Further, they hav e no motivation to dig, for there are no foods 
below ground that, in their natural state, please the palate, and very fe w exist that our digestive systems can even handle. Some roots, notably turnips, rutabagas, sweet potatoes, yams, beets, carrots, par snips, and salsify can be eaten raw, though 
in practice today, next to none are eaten this way. Humans generally abhor dirt, are quite fastidious, and refuse to eat any thing covered in or even tinged with dirt. Hogs 
and other grubbers pass lots of dirt through their bodies. In nature, with only handmade tools and without cooking apparatus, we would hav e to eat roots raw or not at all. In our 
natural habitat, abundant in our preferred foods, we can be sure that the root s that man could handle without tools received 
precious little attention as food. In view of these considerations, you can  write off humans as natural root grubbers. Legumes. Very few creatures other than birds and pigs readily consume legumes , as legumes in their mature state are 
indigestible and/or toxic to most mammals. For humans, raw mature legum es are not just unpalatable, they are quite toxic. We 
simply have no capacity for consuming them in their natural state. M any creatures eat young legumes quite greedily. Pigeons 
and other birds actually eat the entire legume plant, long before it has  a chance to flower. While young legumes are edible and 
nontoxic, one must question their nutritional makeup. Legumes are touted as excellent sources of protein, and their protein con tent is generally quite high. High protein levels 
are not necessarily a good thing, however, especially for humans, who see m to thrive best on a diet composed of less than 
10% of calories from protein. As it is in flesh, dairy, and eggs, the protein in  legumes is rich in the amino acid methionine, 
which contains high amounts of the acidic mineral sulfur. The carbohydrate levels of legumes are also high enough to make them dif ficult to digest due to the high protein levels. Invariably when eating legumes, humans get gassy, an indication t hat their digestive processes have been compromised. The 
lack of vitamin C, an essential nutrient for humans, also makes legum es a very poor food choice. From standpoints of taste, nutrition, digestion, and toxicity, legumes sim ply do not make a viable food option for humans. To fully digest starchy foods—grains, roots and tubers, and legumes—an a nimal must produce large quantities of starch- 
digesting enzymes (amylases). Granivores, root grubbers, and legume e aters all secrete sufficient amylase to digest large quantitie s of 
starch. If you view a cow chewing on hay, salivary amylase is dripping i nto the field. In contrast, the human body produces salivary 
amylase (also called ptyalin) of extremely limited strength and in  relatively low amounts, sufficient only to break down small amounts 
of starch, such as would be found in fruit that is not fully ripened. The body al so produces small quantities of pancreatic amylase for 
somewhat limited starch digestion in the intestines. When humans can freely eat starchy grains, roots, tubers, and legume s such as wheat, potatoes, and lentils in their raw state to 
satiation and proclaim the experience a gourmet treat, then both you and I  might accede that we are starch eaters. Are We Consumers of Fermented Foods? Substantially all Americans eat fermented and otherwise decompose d substances that are called foods. Most are derived from milk. Some are made from grains (especially the alcohols), fruits (wines a nd certain vinegars), legumes (especially the soy bean and its 
suite of putrefactive products), and decomposed meats. Carbohydrates ferment when fungi and bacteria decompose them. Ferment ed carbohydrates produce alcohol, acetic acid 
(vinegar), and lactic acid, as well as methane and carbon dioxide. Proteins putrefy (rot) when they decompose. Decomposed primarily by anaerobi c bacteria but also by fungi (yeast) and 
aerobic bacteria, proteins produce as end products ptomaines (cadaverine, mus carine, neurine, ptomatropine, putrescine, and 
others), indoles, leukomaines, skatoles, mercaptans, ammonia, methane, hydr ogen sulfide, and yet other toxic compounds. Fats become rancid and repulsive when they oxidize and decompose. Oddly, we discard fermented grapes, yet we drink their fermentation end produ ct (wine). Odder still, most Americans 
consume with abandon something that never occurred in nature—a pa thogenic putrefactive product called cheese. W e make cheese 
by taking the casein portion of milk and rotting it with types of bacteria th at yield by-products that many palates have come to 
appreciate. Cheese represents about all the decomposition products in a sin gle package: putrefactive proteins, fermented 
carbohydrates, and rancid fats. You need only to refer to a good dictionary to learn just how poisonous these subst ances are. Yet, Americans eat billions 
upon billions of pounds of cheese annually. To assert that all these poisons g oing into the system cause anything less than sickness, 
disease, and debility is misrepresentation. Tumors and cancer are often  the result. Given that humans could not consume these types of decomposed products in nat ure without tools and containers, we may 
safely categorize them as unnatural, and certainly not among the f oods we would primarily use for sustenance. Are We Sucklings of Animals? I doubt that humans ever directly suckled cattle, goats, mares, camels, s heep, and other animals. And, of course, the idea of doing 
this is obnoxious to our disposition. The practice of drinking animal milk as a regular part of our adult  diet is only a few hundred years old. Before the advent of 
the combustion engine, it was not possible to plow, sow, and harvest sufficien t grain for most families to support more than just a 
cow or two. Giving cow’s milk to children  in lieu of mother’s milk is also a relatively new practice that dat es back only about two 
hundred years. Certain Arabic and African peoples have used animal milk for millen nia, but the amount used was extremely small. True, 
certain peoples, like the Masai, live substantially on milk and blood, but thes e are by no means our natural foods. They do so 
primarily for lack of other easily obtainable foods. No other animals in nature drink the milk of another species; they know in stinctively that the milk from their mothers is the 
perfect food to support their rapid growth and to provide the precise nutrient mi x their developing bodies require. We are no more 
designed for cow’s milk than for pig’s milk or rat’s milk or giraffe’s mi lk … or vice versa. Milk-drinking is pathogenic. If milk and milk products were discontinued today , millions of people would cease to suffer 
sicknesses and pathologies within a short period. 12  In fact, if this one dietary practice alone were discontinued, the hospit als would 
virtually empty out and physicians’ waiting rooms would be mostly  vacated. Humans are most certainly designed by nature as sucklings—but onl y for their early years of life, and only of their own 
mother’s milk. W e would do ourselves an astronomical favor if we had the good se nse to stop consuming milk after weaning age, as 
does every other milk-drinking creature on Earth. Are We Eaters of Nuts, Seeds, and Other High-Fat Plants? There is no doubt but that early humans in nature did consume some nuts an d seeds, though certainly plants create them for 
reproduction, not for consumption. The various types of seeds, most prominently g rains, weeds, fruit seeds, and nuts (all nuts are 
seeds) have protective outer coatings that range in texture from fi brous to hard and woody. We do not have razor-sharp teeth and 
massive jaw power that squirrels use to extract nuts from their she lls. Both seeds and nuts are endowed with nutrients sufficient to initiat e and sustain a certain minimum growth of their plants. As 
with all foods, we derive the greatest nutritional benefit from nuts a nd seeds when we eat them in their raw state. Heated fats and 
proteins are quite pathogenic—even carcinogenic. W e should eat nu ts raw or not at all. Most people in modern society, however, have never tasted truly raw nuts a nd seeds. High in water content, genuinely raw 
nuts have a texture more like apples (in the case of almonds) or nut butte rs (in the case of macadamias). Virtually all commercially 
available nuts and seeds have been oven-dehydrated at “low” temper atures, (perhaps 160 F) often for days, to prevent them from 
going moldy, thus extending their shelf life. Unfortunately , our ability to digest nuts and seeds—whether raw, dehy drated, or heated—is rather poor. Ranging from about 
55 to 85% fat, nuts and seeds are best eaten infrequently and in very small a mounts. Even then, their breakdown into fatty acids, 
amino acids, and glucose requires a drawn-out process that takes hours. Fat s may lie in the small intestine for several hours before 
the gallbladder secretes bile with which to emulsify (break down and liqu efy) them. In contrast, high-fat fruits like avocados, durians, akees, breadfruit, an d olives are rich in easily digestible fats (when ripe). These fruits range in fat content from 30% of calories (durian) to 77% (av ocado). Coconut meat, also high in fat (ranging perhaps 
20 to 80%, depending on maturity), is easily digested in the jelly-like state  but almost impossible to digest when matured and 
hardened. Leafy greens and other vegetables, when eaten raw and fresh, contain  a small amount of fatty acids in an easily usable state. However, some (primarily the cruciferous vegetables) contain unwa nted toxic sulfur compounds. We derive our best predigested 
fats adequate to meet our fatty-acid needs from fruits and tender leave s. 
Biologically we are not a species of fat eaters, but merely incidental  eaters of fats. Although an occasional avocado or small 
handful of nuts and seeds is quite satisfying and complements our natur al diet, we are primarily carbohydrate eaters. Are W e Omnivores—That Is, All of the Above? Of course, humans are omnivores in practice, with the aid of cook stoves, condi ments, taste excitants, camouflaging seasonings, 
spices and so on. But, in nature, we could not do more than eat foods in season, and we w ould have to eat them in the raw state on 
the basis of their effect on our taste buds. Without tools, technology, packagi ng and containerization, and taste-masking agents, we 
would soon lose our omnivorous tendencies out in the wild … and wet, sweet fruit  would look better and better every day . We’re Frugivores! In nature, humans would be frugivores only. A frugivore is a creature  that lives primarily on fruits, with the addition of tender 
greens. (This includes the nonsweet seeded fruits we generally ea t with vegetables, such as tomatoes, cucumbers, peppers, okra, 
zucchini and other squashes, and eggplant.) Like all animals, we can in deed survive (albeit less successfully) on a wide variety of 
foods. Nonetheless, our bodies are designed to thrive on a diet of mainly fruit. Some people adopt a totally fruitarian diet, meaning they attempt to live e xclusively on fruits, but I do not recommend this 
practice. Dark-green leafy vegetables provide minerals and other nut rients essential for optimum nutrition and health. Nutritionally, fruit comes closer to satisfying all of our needs (inc luding, of course, our desire for delicious soul-exalting fare) 
than any other food, as meat does for a carnivore. Fruits are replete with  the nutrients our bodies require— in the proportions that 
we need them. Y es, some vegetables and other foods may have “more” of a particular n utrient or class of nutrients, but fruits tend 
to contain the types and quantities of nutrients our bodies require. More does  not mean better. Humans are sweet seekers by nature, designed to eat sweet fruits. Tas te buds on the very tips of our tongues recognize sweet 
tastes. Most of us are attracted to sweet fruits in their raw state, r egardless of what else our culture and circumstances dispose us to 
eat. When ripened, fruits accommodatingly convert their carbohydrate compone nts into glucose and fructose, simple sugars we 
can use without further digestion. Enzymes in the fruit convert prot eins into amino acids and fats into fatty acids and glycerols. Thus, 
when we eat fruits, all we need do is savor their goodness. Fruits and Tender Greens? You may have noticed that I described the frugivorous diet as one consisti ng primarily of fruits, with the addition of tender greens. Where do the rest of the vegetables fit into this picture? This may shock you, but by every indication, our digestive physiology was desi gned to process the soft, water-soluble fibers in 
fruits and tender leaves, almost exclusively. It is true that cruciferous vegetables like broccoli, cauliflower, kal e, collards, Brussels sprouts, and cabbage are loaded with 
nutrients, including soluble fiber. But they also contain cellulose a nd other tough, difficult-to-digest fibers. These vegetables are best 
digested when eaten in their youngest and most tender state. For best re sults, they must be thoroughly chewed or mechanically 
predigested via the use of a blender or shredding device. To assimilate completely, we need to digest completely, and every time we  eat foods that are more difficult to digest, we 
compromise our nutrition and, over time, our health. To be sure, we are capable of  swallowing vegetation that contains cellulose and 
other rough, insoluble fibers, but such foods put a great load on our organs of diges tion and elimination. Where health is concerned, we want to derive the greatest benefits w hile minimizing the detriments or outright harm. When we 
apply this idea to nutrition, we are looking for “enough” of the nutrients  we need, not necessarily the most we can get. The 
indigestible fibers in the harder-textured vegetables are very dif ficult for our bodies to digest, relative to the soft, soluble fibers in 
fruits and tender leafy greens. Thus, they are not among our ideal foods. Our Senses Confirm 
Imagine for a moment that you are about to eat some delicious piece of fr uit—perhaps a grape, peach, melon, banana, apple, plum, 
orange, mango, fig, or berry … you choose the variety . Picture holding the f ruit in your hand, admiring its beauty . Y ou hold it to your 
nose and smell its sweet and distinctive fragrance. It tempts you to ta ke a bite, but first you appreciate the fruit in your mind just a 
little more, increasing the pleasure. At this point, your mouth should be  watering. The fruit requires no preparation; it is a finished product, ready to be consumed exactly as Nature prepared it. For humans, fruit s attract the eye, tantalize the sense of smell, and 
taste divine in their raw, natural, ripe state. Now, try the same thing again, this time imagining a field of wheat, or  a herd of cattle, or a flock of birds in flight. Does your 
mouth water? When pressed to imagine themselves foraging for food in na ture, even those who vehemently question the frugivorous 
disposition of man have to admit that they would choose little other than fr uits. This does not mean we should eat fruits totally and 
exclusively in our present circumstances, but it does mean that, in n ature, they would comprise the overwhelming majority of our 
food choices. Allowing fruit to predominate in your diet makes succeeding on the 80/10/10  plan easier than any other approach to eating, 
raw or cooked. To develop the healthiest and sanest relationship with food, and in  order to stick with a dietary plan that will work 
for you for the rest of your life, have all the fruit you care for to take you t hrough your breakfast and lunch meals. Even your 
vegetable meals should begin with fruit, as much as you like, until you a re certain that you will not crave sweets at the end of the 
meal. Chapter 2. Meeting Fruit Concerns Head-On 
 
