Government guidelines and short-sighted nu tritionists perpetuate this misconception, admonishing us to 
avoid simple sugars like the plague. Complex carbohydrates, found in grains and other starchy foods, do not taste swe et, even though they are made from chains 
of sugars. Complex carbohydrates are more difficult to digest than simple  carbohydrates. They require substantial amounts of energy 
in the conversion to sugar, and eating them cooked generates toxic byproduct s. 
Later in this chapter, I discuss each of these broad categories—com plex carbohydrates, whole-food simple carbohydrates, 
and refined simple carbohydrates—in some detail. Two Carbohydrate Camps 
Although there are a tremendous number of variations on the theme, two ba sic schools of thought exist regarding what to eat. There are the low-carbohydrate/high-fat proponents, and then there ar e the supporters of the high-carbohydrate/low-fat approach 
to food. The Low-Carb/High-Fat Faction 
In recent decades, high-fat (disguised as low-carb) diets have taken t he country by storm. In response, grocery stores, restaurants, 
fast-food chains, airlines, and even doughnut shops have begun marke ting their “low-carbohydrate” options with pride. If the trend 
continues, I predict that fat consumption will show a concerted rise by th e next time national statistics are released. Why? It’s a simple proposition: If your daily caloric “pie” is made  of only three slices (carbohydrate, protein, and fat), and you 
decrease one of them, one or both of the other two must increase. People generally believe that the decrease in carbohydrates i n their “low-carb” meals is offset by an increase in protein. Th is is 
incorrect. As I describe in the protein chapter, only exceedingly rarely does anyone  eat even a quarter of daily calories as protein. The 
vast majority of Americans eat about 16% protein each day, and only a very s mall fraction of the population consumes 20% protein 
or more. The balance of our daily calories, at least 80%, must come from some combination of carbohydrates and fat. Essentially, any 
decrease in carbohydrates must be accompanied by an increase in fat, ass uming we continue to consume the same number of 
calories. Unfortunately, each gram of fat contains more than twice the calori es of a gram of carbohydrate. So if you eat the same 
general quantity of food on a “low-carb” program, you will increase not on ly your percentage of calories from fat but also your total 
calories for the day. So how do people lose weight on low-carbohydrate diets? In brief, research shows  that these people invariably consume 
fewer total calories. Dr. Michael Greger’s superbly comprehensi ve and condemning eBook, Atkins Facts , sums it up well: 
In 2001, the medical journal Obesity Research published “Popular D iets: A Scientific Review.” Claiming to have reviewed 
every study ever done on low carb diets, they concluded, “In all cases, indiv iduals on high-fat, low carbohydrate diets lose weight because they consume fewer calories.” (Obesity Research 9(2001):1S.) I urge anyone who is considering destroying their health with any low -carbohydrate diet to read this riveting 47-page 
document in its entirety. 29  The following information is excerpted with Dr. Greger’s permiss ion from that publication. The Deadly Low-Carb Craze 
When one is eating enough carbohydrates, fat can be completely br oken down as well. But when one’s body runs out of carb fuel 
to burn, its only choice is to burn fat inefficiently using a pathway th at produces toxic byproducts like acetone and other so-called 
“ketones.”  
The kidney uses minerals such as potassium and calcium to help rid on e’s body of toxins like ketones. People on the Atkins 
Diet are urinating these minerals away. And critically low lev els in the blood of these electrolytes can lead to fatal cardiac 
arrhythmias—lethal heart rhythms. The current director of nutrition at Harvard advises that all physic ians should produce a handout warning about all of the 
adverse effects of the Atkins Diet. The symptoms of ketosis [a metabol ic state where the body “switches” from primarily using 
glucose for energy to primarily using fat for energy] include gener al tiredness, abrupt or gradually increasing weakness, dizziness, 
headaches, confusion, abdominal pain, irritability, nausea and vomiting, s leep problems, and bad breath. After running through the adverse effects associated with ketosis , the American institute for Cancer Research wrote, “Those 
are the short-term effects. The long-term effects are even more di re.” 
 
 
Dr. Greger’s full document details literally dozens of additional disea ses and problems brought on by this deadly diet, 
including: 
 
Malnutrition (compromised vitamin and mineral intake). Cancer, stroke, gout, osteoporosis, and diabetes. Potential kidney, bone, liver, and cholesterol abnormalities. Cardiac disease, arrhythmias, contractile function impairment. Impairment of physical activity. A rise in blood pressure with age. Rapid falling blood pressure upon standing (orthostatic hypotension). Sudden death. Dr. James W. Anderson, professor of medicine and clinical nutrition at th e University of Kentucky School of Medicine, said of 
the Atkins plan, “This is absolutely the worst diet you could imagin e for long-term obesity , heart disease, and some forms of cancer. If you wanted to ruin your health, you couldn’t find one worse than Atkins’ .”  
Having bought into the health-destroying mythology of low-carbohydrate  plans, some dieters avoid all  forms of carbohydrate, 
including grains, starchy vegetables, and fruit, attempting to deriv e their fuel instead from dangerously high proportions of fat and 
protein. Although we were designed with survival/backup mechanisms  that allow us to transform noncarbohydrate foods into sugar 
in case of starvation or other extreme conditions, this capability was i ntended to be invoked only on rare occasion. We pay a huge price in terms of health and optimum functioning wheneve r we force our bodies to resort to fat (or worse, to 
protein) to fuel our cells, as these conversions are chemically inef ficient compared with using carbohydrate for fuel. The body can 
only do so by expending substantial amounts of vital energy and producing toxi c waste products along the way. Proper body weight is an effortless, natural outcome of optimum health, but opt imum health is unlikely to result from a diet 
designed solely for weight loss. The followers of low-carbohydrate diets ma y achieve their weight-loss goals, but they imperil their 
long-term health in doing so. The admonition to consume tremendous amounts  of animal fat and protein is creating millions of cases 
of deadly disease that will become ever more apparent in the years to come. Starch-Based Diets: The Other Camp 
The vast majority of diet/nutrition experts whose patients and clien ts consistently experience reversal of degenerative disease, 
however—including renowned medical doctors like Dean Ornish, John McDou gall, Michael Klaper, Caldwell Esselstyn, Neal 
Barnard, Joel Fuhrman, Matthew Lederman and his wife Alona Pulde, and M ichael Greger, as well as professionals at the world- 
renowned Pritikin Longevity center—recommend that we base our diet s instead around starchy complex carbohydrates. These 
experts emphasize the importance of consuming starches (beans, legu mes, tubers, roots, starchy vegetables, whole grains, and 
whole-grain products). This advice could be seen as a step in the right direction, because, as I dis cussed in the introduction to this book, whole foods 
are always more nutritious than fractional foods. Yet due to the nutri ent losses incurred during the cooking process, no cooked food 
can be viewed as a true whole food. In fact, the cooking process itself actual ly removes the water from food (with the exception of 
certain dehydrated foods that are actually rehydrated as they are cooked i n water). No food whose water has been removed can 
realistically be viewed as a whole food. Agreeing that we are designed to run on simple sugars from carbohydrate , these highly respected professionals perceive that 
there is no other substantial whole-food source than complex carbohydrate s. Coming from a cooked food perspective, although 
they often acknowledge the nutritional superiority of raw fruits and v egetables, they do not consider basing the human diet on the 
sugars in fruit to be a feasible option, primarily for three reasons. First, when most people talk about eating fruits and vegetables, they ten d to think of the vegetables being predominant. Yet 
nutritionists are very familiar with the studies that have conc luded that a diet predominated by vegetables simply cannot supply 
sufficient caloric density to support human health. On a diet of just ve getables, I agree, it is highly unlikely that any human 
beings could maintain their health. They would lose weight at a steady  rate that would eventually become unsustainable, and 
they would suffer unyielding health decline. Second, in all likelihood, they simply don’t conceive of consuming fruit in  sufficient quantity to meet our caloric needs, even 
though doing so is quite pleasant and not difficult. They dismiss this possi bility wholesale, as it is entirely outside of their 
framework of reference. After all, who knows anyone who lives primarily  (but not  entirely) on fruit? I must admit that in 
today’s world, it is a rare individual who lives this way . Y et almost eve ry person I have ever met who eats great quantities of 
fruit has written a book extolling its virtues. There must be a reason t hese fruit eaters are so excited about the excellent health 
benefits that result from such a foodstyle. Finally, their misguided notions about the glycemic index and their un necessary worries about elevated triglyceride levels 
literally prevent them from considering fruit as a primary source of  calories. And so, in spite of the fact that fruit is universally 
promoted as the ultimate health food, and in spite of their own conclusions th at carbohydrates must predominate the diet in 
order for health to be possible, the majority of the world’s health pr ofessionals fail to see the obvious: A fruit-based diet is the 
finest possibility we have for developing optimum health. No one can deny that the low-fat vegetarian diets recommended by Pritiki n, McDougall, and their colleagues produce 
phenomenal results in terms of health, vitality, and body weight. When t hey substitute cooked starches for meat in their diets, 
program adherents show a marked reduction in cardiovascular disease and a n initial improvement in overall health and well-being. Yet starch-and-grain-based diet proponents still broadly miss the mark w here optimum nutrition and health are concerned. These complex carbohydrate foods lack in areas such as vitamin C, soluble f iber, and several hundred thousand phytonutrients. The 
experience of eating them can’t compare to the ease, simplicity , c leanliness, and natural satiation of eating sweet fruit. Grains: Pritikin’s Downfall 
In 1988, a gentleman named Ross Horne wrote a book entitled Improving on Pritikin—Y ou Can Do Better .30  His story is 
fascinating. In the 1970s, Horne was the “best disciple and staunchest supporter ” of Nathan Pritikin and his renowned 
grain-based diet. But after experiencing himself and observing in others some serious delete rious effects of the Pritikin plan 
(including arthritis and cancer), Horne wrote this book. In more than 150 pages, Horne details the health peri ls that 
accompany a grain-based diet and precisely where Pritikin’ s logic fails . With utmost respect for the superb results of 
Pritikin’ s low-fat plan in reversing heart disease, Horne points out the f ollowing: 
Although Pritikin’ s low-fat regimen is nothing short of miraculous in terms  of reversing heart disease, a healthy heart 
does not ensure a healthy person. Pritikin’ s emphasis on grain (and, interestin gly, its excess protein, which averages 
“only” 12% of calories) creates other health issues, ranging from arthritis to c ancer . Horne’ s book presents a compelling and spellbinding argument against the consump tion of grains. Here is an excerpt 
from Chapter 10, “Grains Are for the Birds”. 31 
Pritikin’s mission, first and foremost, was the reversal of coronary he art disease. This was uppermost in his mind and so his 
reasoning followed: 
 
