In general, the animals that suffer from degenerative “h uman” diseases are domesticated or caged ones that are 
routinely fed cooked food by their human caretakers. If we observe nature, we will find that all creatures are born with or de velop everything they need to secure their natural food. No human has yet been born with a stove on his back or the keys to a tractor in he r hand. The Folly of Cooking Food to Kill Microbes 
Prior to and throughout most of the 19th century, fresh fruit was a very popul ar food item, and people did not eat the high 
percentage of cooked food that they currently do. In fact, the raw food movement w as almost as big 120 years ago as it is today, if 
not more so. But the whole concept was essentially shot down with a single  word: germs. After scientist Louis Pasteur (1822–1895) published his “germ theory  of disease” in 1878, fear of microbes developed into a 
full-blown phobia for many people (one that lives on—and continu es to grow—to this day). This fear led the medical fraternity to 
suggest that all foods be cooked, for the safety of the consumer. People b egan cooking their apples, their tomatoes … essentially 
everything they ate. Due to the overwhelming power of doctors to influen ce society, cooking fruit became the norm. Pasteur’s untenable theory lives on as the foundation that underli es the medical model of disease and healing. Society accepts 
it as truth, despite the fact that it is fraught with inconsistenc ies. In more than one hundred years, the germ theory of disease has yet 
to be proved as fact … while having been disproved repeatedly by Koc h’s postulates. Koch’s Postulates 
The famous nineteenth-century bacteriologist Robert Koch set forth  the following set of four logical rules, all of which must be 
satisfied to prove that a particular microbe or germ is the cause of a part icular disease. 25  
 
1. The germ must be present in every case of the disease, but not in health y subjects. 2. It must be isolated from the patient and grown in vitro (culture). 3. It must be introduced to a susceptible new host and in that host produce the ori ginal disease. 4. The same agent must be isolated once again from the experimentally i nfected host. This line of logic, long held as the gold standard for identifying infecti ous diseases, is the minimal evidence necessary to have 
confidence in the existence of a pathogen and its causal link to a diseas e. 
The germ theory of disease is destined to remain a theory forever, for it t akes very little effort to find evidence refuting Koch’s 
postulates. Here are two of the more obvious examples: 
 
Healthy people often harbor the germs that are said to cause one disease or  another, while remaining totally symptom free. This fact stands in opposition to postulate #1. Conversely , many people with a given disease have been shown not  to be hosting the alleged “causative agent,” also refuting 
postulate #1. The story of Pasteur’s life and illustrious career is fascinatin g. After years of debate with colleagues, he is said to have 
capitulated from his deathbed, admitting that microbes are not the primar y and sufficient cause of disease. Rather, he acquiesced, a toxic “milieu interieur”—the inner environment of the body in wh ich the microbes live—provides a breeding ground for disease. In 
other words, regardless of the germ’s origin or type, it presents far l ess threat than commonly believed, unless the body is in a run- 
down state resulting from a disturbed and deteriorated interior environm ent. Maintaining our inner terrain in a healthy (undisturbed and undete riorated) state of homeostasis is one of the key benefits we 
derive from eating a low-fat diet of whole, raw plant foods in their freshe st, least processed form. Just as mosquitoes do not cause 
stagnant ponds and flies do not cause piles of manure, the “germs” (b acteria, viruses, and other microorganisms) around and inside 
of us do not cause the toxins in our bodies. Yet like mosquitoes and flies, microbe s are more than happy to set up shop in toxic 
locations that provide them with plenty to eat. If we drain the stagnant pond or clean up the manure pile, the mosquitoes an d flies migrate elsewhere. Likewise, the viruses 
and bacteria that feed upon the toxic wastes inside of us simply move on and c ease to be a problem when we clean up our diets and 
other sources of inner pollution. At this point, our bodies are no longer capable  of acting as hosts for such pathogens. To do justice to Pasteur’s story , or to expound upon the fallacies of germ t heory , are beyond the scope of this book. But you 
can find detailed accounts of both of these topics in many publications. One e xcellent source is a book by Ross Horne, entitled 
Health & Survival in the 21 st  Century .26  
 
What’s the Big Deal About Cooking? It is true … people have been setting fire to their food for millenn ia, and we seem to be doing fine. So what’s the big deal 
about cooking? Experiments have shown that people can survive on diets as restricte d as flour and water, at least for a period of time, but they 
cannot thrive on such a regimen. This is a testament to the nutriti onal reserves, resilience, and vitality of the body, not to the 
nutritional value of the food. The difference between “normal healt h” and actually thriving is vast. Historically, as pre-human hominids moved away from the tropics, they st arted eating the (cooked) flesh of animals and 
experimenting with foods such as (cooked) tubers and other complex carbohydra tes to substitute for unavailable fruits and 
vegetables. Evidence tells us this practice has been going on for at le ast 200,000 years. However, it was only with the advent of 
grain agriculture, in the past 10,000 years, that we began deriving the va st majority of our calories from cooked carbohydrates. 27 
Even if we have biologically adapted to this practice, it would be hard to argu e that our basic digestive physiology, like that of every 
other creature on the planet, was designed for the raw foods found in nature . Any adaptations to the nutritional losses or the toxins 
created by cooking foods could only be considered “devolution,” rather than e volution. Many foods that are cooked, such as meats and grains, would otherwise be unappet izing or inedible to humans. Cooking 
allows foods to bypass sensory safeguards that would normally protect us from  ingesting unnatural and unhealthful substances. Essentially , cooking makes it possible for us to eat (and to call “good”) food w e would otherwise consider to have gone “bad.” On 
certain rare occasions, cooking might enable us to sustain ourselves on  the only foods available to us. To be sure, however, we pay 
with our health when we cook foods as a regular practice. High Fat 
High fat content is another common problem with cooked foods. In particular, mea ts, grains, and other starchy foods often contain 
far more fat than is healthful. The fat is not always visible, however. It is absorbed into starchy foods  in the cooking process. Fried potatoes don’t look 
fatty; we like to think of them as a carbohydrate food. Yet the average ser ving of french fries provides about half of its calories from 
fat. Apple pie, you would think, is all carbohydrate, right? It is made of sugar  and apples and a grain-based crust, all high- 
carbohydrate foods. Think again, as this delicacy tips the scale at 50% of cal ories from fat. Not even a baked potato qualifies as a 
low-fat food, once we add butter or sour cream. Fat is hidden in the structure of animal foods. The fat content of meat va ries by cut, but the majority of meats are very high in 
fat. Toxicity and Disease 
To varying degrees, the different methods of cooking introduce toxic substa nces that the body must eliminate. The repeated 
consumption of cooked food results in a detrimental enlargement of the pancr eas, as well as damage to the liver, heart, thyroid 
gland, adrenals, and most other organs, as a result of toxic exposure combined w ith reduced oxygen availability. Eating cooked food has also been shown to provoke degenerative changes in almost  all aspects of blood chemistry. These 
changes usually reverse rapidly when exposure to cooked food is eliminate d. 
Studies have shown that our immunes system often reacts to the intr oduction of cooked food to the bloodstream the same 
way it does to foreign pathogens such as bacteria, viruses, and fungi: Th e body literally attacks the food, sending an army of white 
blood cells to do the job. This phenomenon, which has been linked with the eventua l development of AIDS, does not occur when 
we eat raw foods. A direct cause-and-effect correlation exists between the cooked food di et and American culture’s two main killers, cancer 
and heart disease. Many of these relationships have been documented for de cades, and the evidence is mounting. Obesity, too, is 
directly associated with cooking our food. Heated foods are nutritionally inf erior, which is one of the reasons people commonly 
overeat cooked food. Their stomachs feel full, but their cells crave nutri ents and remain nutritionally starved. To escape the destruction of cooked food, one must be willing to recognize that, as  a culture, we have been eating ourselves 
into poor health, early death, and disease-ridden old age. Americans consum e ever-increasing amounts of cooked, processed food 
while worrying about the sharp increase in obesity and juvenile diabet es and the staggering cost of their ever-increasing healthcare
needs. Few people seem to be connecting the dots publicly, but as these problems be come larger social issues, I predict they will 
soon hit critical mass. Cooking Damages Nutrients 
The damage done to food when it is cooked provides enough material for a separate book. C ooking renders food a bit like 
Humpty Dumpty after he fell off the wall, in that once a food is cooked it can n ever be, nutritionally, what it was before. Foods can 
only withstand about as much heat as your hand—or the roof of your mouth—c an take before their nutrients are irrevocably 
damaged. Let’s take a look at some examples. Protein 
It makes sense that we would want to derive the full nutritional benef it from the protein foods we eat. But few people realize that 
high-temperature cooking denatures the proteins in foods, fusing the am ino acids together with enzyme-resistant bonds that preclude 
them from being fully broken down, thus rendering the proteins sub stantially useless—and in fact toxic—to us. All proteins that w e 
consume must be broken down into single, individual amino acids before they ca n be of any use to us; our bodies cannot use 
“protein” for any purpose whatsoever. Definition of “Denature” 
Merriam-W ebster’ s Collegiate Dictionary, T enth Edition  defines “denature” as follows (emphasis added): 
de•na•ture  verb transitive : to modify the molecular structure of  (as a protein  or DNA) esp. by heat , acid, alkali, or 
ultraviolet radiation so as to destroy or diminish some of the original proper ties and esp. the specific biological activity. ©1997, 
1996 Zane Publishing, Inc. All rights reserved. Hair is primarily protein. A strand of hair can be rolled into a ball and the n pulled back into a strand. However, if a strand of 
hair is rolled into a ball and then held over a candle flame, even for just a  moment, chemistry happens. The hair literally attaches to 
itself in new places. It can never be returned to its original form as a  strand. When an egg hits a frying pan, a similar irreversible 
chemical change takes place. Our digestive enzymes cannot easily  break down coagulated protein molecules once they fuse 
together. The best they can accomplish is partial breakdown, into polypeptides . The body recognizes clumps of partially broken down proteins, known as polypeptides, a s foreign invaders to be attacked, 
contained, and eliminated through the kidneys. The cell walls of the kidne ys do not allow for easy transport of these substances, and 
their buildup causes the distress that leads to kidney stones and eventu ally to kidney failure. Undigested proteins also produce 
allergies, arthritis, leaky gut syndrome, and other autoimmune disorder s. 
 
