Raw Food Diet - Day 19 (Blog)

[Steve Pavlina]

Use this thread to discuss the following entry from Steve Pavlina's blog:

Raw Food Diet - Day 19

[Jaben]

Glad to see the greens are helping. I'm guessing all of your greens have probably been organic.

According to Rutgers University Study Comparing Organic versus Commercially Grown Foods organic produce is far superior to conventional in mineral content. For example spinach has twice as much calcium as conventional and 30 times as much iron.

FYI, Kale seems to be a pretty good source of protein. Look up the RDA of protein / KG of weight for an average adult and multiply each Essential amino acid by 70 (for a 70 KG adult) and compare to the USDA nutrient content for 1 pound of raw kale.

You get:
Essential Amino -- mg/day RDA for 70KG Adult <==> mg/ one lb raw kale
Histidine -- 560 <==> 313
Isoleucine -- 700 <==> 895
Leucine -- 980 <==> 1051
Lysine -- 840 <==> 895
Methionine + cystine -- 910 <==> 345
Phenylalanine +tyrosine -- 980 <==> 1298
Threonine -- 490 <==> 668
Tryptophan -- 245 <==> 182
Valine -- 700 <==> 820

The above references are from Green for Life by Victoria Boutenko.

[juliangall]

"Is it possible that the best way of eating is to stop assuming that food has any power over us except that which we give it via our beliefs?"

For me, this is the most significant thing you have said since you started your month of raw eating.

I'd love to see you do an experiment on this but how could you do it, I wonder? How can you experiment with what you're eating while not paying any attention to food or giving it any power?

[Keith]

Steve,

You once said you'd reconsider a raw diet when you could afford to hire a chef to prepare it for you. Have you reached that stage now? Given the simplicity of your current raw diet, you probably wouldn't even need a full-fledged chef...

[klokkasju]

Hi Steve,

I hope that doesn’t come off like I’m lamely trying to justify a return to cooked food.

why would you want to justify anything? It's your body and your decision to try 30 days raw. You were so kind to let us know, what you experience. But nothing more.

Is it possible that the best way of eating is to stop assuming that food has any power over us except that which we give it via our beliefs?

I don't understand why you want to stick to so rigorous statements. From counting calories and reading tons of stuff about nutritions to "food don't have any power at all". Hey, wake up, there's a middle course!

Here are my (personal, not scientific) assumptions about food/eating:
1. Your body tells you what he needs.
2. Enjoy eating as often as you can. Take your time and worship your body by giving him, what he wants.
3. Why should some far away scientist know more about your needs, than you?
4. You won't die if you try something new once (at least this is true for most things )

Since I eat "this way", I feel better. I stopped worrying about what food could have negative effects on me and just try to enjoy eating. So if i want to eat raw, I eat raw. And if I need something cooked, so what? ....
Believing all the scientific results about nutritions etc. would mean for me, that I also have to believe I have died several times. Obviously I didn't. (Or maybe I did, but I feel great anyway ) ... so there's not so much value in scientific theories about food for me.

[Vantage72]

Originally Posted by Jaben

According to Rutgers University Study Comparing Organic versus Commercially Grown Foods organic produce is far superior to conventional in mineral content. For example spinach has twice as much calcium as conventional and 30 times as much iron.

Thanks for that information. It's very interesting. Somehow I can't find more detailed online resources. Do you have them? I'd like to know the details of the the study.

Edit: I found some additional information, maybe this is about the research:
A study conducted at Rutgers University (Bear et al., 1948) is frequently misquoted as evidence supporting the position that organically grown vegetables are significantly superior in minerals and trace elements to conventionally grown vegetables. In reviewing the original publication, one can clearly see that this was not the intention of the study nor does it give support to this premise.
Variation in Mineral Composition of Vegetables.1 Soil Science Society of America Proceedings 1948, Volume 13. pp. 380-4, The Soil Science Society of America, Madison, Wisconsin, 1949.