We must lower fat, cholesterol and protein, the causes of atherosclerosi s and heart disease. To do this we must cut out foods 
of animal origin. We must become vegetarian. As most of the food we eat goes into the production of energy, if we cut out anima l foods which provide most of the energy in 
the American diet, as well as the protein, where then will we get our  energy and sufficient protein? The only other suitable foods available are cereals, root vegetables, and f ruits, because green vegetables are so low in food 
value that you would have to eat them constantly all day long like cattl e do to get enough. We must therefore choose between 
starch foods (cereals and potatoes) and fruit, and consider green vegetabl es mainly as a source of vitamins and minerals. So far Pritikin’s reasoning was correct, but at this point his pr eoccupation with eliminating atherosclerosis became an 
impediment. He knew that cholesterol and triglycerides (blood fats) were  the two factors most implicated in atherosclerosis and he 
was determined that his diet should diminish these in the blood to as low lev els as possible. Cutting out animal derived foods 
completely eliminated cholesterol and the harmful animal fats from  the diet, but what about triglycerides from vegetable sources? Pritikin knew that concentrated sugar of any kind—refined sugar or ev en extracted natural raw sugar—entered the bloodstream too 
quickly, upsetting the normal blood sugar levels and resulting in the produ ction of triglycerides, his number-two enemy. His reasoning 
logically continued: 
 
If out of our two remaining sources of energy and protein, one of them contain s sugar, a substance which elevates 
triglycerides, we cannot entertain it as a principal source of nouris hment. We must therefore severely ration fruit because of its sugar conte nt and rely almost entirely on cereals to provide our energy 
and protein. What was the outcome of this reasoning? It was a great outcome; Priti kin first of all eliminated his own atherosclerosis and 
then proceeded to eliminate the atherosclerosis in the bodies of thousands  of people who followed his teachings. This is how the current rage on complex carbohydrate started and why compa nies who make whole-grain bread, pasta, 
cookies and crackers are doing so well. But the reversal of heart disease and its associated problems is not the  be-all and end-all of health and longevity. There are 
other things to consider besides restoring good circulation. Unsticking t he blood is only the first step in optimizing health, the second 
step is to get the blood’s chemistry right. Pritikin had taken the lip o from lipotoxemia but much toxemia still remained. When he 
grouped the natural sugars contained in fruit in with other sugars, Pritkin had made  a fatal mistake. Because cooked grains create a condition known as acid toxemia, people who adher e to starch/grain-based diets eventually 
fall victim to cancer, arthritis, chronic fatigue, hypothyroidism, a nd a host of other health challenges. A diet of grains and cooked 
vegetables provides most of the vitamins; however, vitamin C—the  most important vitamin of all for the maintenance of tissue 
integrity and immune system function, and the most easily destroyed by heat—is seriously lacking unless the diet also includes a great
deal of fresh fruit. I maintain that whole, fresh fruits—“the other carbohydrate”—con tain precisely the fuel upon which we were designed to 
thrive. Let’s step back for a moment and examine in more detail the three typ es of carbohydrates—complex carbohydrates, refined 
simple sugars, and whole-food simple carbohydrate from fruits. Complex Carbohydrates 
We find complex carbohydrates in rice, corn, and other grains; roots and tuber s (potatoes, sweet potatoes, yams, carrots, 
beets, turnips, parsnips, and the like); and legumes (beans, peas, and lentil s). We make breads, cakes, pastas, cereals, pancakes, 
and pastries from these complex carbohydrate sources. Across the board, complex carbohydrate foods are nutritionally inferior to fr uits and vegetables, which are the two highest 
sources of vitamins, minerals, and phytonutrients. Grains, for example , are low in vitamins A, B, C, and E, as well as sodium, 
calcium, sulfur, and potassium. The phytic acid in grains is an antinu trient that drastically reduces zinc absorption. Legumes are low in 
vitamins A and C as well. Both grains and legumes contain more protein  than I would recommend eating in quantity (their 
percentages averaging in the teens and twenties, respectively) . With the exception of corn, peas, and some root vegetables like carrots and beet s, we cannot even attempt to eat most 
complex carbohydrate foods from the garden, unprocessed, in the form Nature gi ves them to us. Even if we can physically chew 
and swallow starchy carbohydrates, they are very difficult for our bodies  to digest. This is true whether they are eaten raw, soaked, 
cooked, processed, or refined. We do not have the digestive enzymes to break down the ol igosaccharides in beans, nor the 
polysaccharides (cellulose and other fibers) in grains and starchy v egetables, a sure sign that they are not designed for human 
consumption. Biochemistry tells us exactly which foods we can and cann ot digest, and therefore what foods we should eat. In the raw food world, creative chefs have devised recipes that utilize  soaked lentils, wild rice, oats and other grains. The 
dishes they create from these easier-to-swallow yet still subst antially indigestible “staples” allow them to replicate many of  the tastes and textures we once enjoyed with cooked food. In all cases, however, grains, st archy tubers, and legumes create nutritional, 
digestive, and health problems for those who eat them. Even when soaked and ra w, grains are acid forming in a body that needs to 
be slightly alkaline. Complex Carbohydrates and Disease 
Many research studies link diets high in complex carbohydrates to nega tive health conditions. The gluten-containing grains 32 
(primarily wheat, but also rye and barley) contain at least fifteen opi oid sequences, which are strongly addictive, morphine-like 
substances that have potent psychoactive properties and produce serious n eurological disorders, constipation, urinary retention, 
nausea, vomiting, cough suppression, and other symptoms. 33 
Gluten intolerance (celiac disease) contributes to or causes a wide  range of other diseases, including asthma, arthritis, chronic 
fatigue, Crohn’s disease, Type 2 diabetes, depression, eczema, fibromya lgia, irritable bowel syndrome, migraines, lymphoma, and 
gastrointestinal cancers. Gluten intolerance may also be linked to a utism, schizophrenia, and several autoimmune disorders. Masking the Bland Taste of Complex Carbs 
Most people who attempt to thrive on a high-carbohydrate diet devoid of fruit ru n into health problems. Primarily, this is because 
most starchy carbohydrates are completely unappealing if served as is . Society has proven repeatedly for more than forty years that 
people will not, in fact cannot gravitate toward a diet dominated by plain, undr essed complex carbohydrates. Brain-destroying, neurotoxic, and profoundly addictive flavor enhance rs, called “excitotoxins,” are added to almost all 
processed foods, especially frozen and diet foods. 34 
 