Carbohydrates 
W e must heat starchy carbohydrates to “dextrinize” them, thus fac ilitating their breakdown into glucose. Unfortunately , heating 
caramelizes these complex carbohydrate foods, fusing their molecules  into a sticky, molasses-like goo. (Dextrin and starch are the 
two principal vegetable-based adhesives, commonly used as glue for corrug ated packaging and wallpaper.) The body can realize 
only perhaps 70% of the energy potential of cooked starchy foods. This melting of sugar molecules occurs in carbohydrate-based foods subje cted to cooking temperatures whether or not we 
witness it, and it causes them to produce an extremely high glycemic  response in the body. Blood-sugar levels predictably spike 
after we eat cooked carbohydrate foods, especially grains that have had the ir fiber refined out of them. Heat the carbohydrates 
further and they will char, or blacken, as happens to burnt toast. This blacke ned carbohydrate is toxic, a known carcinogen. The digestion of cooked complex carbohydrates is typically impaired by the fat ty and sugary foods with which they are 
consumed, leading to fermentation. The byproducts of fermentation are gas , alcohol, and acetic acid. Alcohol is a protoplasmic 
poison that kills every cell with which it comes into contact. Acetic  acid in its pure form is a known poison. When diluted with 19 
parts water, it is called vinegar. The acetic acid in vinegar is sti ll toxic, regardless of dilution. Of great concern, mainstream science is tying itself in knots over  a lethal poison, called “acrylamide,” recently discovered to 
be produced in high-carbohydrate foods by the chemistry of cooking. This potent ch emical killer was found in high concentrations in the food supply in 2002 by a Swedish researcher. High levels of acrylamide are  found most prominently in bread, chips, crackers, 
french fries, and other dry-cooked carbohydrates. See the FAQ entitled, “How important is it to eat organically grown food? ” on 
page 251 for information about this grave toxin in the food supply . Fats 
All manner of nutritional and health problems occur when fats are hea ted. Heated fats interfere with cell respiration, leading to 
cancer and heart disease. Heating fats also reduces the functional  value of their antioxidant properties. Once fats have been cooked, they quickly go rancid, at which point they become carcinogenic. Thus, it’s important to 
understand that while even freshly roasted nuts are harmful for us , they become more so the longer they sit out. The longer fatty 
foods are exposed to oxygen, the more their nutrients become deranged. Keeping  raw dehydrated fat-based crackers 
unrefrigerated for days or weeks (not to mention months or years!) is not s uch a good idea, either. Many high-temperature methods of cooking (deep frying, broiling, roasting , barbecuing to a char, etc.) cause fats to produce 
carcinogenic substances including acrolein, hydrocarbons, nitrosami nes, and benzopyrene, which is one of the most virulent 
carcinogens known to man. Frying temperatures range from about 400 to 1,000  F. When unsaturated vegetable fats and oils are 
heated to such temperatures (and especially when polyunsaturated oil s are repeatedly reheated, as in fast-food deep-fry 
establishments), their naturally occurring “cis” bonds are con verted to “trans” bonds, creating trans fatty acids. Trans fats are
recognized as one of the most dangerous dietary health hazards of our time . Food manufacturers “hydrogenate” unsaturated fats to extend shelf l ife and improve food texture by heating them and 
exposing them to hydrogen while they are under pressure. Ingested satu rated fats are of no use to us, and they seriously clog arteries 
and capillaries, reducing oxygen delivery to every part of the body. If you must eat heated fats, I implore you to begin reading food labels and stee r clear of foods where saturated fat is more 
than 20% of the total fat. Also avoid foods that list any hydrogenated oils (par tially or otherwise) among their ingredients. Water 
In terms of volume, water is our greatest nutrient need—second only t o oxygen. Cooking drives water out of food and alters it 
drastically. Dehydration oxidizes the nutrients in food, and their nutr ient value is duly degraded. We cannot eat cooked or 
dehydrated foods and then make up for the water and nutrients lost by drinki ng water, juices, or any other “supplement.” Doing so 
simply does not compare to eating a daily diet predominated by whole, wat er-rich foods. Fruits and vegetables are nature’s perfect 
water filters, and the water within them is the purest availab le on Earth. All efforts to purify or “structure” our drinking water  are 
merely attempts to replicate the water we were designed to ingest in  our raw fruits and vegetables. Ask yourself: Just how whole is  a food that has had its water removed? Soberingly, the water in our foods is vi tal and 
definitely not to be considered expendable. We should feel duly concerned if hi gh-water foods do not heavily predominate in our 
diet. Dehydrated raw foods and powdered “whole-food” supplements are not whole foods, nor are they as nutritious as their 
whole-food counterparts. Micronutrients 
Most other nutrients—vitamins, enzymes, coenzymes, antioxidants, phytonutrients, and fiber are damaged or devitalized by the 
heating process, leaving behind “foods” with substantially emp ty calories. The Lycopene Myth 
Applying heat to foods provides no nutritional benefit and is detrimental to t he person ingesting the cooked food. A few 
examples exist where, by heating food, certain nutrients are more eas ily released and more bioavailable to our cells. The lycopene in 
tomatoes and the iron and beta-carotene in vegetables are often-cited e xamples. However, taking this viewpoint ignores the fact that hundreds of thousa nds of identified and not-yet-identified nutrients in the 
heated foods are damaged by the heat. For every nutrient that becomes more bi oavailable due to the cooking process, countless 
other nutrients become less so. W e don’t know for certain, however, that e ven the ones that become more available are doing us 
any favors once altered by heat. More important, this viewpoint assumes that more of a nutrient is bette r, instead of trusting that Nature has provided the 
perfect balance of nutrients we need for optimal health in the fresh, r aw plant foods we eat. Benefits of Eating Raw 
If you adopt a natural diet of raw foods, your body can easily cope with cleansing  itself of past toxic accumulations and 
normalize its weight. Here are some of the benefits you can expect: 
 Maximum nutrition:  Even those who never question the practice of cooking food have to admit havin g heard that we 
discard vitamins when we drain our vegetable cooking water. Sadly, vitam ins are not the only nutritional casualty caused by 
setting fire to our food. To varying degrees, heating food for any appreciable a mount of time above a comfortable eating 
temperature (approximately 105 F) damages most every category of nutrie nts. Western science is only beginning to recognize 
the nutritional damage done by the cooking of food. Detoxification: A major benefit of eating unprocessed raw food is that the body’s vita l energy is freed up for healing and 
cleansing. When you stop eating cooked foods, you stop abusing your body at each meal  with toxic, dehydrating residue that 
it must work hard to eliminate. When your liver and kidneys do less work detoxif ying you, they are free to keep your system 
cleaner, making for a healthier body. Quick digestion : A proper raw diet eliminates constipation, and the transit time of waste  matter shortens to 24 hours or less, 
eliminating the toxemia that occurs as the colon recycles toxins. M ost people on the standard American diet experience transit 
times of 72 hours or more, during which time their food ferments and putrefie s inside them. The resulting foul gas and 
unpleasant-smelling feces highlight the putrefaction caused by  anaerobic bacteria breaking down undigested proteins in the 
colon. These rotting proteins are said to lead to various forms of colon disease , including polyps, colitis, and cancer. Overall improved health and energy: Many people on a raw diet (even the high-fat way) lose some excess weig ht and 
experience clearer sinuses, improved breathing, better sleep, cleare r skin, less mucous discharge, increased energy, and 
heightened mental clarity. Additional Benefits of Eating Raw the Low-Fat Way 
 
Oxygenated cells: Cleaner blood and healthier red blood cells better transport fresh oxygen to a ll the cells in the body, 
resulting in heightened mental clarity and allowing subtle heal ing to take place within the body that may not be easily noticed. Optimal body weight: If you follow the raw vegan version of the 80/10/10  diet to the letter, including the elimination of all 
forms of salt and condiments, you will lose any remaining excess fat an d water weight, but not healthy lean tissue. It’s 
important to make sure you’re eating enough calories, however, as foods wi th fewer calories per bite require more bites. (See 
Chapter 10) If you need to put on weight, this plan supplies you with the fuel t o undertake the weight-bearing exercise that 
adds muscle—which is something no food can do (see Chapter 9. ). Ultimate well-being and vitality: People who take their diets “all the way” to low-fat raw vegan ( 80/10/10rv ) experience 
markedly fewer colds, flus, and aches than people who eat a high-fat diet, ra w or cooked. Acne disappears, and permanent 
relief from persistent diabetes and candida symptoms finally occurs. Mor e important, people on this program have the 
opportunity (given proper sleep, exercise, sunshine, and so on) to experience  a quantum leap in overall physical, mental, and 
emotional health that surpasses the mere absence of disease or symptom s. The ultimate benefit is greater longevity and 
improved quality of life. Making the Transition 
The switch from cooked to raw is actually a fairly easy one. It is simply a  matter of increasing the percentage of raw foods in 
your diet. Some people find it easiest to begin by simply eating raw for breakfa st while leaving everything else the same as always. When they get comfortable with that, they add in raw lunches as well. I n time, the raw dinner becomes a realistic challenge. Other 
folks prefer to start meals raw but finish with cooked, gradually increas ing the amount of raw food that is eaten at the beginning of 
the meal until finally they are eating some meals that are comple tely raw. Eventually, you will come to love the raw foods and their effects upon the w ay you look and feel. Once you start to 
experience the results, your motivation level will rise dramatica lly, and it will become ever easier to continue increasing the 
percentage of raw foods that you eat. At some point, you may begin to question why you are still eating the cooked foods a t all. Sure, you love them; the question is, 
do they love you back? Cooked foods eventually show themselves for what they tr uly are: health destroyers. Though you may find 
that you have many emotional attachments to your cooked food, in due time you wi ll come to no longer look at cooked food as a 
“treat.”  
 