[patrickq]

Steve, I was also fascinated by your comment regarding the yogi. This is something that I have believed for a while - the ability we have to influence the effect upon ourselves of what we eat. My feeling is that probably when we reach that level of awareness, we no longer desire the foods that we previously longed for, but it does mean we could go for a slap up meal with our friends, drink them all under the table and feel fine, which has to be worth doing just once

[sri]

I can’t recall the source, but I remember reading an eye-witness story about a yogi (at least I think it was a yogi) who swallowed a whole bunch of mind-altering pills that would have normally been fatal — or at least caused a severe reaction — and they apparently had no effect on him whatsoever. He did it intentionally too, probably as a demonstration that he was in control of the effect of whatever he ingested.

I think Ram Dass was the eye-witness and Neem Karoli Baba was the yogi.
A couple of months ago, I listened to a lecture collection by Ram Dass and
he related that story (if I'm not mistaken).

Here is an interview with Ram Dass:
Interview with Ram Dass
In it he talks about Neem Karoli Baba taking drugs...
(search for the word "drug" to find the exact spot)

[Vantage72]

Originally Posted by klokkasju

From counting calories and reading tons of stuff about nutritions to "food don't have any power at all". Hey, wake up, there's a middle course!

Here are my (personal, not scientific) assumptions about food/eating:
1. Your body tells you what he needs.
2. Enjoy eating as often as you can. Take your time and worship your body by giving him, what he wants.
3. Why should some far away scientist know more about your needs, than you?
4. You won't die if you try something new once (at least this is true for most things )

Since I eat "this way", I feel better. I stopped worrying about what food could have negative effects on me and just try to enjoy eating. So if i want to eat raw, I eat raw. And if I need something cooked, so what? ....

Great advice!!! Thanks I needed that

[Jeff Lilly]

I read a similar story about a yogi who never ate anything at all; she just bathed herself in sunlight. I don't know about eyewitnesses, though. ;-)

[angus]

The story of Neem Karolyi taking a handful of hallucinogens and other meds from Ram Dass is found in Be Here Now.

[Bruce Achterberg]

Originally Posted by Steve Pavlina, 'Raw Food Diet - Day 19'

This experiment has raised my awareness of something else as well. There’s a part of me that’s questioning whether I’m taking the notion of optimizing my diet too far. Health is obviously more than just food intake, and I’m concerned I’m giving too much of my power to something outside myself. Is it possible I’m somehow creating a more and more restrictive diet for myself as part of a process of discovering a more important lesson? That would be congruent with the subjective reality interpretation of this experiment. One way to grow is to honor your expectations, which is basically what I’m doing with this experiment. But another way to grow is to change your expectations. When it comes to diet, I’ve always used the former approach, but I’m starting to get curious about what would happen if I began testing the latter approach.

I can’t recall the source, but I remember reading an eye-witness story about a yogi (at least I think it was a yogi) who swallowed a whole bunch of mind-altering pills that would have normally been fatal — or at least caused a severe reaction — and they apparently had no effect on him whatsoever. He did it intentionally too, probably as a demonstration that he was in control of the effect of whatever he ingested. I don’t know if that story is true, but the very notion is a challenging one to consider. Is it possible that the best way of eating is to stop assuming that food has any power over us except that which we give it via our beliefs?

Fascinating that you should mention that!

I too have asked myself similar questions while trying to optimise my vegan diet. I see that lots of people have certain opinions on what we should eat, what we shouldn't eat, etc. And then there are people who seem to do great on what, to me, doesn't seem like an "optimal" diet. Some people get very different results from different diets, and while you can put it down to a lot of things, I really wonder if there's more to it then meets the eye, much like I'm finding is the case with the rest of reality.

I can look at what people eat and say, "You seem healthy, but from what I know about diet, you shouldn't be. Perhaps you'll have issues later on in life", but it didn't take me long to catch myself out there and notice that particular line of thinking was more about me trying to justify my notion of "what is healthy" and not about health itself and actual real world evidence. It's very easy to get caught up trying to justify your thinking such that you completely overlook real-world results, which is basically a form of ego identification and loss of awareness.

