Debbie Took on Towards Freedom

Periods May Be Normal but Are They Healthy?

Mon, 20 Dec 2021 17:37:01 -0800

[Our thanks to Debbie Took for allowing reprinting from her original blog.]

Disclaimer : not a doctor, not a scientist, just a raw fooder who blogs. Some of the suggestions in this article are radical. They may be shocking, or, at the least, seem a bit barmy. Some might cause offence. Some might even be considered dangerous. I’m just presenting an…alternative view of something that is considered ’normal’ in our modern, ‘developed’ society, and that (we’ve been brought up to think) is therefore healthy.

This is what we’ve been taught about menstruation:

It occurs when an egg released from the ovary has not been fertilized.
It occurs approximately 14 days after ovulation.
There will be a flow of blood, and loss of womb lining.
The blood flow will last for a few days.

We are taught that periods as described above are normal , that it is normal to menstruate monthly, and that normal = healthy. We have been taught that it is right to be concerned if, in a woman of child-bearing age, monthly blood flow is absent or even if periods have become ‘scant’ (when not pregnant, that is).

We have been told that ideas emanating from ancient times of periods being bad things, eg that a period is a ‘curse’, or that women having periods are ‘unclean’, are wrong , and that these ’negative’ interpretations of periods came about through a combination of ignorance, superstition and patriarchal societies. We are taught to ’embrace’ menstruation, celebrate it as being a healthy and integral part of being a woman (and we support companies making millions from the sales of pads and tampons to mop up the copious bleeding).

Consequently, women who make positive improvements to their diet, eg by significantly increasing the raw component and/or cutting out animal foods, alcohol, coffee etc are concerned when their menstruation changes, that is, the flow becomes much lighter and/or infrequent, or in some cases seems to disappear altogether.

I’ve always had nagging doubts about periods, from the age of 14 when I started. Surely it isn’t meant to be like this, I thought. If we were all living naturally, in a ‘Garden of Eden’ (however that’s defined), without pads, tampons, tissues (or even clothes?), would we all be running around dripping blood all over the place for a few days every month?

36 years later, my feeling is that…no, we wouldn’t be. I’ll be explaining why in this article, where I pull together a number of observations and writings from various sources that all suggest pretty much the same thing - that whilst a menstrual blood flow \ that is, anything beyond a few spots of blood - may be normal , it’s not healthy.

Monthly Blood Flow

It May Be ‘Normal’ In Our Society, But Is It Universal?

Human beings

‘Black African females on a wholistic diet of natural foods do not menstruate…Menstruation by black African women is a recent occurrence…Haemorrhaging among black African women represents a deterioration of the race…‘Fruitarian and vegetarian women, normally, do not menstruate. If they do menstruate it consists of one or two drops of blood (about the size of a pea) from the unfertilized egg.’ (Dr Imhotep Llaila O Afrika, ‘African Holistic Health’).

OK…firstly, Dr Afrika’s account appears to be anecdotal, rather than scientific. I’ve searched for anthropological studies confirming it, but haven’t found anything, although neither have I found anything contradicting it. And (I can hear you shouting) sure - most vegetarian women do menstruate, and some have quite a heavy flow, but what is certainly the case is that I have seen hundreds of messages on raw food forums from those on fruitarian and raw vegan diets reporting lighter, or absent periods.

‘Few Navaho women wear undergarments and the great majority apparently do not use perineal pads during menstruation.’ (American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, May 1951). That suggests the women’s flow was very light then , although of course their diets in 1951 would probably have been quite different from the diet they follow today - I suspect things will have changed now…

‘Among one primitive people in the Australian bush country who live entirely on fruit, the menstrual period lasts about twenty minutes and approximately a tablespoon of blood is expelled…The women of the American Indian of the Great Plains who lived on a simple diet and were exceedingly active, had a short, uncomplicated menstrual period, scarcely noticeable.’ (Dr Bieler, MD, ‘Natural Way to Sexual Health’ 1972).

Animals

In most cases, it’s not relevant to look at animals, as most don’t experience ovulatory cycles as we do.

One exception is non-human primates (eg gorillas, monkeys). However, it’s debatable whether observations of primates in captivity are relevant, as they will be living unnatural lifestyles (and in many cases following unnatural diets) in the same way that women in the developed world are.

But studies of primates in the wild are interesting:

‘Studies have found that gorillas, chimpanzees and orangutans do shed, following non-fertilization of the egg, but that there is either a very small amount of bleeding, or no bleeding observed (my italics)…The menstrual cycle lasts 31-32 days…menstrual bleeding is minimal.’ (Tim Knight, University of Washington, ‘Gorilla Natural History’)

‘Gorillas. In captivity , the first menstrual flow reportedly occurs between six and seven years of age. (Dixson, 1981). Menstrual bleeding has not been observed in wild mountain gorillas at Karisoke;’ (my italics again) (Peter Thorpe Ellison, ‘Reproductive Ecology and Human Evolution’)

‘NO BLEEDING OBSERVED’

Note that the two accounts of gorillas in the wild conflict. One says they do not menstruate. The other chooses its words more carefully. It says ’no observed flow’. This carries the implication that the researchers recognize that there could actually be a small amount of bleeding, but it’s so small that they weren’t able to detect it.

In the same way, women who think they haven’t menstruated at all may actually have lost a drop or two of blood but haven’t noticed it. For example, it could have been lost within a flow of wee, or not noticed on coloured underwear. Just a possibility.

Are Indigenous Women (And Gorillas In The Wild) With Little Or No (Observed)

Bleeding Unhealthy?

The gorillas are obviously healthy. And the lifestyle of the indigenous women, or at least those studied relatively early in the 20th century, will almost certainly have been free of many of the things in the developed world linked with illness, eg refined sugar, white flour, processed foods in general, not to mention alcohol, tobacco, prescription drugs etc and they will have been living outdoor lives.

