By Lucas Kittelberger

People idealize living a ‘healthy’ lifestyle. There are millions of diets that an individual can decide to follow, and about as many exercise programs. Commercials on TV tell us that it’s a smart idea to take the stairs and pass on ice cream, inferring that in doing so we will avoid some form of cancer in thirty years. Health food stores such as GNC insists we need “superfoods” to survive and the vegetables we eat are not sufficient. Entire buildings get filled with iron, big blue bouncy balls and ‘hamster wheel’ like machines which we are told we need if we want to live long lives. Workplace posters advertise the latest “fun” run for fitness. Apparently, the general public is doing life all wrong.These statements are generalizations and regardless of their partial validity, confusion about health is an outcome. Questions arise: What does it look like to be a healthy individual? Is it indeed a thin waistline and a religious three hours at the gym each week?

For the sake of this essay, I will be deducing the dietary aspect of health to model the bigger picture of health, with full admissions that health is multi-faceted and a thorough treatment of the subject would entail a discussion of the environment and social and pyschological mores. Given the constraints of length I will focus on the US cultural idea of diet. With the rise of obesity in America, there is little doubt that diet is major aspect of physical health. In this era, we can go to the grocery store and buy any quantity of food we desire. This is a huge paradigm shift compared to historical human hunters and gatherers, who were very limited in their food consumption, and adaptability was necessary for survival (Darwin’s survival of the fittest anyone?). To be healthy, one must be in control of their diet. With this realization comes the fact that there are numerous diets that claim to have the secret to accomplish the goal of ‘health’; to name a few of these: South Beach, Mediterranean, Adkins, Paleo, Vegan, Nutrisystem and Weightwatchers. All of these diets claim to have found the perfect combination of food that leads to perfect health.

Yet is there another way than the secret perfect diet? Victoria Moran, certified holistic nutrition counselor, speaker and author, is an advocate of the raw vegan diet. This is a form of non-animal product diet that focuses on the consumption of raw fruits and vegetables. Yet in an article on Huffington Post, she says surprisingly, “I’m still not 100 percent and I’m not signing any pledges. I like being able to go with my daughter to her favorite Chinese place and have steamed veggies and brown rice, black bean sauce on the side. There will be hot soup in my life this winter. And since I do my best writing in an ever-accommodating Starbucks, I’m not ever swearing off those soy chai teas; I’m just having them a lot less often. For days at a time I’m all raw, and on the days that I have something cooked, it’s usually just that: something, one thing—a baked potato, garbanzo in a salad. This isn’t a marriage or a religion; it’s an experiment in incredible vitality” (p. 1). It is an interesting tactic for the follower of a specific diet to accept ‘failures’. Cheat meals, anyone?

Moran begins this section of text stating that she is not onboard with the diet one hundred percent, a statement that many who have tried to diet in the past can relate to. When trying to follow strict dietary guidelines, circumstances arise where the dieter is suddenly eating something that is not within those guidelines. She follows, however, by saying that she isn’t “signing any pledges.” Most diet plans will have you believe that if you would like to attain specific results, one must be devoted to the plan without deviation. Moran takes a different approach by saying that her diet (what she actually eats) does not always fall under the category of raw vegan, nor does she regret that it doesn’t. Most diets heap a significant amount of guilt if one does not stay absolutely true to the guidelines but Moran accepts these situations as being part of life, and while they are not necessarily successes, they are not to be labeled as failures. She goes on to say that she enjoys eating some cooked Chinese foods with her daughter, and tea when she wants to get some writing done. It seems that the raw vegan diet is the most accurate way to describe the food she eats, but she does not consider living up to the title of “raw vegan” her highest priority. It “isn’t a marriage”, as Moran puts it.