Do you know anybody whose candida was caused by eating fruit? Do you know anybody whose diabetes was caused by eating fruit? Do you know anybody whose cancer was caused by eating fruit? If eating fruit didn’t cause these maladies, 
why would you believe that avoiding fruit would correct them? In spite of the fact that fruit has been treated as health food throughou t history, condemning fruit has come into vogue in many 
circles of late. Invariably, when people hear me espousing a diet that is  exceptionally high in fruit, they respond with a well-rehearsed 
litany of questions—the supposed “facts” about the many hazards of fru it eating. Is there any truth to the allegations about the supposed evils of fruit? Let us take some time to look at a few of them. Fruit and Blood Sugar 
The mistaken notion that eating fruit causes blood-sugar problems under lies most admonitions to steer clear of fruit, especially 
sweet fruit. Granted, high blood sugar does lead to candida outbreaks, chronic fa tigue, hyper- and hypoglycemia, diabetes, and a 
host of other conditions and diseases, even cancer. “Too much” sugar is inde ed bad for you, though it is almost impossible to get too 
much sugar from the consumption of fresh fruit. Eating fruit is not t he cause of blood sugar problems … it’s just not that simple. I know what I am saying sounds counterintuitive. It is something like t elling people that osteoporosis is not a calcium problem 
(see “The Dangers of Eating More Than 10% Protein”). Nevertheless , both are true: taking in more calcium cannot alone shore up 
brittle, osteoporotic bones … and fruit sugar alone does not cause high blood sugar. Stick with me, if you will, while I explain the 
real cause. Eating a diet of mostly fruit, including generous amounts of fresh swe et fruit, does not create high blood sugar … not when you 
are eating a low-fat diet, that is. When the system is not gummed up wi th excess fat, the sugar from even “high-glycemic” fruit moves 
easily in and then out of the blood. Blood-sugar levels in a healthy individual  do not vary much in spite of changes in the diet. Glycemic Index and Glycemic Load 
The glycemic index ranks carbohydrate foods based on how quickly they break down du ring digestion and thus how quickly 
their sugars enter the blood. Essentially, the glycemic index tells  you how quickly carbohydrates turn into blood sugar. However, it 
doesn’t tell you how much of that carbohydrate is in a serving of any food. Bot h items of information are essential in order to 
understand a food’s effect on blood sugar. That is where the concept of “glycemic load” comes in. Used in conjunct ion with the glycemic index, glycemic load information 
more accurately predicts the extent to which a food elevates blood glucose  than does the glycemic index by itself. This is because by 
definition, the glycemic index measures carbohydrate quality  but not quantity . The glycemic load is calculated by multiplying a food’s glycemic i ndex value by the amount of available carbohydrate per 
serving (grams of carbohydrates less fiber), then dividing by 100. 13  Thus, fruits, which are mostly water, have a low glycemic load 
even though they rate high on the glycemic index. For example, bananas  rate 52 on the glycemic index (where glucose = 100). But 
because water accounts for 75% of the weight of a banana, its glycemic loa d is only 12 (52  24 grams of carbs, divided by 100 = 
12; based on a 118-gram medium-sized banana). All fruits fall into the low or medium categories on glycemic load/glycemic 
index charts  (with the exception of watermelon, whose GI ranks barely high). It is best to eat fruit fresh, as drying and dehydrating both concentrate  fruit sugars to an unnatural level that the body is not 
designed to handle. It is also important to eat fruit whole, not juiced, as the  fiber in fruit slows sugar absorption to its natural speed. In all cases and with all foods, whole, fresh, ripe, raw, and unprocessed is the  way to go. As you will see in the upcoming pages, the speed at which sugar enters t he blood is not really the most important factor. When 
fruits are eaten whole, with their fiber intact, as part of a low-fat di et, their sugars do indeed enter the bloodstream relatively quickly. But then they also exit just as quickly, making them the ideal food, one tha t provides the perfect fuel for human consumption. The American Diabetes Association says, “The use of added fructose  as a sweetening agent is not recommended; however, there is no reason to recommend that people with diabetes avoid naturally oc curring fructose in fruits, vegetables, and other 
foods.” 14  
 
 
Fat, Not Fruit, Causes Blood-Sugar Problems 
The raw food movement is renowned for its use of great quantities of nuts, s eeds, avocados, olives, flax and olive oil, coconuts, and 
other high-fat foods. On a high-fat diet, whether cooked or raw, people experien ce nutritional deficiencies, plummeting energy, 
hormone imbalances, intense cravings, and mood swings … everything goe s haywire, not the least of which is blood sugar. The mechanism that causes blood sugar to rise out of control is actual ly very easy to understand. Let’s begin with a highly simplified description of how our bodies process sugar. Sugar’s Three-Stage Journey Through the Body 
To be used as fuel for our cells, the sugars we eat travel a three-stag e journey through our bodies: 
 
Stage 1: Sugars start out in the digestive tract when we eat them. Stage 2: They pass through the intestinal wall, into the bloodstream. Stage 3: They then move smoothly and easily out of the bloodstream and into our  cells. This occurs rapidly, often in minutes. When we eat a high-fat diet, the sugar gets trapped in stage 2, and the body w orks overtime, sometimes to the point of exhaustion 
and disease, in an effort to move the sugar out of the bloodstream. 15  Meanwhile, the sugar backs up in the blood, creating sustained, 
elevated blood sugar that wreaks havoc on the body in the form of candida, fatigu e, diabetes, etc. The Role of Insulin 
What happens in the presence of fat that causes sugar to pile up in our bloods tream? It has to do with the pancreas. Under the 
direction of the brain, the pancreas is responsible for producing  a hormone known as insulin. One of insulin’s roles is to function as a 
doorman, allowing sugar molecules in the blood to find an insulin receptor in  the blood vessel wall. The insulin can then transport the 
sugar molecule through the blood vessel membrane to the interstitial  fluid (the fluid between the cells) and continue to escort sugar 
across another barrier—the cell membrane—and into the cell its elf. In the body, fat provides many needed insulating functions, including cons erving body heat, absorbing shock, preventing too 
much water from escaping through the skin, and protecting nerve fibers . But excess dietary fat in the bloodstream creates some 
negative insulating effects. When we eat too much fatty food, a thin coating of fat lines the blood vesse l walls, the cells’ insulin- 
receptor sites, the sugar molecules, as well as the insulin itsel f. These fats can take a full day or more to “clear” from the blood, all 
the while inhibiting normal metabolic activity, and preventing the se various structures from communicating with each other. Thus, too much fat in the blood impedes the movement of sugar out of the bloodstrea m. This results in an overall rise in blood 
sugar, as sugars continue to travel from the digestive tract (stag e 1) into the blood (stage 2) but cannot escape from the blood so 
they can be delivered to the cells (stage 3), which await their fuel. High-Fat, Low-Carb Diets Raise Insulin Levels 16  
The entire theoretical framework of low-carb diets, like Atkins and The  Zone, hang upon the notion that insulin is the root of 
all evil. In the view of their promoters, one needs to limit carbohydrate in take in order to limit insulin release. What they overlook is 
that protein- and fat-rich foods may induce substantial insulin secr etion as well. For example: 
 
A quarter pound of beef raises insulin levels in diabetics as much as a qu arter pound of straight sugar. ( Diabetes Care 7
(1984):465) 
Cheese and beef elevate insulin levels higher than “dreaded” hi gh-carbohydrate foods like pasta. ( American Journal of 
Clinical Nutrition 50 (1997):1264) 
A single burger’s worth of beef, or three slices of cheddar, boost ins ulin levels more than almost two cups of cooked pasta. (American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 50 (1997):1264) 
 
In fact, the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition article referred to above reports that meat, compared to the amount of 
blood sugar it releases, seems to cause the most insulin secretion of an y food tested. A study done at Tufts University, for example, presented at the 2003 Americ an Heart Association convention, compared four 
popular diets for a year. Out of the four (W eight W atchers, The Zone Di et, the Atkins Diet, and the Ornish Diet), Ornish’s 
vegetarian diet (almost all carbohydrates) was the only one to signi ficantly lower insulin (27%), even though that’s supposedly what 
The Zone and Atkins (very little carbohydrates) diets were designed t o do. 17 
 
