This is my original article 30Bad Method Critique, first published on Fruitarians.net on June 6th 2010, and for which I was blocked from the community by Freelee (see in the end, for misrepresenting banana industry) The old URL was: fruitarians.net/forum/topic/30bananasaday-com-Method.htm
Now, 6 years later, I decided to publish it again, for the history, and because some of the problems were not resolved, and I just found out recently, how bad it became (RawTill4 - sugar drinks as healthy nutrition, people who criticize them being accused in crimes, violence threats, etc.)
I edited the text to adopt it to the new site formatting, and to make it more readable. I also needed to remove a few of my sentences, because the discussions, which provided the context for them on 30bananasaday.com, were deleted.
The content of this article: Caloric Model, Amount of Food, Cost of that Quantity of Fruit, Bananas and Dates, 100% Raw, One Bite and You Are Lost, Sleep and Water, Suspension
30Bad Method Critique
The analysis (review) below is made from a fruitarian perspective of one person (me) and may be one-sided.
30bananasaday.com (30BaD) is a site of a vibrant law-fat raw vegan (lfrv) community with own methodology to achieve excellent health, based on a 80/10/10 diet (or simply 811: 80% carbohydrates, 10% protein and 10% fat) by Douglas Graham.
The site on NING was started by Freelee, a beautiful athletic girl, and later driven also by DurianRider (DR, Harley Johnstone), a brilliant endurance athlete, long term raw vegan. Their charisma, hard work, ethical values, great achievements, openness and fairness about their experiences attracted many people to the fruitarian lifestyle, that also includes regular vigorous exercise, plenty of sleep and good hydration.
This diet could be suitable for people with special needs:
- Competitive athletes, because they can learn how to achieve more from eating more carbohydrates from fruit.
- Those of us who has some kind of eating disorders, especially when fear and dislike of food are involved: these people can learn to develop healthy attitude towards own body and digestion processes, and learn how to stay fit and shapely, eating a lot and nourishing their bodies properly.
- People with a history of poor diets: standard American diet (SAD) and such, because they can find plenty of information on negative effects of such diet and the possible way to switch to a much better one for their health, ethics and environment, comfortably continuing to eat big amounts of food.
If you are new to raw vegan diet or just want to learn more from nice people you would certainly find interesting stuff on 30BaD. I've gotten few great pieces of advice on the site (example).
The community is quite a fun to be in and one can meet amazing and supportive people there.
However, there are some inconsistencies and difficulties with this diet plan from a fruitarian point of view. Unfortunately, I could not find all the answers on some of my questions about nuances of the method, and would like to talk about it here, basing on the information I have from the forum of the site. I could miss something big though, and if you know it, please, let me know.
This is one of the first troubles I encountered by learning about this diet. That's why I wrote an article on caloric intake recommendations couple of weeks ago: Energy in Food.
Short before that I commented on a topic on 30BaD about a vegan athlete, Tim Van Orden, whose caloric intake is around 1,500-2,000 calories, which is much less than guys on 30bad - the low-fat-raw-vegan site - recommend and hold to be possible ( http://www.30bananasaday.com/forum/topics/tim-vanorden - now deleted, October 2016).
And after that I read one of their new rules:
"We recommend womyn eat at least 2500 calories from fruits daily and men get at least 3000 calories and more if one wants to live an active, passionate lifestyle. ... Topics/posts/members that constantly question the validity of the calorie model will be deleted..."
Obviously, I am very pro-fruit person, because I live on fruit and do not limit their intake, but I was astonished by this restriction to even discuss such a controversial and not well studied yet subject. I believe in freedom of thought and in truthful unobstructed communication. Questioning things is the moving force of cognition, and I am very sad that my favorite community, which I was promoting for more than a year, tries to take away my right to do it.
On the site they advise to intake minimum 2500 calories per day for females and 3000 for males, without any consideration of other factors, normally used in dietology (body weight, height and many others). They do not provide any formula for individual needs, even the one that the author of 811 diet Graham uses - the formula from his book was provided by one kind member, but deleted from the discussion. According to this formula, an intensively exercising person (a serious athlete) should take 20 times her/his desired body weight in pounds, in calories per day.
For example, my number by this formula - not even taking into consideration widely recognized counting methods, according to which I need less - is lower than the recommended on the site, but I was recommended to take the listed minimum anyway. Why? The only explanation to this I found is: "It works". May be, for some people. But why my questions were deleted? Why my citation of Graham's site were called "taken out of context" without any explanation? I am almost sure they weren't.