“Detox” Symptoms: Cause for Celebration 
Many people experience temporary symptoms of detoxification when they beg in a raw diet, as the body is no longer being 
overloaded each day with so much toxic residue. The symptoms arise as the body  cleanses and heals naturally, releasing toxins into 
the bloodstream that may have been buried deep within tissues and organs f or many years. The body is wise, however, and it 
always eliminates toxins in a way that requires the least effort  and does itself the least harm. Detoxification symptoms are generally mild but can range from uncomf ortable to downright miserable. They are really a cause 
for celebration, however, as any discomfort in the present is sure to be les s severe and of shorter duration than the dis-ease it would 
have become in the future. Such symptoms often include tiredness, runny nose, headaches, digestiv e challenges, weight loss, skin conditions, and drops in 
blood pressure. Less common but not unusual are diarrhea, vomiting, and all ma nner of retracing phenomena (reexperiencing past 
symptoms to complete a healing process that was interrupted by medical in tervention or other forms of treatment). All of these and 
other symptoms are indications that the body is making healthy adjustme nts. Initially, intestinal gas problems may arise in people who have damage d digestive tracts. The intestines can hold food in little 
“outpockets,” out of the main flow. There, stagnant foods may ferment or pu trefy and cause gas. Over time, the gas will diminish as 
the intestines heal. Long-term gas problems on the raw vegan diet are  generally corrected by being attentive to proper food 
combining. Most of what is called “detox” is actually just the reaction of a body t hat is no longer being irritated or stimulated—effectively 
“forced” to function. The secondary effect of stimulation is sedation. Th us it is common to feel tired when a person first attempts the 
raw diet. It is not that the raw diet is making them tired; it is that th ey are actually “coming down” off of the influence of coffee, 
refined sugars, meats, and other stimulating foods. The Law of Dual Effect 
The Law of Dual Effect states that those substances, influences, f orces, and conditions to which the body is subjected result in 
two responses by the body: 
 
The primary effect is the more acute of the two, and the shorter lastin g. 
The secondary effect is less intense, but it lasts longer. When we drink coffee, for instance, the primary effect is one of stimula tion. The secondary effect is only visible after the 
primary effect has worn off. In this instance, the secondary effect of  coffee is to leave us even more tired than we were before 
drinking the coffee. With our fractured view of health, we tend to look only at  the primary effect or acute influence of such a 
substance while ignoring the secondary effect or chronic influenc e. 
Each person is unique; therefore, the duration and degree of detoxificati on will vary. Detox can be intense or mild, and can last 
from a few days to several years, depending on the individual’s health, v itality , environment, and the degree to which one follows a 
healthy lifestyle. We must also remember that we live in a constant state of retoxifyin g and detoxifying. In the course of our day, we absorb 
environmental toxins, and the body works to eliminate them. We ingest foods, e ven the best sort, and the body creates toxic waste 
as a result of its cellular metabolism. This toxin production is not caus e for worry, however, because we are equipped with kidneys 
and a liver—eliminative organs designed to rid ourselves of these toxi ns. Should these organs become overloaded, the skin, lungs, 
bowels, mucous membranes, and other areas of the body are equipped to help handle th e toxic load. Which Road Do You Choose to Travel? Eating raw poses many challenges, of that there is no doubt. But the benef its of this way of eating so far outweigh the negatives 
that little room exists for argument against eating raw. If we are honest with ourselves, there is simply no room for cooked food if we desi re a vibrantly healthy existence. It is like 
any other journey. If you are going down the road that is taking you where you  want to go, you will likely continue to follow it. If you 
find yourself going down a road that will not bring you to your desired destinat ion, of course you will switch roads. At your chosen speed, cooked food can increasingly become a thing of your past. The re is no hurry; you can cross that bridge 
when you come to it. Even then, you are not making an irreversible decision . In any case, I guarantee that after a year of eating low- 
fat raw vegan food, should you choose to revert to your old style of eating, the hi gh-fat cooked foods will still be available. But don’t be surprised if you discover that the 80/10/10  raw vegan diet is the sweet road to well-rounded health and 
happiness. Our Natural Diet: A Summary 
In this age of junk food, manufactured foods, and agrochemicals, the issue of f ood quality has become increasingly important 
for those who seek long, productive, vital lives. The relationship of health  to diet is becoming ever more profoundly obvious, and 
more and more people are looking to increase the quality of their food than ever  before. The market for organically grown foods is 
growing rapidly , and farmer’s markets are proliferating like neve r before as more and more of us are waking up to the necessity of a high-produce lifestyle for health and longevity. Many years ago, the great health educator T.C. Fry, organized his though ts on how to make the finest food choices and came 
up with these four excellent guidelines. I have reproduced these time less words of wisdom here, as a fitting summary to this chapter. Criteria for Selecting the Highest-Quality Foods 
By T.C. Fry 
First Criterion 
Can the food be eaten in its natural state? Is the food palatable, that is, delectable or delicious? Can it be e aten with keen 
relish in its natural state? If a food cannot be eaten with joy and delight to individuals in normal good heal th who have an unperverted sense of taste, 
then the food must be considered to be of low quality. Eating should be a gustatory  delight. If a whole, fresh, ripe, raw, organic food 
is a taste delight, it is perfect. Its quality is reduced commensurate  with the reduction in taste. If the food cannot be ingested in its natural state—that is, uncooked, un processed and otherwise untampered with—it does 
not belong in the human diet. We humans were for millions of years adapted t o a diet obtained directly from nature in its fresh raw 
natural state. There have been no adaptations noted in human physiology t o the consumption of cooked, processed, or otherwise 
devitalized foods. This determines the character of our diet and also the m anner in which we were accustomed to ingesting it. Therefore, cooking and processing foods to make them palatable is unacceptable  to the health enthusiast. Cooking destroys 
enzymes totally. While a healthy individual will synthesize some  1,000 enzymes required for digestion, assimilation, and utilization of 
foods, the body is, nevertheless, dependent upon the enzymatic action of the foods  for the most perfect digestion. Consequently, it is 
absolutely essential that our foods have their full complement of enzy mes intact. Cooking is the worst “health” practice that humans have ever adop ted. It destroys not only the enzymes but deranges and 
destroys almost all known food factors. Cooking disorganizes, oxidizes and makes n onusable a food’s mineral content. It 
deaminates the food’s protein content, thus rendering it worthless i n human nutrition. Cooking reduces the value of a food from its 
wholesome state all the way down to worthless ashes, depending on the degre e of cooking to which it has been subjected. To the extent that a food has been cooked––reduced to inorganic minerals, c aramelized sugars and starches, coagulated and 
deaminated proteins, poisonous acrolein-laden fats, devitalized vit amins, and the like––it is not only worthless, but the ash becomes 
toxic debris in the body. That cooked foods are poisonous in the body is easily demonstrable. White blood cells f unction as janitors in the blood. A 
normal white count is around 3 million. If toxic substances enter the bloods tream, the white blood cell count will rise, rapidly and 
dramatically, in order to clean up the blood. After eating a cooked meal, the wh ite count typically rises as high as 15 or even 18 
million, and even higher. After eating a meal of raw fruit, there is  usually no discernable rise in the white count. So the rule is this: I f 
we can’t eat the food “raw,” if it is not delicious and palatable in its  natural living state, it is not a food for us. Second Criterion 
Does the food introduce harmful or toxic substances into our digestive system? If the food is proper to the human diet it must contain no  noxious or unwelcome substances. We do not want poisons in our 
system, no matter how little or how “mild.” Anything that interfere s with vital activities or destroys cells and tissue is poisonous to ou r 
system. [Author’ s note: Since the time of this writing, science has progressed re markably. W e now know that various toxins 
exist even in the most preferable of foods. Terry was correct in his concept, however; j ust the wording was off. I believe 
that today he would likely replace the thought of “no” toxins with the reality of “t he lowest possible amount.”] 
 
Third Criterion 
Is the food easy of digestion and assimilation? Foods to which we humans are ideally adapted require a minimum of vital en ergy for their digestion and assimilation. To be of 
greatest value to us, foods must be efficiently digested and assimilat ed, granting, of course, that we have unimpaired digestive 
systems. Humans have become highly efficient at digesting and assimilati ng foods to which they, in nature, became adapted. Millions of 
years of development made certain foods very easy of digestion—we devel oped constitutions, enzymes, and processes that 
appropriated, digested and assimilated certain foods with a minimum expendi ture of vital resources and time. The water and sugars of fruit, which make up almost its entire digesti ble portion, require virtually no digestion whatever. They 
simply require absorption. Shortly after their absorption, they are very e asily and rapidly assimilated. Fourth Criterion 
Does the food contribute a broad range of nutrients? Does the food possess great biological value for us? Though many foods are rather complete in their range of nutrients, non e is suitable for a “mono diet” such as grass is for cattle. But most of the fruits and vegetables are quite suitable for “monomea ls.” And, certainly , if properly combined, these foods furnish all 
the nutrients we humans need. The objective is not that we should eat a great variety in hopes of getti ng all the nutrients needed, but rather to eat simply to 
afford our bodies every opportunity to easily digest and assimilate what th e foods offer. What does it matter the range of nutrients 
we put into our bodies if we ingest them in such manner as to vitiate and t ax the digestive process? We can compromise digestion 
such that we fail to derive the goodness intended. Thus we would penalize ou r bodies and rob them of nutrients as well. We should never take more than four or five foods at a single properly prepared a nd combined meal. Almost no preparation 
other than cleansing is necessary, but we must make sure to eat in st rictly compatible combinations. The ideal is a single food per 
meal! There is no particular penalty in eating two to four different i tems at a meal if they are compatible in the digestive process. To really simplify the digestive process and to assure ourselves of eas y digestion on a continuing basis, we may select a rather 
narrow range of foods according to the season and stick with them. For instan ce, we may make one meal a day of just bananas with 
some lettuce and celery and another meal of a salad with citrus and nut s. This can go on day after day in the winter season. In 
summer we might have melon rather consistently for just one meal a nd at a second meal of the day, mangos, peaches, or other 
summer fruit and a green salad with tomato. The objective is to eat a diet  to which we are biologically adapted, that gives the highest 
potential for wonderful health. Green leaves possess the highest and most complete range of micronutr ients. This is one of the primary reasons we must have 
them often in our diet for the best health. Of course the body is provi dent––missing them on occasion is not particularly harmful and 
would not prove disastrous unless we missed them for some length of time, us ually months or more. While we do not spell out the nutrient contents of various foods––that knowl edge not being necessary––we should plan our 
meals so that we receive the benefit of foods that complement each other  in their nutrient contents essential in human nutrition. A 
variety of fruits and vegetables eaten throughout the year will ea sily guarantee nutritional sufficiency. Chapter 4. Understanding the Caloronutrient Ratio 
 