Excitotoxins Enhance Flavor While Poisoning Our Foo ds 
In his book, Excitotoxins: The Taste That Kills, Russell L. Blaylock, MD suggests that the prolific use of excitotoxic f lavor 
enhancers in almost all processed foods is a major cause of obesity and disea se in our country. The most common and dangerous excitotoxins include Nutrasweet, (aspart ame) and MSG and its derivatives, which show up 
on food labels as innocuous-sounding ingredients like hydrolyzed vegetable  protein, autolysis yeast, yeast extract, textured protein, 
soy protein extract, sodium caseinate, natural flavoring, and spices. 35  
Excitotoxins are substances that react with specialized receptors  in the brain in such a way as to lead to destruction of certain 
types of brain cells. These highly addictive, neurotoxic substances ac celerate aging and stimulate the nervous system, causing 
neurodegenerative diseases, neurological disorders, endocrine disorders , heart attacks, strokes, tumors, vision loss, migraines, 
seizures, and many other diseases. They also worsen or mimic the symptom s of such diseases and conditions as fibromyalgia, MS, 
lupus, ADD, diabetes, Alzheimer’s, chronic fatigue, and depression . Excitotoxins are used heavily in both sweet and salty snack foods, and no law s restrict the use of these substances. Fast-food 
chains hire food chemists to load our pizzas, tacos, fried chicken, bento boxes, an d the like with as much of these deadly additives 
as possible, which keep us feeling “high” and coming back for more. A ll of the salty soy products, as well, (whether or not they 
purport to contain MSG) are laden with highly excitotoxic free glutam ates. This is of special concern for the raw food community, 
which tends to consume a tremendous amount of soy sauce, shoyu, liquid aminos , miso, and tamari. In his personal film documentary , “Supersize Me,”  Morgan Spurlock created a vivid description of his experience living 
exclusively on McDonalds’ food for 30 consecutive days. Although he did not sp ecifically use the term “excitotoxins,” he clearly 
described the symptoms of addiction and withdrawal he experienced during th at month. News of the widespread use of excitotoxic 
additives in junk foods is getting enough press that people are com ing to perceive a whole new level of reality in the 1960s Lay’s 
potato chip jingle “nobody can eat just one.” Can you forget the tast e of Planter’s dry-roasted peanuts? (“Monosodium glutamate” 
sits unabashedly on the label). Other junk foods, like Frito Lay’s “pla yfully mischievous” Cheetos snacks, boast multiple sources of 
excitotoxic free glutamate. (Flamin’ Hot Cheese Flavored snacks, for  example, list monosodium glutamate, autolyzed yeast extract, 
hydrolyzed soy protein, and sodium caseinate on the ingredient label.) Fiber 
Our commonly consumed cooked foods—meats and refined grain products—are ex tremely low in fiber. In fact, animal foods 
contain no fiber. Many health-minded people, thinking they are doing their bodies a favor, ende avor to eat whole-grain complex carbohydrates 
to get fiber in their diets. They are on the right track, as fiber is wh at we remove from whole grains in order to make refined grains— 
and dietary fiber is absolutely essential for digestive and overall he alth. Unfortunately, these health seekers have been misled to believe tha t the fiber in grains is good for us. This is not true. There 
are two broad categories of fiber, referred to as soluble and insoluble. Soluble f iber is an essential nutrient (one we cannot make 
within our bodies and must therefore eat), found primarily in fruits and t o some degree in vegetables. It absorbs water and helps to 
keep the stool bulky and soft. It functions as a sticky gel-like absorptive medi um to keep all substances moving through the intestines. Insoluble fiber is found primarily in grains. Pectin and guar are the two most common soluble fibers. They are used in re cipes as thickeners because of their ability to hold 
water. They also slow sugar absorption from the intestines, functionin g as built-in protection that prevent the sugars in fruits from 
being absorbed into the bloodstream too rapidly. Ironically, in their isolated for m, pectin and guar are being used by the medical 
establishment in the treatment of diabetics, while doctors insist th at diabetics should not consume fruit. Before doctors truly understood the function of fiber, it used to be describ ed as a “scrub brush” for the intestines. The 
insoluble fibers in grains (raw, sprouted, or cooked), however, are harsh on our de licate digestive tracts. Since they do not absorb 
water, their edges and points remain sharp. These fibers literally sc rape at the delicate walls of our intestines, irritating them and 
causing a thickening of the intestinal wall. This makes the fiber  less irritating but also reduces the body’s ability to absorb nut rients. This irritation of the intestines and colon is what gives bran its re putation for encouraging bowel function. The body senses an 
irritant and attempts to expel it as rapidly as possible, along with whate ver else is in the colon at the time. Anyone who uses bran 
fiber for this purpose has noticed that after a short time they must inc rease the quantity of bran that they use in order to get the same 
effect. The more the body increases the thickness of its mucous membran e to protect itself from irritation, the more bran must be 
ingested. It is an endless cycle, similar to that of all substance abus e. 
Reduced absorption, impeded assimilation, adhesion development, scar-tissue  formation, leaky gut syndrome, irritable bowel 
syndrome, spastic colon, colon blockages, diverticulitis, ulcerative c olitis, Crohn’s disease, and other digestive maladies are often the 
outcome of consuming insufficient fiber or fiber that is too harsh. The s oft, soluble fibers found in fruits and vegetables are necessary 
for optimum digestive and colon function. Refined Simple Carbohydrates: Junk Food 
The second category of carbohydrates is the refined simple carbohydrates  found in cookies, cakes, candies, and other 
confections. Refined sugars are also added to drinks, cereals, complex carbohy drate foods of all types, and anywhere else that you 
see the word “sweetener” or “sweetened.” If the ingredient list inc ludes corn syrup, fructose, galactose, sucrose, dextrose, 
maltodextrin, dextrin, maltose, levulose, lactose, or almost any word ending  in “ose,” refined sugars have been added. If people don’t eat lots of fruit, they typically eat something swe et at almost every meal anyway . Orange juice, sweetened 
cereals, jellies, jams, sweet rolls, and sugar in coffee ensure that  the day starts off with sweets. Lunches and dinners usually are not 
complete unless some type of sweet dessert follows. Be it coffee and cake, mi lk and cookies, or any of dozens of other typical 
combinations, we have found a way to replace the healthy “sweet and j uicy” provided by fruit with unhealthy , refined sweet and 
(well … wet, or at least gooey) choices. Refined simple sugars, a category that includes table sugar, are t he classic all-time-best examples of “empty calories,” that is , 
calories without their full complement of original nutrients inta ct. In all forms of refined foods, some part or parts of the original 
nutrient package have been removed. Regardless of method, the refining of  a food reduces its nutritional value and creates nutrient 
imbalances. In my opinion, refined foods have no place in the diet of anyone wis hing to improve their nutrition or any aspect of their 
health. Foods can contain partially empty or completely empty calories, depending upon  the amount of refinement the food has 
undergone. When people add such empty calories to other ingredients t o create a dish, I refer to the finished product as “junk 
food.”  
Consumers have come to mentally lump all sugars—in fact all carb ohydrates—into one group, to which they attribute mostly 
negative connotations. Along with complex carbohydrates, refined sw eets and fruits are commonly considered nothing but “another 
source of sugar.”  
The meat and dairy industries like to point fingers at sugars, declarin g them synonymous with empty calories. They have done 
such a good job of marketing that to this day most people do not understand the differ ences between refined simple sugars (empty- 
calorie junk foods) and the simple sugars in fruit (health food), thinki ng that “sugar is sugar.”  
The empty calories in refined simple carbohydrates are so devoid of food value  as to bankrupt you nutritionally while they also 
function as stimulants. Both the stimulation and the nutritional de ficit accelerate aging. Fruits: Whole-Food Simple Carbohydrates 
Whole, fresh fruit is the third and most overlooked source of carbohydrates. Fr uit comes in an intricate, highly nutritious 
package that matches our nutritional needs better than any other cat egory of food. I recommend that virtually our entire 
carbohydrate intake—80% of calories or more—come from the simple sugars  in whole, fresh fruit. These sugars are the optimal fuel 
source for humans. The soft, water-soluble fiber in whole fruits allows  their sugars to absorb slowly and gradually, so high blood 
sugar is not an issue (as long as your diet is low in fat … see Chapter 2.) Fruits are the obvious choice for obtaining our carbohydrates, as they provi de the only substantial and healthful whole-food 
source of simple sugar. Many classically trained nutritionists, an d most doctors, still erroneously refer to fruits as complex 
carbohydrates, because some of their fiber (such as the skins, pith, etc.) i s composed of complex carbohydrates. Though these indigestible fibers are complex carbohydrate in nature, virtually al l of the carbohydrate calories in ripe fruit are simple mono- and 
disaccharides. This misunderstanding has long been pointed out by sports phy siologists, who rely on the fact that the sugars in fruit 
are simple in design and hence work extremely well before, during, and aft er all physical exertions. Fruits never require cooking in order to be delicious and nutritious, and our bodi es digest them quickly and easily. (Some 
vegetables with a slightly sweet taste—like some lettuces, gar den-fresh baby peas and corn, and young roots—also contain simple 
carbohydrates, but they are so low in calories that chewing them may ut ilize more fuel than they provide.) Think Fruit Meals for Health 
Fruit is considered “health food” by almost everyone in the health fi eld. A director of nutrition for the U.S. Olympic teams 
once called fruit “magic food.” All the major organizations of health a nd disease, from the government to private businesses, from the 
National Heart Foundation to the American Cancer Society, agree th at we should increase our consumption of fruit. As a category, fruits are our least toxic food choice. They digest cleanl y, leaving only water as residue, which is easily expelled 
from the body. I see no healthful reason to look anywhere else for the vast ma jority of our calories. The health, nutrition, energy, and 
human performance results available on a high-fruit, low-fat, raw v egan program eclipse even the proven, consistent benefits of low- 
fat, starch-based diets. Fruit As a Staple: An Idea Whose Time Has Come 
The practice of eating enough fruit to make complete meals of it is alie n to most of us. Yet it is an idea whose time has come. Fruits are designed to be our staple; they contain everything require d to be the source and mainstay of our nutritional sustenance. We have been trained to think of fruit as a treat, something to eat at the  end of a meal, or perhaps as a snack between meals 
when nothing else looks good. But I invite you to begin thinking of fruit as re al food, and even as a meal unto itself. If fruit is to become a primary food source for us, we must be willing to explore  new avenues, think new thoughts, and ask 
new questions like the ones below. The consumer has a lot to learn—as we  literally have no frame of reference for such a concept 
—and now is the time to get started. In this book, I answer some of these ques tions and many others: 
 