Why do they advise the same minimum to people with all kind of body mass and height?..
Interpretation of caloric tables
On the site we are told that not only cooked food calories are "bad", but also the calories from fat. It is also said that amount of calories from fruit are vary significantly from the data provided by science. Why? Because it feels like it by certain people. And this is for some types of fruit only: watermelons and melons are the main example, their calories are supposed to be insignificant. Freelee:
"Like I have said in the past, after many years experimenting with meeting my daily calorie needs- melon calories are negligible. ...from much experience with monitoring energy levels, mood, appetite etc after eating melon."
On my question: "5 kg melon, assuming that is has 4kg edible, is ~1000 calories worth. It has been estimated that the body will use up to 25% of calories of protein or carbohydrates to digest those nutrients, but this is already counted in estimations of usage and recommendations. So, how could 750-1000 calories be insignificant?"
I have not gotten any further explanation, and I notices that other practitioners on the forum use the same approach, for example, buying a fruit juice or smoothie they don't believe the number of calories on the packaging, because they get hungry or just feel in a special way soon after. What is that as not doubting and disagreeing with the accepted calorie model? Why then
"Topics/posts/members that constantly question the validity of the calorie model will be deleted..."
What caloric model? As I see it, only one interpretation of caloric model is permitted on this site, and it is a very inaccurate and incomplete one.
As it already has been partly accepted by the 30Bad team, that our bodies not always can assimilate all available energy from different foods or use them for energy immediately or store as glucose for a day, without storing as fat, - it mostly depends on the digestive ability on the organism - they do not seem to recognize that by consuming big amounts of fruit, some energy in them, sometimes a substantial part, may stay unused.
I tend to think that a diet with immense amounts of food - even though it is such a great food like fruit - is a wasteful nutritional plan of low efficiency: a part of eaten fruits goes undigested through the body. It wastes its precious resources on dealing with it:
- producing digestive juices with body-made enzymes, but not absorbing them back due to the enormous amount of food moving through the tract without touching absorbing walls of the digestive tract,
- mobilizing the immune system to check all incoming food for potentially harmful elements.
Our organism still needs to manage to keep the balance in microflora, warm the food up, and move it down. And if too much food had been put in the system, it eventually will be released with undigested and not assimilated content in it.
I have proven to myself by experimenting for many years, that one can live a good life on much less fruit than recommended by the 30BaDers. I believe it could be a much more efficient diet. I hope, the next decade of active life on 98-100% raw fruit will bring me even more certainty.
Increasing caloric intake as the main answer to difficulties
I think, the suggestion of eating big loads of fruit is suitable for beginners, if they straggle to adapt and experience constant hunger. Not everybody suffer much from "non-satiety" though, and adapts to the new raw plant food during the first year. I have researched over 100 successful cases of vegan raw-mono-eaters, not all low fat though, where the biggest guys ate 5-6 kg at first, and then went to 3-4 kg. This people, like me, decreased amount of fat in their diets gradually.
I know on my own experience and that of people who went raw and shared with me their difficulties, that there are cravings that are impossible to appease even with enormous amount of fruit. The mind and body is imbalanced in the transitional phase, and it is matter of sufficient or somewhat increased amount of food, patience, calming down, thinking and investing one's time into interesting activities - to succeed in the adaptation.
Amount of Food
According to the recommendation, for a female to consume amount of fruit worth minimum 2500 calories a day, the intake of juicy fruit and berries I eat now, and only the edible part, pulp, must be between 5-10 kg (11-22 pounds). The first number (minimum) is received by counting the medium 50 calories per 100 g for usual fruits from markets, including a portion of high on calories bananas, which I personally eat only on occasion. The second number (maximum) is for eating juicy fruit only, including lots of berries, watermelons and cantaloupes, which are 25-30 calories per 100 g, and are the basics of my diet: 9.5 kg (21 pounds) to get 2500 calories a day.
That's a lot of fruit. I am an experienced fruit eater, and such amount of fruit seems to be excessive and superfluous to me, as well as to some other long term fruitarians whose opinion I am aware of. But on the site 30BaD, they suggest one must or can increase caloric intake significantly to "live a passionate life". I do not need to increase neither the level of passion in my life (or I would explode from happiness :) nor energy (I even have difficulties to get tired), and I highly doubt that energy and passion correlate mainly with caloric values of food - maybe only for people who certainly eat too little for their needs.