Healthier than us? Or less healthy. Not a difficult one to answer.

In the 21st century ‘developed’ world, the women most likely to report light or ‘absent’ periods are so often the healthiest. They’re often athletes - women at the peak of physical fitness. And/or they’re women who have at least eschewed the disease-causing substances listed above and following diets high in raw plant foods.

In general, the less healthy women are, the more they are likely to be plagued by heavy periods. Studies have shown that overweight women tend to have heavier periods.

And, the more body fat, the younger the age girls will start bleeding. Body fat is of course not necessary for ovulation , as, if it was, starving women throughout the world would not be having children, and clearly they are. It could be that young girls whose ‘periods’ have not started may well have started ovulating, but with no (observable) blood flow (yet) and, yes, these will tend to be the slimmer girls. As, an increase in body fat is often accompanied by an increase in toxicity and you will see later in the article why I’d tentatively suggest at this point that this could account for the link between body fat and bleeding. (Note I am generalising - slim women can have high levels of toxicity too!).

And of course the higher the blood loss the more likely there is to be anaemia caused by a loss of iron.

Are Women Who Don’t Have A ‘Flow’ Infertile?

If there is no ovulation (more later) then, yes, they would be infertile.

But there are many accounts of women who have either not had periods, or have not had any ‘flow’, or have had periods infrequently, having no problems becoming pregnant, so clearly they have been ovulating and fertile. The indigenous women reported as having little or no flow, and the gorillas with little flow, or no ‘observed’ flow, have borne children \ in fact I’d guess fertility rates in these groups are far higher than in our society.

Natural Hygienist Herbert Shelton: ‘I personally know of one woman who is the mother of five children and she has never menstruated in her life. I know another who menstruated during her adolescent period and married a man who had changed his way of living to a truly natural lifestyle. She joined him in his health regime and became a fine specimen of health and ceased menstruating. Thereafter she had three children, all delivered naturally and painlessly and never menstruated again in her life.’

Viktoras Kulvinskas in ‘Survival in the 21st Century’ reports the case of a woman treated by Dr G S White, who changed her diet to vegan. ‘[She] flowed bright blood five or six days of each month [and] had such severe cramps that she could not hold her position as stenographer. [He treated her for six months, after which her]periods changed to half a day mucous flow with no blood at all. She was able to resume her work and did so for two or three years. She married and has had three daughters. Each of them had a mucous flow for about half a day each month and are in perfect health. One is married and had a healthy baby girl.’

Thomas Lodi MD (‘Get Fresh’ magazine, Summer 08): ‘…it has been my experience over the past eight years working with women eating raw, vegan diets that the menstrual cycles become scant and few, while quality of life and fertility not only persist but improve.’

Have Women Always Had A Monthly Blood Flow?

Simple answer is: we don’t know.

Not many ancient writings discuss menstruation. The stock answer to this is ‘ah, that’s because it was taboo.’ What if, what if…it’s because it didn’t actually used to happen much?!

Here’s a mention:

Leviticus 15:19: ‘And if a woman has an issue, and her issue in her flesh be blood, she shall be put apart seven days; and whosoever toucheth her shall be unclean.’

Note the word ‘IF’. Not ‘WHEN’. This suggests that perhaps women didn’t habitually menstruate. (‘Unclean’ as used in those times meant ‘unhealthy’). Also, elsewhere in Leviticus, it describes the period as the ‘blood of the purification’. As if the body is cleaning itself via the blood flow.

In ancient Japan also, menstruating women were segregated. After their period of seclusion ended, they had to wash in the river or sea.

We’ve been taught that people then knew less than we do nowadays. Could it be that they actually knew more? I’ll explain why I think that could be the case…

‘Womb Lining’ Puzzle

‘Little bleeding’, ’no observed flow’, ’tablespoon of blood’, ‘half a day mucous flow’ - doesn’t seem to make sense, does it, when we’ve been led to understand that the ‘womb lining’ has to be shed each month. But, many women in developed countries following healthy diets/lifestyles, some indigenous women, and gorillas, don’t seem to be shedding any womb lining, but are still having babies!

Why is that many, if not most, women in developed countries do appear to shed a lot of gunge along with the blood, but the most natural-living women don’t appear to?

One theory, (and this is backed to some extent by scientific observations of monkeys), is that the womb lining can, instead of being shed, be reabsorbed by the body when not needed as a bed for the fertilised egg.

‘If the endometrial tissues are not needed - in a truly healthy woman, as in animals in their wild state, those tissues are mostly reabsorbed. What remains is expelled over a short period of time as a slight mucus discharge.’ (Dr H G Beiler)

So - could it be that the womb lining that the average woman has built up contains toxic substances due to things ingested and the body is saying ‘No way - don’t want that reabsorbed thank you!’ and chooses instead to dump it? It’s certainly likely that, in the average woman, the womb lining will contain toxic substances, as, when pregnant, it develops into the placenta, and we know that toxins on the placenta can be harmful to a developing baby.

Of course, if the egg has been fertilised, the lining will need to stay. But it’s possible that the body could find other ways to detox itself of any poisons in early pregnancy, eg via morning sickness (discussed later).

And/or perhaps it’s simply the case that the unhealthier the woman, the thicker the womb lining will become. And, connected with the argument above, this could be because a lot of material/blood is being deposited there that is not deposited in the healthier woman, or the primate.

So Why Do The Bodies Of ‘Civilised’ Women Generally Bleed So Much?

‘Civilised’, ‘developed’ - difficult to choose words that won’t offend someone, but…you know what I mean, I hope.

Most women in our society don’t bleed just a drop or two, or very lightly, as do many women living natural lifestyles, and primates. They bleed lots. Yes, the blood does flow. And very few men reading this will have any idea just how much! For days - often a week.