How do we know when fruit is fresh? How many blueberries (or oranges, or mangos, or bananas) does it take to make a me al? How can I tell if I ate enough fruit? Is there such a thing as eating too much fruit? Which fruits provide us with the most carbohydrates per bite? Which fruits provide the least? Which fruits are best at the different seasons of the year? Where does each fruit come from? Eating 80% of our calories in the form of uncooked simple carbohydrates can becom e easy and natural once we learn to eat a 
moderate amount of nuts and seeds, all the green leafy vegetables we ca re for, and great quantities of whole, fresh, ripe, in-season 
fruit. We Are Designed for Tropical Fruit 
As a species, humans originated in a warm climate and eventually s pread throughout the “tropical belt,” the warm zone that 
extends through most of the thousand-mile range above and below the equator . This is the environment where tropical fruits 
abound. Some folks suggest that wherever they live, they should eat food that is  locally grown, as “logically” that must be the best for 
them, at least, that is what they have heard. In the U.S. and Europe, people oft en argue that since they live in a northern climate, it is 
only appropriate that they should eat foods of northern origin. Think about this: If you have a goldfish, cat, or dog, do you change the very natu re of their diet every time you move? Do zoo 
animals get entirely different classes of food, depending on the latitu de of the zoo that houses them? Viewed in this way, it becomes 
obvious that we must honor the unique dietary requirements of each speci es, based on its particular digestive physiology. Further, many people live in climates that only produce food for a few months  of the year. What should they eat the rest of the 
year? Humans are anatomically and physiologically adapted to the food of th e tropics, predominantly fruit, as are almost all of the 
tropical creatures. In Central America, for example, all mammals w ith the exception of the river otter and the jaguar are known to 
eat fruit, as are most of the birds, many of the amphibians, and quite a few of t he reptiles. No logical or scientific reason exists to conclude that simply because  we have moved away from the tropics, we should therefore change what has been our natural food for the great majority  of our time on Earth. Regardless of where we go on this 
planet (or even whether we ever venture off of the planet to other worlds ), tropical fruits remain our natural foods, the only cuisine 
for which we are perfectly designed. Our Own Private Tropics 
Historically, it was only the population explosion caused by the advent of tool s and hunting, and exacerbated by the introduction of 
farming, that resulted in humans being forced to move into what would othe rwise have been considered inhospitable and even 
uninhabitable areas. We effectively took the tropics with us, though, as  we had no other choice. Every one of us lives almost every minute of our lives in a miniature  tropical environment, keeping ourselves in the tropics by 
the judicious use of clothing, bedding, and heat. Even the Eskimos surround th emselves with enough clothing and keep their homes 
warm enough so that they can spend almost all of their time “in the tr opics.”  
We have been trained from early childhood, and have learned through repeat ed experience, that it is extremely uncomfortable 
and can be potentially dangerous, even lethal, for us to leave the safety  of our own private tropics, and early in life accepted the 
wisdom and seriousness of this warning. We go through the rest of our live s without ever questioning that we must maintain 
ourselves in the warmth of a tropical environment. Fruit Is a Natural 
Fortunately, most people love fruit. Children are naturally inclined t o eat it. Our ever-present sweet tooth is a signal from nature that 
drives us to eat enough fruit to provide the simple carbohydrates that fue l every cell of our bodies. Whenever I introduce someone 
to a delicious tropical fruit that they have never tried, it is met w ith delight. It doesn’t seem to make any difference what the fruit is,
people almost always “connect” with it immediately . Almost inva riably , I hear something like:  
 
“W ow, this is the best thing I have ever tasted!”  
“I just found my new favorite food!”  
“I could live on this!”  
“Where can I get this at home?”  
“Do you know of any mail-order catalogs that can ship some to me?” 
“Is this expensive? I want to buy lots of it!”  
“How do I learn more about other fruits like this?”  
 