One can reduce the weight of food by using calorie-intense fruits like bananas and dried fruit (not avocados, because they are high on fat, which is against the low-fat principle of this method). The problem with that I will show below, but we can continue to use the approximate number of 8 kg, which would reflect a fruit diet with some bananas or other caloric-dense fruit regularly.
Nutrient-intense fruit are important, in my opinion, and should be the first concern of a frugivore.
Cost of that Quantity of Fruit
Imagine, you feel all right, eating so much fruit daily. It is recommended by Graham and on 30bad to buy organic fruit, which is great. But how much it is going to cost a regular person?
Counting the weight of pits, peels, spoiled, damaged and unripe pieces, one would need to buy as minimum 9 kg (18 pounds) of fruit a day or more, on average. In USA in common supermarkets and farmers-markets one can buy a pound of fruit, if talking a variety, for $1-7 and more, and you are likely to pay 10-40% more by choosing organic (often, double the amount!). But let's take a price $4 per pound, assuming that a person has no time to go to the store daily, choose always right, or bargain on sales.
To buy that quantity of fruit a day one must pay more than $2,160 a month on this diet. Plus additional cost of daily greens (green vegetables are strongly recommended on this diet and are quite expensive, and low in calories), drinking water cost, transportation cost increase by more frequent trips to the market place (It must be daily I guess, and you must be fit to drag the bags home :) - that's so expensive!
OK, what about males? They should count with 20% more (3000 cal for men is 120% of 2500 for women) -$2,593. Fabulous.
How can I look most of my friends in the eyes and tell them they should spend that amount of money, or they never get fit and healthy? Guys on 30BaD do that to us. If we buy cheaper fruit only ($1-2 per pound net weight) it is still quite expensive.
Members on the site say that most of them spend more than $1000 per month, consuming primarily bananas and dates - the biggest by caloric value part of the fruit intake and lowest price. We will talk about primarily non-juicy high-sugar fruit later. Well, let's keep in mind $1000-2600 monthly.
Don't you think that this is too much even for most Americans, especially for young people, and those of non-corporate culture? I have lived in many places, and cost of fruit is not much lower a year around in most of them, but the income of people can be significantly lower.
Average yearly expenditures on food in U.S. urban households: in 2004 annual per capita spending was $2,207. Isn't that a nice matching number? Ha, it is not per month - per year! Per month it is $184.
In 2003, US urban households with incomes in the lowest quintile (bottom 20 percent of the income distribution) spent $1,769 per person for total food ($147 a month), or 37.3 % of total household income. OK, these poor people automatically do not qualify to eat 811 diet, they can impossibly increase the percentage of food expenditure to provide basic needs of shelter. They could count on banana-diet with little additions: 3000 calories from 100cal/100g bananas only (about $3 per pound organic peeled) will cost them $135 (3 kg x $1,5 = $4.5 a day) and they would have $12 to buy a piece of other fruit each third day.
What about moms with kids? In 2003, urban female-headed households with children spent $1,610 per person for total food. They have exactly enough to feed themselves according 30bad advise with bananas only: $134 (let's hope that little kids need much less food). Isn't it a better solution to eat less but more nutritious stuff, like other fruits?
What about wealthier people? Households in the highest quintile spent $2,737 per person for food, or 6.6 % of total household income. They could certainly increase the portion of money they spend on food, but could they increase it ~10 times? Probably, with dropping lots of stuff: real estate cost, education, etc. Would many of them do that? Probably not. Would some? Sure! Maybe they are the real target of the advisers?
Smaller households also spent a much larger share of their food budget on food consumed away from home than larger households. Working singles would have it especially hard to have money and time for eating and shopping.
Certainly with time and increasing percentage of agrarian earth usage for orchards, which is ridiculously low now (a few percent of total agricultural use), with smartly organized layers of trees and bushes and not for grains to feed the stock, the price on fruit may drop. But it is not sure, how it would influence affordability of fresh fruit. Global changes would take time, and that would happen only if more and more people would significantly increase the amount of fruit they are eaten. And to tell them that they must spend on it so much now and ever or they are going to fail - is very irresponsible, IMHO.
All - soon 7 billion - people will not own gardens any time soon, even if it were easy and inexpensive. Obviously, this is not the case, it is not easy to buy productive piece of land and live there, because if you need to transport all your crop anyway, then maybe it is better to pay somebody else for the effort to keep it efficient and save resources. One of the best economical ideas was and stays specialization, wasn't it? And I highly doubt that the global abandonment of cities and towns, de-urbanization, is sustainable. We are too many for that, we have already destroyed most of the wildlife to spread ourselves even more. It can be a great idea for some, but not for majority of us.