Eating a high-fat diet, cooked or raw, contributes not peripherally, but directly and causally  to all of the misleadingly named 
“blood-sugar metabolic disorders.” Given this new perspective, one m ight more accurately classify these diseases as “lipid metaboli c 
disorders.” 
 But What About Those Live Blood Analyses? It is true. Raw food experts give lectures, write books, and travel with conv incing stories, slide shows, and videos that support their 
stance against fruit. How can it be denied? Right there before our eyes , they show us pictures from their dark-field microscopes. We 
can see for ourselves the misshapen, cloudy, fungus- and yeast-infec ted blood cells of real patients who were so misguided as to eat 
a diet high in fruit! Their “scientific” information seems conclusive: Fruit is cle arly the culprit in blood-sugar problems for raw fooders. But let’s
step back for a minute: Take a look at the high-fat recipes in the books, newsle tters, and websites of those so quick to tell you to 
avoid fruit. Note the fat-laden foods they serve guests at their insti tutes, retreats, and rejuvenation centers. Pay attention to the ric h 
tasty morsels they serve up at food demos and festival booths. Nuts, seeds, and avocados all run 75% fat or more, as a percentage of their calor ies. Oils are 100% fat. It takes very little of 
these foods to push us way over the edge in terms of blood fat. And raw fooders , as I will demonstrate, do not eat “very little” of 
these foods. Are you starting to see your raw diet and your intolerance for fruit in a new light? Timing Is Not Everything 
Unfortunately, taking care to avoid sugar/fat combinations at the sam e meal is not sufficient to alleviate blood-sugar problems. Eating 
a high-fat diet creates elevated blood sugar whenever fruit and oth er sweets are eaten, regardless of timing. Here’s why: 
Sugars require little time in the stomach. Immediately upon putting  a simple sweet fruit into your mouth, some of the sugars are 
absorbed into the bloodstream from under the tongue. Fruit eaten alone or in si mple, well-chosen combination on an empty stomach 
requires only a few minutes in the stomach before passing to the small  intestines, where the sugars can be quickly absorbed. Most of 
the sugar from fruit travels from the intestines, to the bloodstream, a nd then to the cells where they are needed within minutes of its 
consumption. Fats, however, require a much longer period of time, often twelve to twenty -four hours or more, before they reach their 
destination, the cells. In the stomach, fats are subjected to a digestiv e process that usually takes several hours. When they finally do 
proceed to the small intestine, they are absorbed into the lymphatic syst em, where they often spend twelve hours or more before 
passing to the bloodstream. Most important, fats linger in the bloodstream  for many hours longer than do sugars. On a high-fat diet, therefore, the bloodstream always contains an exce ssive quantity of fat, and more is coming in at almost 
every meal. Essentially, even when you eat a fruit meal alone and wa it hours before eating fat, those sugars are likely to mix in your 
bloodstream with the fats you ate the day before. This is the primary reason raw fooders experience digestive diffi culties, malaise, “spaciness,” and blood-sugar disorders 
whenever they eat fruit. When your diet is predominated by nut pâ tés, seed cheeses, and flax crackers, it’s no wonder you’re told 
not to eat fruit. Whether or not we eat fruit in the presence of such tremendously high levels of fat, we set our selves up for 
health problems and inability to remain raw. Sugar + Fat = High Blood Sugar 
Too much sugar in the blood is as life threatening as too little, and both are  dangerous for human health. Unfortunately, the fruit- 
phobic “experts” focus on the wrong portion of the equation, keeping ra w fooders so busy avoiding fruit that they somehow miss the 
fact that they are eating more  fat than our friends who eat standard American fare. In Chapter 8, I out line just how much more. Fruit and Chronic Fatigue 
“How could the consumption of fruit be connected to chronic fatigue,” I w ondered years ago, after hearing about the millionth 
person tell me that is what they had heard. After all, fruit is consi dered “energy food,” isn’t it? I researched the physiology of chronic 
fatigue a little more deeply and was intrigued by what I found. When pancreatic function is sluggish, as happens when the pancreas  is fatigued or overused, the adrenal glands serve as a 
backup mechanism. The adrenals produce the hormone epinephrine (adrenali ne), which stimulates pancreatic function and effectively 
increases insulin production. As I described in the previous section, abnormally high fat exists in th e blood for several hours every time we eat a high-fat 
meal. As blood-fat levels rise, the “normal” level of pancreatic  function is simply insufficient to clear sugars from the bloodstr eam. Eventually, if we eat a high-fat diet for a long enough period of time, the  pancreas begins to fail at producing sufficient insulin to 
maintain healthy blood-sugar levels. Rather than the typical gent le rise-and-fall fluctuations in blood sugar, we begin to experience 
increasingly higher peaks and deeper valleys. Blood-sugar levels becom e unstable due to the overconsumption of fat in the diet. This sets up a situation where most of us rely upon adrenal-assisted pan creatic function virtually every time we eat, placing 
constant excessive demands upon both our pancreas and adrenals. This adren al/pancreas relationship was designed for what is 
known as the “fight-or-flight” response, an appropriate reaction t o potentially life-threatening conditions. This response would rar ely 
be called upon if we lived in a natural setting, where, for example, we mig ht occasionally reach the top of a hill at the same time as a bear with cubs, but from opposite sides. In today’s world, however, we experience more adrenal-triggering res ponses than we did in yesteryear. They seem to come 
hourly instead of weekly. Almost every time we drive a car in the city , we experience at least one close call worthy of some degree 
of adrenal response. W e’re a Society of Adrenaline Junkies 
As a society , we have very much become adrenaline junkies. W e are a ddicted to stimulation, and rely upon our next “fix” 
constantly. From the shock of the alarm clock and our morning coffee, to the ne wspaper headlines and the extreme behavior on 
daytime talk shows, to movies, spectator sports, and “reality” televisi on shows designed to evoke intense emotions, to restaurant 
meals that are promoted more for their excitement value than for th eir nutrition, straight through the day till the eleven o’clock news
that is filled with stories of death and destruction, we just keep call ing for more adrenaline. Should there be a gap in the “action” we 
feel sleepy, a sure sign of exhaustion. We are literally living in a  state of constant adrenal fatigue. This excessive adrenal demand, coupled with the high stress of our Ame rican lifestyle, result in such extreme overuse of the 
adrenals that they eventually begin to fail. The symptoms of severe adrenal failure are referred to collectivel y as “chronic fatigue” in the United States, or ME (myalgic 
encephalomyelitis) in Europe. Of course, many signs and symptoms usual ly lead up to chronic fatigue; it rarely comes as a complete 
surprise. Lack of motivation, malaise, reliance upon stimulants, exces sive need for sleep, and bouts of mononucleosis are all 
indications of varying degrees of adrenal fatigue. The Sugar Highs of Children 
The adrenal response also plays a key role in what commonly happens to childr en at birthday parties. They eat generous portions of 
extremely sugary foods, and shortly thereafter they are running abou t wildly, literally out of control and almost out of their minds. What happens, and why doesn’t it happen to adults? The answer is rather simple. Young children do not drink coffee, smoke ciga rettes, use alarm clocks, or watch the eleven 
o’clock news. Life for them is interesting, full, and never dull. They ha ve a higher level of vitality than most adults, meaning that their
adrenal glands still function well. They are, however, on the same hig h-fat diet as adults. Thus, when children eat great quantities of sugar on birthdays, Hallow een, and other occasions, they set off a particularly 
vigorous version of the chain reaction I have described in this chapter . The fats remaining in their bloodstreams from their previous 
day’s meals block insulin function just as effectively as they  do in adults. Then their young and not-yet-exhausted adrenal glands 
“kick in” with a jolt, releasing a good amount of epinephrine. The next t hing you know, the children are running wild. Adults do not show such a response because they simply no longer have the vi tality to do so. Their adrenal glands are so 
fatigued that they require a true and serious emergency in order to fu nction at all. Do not blame the children for running wild. Epinephrine is not to blame either, nor is the sugar. Children on a low-fat diet do not show this same out-of-control response when  permitted to eat great quantities of sugar. It is 
the fat, more than the sugar, that is the culprit for their hyperac tivity . In the same way , fat—not sugar—is responsible for the ever - 
increasing incidence of chronic fatigue syndrome (by whatever nam e) that we see in the U.S. and the world today. Fruit and Candida 
The candida issue is riddled with more misinformation than perhaps any ot her area in health care. It requires a bit of unraveling 
to make sense of the true candida picture, as there is so much that needs t o be unlearned. Candida is a form of yeast, an organism that naturally occurs in human  blood. It is supposed to be there. This microbe 
consumes sugar for its food. As there is always sugar in the blood (when di abetics check their sugar levels, they are actually 
monitoring the amount of sugar in the blood), there is always food for the can dida organism. Candida Eats Excess Blood Sugar 
The size or “population” of the candida colony in the blood is directly det ermined by its food supply . If blood-sugar levels are 
always at a normal level, so is the size of the candida colony that lives  in the blood. When the sugar we eat leaves the blood to be 
distributed and used by the cells of the body, any excess yeast quickly dies off , as it is supposed to. Should blood-sugar levels rise, however, the candida organisms multip ly rapidly (“bloom”) as they consume the excess sugar. Once they have done so and blood-sugar levels come back down to normal, so does the nu mber of candida microbes. This ebb 
and flow happens as a normal part of human physiology and causes no health probl ems or uncomfortable symptoms. If fat levels stay chronically elevated due to a fat-rich diet, suga r remains in the bloodstream and feeds the large candida 
colonies instead of feeding the 18 trillion cells of the body. Starved for fuel , these cells can no longer metabolize energy. You 
become tired, and feel rundown. It is important to understand the implications of a rise in the blood-sugar  level. If the body is not able to reestablish normal blood-sugar levels, a dangerous situation exists. The only mechanism t hat remains for bringing the blood sugar back down is the 
candida. The candida microbe in our blood is actually a life-saving organism, one th at we do not ever want to eradicate. It functions as 
another backup system—a safety valve that helps to bring the blood-sugar level back down to normal in the event that the pancreas
and the adrenals fail at doing so. Causing Our Own Candida 
As I have described, most people create the conditions that cause pancreat ic and adrenal fatigue constantly, throughout the day and 
at every meal. It is therefore no surprise that candida issues plague  people until they actually change their lifestyle habits. Outbrea ks 
of candida are your wakeup call—a warning that your system is rapidly  approaching diabetes, and that you would do well to 
drastically curtail your fat consumption or face dire health conseque nces. Once again, the standard advice from the health community, traditiona l or alternative, tends to be seriously off base. Comprehending only symptomology and not the underlying fat-based cause, th ey tell us to avoid all sugar, including fruit. But fruit 
consumption did not cause the candida problem, and avoiding it will not address th e real issue. Granted, once you have gotten yourself into the candida quandary by overcons uming fat, eating sweet-tasting fruits may seem 
to exacerbate your problem. But eliminating fruit will not remove the c ause of your problem, just the symptoms. In the presence of 
too much fat in the blood, even a small amount of sugar, from any source, can re sult in abnormally high blood-sugar levels. Furthermore, to the extent that conscious attempts to lower blood sugar su cceed, you feel tired. Trying to eliminate candida by 
controlling a blood sugar problem inevitably fails, which is why we see th ousands of people battling candida for years without lasting 
success. Because all carbohydrate, fat, and protein that we eat is converted to sim ple sugar (glucose) if it is to be used by the cells for 
fuel, the way out of this cycle is not to eat less sugar, but to consume les s fat. When fat levels drop, the sugar starts to get processed 
and distributed again, and the yeast levels drop because there is no longer  excess sugar available for it to eat. The candida microbe is extremely short lived. If folks suffering from ca ndida would simply follow a low-fat diet, most of them 
would find that their candida issues were completely gone in a matter of  just a few days. Of course, they may still have the 
underlying pancreatic and adrenal fatigue issues to resolve. Healt h comes only from healthful living. Fruit and Diabetes 
As I mentioned in the introduction to this book, the U.S. Centers for Disease C ontrol predicts that our incidence of diabetes 
will more than double by 2050. And here is another recent statistic, perhaps t he most startling of all: From 1990 to 1998 alone, the 
incidence of diabetes in individuals between 30 and 39 years old increased by 70%! 18  Before we discuss how these staggering 
numbers can be true, and how the underconsumption of fruit contributes to th em, let me outline in briefest detail this disease called 
diabetes. Five percent of diagnosed diabetics are designated “Type 1,” (formerl y “juvenile”) diabetics. From birth, the pancreas of these 
individuals is unable to produce adequate amounts of insulin for the metabol ism of glucose. Although glucose is present, it remains 
trapped in the bloodstream. The cells receive no fuel from carbohydrates to pe rform their necessary functions, because glucose 
requires insulin for entry. Thus, first among the symptoms of diabetes i s malaise. You may have noticed that most diabetics complain 
of being extremely tired most of the time. The remaining 95% of diabetics are classified as “Type 2” (formerly a dult-onset) diabetics. In the vast majority of these cases, 
the pancreas produces adequate to excessive levels of insulin, but gluc ose is nonetheless unable to enter the cells. This is in large part 
a result of the high-fat American diet, which hinders the functi oning of both natural and injected insulin. Diabetics of both types endure an array of increasingly debilitating s ymptoms, ranging from frequent urination to unquenchable 
thirst, excessive hunger, sudden weight loss, weakness and fatigue, r educed concentration and coordination, blurred vision, 
irritability, recurrent infections, numbness in the extremitie s, and slow healing of cuts and bruises. Unfortunately, the ravages of diabetes are by no means the end point on thi s slippery slope toward total health failure. Diabetics also face higher risks for heart disease, stroke, hypertensi on, kidney disease, gangrene, limb amputations, and blindness, 
among others. All cellular function requires action to be followed by recovery, or inact ion. Overtrain (or underrecover) a muscle group and it 
will degenerate rather than grow. The same is true for any organ. The  pancreas cannot continue to overwork without showing signs 
of partial, and eventually, total failure. The Fat/Diabetes Connection 
Given the horrors of this road to ruin, one would expect the masses to cry out f or a solution to the growing epidemic of diabetes. Instead, we seem determined to seal the fate that the Centers for Dis ease Control has so ominously predicted. How do we ensure 
the outcome they foretell? We simply need to continue doing what we have  done for over sixty years: eating a diet that is predominated by fat. In this chapter, I have attempted to present a clear, if vastly oversim plified picture of the natural progression of events that we 
set in motion when we eat insufficiently of simple carbohydrates. Dia betes is but a natural stepping stone on the low-carb, high-fat 
path to health devastation. Although not all diabetics experience chr onic fatigue and candidiasis, these conditions are manifestations 
of the same underlying condition—high blood fat. This fat/diabetes connection is not something I fabricated, and it is not  unrecognized in conventional medical circles. But its 
simple truth points to a condition far too easily and naturally remedied for  the medicopharmaceutical cartel to want any part of it. The correlation was documented as early as the 1920s: 
 