The entire conversation points to the fact that people not only love fruit , they are designed for fruit. Wherever humans have 
chosen to venture on planet Earth, they have carried this physiologica l predilection for tropical fruit with them. People who live in 
temperate areas still require the foods for which they were designed, j ust as zoo animals that are geographically relocated still retain 
their physical requirements. In fact, it may be even more important for people who live in a cool climate to obt ain tropical fruits, as these people often must 
do without other essential healthful-living conditions that are com mon to the tropics (warm temperatures, clean air, rural living, year-
round sunshine, sounds of nature, pure water, etc.). If you live in an area w here tropical fruits are scarce, it may be well worth your 
while to consider which other environmentally essential factors y ou are also doing without, and to supply them to the best of your 
ability. Training ourselves to once again eat fruit, a practice that held us i n good stead for thousands of generations, is as rewarding for 
our health as it is delicious. Chapter 6. Protein: 10% Maximum 
 
Of the three caloronutrients, protein is certainly the most discuss ed, and the most misunderstood. I begin with a discussion of 
protein in order to clear the air about this vital nutrient, with the in tention of not discussing it again in the remainder of this book. The need for protein has been greatly exaggerated by market forc es, and protein’s functions have been misrepresented. This 
chapter discusses why we need protein and where we obtain protein on a low-f at 80/10/10  diet. We put the protein issues to rest 
and then get to the heart of the 80/10/10  diet, carbohydrates and fats. How Much Protein Do We Need? I often respond to the question, “where do you get your protein?” with seve ral questions of my own: “How much protein do 
you think we need?” “How much protein do you think you currently eat?” “W hat exactly is the function of protein?” “Have you ever 
met anyone with a protein deficiency?”  
Although I have met many people who have begun to or are considering vector ing their diets away from animal foods, I rarely 
meet anyone who has a reasonable response to these queries. Usually the y tell me that we need large quantities of protein for 
energy , or to stay strong, or to keep us from getting sick. Nothing could be f urther from the truth. Protein’s primary function is 
growth, which is negligible in adults, as well as repair from injury a nd replacement of worn-out cells. Official Guidelines Recommend 10% Protein 
Sometimes I wonder whether the official nutritional guidelines for  caloronutrient consumption are intentionally vague and 
confusing in order to better serve influential market forces. I mean, a fter 100 + years of testing we have a fairly good idea of which 
foods are most nutritious for us. Still, the U.S. government officially re commends that our protein intake should be somewhere 
between 10 and 35% of total calories consumed. It is extremely difficult to con sume more than a quarter of your calories from 
protein, however, unless you are following a strict regimen of refined pr otein powder and egg whites. Currently fewer than 5% of 
Americans eat more than 21% of their calories from protein, with the bell  curve ranging from 11 to 21%. 36 
Despite the advertising hype of the meat and dairy industries, humans require an extraordinarily low amount of protein in 
their diets. Many official groups, including the World Health Organization, 37  the U.S. National Academies’ Institute of Medicine, 38 
and the National Research Council 39  suggest that eating a mere 10% of our total calories as protein is suffi cient. Mother’s milk provides on average approximately 6% of calories from pr otein for growing infants. 40  This should be ample 
proof that adults do not need more protein per calorie than this, as infants, wi th their extremely rapid rate of growth, have the highest 
need for protein per calorie of all humans. Proteins (or more accurately, amino acids) are the building blocks of livi ng cells. Once we have done our growing, we have 
very little requirement for the raw materials of which we are made . Think of the analogy of building a brick house: you need 
truckloads of bricks during the construction stage. Once the house is buil t, however, if trucks continue to deliver bricks, you have a 
problem on your hands. The same is true of protein in the human diet: too much c reates emergency conditions and keeps the body in 
a constant state of toxicity. For those accustomed to seeing your protein recommendation in terms of gra ms or calories per unit of body weight, the 2003 
U.S. RDA for protein is 0.36 grams per pound of body weight, or 0.8 grams per kilogram (1 kilogra m = 2.2 lbs). The RDA 
calculates these numbers for a “typical” (sedentary) female a nd male who eat 1,600 and 2,200 calories per day , respectively , 
arriving at a suggested 44 grams of protein for a female and 55 grams for a  male. See the sidebar entitled “Calculating Y our Protein 
Intake” later in this chapter for sample calculations. 10% Protein Includes a Wide Safety Margin 
The national and international organizations that set nutrient g uidelines build into their numbers a margin of safety that increase s 
the recommendations substantially, often near double. The 1989 U.S. RDA for prote in of 0.8 g/kg/day, for example, was designed 
to meet the needs of 97.5% of a normally distributed population. It was calculate d as follows: 41  
 
Conduct nitrogen balance studies to determine the mean amount of pr otein required to replace daily “obligatory losses” 
through sweat, urine, feces, and sloughed skin, hair, and nails. Add two standard deviations (25%) to this mean value. Add margins for digestibility and protein quality. In his book The China Study, renowned Cornell University professor emeritus of nutritional bioche mistry T. Colin Campbell 
states that we require only 5–6% of our total calories to come from protei n in order to replace the protein we routinely lose, and that 
“About 9–10% protein has been recommended for the past fifty years  to be assured that most people at least get their 5–6% 
‘requirement.’” 42 
In addition to the safety margin, this recommendation assumes that peopl e eat their protein cooked. Given that cooking 
substantially deranges protein and other nutrients, we can safely c onsume far less raw plant protein and still be assured of sufficient 
nourishment. Thus, you can see that 10% protein (maximum) is both suffic ient and reasonable. The additional protein afforded by the built-in safety factor is not a problem , per se, except that overconsumption of protein 
can lead to health problems, which will be discussed later in this chapte r. The more important concern is relative overconsumption 
of protein. In other words, if we overconsume one of the three caloronutrient s, we are likely to underconsume one or both of the 
others. The fact that our protein needs actually run in the single digits (u nder 10%) often surprises people. Most all of us have 
unwittingly fallen prey to meat-industry propaganda that would lead us  to believe otherwise. Truly, advertising has influenced our 
perception of reality so widely that the concept of “getting enough protein” is embedded in the culture. Athletes and Bodybuilders: 10% Still Plenty 
Bodybuilders have long consumed extra protein and lowered carbohydrate inta ke in the mistaken belief that dietary protein 
builds muscle. In reality, only weight-bearing exercise builds musc le . When insufficient carbohydrates are supplied, it is true that 
protein requirements go up, as the body transforms the protein into carbohydra te (an energy-expensive process) and utilizes it for 
fuel. This does not, however, bring about the result they desire. No Extra Protein Required for Physical Activity 
Bodybuilders may be interested to note that in its extensive study of prote in requirements, the Institute of Medicine/Food and 
Nutrition Board determined that no additional protein needed to be added to the RDA  to account for physical activity: 
“There is little evidence that muscular activity increases t he need for protein, except for the small amount required for the 
development of muscles during physical conditioning  (Torun Et al., 1977). Vigorous activity that leads to profuse sweating, such 
as in heavy work and sports, and exposure to heat increases nitrogen loss fr om the skin, but with acclimatization to a warm 
environment, the excessive skin loss [loss by perspiration throu gh the skin—DG] is reduced and may be partially compensated by 
decreased renal excretion (WHO, 1985). In view of the margin of safety in the RDA, no increment is added for work or 
training. ”43 
 