So here come the radical views. They’re mainly writings from early in the 20th century (as, from the later 20th century, when radical feminist writings took hold, anything suggesting that menstruation was anything less than a wonderful thing would have been ‘deposited’ on from a great height - would anyone have dared?) Basically, the idea presented in the following writings is that of menstruation as ‘dis-ease’.

‘Menstruation is a haemorrhage. No authority on earth can successfully maintain that a haemorrhage is natural and normal, no matter in what part of the body it occurs.’ (Dr G R Clements, ‘Female Degeneration’)

‘Women are beginning to see the mistake of not questioning every aspect of their mental, physical and bodily circumstance. If one wrong condition in the body is not alleviated, it will compound itself and lead to other, worse conditions…when the organs of elimination are overburdened, the body stores some of the waste and then seeks other avenues (not designed for elimination of waste disposal.) (Dr Schroyer, ‘The Physiological Enigma of Women’).

‘…toxic blood seeks an outlet through the womb via the menstrual function…The quality of menstrual blood varies according to the chemistry of the toxic material. Bright red, profuse, odourless blood accompanied by severe uterine cramps indicates that the preponderant irritant comes from improper digestion of sugars and starches. The offending toxins are acids which have failed to be completely oxidized to carbon dioxide and water. On the other hand, if the menstrual blood is dark and odorous, clotted and stringy, the toxins of protein indigestion or putrefaction are present…thus it is obvious that under chemical duress the uturus, which nature developed as the organ of reproduction, can become an organ for the elimination of putrid waste.’ (H G Bieler, ‘Natural Way to Sexual Health’). (Old Jewish writings from the ‘Talmud’ also distinguished between different colours of menstrual blood).

Interestingly, in ‘Diseases of Women and Children’, Dr Tilden related the amount of menstrual bleeding to the amount of discharge women produce at other times of the month, which he felt was also a means by which the body eliminates toxic matter. (The Old Testament records that the ancient Israelites viewed any discharge , from men or women, as unhealthy, and is in fact similar to the modern ‘alternative’ health view that when the body discharges, via whatever outlet, it is trying to purify itself, to clean itself of toxic substances.)

To many feminists, the idea of the menstrual blood as being ‘impure’ is heresy, but…‘The toxicity of menstrual blood has been well substantiated. Mach and Lubin (Journal of Pharmacology and Experimental Therapy 22:413 (1924)) showed that the blood plasma, milk, sweat and saliva of menstruating women contains a substance that is highly toxic to protoplasm of living plants. This toxic substance is not present during the intermenstrual periods.’ Even the sweat and saliva! And these toxins are not present when not menstruating. It’s as if the body is ‘gathering together’ toxins in the period preceding menstruation, prior to expulsion at menstruation, to get the body all nice and clean again for possible impregnation the following month. But, sure, the study’s old, and if anyone knows whether any subsequent studies have refuted it, let me know.

More On Diet

Health researchers and writers Leslie and Susanna Kenton found their periods changed after switching to a diet high in fresh fruits and vegetables:

‘Women on an all-raw or high-raw diet often report that menstrual problems such as bloating, pre-menstrual tension and fatigue improve greatly after two or three months. For some of them the improvement is so dramatic that they are not aware of their periods until they arrive. This is something we discovered ourselves and at first we thought we were unique. Then we spoke to numerous other women who said they had had a similar experience. Heavy periods become lighter - a period that lasts six or seven days can be reduced to as few as one or two. In some women, particularly those who do not eat meat, dairy products or large quantities of nuts, periods even cease altogether.’

Bellgene Chung, who healed herself of cervical cancer, and believes raw food helped her do that, has researched menstruation and diet:

‘Menstruation (bleeding) is NOT a necessity following ovulation…We have been conditioned to believe that menstruation goes hand in hand with ovulation…Most women, including myself, experience menstruation because they are not truly clean on the inside…Menstruation is the body’s desperate attempt to free itself from toxins, and many females experience PMS in addition to the needless bleeding. Abdominal pain (cramping), headaches, fatigue and irritability do NOT signify an optimal state of health, yet most of us brush these symptoms off as the norm. If you feel such symptoms, this is how your body is communicating that it wants you to change what you are doing; we must listen to Nature’s messages…Presently, on a mainly raw diet, I do not even realize that I am menstruating until I feel moist and decide to take a peek’.

(re PMS - could it be that we also ‘collect up’ psychological toxins…building up just pre menstruation, to be expelled (phew!) at menstruation?)

So What Happens At Pregnancy, At The Menopause?

These are my suggestions only; they’ve come from my ‘wrestles’ with the various theories.

When we become pregnant, we stop ovulating. So, there’s no longer any egg released to be fertilised. So there’s no unfertilised egg to be shed. So there’s no monthly ’loss’ which the body can efficiently take advantage of to offload toxic matter. And the womb lining can’t be discarded, as if it was the embryo would go along with it.

So…if the theories above are correct, the body could have a problem, in that it may have accumulated toxic matter, but its monthly outlet via the uterus and vagina, is firmly closed. So, it will have to find some alternative way to expel any gathered toxins. Cue morning sickness. As a non-doctor, non- nutritionist, non-scientist, I’m going to suggest that morning sickness could be a wonderful outlet for detoxification.

And others feel similarly. Natural Hygienist Joyce M Kling: ‘Morning sickness is a body purification effort to create a better environment for the fetus.’ Some say that morning sickness is all down to ‘hormones’. Well, I don’t see why hormones can’t be involved in the purification process, and I can only say that if I were pregnant I would not do anything in any way to stop or ‘cure’ morning sickness, if it occurred. _That is because I believe that anything that suppresses morning sickness will mean that unwanted toxins may stay in our bodies - with possibly adverse consequences for the unborn baby. Not proven by science. Just the theory of a madwoman._

Menopause: as in pregnancy, the body is no longer ovulating, therefore no monthly loss of unfertilised egg, so, again, if the theories above are correct, that exit for toxins is again closed. Thus the body will look for other ways to detoxify. I’d suggest that one way in which it will do this is via the skin - cue ‘hot flushes’.

