View Full Version : Arky, THX and Shivinanda I'd like to hear from YOU!
03-10-2006, 05:24 PM
This post is for Arky, THX, Shivinanda in particular but I'd also not mind hearing from any others here who are more scientific in their reasoning and who don't necessarily "buy into" what most raw food leaders teach.
It's just that, from what I can see, most of the people (but certainly not all) who come into raw foodism do so because they have lost faith and hope in all else for their health and well-being; namely medical science...conventional medicine/science. The more simple, base things seem to really make more sense, not to mention the wonderful experiences and benefits many of us reap or have reaped from eating way less cooked food or no cooked food at all.
Many end up finding that a lot of the things they were merely given medications to treat/mask the symptoms of, they were able to actually be healed from simply by changing the eating habits and this even includes vegetarians and vegans who ate cooked foods and didn't receive optimal results healthwise.
Then we hear of things such as detoxing, how cooking food destroys the enzymes (as well as nutrients), that people are toxic and we shouldn't use toxic substances on our bodies and other such things and they all make sense and sound right but then we're told by some of our fellow raw fooders that statements such as those are basically poppycock, quakery, guru worship, nonsense, non-scientific, pseudo-science and the like.
So, my question is, what draws or what drew you scientific minds to raw foodism? What is it that makes sense to YOU about raw foods? Why are YOU doing it?
If it wasn't the alleged pseudo-science or the alleged outlandish claims that drew you in to want to learn more about and even practice a life of eating raw foods, then what was it?
I ask this in all sincerity of heart, honest curiousity and without sarcasm or the desire for argument. I simply want to know when a person still believes much of what medical science teaches...the same medical science that has taught us that we need cow's milk, meat, cooked food and medicine and basically shoots down the very concept of a diet of only or mostly raw foods; what is it that brings you to raw foods?
I read posts on here and I sometimes get confused about where some of you stand when it comes to raw foods. One minute I'm like, "Oh okay, they're on that side of the fence" and then I'll see another post by the same person and I'm like, "Da-aaang...I thought they were over there, but now it seems they're over there in their beliefs!"
So, I'm just trying to kinda get a sense of where some of you stand and where you're coming from when it comes to raw foods and again, what is it that causes you to have any interest at all in the raw foods diet (way of eating).
Sincerely and anxiously looking forward to your replies! :)
P.S. Just wanted to add that I did NOT create this thread for debate! I want the individuals I requested input from to be able to answer freely without anyone coming in and debating them on anything. If it turns into a debate, I will shut it down with no hesitation. That's not what I'm seeking...I just want their perspective and experiences...nothing more. Thanks! :D
03-10-2006, 06:19 PM
WOW, Cherie, I was just thinking this the other day. I'm fascintaed to hear their persepctives.
Myself, when I first became raw, I was looking for [scientific] backing .....now that I am maturing in raw, I have let go of most of that mindset........every now and then I titer totter but for me, it science goes against everything I believe raw is.
Anyway, sorry to butt in :o
03-10-2006, 08:07 PM
I look at things from both perspectives, I always have, be it relationships, problems, or new information. On the factual side of things I went looking and found very few articles about the science behind raw food. However it is out there if you know where to look. I found some while scouring the articles at http://www.living-foods.com/ . Gabriel Cousins also mixes science with spirtality in his books.
When I looked over all the information I could find and also my prior knowledge of diets, particularly what is called the 'Cave Man Diet' it just made sence. When people have food alergies that a doctor cannot isolate they will put a person on that diet. Basically it brings foods down to the basics, what people ate before grocery stores were invented. If you cannot pick it or hunt it you do not eat it. Then other foods are slowly added in until the food alergy is found.
To me Raw is simply a precursor to the 'cave man diet'. It comes from an earlier time and makes up more of our history than cooked and definately mass produced foods makes up. Evolution is a slow process and I belive that our changes in eating habits has outstripped our ability to adapt and evolve. Hence the higher incidents of type 2 diabities and other similar ailments.
Then I took into account the 'feel good' factor of raw and it hits home with me. So now, raw is how I am.
03-10-2006, 08:43 PM
Great question! And one I'd be happy to wrestle with a bit. I do not think raw food will ever make the leap from where it is now... a radical diet on the fringe of society... to become a mainstream food choice until and unless it fully answers that fundamental question.
As a prolog to my answer, I'll say say that a scientific approach to something is simply a systematic study of it, using observation, intellect, and reason to get at the truth of the matter. And in formal scientific research the requirement to have an independent observer reproduce and confirm your results is fundamental.
