The 80/10/10 Diet
Sunday, May 27th, 2007Yay! It’s finally available via Amazon:
As I have been asked via email (Contact link on right) for my opinion on this book, and having promised as much in a previous comment, I guess it is time to weigh in with my thoughts.
First things first, the presentation. This is a large book with good binding, easy to read type and layout, and well-edited. Approximately half those pages consist of the appendices, which include complete, week-long, menu plans for each season, with nutrition information, a question and answer section, and many testimonials. These are back-pages you’ll actually find yourself reading.
The premise of the diet, and the meaning of its moniker, is that at least 80% of your calories should come from carbohydrates, 10% or less from protein, and likewise for fat.
When I previously looked into raw foodism, I was put off by the high levels of fat. Even if they were good fats like avocados, nuts and seeds, it still seemed excessive. Indeed, Dr. Graham postulates this is the reason many fail when attempting to eat raw. It was refreshing to so quickly find a point of agreement, and I liked that he mentioned Pritikin and Ornish (though he forgot Esselstyn). Furthermore, he has not been swept up in all the coconut hype and describes it as “artery-clogging,” whether heated or not.
The protein recommendation has been more of a struggle for me, despite already having been exposed to the evidence from The China Study (to which he also makes reference) and the more recent methionine restriction studies. I’m still mulling all these over. However, he does a good job making his case, for example, information showing the current RDA’s for protein contain a significant and deliberate safety margin over the minimum physiological requirements.
Now to the bulk of the diet, i.e., What does he want you to eat? We are left with the whopping 80% portion of the macronutrient ratio (what he annoyingly renames the caloronutrient ratio) as carbohydrates. The main contributors are to be fruits and some tender leafy greens. To be avoided: grains (see his Grain Damage), legumes, root vegetables, roughage, and even “condiments,” including garlic and hot peppers.

Although this is one of the more researched books on raw, his support for a frugivorous diet rests largely on poorly-backed assumptions about the nature of free-living animals. The argument seems to be essentially, if you would eat and enjoy it in the wild as is, then it is good. But, if it requires any preparation whatsoever or would be more palatable in combination, then we were not meant to consume it. Like Do What You Love, The Money Will Follow of the late 80’s, this theory could be called Eat What You Love, The Health Will Follow. My fellow CRONies will also have a hard time with his admonition that high fruit necessitates high calories and intense exercise.
I hasten to add I got a lot out of this work, and it has had a clear influence on my diet and thinking. For one, I’ve been having a lot of fun trying many new (to me) tropical fruits!
And whereas I had already eliminated gluten, now all grains are taking more of a back seat. It reinforced my impression that a raw food diet could and should be low in fat and can be simplicity itself. Perhaps most importantly, it provided some science for the benefits of uncooked foods and the harm done by high heat beyond the usual unsubstantiated enzyme theories, etc..
In conclusion, if you like to be challenged and are willing to put in the effort to discern compelling reason from hyperbolic extrapolation, this book is worth reading. Put into practice, at least to the extent you are convinced, it will surely serve to improve your general well-being.
[FYI: The good doctor is admirably active in answering questions on his forum over at vegsource.com.]













