For Those Whose Periods Have Gone Awol (Or At Least Appear To Have) On Raw

First, watch very carefully! It could simply be that you have had a tiny blood loss, but that this is so far removed from a period-as-you-know-it, that you haven’t noticed. A spot or two, or perhaps a pink discharge, around the time that you’d expect a period, could well mean that ovulation has taken place 14 days previously.

If you’ve detected nothing for months, not even a spot, I’d understand why you might feel concerned. After all, a teeny amount of bleeding at least is reassuring to our conditioned minds that ovulation has occurred, and it’s good to know that it is occurring if we wish to become pregnant at some time. So the key thing then is to establish whether you are in fact ovulating.

The accounts I’ve described suggest that, if you feel healthy generally, there is a far higher likelihood that you are ovulating and that all is well, than not. Please don’t worry if anyone on a conventional diet tells you that perhaps you are not ovulating because you are ‘starving’ yourself, or ‘malnourished’. That theory really doesn’t hold water, because millions of starving, malnourished women in the world continue to have babies, so clearly ovulate. Secondly, even if it were correct, you are just about as far from being malnourished as it is possible to be. People on standard cooked diets are often ‘malnourished’. If you are on a diet high in raw plant foods, you are likely to be in the best health you’ve experienced for a long time.

So, having said that you’re very likely to be ovulating fine, how can you know for sure? Here are two things you could do to know for ‘almost sure’! Firstly, you can take your temperature daily and see if there’s a slight rise mid- cycle. The rise indicates ovulation. Secondly, observe the state of vaginal discharge/mucus daily (if any - see Tilden above!). At ovulation it should change from being relatively opaque and thick to thinner and transparent with the consistency of raw egg white (sorry, lifetime vegans who’ve never had an egg - you’ll have to get hold of one.). Try putting some of the mucus on a tissue and folding then unfolding it - if you see any ‘strings’, and it’s thin and transparent, it’s likely ovulatory mucus.

If you’ve detected nothing, not even a spot, no r a temperature rise, nor a change in mucus, then it would be wise to follow Thomas Lodi MD’s advice: ‘absence of menstruation can sometimes (my italics) denote an underlying hormonal problem…consult a suitably qualified holistic physician who can carry out the relevant checks.’ Bear in mind, in the UK at least, medical doctors will rarely act until periods have been absent for six consecutive months.

I believe however that the vast majority of women on raw vegan diets who are experiencing scant, or no (observed!) blood flow are doing so for the very best and healthiest reasons rather than there being anything wrong.

Conclusion

Was pristine woman walking in paradise dripping blood for a few days each month? I don’t think so.

Are periods normal? Yes - in most ‘developed’ societies, and particularly amongst women on standard cooked omnivorous diets. Are they healthy? Periods- as-generally-understood? I don’t think so.

Do I still have them? Well - er… yes. At 50, I do still have periods, but obviously have mixed feelings here! Pre-raw, I was rather pleased that my body was still bleeding each month, but now I’m obviously not so sure. It’s all slightly confused by the fact that I’m an old hag and therefore may not be ovulating regularly, but I can say (way-hay!) that, since raw (I’m 100% raw, but my diet’s not perfect), my periods are much lighter and more infrequent. Phew.

The main aim of this article has been to challenge the prevailing view of periods as ‘healthy’, to challenge the things we’ve been brought up to believe about them, and to reassure those women whose menstrual flow has changed since going raw that this is probably not something to be concerned about, that it is just as likely (if not more likely) to be a sign that health is improving, rather than the opposite.

When we go raw, we are going out of step with what 99% of the world says on diet. In this article, I’ve taken the same path on menstruation. I hope I have, at least, provided food for thought.

Anti Supplements? Why?

Mon, 20 Dec 2021 17:36:55 -0800

[Our thanks to Debbie Took for allowing reprinting from her original blog.]

Let’s start with the disclaimer. Not a doctor. Not a dietician. Not a biochemist. Not a ‘raw food guru’. Just a raw food coach who blogs. In fact, I don’t even possess a chemistry O-level. As with any blog article, this article represents my personal opinion (together with the opinions of others working in the health field, including a raw food guru or two!) and is not intended to diagnose, treat, etc.

Having got all that out of the way…

it is interesting that when people move from a cooked-food diet, where all sorts of enzymes, vitamins and minerals are cooked out of food, to a raw food diet, where all those enzymes, vitamins and minerals are - hooray - left intact, that they are then subjected to sales pitches from those who tell them that their raw food diet is not as wonderful as they thought, that there are very likely things missing in the diet, and that to achieve optimum nutrition…buy their supplements. In fact, one luminary has now gone so far as to say that it is ’not possible’ to meet all our mineral needs through a raw food diet, and that if we take his special course we will then find out what minerals will be ‘missing’ and ‘where to get them from’(!). Statements of this kind will concern many a raw fooder,particularly those who can’t afford to buy these supplements anyway, so I think it only fair to point out that many people in the raw food world do not share his opinion.

What do I mean by ‘supplements’? Extracts, mixtures of extracts, sold in powder, capsule or liquid form. One thing most of them have in common is that they are very expensive - around £50-80.

This article is biased. I’m generally anti supplements. This articles outlines the case against supplements. Why? Because, if you want to find the case for any supplement, it’s very easy. Just google, and you will find thousands (more) of words extolling its virtues. 95% is written by those selling supplements. The remainder is from users convinced of their benefits.

