what I learned by incorporating healthy concepts in my life since then) and I have studied Biological Anthropology. Except for the radical PETA type vegan who claimed to be the vegan guru, or the Raw Foodist guru, the medical and science community overall will state there has been on no historical or present documentation on the health and longevity of someone living a 100% vegan lifestyle. We know that vegetarians and vegans existed in centuries past, but overall they were the minority of a fringe subculture, like people today, who ate this way due to moral and/or spiritual reasons that the majority of society did not practice overall. Again, just like society presently.

Raw Foodism is a Post-Industrialization "health nut trend" as a health response after poor nutrition and health after the Western World adopted canning (high sodium and high sugar foods for preservation) after World War 2. Also, due to technology, we became interested in making artificial flavored, chemical, process foods in order to produce in a mass manufactory fashion for quick consumption. Therefore, the Raw Food community has only existed less than 50 years, give or take a few decades.

Many vegetarians, vegans and raw foodists that exist in this world, have most likely have not been vegetarian, vegan, or raw foodist for more than 5 years. The number gets smaller if you are looking for vegans, vegetarians and raw foodists for over 10 years. Almost non-existent are vegans or raw foodist who have eaten this lifestyle over 25 to 50 years of their life. There is probably a little bit larger percentage with vegetarians, since consuming diary and eggs is not considered a challenging, strict diet. Knowing this fact, there is non-existent medical or scientific study on the health and so-called longevity a vegan, or raw foodist person who have choosen this lifestyle on the long-term. Most studies are in theory, not in reality. Saying this, there is no way in hell to know on the health of a more stricter diet of Fruitarianism or Sproutism on a person on the long-term.

Yes, there are very sick people (who got sick from consuming high-processed, chemical loaded, high sodium and high sugar/corn syrup diet) who got well from eating raw foods. Plus obese persons lose lots of weight from getting rid of their SAD diet, which make sense if you just eat whole foods, whether cooked or some animal. But people eat so poorly where fake food is the norm and real food is abnormal that Raw Foods seems like this awesome, miracle solution, when in actuality it is nothing special at all. We just have been eating junk for so long that we lost common sense of wanting to choose healthy foods.
I have witnessed lots of people on Youtube, who are popular raw food gurus, who have had raw food channels for years, then out of the blew they make this video of having to announce that they will be closing their channels, because they are no longer raw foodists due to health reasons, or they claim that their bodies appetite felt better when they added said cooked foods and/or animal in their diet.

And then, there have been rumors that many of these famous, celebrity raw food gurus on Youtube, or book writers are not really raw foodist at all. But they are lying in order to make money in the raw food market in order to get a following in whole food industry, diet industry and health industry game. For instance, The Raw Brahs on Youtube who claim to be 100% Raw Foodist, but many people claim that they saw one of the brothers eat a hamburger in the background. I guess, someone wasn't paying attention with the camera and accidently videotaped him, plus they did not watch the footage while eating. I don't know, I am even hearing that David Wolfe may not be 100% Raw Foodist, nor the products he sales, along with a whole hell a lot of people who are considered Raw Food "celebrities" of sorts.

That aside, if anyone claims to have done medical studies on Raw Foodism and its sub-forms (frutarian, sproutariansim, etc), I am highly skeptical and I would think they are talking out of their ass. All we know right now is that Raw Foodism and its sub-forms is healthy in the short-term of perhaps 10 years or less. When you start to talking about long-term and longevity...you just have absolutely no authority of knowledge on that matter. Find of a study of a Raw Foodist, Fruitarian or Sproutarian of 25 years plus, or 50 years plus where they have gotten extensive medical tests. You would be hard pressed.

Therefore, I would high caution you not to be overly strict with your raw foodism, which will prevent you from obtaining nutrients needed for your body in the long term. I would not suggest Fruitarianism Only, or Sproutism Only for long-term food consumption. That diet may work well for the lemurs, fruit bats, gerbils and squirrels, but not for the human body.

[robh]

"Save it for tomorrow." I like that one.

One of my other issues is knowing stuff is going to go bad. Right now, I have stuff in the fridge for juicing. Frequently, I will be fasting on the days when my avocados are ready to go (you know, the day before they go bad). The thought occurs to me If I don't consume the food, it will "go to waste". I always try to tell myself (as off color as this might be) that all food "goes to waste" if I eat it or not.

I agree that getting over the first one is easy. It's the most uncomfortable, but if you can power through the sensation, it goes away and you are more comfortable later.