And as a caveat I would say that I am quite a bit more experimental with my choices and and with my life than the average bear, and even more so than the average bear next door would probably suspect of me. So I don't know how well I fit the model for your question. I look pretty much like everybody else you might pass on the street, and most people seem to think they've already met me before when we're introduced. I can blend in almost anywhere. But all my best friends consider me one of the most unconventional and unpredictable persons they know. I've had a classic "near death" experience after a motorcycle crash, and I'm an intuitive healer and psychic. I've appeared on national television and in feature films, and I'm a copyrighted songwriter and a published writer and photographer. I wear an earring I've had for over 45 years, and I think tattoos are unbearably stupid. I have no need whatsoever to rebel against the status quo just for the sake of rebelling. I'm personally unconventional, but have a lot of love and affection for much that is conventional. So I really have no problem picking and choosing what actually works for me from the available mainstream choices. Or for that matter, rejecting what does not work for me.
But in the same way that I started grinding my own flour 35 years ago in order to make sure it was as fresh as possible when I baked my own handmade bread primarily because I could TASTE it, I've learned to look very hard at which choices in life actually make a difference, and which are merely symbolic, or worse, hysterical or sheep like. And that takes a LOT of study, a lot of thought, and a lot of personal experimentation. But I'm predisposed to do that about pretty much everything that interests me. What else should I do with my time, watch TV?
So in looking at all the fringe (ie., non-mainstream) stuff whioh has crossed my path over the years... from tachyon energy crystals to remote viewing to whatever Gabriel Cousens has to say... I've learned by experience to evaluate things using two pragmatic principles:
1) What is known about this? Not just said by someone, no matter how passionately, but actually known. In other words what evidence, beyond another's personal assertion, has been recorded, witnessed, scrutinized in the public eye, or verified by others? What can actually be be proved, and independently confirmed?
2) What is MY experience with this? In other words, what appears relevent after examination and consideration, and upon application to my own unique and independent existance? To me "scientific study" is just a natural approach to life.
So in this specific instance, I spent 5 years or so being coaxed, wheedled, cajoled, and encouraged to eat raw food by a blindingly brilliant and breathtakingly beautiful woman whom I am still totally mad for. So I paid attention to her exhortations. But not all that quickly, and mostly to impress her. At least at first.
I tried a lot of things, took her to dinner at raw restaurants, watched her fix me raw food, fixed raw food for her (even when I wouldn't eat it myself), attended a whole bunch of classes on the subject, read everything I could get my hands on, and mostly found it pretty marginal. The science was weak, and the taste and total esthetic experience were iffy. It wasn't that interesting to me to prepare, or to eat on a daily basis. It was a good nutritional supplement, no question about that, but in no way a life style I felt I could subscribe to.
But from my previous experience with macrobiotics a half dozen years ago I knew that food has the power to heal, although that particular path was so boring I just wanted to kill myself rather than continue with it. So when I became seriously ill a few months ago, and had neither ready cash nor medical insurance to throw at the issue, I decided that raw food, on the basis of all that I had experienced so far, seemed to give me the best opportunity to heal myself with readily available resources, and without driving myself mad.
In the several months since then I have been increasingly convinced by significant results that are of real value to me. And though I reject much of what is common currency in the rhetoric of the raw food movement... "cooked food is as addictive as heroin," etc., blah,blah, blah ... as weak minded and unsubstantiated gibberish, I've also found there is some truth to be teased out of the haystack as well. So I don't let the obvious irrationality of many of raw food's most ardent adherents deter me. And I've learned to make really excellent raw food that I'm not at all embarassed to serve to company.
OR, if you prefer, you can have this short answer...
I tried it because my girlfriend told me to, and I'm still doing it because I find it interesting and it seems to be working for me. :)
03-10-2006, 08:57 PM
Thanks for the replies so far!! :D I haven't had a chance to read all in full detail, just kinda skimmed over them, but I have every full intention of reading thoroughly as this is very intriguing to me. Thanks so much for taking the time to answer, I really appreciate it!
Linda, don't mind you butting in :)
Shivinanda, I appreciate the long answer (and will go back to read it with more attention), but I LOOOOVE the short one!! LMBO! That is so cute! ;)
okay, just went and read everything and WOW! I can relate to some of what both you, Jinx and you, Shiv (can I call you Shiv for short?) said. Again, thank you for taking the time to answer! Now I am getting a more clear understanding of your stance.
03-10-2006, 09:30 PM
What a great thread. I appreciate the answers too. While I do this because I tend to find the raw "rhetoric" substatiated in my own experience, I have friends who are of a very scientific analytical bent. While they are interested they have lots of questions and "it just works" isn't usually a good answer for them. I look forward to more feedback on this!
03-10-2006, 10:31 PM
(can I call you Shiv for short?).
I suppose, but Shiva feels better. I mean, I am named for an awesome blue god, after all.