In spite of what some may consider her lack of commitment, Moran claims that her eating habits have transformed her life, and people are noticing. She states nonchalantly, “I’m attracting fascinating men and women of all ages who want what I have. They’re showing up all over the place, as clients in my holistic life and health coaching practice, as business contacts and as friends. I have no vested interest in converting anybody, but when people want information, I’m thrilled to share it. I mean, why keep anybody out of paradise?” (p. 2). By using the term attracting, she is conveying a state of being; sort of an unintentional savior. She is not preaching her ways to people, but still they take interest, and she is willing to share. Despite her previous comments of a lack of ‘religion’ in her the diet, she still interestingly uses the term ‘converting’, two words that often go hand in hand. Perhaps she is rhetorically alluding to the fact that most people see her as eating a diet (in the sense of eat A, don’t eat B) but in reality she is eating her diet (she decides what she eats, and most of the time it is raw vegan, but not always).

In Moran’s description of her journey towards health, she is clearly not having herself inked as “Raw Vegan.” Instead she uses the raw vegan diet as a tool to help her reach a greater degree of vitality. If she indeed choses to strictly follow the diet, she would sacrifice health in other areas of her life, such as quality time with her daughter. What we are seeing from her is that the raw vegan diet does not control her; rather she controls it. Should she decide one day that she will follow the diet ‘to the T’, she may find satisfaction in it, or she may find her waist to be a bit slimmer or she may be a bit more lively, but she will also find that the raw vegan diet has a grip on her throat. Today, however, she is free from dietary oppression and in turn has time with her daughter.

Having considered Moran’s nuanced stance, how is “science” used rhetorically in US “diet discourse” to counter it? Some people claim that health is qualified and quantified by science. Through this reasoning, people like Moran can be categorized as unhealthy simply because such a diet itself is deemed problematic by citing select “scientific” data. Christopher Wanjek, a columnist for livescience.com currently publishes a column called ‘Bad Medicine’ to the website. He takes strong positions against raw veganism stating frankly, “on your road to good health, the raw vegan diet would likely be a U-turn. If you are already vegan or vegetarian, you have nothing to gain and much to lose by going totally or even mostly raw. Even doctors who prescribe and live by a vegan diet caution their patients against attempting a raw diet” (1). His use of the phrase “nothing to gain” clearly has him lump everything about raw veganism together as being wrong, and all followers of the diet to be unhealthy. Is it really that plain and simple? The mention of medical doctors here foreshadow arguments to come, which are based on scientific claims. While Wanjek does cite reputable doctors specializing in such diets such as John McDougall, the majority of the facts he brings to the table are based on the chemistry of cooking food; and still, no studies on how this chemistry reacts within the body are cited. This is a major difference between Wanjek and Moran; Moran writes from a place of successful self-experimentation, where Wanjek presents generalizations based on select scientific data.

The science of health as Wanjek uses is not fundamentally a bad thing, but we must consider several things. One is that using science to back claims in a published work is complex and applicable to set populations or populations at large rather than individuals. It does not consider the type of knowledge that Moran advocates, one that deserves some consideration: personal experimentation. Each human body is as unique as each human’s fingerprint, and therefore looking to data based on large group experimentation may not give one an accurate representation of what your body will do or the larger discourse and ethics in play in choosing a diet. Bottomline, anomalies are not a probability, they are a certainty that can only be compensated for to a certain extent.

Wanjek cites science but in such a way that does not allow for context enough. He goes on to explain from a scientific standpoint that cooking food does not destroy nutrients, and proposes, “Overcooking and charring can be a problem. Boiling the life out of greens will indeed reduce the nutrient load. And charring meats and vegetables creates cancer-causing chemicals. The solution, however, is not to stop all cooking, but rather to steam, lightly sauté or stir-fry vegetables, and to make more soups” (p. 2). By introducing a ‘solution’ derived from a scientific experiment, we have again entered into a state of logical fallacies. Can all fruits and vegetables really be classified as being best utilized in everyone’s unique body when lightly cooked?

What we discover through this article is that Wanjek has good intentions by backing his claims with science. However Moran then becomes the problematic anomaly. As a healthy individual who continues to follow her diet even though Wanjek says raw veganism scientifically incorrect, what gives? Wanjek is letting himself be controlled by science in pursuit of health, rather than accepting the reality of anomalies such as Moran and more importantly the role of personal experimentation as a method. One could think of this method as a kind of ‘personally tested’ science.