In 1927 Dr. E. P. Joslin of the famous Joslin Diabetic Center in Boston suspecte d a high-fat, high-cholesterol diet might 
contribute to the development of diabetes. 19  
In 1936, Dr. I.M. Rabinowitch of Canada presented 1,000 case studies demonstrating it  to the Diabetic Association in 
Boston. In his presentation, he proved that the main factor inhibiting th e metabolism of blood sugar in the presence of normal 
insulin was too much fat in the blood. 20  
In 1959, the Journal of the American Medical Association also documented this causal relationship between fat 
consumption and diabetes. 21 
A 1979 article in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition  states, “Medical research confirms that up to 50% of people 
with Type 2 diabetes can eliminate diabetes risks and discontinue medica tion within three weeks by adopting a low-fat, plant 
food diet and regular daily exercise.” 22 
In 1998, Duke University Medical Center researchers reported the findin gs of a study demonstrating that Type 2 diabetes 
can be completely reversed in mice by lowering dietary fat. The study sh owed that foods high in fat were responsible for the 
onset of diabetes in the mice, whereas sugar had no effect at all on diab etes symptoms. The press release states, “Without the 
fat, the diabetes does not occur, even in diabetes-prone mice. When the high -fat diet is stopped in mice that have been raised 
on it, the diabetes disappears.” 23  
 
Many other researchers have corroborated this evidence, not the least  of whom was Nathan Pritikin, whose work in the 
1960s demonstrated that eighty percent of long-term diabetics put on a low-fa t diet could be taken off their medication entirely in 
less than four weeks. Fruit Is Not the Culprit 
As I have stated repeatedly, consuming fruit does not cause blood-sugar probl ems, but overeating fat does. If you remove the fat 
from the diet, in most cases blood-sugar levels return to normal, as does panc reatic functioning. Restricting fruit from the diet is not 
the cure. In fact, the opposite is true. Doctors tell us, “Y ou have diabetes. Y ou will have it for the rest of your  life. And oh, by the way—you can no longer eat 
fruit.” This certainly does not sound like a “healing profession” to me . I have worked with many diabetics over the past twenty-five years. Of c ourse, I guided each person individually, according to 
his or her unique history . Though I use no generic treatment plans, I  do follow some general guidelines as I design each individual’s 
program. In every instance, however, without exception, the use of a low-f at raw vegan diet predominated by sweet fruit has 
resulted in stabilization of blood-sugar metabolism. Most of my clients we re able to completely eliminate their need for insulin and 
other related drugs within a few weeks or less. No one was ever harmed, and I  have never seen any negative consequences 
resulting from these dietary changes. You Mean I Really Can Eat Fruit? Sure, eating fruit raises our blood sugar, but so does eating other foods. Complex  carbohydrates (cooked or raw) top the list of 
foods with the highest glycemic loads, meaning that they cause the l argest and most rapid spiking of blood-sugar levels. A healthy person who eats whole fruits (as a single-ingredient “ monomeal” or in simple combination, as is recommended for all 
meals) will find that the sugar in fruits passes easily into, and out  off the bloodstream in minutes, and causes no abnormalities in 
blood-sugar levels. It is odd that we expect that fruit will give us problems but that complex c arbohydrates and sugary desserts will not. It is 
reminiscent of the person ordering a hot fudge sundae with nuts, nouga ts, and whipped cream, who then says, “but hold the cherry , I 
am on a diet.” 
 
Fruit and Triglycerides Some people think that triglycerides (a type of blood fat) increase as a res ult of the elevated levels of blood sugar that occur 
when we eat fruit. This mistaken belief is what led Nathan Pritikin  to shun fruit (and therefore forced him to sanction the consumption 
of complex carbohydrates, the only other substantial source of low-fat cal ories on a vegan diet). However, by now you should understand that eating whole, raw fruit only res ults in sustained high blood sugar if you are also 
eating high fat. That is, elevated triglycerides cannot arise from  a blood-sugar condition that does not exist. A high-fruit, low-fat diet 
has only a positive effect on triglycerides. Unfortunately, until We stern scientists conduct studies of low-fat, high-fruit vegans, we
remain without “proof” of this simple fact, other than that demonstra ted by the health and elevated physical performance of the 
people following such a diet. Fruit and Cancer 
More than a trillion dollars has been spent on cancer research duri ng the past three decades. Our longstanding “W ar on 
Cancer” has brought us no closer to a cure for cancer today than we thou ght we were thirty years ago. Cancer is proving to be a 
disease of lifestyle, environment, and culture, and not a condition cause d by a microbe, germ, or genetic factor. The “multifaceted 
causation theory” is gaining more popular acceptance, yet rese archers continue to look for one specific cause. Almost every cancer research organization worldwide is supportive of t he consumption of fruit. It borders on amazing to think 
that a few relatively untrained individuals would come out suggesti ng that fruit is detrimental to cancer patients. What is more 
amazing is that people would pay attention to such individuals and even fol low their suggestions by eliminating fruit from their diet. Yet somehow a popular notion among the mainstream warns that fruit is ba d for anyone with cancer. W orse yet, many misinformed raw food “experts”—theoretically the ch ampions of fruit and vegetable consumption—parrot 
the mainstream directive to avoid fruit … a travesty that produces e maciated, unbalanced, binge-prone raw fooders who give the 
movement a poor reputation. Some allegedly scientific studies have concluded that uncontrollabl e and often unhealthy weight loss is associated with the raw 
food diet and with the consumption of fruit. The findings of these small-sc ale studies have strengthened the mainstream notion that 
fruit is bad for anyone with cancer concerns. Unfortunately, the rese archers who designed many of the studies possessed extremely 
limited understanding of raw food nutrition, and they reached their concl usions after studying subjects who were also essentially 
inexperienced with the raw food diet. Few if any of these studies have ex amined successful or long-term raw fooders. The standard American diet tends to result in unwanted weight gain . Fruit consumption helps to bring weight toward a healthy 
normal level (one that can appear unhealthfully low to those accustom ed to living among a population of mostly overweight and 
obese individuals). Later in this book, I devote an entire chapter to the topic of  body weight, including a detailed discussion of the 
relationship between a high-fruit diet and body weight. Does Fruit Counteract Cancer Treatment Procedures? The “success” of both chemotherapy and radiation treatments depen ds upon a lowering of immune function in the body . Medical 
professionals know that people with suppressed immunity can tolerate tre atments that are otherwise completely unthinkable. In pursuit of this goal, Western medicine sees fit to assault the bele aguered patient with immunosuppressive drugs. Healthy 
immune function works against the doctors’ efforts. Without the suppre ssion of immune function (essentially the lowering of vitality),
patients would have such acutely severe negative reactions to th ese “treatments” as to make them intolerable. Recognizing the immunity-strengthening qualities of fruit, I h ave heard of instances where doctors recommend against its 
consumption for the very people who need it most. Naturally, the real soluti on is to work with patients to build vigorous health so 
they never find themselves in the intractable predicament of choosi ng between their vitality and their life. This is merely another example of the fragmented view of health. Whe n medical professionals have their blinders on, seeking 
only to eradicate disease with no mind toward creating overall health i n their patients, they produce bizarre and deadly short-sighted 
solutions. The use of immunosuppressant drugs has been cited by some scientists as  an actual cause of our current epidemic of 
immunodeficiency diseases. Unfortunately, the pharmaceutical in dustry today wields more power over public opinion than perhaps 
ever before in history. Does Fruit Acidify the Cancer Patient’s Body? Cancer has been associated with an acidic condition in the body. No one has es tablished whether this acidity is a cause of the 
cancer, a body-generated defensive “effect,” or simply an unrelat ed condition that accompanies the true cause(s) of cancer. Many people mistakenly assume that the sugar in fruits, and esp ecially the acid in “acid fruits,” will acidify the body . The 
chemistry of digestion demonstrates that this is not so. The mineral c ontent of a food is the primary determining factor as to whether 
the food produces an alkaline or an acid reaction in the body. Once the food has been  digested, if acid minerals predominate, as 
they do in meats and most nuts and seeds, for instance, the food will be said t o have an acid reaction in the body , or to be “acid- 
forming.”  Since alkaline minerals predominate in almost all fruits, includin g the acid fruits, it is safe to say that fruit has an alkalizing eff ect 
upon the body. Fruits may not be as alkalizing as greens, but their reputati on as acidifying foods is unfounded. Cancer researchers have demonstrated that when cells in a petri di sh are bathed in an appropriate nutritive environment and 
the toxic waste products of their metabolism are efficiently removed, h ealthy cells result. To date, it has not been possible to cause 
cancer in these healthy cells no matter which carcinogens they  are briefly exposed to. We can translate this good news to humans, for whom the high-fruit 80/10/10  diet represents, in my opinion, the ideal 
“appropriate nutritive environment” in which to bathe the cel ls of our bodies. W e cannot, however, expect to eat acid-forming foods 
like cooked proteins, heated oils, and fried chips and remain cancer-free jus t because we also eat large quantities of fruit and 
greens. Acid-Alkaline Balance 
Most of our body fluids and cells require a neutral to slightly alkaline en vironment (a pH reading in the high-six to low-seven 
range) in order to be healthy. By design, even if we live and eat very hea lthfully, our cells tend to acidify due to normal daily activities 
and stresses. Nature in her infinite wisdom set it up so that our natur al diet of alkalizing raw fruits and vegetables would neutralize 
those acids. If the vast majority of our foods are alkaline forming, we can easily liv e in a state of balance, or homeostasis. (Meditation, 
yoga, biofeedback, and gentle exercise may reduce acidity somewhat, but hav e not been shown to actually alkalize the body). However, if we overwhelm our bodies with unnatural sources of acidity, th ere is no amount of raw fruit and vegetables that can 
compensate. What kinds of activities and practices acidify us in this way? Consuming cooked foods, heated fats, animal-derived foods, grains (cooked or raw), or m ore than a very small amount of 
nuts and seeds. Eating poorly combined foods, cooked or raw. Smoking or taking any drugs or stimulants, including caffeine. Drinking alcohol, carbonated drinks, coffee or tea. Lack of exercise, insufficient rest and sleep. Sustained stress, anger, fear, or other negative emotions. Rather than eliminating the unhealthful foods and practices from t heir lives, some people fall prey to salesmen who claim that 
juicing greens or grasses or consuming highly concentrated “supe rfood” powders can provide enough concentrated alkalinity to 
counteract an acidic condition in the body. Juices and superfoods, none of them w hole foods of our biological adaptation (despite 
marketing to the contrary), serve only to create further imbalance s, however. Only healthful living results in health … there is no 
shortcut. Does Fruit Feed Cancer Cells? Cancer cells, like all other cells, use glucose as their primary fue l. But it is not possible to starve cancer cells of their fuel without al so 
starving all other cells, including vital brain, heart, liver, and kidn ey cells. Of course, to do so would be counterproductive and in 
fact, deadly. Cancer cells thrive in an anaerobic environment, meaning one wher e the oxygen content is very low. Eating a high-fat diet 
decreases the oxygen content of the blood and tissues and creates an ideal  environment for cancer cells to flourish. When we 
consume a diet such as 80/10/10 , which is high in simple carbohydrates and water, we effectively rai se the oxygen-carrying capacity 
of the blood, thus vastly reducing the likelihood that we will create canc er. The point is not to try to starve the cancer cells of their fuel, as that  would effectively kill the patient as well, but to create a 
well-oxygenated environment that is inhospitable to the creation an d subsequent survival of cancer cells. Fruit and Acid Indigestion 
The popular belief that fruit causes acid indigestion is another case  in which a nutritional misconception has mushroomed out of 
proportion and acquired mainstream momentum. When a person eats a healthy , simple meal, it generally leaves the stomach rapidly, 
usually in less than an hour. Difficult-to-digest foods can be held in t he stomach for twenty-four hours and longer. When a person eats such foods for dinner, they are generally still sitt ing in his or her stomach the next morning. Should he then 
have fruit for breakfast, an extremely volatile and incompatible combin ation is formed, and acid stomach is often the result. Not surprisingly, most people then blame the fruit they ate for the acid condi tion they experience. I call this the “kick the dog” reaction. Picture a man having a bad day a t work, getting a speeding ticket on the way home, and 
then running over his child’s bicycle as he pulls in to the gara ge. The dog rushes to greet him and puts his paws on the man’s pant 
leg. The man then kicks the dog as if the dog had been the cause of his entire  bad day. The dog was simply the last straw, but not 
the cause of the man’s troubles. Similarly , fruit is not the cause of  the indigestion problem but simply sheds light on the fact that  a 
poor food choice was made the night before. Fruit and Tooth Decay 
Funny thing about teeth—everybody’s got them and almost everybody ha s problems with them. Ask a dentist what 
percentage of his or her patients have problems with their teeth becau se they ate too much fruit. The percentage will be so low as to 
approach zero. People have problems with their teeth for a wide variety of reasons, incl uding these three: 
 