Please note my use of the word generally. I am generally anti-supplements. What this means is that I’ll ’never say never’, and if at any point I’m convinced that a supplement would be the right thing for me, I’ll take one. Whether or not raw vegans need to take Vitamin B12 for example is a hugely- debated area. At present I do not supplement for B12. There are many healthy long-term raw vegans who do not, and some symptoms that have been attributed to B12 deficiency may well be due to other factors, eg deficiencies of other vitamins/poor absorption. But - OK - I’ll admit I’m not totally sure on the B12 thing, but I’d be far more likely to switch to a raw vegetarian diet than supplement. And be assured that whatever your favourite ‘raw foodguru’ says about B12, there’ll be another equally knowledgeable person that will have his own set of compelling evidence that the opposite is the case.

Also, I will always support my fellow raw foodists’ decisions to do whatever they feel is best for their health, and their children’s health. Two raw foodist mothers - Shazzie and Holly - have come under fire on raw food forums recently. Both felt for various reasons that their children’s raw vegan diets were not what they could be, and made the decision to add to their diets. Shazzie initially chose vegan+supplements, then added a little raw egg yolk to her daughter’s diet. Holly chose to add raw dairy to her children’s diets. Behind each of these decisions was a lot of thought and research and the motivation was to do the very best for their children. If it were me, and I felt the raw vegan diet needed something more, I would be more inclined to add raw vegetarian foods than supplement, but that’s based on what I have come to understand about supplements and what makes intuitive sense to me. But let’s all be prepared to admit that however strongly held our beliefs, and however much ‘science’ we’ve found to back our case (and it’s always possible to find some!), any one of us could be wrong.

I’ve written this article because those who say they are ‘anti’ supplements are challenged regularly. I can quite see why the statement’I don’t believe in supplements’ can seem narrow/closed-minded. It can seem that the ‘anti’ supplementers haven’t considered the facts, are forgetting that ‘we’re all different’ (and similar…), aren’t sufficiently concerned about demineralised soil. Etc. But whilst some raw foodists just instinctively don’t want to put anything into their bodies other than raw plant foods in the form in which they grow naturally, others do have a fuller rationale, but find the thought of communicating a view of nutrition (and disease) that is a little different from that of the world at large (and of many raw fooders) somewhat daunting. So…I’m going to have a go here, and if anyone would like to use this article in discussion, please feel free to link to it.

Please note that I am NOT arguing whether supplements are a good idea or not for the average cooked-food eater. I am discussing the case against supplements for those on a diet of raw plant foods, where the majority of the food is organic.

Where Is The Evidence That Raw Foodists Are Nutrient-Deficient?

So many of us switch to raw food, see ailments vanish, feel better than we ever have done before, then join raw food forums, and sooner or later…the dampers kick in, as we’re persuaded by other raw foodists, and particularly by those selling supplements, that we are likely to be, or will become, deficient in various nutrients.

We can’t be felled on the ‘biggies’ - protein, calcium…there’s ample out there to reassure us that we’re not going to go short of those.Cariminerals (many of which we’d never heard of before) - even though we’re in fact ingesting far more of them than on our previous cooked diets \ according to some, the raw food diet will be failing us there.

But where’s the evidence for this? In general, figures on nutrient deficiencies quoted are based on the population as a whole, and this pool will comprise mainly cooked-food meat-eaters. I’ve also seen figures revealing nutrient deficiencies in ill people. The population in general will very likely be deficient in all sorts of things as much of the food eaten is damaged. The population in general also consumes things that are actively antagonistic to nutrients in the body, eg alcohol, caffeine, nicotine, birth control pills and other drugs. So, for a raw foodist , it’s no argument for a supplement seller to say ‘x% of people are deficient in’ this/that.

It might be relevant to say ‘x% of raw foodists are deficient in’ this/that, although of course this would need to be based on fact. Some make claims that raw food diets are deficient based on case studies of isolated raw foodists who had become ill - ‘sample size of one’ studies! But there could have been so many other things in those people’s lives that could have contributed to the ill-health.

If we saw a large-scale controlled study of long-term 100% raw vegans who take no supplements were ‘deficient’ in a certain nutrient, well, yes, that would be interesting.

But then we’d have to look at what ‘deficient’ actually means. How are the RDAs (recommended daily allowances) for various nutrients set? Well, please someone tell me different, but googling suggests they are guesstimates based on averages of levels from a ‘pool’ of ‘apparently healthy’ people in the population as a whole. Now, as we all know, the population (the majority on a SAD diet for example) isn’t that healthy. ‘Apparently healthy’ people aren’t that healthy! For example, one-third of men aged 30-50 have prostate cancer and don’t know it (source) of over 50’s have tumours of some sort (no source but plausible, I think you’ll agree, after considering the prostate source), and ‘apparently healthy’ people suffer from a host of ailments that we’re told are ’normal’, but which raw fooders have seen disappear with a change of diet …

And, what this could mean is: the pool (of, actually, un healthy people) could have ‘x’ level of a certain ’nutrient’ in their body. It could actually be far too much! And then what happens of course is…the RDA is set from those figures, and ironically the ‘health-seeker’, who eats and lives far more healthily than the average, gets ‘blood-tested’ for this nutrient, finds he’s ’lacking’ (of course…), then supplements and - phew - his level is now up to the level of the pool. He then finds, to his surprise, that his health is not improving, but the reverse…. Just a thought.

If I ever see a large-scale controlled study of 100% raw vegans who take no supplements which shows on average that ill-health is present that could reasonably be linked to a deficiency of a certain nutrient, then I might be persuaded to take a supplement.

Haven’t seen one yet.

Pro-Supplement Arguments - Two Examples

It’s essential for those living in a cool climate to supplement for Vitamin D.

Is it? Those who have researched this will find many conflicting opinions on how much sunshine is needed for the body to make Vitamin D. And, as usual, they all disagree. However, a rough average is around 15 minutes a day. True, we have many days in the UK where sunshine isn’t present. But we can store Vitamin D. So, being outside for most of the day on just one sunny day in the summer can make up for 24 sunless days. Also, is there any point in the last few weeks where the sun has indeed been shining outside, and you’ve been on- line? Have your children ever played inside when it’s been sunny outdoors? And the sun does shine in the winter - lots! Isn’t the answer to adjust our lifestyles rather than take a powder?

