He wrote an article on, and I quote, "Why I'm mad as Hell at the Raw food Movement"..
Interesting stuff.. And I can certainly relate to some of what he writes and even his sometimes feelings of anger and frustration toward the raw food movement, and it's ever conflicting theories.
However, I personally feel that at many levels his own personal beliefs are just adding to the overall confusion that he writes of.. (as, no doubt.. so are mine!)..
So many different apparently convincing claims as to how we should or shouldn't eat..
Of course, people are 100% free to follow whichever theory they feel suits them best at any given point in time, but for the record, I really want to say that this idea of counting calories, balancing, protein versus carbs, and analyzing foods to determine fat levels, using charts to eat 80/10/10 (As is Frederics particular belief) and such is all just unnecessarily complex..
I'm not saying that calories aren't important, but counting them is a waste of time, I'm not saying protein does or doesn't play a role, but I'm honestly just not interested in them.. Same goes for sugars, complex carbohydrates, fats, vitamins, minerals etc.. Let's face it it's all just white smocked scientist theory that distances us all from what food should really be about.. And that isn't about becoming anxious over whether we're getting things balanced according to some sterile downloadable food content chart from the internet..
Personally, my philosophy is that fruit is the highest of all foods..
All fruits are different, providing us with different amounts of joy..
When I sit down to eat food, I eat fruit. It's that simple in my eyes. I don't sit down and see a plate of carbohydrates amino-acids, sugars and trace elements. I wouldn't even recognise them if you chopped them up nice and neatly and stuck them under a microscope..
Whatever you see under a microscope is dead anyhows!
Sure we can survive on foods that aren't fruit. The human physiology is outrageously resilient and is capable of all manner of long term abuse.
Frederic points out that Bonobos are our closest relatives, and he may well be spot on there, but that fraction of a percentage difference in DNA makes all the difference. Humans are not bonobos, and although the comparative anatomy and diet may be fascinating, I would still consider it mostly irrelevant as to how we are ourselves are physiologically designed to eat. (Even if they occasionally might eat live insects on a stick, or relish the occasional maggot, their physiological proximity would be no incentive for me to go and do likewise!)
I may unwittingly myself be following an 80/10/10 diet, and balancing things just like Doug Graham thinks is right, but frankly I don't care either way. I reached where I am through having the simple basic understanding and revelation that fruit is the highest of all foods, and that the more we eat of it (and consequently, the less of other foods), the more we attune ourselves to live as I believe nature intended..
The garden of Eden diet..
I've thought for some time now, that if one should desire to return to the garden of Eden, I would hazard a guess that we'ld not be let back in until our behaviours and habits were appropriate..
live long and prosper,
Mango the Fruitarian