Thus, for now I concider 30BaD to be an elite diet, maintainable only for few. For them this formula could be quite suitable, because some people say they love it.
Bananas and Dates
They have been said to be the base foods, "bread and pasta" of the 30BaD diet by Harley, I remember, and most members consume them in big quantities, usually in smoothies (diluted with water).
These guys recommend to eat only very ripe bananas (many people would say overripe, because a bright yellow banana with few dots is not ripe enough in their understanding, only already fermenting bananas are called overripe there), because, as I found out, bananas contained only 1% starch when fully ripe (yellow skin) and none when overripe (with dark spots).
Enzyme amylase (ptyalin) in human saliva breaks down starch molecules, but for that one needs to hold bananas in mouths for long enough, which is not very likely to happen by drinking banana-smoothies, so much liked and recommended on the 30bananasaday. But we have the ability to digest starch in the small intestine too. So, the 30BaD advise to always avoid yellow bananas with only few dots is strange to me, because I never had problems with regularly-ripe bananas, and only in this condition they are available in most emergency cases I eat them (because it's the most popular fruit in many places).
There is a concern about high sucrose content in sugary bananas regarding insulin resistance, elevated adrenalin and triglycerides, visceral fat and hyperglycemia, however the multiple studies were done not with sucrose in bananas. Total sugar content is 23% in fully ripe and overripe bananas. Sucrose comprised more than 70% of the total sugars in fully ripe bananas and about 50% of the total sugars in overripe fruits.
Sucrose has a moderately high glycemic index: 64. What is more important, the glycemic load (GL) (combines both the quality and quantity of carbohydrate) of 30 bananas will be 287. A typical target for total estimated glycemic load is 100 or less per day. As a rule of thumb, most nutritional experts consider GL below 10 per meal to be "low," and above 20 to be "high." If you are not overweight and are physically active, a little higher is acceptable. 15 bananas smoothie, considered as a good one meal on 30BaD has GL = 144. Still a lot.
Bananas are mildly inflammatory food only if you are eating 100 g, less than one banana. By eating 30 bananas, your inflammatory factor will be -1807, it's a big negative number, which means that with eating this way, inflammation can silently involve every cell in your body and, over time, negatively affect your health and abilities. Allergies, joint pain, and premature aging are just a few of the common ailments linked to systemic inflammation. The formula used to calculate the inflammatory factor (IF) Ratings measures the effects of more than 20 different factors that determine the food’s inflammatory or anti-inflammatory potential, including amount and type of fat, essential fatty acids, vitamins, minerals and antioxidants, glycemic index, anti-inflammatory compounds. I don't know how reliable or relative this counting is, but we probably should address this issue. This method could be only another trick to sell a book:
Bananas are the poorest on protein among fruits (4.2% of the caloric value comes from proteins), to achieve recommended by diet 10% one must eat lots of other plant food.
Calories from fat - 3% of total calories. Calories from protein - 4.2% of total calories.
Nutrient density (ANDY) of bananas is 30 - lower than of white potatoes (31). Examples to compare them with other fruits: strawberries - 212, tomato - 164, blueberries - 130, oranges - 109, cantaloupes - 100, apples - 76, etc.
Research has proved that just 2 bananas provide enough energy for a strenuous 90-minute workout. No wonder the banana is the number one fruit with the world's leading athletes: 2 bananas, not 30! Many members are going on many days mono-banana diet and wonder why they can't hold and bit themselves up. I think, it is a positive thing they stop.
The guys on 30BaD have not practiced their diet for many years yet, we don't know the impact of large quantities of bananas daily on ones health in the long run.
Rebecca Cohen, in The Science Creative Quarterly, 2008:
"The large transnational banana companies that control wages, prices in the global banana trade, represent a real threat to small farmers. ... They are also one of the most environmentally harmful agricultural industries."
Bananas are produced in tropical climates only, which makes it impossible to use them in orchards in moderate climates - no locally grown bananas in the areas where so many people live.
For the most part, bananas are grown in large scale plantations up to 100 square kilometers. There are over 300 species of bananas, yet only one is grown for international trade: the Cavendish.