Aren’t you concerned about mineral-depleted soil?

The piece de resistance of those selling supplements to the smug raw foodist. I’m quite concerned about GM foods, and irradiated foods, but mineral-depleted soil? No, not bothered much. Organic farmers are doing all sorts of things to maximise soil nutrient content, eg adding rock powder to soil, introducing soil-based organisms, and even adding ocean water (sprinkled some on my own garden recently). Victoria Boutenko in ‘Green for Life’ quotes figures that show the mineral content of organic plant foods to be many times higher than non-organic.

And, I’ve read that although the mineral content of soil in certain locales may be deficient in one or two important minerals, people who eat plant foods grown on a wide variety of soils are unlikely to develop any deficiencies (an argument perhaps for not always buying local (!)). And for those who say ’not everyone can afford to buy organic’ - if they can afford to spend £70 on a ‘miracle’ mineral supplement, yes - they can.

Also, I’d suggest to anyone who’s concerned about ‘mineral-depleted soil’ to eat more fruit. It’s only the topsoil that will be affected to any significant degree by mineral depletion. The roots of fruit trees go down a lot further than that and will bring up minerals from sub-soil, from rock layers deep in the ground. And even if a tree is deficient to any degree in minerals, what will happen is that it will produce less fruit, not ‘minerally-deficient’ fruit.

Supplements Are Unnatural

In whole fresh plant foods all the nutrients are there in the proportions that enabled the plant to grow. Even those without chemistry O-levels know that chemicals work with each other rather in isolation. So, when we eat a bell pepper all the vitamins and minerals in that pepper will be there in the exact proportions that enabled that pepper to grow. Bell peppers are high in Vitamin C, and quite high in B6. When we eat a bell pepper, there will be all sorts of vitamins and minerals entering our body that will work together to help our bodies use the C and the B6. Isn’t it safer to take nutrients in a mix that has been proven to work (the result being a healthy plant) than where the proportions of each nutrient have been decided by men?

Dr T Colin Campbell (The China Study) says that vitamins and minerals should never be consumed in isolation of their naturally occurring state and that the evidence doesn’t support there being any benefits from consuming isolated nutrients that way.

Mike Benton (Natural Hygienist) There are now mineral supplements which are advertised as coming from ‘organic’ sources. These are equally useless because they exist in a fragmented state, extracted from the sources within which they naturally occur. Minerals do not work in isolation. When they are extracted from their natural sources, the other co-existing vitamins, minerals and enzymes are also extracted. Even if they were, the process of laboratory extraction destroys any vital benefits that may have been associated with the minerals. Minerals must be consumed in their natural, unfragmented and organic state to be of any use to the body. The best mineral supplements are those naturally occurring in mineral-rich foods in their unprocessed state - fresh fruits, vegetables, nuts, seeds and sprouts.

Supplements in powder form are of course also stripped of their fibre and water. Dr Doug Graham (80/10/10 Diet) When the water is removed, the oxidative process that occurs has a degrading impact on the nutrients that remain, leaving supplements far less nutritious than their whole-food counterparts.

When Supplements Can Be Harmful

The BBC in May 07 reported a study (US National Cancer Institute) showing a link between prostate cancer and taking multivitamins more than once-daily. This was an association only, it was not possible to say that that the multivitamins caused the cancer, but study leader Dr Karla Lawson commented: ‘Because multivitamins contain so many different components and men taking a lot of them were more likely to be taking other supplements, the researchers were unable to tease out what was causing the association.’ (In other words, all the supplements taken had made things very complicated…)

Dr Alan M Immerman DC: ‘When one tries to provide proper nutrition by extracting nutrients from food and taking them in various proportions and quantities, there is indeed a risk of creating imbalances. The best way to supply vitamins to the body is to create them as nature provided them - in foods.’

Dr Doug Graham: ‘…the marketers neglect to mention that too much of that nutrient is harmful in a variety of ways, not the least of which is the inevitable imbalances that result when we consume supplements of any kind. Most supplements are concentrated from plant foods, and despite our American ‘more is better’ mindset, the body does not appreciate these unnatural concentrates and has to work to expel them similarly to the way it has to eliminate toxic residue from cooked foods … Like an amateur barber who finds himself trimming each side of the hair to make things ’even’ until his client is bald, a person who supplements with single nutrients (or any formulation or combination of extracted nutrients) inevitably creates greater and more confounding imbalances, whether or not the cause and effect are discernible in the short term.’

Many raw fooders will be familiar with the Kouchakoff studies, in which it was shown that, after cooked food, there was a rush of white blood cells (leukocytosis) towards the digestive tract - the body perceiving the cooked food as a foreign, toxic substance. The following also resulted in leukocytosis: drugs, medicinal herbs, and…nutritional supplements.

So, in whom do we place our trust? Nature, or man? I’ve an underlying distrust of what clever men tell me I should ingest, especially if there’s a profit motive behind it. Meat marketing boards told us 50 years ago that we needed many more times protein than is actually the case. Little comfort to those who ate lots of beefsteak and are suffering from bowel cancer now. In the same era we were told that smoking was good for us. Men in white coats, men in cloaks, have had us taking all sorts of substances, to our destruction…

Where is the source of wisdom for what nutrients you or I could do with today - this very day? The supplement manufacturer, or our bodies? A few months ago I had a great desire for oranges. They tasted more delicious than at any other time in my life - ate loads of them! I believe that this was because my body at the time very much needed something in oranges. After a while my desire for oranges lessened - perhaps because my body had built up adequate reserves of whatever nutrient had been lacking. And that’s how that cliche ’listen to your body’ operates. The clever body can correct deficiencies all by itself by generating a desire for certain foods.