Exposure to intense acids, such as the phosphoric acid in soft drinks, tannic  acid in tea, and the various acids in coffee erodes 
tooth enamel. Fluoride in the water supply often results in eventual tooth decay (as  well as other serious health problems). The late Dr. John 
Yiamouyiannis wrote and spoke with great courage and conviction about the  significant dangers of fluoridation. 24  
Excess acidity in the bloodstream causes the body to seek stored alkaline mi nerals (primarily calcium) to neutralize the acids. Eating highly acid-forming foods like meats, dairy products, and grains el icits this intelligent bodily response. The acid minerals 
in these foods can eventually cause erosion of tooth and bone structure, as  the body draws out calcium to neutralize them. (See “The Dangers of Eating More Than 10% Protein.”). Eating fruit, at least according to the old adage, “an apple a day keeps the  doctor away ,” is actually good for your teeth. So 
what is it about dentists, teeth, and fruit that scares people? I t hink it is the fact that dentists don’t really understand the relati onship 
between nutrition and tooth decay all that well, yet they are asked to expou nd upon it daily. One dentist told a friend of mine that the reason she was having such s evere dental problems was that she ate too much fat. Another dentist told another friend that the reason for her severe dent al problems was that she ate too little fat. I have heard dentists 
tell clients that they need to eat more carbohydrates, while others te ll their clients to eat fewer carbohydrates. One dentist told me 
that I was going to have tooth worries if I ate any carbohydrate at all. It appears that going to the dentist for nutritional information is not m uch different than asking your local auto mechanic for 
financial advice. Dentists eat and mechanics make money, but in neit her case does that qualify them as experts in the field. Dentists 
are experts at repairing decayed teeth. Essentially they are con struction workers who work on tiny job sites—filling potholes, 
building bridges, and the like. They are not specialists in nutrition or th e biochemistry of the mouth. Dental Hygiene Itself Is a Culprit 
So what exactly is it that results in tooth decay? Good evidence is emer ging that much of today’s tooth and gum disease is actually 
caused by the “preventative” procedures we have been taught  to give our teeth. Aggressive brushing of the gums can wear them
away, resulting in receding gums. Gums are soft and can decay quickly w hen treated roughly. Receded gums expose the roots of the 
teeth, which have no enamel and hence no protection from the acids in foods or  those produced by bacteria. Flossing the gums, rather than gently flossing only the spaces betw een the teeth, can also be detrimental. Improper flossing can 
irritate the gums and result in unnatural enlargement of the pocke ts between the teeth and gums. Food and microbes can then be 
caught in these pockets and wreak havoc on teeth. Even toothpaste can have a damaging effect upon the teeth. The particu late matter in toothpaste that is designed to scrub the 
teeth can eventually wear through tooth enamel. The particles in t he toothpaste can lodge between tooth and gums, causing irritation 
and resultant inflammation. Conservative dentists today recommend u sing only a soft brush that has been wet with water to 
thoroughly clean teeth without damaging them. Dehydrated Foods, Nuts, Complex Carbs, and Refined Sugars 
It appears that dehydrated foods have the most profound negative effect on te eth, in several different ways. Dried fruit qualifies as a 
refined carbohydrate, as the water has been removed from what was once a w hole food. In this fractional form, fruit is extremely 
dry and sticky . It sticks aggressively to the first wet surface it con tacts—your teeth. Stuck in the crevices, crannies, and corners of 
teeth, dried fruit will eventually be broken down by bacteria designed to do exa ctly that job. The bacteria, unfortunately for your teeth, produce an extremely acidi c metabolic waste product, and they excrete that waste directly onto your teeth. The acid in the bacterial “excrement” es sentially dissolves your tooth enamel. This acid is extremely 
damaging to the roots of teeth, should any be exposed. Continued exposure to this a cid will result in the development of tooth 
decay. Nuts and seeds are rarely eaten fresh from the tree. In that state t hey have an extremely short shelf life at room temperature. To make raw nuts and seeds last longer, food packers dehydrate them so that the y will not grow moldy on the shelf. Roasted nuts 
are even further dehydrated. When we eat nuts and seeds, small particl es of them remain on and between our teeth. The brain controls the pH (level of acidity) of the mouth by directing the  type and amount of digestive enzymes secreted by the 
salivary glands. The pH of the mouth is usually in the alkaline range  when we are in a healthy condition. After testing the saliva of 
hundreds of clients after they ate nuts or seeds, I have found that the m outh often becomes slightly acidic. This acid works to 
chemically break down the proteins in the nut and seed particles while i t also adversely affects the roots and the enamel of our teeth. Once again, cavities eventually form. Complex carbohydrates, as well as refined simple carbohydrates, stick to th e teeth in a similar fashion to dehydrated fruit. The bacteria that digest the carbohydrates also produce acid waste product s that corrode tooth enamel. Most complex 
carbohydrate foods are acid-forming foods. Fruits and Vegetables for Healthy Teeth 
The solution to healthy teeth and gums is the solution to health overal l. Healthful living has no contraindications. Whole, fresh, ripe, 
raw fruits and vegetables are excellent foods for teeth and gums. Our de ntal structure, as well as the rest of our anatomy and 
physiology, are all designed for fruits and vegetables. Granted, someone could argue, “But what if you sucked lemons all day , wouldn’t  that be bad for your teeth?” Y es, sucking 
lemons all day long is likely to harm your teeth, but who would want to do that ? Just use some common sense, and by all means— 
enjoy your fruit! Chapter 3. Raw Food for Ultimate Health 
 
Unheated or raw foods are the natural and optimal choice for the cellular  health of all creatures. One of the major differences 
between people and the other animals on planet Earth is that we cook our food and t hey do not. Where our health is concerned, this 
is not a good thing. Raw foods make a lot of common sense, and the sciences completely support the ra w food concept. Unfortunately, the 
doctors and scientists who study nutrition, for the most part, are cooked food eate rs, and they see the world through a cooked food 
perspective. They cannot see beyond their accustomed view to envision an other approach. The very idea of a diet of all raw foods 
is unthinkable to most of them. Rarely do they even consider it. These professional men and women spend a good deal of their time coming up with  scientific arguments to support the way of 
life to which they are accustomed. Common sense does not support cooking, howeve r, as not a single creature other than man 
cooks its food.
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:

