Hello Beautiful!


In this Discussion

high fruit or grains for carbs?

I've read that people who go raw do high fruit, but I've read that can be bad for a person since it's high glycemic. What about having some soaked and/or sprouted grains like pearled (or nonhulled) barley, oats, wheatberries, etc. for the carbs? They have more protein than fruits do.

What's the correct ratio a raw foodist should have of these types of foods: simple sugars ie of fructose (fruits), complex carbs (of seeds ie grains and legumes), fats (nuts, avocados), and protein (legumes mainly I guess). Then I guess there's those greens, and other (low to medium (?) starch) veggies, like lettuce, carrots, tomatoes, broccoli, celery, (basically salad stuff) cucumbers, zuchini and yellow squash, peppers.

As for legumes I would really only eat sprouted mung beans. I know people stay away from legumes because of the phytate content and other anti-nutrients, but sprouting does decrease them and if it doesn't consume most of the diet it should be fine.

For a person who wants to be lean, and build muscle. What's the correct diet? I don't particularly trust the high fruit type of diet. Plus it might not be too feasible with regards money if you're gonna be cheap like me.


  • swayzeswayze Raw Newbie
    edited July 11

    Actually, based upon the glycemic index AND the glycemic load, fruits rank low to medium on the glycemic scale. It is grains that rank high.

    I wrote an article about this here:




  • Yea that might be true. Though I always thought grains were low glycemic.

    I guess I'll have to try it out. Fruits can be addicting (as with all sugars). That might be part of the "high" people get being raw fruitarian for a while.

    So what's the role then of grains in a raw diet, if any? Same with legumes and seeds.

    What about corn?

  • Also, where do the proteins come from if not from mung bean sprouts?

  • Here is one of my fav drinks:

    You tell me how much protein is in it??

    6-7 bananas

    1/2 pineapple

    2 TBLS Raw Cacao nibs

    2 TBLS Raw Hemp Hearts

    1 TBLS Raw Maca Powder

    And then after you figure out how much protein is in that drink, let me know why breast milk is 6-7% protein for a growing baby, and why you need more than that.

    Because bananas have 5% protein and other fruits are around the same amount.

    People crave sweets because they are really craving fruit.

    Once you figure that out, you won't be afraid of fruit.

    And once you realize nobody has become diabetic from eating fruit, you will no longer be afraid.

    Think about it!!!! Last weeks studies, Amercians eating less fruit but at the same time diabties keeps going up.

    The fruit they do get is coming from orange juice which is usually high GI and GL because all the nutrients are stipped out of it.

    The human body can only handle 25g or protein at a time. You would figure that if your meals are higher than that , it would put unnessary stress on you system.

    Maybe that is why high protein diets are associate with increased risk of diseases like the china study says.

  • powerliferpowerlifer Raw Newbie
    edited July 11

    That looks a nice recipe rawcanadian i will give it a try.

    We have to remember that babies need smaller amounts of nutrients than adults. High protein can cause problems but then high levels of just about anything can cause issues even water.


  • protein is in fruits and vegetables.

  • powerliferpowerlifer Raw Newbie
    edited July 11

    It is indeed, i was wondering has anyone punched into any of these online calculators how much fruits and vegetables you'd need to suffice the RDA of protein. If anyone has id be interested in the info.



  • well, a baby is only so small..

  • also, what if the argument that "fructose gets converted to fat in the liver when u are short on carbs"

  • RDA of protein is usually a lot less than what most Americans are suggested they take, especially if you exericise, ie "1 gram per lb of weight", etc.

    Veggies also make you retain muscle. So that's definitely a plus.

    Third, proteins are in their natural form when raw ie, not denatured as in cooked.

    Fourth, bio-availability is probably higher as well, as long as you chew the food properly.

    Fifth, Enzymes are in living raw foods and these are proteins, though are these proteins really counted in the nutritional information of a food? Not sure,it's possible they are though.