Bodybuilders following the 80/10/10  program have found that if they supply sufficient calories from carbohy drate, their protein 
needs go down dramatically, and their energy to train and their muscula r growth both increase. Lisa Oborne, a professional bodybuilder in Canada for many years, says that s he got the best results of her career when 
switching to the 80/10/10  diet, gleaning a growth spurt the likes of which none of her trainers ha d ever seen. All Plant Foods Contain Protein 
Consuming approximately 5% of calories from protein is difficult to avoid if  you are eating enough food to meet your daily 
calorie needs. All plant foods contain protein, and even if you ate a diet of onl y white rice, (not recommended) you would still end 
up with 8% protein for the day! But would it be the “right kind” of prote in? Proteins are complicated molecules made by assembling simple b uilding blocks (amino acids) together in a “polypeptide” 
chain. Some 20 different amino acids are used to synthesize proteins, eigh t or nine of which are designated essential (depending 
upon whose information you read). The term “essential” in nutrition m eans that the nutrient in question must be eaten or otherwise 
consumed, as the body cannot synthesize it. The Complete Protein Myth 
In the 1970s, people often concerned themselves with combining proteins so tha t all of the essential amino acids were available at 
each meal. Later research has determined that this is not necessa ry , and in fact the author of the “incomplete protein theory ,” 
Frances Moore Lappe, recanted 20 years later, saying that she was utter ly mistaken. We do  need all of the essential amino acids, 
but we do not have to eat them together, or even each day. Sources of Protein 
Dietary protein is not the only source for building the proteins we need. In stead, our bodies efficiently recycle between 100 and 300 grams of our own protein every day. We have an amino acid pool from which to build n ew proteins. We add amino acids to the 
pool by breaking down the proteins we eat and the proteins in our bodies. We can easily meet our protein requirements on a vegan diet, with no part icular attention focused on combining proteins or 
selecting certain foods for each meal. The table below shows the percentage of calories from protein in twenty- one common fruits and vegetables and in five animal 
foods, for comparison. Another chart more specific to the 80/10/10  diet can be found in the back of this book. This chart shows values not only for 
protein but also for calories, carbohydrates, fat, water, and fiber for select ed whole plant foods. In them, you will see that fruits 
generally contain 4 to 8% protein, and a few contain more. Surprisingly, the  vegetables we commonly eat raw range from about 10 
to 30% protein. (V egetables are so low in calories, however, that even hu ge quantities add very little overall to one’s daily protein 
percentage.) Nonetheless, when we calculate the caloronutrien t ratio of a week’s worth of food consisting strictly of a variety of raw 
fruits and vegetables, it generally weighs in just shy of 5% of calori es as top-quality protein. A few ounces of nuts or seeds puts us at 
around 8% protein, well into the adequate and healthful range. Mainstream nutritional science defines protein quality in terms  of how efficiently the protein promotes body growth, rather than 
whether it produces health. Thus, milk and egg protein are considered the h ighest quality. However, in the words of T. Colin 
Campbell, “There is a mountain of compelling research showing that  ‘low-quality’ plant protein … is the healthiest type of 
protein.” 44  
Although many people are surprised to hear it, they understand the logic of  this line of thought when they stop to consider 
what anthropoid primates in the wild eat: a diet that is made up primarily  of fruits and vegetables. We have never heard that 
chimpanzees or orangutans—which are typically five times str onger than humans, pound for pound—need more protein than the 
amount they get from their plant-based diet. Americans Eat 16% Protein 
As a percentage of calories consumed, the standard American diet, reple te with meat, dairy, and eggs, runs in the teens. As 
stated above, the bell curve that describes protein consumption for the vast  majority of the population ranges from 11 to 21% of 
calories from protein. Outliers on the low end include the small population  of people who eat low-fat vegan fare, who can easily and 
healthfully reduce that number to single digits. At the high end, peopl e who intentionally consume high-protein diets can approach 
30%, but only bodybuilders and athletes who eat massive quantities of egg whi tes and isolated protein powders are likely to reach 
40 or 50 + percent protein. People are generally doubtful that protein could comprise such a small per centage of their diets, but I am not making these 
numbers up. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention , average U.S. protein consumption was 15.5% for men 
and 15.1% for women in 2000. These numbers have been consistent for decades; in 1970 the y were 16.5% and 16.9%. 45  
The U.S. Recommended Dietary Allowances, 10th Edition (1989) says, “Food consump tion data from the U.S. USDA ’s 
1977–1978 and 1985 surveys indicate that 14 to 18% of the total food energy intake is derive d from protein. Despite wide 
variations in food energy intake, this proportion remains similar for both s exes and all age groups except infants. There is also little 
change as a function of household income, urbanization, or race. Food items li kely to be underreported in surveys (e.g., alcoholic 
beverages, confections) would provide energy but little protein; hence, t he percentage of energy from protein may be 
overestimated. 46 
How can it be that as a nation we gorge on “high-protein” foods, yet we en d up with less than 20% of our calories from 
protein? The answer is that the vast majority of our commonly consume d “protein” foods—meat, egg, and dairy products, as well as 
all nuts and seeds, contain such an overwhelming amount of fat that th e protein numbers go way down as a percentage of total 
calories consumed. For example: 
 