        Further, they hav e no motivation to dig, for there are no foods 
below ground that, in their natural state, please the palate, and very fe w exist that our digestive systems can even handle. Some roots, notably turnips, rutabagas, sweet potatoes, yams, beets, carrots, par snips, and salsify can be eaten raw, though 
in practice today, next to none are eaten this way. Humans generally abhor dirt, are quite fastidious, and refuse to eat any thing covered in or even tinged with dirt. Hogs 
and other grubbers pass lots of dirt through their bodies. In nature, with only handmade tools and without cooking apparatus, we would hav e to eat roots raw or not at all. In our 
natural habitat, abundant in our preferred foods, we can be sure that the root s that man could handle without tools received 
precious little attention as food. In view of these considerations, you can  write off humans as natural root grubbers. Legumes. Very few creatures other than birds and pigs readily consume legumes, as legumes in their mature state are 
indigestible and/or toxic to most mammals. For humans, raw mature legum es are not just unpalatable, they are quite toxic. We 
simply have no capacity for consuming them in their natural state. M any creatures eat young legumes quite greedily. Pigeons 
and other birds actually eat the entire legume plant, long before it has  a chance to flower. While young legumes are edible and 
nontoxic, one must question their nutritional makeup. Legumes are touted as excellent sources of protein, and their protein con tent is generally quite high. High protein levels 
are not necessarily a good thing, however, especially for humans, who see m to thrive best on a diet composed of less than 
10% of calories from protein. As it is in flesh, dairy, and eggs, the protein in  legumes is rich in the amino acid methionine, 
which contains high amounts of the acidic mineral sulfur. The carbohydrate levels of legumes are also high enough to make them dif ficult to digest due to the high protein levels. Invariably when eating legumes, humans get gassy, an indication t hat their digestive processes have been compromised. The 
lack of vitamin C, an essential nutrient for humans, also makes legum es a very poor food choice. From standpoints of taste, nutrition, digestion, and toxicity, legumes sim ply do not make a viable food option for humans. To fully digest starchy foods—grains, roots and tubers, and legumes—an a nimal must produce large quantities of starch- 
digesting enzymes (amylases). Granivores, root grubbers, and legume e aters all secrete sufficient amylase to digest large quantitie s of 
starch. If you view a cow chewing on hay, salivary amylase is dripping i nto the field. In contrast, the human body produces salivary 
amylase (also called ptyalin) of extremely limited strength and in  relatively low amounts, sufficient only to break down small amounts 
of starch, such as would be found in fruit that is not fully ripened. The body al so produces small quantities of pancreatic amylase for 
somewhat limited starch digestion in the intestines. When humans can freely eat starchy grains, roots, tubers, and legume s such as wheat, potatoes, and lentils in their raw state to 
satiation and proclaim the experience a gourmet treat, then both you and I  might accede that we are starch eaters. Are We Consumers of Fermented Foods. Substantially all Americans eat fermented and otherwise decompose d substances that are called foods. Most are derived from milk. Some are made from grains (especially the alcohols), fruits (wines a nd certain vinegars), legumes (especially the soy bean and its 
suite of putrefactive products), and decomposed meats. Carbohydrates ferment when fungi and bacteria decompose them. Ferment ed carbohydrates produce alcohol, acetic acid 
(vinegar), and lactic acid, as well as methane and carbon dioxide. Proteins putrefy (rot) when they decompose. Decomposed primarily by anaerobi c bacteria but also by fungi (yeast) and 
aerobic bacteria, proteins produce as end products ptomaines (cadaverine, mus carine, neurine, ptomatropine, putrescine, and 
others), indoles, leukomaines, skatoles, mercaptans, ammonia, methane, hydr ogen sulfide, and yet other toxic compounds. Fats become rancid and repulsive when they oxidize and decompose. Oddly, we discard fermented grapes, yet we drink their fermentation end produ ct (wine). Odder still, most Americans 
consume with abandon something that never occurred in nature—a pa thogenic putrefactive product called cheese. W e make cheese 
by taking the casein portion of milk and rotting it with types of bacteria th at yield by-products that many palates have come to 
appreciate. Cheese represents about all the decomposition products in a sin gle package: putrefactive proteins, fermented 
carbohydrates, and rancid fats. You need only to refer to a good dictionary to learn just how poisonous these subst ances are. Yet, Americans eat billions 
upon billions of pounds of cheese annually. To assert that all these poisons g oing into the system cause anything less than sickness, 
disease, and debility is misrepresentation. Tumors and cancer are often  the result. Given that humans could not consume these types of decomposed products in nat ure without tools and containers, we may 
safely categorize them as unnatural, and certainly not among the f oods we would primarily use for sustenance. Are We Sucklings of Animals. I doubt that humans ever directly suckled cattle, goats, mares, camels, s heep, and other animals. And, of course, the idea of doing 
this is obnoxious to our disposition. The practice of drinking animal milk as a regular part of our adult  diet is only a few hundred years old. Before the advent of 
the combustion engine, it was not possible to plow, sow, and harvest sufficien t grain for most families to support more than just a 
cow or two. Giving cow’s milk to children  in lieu of mother’s milk is also a relatively new practice that dat es back only about two 
hundred years. Certain Arabic and African peoples have used animal milk for millen nia, but the amount used was extremely small. True, 
certain peoples, like the Masai, live substantially on milk and blood, but thes e are by no means our natural foods. They do so 
primarily for lack of other easily obtainable foods. No other animals in nature drink the milk of another species; they know in stinctively that the milk from their mothers is the 
perfect food to support their rapid growth and to provide the precise nutrient mi x their developing bodies require. We are no more 
designed for cow’s milk than for pig’s milk or rat’s milk or giraffe’s mi lk … or vice versa. Milk-drinking is pathogenic. If milk and milk products were discontinued today, millions of people would cease to suffer 
sicknesses and pathologies within a short period. 12  In fact, if this one dietary practice alone were discontinued, the hospit als would 
virtually empty out and physicians’ waiting rooms would be mostly  vacated. Humans are most certainly designed by nature as sucklings—but onl y for their early years of life, and only of their own 
mother’s milk. W e would do ourselves an astronomical favor if we had the good se nse to stop consuming milk after weaning age, as 
does every other milk-drinking creature on Earth. Are We Eaters of Nuts, Seeds, and Other High-Fat Plants. There is no doubt but that early humans in nature did consume some nuts an d seeds, though certainly plants create them for 
reproduction, not for consumption. The various types of seeds, most prominently g rains, weeds, fruit seeds, and nuts (all nuts are 
seeds) have protective outer coatings that range in texture from fi brous to hard and woody. We do not have razor-sharp teeth and 
massive jaw power that squirrels use to extract nuts from their she lls. Both seeds and nuts are endowed with nutrients sufficient to initiat e and sustain a certain minimum growth of their plants. As 
with all foods, we derive the greatest nutritional benefit from nuts a nd seeds when we eat them in their raw state. Heated fats and 
proteins are quite pathogenic—even carcinogenic. W e should eat nu ts raw or not at all. Most people in modern society, however, have never tasted truly raw nuts a nd seeds. High in water content, genuinely raw 
nuts have a texture more like apples (in the case of almonds) or nut butte rs (in the case of macadamias). Virtually all commercially 
available nuts and seeds have been oven-dehydrated at “low” temper atures, (perhaps 160 F) often for days, to prevent them from 
going moldy, thus extending their shelf life. Unfortunately, our ability to digest nuts and seeds—whether raw, dehy drated, or heated—is rather poor. Ranging from about 
55 to 85% fat, nuts and seeds are best eaten infrequently and in very small a mounts. Even then, their breakdown into fatty acids, 
amino acids, and glucose requires a drawn-out process that takes hours. Fat s may lie in the small intestine for several hours before 
the gallbladder secretes bile with which to emulsify (break down and liqu efy) them. In contrast, high-fat fruits like avocados, durians, akees, breadfruit, an d olives are rich in easily digestible fats (when ripe). These fruits range in fat content from 30% of calories (durian) to 77% (av ocado). Coconut meat, also high in fat (ranging perhaps 
20 to 80%, depending on maturity), is easily digested in the jelly-like state  but almost impossible to digest when matured and 
hardened. Leafy greens and other vegetables, when eaten raw and fresh, contain  a small amount of fatty acids in an easily usable state. However, some (primarily the cruciferous vegetables) contain unwa nted toxic sulfur compounds. We derive our best predigested 
fats adequate to meet our fatty-acid needs from fruits and tender leave s. Biologically we are not a species of fat eaters, but merely incidental  eaters of fats. Although an occasional avocado or small 
handful of nuts and seeds is quite satisfying and complements our natur al diet, we are primarily carbohydrate eaters. Are W e Omnivores—That Is, All of the Above. Of course, humans are omnivores in practice, with the aid of cook stoves, condi ments, taste excitants, camouflaging seasonings, 
spices and so on. But, in nature, we could not do more than eat foods in season, and we w ould have to eat them in the raw state on 
the basis of their effect on our taste buds. Without tools, technology, packagi ng and containerization, and taste-masking agents, we 
would soon lose our omnivorous tendencies out in the wild … and wet, sweet fruit  would look better and better every day. We’re Frugivores. In nature, humans would be frugivores only. A frugivore is a creature  that lives primarily on fruits, with the addition of tender 
greens. (This includes the nonsweet seeded fruits we generally ea t with vegetables, such as tomatoes, cucumbers, peppers, okra, 
zucchini and other squashes, and eggplant. ) Like all animals, we can in deed survive (albeit less successfully) on a wide variety of 
foods. Nonetheless, our bodies are designed to thrive on a diet of mainly fruit. Some people adopt a totally fruitarian diet, meaning they attempt to live e xclusively on fruits, but I do not recommend this 
practice. Dark-green leafy vegetables provide minerals and other nut rients essential for optimum nutrition and health. Nutritionally, fruit comes closer to satisfying all of our needs (inc luding, of course, our desire for delicious soul-exalting fare) 
than any other food, as meat does for a carnivore. Fruits are replete with  the nutrients our bodies require— in the proportions that 
we need them. Y es, some vegetables and other foods may have “more” of a particular n utrient or class of nutrients, but fruits tend 
to contain the types and quantities of nutrients our bodies require. More does  not mean better. Humans are sweet seekers by nature, designed to eat sweet fruits. Tas te buds on the very tips of our tongues recognize sweet 
tastes. Most of us are attracted to sweet fruits in their raw state, r egardless of what else our culture and circumstances dispose us to 
eat. When ripened, fruits accommodatingly convert their carbohydrate compone nts into glucose and fructose, simple sugars we 
can use without further digestion. Enzymes in the fruit convert prot eins into amino acids and fats into fatty acids and glycerols. Thus, 
when we eat fruits, all we need do is savor their goodness. Fruits and Tender Greens. You may have noticed that I described the frugivorous diet as one consisti ng primarily of fruits, with the addition of tender greens. Where do the rest of the vegetables fit into this picture. This may shock you, but by every indication, our digestive physiology was desi gned to process the soft, water-soluble fibers in 
fruits and tender leaves, almost exclusively. It is true that cruciferous vegetables like broccoli, cauliflower, kal e, collards, Brussels sprouts, and cabbage are loaded with 
nutrients, including soluble fiber. But they also contain cellulose a nd other tough, difficult-to-digest fibers. These vegetables are best 
digested when eaten in their youngest and most tender state. For best re sults, they must be thoroughly chewed or mechanically 
predigested via the use of a blender or shredding device. To assimilate completely, we need to digest completely, and every time we  eat foods that are more difficult to digest, we 
compromise our nutrition and, over time, our health. To be sure, we are capable of  swallowing vegetation that contains cellulose and 
other rough, insoluble fibers, but such foods put a great load on our organs of diges tion and elimination. Where health is concerned, we want to derive the greatest benefits w hile minimizing the detriments or outright harm. When we 
apply this idea to nutrition, we are looking for “enough” of the nutrients  we need, not necessarily the most we can get. The 
indigestible fibers in the harder-textured vegetables are very dif ficult for our bodies to digest, relative to the soft, soluble fibers in 
fruits and tender leafy greens. Thus, they are not among our ideal foods. Our Senses Confirm 
Imagine for a moment that you are about to eat some delicious piece of fr uit—perhaps a grape, peach, melon, banana, apple, plum, 
orange, mango, fig, or berry … you choose the variety. Picture holding the f ruit in your hand, admiring its beauty. Y ou hold it to your 
nose and smell its sweet and distinctive fragrance. It tempts you to ta ke a bite, but first you appreciate the fruit in your mind just a 
little more, increasing the pleasure. At this point, your mouth should be  watering. The fruit requires no preparation; it is a finished product, ready to be consumed exactly as Nature prepared it. For humans, fruit s attract the eye, tantalize the sense of smell, and 
taste divine in their raw, natural, ripe state. Now, try the same thing again, this time imagining a field of wheat, or  a herd of cattle, or a flock of birds in flight. Does your 
mouth water. When pressed to imagine themselves foraging for food in na ture, even those who vehemently question the frugivorous 
disposition of man have to admit that they would choose little other than fr uits. This does not mean we should eat fruits totally and 
exclusively in our present circumstances, but it does mean that, in n ature, they would comprise the overwhelming majority of our 
food choices. Allowing fruit to predominate in your diet makes succeeding on the 80/10/10  plan easier than any other approach to eating, 
raw or cooked. To develop the healthiest and sanest relationship with food, and in  order to stick with a dietary plan that will work 
for you for the rest of your life, have all the fruit you care for to take you t hrough your breakfast and lunch meals. Even your 
vegetable meals should begin with fruit, as much as you like, until you a re certain that you will not crave sweets at the end of the 
meal. Chapter 2. Meeting Fruit Concerns Head-On 
 