W e get our calories from three sources: carbohydrates, proteins, and f ats. I refer to these as “caloronutrients,” a term my wife (who 
at that time was known as Professor Rozalind Gruben) and I coined. Thus, I re fer to the proportion of carbohydrates, proteins, and 
fats in a person’s diet as their “caloronutrient ratio.” Y ou will s ee these terms used throughout this book. For consistency , I list all 
ratios in my writings in the same order: carbohydrates/proteins/f ats (CPF for short), separated by slashes. Thus, “ 80/10/10 ” is 
shorthand for 80% carbohydrates, 10% protein, and 10% fat. “Goldilocks” Nutrition 
I believe we benefit from fat—and all other nutrients—in appro priate, moderate amounts. In this book, I propose that too 
much of a good thing (in this case fat) is as harmful, and in many cases  much more harmful, than not enough. I call it the “Goldilocks” 
approach to nutrition: for best results, you don’t want too much of any nut rient and you don’t want too little; you want the amount to 
be “ju-u-ust right.”  
 
80/10/10 for Health, Beauty, Energy 
That amount, I assert—at least in terms of caloronutrients—turns  out to be 80/10/10 : a minimum  of 80% of your calories 
from carbohydrates, primarily from whole, sweet fruit, and a maximum  of 10% protein and 10% fat. On the 80/10/10  plan, a person who eats 2,000 calories a day would shoot for approximately 1,600 of those calor ies to 
come from carbohydrates, 200 from protein, and 200 from fat. Naturally, not all source s of these nutrients are the same, and I have 
devoted much of this book to discussing just what forms those caloronutrient s should take for best results. After two decades of research, coaching amateur and professional athle tes, and assisting health seekers worldwide, I have 
come to believe that 80/10/10  is the overall target for long-term health and dietary success. Whe n we consume our food in this 
proportion—the one for which our species was designed—we enjoy glowi ng health, superb energy , and ideal body weight, 
effortlessly. Sometimes in my lectures, I simplify this formula even further, re ferring to it in shorthand form as 811 —as in “Dial 811  for the 
healthiest, trimmest you!” This short form is commonly used in conver sation, e-mail, and my online discussion group, as you will 
notice in the testimonials in Appendix C. 
 
80/10/10 for Longevity 
Eating foods of low caloric density, such as fruits and vegetables, has bee n cited as a probable method of extending longevity. Experts in the field of human longevity have long held that refraini ng from overeating is the surest method of extending the lifespan, as 
it most effectively reduces the likelihood of obesity. Obese people live shor ter lives, on average. One very healthful method of not overeating is to increase caloric dem and by raising activity levels while eating primarily fruits 
and vegetables, foods that are relatively low in calories per bite. Long-Lived Cultures Eat High Carbs, Low Fat 
In John Robbins’ new book, Healthy at 100: The Scientifically Proven Secrets of the W orld’ s Healthiest and Longest- 
Lived Peoples , he describes the lifestyles and eating patterns of the long-lived cu ltures of Abkhasia (Russia), Vilcabamba 
(Ecuador), and Hunza (Pakistan). This table is taken from Robbins’ book:
  
The Abkhasians, Vilcabambans, and Hunzakuts have traditionally consu med high carbohydrates and little fat mostly out of 
necessity, eating strictly from the foods that have been available t o them. They have done so naturally, without any science to guide 
them and without options for choosing or adjusting their caloronutrient r atio. The Ratio for Humans … By Design 
People ask me how the 80/10/10  diet can apply equally well to people of all ages, sizes, activity le vels, etc. “Aren’t we all 
individuals, with different nutritional requirements and differen t bodily makeups?” they ask. Despite all the hype about metabolic typing, I do not believe this ratio vari es to any appreciable degree on the basis of our 
individual needs. (See the FAQ entitled “What about individual differ ences?” on page 235.) Like high-performance race cars, the human body is designed to get its bes t results from a very specific fuel mixture. Think 
about it: Can you find any example in nature of a mammalian species whos e individual members eat foods from completely different 
categories, based upon their blood type, their geographical location, their me tabolic type, or any other factor? Can you imagine a 
“kapha” bear eating more fat than a “pitta” bear? Or a “fast-ox idizing” monkey avoiding bananas because they are too high in suga r? This is nonsense. The fact is, Nature has seen fit to provide the ideal food for every creatu re on Earth, and all creatures of similar type eat 
similarly . For example, horses—and all creatures that look like horses  (zebras, donkeys, mules)—eat from essentially the same 
category of foods—those for which their biological systems were desig ned. Do not let anyone tell you that humans are the one 
exception to this rule (called the Law of Similars) in all of the anim al kingdom, for there are no exceptions: Animals that are 
anatomically and physiologically similar thrive on similar foods. Cows  eat grass, leopards eat meat, and hummingbirds eat nectar. There is simply no need to complicate this simple program, presented in perf ection by nature in thousands of examples. All of the creatures that are anatomically and physiologically like  us (known as the anthropoid primates: gorillas, orangutans, 
chimpanzees, and bonobos) thrive on a low-fat diet that is predominated by frui ts and vegetables. Their caloronutrient ratios closely 
approximate 80/10/10 . With the exception of the gorilla, whose great weight makes it almost i mpossible to climb the skinny 
branches of trees to procure fruit, they get more than 80% of their calorie s from the carbohydrates in fruit. The combined 
caloronutrient average for chimpanzees, bonobos, and orangutans is  about 88/7/5. Add in the gorilla’s numbers, which come closer 
to 70% carbohydrate, and the average decreases, making the ratio almost exa ctly 80/10/10  for all of our anthropoid relatives. The actual foods  humans eat differ according to season, geography, availability, personal  preference, etc., but not according to anything pertaining to our physiology. The total number of calories each person needs varies according to many factors, including 
gender, size, age, activity level, fitness goals, health status, and s o forth. But the ratio of carbohydrates to protein to fats we need 
remains relatively the same. This is true regardless of the dieta ry specifics, food choices, or total volume consumed. As I explain in 
Chapter 5, no amount of adaptation or relocation has changed the basic digesti ve physiology with which we have been endowed 
since the beginning of time. Why Percentage of Calories? In this book, I use “percentage of total calories consumed” as my prim ary model for discussing carbohydrate, protein, and fat 
consumption. Although this approach has its drawbacks, it is the best way I  have found to help people gain perspective about, 
discuss, and compare the macronutrients they eat. The scientifically accepted measure of food and nutrient consumption i s mass (weight in grams, ounces, etc.). However, 
providing dietary guidelines in those terms requires unnecessary c omplexity that offers no incremental benefit. Many factors combine 
to determine the amount of food an individual should eat for optimal health an d body weight, some of which are gender, age, height, 
muscle mass, amount and intensity of physical activity, digestive  efficiency, food choices and, to a very limited degree, metabolic 
rate. Using the percentage of calories model allows us to discuss appropriate ca rbohydrate, protein, and fat consumption, despite 
our individual differences. For example, both a sedentary woman who eats 1,600 ca lories per day and an athletic man who eats 
4,000 calories per day will thrive eating in the 80/10/10  proportion. The only difference is that the former would eat far fewer 
calories than the latter. I realize that most of my readers have never learned how many calorie s are in the foods they eat. And I concede that the 
calorie concept has its limitations. More than one person has aptly pointe d out to me that not all of the calories we consume are used 
for energy. One person insists (and rightly so) that calorie-equival ent quantities of carbohydrate, protein, and fat cannot be 
considered identical (or even reasonably similar) where our digestiv e biochemistry is concerned. Technical detractors sometimes 
suggest to me that because we as humans do not actually burn our foods —as is done in a bomb calorimeter in order to determine a 
food’s calorie content—we should dispense completely with the notion of c alories. I agree with these and other objections to thinking in terms of calories  for diet analysis. Yet numerous peer-reviewed 
nutritional studies in the finest journals have seen fit to use th e model, including those from top-caliber nutritional scientists like D r. T. 
Colin Campbell of Cornell University. The World Health Organization a nd governmental nutritional agencies around the world use 
both percentage of calories and absolute amounts in grams to express thei r dietary recommendations. Even with its flaws, the calorie 
concept is the only generally accepted model of energy requirements th at relates to everyday activity. With my background in 
exercise physiology, I have found the calorie concept particularly use ful in helping athletes perform at their peak and get enough 
fuel. Pros and Cons of the “Percentage of Calories” Model
I am aware of the concern that people could be dangerously misled if they tr y to compare the caloronutrient ratios of foods 
with wildly differing caloric densities. Below is an example that hi ghlights this potential confusion, followed by another example that 
illustrates why I nonetheless choose to calculate nutrients usi ng the percentage of calories approach. How Percentage of Calories Can Seem Misleading 
Let’s look at some numbers that could be confusing to those new to the cal orie concept: 
 
Spinach contains 30% protein (30% of its calories come from protein). Macadamia nuts contain “only” 4% protein. Given just this information, one might be led to believe that a pound of spina ch provided more protein than a pound of nuts. However, knowledge of total calories , and not just percentages, is required to make sense of this data. A pound of spin ach 
contains 104 calories (31 of which are protein) and a pound of macadamia nuts has  more than 3,250 calories (125 of which are 
protein). In terms total calories, the nuts yield four times as much prot ein as the spinach. How the Calorie Model Is Useful 
Imagine that a person eats 7 pounds of food in a day, and only 3.5% of that weight consi sts of high-fat food. This sounds like 
a low-fat day, right? Not hardly . Let’s look at a simple example of a “healthful” day’s intake  that comprises 7 pounds of food and only 4 ounces of fatty food: 
 