03-10-2006, 11:03 PM
This question fascinates me b/c my strongest studies in school/college, were math and science.......very analytical and my mind tends to view information this way.......yes, I am an ENTP! :D
Fast forward........I have been [learning] to let go of my "analytical" side for several years b/c I was destructive in the sense that I wasn't empowering my OWN knowledge and wisdom until I met RAW. That way of thinking made me realize I was appraoching life within a set of boundries even though I challenged outside the boundries from time to time......
Like you Shiavananda, I am very nonconventional although some would believe otherwise when they meet me for the first time and making their 5 second summary of what i am all about. BTW, you have a *bling bling* in your ear! ;)
Part of this uniqueness was inspired by my "intuitive" dispostion..... that is not influenced by the world,theories,concepts or people. It's a source of knowing that no scientific observation,experiment or explanation can support it..........it simply IS what it is. Kinda like mindfulness meditation........being aware of the present moment and having no judgement about anything......view everything as it actually is......not where it came from or where it might go but where it is now and accept it.
I feel connected knowing whole heartedly that the raw choices I make are prompted by my inner source and not relying upon any other source.......otherwise I believe I am going against what I deem as true for myself and what NATURALNESS by definition is. Then I would continue to sit in the swivel chair which is something I am no longer willing to do.
It's a constant learning experience as I mature in rawhood and realize the expansion of my heart,mind,soul and being..........that science is not perfect but a raw [apple] is ;)
03-11-2006, 12:04 AM
As a "newbie" may have a stab at this...
I can tell you that I am not new to the science of health and nutrition, as I have studied it for years and was a personal trainer for several years, so I have a pretty good grounding in nutrition and psyiology....
Yes, I am new at the whole raw foods thing and am quite at odds living in a country that in no way caters to health and nutrition, much less something as "radical" as a raw foods diet/lifestyle. But if I may share my reasons for a a raw foods conviction...
I honestly feel that the human body can only truely thrive on whole raw foods. I have been through some major physical trauma. I have had my backbone shattered and rebuilt through EXTENSIVE surgery and had to run the gammit of drugs and rehab. In dealing with such physical trauma, my body also became additcted to alcohol and pain killers in order to "survive".
After years of such abuse of my body, I have found that the only real, honest way to treat my body is to feed it purly whole living foods. I have been a weightlifter and runner for years and only since I have started transitioning to raw foods and have allowed myself only raw foods, have I found that my body is truely starting to heal from the inside out. I don't need a scientific, medical journal or any "studies" to tell me what I already know: Raw foods is the only way to truely feed and nourish your body and allow it to heal for real.
There is no need to cook your food in order to gain real nourishment and good health. How does heat make anything any healthier?
03-11-2006, 12:28 AM
What is it that makes sense to YOU about raw foods?
Simple. Objective scientific truth. Cooked food, animal products especially, are harmful and the objective science tells us this. When cooked, mono and polyunsaturated fats become peroxidated which allows for free radical damage and ultimately can lead to cancer. When carbs are heated (at high temperature), a carcinogen known as acrylamide is created. Also, when carbs are heated, fiber is broken down making the product more highly glycemic which can ultimately lead to hypo/hyperglycemia, syndrome X and so on. And when proteins are heated (at high temperature) about 3 different carcinogens are created, a forth if nitrites are present in the product. So we have atleast 5 different carcinogenic factors in food that is cooked (at high temperature). This combined with glycemic factor and with the reduction of nutrients (which is a legitimate claim, with the exception of carotenoids), the damaging of glycoproteins, and the issue of cross linkages of protein (which comes about from eating heated protein, which has been linked to dementia and alzheimers), there is a clear indication that cooked food is harmful. The central focus of raw foodists in their apologia is the enzyme theory which is totally unsubstantiated by science and is one of the biggest inhibitors to raw foodism since this claim is so easily refuted by mainstream science. It is true partially, but it certainly shouldn't be a major reasoning for being raw, let alone the main focus. The reasons listed earlier are plenty enough.
What makes sense to ME is irrelevant. An objective truth does exist. I have nothing to do with it, I am merely the messenger. The gurus seem to ignore this reality and try to create their own truth, which makes their credibility go out the door when they are scrutinized by an objective person.
03-11-2006, 01:01 AM
I guess I am one who would fit into your description. I am still not 100% raw but have been eating more and more raw foods. I did enjoy seeing the discussion on tomatoes and lycopene the other day. The person who I feel is a good authority on nutrition has always claimed that they need to be cooked to get all of the benefits from them. He is no expert by any means and is just a diabetic and a writer like me but he goes to great lengths to try to come up with the best diet possible. He does not believe that 100% raw is the best way to go, although he himself does seem to eat a lot of raw foods. And I was talking to a woman the other day who told me she thought carrots needed to be cooked in order to get all the nutrients out of them.