Do you know anybody whose candida was caused by eating fruit. Do you know anybody whose diabetes was caused by eating fruit. Do you know anybody whose cancer was caused by eating fruit. If eating fruit didn’t cause these maladies, 
why would you believe that avoiding fruit would correct them. In spite of the fact that fruit has been treated as health food throughou t history, condemning fruit has come into vogue in many 
circles of late. Invariably, when people hear me espousing a diet that is  exceptionally high in fruit, they respond with a well-rehearsed 
litany of questions—the supposed “facts” about the many hazards of fru it eating. Is there any truth to the allegations about the supposed evils of fruit. Let us take some time to look at a few of them. Fruit and Blood Sugar 
The mistaken notion that eating fruit causes blood-sugar problems under lies most admonitions to steer clear of fruit, especially 
sweet fruit. Granted, high blood sugar does lead to candida outbreaks, chronic fa tigue, hyper- and hypoglycemia, diabetes, and a 
host of other conditions and diseases, even cancer. “Too much” sugar is inde ed bad for you, though it is almost impossible to get too 
much sugar from the consumption of fresh fruit. Eating fruit is not t he cause of blood sugar problems … it’s just not that simple. I know what I am saying sounds counterintuitive. It is something like t elling people that osteoporosis is not a calcium problem 
(see “The Dangers of Eating More Than 10% Protein”). Nevertheless, both are true: taking in more calcium cannot alone shore up 
brittle, osteoporotic bones … and fruit sugar alone does not cause high blood sugar. Stick with me, if you will, while I explain the 
real cause. Eating a diet of mostly fruit, including generous amounts of fresh swe et fruit, does not create high blood sugar … not when you 
are eating a low-fat diet, that is. When the system is not gummed up wi th excess fat, the sugar from even “high-glycemic” fruit moves 
easily in and then out of the blood. Blood-sugar levels in a healthy individual  do not vary much in spite of changes in the diet. Glycemic Index and Glycemic Load 
The glycemic index ranks carbohydrate foods based on how quickly they break down du ring digestion and thus how quickly 
their sugars enter the blood. Essentially, the glycemic index tells  you how quickly carbohydrates turn into blood sugar. However, it 
doesn’t tell you how much of that carbohydrate is in a serving of any food. Bot h items of information are essential in order to 
understand a food’s effect on blood sugar. That is where the concept of “glycemic load” comes in. Used in conjunct ion with the glycemic index, glycemic load information 
more accurately predicts the extent to which a food elevates blood glucose  than does the glycemic index by itself. This is because by 
definition, the glycemic index measures carbohydrate quality  but not quantity. The glycemic load is calculated by multiplying a food’s glycemic i ndex value by the amount of available carbohydrate per 
serving (grams of carbohydrates less fiber), then dividing by 100. 13  Thus, fruits, which are mostly water, have a low glycemic load 
even though they rate high on the glycemic index. For example, bananas  rate 52 on the glycemic index (where glucose = 100). But 
because water accounts for 75% of the weight of a banana, its glycemic loa d is only 12 (52  24 grams of carbs, divided by 100 = 
12; based on a 118-gram medium-sized banana). All fruits fall into the low or medium categories on glycemic load/glycemic 
index charts  (with the exception of watermelon, whose GI ranks barely high). It is best to eat fruit fresh, as drying and dehydrating both concentrate  fruit sugars to an unnatural level that the body is not 
designed to handle. It is also important to eat fruit whole, not juiced, as the  fiber in fruit slows sugar absorption to its natural speed. In all cases and with all foods, whole, fresh, ripe, raw, and unprocessed is the  way to go. As you will see in the upcoming pages, the speed at which sugar enters t he blood is not really the most important factor. When 
fruits are eaten whole, with their fiber intact, as part of a low-fat di et, their sugars do indeed enter the bloodstream relatively quickly. But then they also exit just as quickly, making them the ideal food, one tha t provides the perfect fuel for human consumption. The American Diabetes Association says, “The use of added fructose  as a sweetening agent is not recommended; however, there is no reason to recommend that people with diabetes avoid naturally oc curring fructose in fruits, vegetables, and other 
foods. ” 14  
 
 
Fat, Not Fruit, Causes Blood-Sugar Problems 
The raw food movement is renowned for its use of great quantities of nuts, s eeds, avocados, olives, flax and olive oil, coconuts, and 
other high-fat foods. On a high-fat diet, whether cooked or raw, people experien ce nutritional deficiencies, plummeting energy, 
hormone imbalances, intense cravings, and mood swings … everything goe s haywire, not the least of which is blood sugar. The mechanism that causes blood sugar to rise out of control is actual ly very easy to understand. Let’s begin with a highly simplified description of how our bodies process sugar. Sugar’s Three-Stage Journey Through the Body 
To be used as fuel for our cells, the sugars we eat travel a three-stag e journey through our bodies: 
 
Stage 1: Sugars start out in the digestive tract when we eat them. Stage 2: They pass through the intestinal wall, into the bloodstream. Stage 3: They then move smoothly and easily out of the bloodstream and into our  cells. This occurs rapidly, often in minutes. When we eat a high-fat diet, the sugar gets trapped in stage 2, and the body w orks overtime, sometimes to the point of exhaustion 
and disease, in an effort to move the sugar out of the bloodstream. 15  Meanwhile, the sugar backs up in the blood, creating sustained, 
elevated blood sugar that wreaks havoc on the body in the form of candida, fatigu e, diabetes, etc. The Role of Insulin 
What happens in the presence of fat that causes sugar to pile up in our bloods tream. It has to do with the pancreas. Under the 
direction of the brain, the pancreas is responsible for producing  a hormone known as insulin. One of insulin’s roles is to function as a 
doorman, allowing sugar molecules in the blood to find an insulin receptor in  the blood vessel wall. The insulin can then transport the 
sugar molecule through the blood vessel membrane to the interstitial  fluid (the fluid between the cells) and continue to escort sugar 
across another barrier—the cell membrane—and into the cell its elf. In the body, fat provides many needed insulating functions, including cons erving body heat, absorbing shock, preventing too 
much water from escaping through the skin, and protecting nerve fibers. But excess dietary fat in the bloodstream creates some 
negative insulating effects. When we eat too much fatty food, a thin coating of fat lines the blood vesse l walls, the cells’ insulin- 
receptor sites, the sugar molecules, as well as the insulin itsel f. These fats can take a full day or more to “clear” from the blood, all 
the while inhibiting normal metabolic activity, and preventing the se various structures from communicating with each other. Thus, too much fat in the blood impedes the movement of sugar out of the bloodstrea m. This results in an overall rise in blood 
sugar, as sugars continue to travel from the digestive tract (stag e 1) into the blood (stage 2) but cannot escape from the blood so 
they can be delivered to the cells (stage 3), which await their fuel. High-Fat, Low-Carb Diets Raise Insulin Levels 16  
The entire theoretical framework of low-carb diets, like Atkins and The  Zone, hang upon the notion that insulin is the root of 
all evil. In the view of their promoters, one needs to limit carbohydrate in take in order to limit insulin release. What they overlook is 
that protein- and fat-rich foods may induce substantial insulin secr etion as well. For example: 
 
A quarter pound of beef raises insulin levels in diabetics as much as a qu arter pound of straight sugar. ( Diabetes Care 7
(1984):465) 
Cheese and beef elevate insulin levels higher than “dreaded” hi gh-carbohydrate foods like pasta. ( American Journal of 
Clinical Nutrition 50 (1997):1264) 
A single burger’s worth of beef, or three slices of cheddar, boost ins ulin levels more than almost two cups of cooked pasta. (American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 50 (1997):1264) 
 
In fact, the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition article referred to above reports that meat, compared to the amount of 
blood sugar it releases, seems to cause the most insulin secretion of an y food tested. A study done at Tufts University, for example, presented at the 2003 Americ an Heart Association convention, compared four 
popular diets for a year. Out of the four (W eight W atchers, The Zone Di et, the Atkins Diet, and the Ornish Diet), Ornish’s 
vegetarian diet (almost all carbohydrates) was the only one to signi ficantly lower insulin (27%), even though that’s supposedly what 
The Zone and Atkins (very little carbohydrates) diets were designed t o do. 17 
 