 
The nuts and oil in this example weigh only ¼ pound but amount to 740 of the 1,955 t otal calories. Since the nuts are not all 
fat, and the plants do contain some fat, the total comes to 693 fat calories, or 35%  of the day’s intake. This is the same percentage 
of fat found in the standard American diet. This quantity of fat, of any ty pe, is not “low,” or healthful, by any standard! Comparing Apples to Apples 
Often, when caloronutrient numbers are being bandied about, things can be come extremely misleading. A pint of liquid contains 96 
teaspoons. Add just one teaspoon of oil to a pint of water, and you have a fluid that i s 100% fat in terms of calories but only 1% fat 
by weight. It is important to understand the units of measure used by other diet guru s when comparing their carbohydrate/protein/fat 
recommendations to those expressed in this book. These teachers sometimes  use different units for different foods, or change units 
over time, or use different units when referring to liquids than they  do for solids. Often too, they use numbers in their presentations 
that sound good when taken at face value. But if you roll up your sleeves and do t he math, the figures simply cannot add up. Recognizing that calculating percentage of calories produces a vas tly different caloronutrient ratio than percentage of weight, 
percentage of dry weight, percentage of volume, etc., making sure you are c omparing apples to apples (so to speak) is an important 
factor when evaluating other programs in relation to the 80/10/10  diet. For example, one popular author recommends consuming anywhere from 10 to 25% of th e diet from fat (depending upon 
one’s body type and level of inner toxicity). But at retreats and other  events where his recipes are served, fat routinely accounts for 
30 to 60% of the total calorie content of the meals. How can this be? The seemin g contradiction stems from the fact that this 
author’s recommended caloronutrient ratio is based on  volume of food  (cups and spoons), rather than percentage of calories. Further complicating things, he quotes his ratio guidelines in ter ms of “percentage of high-carbohydrate, high-protein, and high-fat
foods.” Given that the items raw fooders deem “high protein” (nuts and s eeds) average 75% of calories from fat, the problem 
becomes apparent rather quickly. When you follow this author’s “low-fat” guideline (“50% carbohydrate, 30 –35% protein, and 10–15% oils,”) you end up 
eating about 30% fat. The high-fat version of his plan (“50% protein, 30–35% carbohydrate, an d 20–25% oils”) yields a minimum 
of 60% fat. Although he acknowledges the necessity to moderate the fat con tent of “protein foods” by consuming expensive high- 
protein powdered supplements, my experience is that adherents of his plan s lather on the fat with abandon, with little or no 
awareness of the extent to which their diets are predominated by fat. The table below provides another example of the misleading results we ge t when analyzing nutrient content by volume rather 
than calories. Consider a salad made of just two ingredients: 6 cups of le ttuce and ¼ cup of almonds. As this table shows, the 
almonds account for just 4% of the volume but—surprisingly to many— nearly 80% of the calories. In Appendix A I provide analyses of sample meals that use real recipes  and quantities, to help you begin to get a sense of how 
your daily meals stack up in terms of caloronutrient ratio. The Bull’s Eye: 80/10/10rv 
For those who choose to follow the healthiest version of 80/10/10  in order to achieve off-the-charts results in every aspect of 
your well-being, we add the suffix rv , standing for “raw vegan,” to the 80/10/10  designation. Also called the “low-fat raw vegan 
diet,” 80/10/10rv  presents you with the life-changing opportunity to partake exc lusively of Nature’s bounty—consuming only whole, 
fresh, unprocessed and undressed plant foods in the form Mother Earth presen ts them to us. I have eaten substantially this way and used the 80/10/10rv  program, as it has evolved, with clients for more than twenty years 
—with astonishing results. This approach to diet and nutrition has p roven over that time to be the healthiest dietary regimen known 
to man. By the time you finish this book, you will have the specifics you nee d to implement this program in your life. How Close to 80/10/10 Am I? How does 80/10/10  compare to your  caloronutrient ratio? Well, naturally, each of us is unique, but the ge neralizations are 
telling. Various sources suggest that Americans consume 40 to 50% of ca lories from carbohydrates, about 16% protein, and about 
35 to 45% fat. 28  After twenty years of doing dietary analysis for my clients, I have  observed that 42/16/42 is typical for most 
people. As this book explains, most of us in the U.S.—even vegetarians and veg ans—tend to gravitate toward this 42/16/42 average, 
a proportion that provides far less fuel (carbohydrate) than our bodies need in order to thrive … and a seriously dangerous level of 
fat. You will also step through some calculations so that you can assess the  caloronutrient ratio of commonly consumed raw food 
plans. You will see for yourself, through simple examples, something th at became apparent to me years ago: Raw fooders, for the 
most part, are consuming astonishing levels of fat—sometimes twi ce that of the fast-food-eating mainstream! Naturally , cooked fat 
carries with it a host of problems not present in raw fats, but high level s of either can wreak tremendous havoc with our health. If you are new to the high-produce way of eating, consider yourself lucky t o have encountered this information early in your 
quest. With this book, you can steer clear of the pitfalls that leave so man y vegetarians and raw food enthusiasts disheartened and 
unsure of where to turn next. If you are a raw fooders, this book may catapult y ou into a whole new reality, as answers to long- 
standing nagging questions begin to emerge. You may find light bulbs goi ng on as you begin to understand why you or your friends 
may not have quite thrived as promised on this “healthiest of all diet s.”  
 
Tracking Your Own Numbers 
In Appendix D. Resources for Diet Analysis, I describe online tools and othe r resources that you can use to get a sense of 
what you are eating. I encourage you to take the time to learn to use a nut rient-analysis tool, at least for a short while. Perhaps the 
most important use of these automated calculators is to make sure you get  enough calories for your size and activity level. This is of 
critical importance, as undereating in terms of calories is one of the  main reasons that people fail to thrive on a high-produce diet. To keep it simple, a week or so of tracking your meals online can give you suffi cient information to begin seeing the true 
composition of your diet. From there, you will be able to recognize pitfalls and s tart adjusting your caloronutrient ratio. After that, 
you may want to log on and catalog a day’s consumption here and there, or as ne w foods come into season, just to make sure you 
are still on track … but soon 80/10/10  will become second nature, and no such effort will be necessary. Relax … We’ll Get There Together 
Most folks find dietary changes more challenging than almost anythi ng else in life. Many patients have come to me desperate 
to solve some serious health issue, saying “Doc, I will do anything you sa y , follow any program you suggest. Just don’t mess with my 
diet.”  
Rare indeed (and gratifying) are the few who are so motivated to feel bet ter that they change directions on a dime. But I 
acknowledge that dietary shifts are daunting for nearly everybody. Wit h this in mind, I created the 80/10/10  diet to allow everyone 
to transition at a comfortable speed. By focusing on the caloronutrient ratio (the percentage of carbohydrat es, proteins and fats), rather than on the specific foods, 
this plan allows you to set your own pace. Succeeding on 80/10/10  is simply a matter of adjusting the volume of the foods you eat, 
in relation to each other, to move yourself in the direction of your target . Gradually increasing healthful carbs from whole fruit and 
decreasing fat will work just fine and is far better than making no cha nge at all. The results, especially when tracked with colorful 
graphs on Nutridiary.com (See Appendix D. Resources for Diet Analysis  on page 332), will provide you with motivation to continue 
making improvements. Though food diaries and numerical analyses can be helpful, you do not need to buy  a food scale or log meals each day to 
receive value from this book. On the pages that follow, I provide the informat ion, meal plans, and sample calculations to give you a 
clear idea of how to incorporate the 80/10/10  formula into your life, with or without the high-tech tools. Just giving conscious thought to what you eat with the caloronutrien t ratio in mind is a first step in the right direction. You can 
spend as much or as little effort as you want becoming familiar with you r current diet and how it compares with the 80/10/10  plan. Please, look to this book for inspiration and guidance toward the body and the health  you desire, but do not be discouraged. Some people tell me that they feel overwhelmed as they become painfully  aware of how much fat they have been eating and how far 
they have strayed from their goals. To those I say take heart … and relax. T he confusion will clear as we step through these pages 
together. By the time you finish reading this book, I venture to say that the road to su ccess will seem nearer and easier for you to follow. If what you read makes sense and you are ready to take your health and your body t o new levels, simply start steering toward 
80/10/10  … the results will come quickly . If you need support and more information, vis it my online discussion group, at 
www.VegSource.com  (click on Raw & Sports/Graham). Even when you have the 80/10/10  concept down to a science, you will never eat in that ratio at every meal , nor even every 
day (nor should you). In reality, you will you eat more fat on some days and less  on others. The goal is to eat 80/10/10  as an 
average, for an entire year or more. Once you have done that, I’d wager you w ill never look back. Chapter 5. Carbohydrate: 80% Minimum 
 