The process of growing bananas in Central America has caused a deforestation disaster in Central America. Until the onslaught of massive agro-chemical use in the 1960s, banana plantations had to have virgin soil from mostly rainforest areas to be profitable. The growing of a mono-crop virtually guarantees attacks by pathogens, and with no genetic diversity, the results can be catastrophic. This was true for the banana industry in the early 1900s. In the 1910s, Panama disease began to take out entire plantations. Not long after that, Sigatoka disease began to take down crops as well. These two diseases were both caused by microorganisms. Neither of them were a problem until the fruit companies started mass-producing bananas. The onslaught of these two diseases caused the plantations to have to pick up and move every ten years or so. Moving the plantations meant clearing even more rainforest for the virgin soil. (Tucker, 2002).
Banana trees bear fruit only once in their lifetime, therefore once bananas are cultivated, the tree is no longer useful, and goes to waste.
Banana plants take 10 months to grow to a fruit bearing tree. The fruit is harvested 4-5 months later, while they are still green. Only perfect looking bananas are considered acceptable; any that are blemished are thrown away. The United Nations Agriculture Organization estimates that 30-40% of bananas are discarded based solely on appearance.
The enormous boxes containing the bananas are shipped around the world on freighters with intensive refrigerated units where the bananas are stored in order to prevent pre-mature ripening. It is estimated that this type of shipping accounts of five percent of world carbon dioxide emissions. Once the fruit arrives in the country of destination, they are artificially ripened in warehouses by spraying them with a chemical called ethylene in carefully controlled temperatures.
According to the World Wildlife Fund, the banana industry produces more waste than any other agricultural sector in the developing world. It is estimated that for every 1 ton of bananas produced, there are 2 tons of waste. This waste includes industrial plastic bags that cover the bananas during growing stages.
Monopoly and Exploitation
Only five transnational companies, Chiquita, Dole (both American based), Del Monte (Chilean based), Fyffes(Ireland based), and Noboa, known as the "Bonita" brand, (Ecuadorian based) own over 90 percent of internationally traded bananas.
For every dollar spent on bananas at the supermarket, 5-11 cents goes to the plantation. Workers are being paid shockingly low wages ($1-5 for a 10-12 hour day of work). The work is physically demanding and workers may have to carry extremely heavy loads or stand for 10 hours straight with their unprotected hands dipped in a bath of chemicals (in order to wash the bananas), many of which are prohibited in North America and Europe. Child labor is common place. Men often make three to 4 times more for similar work than women.
Harm to the Environment
The banana is a very ecologically demanding species. ... Land is cleared in order to make space for banana plantations, but because banana trees shed no natural leaf litter to feed the soil, it depletes very quickly. Plantations are therefore forced to expand, and the problems associated with banana production grow.Deforestation and unhealthy soil cause erosion, and the runoff causes frequent flooding and damage from sedimentation.
Heavy pesticide use also causes problems. In an attempt to meet the demand for aesthetically perfect bananas, over 400 types of agrochemicals are used. In fact, more chemicals are used during banana production than any other crop with the exception of cotton. ... It is estimated that 30 kilograms of pesticides are used per hectare per year on a banana plantation, whereas only 2.7 kilograms are used for the average European cereal crop.
These chemicals can lead to sterility, cancer, and death. Insects become resistant to many of these pesticides, therefore stronger, more toxic chemicals are needed. These chemicals affect mammals, birds, and plants, and the bio-diversity of the area quickly disappears. Pesticides also destroy the possibility for pioneer plant species to grow, and the area dies.
Although workers on organic plantations may still face injustices, the environmental practices are considerably more sustainable (I was told, they recycle their plastics), the crops are not always grown as a mono-culture, and less environmental damage is being done. Unfortunately, organics currently only account for 1-2% of global banana exports. Please, try to buy only organic and fair-trade bananas!
Bananas were not brought to the United States for sale in markets until the latter part of the 19th centuryand were initially only enjoyed by people in the seacoast towns where the banana schooners docked; because of the fruit's fragility, they were unable to be transported far.
To make you feel better I decided to include a good thing about bananas:
Bananas are an exceptionally rich source of fructooligosaccharide, a compound called a prebiotic because it nourishes probiotic (friendly) bacteria in the colon. These beneficial bacteria produce vitamins and digestive enzymes that improve our ability to absorb nutrients, plus compounds that protect us against unfriendly microorganisms. When fructooligosaccharides are fermented by these friendly bacteria, not only do numbers of probiotic bacteria increase, but so does the body's ability to absorb calcium. In addition, gastrointestinal transit time is lessened, decreasing the risk of colon cancer.