For an unhealthy person to attain health, it is clear that a behavior change must take place in this person’s life. Many times on the journey to healthy living, people only consider if indeed the behavior change will facilitate the health related goal. For example, the above two articles can be summarized as “will raw veganism facilitate better health?” but as I’m indicating there is more to the story than that. Victor Strecher, assistant professor at University of North Carolina in health education notes a general paradigm for a person making a behavior change with and expected outcome. Strecher states, “according to this paradigm, behavior change and maintenance are a function of (1) expectations about the outcomes that will result from ones engaging in a behavior and (2) expectations about one’s ability to engage in or execute the behavior. Thus, ‘outcome expectations’ consist of beliefs about whether a given behavior will lead to given outcomes, whereas ‘efficacy expectations’ consist of beliefs about how capable one is of performing the behavior that leads to those outcomes.” (p. 74). According to this school of thought, two factors influence a change in behavior: the belief that the behavior change will facilitate the outcome, and the belief that the individual is capable of the behavior change. Based on the articles presented above, there are completely conflicting beliefs of which behavior change (or which diet) will facilitate good health. Evidence of behaviors leading to health changes are common. I would argue the more prominent problem is individual’s beliefs that they can facilitate the behavior change. Very few people believe that they can start a raw vegan diet, for example, even though a larger number of people may believe that the raw vegan diet will lead to a healthier state.

Interestingly, if the individual initiates the behavior change and the outcomes are not forthcoming, the “outcome expectations,” as Strecher puts it, will lessen, and the behavior change will fall apart. If, however, the individual believes that they can make another behavior change and another until they find a behavior that leads to the outcome, eventually this outcome is “inevitable.: Thus, the critical, perhaps ironic factor is belief in the ability to change behavior.

We can conclude then that if an individual has the willpower to make changes in their behavior, the outcome that they desire could eventually come about. Said a different way, as simplistic as it sounds, if one perceives themselves as in control of their desires instead of the reverse, and if the approach has basic structural scientific roots (at least coverage of major nutrients), they have a good shot at “success.” Surely different behavior changes require different amounts of willpower, but if one has a high amount of willpower, they could make a wide array of behavior changes, and find behaviors that will support desired outcome.

While Wanjek’s approach to dietary health presumes specific set of rules about what one should and should not eat in specific boundaries diets, more important is the flexible mentality integral to holistic success that Moran prescribes. If one decides to start a new diet but lets desires for junk food control them, they will not attain good health. If the same person starts the same diet, and has preconceived notions on what is going to work and what isn’t based on scientific evidence, they also may miss out on something beneficial found through experimentation. If the same person yet again begins the same diet, and let’s the criteria of the diet control their food choices for the rest of their life, that diet is now in control of them, and not allowing them to pursue a healthier state still. Perhaps the right mentality is more powerful than what is physically being eaten, because the mentality is adaptable to many variables that influence health in general. There is a built-in failsafe that redirects with every new experience, always in search for better health.

Works Cited

Huber, M., J. A. Knottnerus, L. Green, H. V. D. Horst, A. R. Jadad, D. Kromhout, B. Leonard, K. Lorig, M. I. Loureiro, J. W. M. V. D. Meer, P. Schnabel, R. Smith, C. V. Weel, and H. Smid.       “How Should We Define Health?” Bmj 343.Jul26 2 (2011): D4163. Web. 14 Apr. 2015.

Moran, Victoria. “Veg and the City: The Life Changing Effects of a Raw Food Diet.” The                                   Huffington Post. TheHuffingtonPost.com, 18 Aug. 2010. Web. 14 Apr. 2015.

Strecher, V. J., B. Mcevoy Devellis, M. H. Becker, and I. M. Rosenstock. “The Role of Self-                     Efficacy in Achieving Health Behavior Change.” Health Education & Behavior 13.1                (1986): 73-92. Web. 14 Apr. 2015.

Wanjek, By Christopher. “Reality Check: 5 Risks of Raw Vegan Diet.” LiveScience. TechMedia              Network, 15 Jan. 2013. Web. 14 Apr. 2015.