Nutritionists and health-minded diet professionals generally agre e that 60 to 80% of our calories need to come from carbohydrates. Having established so far in this book that the percentage of total calori es in our diet to be provided by both fat and protein should 
run in the single digits (not more than 10% each), we can see that the h igh end of this range is just about right. For most people, I 
recommend 80% carbohydrates, or even higher. In fact, if we consume much le ss than 80% of our calories as carbohydrates, we 
are destined to consume too much protein, fat, or both—but more likely it wi ll be fat. Insufficient carbohydrate in the diet leads to an array of health conc erns, primary among which are eating disorders, severe 
food cravings, lethargy, weakness, and all of the conditions associated wit h the overconsumption of fats. As we increase protein 
intake above ten percent of daily calories, we start seeing low energy a nd increased acid toxemia, a precursor for osteoporosis, 
kidney disease, arthritis, immune dysfunction, and cancer. Eating subs tantially more than ten percent of daily calories from fat can 
lead to diabetes, cardiovascular disease, stroke, cancer, and many other ma ladies. Any way you slice it—too few carbohydrates, 
too much fat, or too much protein—you will suffer serious health consequ ences. Sugar: The Fuel We Are Designed For 
Before our cells can utilize any food for fuel, whether it contains prim arily carbohydrate, protein, or fat, it must first be 
converted into simple sugars. Carbohydrates are by far the easiest to con vert to useful sugars. Glucose (a simple sugar) is the 
primary, preferred source of fuel for every tissue and cell of our bodies. In f act, some of our cells (the brain, red blood cells, and 
some nervous tissue, for example) depend almost exclusively on glucose a s their fuel source. Fuel vs. Energy 
A major misconception people have about food is that it is a source of energy. Th is fallacy is partly supported by the fact that 
in the nutritional sciences, the words “fuel” and “energy” are use d synonymously . The lethargy that follows a holiday meal easily 
demonstrates the fault in this line of thinking. In health sciences however, the term “energy” is defined as a low-v oltage electrical current produced by your brain during 
sleep, which runs through your body via your nervous system (also known as v ital nerve energy). When you are awake, you use 
nerve energy more rapidly than the brain can produce it. Hence, you event ually run out of energy. After an appropriate period of 
hours procuring sleep, you awaken, fully recharged and full of nerve ener gy again. On the other hand, food is referred to as “fuel.” W e need to consume fuel for three primary reasons— nutrition, hydration, 
and pleasure. Through the process of digestion, we “burn” our fuel (f ood) to release its own energy potential and utilize it for 
ourselves. During this complicated process, we receive a net gain in e nergy by using our own nerve energy to release the potential in 
food. To help explain the difference, we can apply the analogy of a car. We have n o difficulty understanding that the fuel in our gas 
tank (food) is completely different than the energy supplied from the batt ery of our car (vital nerve energy). Either without the other 
is completely useless, but in combination they work to create motion and act ivity. Humans have little or no capacity for storing excess protein or excess  carbohydrate, but we can convert both to fat stores for 
later use as fuel. When we do not eat sufficient carbohydrates to meet ou r fuel needs, our bodies break down stored fats into 
glucose through a complex chemical process called gluconeogenesi s (literally , “the creation of new sugar”). While this can be a 
lifesaving process in times of hardship, in the absence of sufficient  carbohydrates, gluconeogenesis results in the production of by- 
products known as ketones. Circulating in the bloodstream, ketones adversely affect our decision- making abilities, because they exert an influence upon 
brain chemistry similar to that of alcohol. Effectively , a heavy ket otic state renders us “under the influence.” In such a state, we 
should not make decisions important to our life and health, such as those made  when driving a car, doing sports, or performing any 
work that requires precision of body or mind. Types of Carbohydrates 
The definitions of carbohydrate and its constituents are evolving. Am ong lay people, carbohydrates are thought to fall into two 
broad categories, complex and simple. Science recognizes intricate diff erences between the various carbohydrate compounds, and 
considerable confusion exists in the literature that describes the m. Here is a simplified summary of terms, which is by no means 
definitive; you will find many variations on this list:  
Simple sugars (mainly monosaccharides consisting of one sugar molecule and disacch arides made of two monosaccharides). Primary among these are glucose, fructose, galactose, and dextrose (mon osaccharides), as well as lactose, maltose and 
sucrose. They are found in most foods, including fruits, vegetables, milk, an d honey. Oligosaccharides (short-chain sugars consisting of three to nine sugar molecules) : Oligosaccharides include raffinose, 
stachyose, verbascose, fructo-oliogosaccharides, and maltodextrins. Most  renowned for causing the flatulence associated 
with beans, some oligosaccharides are entirely indigestible, while ot hers are partially digestible. Polysaccharides (“complex carbohydrates” that contain 10 or more—as many as several t housand—sugar molecules): 
These include starches  (amylose and amylopectin) and dextrins  found in grains, rice, and legumes, as well as nonstarch 
polysaccharides , also known as fiber (cellulose, pectin, gums, beta-glucans, and fructans ), found in grains, fruits, and 
vegetables. Together, monosaccharides and disaccharides comprise the “sugars” f ound on the Nutrition Facts portion of food labels. Monosaccharides are the only carbohydrates that can be absorbed directly i nto the bloodstream, through the intestinal lining. Our 
digestive system easily breaks down disaccharides into their monosacc haride constituents. Simple carbohydrates come in two forms: refined sugars  (extracted from fruits, grains, tubers, and sugar cane) and whole- 
food sugars (the sugars found in whole, fresh plant foods, primarily sweet fruits). B oth refined and whole-food simple sugars taste 
sweet to the tip of the tongue. Unfortunately, widespread misinformation  and general ignorance about nutrition causes the great 
majority of the population to equate simple carbohydrates with the nutrit ionally bankrupt refined sugars. Unaware that whole-fruit 
sugar is profoundly different in nature than extracted sugar, these  misguided dieters lump all simple carbohydrates together and then 
shun them as a category.
80_10_10_Diet_-_Douglas_Graham.txt
Summarize the following text section accurately and concisely. Maintain specific details and numerical information, and use anti-repetition mechanisms:

        In general, the animals that suffer from degenerative “h uman” diseases are domesticated or caged ones that are 
routinely fed cooked food by their human caretakers. If we observe nature, we will find that all creatures are born with or de velop everything they need to secure their natural food. No human has yet been born with a stove on his back or the keys to a tractor in he r hand. The Folly of Cooking Food to Kill Microbes 
Prior to and throughout most of the 19th century, fresh fruit was a very popul ar food item, and people did not eat the high 
percentage of cooked food that they currently do. In fact, the raw food movement w as almost as big 120 years ago as it is today, if 
not more so. But the whole concept was essentially shot down with a single  word: germs. After scientist Louis Pasteur (1822–1895) published his “germ theory  of disease” in 1878, fear of microbes developed into a 
full-blown phobia for many people (one that lives on—and continu es to grow—to this day). This fear led the medical fraternity to 
suggest that all foods be cooked, for the safety of the consumer. People b egan cooking their apples, their tomatoes … essentially 
everything they ate. Due to the overwhelming power of doctors to influen ce society, cooking fruit became the norm. Pasteur’s untenable theory lives on as the foundation that underli es the medical model of disease and healing. Society accepts 
it as truth, despite the fact that it is fraught with inconsistenc ies. In more than one hundred years, the germ theory of disease has yet 
to be proved as fact … while having been disproved repeatedly by Koc h’s postulates. Koch’s Postulates 
The famous nineteenth-century bacteriologist Robert Koch set forth  the following set of four logical rules, all of which must be 
satisfied to prove that a particular microbe or germ is the cause of a part icular disease. 25  
 
1. The germ must be present in every case of the disease, but not in health y subjects. 2. It must be isolated from the patient and grown in vitro (culture). 3. It must be introduced to a susceptible new host and in that host produce the ori ginal disease. 4. The same agent must be isolated once again from the experimentally i nfected host. This line of logic, long held as the gold standard for identifying infecti ous diseases, is the minimal evidence necessary to have 
confidence in the existence of a pathogen and its causal link to a diseas e. The germ theory of disease is destined to remain a theory forever, for it t akes very little effort to find evidence refuting Koch’s 
postulates. Here are two of the more obvious examples: 
 
Healthy people often harbor the germs that are said to cause one disease or  another, while remaining totally symptom free. This fact stands in opposition to postulate #1. Conversely, many people with a given disease have been shown not  to be hosting the alleged “causative agent,” also refuting 
postulate #1. The story of Pasteur’s life and illustrious career is fascinatin g. After years of debate with colleagues, he is said to have 
capitulated from his deathbed, admitting that microbes are not the primar y and sufficient cause of disease. Rather, he acquiesced, a toxic “milieu interieur”—the inner environment of the body in wh ich the microbes live—provides a breeding ground for disease. In 
other words, regardless of the germ’s origin or type, it presents far l ess threat than commonly believed, unless the body is in a run- 
down state resulting from a disturbed and deteriorated interior environm ent. Maintaining our inner terrain in a healthy (undisturbed and undete riorated) state of homeostasis is one of the key benefits we 
derive from eating a low-fat diet of whole, raw plant foods in their freshe st, least processed form. Just as mosquitoes do not cause 
stagnant ponds and flies do not cause piles of manure, the “germs” (b acteria, viruses, and other microorganisms) around and inside 
of us do not cause the toxins in our bodies. Yet like mosquitoes and flies, microbe s are more than happy to set up shop in toxic 
locations that provide them with plenty to eat. If we drain the stagnant pond or clean up the manure pile, the mosquitoes an d flies migrate elsewhere. Likewise, the viruses 
and bacteria that feed upon the toxic wastes inside of us simply move on and c ease to be a problem when we clean up our diets and 
other sources of inner pollution. At this point, our bodies are no longer capable  of acting as hosts for such pathogens. To do justice to Pasteur’s story, or to expound upon the fallacies of germ t heory, are beyond the scope of this book. But you 
can find detailed accounts of both of these topics in many publications. One e xcellent source is a book by Ross Horne, entitled 
Health & Survival in the 21 st  Century. 26  
 