The second and third are easier if you are fasting. For some reason consuming food seems to be a cycle. You eat something because you "think" that you are hungry. Then, a little while later, you think you are hungry again (even, though you just ate something). Once you "break the seal", 2 & 3 start to kill you. I notice it's especially hard to stop eating in the evenings.

One idea I had was to break my fast before bed. The advantage is that there are fewer hours of temptation. The disadvantage is loading your belly up with fiber and queuing digestion just before bed. I find an empty stomach before bed is best - hence, the conflict. For this reason, I was considering breaking the fast before bed with easy to digest juices. Even still, this does not sound ideal.

Another approach to the topic may be to look at it from another angle. Maybe it's not the food that causes the cycle, but the contents in the food. We know that food high in sugar causes blood sugar spikes. The drop from the spike is that is probably causing most of the "cycling". Therefore, if I had wheat grass juice in the morning, I doubt that it would cause a cycle of eating all day. Maybe nutrient-dense foods that have little or no impact on blood sugar would be a good choice. (Funny, sprouts come to mind - hah!)

Anyway, the problem is still circling in my mind. I am sure through experimentation and continued development, I'll find the answer to eating less and not suffering because of it.

[MysticTree]

One of my other issues is knowing stuff is going to go bad. Right now, I have stuff in the fridge for juicing. Frequently, I will be fasting on the days when my avocados are ready to go (you know, the day before they go bad). The thought occurs to me If I don't consume the food, it will "go to waste". I always try to tell myself (as off color as this might be) that all food "goes to waste" if I eat it or not.

You can use avocados as a base for ice-cream I think. That would stop them going off!

[MysticTree]

What time do you go to bed? One way to avoid late night temptation in the food department is to go to bed earlier. We almost always are in bed by 7pm! We read and I surf the net on my phone and listen to the radio. You have children so such nights may not be possible I suppose.

[robh]

Good idea on the avocado ice cream. I am asleep by in bed by 9:30-10pm. I'd like to eat around 5-5:30 and eat nothing else so that my stomach is pretty much empty before bed, but it just never happens.

I'll keep working on this. I'm sure it's just a matter of training and, mostly, self control.

[MysticTree]

Good idea on the avocado ice cream. I am asleep by in bed by 9:30-10pm. I'd like to eat around 5-5:30 and eat nothing else so that my stomach is pretty much empty before bed, but it just never happens.

I'll keep working on this. I'm sure it's just a matter of training and, mostly, self control.

My cut off time is 6pm. I simply don't eat after that until about 7am the following day. I still drink water but no juices or food etc. I have found this most helpful. By 8pm I am just not hungry or even monkey-mind-hungry. I consider it a daily "fast". It has become part of the way I live. This is very recent - since October 1st this year.

This makes longer fasts easier to slip into and it makes eating sensibly easier too.

[TangerineCat]

I notice there is an overall theme of eating less on this and other boards. And i don't mean not overeating, but wanting to live on juices, sprouts, and so on. I remember several years ago I also had such thoughts- how great it would be to live on sunlight one day.

I think, however, that my need to live on very little came from having issues with dieting before. I actually found more peace in eating a variety of things (=not high raw)- made smaller portion sizes easier to achieve. I feel that when I am in 100% mode or good/bad food mode, I tend to think about food too much and end up overeating :/

[MysticTree]

I definitely don't want to live on sprouts! I love them but the thought of having just sprouts forever does nothing for me. I find that raw does raw, eating does eating. It's good not to over-think it all :)

[TangerineCat]

somewhere on this thread there was something posted on limiting protein and improved health. Anyone heard of mTOR?

When protein levels are detected that exceed our basic maintenance requirements, the excess levels up-regulate the activity of the mTOR pathway, stimulating cellular proliferation and adverse (from a longevity standpoint) mitochondrial effects.*

The point then is that we shouldn't have more protein than a certain point:

"The average would lie somewhere between 45 and 60 g of actual protein per day for the majority of adults."*

There is a "paleo"-style book that advocates a diet with less animal products as most mainstream paleo approaches, this is where I first read about mTOR. Interesting stuff! Wonder if the China Study was showing a similar pattern- beyond a certain point, too much protein is carcinogenic and affects us negatively.

[sport]

sport, that link doesn't work.
?
They seem to have taken down the link to the show but it was called Eat, Fast, Live Longer and the diet is called the 5 2 diet.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01lxyzc
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5:2_diet
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2195408/Starve-day-pig-Is-perfect-diet.html

[robh]

sport, thanks. Now I need to be at home to look at them - heh.