How on the other hand can it ever be right for an individual to take ‘x’ mcg/mg of a supplement every single day - that amount decided by the supplement manufacturer? Yes, the body might expel excess, but …always? We know that disease occurs when the body is overburdened by the task of elimination.

Why A Supplement Might Appear To Work

Firstly of course - could be the ‘placebo effect’. Perhaps we’re feeling a bit ‘down’, physically and/or psychologically (most likely for some reason unconnected with diet), we’re persuaded by a supplement manufacturer’s claims, we spend £70 (and sure want to feel that’s justified!), we feel excited at taking something that’s a buzz word on the raw food forums, we start taking it, we feel a bit better (which could be due to all sorts of reasons), we attribute those good feelings to the supplement, we focus on those good feelings, which in turn create other good feelings, and…we’re sold!

We may see a cessation of certain ‘symptoms’. Acne is one example of a body’s trying to clean up by eliminating toxins via the skin. If we then ingest an excess of certain nutrients via a supplement, the body may then have to divert energies from house-cleaning to eliminating the excess, so…for a while the acne might appear to clear up! So, sadly, the supplement works like a pharmaceutical drug - suppressing symptoms, but doing nothing to address the underlying cause.

We may even experience euphoria - a ‘high’ from a supplement. Some believe that substances that have been extracted from their naturally occurring form, or contain nutrients in too high a dose for our bodies, are actually toxic, and that when the body senses toxic matter it will certainly move to an ‘all systems go’ state, but as preparation for elimination, which results in a stimulant effect. A stimulant effect is the calling card of many poisons - caffeine, nicotine etc. And of course we can then get used to this stimulating effect and miss it when it isn’t there, resulting in a sink to a lower level of well-being that accompanies any drug withdrawal.

So - many people are quick to link good feelings to the supplement, whether these are actually due to something else in their lives, or whether they’re due to the body’s efforts to eliminate. Sooner or later they’ll have some ‘down’ days again. Will they link these ‘down’ days to the supplement as well? As that would be fair, wouldn’t it? Well, no they don’t and one reason is that it’s somewhat uncomfortable to entertain the thought that we parted with a lot of money for nothing. If they’re ‘sold on supplements’, they may decide they need a higher dose. But, more likely, they’ll wonder if they’ve got some other kind of ‘deficiency’ and go back to the site selling them for another ‘wondercure’.Some people say that when they take certain supplements they feel less hungry afterwards. They interpret this as a good thing and the supplement manufacturers tell us that this is because their powders are so ’nutrient- dense’. But the ‘Natural Hygiene’ view is that the body will shut down appetite when it has some serious work to do, ie eliminate a toxic invader. Again, this is why cigarettes and coffee can depress appetite and why, when we are unwell, and the body is involved in eliminative processes (eg via sneezing, sweating etc) we do not feel like food.

Green/White Powders, Potions, ‘Nutrient-Dense’

Green Powders

Here’s Frederic Patenaude, well-known raw foodist who’s ’not backward in coming forward’, on green powders, as he says it so well!

‘This might make me a few enemies, but I believe that 99% of supplements and ‘superfoods’ on the market are an absolute waste of money. It seems like every time you turn your head, someone is offering the latest and greatest ‘beauty enhancing’ or ‘breakthrough’ superfood or supplement. But what if I told you something shocking yet so simple to understand: there’s no ‘food’ that arrives in a bottle, having been made in a factory and sold in powdered form, that will ever compare in terms of ‘super-nutrition’ to fresh fruit and vegetables. But still, almost every day I get an e-mail that says, ‘What do you think of ____?’ (fill in the blank with whatever supplement or superfood is now being promoted as the latest ‘amazing’ product).

Almost every supplement company has a variation of the ‘green powder’ which is basically a powder made with dried grass, dried grass juices or dried vegetables and possibly algae. This powder is supposed to make your body more alkaline and give you nutrition you can’t find elsewhere…A powder of vegetables or algae can never compare in nutritional value to fresh vegetables, even if those vegetables are not organic. The real superfoods are dark green vegetables such as spinach, romaine lettuce, black kale, parsley, celery, arugula, and so on. With the use of ‘green smoothies’ made with fresh green veg and fruit, anyone can obtain superior nutrition in a few minutes a day…green smoothies and fresh raw greens literally put these green powders to shame.’

(I’m sorry to say that when Fred talks of making enemies, this is unfortunately often the case if one speaks out against supplements. Prominent people who’ve questioned the claims made by supplement promoters have been attacked, and ostracised by others in the raw food ‘community’. As a lesser- known raw fooder, I’ve found that I and others on the raw food forums have been told that we should open our minds, and, of course… the piece de resistance - the implication that we are deficient - oh, that again - but in…lurve… So, can I just say to anyone who is upset by my presenting the arguments against … I don’t give a (ripe, juicy, whole, fresh,) fig. (Love and Light XXX).

White Powders

Some raw fooders rave about MSM - in fact, some even say it gives them a high! But it’s not without controversy, and I’ve seen a forum poster cite it as the direct cause of his mother’s health problems.

MSM is sulphur, in the form of a white, crystalline powder. Do we need sulphur? Yes - it helps build collagen (used to bind connective tissue) and maintain healthy joints.

Are raw foodists likely to be deficient in sulphur? The product details supplied by one online supplier include this: ‘MSM is destroyed by cooking.’ OK - not a problem for raw foodists then. We also read that MSM is deficient in foods grown ‘in greenhouses or through irrigation’. My googling reveals that sulphur is present in the following foods (amongst others): avocado, blueberries, broccoli, cabbage, carrots, cherries, coconut, garlic, grapes, grains, nuts, seeds, onions, pulses, pak choi, parsley, red peppers, tomatoes, and green leafy veg generally (eg kale, lettuce, watercress). Well, I suppose some of these may be grown in greenhouses or through irrigation, but can’t see that in general there will be a problem. (And if you have any patch of land, it’s very easy to grow lettuces).

