in a recent post, [log in to unmask] comments:

> Md> The numerous healthy raw fooders who consume substantial amounts of
> Md> sprouted
> Md> grains, seeds, nuts appear to verify that said (high protein) foods
> Md> are appropriate and are not as harmful as one might think from reading
> Md> your post.

>    I'd think that what you are referring to would be transitional raw
>fooders, those in the initial stages, which might last years, of
>detox.  For instance, in my first two meatless years, I ate lots of
>nutbutters and almonds and was oblivious to the mucus they were
>creating because I was so clogged up with the previous 29 years of
>slime I had due to the SAD.  It was only after a very long period of a
>raw diet that I began noticing the problems associated with eating
>nuts/seeds.  Hippocrates Health Institute paid lip service to these
>digestive difficulties with an even more absurd approach: "seed
>cheese"

In a number of recent posts, I have:
1) pointed out that proving that protein intake requirements are low does
*not* prove that raw protein foods are harmful,
2) the difficulty that people on a largely fruit diet have in digesting
protein foods has other possible explanations, i.e. you have *not* proven
that protein is the cause of the problem there.

Because of this, I regard your idea that protein is a "horror" as being
unproven and contradicted by the evidence of thousands of healthy raw fooders
who do eat protein foods. Those raw fooders would be very surprised to hear that
they are merely "transitional raw fooders" in your view! Some of them might
even consider that an insult. I see no need to repost the earlier articles that
discuss the above points in detail.

>    A useful approach to "discretion" in choice of 'foods' would be to
>avoid that which can not be eaten raw as a full meal; meal after meal
>after meal.

That is a matter of style and personal preference. Individual tastes differ.

> Md> On a related note, I would comment on your use of milk as a model for
> Md> human nutritional needs.

>    I used human milk as an insightful approach to determine what our
>true _protein_ needs are, not as a claim to other nutrients as you
>suggest.

If milk gives insight into true protein needs, that suggests it should tell
us something of other nutritional needs, such as B-12 (none in fruit), fat,
etc. as per my post.

> Md>  Also, milk has very little sugar, mostly in the form of lactose
> Md> (slow to digest), while fruit is loaded with fructose, glucose,
> Md> other sugars, all of which are digested very rapidly and can
> Md> produce a glucose spike with associated sugar rush.

>    Interesting speculation, however, I have known a 'hypoglycemic'
>addicted to CocaCola who, after some initial detox and stabilization
>on a raw diet, could live on a pure fruit diet for weeks with no
>hypoglycemic rollercoaster.  I have also known other people who would
>fall asleep after a little commercial sugar while having absolutely
>no problems with a fruit diet.  All sugars aren't equal.

Fact: most modern sweet fruit has a substantial amount of sugar
Fact: fruit is considered easy to digest
The chain is: fruit => digestion => blood glucose.
It is not speculation to suggest that eating sweet fruit can increase
blood sugar. This point was discussed at a recent raw fooder potluck, with
several raw fooders reporting side effects (excess urination, a sign of high
blood sugar), after eating meals of only fruit.  You are correct that all
sugars are not equal; sucrose (white sugar) is particularly bad.

Tom Billings
[log in to unmask]