musings on basics and effacies

To a friend who sent an email saying more raw as a percent of diet was working wonders for him, I responded:

I am 100% in agreement with you on raw. It's been my experience as well. And I've now been in "intervention" situations, as well as retreats etc, where 100% raw was what's for dinner (and lunch etc).

This give me an idea for a blog, something along the lines of "major components of the whole foods plant based diet". Here's basically how I see it.

starting from omnivore or vegetarian, same applies to either...the basic "major components" that will improve ANY diet as a proportion of totals consumed:

1. whole foods

2. plant foods

3. raw foods

thems the basics. then it becomes a question of total % of each, and if there's a diminishing return point where is it?

is the diminishing return point different on an intervention (disease reversal) diet as opposed to a "maintenance" (already healthy) diet? Probably.

is the diminishing returns point gradually shifting depending on where an individual is, week to week, month to month, on that spectrum of recovery? Probably.

for the already recovered already healthy individual is there a diminishing returns point as one approaches 100% in each of the three basic categories? probably, and that's where things begin to get interesting, and a bit murky. for example:

1. is it better to have some concentrated food products in the diet? if so, which ones and how much?

2. is it better to have some animal food products in the diet? if so, which ones and how much?

3. is it better to have some cooked food products in the diet? if so, which ones and how much?

Experts who will completely agree with the basic premise that the more of all the basic three the better, will begin to disagree as higher percentages of each are approached, with credible opinions given. And the science? Nutritional biology is one of the most complex and least conclusive branches of science to begin with (you'd never know that listening to the folks using it as "best marketing medium of the 21st century" however). It's pretty safe to say the "science" is murky, and will be a long time coming before "weight of evidence" is reached on anything other than the idea "more of each of basics" is the "north star" for general health, vitality, and longevity.

in the "experts" mix there's a range, including

1. paleos (high fat, keto diet, animal product)

2. "old fashioned" raw vegan (Hippocrates Institute), which you might say is a raw vegan paleo (high fat) approach

3. the large and growing body of cooked / raw vegan "disease reversal" MDs, who are largely in agreement for the most part, and also 80/10/10 for the most part

4. "leading edge" raw vegan (Doug Graham and a few others, who are not only 100% vegan and 100% raw, but also 80/10/10)

these 4 basic "expert" approaches are in the order of least to most effective for disease reversal IMHO.

it can be a little bit confusing for the newbie, but the overarching "truth" (if you will) is the more of each of the basic three categories the better, to some point where diminishing returns MAY set in.

But I can tell you this: that diminishing returns point for Doug Graham is WAY different that it is for the "disease reversal MDs". In my experience Graham's approach is the most aggressive and effective for disease reversal, but it can be tricky as a maintenance diet, you have to know what you're doing. And I'm sure Doug Graham himself will disagree with the idea it's "tricky" as a maintenance diet, as the approach itself is actually pared down to quite simple. (See his book "The 80/10/10 Diet", which is, IMO, brilliant.)

Also in my opinion the "disease reversal MDs" approach is way easier for the average person to wrap their head around and actually integrate into their own lifestyle because it's closer to what they're already doing, which is the primary reason I emphasize that approach in my blog. And the approach works! It works great in fact, there is absolutely nothing wrong with it.

Diminishing returns is out there as a factor, but it's also personal, experiential, intuitive, and changing.

When you hear people say "there is no one correct diet, we humans are all unique, and adaptable" I agree to a point, and disagree to a point. Basic biology is the same for all humans, we are all the same species, and there is IMO a species specific diet for humans. Human diets have historically varied according to where on the planet we lived. What was available in the equatorial tropics was very different and more nutrient dense than what was available near the high elevation tree line. The species specific diet may therefore be, probably is, the one that is the most nutritious for any member of the species, the one that grows where life is the most prolific. So I disagree with the folks who say "there is no species specific diet for humans", and think that view lacks perspective.

But I agree to a point that optimal can vary depending on where one is in their own journey to better health and vitality. We have emotions, we have habit patterns, and all of that may be "in the head" so to speak, but it's real. The intelligent individual will continuously take this into account, and balance going easy on themselves for "only" taking one step at a time, with pushing themselves toward better and better results. And how much that person pushes toward the "faster reversal" approach will also depend on how sick they are! Do you have "3 months to live" (according to your conventional MDs)?

Better get on the gas then buddy:)