Mike Benton: ‘Almost all diets contain adequate amounts of this mineral.’ VitaminsDiary.com: ‘A diet sufficient in protein is generally considered to be adequate in sulphur.’

I can’t see that there is any reason to think that the average raw foodist isn’t getting all the sulphur their bodies need in their food. Surely the raw foodist supplementing with MSM would likely be taking sulphur in excess of the body’s requirements, and of course in an isolated form. And sulphur is a substance (along with phosphorus, chlorine, sulfur and silicon) which, when metabolised, forms acids in the body. So is it really sensible to take sulphur in isolation from the (alkalising) foods it is found in naturally?

E3 Live

The only ingredient in E3 Live is a blue-green algae (or, more accurately, a bacteria) called alphanizomem flos-aquae. Before being marketed as a ‘health supplement’ it was known as ‘pond scum’ or ‘slime’. It grows all over the world.

I’ve seen much impressive scientific-sounding material from those promoting this, and even raw food gurus make all sorts of health claims for it. Yet, I’ve not yet heard of any one that has been substantiated by a clinical trial. They also list all the amazing things the pond-scum contains - ’every mineral known to man’, antioxidants etc. But, as my friend Roger pointed out, a cow- pat may well contain all sorts of vitamins, minerals, antioxidants etc that are also found in the human body, but that doesn’t mean we should be eating it.If you think that the slime in a lake was designed for human beings to eat, or that for some reason a raw food diet will be inadequate without the ingestion of this, then your idea of a natural diet is different from mine. Again, I wouldn’t be surprised to see the body considerably stimulated in an effort to get rid of it.

‘Nutrient-dense’ foods

This term is used frequently by those selling supplements (and also by those selling dehydrated powdered forms of whole foods). The marketing often includes the words ‘contains all eight essential amino-acids’.

Just a reminder that many more mundane foods contain ‘all eight essential amino-acids’ as well. Here’s a clue to one: it’s long, it’s yellow…

Usually supplement marketing will contain long lists of figures relating to various nutrients. A thought on those…the ‘superfood’ powders are of course fresh, whole foods that have had water removed. If we take a fresh, whole plant food with x% protein, x% vitamins in it, by weight, and then remove all the water, and measure the percentages again by weight, because the food weighs far less when dehydrated, all the nutrient percentages will shoot up!

And of course even if the manufacturers look at grams of nutrients rather than percentages, what they’ll be then doing is looking at grams per, eg 100g, of the powder. Well, if we compare 100g of the powder with 100g of the fresh, the powder will of course contain many more of the plant food than the fresh, again, because dehydrated food weighs less. So, actual grams of nutrients per 100g will be higher as well.

So you could take any fresh fruit or vegetable, dehydrate it, and, hey presto - ‘superfood’! Now IF we were to ingest the same weight of powder as we would of the fresh whole food it’s made from, then we might benefit from this nutrient concentration. But we don’t. Typically, we might be directed to have a spoonful or two. And we’d normally rehydrate this in water - perhaps in a smoothie. So that would bring us pretty much back to where we’d be if we’d eaten the fresh whole food instead! And how much better it would have been to have fresh, whole plant food (at a fraction of the price) rather than have it dehydrated, ground, stored, packed and shipped.I wonder what the price of these foods (often from South America) is over there? Even taking into account transportation, storage costs etc, I’m going to guess that these are high- profit items. Could be that they’re quite common-place to the locals and that they’d be quite surprised (amused?) to hear of us paying £15 a bag, and not even fresh …

Liquid zeolite

I know raw foodists who swear by this. Here’s an alternative view.

CONCLUSION

The spur for writing this article came after seeing someone challenge a raw foodist who advocated no supplements as making a ‘blanket statement’. I’ve tried to show that, behind the ‘blanket statement’ is a rationale, ie we do have a reason or two for saying what we do.

I did say in the intro that I’d ’never say never’ re supplementation, but do believe there is ample evidence to suggest that supplementing is certainly unnecessary for the majority of raw foodists, probably unnecessary for any raw foodist, and that it could even be harmful in some circumstances.

If you’re considering spending upwards of £50 on a supplement, ask yourself why. Before you saw the marketing blurb, before you saw the excited testimonies of raw fooders, did you actually feel any symptoms of deficiency? Did you feel that your raw food diet was lacking? Indeed, were you even on a raw food diet? (high-raw diets are excellent - light years healthier than the average cooked diet, but until the diet is 100% raw, raw food has not had a truly fair test). Before you heard about the supplement, were you ill? And if so, are you sure your food was to blame? There are all sorts of things that affect our physical and psychological well-being other than food. Were all these things right? Sleep, fresh air, sunshine, exercise, relationships, occupation? Any conflicts, stresses?

Check out the ingredients list. Use Wikipedia to find out what each thing actually is. If it’s a chemical, google it together with ‘food sources’ and see if it’s something that isn’t contained in whole, fresh, raw foods you can buy at a fraction of the price. And if it’s not found in whole, fresh, raw foods ask yourself whether it should really be going into your body.

Consider the arguments of those ‘anti’ supplements I’ve outlined above. Consider whether listening to the desires of your body for certain foods throughout the day, the week, the seasons, might be a more reliable indicator of what vitamins and minerals your body requires than extracts and mixes put together by supplement manufacturers.

Ask yourself whether a diet full of raw foods (ie for the first time in your life you are eating foods with nutrients intact ) will be ’lacking’ in some way.

Dr Doug Graham: ‘All the vitamins, minerals and nutrients any body needs are amply supplied through the variety of fruits, vegetables and leafy greens found in a healthful diet…The raw food kitchen need not include jars, bottles, boxes, cans, bags, capsules, powders, remedies, potions, pills, or tinctures of any kind’.