Eckhart Tolle suggests that you should eat what your body feels drawn to -- what your body says "yes" to in a state of present moment awareness. Abraham (of Abraham-Hicks) says that you should not worry about what people say you should eat, but the beliefs you have about food, and eat what feels good to you (using your emotional guidance). If everything is energy anyway, it makes sense that being in alignment with your inner being/higher self is probably more important then the specific food you eat. (I could quote sources, but I really don't want to find them. I'm really meticulous with being accurate and detailed -- as you no doubt know by now -- so suffice to say you can trust me.)

Interestingly, I often use you, Steve, to fall back on when it comes to diet. I often think, "Steve's obviously done a lot of research, and he reports great results, so whatever he's doing must work on some level", and I go about optimising my results from there.

But too often I think I get caught up in the specifics and I don't really consider all of the consequences. I've found that being too trusting of an info source can be detrimental. Not necessarily because the info you're reading is wrong (ie. the author is lying or misleading you), but because you don't have the big picture. What people write about is often only a snap shot of their experience, and they leave a lot of details out -- details that may be very important.

Another things I've noticed is a pattern with a lot of your blog posts. A lot of what you write about simply doesn't work for me, but it seems to work great for you. It makes me wonder how much of what "you've found and discovered" works for you is more so about what you've created/manifested and it being a vibrational match for you.

I see this often with other people as well. They claim certain things work for them, but then I try them and they don't work for me, and I wonder why there isn't some sort of universally applicable "thing that works". It would make sense, right? Sure, there are factors to consider, such as preferences, strengths, weaknesses, etc, but then I wonder how much of it is subjective -- how much of what people do "works" for them because (A) they believe it will, and (B) they've attracted that particular "tool" that works for them into their life via the LoA, etc? I tried to do this with career-type personal dev work, and I always come back to following my intuition, not going with what my intellect (and other people) tell me is intelligent.

I've noticed that a lot of what you blog about is just the specifics of you playing around with certain beliefs you've had, etc. It took me a long time to correlate this info, but eventually I saw that at certain times (ie. certain months) you said you were experimenting with certain beliefs, and you got certain results because of it -- things that "worked" for you -- and then you reported the specifics without necessarily mentioning the "higher level" belief-orientated work you did (or at least, you didn't go into much detail about it, which is merely the issue of "blogging is good, but doesn't beat books when it comes to being holistic" coming up again).

I have to question, did your experiments work because you believed they would? Do you get the results you do, not because specific, objective actions and methods, but because of your beliefs and what you are creating? If that's the case, it's more intelligent for me to "manifest" my own creations rather then try use yours to come into alignment with my desires, since that could very well be exactly what you're doing.

I certainly don't have the answers here, but it sure is interesting territory. I've tried exploring it a bit, but I find I lack certain abilities (ie. ability to change beliefs efficiently -- I need to learn how still), and interestingly, while this all sounds good intellectually, my emotional guidance is telling me that it really isn't, and I should stick on the path I'm on. It's as if the question "to what degree do beliefs create reality?" seems to stem from an even deeper desire, such as maybe a desire for clarity, or a certain type of life experience, and my inner being/higher self is guiding me towards the more direct realisation of that, instead of me trying to go about it using "action" to compensate for vibration and the point of attraction I'm emanating.

But then I have to wonder to what degree my experience of "I should follow my intuition" comes from my beliefs! I'm very much putting a lot of thought/attention on that type of mindset/beliefs right now, so perhaps I'm creating the results in alignment with my beliefs -- even when it comes to the notion of questioning if my beliefs create my experience!

All very interesting stuff. Toto, I've got a feeling we're not in Kansas anymore.

[Bruce Achterberg]

I was just further pondering what I wrote above, and thought, "hmm, that's all very high level. I bet, when it comes down to it, you couldn't just, say, bath in the light of the sun even if you believed that's all you needed -- you'd need at least some form of physical sustenance".