What’s the Big Deal About Cooking. It is true … people have been setting fire to their food for millenn ia, and we seem to be doing fine. So what’s the big deal 
about cooking. Experiments have shown that people can survive on diets as restricte d as flour and water, at least for a period of time, but they 
cannot thrive on such a regimen. This is a testament to the nutriti onal reserves, resilience, and vitality of the body, not to the 
nutritional value of the food. The difference between “normal healt h” and actually thriving is vast. Historically, as pre-human hominids moved away from the tropics, they st arted eating the (cooked) flesh of animals and 
experimenting with foods such as (cooked) tubers and other complex carbohydra tes to substitute for unavailable fruits and 
vegetables. Evidence tells us this practice has been going on for at le ast 200,000 years. However, it was only with the advent of 
grain agriculture, in the past 10,000 years, that we began deriving the va st majority of our calories from cooked carbohydrates. 27 
Even if we have biologically adapted to this practice, it would be hard to argu e that our basic digestive physiology, like that of every 
other creature on the planet, was designed for the raw foods found in nature. Any adaptations to the nutritional losses or the toxins 
created by cooking foods could only be considered “devolution,” rather than e volution. Many foods that are cooked, such as meats and grains, would otherwise be unappet izing or inedible to humans. Cooking 
allows foods to bypass sensory safeguards that would normally protect us from  ingesting unnatural and unhealthful substances. Essentially, cooking makes it possible for us to eat (and to call “good”) food w e would otherwise consider to have gone “bad. ” On 
certain rare occasions, cooking might enable us to sustain ourselves on  the only foods available to us. To be sure, however, we pay 
with our health when we cook foods as a regular practice. High Fat 
High fat content is another common problem with cooked foods. In particular, mea ts, grains, and other starchy foods often contain 
far more fat than is healthful. The fat is not always visible, however. It is absorbed into starchy foods  in the cooking process. Fried potatoes don’t look 
fatty; we like to think of them as a carbohydrate food. Yet the average ser ving of french fries provides about half of its calories from 
fat. Apple pie, you would think, is all carbohydrate, right. It is made of sugar  and apples and a grain-based crust, all high- 
carbohydrate foods. Think again, as this delicacy tips the scale at 50% of cal ories from fat. Not even a baked potato qualifies as a 
low-fat food, once we add butter or sour cream. Fat is hidden in the structure of animal foods. The fat content of meat va ries by cut, but the majority of meats are very high in 
fat. Toxicity and Disease 
To varying degrees, the different methods of cooking introduce toxic substa nces that the body must eliminate. The repeated 
consumption of cooked food results in a detrimental enlargement of the pancr eas, as well as damage to the liver, heart, thyroid 
gland, adrenals, and most other organs, as a result of toxic exposure combined w ith reduced oxygen availability. Eating cooked food has also been shown to provoke degenerative changes in almost  all aspects of blood chemistry. These 
changes usually reverse rapidly when exposure to cooked food is eliminate d. Studies have shown that our immunes system often reacts to the intr oduction of cooked food to the bloodstream the same 
way it does to foreign pathogens such as bacteria, viruses, and fungi: Th e body literally attacks the food, sending an army of white 
blood cells to do the job. This phenomenon, which has been linked with the eventua l development of AIDS, does not occur when 
we eat raw foods. A direct cause-and-effect correlation exists between the cooked food di et and American culture’s two main killers, cancer 
and heart disease. Many of these relationships have been documented for de cades, and the evidence is mounting. Obesity, too, is 
directly associated with cooking our food. Heated foods are nutritionally inf erior, which is one of the reasons people commonly 
overeat cooked food. Their stomachs feel full, but their cells crave nutri ents and remain nutritionally starved. To escape the destruction of cooked food, one must be willing to recognize that, as  a culture, we have been eating ourselves 
into poor health, early death, and disease-ridden old age. Americans consum e ever-increasing amounts of cooked, processed food 
while worrying about the sharp increase in obesity and juvenile diabet es and the staggering cost of their ever-increasing healthcare
needs. Few people seem to be connecting the dots publicly, but as these problems be come larger social issues, I predict they will 
soon hit critical mass. Cooking Damages Nutrients 
The damage done to food when it is cooked provides enough material for a separate book. C ooking renders food a bit like 
Humpty Dumpty after he fell off the wall, in that once a food is cooked it can n ever be, nutritionally, what it was before. Foods can 
only withstand about as much heat as your hand—or the roof of your mouth—c an take before their nutrients are irrevocably 
damaged. Let’s take a look at some examples. Protein 
It makes sense that we would want to derive the full nutritional benef it from the protein foods we eat. But few people realize that 
high-temperature cooking denatures the proteins in foods, fusing the am ino acids together with enzyme-resistant bonds that preclude 
them from being fully broken down, thus rendering the proteins sub stantially useless—and in fact toxic—to us. All proteins that w e 
consume must be broken down into single, individual amino acids before they ca n be of any use to us; our bodies cannot use 
“protein” for any purpose whatsoever. Definition of “Denature” 
Merriam-W ebster’ s Collegiate Dictionary, T enth Edition  defines “denature” as follows (emphasis added): 
de•na•ture  verb transitive : to modify the molecular structure of  (as a protein  or DNA) esp. by heat, acid, alkali, or 
ultraviolet radiation so as to destroy or diminish some of the original proper ties and esp. the specific biological activity. ©1997, 
1996 Zane Publishing, Inc. All rights reserved. Hair is primarily protein. A strand of hair can be rolled into a ball and the n pulled back into a strand. However, if a strand of 
hair is rolled into a ball and then held over a candle flame, even for just a  moment, chemistry happens. The hair literally attaches to 
itself in new places. It can never be returned to its original form as a  strand. When an egg hits a frying pan, a similar irreversible 
chemical change takes place. Our digestive enzymes cannot easily  break down coagulated protein molecules once they fuse 
together. The best they can accomplish is partial breakdown, into polypeptides. The body recognizes clumps of partially broken down proteins, known as polypeptides, a s foreign invaders to be attacked, 
contained, and eliminated through the kidneys. The cell walls of the kidne ys do not allow for easy transport of these substances, and 
their buildup causes the distress that leads to kidney stones and eventu ally to kidney failure. Undigested proteins also produce 
allergies, arthritis, leaky gut syndrome, and other autoimmune disorder s. Carbohydrates 
W e must heat starchy carbohydrates to “dextrinize” them, thus fac ilitating their breakdown into glucose. Unfortunately, heating 
caramelizes these complex carbohydrate foods, fusing their molecules  into a sticky, molasses-like goo. (Dextrin and starch are the 
two principal vegetable-based adhesives, commonly used as glue for corrug ated packaging and wallpaper. ) The body can realize 
only perhaps 70% of the energy potential of cooked starchy foods. This melting of sugar molecules occurs in carbohydrate-based foods subje cted to cooking temperatures whether or not we 
witness it, and it causes them to produce an extremely high glycemic  response in the body. Blood-sugar levels predictably spike 
after we eat cooked carbohydrate foods, especially grains that have had the ir fiber refined out of them. Heat the carbohydrates 
further and they will char, or blacken, as happens to burnt toast. This blacke ned carbohydrate is toxic, a known carcinogen. The digestion of cooked complex carbohydrates is typically impaired by the fat ty and sugary foods with which they are 
consumed, leading to fermentation. The byproducts of fermentation are gas, alcohol, and acetic acid. Alcohol is a protoplasmic 
poison that kills every cell with which it comes into contact. Acetic  acid in its pure form is a known poison. When diluted with 19 
parts water, it is called vinegar. The acetic acid in vinegar is sti ll toxic, regardless of dilution. Of great concern, mainstream science is tying itself in knots over  a lethal poison, called “acrylamide,” recently discovered to 
be produced in high-carbohydrate foods by the chemistry of cooking. This potent ch emical killer was found in high concentrations in the food supply in 2002 by a Swedish researcher. High levels of acrylamide are  found most prominently in bread, chips, crackers, 
french fries, and other dry-cooked carbohydrates. See the FAQ entitled, “How important is it to eat organically grown food. ” on 
page 251 for information about this grave toxin in the food supply. Fats 
All manner of nutritional and health problems occur when fats are hea ted. Heated fats interfere with cell respiration, leading to 
cancer and heart disease. Heating fats also reduces the functional  value of their antioxidant properties. Once fats have been cooked, they quickly go rancid, at which point they become carcinogenic. Thus, it’s important to 
understand that while even freshly roasted nuts are harmful for us, they become more so the longer they sit out. The longer fatty 
foods are exposed to oxygen, the more their nutrients become deranged. Keeping  raw dehydrated fat-based crackers 
unrefrigerated for days or weeks (not to mention months or years. ) is not s uch a good idea, either. Many high-temperature methods of cooking (deep frying, broiling, roasting, barbecuing to a char, etc. ) cause fats to produce 
carcinogenic substances including acrolein, hydrocarbons, nitrosami nes, and benzopyrene, which is one of the most virulent 
carcinogens known to man. Frying temperatures range from about 400 to 1,000  F. When unsaturated vegetable fats and oils are 
heated to such temperatures (and especially when polyunsaturated oil s are repeatedly reheated, as in fast-food deep-fry 
establishments), their naturally occurring “cis” bonds are con verted to “trans” bonds, creating trans fatty acids. Trans fats are
recognized as one of the most dangerous dietary health hazards of our time. Food manufacturers “hydrogenate” unsaturated fats to extend shelf l ife and improve food texture by heating them and 
exposing them to hydrogen while they are under pressure. Ingested satu rated fats are of no use to us, and they seriously clog arteries 
and capillaries, reducing oxygen delivery to every part of the body. If you must eat heated fats, I implore you to begin reading food labels and stee r clear of foods where saturated fat is more 
than 20% of the total fat. Also avoid foods that list any hydrogenated oils (par tially or otherwise) among their ingredients. Water 
In terms of volume, water is our greatest nutrient need—second only t o oxygen. Cooking drives water out of food and alters it 
drastically. Dehydration oxidizes the nutrients in food, and their nutr ient value is duly degraded. We cannot eat cooked or 
dehydrated foods and then make up for the water and nutrients lost by drinki ng water, juices, or any other “supplement. ” Doing so 
simply does not compare to eating a daily diet predominated by whole, wat er-rich foods. Fruits and vegetables are nature’s perfect 
water filters, and the water within them is the purest availab le on Earth. All efforts to purify or “structure” our drinking water  are 
merely attempts to replicate the water we were designed to ingest in  our raw fruits and vegetables. Ask yourself: Just how whole is  a food that has had its water removed. Soberingly, the water in our foods is vi tal and 
definitely not to be considered expendable. We should feel duly concerned if hi gh-water foods do not heavily predominate in our 
diet. Dehydrated raw foods and powdered “whole-food” supplements are not whole foods, nor are they as nutritious as their 
whole-food counterparts. Micronutrients 
Most other nutrients—vitamins, enzymes, coenzymes, antioxidants, phytonutrients, and fiber are damaged or devitalized by the 
heating process, leaving behind “foods” with substantially emp ty calories. The Lycopene Myth 
Applying heat to foods provides no nutritional benefit and is detrimental to t he person ingesting the cooked food. A few 
examples exist where, by heating food, certain nutrients are more eas ily released and more bioavailable to our cells. The lycopene in 
tomatoes and the iron and beta-carotene in vegetables are often-cited e xamples. However, taking this viewpoint ignores the fact that hundreds of thousa nds of identified and not-yet-identified nutrients in the 
heated foods are damaged by the heat. For every nutrient that becomes more bi oavailable due to the cooking process, countless 
other nutrients become less so. W e don’t know for certain, however, that e ven the ones that become more available are doing us 
any favors once altered by heat. More important, this viewpoint assumes that more of a nutrient is bette r, instead of trusting that Nature has provided the 
perfect balance of nutrients we need for optimal health in the fresh, r aw plant foods we eat. Benefits of Eating Raw 
If you adopt a natural diet of raw foods, your body can easily cope with cleansing  itself of past toxic accumulations and 
normalize its weight. Here are some of the benefits you can expect: 
 Maximum nutrition:  Even those who never question the practice of cooking food have to admit havin g heard that we 
discard vitamins when we drain our vegetable cooking water. Sadly, vitam ins are not the only nutritional casualty caused by 
setting fire to our food. To varying degrees, heating food for any appreciable a mount of time above a comfortable eating 
temperature (approximately 105 F) damages most every category of nutrie nts. Western science is only beginning to recognize 
the nutritional damage done by the cooking of food. Detoxification: A major benefit of eating unprocessed raw food is that the body’s vita l energy is freed up for healing and 
cleansing. When you stop eating cooked foods, you stop abusing your body at each meal  with toxic, dehydrating residue that 
it must work hard to eliminate. When your liver and kidneys do less work detoxif ying you, they are free to keep your system 
cleaner, making for a healthier body. Quick digestion : A proper raw diet eliminates constipation, and the transit time of waste  matter shortens to 24 hours or less, 
eliminating the toxemia that occurs as the colon recycles toxins. M ost people on the standard American diet experience transit 
times of 72 hours or more, during which time their food ferments and putrefie s inside them. The resulting foul gas and 
unpleasant-smelling feces highlight the putrefaction caused by  anaerobic bacteria breaking down undigested proteins in the 
colon. These rotting proteins are said to lead to various forms of colon disease, including polyps, colitis, and cancer. Overall improved health and energy: Many people on a raw diet (even the high-fat way) lose some excess weig ht and 
experience clearer sinuses, improved breathing, better sleep, cleare r skin, less mucous discharge, increased energy, and 
heightened mental clarity. Additional Benefits of Eating Raw the Low-Fat Way 
 