According to a recent survey undertaken by MIND among people suffering from depression, many felt much better after eating a banana. This is because bananas contain tryptophan, one of the amino acids that make up all proteins that the body converts into serotonin. Maybe that's why banana-eaters are so careless.
Bananas could be OK, but maybe not in such quantities :)
Most dried dates one can buy in a store are pre-heated, it is not raw food any more. Some organic dates can be found sun-fried, but normally they had been previously frozen (enzymes destroyed). Most of conventional dates can be boiled, deep frozen, fumigated, treated with salt and vinegar, hydrated and dehydrated in the process of artificial ripening. To find non-frozen non-overheated dates is rather difficult but possible, one my friend did just last week, and even organic they are not very expensive, around $10 per kg (~$5 per pound) in Europe.
Dry dates are even twice lower on protein than bananas: 2.2 % of total calories, you should probably use them as an addition to other fruits. Dates are sugary fruit too, even when they are semi-dry. Sucrose percentage on dry weight basis in dates may vary significantly.
"Though the ratio glucose and fructose originates from a one-to-one basis, this ratio may change during ripening, usually glucose remaining the prominent one. ... availability of glucose and fructose is sometimes propagandized as a more direct, accessible energy source to the human body."
Glucose is fine, dates in moderate amounts are great, - don't forget to take care about your teeth (clean your mouth) after eating them :)
The idea itself is very good! I like to be almost 100% myself all the time and I hope to be there very soon.
But to what price and why? On 30bad you constantly receive the idea, that only 100% will do the effect on you, without reason for that provided. As far as I know, but I need time to check everything what I list below, and I invest some time to research the "why raw" subject and still do, it has been shown that:
Any increase of fresh fruit and vegetables in our diet is good for us.
Some studies (by Hippocrates Institute, if I remember it well) suggest that there is no significant difference in long term health impact in highest ranges of raw by caloric intake in your diet, but it changes significantly by each additional increase of cooked food of 5-10%. Thus, 65% is surely worse than 75, 55% - than 55, etc.
But this is not a big deal and is a matter of personal preference. I do feel that 100% is the best for now for many reasons (why to want good and not the best?).
One Bite and You Are Lost
It is suggested to stuff oneself with more and more sugary fruit to avoid any craving to eat even a tiny amount of anything cooked. Does it worse it? There are some studies that show that too much excessive sugar in our diet, especially sucrose as in bananas, age us sooner.
It is stated on the site 30bad, that all cooked foods are highly addictive. I know that some foods, especially milk products, are addictive (Neal Barnard and others), chocolate, even rice and other plant foods, but all? I have searched for the prove of this assumption, but I found only one explanation by Victoria Boutenko, that the danger is again sucrose, that is formed by cooking from starches, but I have not found any proof yet.
My own experience tells me that unsalted un-spiced cooked veggies, for example, taste not that good after a while on raw, and maybe for everyone else too; many times they taste so disappointing, that one never craves them again. I have not craved many tested only spiced vegan foods: the taste is usually insipid, lacks on complexity. But I agree that not in all cases, sometimes it does feel so attractive, that one could suspect addiction.
When I asked why it is highly addicted, the answer was about the test buds, that are highly sensitive and it the food only touches them, you start craving more and more. No proof. And I wonder, what about food smells? The aroma of food plays a huge role in taste experience in general, and your food taste different (loses its attractiveness) if you can't smell it. And smells of various foods are all around us, if one does not live in solitude far away from humans! Would it be advisable to avoid any smells? Yes, it is helpful, especially for beginners, but hardly always possible.
Sleep and Water
On the 30BaD we are advised to sleep a lot, even in advance, and to drink lots of water (minimum 2 liters a day) to urinate at least 10 times a day/night with totally clear urine (no coloring). We have already tried to discuss the water subject here (please, check it out, I won't repeat the main points here), and would like to add only the following:
In one of his videos Durianrider scares us with red colored urine ("... in nature red means danger"), as a dangerous thing that can be caused by dehydration. This is nonsense, especially for fruitarians. It is possible only when you have blood in your urine and this must be a serious medical condition. In my long imperfect fruitarian years, I haven't had nothing near red shade in urine, drinking only reasonable amounts of water. I urinate several times a day even if I eat fruit only (no drinking) and feel wonderful.