Eggs contain more than 60% fat. “70% lean” ground beef also weighs in at 60% fat. Cheddar cheese contains 72% fat; cream cheese 88%. Almonds and sunflower seeds each contain 73% fat. In truth, there really is no such thing as a “high-protein” diet—a t least not one in which protein comprises the majority of a 
person’s calories. Typical quantities of high-protein “superfoods”  increase protein consumption as a percentage of daily calories 
very little. For example, 10 grams of spirulina provides about 7 grams of  protein, which might increase one’s protein percentage 
from 16 to 17.2%. In other words, without serious powdered protein supplementation, most pe ople would find it extremely difficult 
to consume even a third of their total calories from protein on a sustaine d basis. This is good news, indeed, for even the 10% of calories from protein that I recomm end is in truth the maximum that can 
reasonably be considered healthful, in my opinion. The Dangers of Eating More Than 10% Protein 
To listen to the proponents of the meat industry, one would think we are in imm inent danger of disease and death if we fail to 
eat meat three times a day . The truth is that eating meat this ofte n causes the very conditions we’re taught to fear. This is a surpris e 
to most people, who have been taught, incorrectly, that they need large amou nts of protein to be healthy. Actually, the reverse is 
true: Most people suffer from an overdose of protein each day, and this account s for a great deal of our ill health. Too much protein in our diets is associated with all manner of health impa irments, including such symptoms as constipation and 
other digestive disorders that often lead to toxemia (toxic blood and tissues ) and, eventually, cancer. Autoimmune dysfunction, 
arthritis, and all other autoimmune conditions, premature aging, impai red liver function, kidney failure, osteoporosis, and many other 
degenerative and pathogenic conditions result from eating more protein  than we need. In general, protein-based foods are highly acid forming in the human body (e ven the high-protein plants, such as legumes). This is because their predominant minerals are the acidic min erals—chlorine, phosphorus, and sulfur. To maintain homeostasis, the
body must counterbalance the acidity caused by excess protein consumption . Unfortunately, it does so in part by taking a precious 
alkaline mineral—calcium—from our bloodstream. The body replaces  calcium into the bloodstream, where calcium levels must 
remain relatively constant, by removing it from our bones and teeth, set ting the stage for osteoporosis and tooth decay. It is no coincidence that fruits and vegetables contain just the rig ht amounts of protein to build and maintain the human body. Nor is it a coincidence that the minerals they supply are predominantl y the alkaline ones: calcium, sodium, magnesium, and 
potassium. Calculating Your Protein Intake The following examples show how a to calculate protein intake and how to conv ert gram measurements to percentage of 
calories. Calculations are based on the U.S. RDA of 0.36 grams of protein per pound of body  weight (the upper  limit of protein 
intake on the 80/10/10  diet). My guidelines vary from these slightly, as I make my recommendations  as a percentage of total calories consumed rather than 
by body weight. I believe this system works far better, because it allows for  individual differences in fuel use, which can vary by a 
factor of ten  for extremely sedentary people and extremely active people of the same w eight. 125-Pound Woman: 45g 
0.36 grams of protein  125 pounds = 45 grams of protein per day. 45 grams of protein contain approx. 180 calories (45  4 = 180). If this woman is sedentary and eats about 1,800 calories per day, this amount of pr otein would come to 10% of her total 
calories for the day. If this woman is more active and eats perhaps 2,300 calories per day, 180 calories of  protein would amount to 8%. 175-Pound Man: 63g 
0.36 grams of protein  175 pounds = 63 grams of protein per day. 63 grams of protein contain approx. 252 calories (63  4 = 252). If this man is sedentary and eats about 2,400 calories per day, this amount of prot ein would be just over 10% of his calories 
for the day. If this man is more active and eats 3,000 calories per day, 252 calories of protein w ould amount to 8%. In light of the near-double safety factor of the U.S. RDA, I have no concern s when I see my clients consuming even less protein 
relative to their size. In my experience, about 5% of calories from protein , especially when it is high quality and unadulterated by 
heat, is adequate and healthful. That last statement, “5% of calories is adequate and healthful,” is not  a radical concept, not by a long shot. If you have any 
question whatsoever that this level of protein intake is healthy, or if  you want indisputable evidence of the toxicity of higher protein 
consumption, I highly recommend that you pick up a copy of T. Colin Campbe ll’s outstanding book, The China Study. 47  I cannot 
recommend it highly enough. A consummate nutritional scientist, Dr. Campbell was at the helm of t he most comprehensive study of health and nutrition ever 
conducted. His blockbuster book will leave you with no doubt that 5% protein, exclusively from plant foods, is more than enough. Protein from Fruits and Vegetables Only 
On a diet of fruits and vegetables only, it is likely that your total protei n intake will average about 5% of calories or slightly 
lower. Adding a small quantity of nuts or seeds results in a slight inc rease in protein intake percentage. For example: 
 
A meal of 10 peaches (420 calories) yields 7 grams of protein. Another meal of 10 bananas (1,085 calories) supplies 12 grams of protein. A bowl of soup made from 3 tomatoes blended with 2 cucumbers (150 calories) supplies mor e than 7 additional grams of 
protein. A pint of fresh-squeezed orange juice (225 calories) offers nearly 3.5 gram s of protein. One medium head of lettuce (about 50 calories) provides about 5.5 grams of protein. Though we have only eaten 1,930 calories so far, the total protein consumed is 35 g rams (over 6% of calories). My recommendations for total calorie consumption are somewhat higher t han most official recommendations. I do this not 
because I wish to see people gain fat, but because I know that an  increased calorie intake— when accompanied by a 
commensurate increase in fitness activities—results in an ov erall higher level of fitness and health. It is this rise in calori e 
consumption, from an increased intake of fruits and vegetables, that ass ures the consumer of nutritional sufficiency. In nature, we would have to be fit in order to survive. We would also eat fruit s and vegetables, the most nutritious of all foods. In order to be well nourished, we are designed by Nature to consume the signi ficant quantities of fruits and vegetables that would be 
eaten by a fit, active person. Protein Deficiency Does Not Exist 
On a whole-food diet that provides sufficient calories, there is no such c ondition as a protein deficiency. A brochure from the 
V egetarian Society of Colorado says, “Studies in which humans have b een fed wheat bread alone, or potatoes alone, or corn alone, 
or rice alone, have all  shown that these plant foods contain not only enough protein, but enough of all  of the essential amino acids, 
to support growth and maintenance of healthy adults.” 48  
A 1999 journal article entitled “Optimal Intakes of Protein in the Hum an Diet” confirms this fact, saying “… the true minimal 
[protein] requirement is likely to be so much lower than the amounts provi ded by natural diets (which are providing sufficient energy 
and other nutrients) that its magnitude becomes to some extent an i ssue of scientific curiosity only .” 49 
In developing nations where insufficient food is available and people are  literally starving to death, protein/calorie malnutrition 
conditions known as marasmus and kwashiorkor do exist, but these do not occur in  developed countries. The symptoms—extreme 
emaciation, lassitude, and muscle wasting—resolve equally as well  by the introduction of high-carbohydrate or high-fat foods as they 
do from the consumption of concentrated protein, and usually better. Protein de ficiency, it turns out, just is not the cause of these 
problems. It is simply a shortage of food, a chronic severe deficiency of calor ies, that causes people to literally digest their own 
muscle tissues for fuel. It is much more likely however, that a person would run into a huge host of oth er social, health, and nutritional problems long 
before developing the dreaded protein deficiency. Protein deficiency simpl y is not part of our reality. This is the main reason that this 
book focuses on just two of the three caloronutrients: only our fat and carbohy drate consumption rates tend to vary appreciably. As 
one goes up, the other, fairly reliably, goes down. Chapter 7. Fat: 10% Maximum 
 
Nutritionists have told us what to do in order to be healthier: increase ou r carbohydrate consumption and eat less fat. But 
knowing what to do does not mean that we will do it, of course. A prime example is qu itting smoking. We have known for decades 
that smoking is killing us, yet according to the World Health Organizat ion, more than a billion people continue to smoke. In order to 
make successful long-term changes, we must not only anticipate hea lth as an outcome, we must also be happy about it. Apparently we have not found a way to be happy while eating less fat. We cer tainly have not implemented this relatively 
simple change into our diets. Even the recent threats of morbid obesity, epi demic diabetes, bovine leukemia, and mad cow disease 
have not gotten us to reduce our intake of meat, dairy, poultry, fish, oils, or fat s in general. How Much Fat Do We Need? In its 2002 Dietary Reference Intakes (DRIs, which replaced the 1989 Recomm ended Dietary Allowances, or RDAs) the 
U.S. Department of Agriculture recommends that 20 to 35% of our calories be con sumed as fat. 50  This advice is significantly 
skewed to the high side by the financial and lobbying influence of the U.S. da iry and meat lobbies. In his book The China Study, Dr. T. Colin Campbell sheds some light on this longstanding problem. In 1982, while  serving 
on a National Academies of Science expert panel, Campbell coauthored a re port entitled Diet, Nutrition and Cancer . This was 
the first public scientific panel to openly question the wisdom of certai n widely accepted nutritional standards. In particular, the panel 
recommended a substantial reduction in fat intake. Campbell writes, “The first guideline in the report explicitly s tated that high fat consumption is linked to cancer, and 
recommended reducing our fat intake from 40% to 30% of calories.” The report ackn owledged that the 30% goal was an arbitrary 
cutoff point that represented a “moderate and practical target,”  but the data could easily have justified a greater reduction in 
recommended fat intake. A more healthful “greater reduction,” however, was not to be. As Camp bell describes, “The director of the USDA Nutrition 
Laboratory told us that if we went below 30%, consumers would be required to reduce  animal food intake and that would be the 
death of the report.” 51  
In spite of such continuous industry pressure, some public agencies hav e succeeded in publishing lower guidelines. For 
example , a 2003 report on diet and chronic disease, commissioned by the World Health Organi zation and the Food and Agriculture 
Organization recommends a diet consisting of 15 to 30% fat. Private sources offer an even more conservative perspective on heal thful levels of fat consumption: 
 