But then I was reminded of a quote I got from my Abraham-Hicks quote of the day email subscription today:

There is no state of physical decline or damage that you could not
recover from--none--not any, if you knew it... If you wanted it and knew
that you could. And that's those miracles that they talk about every
day. They're not miracles at all, they are the natural order of things.
But because they are rare, people think they are miraculous. They're
not. That's the way it is supposed to be. You're supposed to thrive

Excerpted from a workshop in San Diego, CA on Saturday, February 23rd,
2002

I recall once reading that Abraham said we could regrow limbs if we believed we could. I've never seen somebody do that, but then again, I don't think I believe we can do that. I don't not believe it, but it's not something I believe to be possible on the same level as say, "if I get up from my chair, gravity will keep holding me down". So perhaps I'm not attracting those rare people who can re-grow limbs?

This reminds me of the future "progression" you wrote about, Steve:

This was an experiential workshop, so we did three different group exercises: a past-life regression, a psychometry exercise, and a future-life regression (perhaps progression is a better word). [...]

With the future life experience though, I imagined myself living 500 years hence. I didn’t pick up much detail, but I knew that human beings had physically evolved in some way. It felt very different being in a human body, as if I had other senses and abilities that I didn’t have now, such as being able to float above the ground in addition to walking around. It was like gravity had no effect on people unless they wanted it to.

If you take what Abraham-Hicks talks about to the furthest logical conclusion, this sort of "crazy" stuff would make perfect sense. If we can attract money, relationships, and everything else, will we eventually get past all of this "small stuff" and move onto changing more high-level beliefs, such as whether gravity has an effect, or rather, whether our beliefs about how reality are even accurate, which may lead us to unraveling lots of assumptions in a kind of "back to basics" way, like you described in your podcast about subjective reality.

Are we just beginning to toy with our new "creation" powers, only to move beyond this silly "manifesting money" and other trivialities and more onto greater (and previously unquestioned) things?

(I think I've been popping a few too many red pills today. I'll take a blue pill to help balance them out. )

[Bruce Achterberg]

Originally Posted by juliangall

I'd love to see you do an experiment on this but how could you do it, I wonder? How can you experiment with what you're eating while not paying any attention to food or giving it any power?

Creative observation. It's effectively the same principal at play. If Steve can do it with manifesting cash, for the LoA/intention manifestation model to hold up at all, he should be able to do it with food. Although I've no idea how the specifics might manifest, though. It's the "blue feather" issue at play.

Ie. If you focus on manifesting a feather, particularly one coloured blue, you might be looking on the ground for loose feathers from a bird. But perhaps the feather will manifest on a bird that flies past you. Perhaps it will manifest in an image, such as in an advertisement you see, or in a magazine you're reading.

The basic premise is that you should loosen up your expectations when it comes to manifesting things and focus on the essence of the intention.

Perhaps focusing on "what's important is not what we eat, but our beliefs about food" as an intention/belief to install might end up having very interesting, and unexpected results.

[Steve Pavlina]

Originally Posted by sri

I think Ram Dass was the eye-witness and Neem Karoli Baba was the yogi.
A couple of months ago, I listened to a lecture collection by Ram Dass and
he related that story (if I'm not mistaken).

Here is an interview with Ram Dass:
Interview with Ram Dass
In it he talks about Neem Karoli Baba taking drugs...
(search for the word "drug" to find the exact spot)

Yes, that's the one. I remembered a vague connection to Ram Dass, but I couldn't recall the source. Thanks for sharing!

[Steve Pavlina]

@Bruce: You raise many interesting points, partly explaining why I decided to make a career out of this. Figuring out how reality truly works is so fascinating to me that I couldn't leave it to be a side hobby.

You're right that I share what works for me and that it may not necessarily work for everyone else. Pretty much everything I share works for some people but not for others. I don't think it's wise to follow anyone's advice blindly, but the benefit of advice is that it can help you discover new ideas you may not have otherwise tried. Even when advice seems sound, it's still a trial and error process to apply it as individuals.