We need to sleep enough, but we cannot "stack on" sleep, as Durianrider advised somewhere, to be ready for the challenges of the new day. I listened to many lectures of respectable scientists in the sleep research, they said it is impossible to prepare yourself with more sleep in advance, and there is no any evidence that over-sleeping brings anything good, actually, it may be a worrisome symptom if a person starts to sleep hours longer.
Drinking too much water can interrupt deep sleeping phases (one must get up to pee), which is highly unhealthy thing. I tend to believe that an adequate amount of sleep is more important for our health than diet.
When I overeat (yes, even fruit) I need to sleep longer and feel less rested and concentrated in the morning.
Naturally developed low-fat diet for myself over the years. I cannot say much on the subject, but I just like to remind everybody, that:
I could not find any conclusive evidence that low-fat diets are beneficial in the long or short term.
I think that animal fats and isolated refined plant oils cannot be treated the same way as fats in fresh avocado or soaked nuts, for example.
I do not understand, why Durianrider can be so sure saying the following:
Id rather see people eat white microwaved GM rice with soy sauce than try and get their calories on a bike ride from nuts. Its way healthier. Ive done both and know what works and what doesnt. Nuts are great but they sure aint a healthy primary fuel source. Cooked starches are way better, fruit is the absolute best, no question. Put Alberto Contador on a nut diet for 2 weeks and even I could beat him.
End of the day its about having enough glycogen so we can think proper rather than be in a state of ketosis to maintain our 'purity status'.
I tried to understand that. Developing conversation, I said:
"Have you heard about Tonya Kay - she is a raw pro dancer and I read somewhere she eats lots of avocados daily. I would certainly choose avocado vs that rice - I know the difference in my conditions after. Ketosis as far as I know happens all the time (the body fat circulates) and this is necessary in small amounts to fuel organs. Blood acidity rises dangerously when certain enzymes are absent or damaged or the body can't produce sufficient insulin. The production of glucose from proteins (amino acids) is concerning, (also the muscle loss), and nuts are high in proteins. Plus most of them have toxic enzyme inhibitors and are dehydrated (as dried fruit too)."
But DurianRider never answered this. Why use such extremes in argumentation as to put somebody on "nut-diet" for weeks? It is not a good style, because in this way we can "disprove" anything: e.g., "papaya is bad for you, because you won't do very well on papaya only." Why not talk about differences between 10% calories from fats in the diet vs 25%? Or 5% vs 30%?
Ketone bodies are formed when the liver glycogen stores are depleted - when we get not enough carbohydrates, that is. Our organism goes through a set of stages to enter ketosis, and in the beginning the adult brain does not burn ketones, but makes immediate use of this important substrate for lipid synthesis in the brain. After about 48 hours of this process, the brain starts burning ketones in order to more directly utilize the energy from the fat stores that are being depended upon, and to reserve the glucose only for its absolute needs.
It is quite difficult to get "under-carbed" and "over-proteined" on a fruitarian diet, nobody is trying to eat avocados or nuts only, right (I hope :)? So why exactly should we worry? If you are healthy and not drunk, you should do with reasonable amounts of natural fats just fine. Or prove me wrong, please.
Did you know that fat is the principle source of calories in human breast milk? It is 54% of total calories! (Each 100 mL is 70 calories and contains 4.2 g fat - 37.7 cal.). So, is that because of stupidity of nature? ;)
By the way, ketosis is normal by fasting; well, if it is so dangerous, as well as hypoglycemia, why there are official links to fasting-resorts on 30BaD?
BTW, Abkhasians, Vilcabambans and Hunzans, the longest-living peoples on earth had fat content in their food 18%, 15%, and 17%.
If not physiological addiction is suspected but psychological, why there is a prohibition in the site guidelines of talking about "emotional eating"? They think there is no such thing, that everything is a real need of the organism! Wow, this is an immense undervaluing of the role of mind in our eating behavior.
We do not subscribe to the concept of "emotional eating" so posts of this nature may be removed because at the end of the day they lead to calorie restriction and 30BaD is NOT about that, this lifestyle is about abundance not deprivation.
Does it always true, the more the better?.. Is there a true abundance of resources on this planet? Calorie restriction is not about deficiency or starvation, it had being stated so many times! And why "deprivation" - what about optimum? :)
Truth and Spirit
This chapter is probably highly subjective, it is my own opinion only.
"Tough love" and "boot-camp" principles are practiced on 30BaD, and you can deal with that, once you know it and if you have an appropriate set of mind.