TangerineCat, thanks for the info. The italian fellow I mentioned before ate no more protien than an egg.

[dmb2002man]

Yes, there are very sick people (who got sick from consuming high-processed, chemical loaded, high sodium and high sugar/corn syrup diet) who got well from eating raw foods. Plus obese persons lose lots of weight from getting rid of their SAD diet, which make sense if you just eat whole foods, whether cooked or some animal. But people eat so poorly where fake food is the norm and real food is abnormal that Raw Foods seems like this awesome, miracle solution, when in actuality it is nothing special at all. We just have been eating junk for so long that we lost common sense of wanting to choose healthy foods.
I have witnessed lots of people on Youtube, who are popular raw food gurus, who have had raw food channels for years, then out of the blew they make this video of having to announce that they will be closing their channels, because they are no longer raw foodists due to health reasons, or they claim that their bodies appetite felt better when they added said cooked foods and/or animal in their diet.

And then, there have been rumors that many of these famous, celebrity raw food gurus on Youtube, or book writers are not really raw foodist at all. But they are lying in order to make money in the raw food market in order to get a following in whole food industry, diet industry and health industry game. For instance, The Raw Brahs on Youtube who claim to be 100% Raw Foodist, but many people claim that they saw one of the brothers eat a hamburger in the background. I guess, someone wasn't paying attention with the camera and accidently videotaped him, plus they did not watch the footage while eating. I don't know, I am even hearing that David Wolfe may not be 100% Raw Foodist, nor the products he sales, along with a whole hell a lot of people who are considered Raw Food "celebrities" of sorts.

If you eat a SAD diet then it is really hard to not eat a high fructose corn syrup, high sodium and high sugar diet. When i switched to eating healthy, I use to check every food at the grocery store and almost 100% of everything processed in the food isles has high fructose corn syrup in it. Or instead of saying it then they just put "sugar". You don't really have a choice but to eat raw these days if you want to feel well and not get all the chemicals added to your body. Going raw has made me feel great! I grew up and never been fat, overweight or nothing. I would definitely rather go drink fresh carrot juice then take a multivitamin daily!

[Dirkg]

I think it is simply a matter of what of you get used to. It is so easy to get used to larger portion sizes, then a few years later you're fat, wondering how it happened, and eating 'less' makes you hungry. Meanwhile, a huge part of the world's population goes hungry at night or just have enough to eat.

My grandfather used to say "Never eat till you are full". He was a very wise man.

[TangerineCat]

My grandfather used to say "Never eat till you are full". He was a very wise man.

My mom always tells me "eat until you're 80% full". Turns out this is a Japanese concept termed Hara Hachi Bu :) Wise indeed.

[robh]

My grandfather used to say "Never eat till you are full". He was a very wise man.


My mom always tells me "eat until you're 80% full". Turns out this is a Japanese concept termed Hara Hachi Bu :) Wise indeed.


This is the first time I am hearing this. It does, indeed, sound like good advice.

I find it interesting that the Japanese observe this. They are attributed with being healthy people. Maybe this is why.

[MysticTree]

But how does one tell when one is 80% full? It's hard enough to tell when we are absolutely full sometimes!

[Revvell]

If/when you eat slowly, as in not in front of the tv or while you're distracted with talk, reading, etc. and you chew thoroughly, you can easily know when you are satisfied. I don't know how to determine 80%. Sounds good in theory but... "satisfied" works better for me. Would 80% satisfy me? *shrugs* I don't know yet, if I'm not satisfied, I'm constantly thinking about food.

[MysticTree]

If/when you eat slowly, as in not in front of the tv or while you're distracted with talk, reading, etc. and you chew thoroughly, you can easily know when you are satisfied. I don't know how to determine 80%. Sounds good in theory but... "satisfied" works better for me. Would 80% satisfy me? *shrugs* I don't know yet, if I'm not satisfied, I'm constantly thinking about food. You are talking about fooling yourself into thinking you are fuller than you are by using time to trigger the full response. It's a kind of full but not always a real full.

[robh]

I think the 80% full thing is based on the notion that it takes time to get the energy (sugar) from the food into your bloodstream. Therefore, if I continue to eat until I feel better (when my blood sugar return to normal), then I have over eaten. This is because I am being satisfied by the food eaten a while ago. Hence, the food I just ate (the food that hasn't had time to get into my blood steam) was not needed.

The assumption is that you are eating something that takes time to digest (grains, starches or proteins, for example). The sugar from fruit and more so water-based fruit enters your blood stream quickly.

Anyway, all things to consider.