Eating a high-fat diet, cooked or raw, contributes not peripherally, but directly and causally  to all of the misleadingly named 
“blood-sugar metabolic disorders. ” Given this new perspective, one m ight more accurately classify these diseases as “lipid metaboli c 
disorders. ” 
 But What About Those Live Blood Analyses. It is true. Raw food experts give lectures, write books, and travel with conv incing stories, slide shows, and videos that support their 
stance against fruit. How can it be denied. Right there before our eyes, they show us pictures from their dark-field microscopes. We 
can see for ourselves the misshapen, cloudy, fungus- and yeast-infec ted blood cells of real patients who were so misguided as to eat 
a diet high in fruit. Their “scientific” information seems conclusive: Fruit is cle arly the culprit in blood-sugar problems for raw fooders. But let’s
step back for a minute: Take a look at the high-fat recipes in the books, newsle tters, and websites of those so quick to tell you to 
avoid fruit. Note the fat-laden foods they serve guests at their insti tutes, retreats, and rejuvenation centers. Pay attention to the ric h 
tasty morsels they serve up at food demos and festival booths. Nuts, seeds, and avocados all run 75% fat or more, as a percentage of their calor ies. Oils are 100% fat. It takes very little of 
these foods to push us way over the edge in terms of blood fat. And raw fooders, as I will demonstrate, do not eat “very little” of 
these foods. Are you starting to see your raw diet and your intolerance for fruit in a new light. Timing Is Not Everything 
Unfortunately, taking care to avoid sugar/fat combinations at the sam e meal is not sufficient to alleviate blood-sugar problems. Eating 
a high-fat diet creates elevated blood sugar whenever fruit and oth er sweets are eaten, regardless of timing. Here’s why: 
Sugars require little time in the stomach. Immediately upon putting  a simple sweet fruit into your mouth, some of the sugars are 
absorbed into the bloodstream from under the tongue. Fruit eaten alone or in si mple, well-chosen combination on an empty stomach 
requires only a few minutes in the stomach before passing to the small  intestines, where the sugars can be quickly absorbed. Most of 
the sugar from fruit travels from the intestines, to the bloodstream, a nd then to the cells where they are needed within minutes of its 
consumption. Fats, however, require a much longer period of time, often twelve to twenty -four hours or more, before they reach their 
destination, the cells. In the stomach, fats are subjected to a digestiv e process that usually takes several hours. When they finally do 
proceed to the small intestine, they are absorbed into the lymphatic syst em, where they often spend twelve hours or more before 
passing to the bloodstream. Most important, fats linger in the bloodstream  for many hours longer than do sugars. On a high-fat diet, therefore, the bloodstream always contains an exce ssive quantity of fat, and more is coming in at almost 
every meal. Essentially, even when you eat a fruit meal alone and wa it hours before eating fat, those sugars are likely to mix in your 
bloodstream with the fats you ate the day before. This is the primary reason raw fooders experience digestive diffi culties, malaise, “spaciness,” and blood-sugar disorders 
whenever they eat fruit. When your diet is predominated by nut pâ tés, seed cheeses, and flax crackers, it’s no wonder you’re told 
not to eat fruit. Whether or not we eat fruit in the presence of such tremendously high levels of fat, we set our selves up for 
health problems and inability to remain raw. Sugar + Fat = High Blood Sugar 
Too much sugar in the blood is as life threatening as too little, and both are  dangerous for human health. Unfortunately, the fruit- 
phobic “experts” focus on the wrong portion of the equation, keeping ra w fooders so busy avoiding fruit that they somehow miss the 
fact that they are eating more  fat than our friends who eat standard American fare. In Chapter 8, I out line just how much more. Fruit and Chronic Fatigue 
“How could the consumption of fruit be connected to chronic fatigue,” I w ondered years ago, after hearing about the millionth 
person tell me that is what they had heard. After all, fruit is consi dered “energy food,” isn’t it. I researched the physiology of chronic 
fatigue a little more deeply and was intrigued by what I found. When pancreatic function is sluggish, as happens when the pancreas  is fatigued or overused, the adrenal glands serve as a 
backup mechanism. The adrenals produce the hormone epinephrine (adrenali ne), which stimulates pancreatic function and effectively 
increases insulin production. As I described in the previous section, abnormally high fat exists in th e blood for several hours every time we eat a high-fat 
meal. As blood-fat levels rise, the “normal” level of pancreatic  function is simply insufficient to clear sugars from the bloodstr eam. Eventually, if we eat a high-fat diet for a long enough period of time, the  pancreas begins to fail at producing sufficient insulin to 
maintain healthy blood-sugar levels. Rather than the typical gent le rise-and-fall fluctuations in blood sugar, we begin to experience 
increasingly higher peaks and deeper valleys. Blood-sugar levels becom e unstable due to the overconsumption of fat in the diet. This sets up a situation where most of us rely upon adrenal-assisted pan creatic function virtually every time we eat, placing 
constant excessive demands upon both our pancreas and adrenals. This adren al/pancreas relationship was designed for what is 
known as the “fight-or-flight” response, an appropriate reaction t o potentially life-threatening conditions. This response would rar ely 
be called upon if we lived in a natural setting, where, for example, we mig ht occasionally reach the top of a hill at the same time as a bear with cubs, but from opposite sides. In today’s world, however, we experience more adrenal-triggering res ponses than we did in yesteryear. They seem to come 
hourly instead of weekly. Almost every time we drive a car in the city, we experience at least one close call worthy of some degree 
of adrenal response. W e’re a Society of Adrenaline Junkies 
As a society, we have very much become adrenaline junkies. W e are a ddicted to stimulation, and rely upon our next “fix” 
constantly. From the shock of the alarm clock and our morning coffee, to the ne wspaper headlines and the extreme behavior on 
daytime talk shows, to movies, spectator sports, and “reality” televisi on shows designed to evoke intense emotions, to restaurant 
meals that are promoted more for their excitement value than for th eir nutrition, straight through the day till the eleven o’clock news
that is filled with stories of death and destruction, we just keep call ing for more adrenaline. Should there be a gap in the “action” we 
feel sleepy, a sure sign of exhaustion. We are literally living in a  state of constant adrenal fatigue. This excessive adrenal demand, coupled with the high stress of our Ame rican lifestyle, result in such extreme overuse of the 
adrenals that they eventually begin to fail. The symptoms of severe adrenal failure are referred to collectivel y as “chronic fatigue” in the United States, or ME (myalgic 
encephalomyelitis) in Europe. Of course, many signs and symptoms usual ly lead up to chronic fatigue; it rarely comes as a complete 
surprise. Lack of motivation, malaise, reliance upon stimulants, exces sive need for sleep, and bouts of mononucleosis are all 
indications of varying degrees of adrenal fatigue. The Sugar Highs of Children 
The adrenal response also plays a key role in what commonly happens to childr en at birthday parties. They eat generous portions of 
extremely sugary foods, and shortly thereafter they are running abou t wildly, literally out of control and almost out of their minds. What happens, and why doesn’t it happen to adults. The answer is rather simple. Young children do not drink coffee, smoke ciga rettes, use alarm clocks, or watch the eleven 
o’clock news. Life for them is interesting, full, and never dull. They ha ve a higher level of vitality than most adults, meaning that their
adrenal glands still function well. They are, however, on the same hig h-fat diet as adults. Thus, when children eat great quantities of sugar on birthdays, Hallow een, and other occasions, they set off a particularly 
vigorous version of the chain reaction I have described in this chapter. The fats remaining in their bloodstreams from their previous 
day’s meals block insulin function just as effectively as they  do in adults. Then their young and not-yet-exhausted adrenal glands 
“kick in” with a jolt, releasing a good amount of epinephrine. The next t hing you know, the children are running wild. Adults do not show such a response because they simply no longer have the vi tality to do so. Their adrenal glands are so 
fatigued that they require a true and serious emergency in order to fu nction at all. Do not blame the children for running wild. Epinephrine is not to blame either, nor is the sugar. Children on a low-fat diet do not show this same out-of-control response when  permitted to eat great quantities of sugar. It is 
the fat, more than the sugar, that is the culprit for their hyperac tivity. In the same way, fat—not sugar—is responsible for the ever - 
increasing incidence of chronic fatigue syndrome (by whatever nam e) that we see in the U. S. and the world today. Fruit and Candida 
The candida issue is riddled with more misinformation than perhaps any ot her area in health care. It requires a bit of unraveling 
to make sense of the true candida picture, as there is so much that needs t o be unlearned. Candida is a form of yeast, an organism that naturally occurs in human  blood. It is supposed to be there. This microbe 
consumes sugar for its food. As there is always sugar in the blood (when di abetics check their sugar levels, they are actually 
monitoring the amount of sugar in the blood), there is always food for the can dida organism. Candida Eats Excess Blood Sugar 
The size or “population” of the candida colony in the blood is directly det ermined by its food supply. If blood-sugar levels are 
always at a normal level, so is the size of the candida colony that lives  in the blood. When the sugar we eat leaves the blood to be 
distributed and used by the cells of the body, any excess yeast quickly dies off, as it is supposed to. Should blood-sugar levels rise, however, the candida organisms multip ly rapidly (“bloom”) as they consume the excess sugar. Once they have done so and blood-sugar levels come back down to normal, so does the nu mber of candida microbes. This ebb 
and flow happens as a normal part of human physiology and causes no health probl ems or uncomfortable symptoms. If fat levels stay chronically elevated due to a fat-rich diet, suga r remains in the bloodstream and feeds the large candida 
colonies instead of feeding the 18 trillion cells of the body. Starved for fuel, these cells can no longer metabolize energy. You 
become tired, and feel rundown. It is important to understand the implications of a rise in the blood-sugar  level. If the body is not able to reestablish normal blood-sugar levels, a dangerous situation exists. The only mechanism t hat remains for bringing the blood sugar back down is the 
candida. The candida microbe in our blood is actually a life-saving organism, one th at we do not ever want to eradicate. It functions as 
another backup system—a safety valve that helps to bring the blood-sugar level back down to normal in the event that the pancreas
and the adrenals fail at doing so. Causing Our Own Candida 
As I have described, most people create the conditions that cause pancreat ic and adrenal fatigue constantly, throughout the day and 
at every meal. It is therefore no surprise that candida issues plague  people until they actually change their lifestyle habits. Outbrea ks 
of candida are your wakeup call—a warning that your system is rapidly  approaching diabetes, and that you would do well to 
drastically curtail your fat consumption or face dire health conseque nces. Once again, the standard advice from the health community, traditiona l or alternative, tends to be seriously off base. Comprehending only symptomology and not the underlying fat-based cause, th ey tell us to avoid all sugar, including fruit. But fruit 
consumption did not cause the candida problem, and avoiding it will not address th e real issue. Granted, once you have gotten yourself into the candida quandary by overcons uming fat, eating sweet-tasting fruits may seem 
to exacerbate your problem. But eliminating fruit will not remove the c ause of your problem, just the symptoms. In the presence of 
too much fat in the blood, even a small amount of sugar, from any source, can re sult in abnormally high blood-sugar levels. Furthermore, to the extent that conscious attempts to lower blood sugar su cceed, you feel tired. Trying to eliminate candida by 
controlling a blood sugar problem inevitably fails, which is why we see th ousands of people battling candida for years without lasting 
success. Because all carbohydrate, fat, and protein that we eat is converted to sim ple sugar (glucose) if it is to be used by the cells for 
fuel, the way out of this cycle is not to eat less sugar, but to consume les s fat. When fat levels drop, the sugar starts to get processed 
and distributed again, and the yeast levels drop because there is no longer  excess sugar available for it to eat. The candida microbe is extremely short lived. If folks suffering from ca ndida would simply follow a low-fat diet, most of them 
would find that their candida issues were completely gone in a matter of  just a few days. Of course, they may still have the 
underlying pancreatic and adrenal fatigue issues to resolve. Healt h comes only from healthful living. Fruit and Diabetes 
As I mentioned in the introduction to this book, the U.
The text states that humans cannot consume legumes in their natural state because they are toxic and indigestible to most mammals.
What is the main reason humans do not consume legumes in their natural state?
The passage does not explicitly state a reason for humans not eating fermented foods, but it does mention that humans generally abhor dirt and refuse to eat anything covered in or tinged with dirt.
What is the primary reason that humans do not eat fermented foods?
The text does not explicitly state why raw food experts claim that fruit consumption is bad for health, but it does mention that some raw food experts advise against fruit consumption due to the high sugar content.
Why do raw food experts claim that fruit consumption is bad for health?
According to the passage, the primary source of fat in the bloodstream is excess fat consumption, which hinders the body's natural ability to process sugar and can lead to various health issues.
What is the primary source of fat in the bloodstream, and how does it affect the body?
The text states that the consumption of high amounts of fat in the diet can lead to digestive difficulties, as it can inhibit the body's natural ability to process sugar and create an environment in the body that is inhospitable to the growth of healthy cells.
Why do people who eat a high-fat diet experience digestive difficulties?