The simple act of trying something new is an awareness-raising experience. I'm learning a great deal from this 30-day trial that I'd have otherwise remained blind to, and much of it has nothing to do with diet. And by sharing it and having the opportunity to get feedback from others, I'm learning even more.

It's so important for us to be able to set our egos aside and just dive in and test something without being attached to outcomes or to a need to be right. Perhaps the greatest outcome of all is the personal experience of the journey and the inner growth we enjoy along the way, regardless of the objective results.

[nownow]

Originally Posted by juliangall

"Is it possible that the best way of eating is to stop assuming that food has any power over us except that which we give it via our beliefs?"

For me, this is the most significant thing you have said since you started your month of raw eating.

I'd love to see you do an experiment on this but how could you do it, I wonder? How can you experiment with what you're eating while not paying any attention to food or giving it any power?

No need to not pay attention...... have a cup of drano and than get back to me......let me know how your feeling ......I don't think you need to worry about the placebo effect.

[Alex]

Hi Steve. I haven't been going through all the forum posts, so I don't know if someone suggested this before.

Why not get some nitrile gloves to wear while you're peeling fruits?

I'm not sure which moisturizer you were planning to use, but I like the message behind Burt's Bees. I even posted about them in today's speed linking.

The slogan is “Earth Friendly Natural Personal Care for The Greater Good.” I'm sure you can appreciate that.

[Dive Bomb]

Originally Posted by nownow

No need to not pay attention...... have a cup of drano and than get back to me......let me know how your feeling ......I don't think you need to worry about the placebo effect.

I believe they are talking about the power food has over us, not drain cleaning products. Food in assuming things that humans can successfully eat. I doubt anybody here would want to do a 30 day trial on drinking a cleaning product.

[PatrickMc]

> So far my body fat has dropped 1.7 percentage points, which averages to about 1/10 of 1% per day.

> Whatever else you might conclude about this diet, it does seem to be an effective way to lose extra body fat and boost energy levels. I guess that's why it's popular among certain athletes.

> My weight dropped 0.6 pounds to 178.4. Net weight loss is 7.6 pounds in 18 days.

You have lost 7.6 pounds in 18 days.

You have lost between 3 - 3.2 pounds of fat and between 4.4 - 4.6 pounds of lean body mass.

That is an approximate ratio of 2:3 body fat to lean body mass loss.

This is what one would expect to see with a diet that has a dramatic reduction in calories. But this isn't a calorie reduced diet so your body is wasting / shedding lean mass in a caloric surplus environment - that goes against the traditional grain.

Why is your body shedding lean body mass in this case?

1) It is possible that you are not feeding your body enough usable sugar. Fructose isn't a type of sugar that dramatically increase muscle stores of glycogen. If less glycogen is being stored in the muscles, the body will hold on to less water so there will be a decrease in lean mass. This is what we see with those individuals who go on a severely reduced carbohydrate diet. It may be that your a shedding wet lean mass and your overall muscle weight is remaining the same; so no cause for concern.

2) It is possible that the body is wasting muscle tissue in an attempt to get more amino acids to fuel gluconeogenesis. This is what we would expect to see in a diet that is made up of very nutrient dense foods that are low is usable energy - this is a possibility given that fructose is your primary source of energy. If this is the case, you are losing dry muscle mass and your metabolism is actually slowing down; something to keep your eye on. Your body temperature is a good indicator of this and your last reading had it down about 1 degree which translates into about a 10% slow down.


I'm not surprised that your body fat is dropping. Your blood sugar level has probably been fairly stable for the last 19 days (as you reported in today's post) so there has been no spikes of insulin to promote fat storage. Assuming this *fact* your body is functioning in the here and now with no efforts being made to store ANYTHING for the future. Your euphoria is the emotional representation of your body's state to being. I have little doubt that this is a better way to live given the physical and mental demands of your life.

I am going to continue to hold off on recommending a raw food diet to anyone who is attempting to increase their lean body mass because what I have read and what your trial is confirming is that raw food only choices do not increase lean mass.

Keep at it Steve! I'm really enjoying