Udo Erasmus , author of Fats That Heal, Fats That Kill, has extensively researched the topic of fat consumption and 
health. What’s more, he sells fat for a living. Y et in his book he recom mends we eat just 15–20% of our calories as fat. 52  
The Pritikin Longevity Center , a facility that holds the finest heart disease reversal record of an y such organization in the 
U.S., recommends a dietary fat consumption of 10%. 53  
Dr. Dean Ornish , a renowned cardiologist and author, also guides his heart patients to grea ter health and disease reversal 
through his near-vegetarian dietary program that includes not more  than 10% fat. 54 
Dr. Caldwell Esselstyn, surgeon at the famed Cleveland Clinic and author of Prevent and Reverse Heart Disease, also 
recommends a low-fat cooked vegan diet where approximately 10% of calories com e from fat. 55 
Dr. Neal Barnard , president of the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine and aut hor of several books on vegan 
nutrition, is another proponent of approximately 10% fat for health. 56 
 
Many other doctors and PhDs famous for their work in nutrition have writt en extensively on the health benefits that predictably 
accompany a drastic reduction in dietary fat consumption. These include  John McDougall, Michael Klaper, Alan Goldhamer, 
William Harris, Ruth Heidrich, Michael Greger, and Matthew Lederm an and Alona Pulde, among others. All of these professionals, 
as well as many dietitians, nutritionists, sports scientists, and oth er health experts agree that the magic percentage could be as high a s 
the teens, but not much higher. Only industry-influenced governmen t bodies recommend that we should limit fat consumption to 30% 
of our total calories.
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:

        Government guidelines and short-sighted nu tritionists perpetuate this misconception, admonishing us to 
avoid simple sugars like the plague. Complex carbohydrates, found in grains and other starchy foods, do not taste swe et, even though they are made from chains 
of sugars. Complex carbohydrates are more difficult to digest than simple  carbohydrates. They require substantial amounts of energy 
in the conversion to sugar, and eating them cooked generates toxic byproduct s. Later in this chapter, I discuss each of these broad categories—com plex carbohydrates, whole-food simple carbohydrates, 
and refined simple carbohydrates—in some detail. Two Carbohydrate Camps 
Although there are a tremendous number of variations on the theme, two ba sic schools of thought exist regarding what to eat. There are the low-carbohydrate/high-fat proponents, and then there ar e the supporters of the high-carbohydrate/low-fat approach 
to food. The Low-Carb/High-Fat Faction 
In recent decades, high-fat (disguised as low-carb) diets have taken t he country by storm. In response, grocery stores, restaurants, 
fast-food chains, airlines, and even doughnut shops have begun marke ting their “low-carbohydrate” options with pride. If the trend 
continues, I predict that fat consumption will show a concerted rise by th e next time national statistics are released. Why. It’s a simple proposition: If your daily caloric “pie” is made  of only three slices (carbohydrate, protein, and fat), and you 
decrease one of them, one or both of the other two must increase. People generally believe that the decrease in carbohydrates i n their “low-carb” meals is offset by an increase in protein. Th is is 
incorrect. As I describe in the protein chapter, only exceedingly rarely does anyone  eat even a quarter of daily calories as protein. The 
vast majority of Americans eat about 16% protein each day, and only a very s mall fraction of the population consumes 20% protein 
or more. The balance of our daily calories, at least 80%, must come from some combination of carbohydrates and fat. Essentially, any 
decrease in carbohydrates must be accompanied by an increase in fat, ass uming we continue to consume the same number of 
calories. Unfortunately, each gram of fat contains more than twice the calori es of a gram of carbohydrate. So if you eat the same 
general quantity of food on a “low-carb” program, you will increase not on ly your percentage of calories from fat but also your total 
calories for the day. So how do people lose weight on low-carbohydrate diets. In brief, research shows  that these people invariably consume 
fewer total calories. Dr. Michael Greger’s superbly comprehensi ve and condemning eBook, Atkins Facts, sums it up well: 
In 2001, the medical journal Obesity Research published “Popular D iets: A Scientific Review. ” Claiming to have reviewed 
every study ever done on low carb diets, they concluded, “In all cases, indiv iduals on high-fat, low carbohydrate diets lose weight because they consume fewer calories. ” (Obesity Research 9(2001):1S. ) I urge anyone who is considering destroying their health with any low -carbohydrate diet to read this riveting 47-page 
document in its entirety. 29  The following information is excerpted with Dr. Greger’s permiss ion from that publication. The Deadly Low-Carb Craze 
When one is eating enough carbohydrates, fat can be completely br oken down as well. But when one’s body runs out of carb fuel 
to burn, its only choice is to burn fat inefficiently using a pathway th at produces toxic byproducts like acetone and other so-called 
“ketones. ”  
The kidney uses minerals such as potassium and calcium to help rid on e’s body of toxins like ketones. People on the Atkins 
Diet are urinating these minerals away. And critically low lev els in the blood of these electrolytes can lead to fatal cardiac 
arrhythmias—lethal heart rhythms. The current director of nutrition at Harvard advises that all physic ians should produce a handout warning about all of the 
adverse effects of the Atkins Diet. The symptoms of ketosis [a metabol ic state where the body “switches” from primarily using 
glucose for energy to primarily using fat for energy] include gener al tiredness, abrupt or gradually increasing weakness, dizziness, 
headaches, confusion, abdominal pain, irritability, nausea and vomiting, s leep problems, and bad breath. After running through the adverse effects associated with ketosis, the American institute for Cancer Research wrote, “Those 
are the short-term effects. The long-term effects are even more di re. ” 
 
 
Dr. Greger’s full document details literally dozens of additional disea ses and problems brought on by this deadly diet, 
including: 
 
Malnutrition (compromised vitamin and mineral intake). Cancer, stroke, gout, osteoporosis, and diabetes. Potential kidney, bone, liver, and cholesterol abnormalities. Cardiac disease, arrhythmias, contractile function impairment. Impairment of physical activity. A rise in blood pressure with age. Rapid falling blood pressure upon standing (orthostatic hypotension). Sudden death.
The text does not explicitly state the main concerns about the Atkins diet. However, it does mention that the diet can lead to an increase in fat consumption, which can result in various health problems.
What are the main concerns about the Atkins diet?
The text does not mention the recommended daily protein intake by the US Department of Agriculture. However, it does provide information on the recommended daily intake of protein by the U.S. RDA, which is 0.36 grams of protein per pound of body weight.
What is the recommended daily protein intake according to the US Department of Agriculture?
The text states that complex carbohydrates are more difficult to digest and require substantial amounts of energy in the conversion to sugar, generating toxic byproducts.
What is the main issue with consuming complex carbohydrates?
The text identifies two main camps of thought: the low-carbohydrate/high-fat proponents and the high-carbohydrate/low-fat approach.
What are the two main camps of thought regarding what to eat?
The text does not provide a specific recommendation for the percentage of daily calories from fat, but it does mention that some health experts recommend a maximum of 10% of daily calories from fat.
What is the recommended percentage of daily calories from fat?