If you say anything against the accepted concept, you can be easily suspected as unfit physically, which must suggest that one can be fit only by the site rules and with the leaders ideal in mind. I don't like the atmosphere this type of communication creates. It is used as a replacement for a reason (argumentum ad hominem - person's ideas are not considered because of some irrelevant personal characteristic), thus it propagate lower quality argumentation.
The rules I don't appreciate either. They say, every forum has guidelines, - sure, like "don't be rude", "reply on topic subject", "post in right place", "please don't discuss astronomy on our textiles-forum," etc. but not the kind that prohibits truth to emerge and inhibits creative brainstorming and truthful sharing of the participants, IMO. You cannot even ask questions that sound too opposing. I have not been to many diet-forums, but I know some software sites that spotted their reputation by deleting messages reporting problems with their product, because they were unwilling to fix them, and I hope this won't happen in any extend to a good community. Though in this case, there will always be enough newcomers who has no such information, they are the real target.
The members of the community are asked to not post links to anything that does not go in line with guidelines, and in fact, there are very little resources out there on the subject that would not contradict their concept in some part. It is a common strategy in marketing, to list the good thing about the product or service and find favorable information about it, but either totally exclude contradictory data or partially.
As we were explained on some point, the site is payed by certain people who like to have the things this way, all other members are only guests and must just follow. I wonder, if my guests would tell me they know another good method to fix a leak in my pipe, for example, could I possibly come to the idea to explain them that it is inappropriate to tell me that?.. Could I consider telling them my method is the best and the only successful one, because I am paying for the place we are in?.. Why would I invite this people at all, if I disregard their opinions, however sincere, founded and amiable they could be?!
This is my "tough love" to the team of 30bananasaday.com - why should it go only one direction? :)
Author: http://fruitarians.net/LENA (162) 2010.09.06 08
Dear readers, I have written the article above, because a week or so ago I was asked to "take my opinion some place else" on 30Bad and just follow the rules, which I did, I virtually stopped writing in forum to avoid any hypocrisy.
I stayed on the site to keep around 50 valuable for me connections and some materials I had there, and because I liked the community in general. I promoted it for around a year, since I first came to that site, I translated the stories of Freelee and Durianrider in other languages and published them with their photos and links. This site was the main URL in our "Fruitarian" page on facebook from November 2009 to May 2010, because I was thinking it was the best fruitarian community out there.
Today I was suspended without any warning, I've got this email on my mail from Freelee with subject "Suspention" and following words in it (among others):
We find this article to be misrepresenting 30BaD and the banana/fruit eating industry in general.
It is not in the best interest of the planet nor the health of members.
All my connections are lost now on the 30bananasaday.com, my photographs and blog entries vanished with all dear to me comments and personal correspondence. I was punished for doing what I was asked to do, for having my opinion and publishing it on the internet. I was not even given the opportunity to contact my friends there last time. I had not promoted this article on the site or anywhere else (it was not even ready), and only few of my friends read it.I can't say I am shocked, but I am surprised: I was thinking, maybe one day after reading this article 30BaD teem would disproof my points. I'd like them to be shaken, I'd like to discover that the situation is much better that it seems to me now or that I am missing something big here.
I fairly represented my concerns and honest opinion. I am shocked by practices of banana-industry myself, but I don't want to close my eyes on it only because they are fruit-producers and I am a fruitarian. To say that I "misrepresented" it or that my article is not good for the planet without any arguments is deficient in my opinion.
- Do you really think it is fine to give people impression that only by eating huge amounts of fruit they can be successful fruitarians or vegans and get no critique? This message is harmful and untrue!
- Maybe you think that to encourage people to double and triple their recommended by scientist caloric intake is safe for your members?
- Do you think it is a good to preach that the whole fruit-families like e.g. melons are not really a satisfactory food only because of their lower caloric value?
- Don't you think you have responsibility to warn your members about actual and possible difficulties with the high-banana diet?
I genuinely want more organic fruit in each person's diet, I want it for all of us, and I want our common good in sustainable ecological and economical way. I do believe that vegans and fruitarians should still make smart choices (organic, local, fair-trade, etc.) and that the rejection of unneeded animal products is the main step to global flourishing on this planet, but it should be followed by other important steps.
I am an economist by education, and in the core of economics lies the notion: our resources are limited, opposed to our unlimited wants and needs.
Without balancing, optimization and improving efficiency we won't be able to make it in a long run.
"So act that your principle of action might safely be made a law for the whole world."
I agree, and I do my best.