    6th, free amino acids are also found in raw foods, and they are not denatured as with cooked food.

    First carbs/sugars are burned, then fats and protein, when you exercise. Unless you're in ketosis.

    So with that information (am I missing any?) it might be more convincing that WITH A RAW DIET, you might need so much protein.

    With that said, I just dont know if fruitarian is still the best. We still have the biotechnology of sprouting/germinating and fermentation so that's another option to consider.

  • powerliferpowerlifer Raw Newbie
    edited July 11

    Yeah RDA is alot less than often is needed. Ive never taken the time to use these online calorie/nutrition counters, but i know many here do which is great and if so can they post up what frutarian/80/10/10 looks like on a daily nutritional scale.



  • barley is low glycemic.

  • You don't need grains necessarily--sweet potatoes and winter squash, other cooked vegetables could stand in for them. If your new to raw, I don't suggest you try a 8/11 diet.

  • I've tracked on fitday a high-fruit lifestyle and it's fine with all RDAs except selenium (I don't do daily for that since I have stores), b12, vitamin d. i usually get twice the protein i need.

  • http://news.discovery.com/human/sugar-fructose-obesity-diabetes.html

    Sugar is the enemy, according to a growing body of research, and not just because it rots our teeth and adds padding to our thighs.

    The real danger is fructose -- a main ingredient in table sugar, high fructose corn syrup, and fruit -- that actually gets into our cells and alters metabolism.

    The findings may help to explain how our nation's excessive consumption of sweetened foods is contributing to growing rates of obesity, heart disease, high blood pressure, diabetes and more -- in a way that has nothing to do with sugar's rich source of empty calories.

    What's more, there may be deep evolutionary roots that explain sugar's power over our bodies. Many millions of years ago, according to new research, our ape ancestors developed mutations that made it easy for them to get fat from eating fructose.

  • Actually last time I went to the dentist, my hygienist couldn't believe that my gums improved so much.

    This proves to "me" that 20 servings of fresh ripe fruit a day is good for our teeth.

    The reason we crave sweets is because our bodies want fruit. We are natural fruit eaters, just like most of the other animals of the jungle.

  • There is no proof of "evolution", and no proof that we came from apes. We don't even have the same number of chromazones, we have 36 and they have 38.

    There is a theory, it is only a theory, and so is creation.

    You can not make one species from another (nobody has done it yet).

    So you can not talk millions of years ago with our ancestors unlesss you can prove evolution and disprove creation.

  • Also, each species that is found (fossils) is a complete species.

    (complete in the sense that it is not half bird half fish, or half cat half dog with feathers or something like that)

    They always talk about finding the missing link, but there should be a missing link for EACH species so where are there??

  • Fructose is the enemy that is processed. Not natural fructose from fruit. Even the article(s) say that.

  • actually, we did come from apes. we also came from others. but also how we got here is probably different from what most think.. who knows, maybe we were put together by some alien race. I dont believe in traditional evolution, but macro-evolution is real.

  • yea the article doesn't make it clear whether it's just all fructose or processed fructose.

  • swayzeswayze Raw Newbie
    edited July 11

    Every study I've read on the "evils" of fructose are referring to refined fructose, either high fructose corn syrup or table sugar. The fructose and glucose in fruit are not refined.

    And if "animals that eat too much sugar develop insulin resistance, an early sign of diabetes" were true, then wouldn't I have developed diabetes after almost 3 years of over 8 pounds of sugary-sweet fruit each day?

    No, because I have kept my fat intake to a minimum. Diabetes Type II, as well as other sugar metabolic disorders, are a result of excess fat in the body, not sugar from fruit.



  • Evolutionary debates aside, I think any real research into fruit provides pretty convincing data. While the amount of sugar consumed may be on the rise in the US and other places, the amount of actual fruit consumed is down; we just shovel down artificial gunk. There's also data to support there's a big difference between high sugar plus high fat, as opposed to high sugar plus low fat diets.

Sign In or Register to comment.