Oxygenated cells: Cleaner blood and healthier red blood cells better transport fresh oxygen to a ll the cells in the body, 
resulting in heightened mental clarity and allowing subtle heal ing to take place within the body that may not be easily noticed. Optimal body weight: If you follow the raw vegan version of the 80/10/10  diet to the letter, including the elimination of all 
forms of salt and condiments, you will lose any remaining excess fat an d water weight, but not healthy lean tissue. It’s 
important to make sure you’re eating enough calories, however, as foods wi th fewer calories per bite require more bites. (See 
Chapter 10) If you need to put on weight, this plan supplies you with the fuel t o undertake the weight-bearing exercise that 
adds muscle—which is something no food can do (see Chapter 9. ). Ultimate well-being and vitality: People who take their diets “all the way” to low-fat raw vegan ( 80/10/10rv ) experience 
markedly fewer colds, flus, and aches than people who eat a high-fat diet, ra w or cooked. Acne disappears, and permanent 
relief from persistent diabetes and candida symptoms finally occurs. Mor e important, people on this program have the 
opportunity (given proper sleep, exercise, sunshine, and so on) to experience  a quantum leap in overall physical, mental, and 
emotional health that surpasses the mere absence of disease or symptom s. The ultimate benefit is greater longevity and 
improved quality of life. Making the Transition 
The switch from cooked to raw is actually a fairly easy one. It is simply a  matter of increasing the percentage of raw foods in 
your diet. Some people find it easiest to begin by simply eating raw for breakfa st while leaving everything else the same as always. When they get comfortable with that, they add in raw lunches as well. I n time, the raw dinner becomes a realistic challenge. Other 
folks prefer to start meals raw but finish with cooked, gradually increas ing the amount of raw food that is eaten at the beginning of 
the meal until finally they are eating some meals that are comple tely raw. Eventually, you will come to love the raw foods and their effects upon the w ay you look and feel. Once you start to 
experience the results, your motivation level will rise dramatica lly, and it will become ever easier to continue increasing the 
percentage of raw foods that you eat. At some point, you may begin to question why you are still eating the cooked foods a t all. Sure, you love them; the question is, 
do they love you back. Cooked foods eventually show themselves for what they tr uly are: health destroyers. Though you may find 
that you have many emotional attachments to your cooked food, in due time you wi ll come to no longer look at cooked food as a 
“treat. ”  
 
“Detox” Symptoms: Cause for Celebration 
Many people experience temporary symptoms of detoxification when they beg in a raw diet, as the body is no longer being 
overloaded each day with so much toxic residue. The symptoms arise as the body  cleanses and heals naturally, releasing toxins into 
the bloodstream that may have been buried deep within tissues and organs f or many years. The body is wise, however, and it 
always eliminates toxins in a way that requires the least effort  and does itself the least harm. Detoxification symptoms are generally mild but can range from uncomf ortable to downright miserable. They are really a cause 
for celebration, however, as any discomfort in the present is sure to be les s severe and of shorter duration than the dis-ease it would 
have become in the future. Such symptoms often include tiredness, runny nose, headaches, digestiv e challenges, weight loss, skin conditions, and drops in 
blood pressure. Less common but not unusual are diarrhea, vomiting, and all ma nner of retracing phenomena (reexperiencing past 
symptoms to complete a healing process that was interrupted by medical in tervention or other forms of treatment). All of these and 
other symptoms are indications that the body is making healthy adjustme nts. Initially, intestinal gas problems may arise in people who have damage d digestive tracts. The intestines can hold food in little 
“outpockets,” out of the main flow. There, stagnant foods may ferment or pu trefy and cause gas. Over time, the gas will diminish as 
the intestines heal. Long-term gas problems on the raw vegan diet are  generally corrected by being attentive to proper food 
combining. Most of what is called “detox” is actually just the reaction of a body t hat is no longer being irritated or stimulated—effectively 
“forced” to function. The secondary effect of stimulation is sedation. Th us it is common to feel tired when a person first attempts the 
raw diet. It is not that the raw diet is making them tired; it is that th ey are actually “coming down” off of the influence of coffee, 
refined sugars, meats, and other stimulating foods. The Law of Dual Effect 
The Law of Dual Effect states that those substances, influences, f orces, and conditions to which the body is subjected result in 
two responses by the body: 
 
The primary effect is the more acute of the two, and the shorter lastin g. The secondary effect is less intense, but it lasts longer. When we drink coffee, for instance, the primary effect is one of stimula tion. The secondary effect is only visible after the 
primary effect has worn off. In this instance, the secondary effect of  coffee is to leave us even more tired than we were before 
drinking the coffee. With our fractured view of health, we tend to look only at  the primary effect or acute influence of such a 
substance while ignoring the secondary effect or chronic influenc e. Each person is unique; therefore, the duration and degree of detoxificati on will vary. Detox can be intense or mild, and can last 
from a few days to several years, depending on the individual’s health, v itality, environment, and the degree to which one follows a 
healthy lifestyle. We must also remember that we live in a constant state of retoxifyin g and detoxifying. In the course of our day, we absorb 
environmental toxins, and the body works to eliminate them. We ingest foods, e ven the best sort, and the body creates toxic waste 
as a result of its cellular metabolism. This toxin production is not caus e for worry, however, because we are equipped with kidneys 
and a liver—eliminative organs designed to rid ourselves of these toxi ns. Should these organs become overloaded, the skin, lungs, 
bowels, mucous membranes, and other areas of the body are equipped to help handle th e toxic load. Which Road Do You Choose to Travel. Eating raw poses many challenges, of that there is no doubt. But the benef its of this way of eating so far outweigh the negatives 
that little room exists for argument against eating raw. If we are honest with ourselves, there is simply no room for cooked food if we desi re a vibrantly healthy existence. It is like 
any other journey. If you are going down the road that is taking you where you  want to go, you will likely continue to follow it. If you 
find yourself going down a road that will not bring you to your desired destinat ion, of course you will switch roads. At your chosen speed, cooked food can increasingly become a thing of your past. The re is no hurry; you can cross that bridge 
when you come to it. Even then, you are not making an irreversible decision. In any case, I guarantee that after a year of eating low- 
fat raw vegan food, should you choose to revert to your old style of eating, the hi gh-fat cooked foods will still be available. But don’t be surprised if you discover that the 80/10/10  raw vegan diet is the sweet road to well-rounded health and 
happiness. Our Natural Diet: A Summary 
In this age of junk food, manufactured foods, and agrochemicals, the issue of f ood quality has become increasingly important 
for those who seek long, productive, vital lives. The relationship of health  to diet is becoming ever more profoundly obvious, and 
more and more people are looking to increase the quality of their food than ever  before. The market for organically grown foods is 
growing rapidly, and farmer’s markets are proliferating like neve r before as more and more of us are waking up to the necessity of a high-produce lifestyle for health and longevity. Many years ago, the great health educator T. C. Fry, organized his though ts on how to make the finest food choices and came 
up with these four excellent guidelines. I have reproduced these time less words of wisdom here, as a fitting summary to this chapter. Criteria for Selecting the Highest-Quality Foods 
By T.
None, humans are not born with cooked food or processed foods.
What type of food is typically associated with humans being born with?
Fear of microbes and the germ theory of disease, which was popularized by Louis Pasteur in 1878.
What is the main reason people started cooking their food, according to the text?
The main benefits include maximum nutrition, detoxification, and the ability to thrive, as well as improved overall health and well-being.
What is the main benefit of eating a diet of raw, whole, and unprocessed plant-based foods?
The author recommends a 80/10/10 ratio, which means 80% of daily calories should come from carbohydrates, 10% from protein, and 10% from fat.
What is the author's recommendation for a healthy caloronutrient ratio?
Refined sugars are extracted from fruits, grains, tubers, and sugar cane, whereas whole-food sugars are found in whole, fresh plant foods, primarily sweet fruits.
What is the main difference between refined and whole-food sugars, according to the text?