Food has always been an interest of mine. As a young child, I took delight in the seeds that I planted and loved watching them bear fruit, or vegetables as the case may be. I love preparing food for my family and friends and I also take a strong interest in optimal nutrition.
One of my hobbies is collecting old cookbooks. It is very interesting to me to see what people thought about food throughout the years and what types of foods were eaten. One of my favorite old cookbooks was written by Gaylord Hauser. He was one of the first people to extract juice from vegetables using a machine and also invented one of the first blenders. He did recommend eating a lot of raw food, but also some cooked food. However he had some things he was dead set against. His ideal diet was mainly whole foods. I've learned from some older people who were around in his day that his ideas were not very popular at the time and he was considered to be a kook by most.
I am not totally against Drs. or dieticians, but I've also been misdiagnosed more times than I care to remember. Or they've failed to diagnose things. Or they've merely treated my symptoms. Recently, I learned of some food allergies. Apparently my dairy allergy was causing me all sorts of problems like weight gain and high blood sugar. Only now that I've stopped eating the dairy can I see how bad the problems were. Now I certainly would not recommend that everyone stop eating dairy. But it was a problem for me and any changes I can make in my diet for the better are good!
I guess I sort of fell into the raw food thing by default. I'd been vegetarian. But I kept getting anemia. I was pushed to eat meat. I didn't want to. But if I didn't, the anemia would come back. Still, my main sources of protein were cheese and eggs. I would have preferred dried beans, but due to their carb count, I had to limit how much I ate. Well, suddenly due to the food allergies, I could no longer have any eggs or dairy. What to eat for protein then? I suppose some would say meat or fish was the obvious answer. But I really don't want to eat those things! So I began researching. I discovered that pumpkin seeds were high in protein. I tried roasted ones and raw ones. Didn't like the toasted ones but loved the raw ones. Tried some raw coconut for the fat in it. Loved that too.
Then I saw a magazine article about raw foods written by Carol Alt. I wouldn't recommend her approach since she eats unpasturized dairy, raw eggs and raw meat and fish. But it seems to work for her. I bought her book because I wanted to know more. But it didn't tell me much. So I searched for more books. Because it seemed I was already eating a diet that was mainly raw. In fact, most days my diet was totally raw. I found I was eating cooked food sometimes when I dined out or made dinner for my extended family. Because I do love salad, I can often get a raw meal in a restaurant.
So... I'm still at the point of being on the fence, but trying more and more raw things like sprouts. I bought a big mouth food processor and was looking forward to using it tonight to prep some food for tomorrow. My daughter wants to make dinner for grandma and grandpa. She's doing a fresh fruit platter and I'm doing the rest. My experience with food processors has been limited and disappointing, but I decided it might be quicker for me to go this route to get slice cucumbers, chopped onions, mushrooms, etc. So I got all my veggies ready to chop or slice and discovered that the machine I'd ordered arrived damaged. One vital piece was smashed to smithereens and now I have to return it. Alas I mail ordered it so it may be a few weeks before I get the replacement. I tried making a sprouted hummus this past week and darned near wore out my immersion blender in doing it. I think I really do need the food processor for that.
And then there's the matter of the food dehydrator. I am leaning towards buying one but wonder how much use I would really get out of it. Seems like such a lot of work to go to for small amounts of food. And then I might not really like them. I sure didn't care for that hummus! But then, I did put waaaay too much parsley in it. Came out green and reminded me of pesto.
So... I guess for the time being, I will continue to study and continue to try to eat more raw foods.
03-11-2006, 01:55 AM
Shivananda, you made me chuckle. You are a very sympathetic person and very surprising. I like that you were lead to raw by your heart strings, and when you got sick, you followed your hearts voice. Wonderful. I hope you feel better now. All the best with the healing.
Others have chimed in on "science" vs passionate statements.
I think science is in kindergarten. Many are so in awe of all that we can do now, but what about all the things we can't do? Science is still stumbling along, not understanding the "chi" of things, so they fall where they should run. When I was at school, I loved biology. I was the one with both hands dug deep into the pigs uterus from the butcher. I was the one staring into the microscope, and in cooking class, I was the one handling the pigs heart, wondering about the heart valves, when others where running away going "eww". I am still interested in the doctors explaining what they know about how our bodies work. I find this neccessary knowledge and I want to learn, but I am not good at reading 100 percent science, because sometimes it's like reading a phonebook. Many pages are just hard to make stick by first read.
Just because science hasn't understood something, doesn't make it wrong. Science just isn't smart enough yet. If I can trust a person, I am willing to listen to their miracle story. If I don't trust them, then my ears will be closed. Yesterday I read about a cancer healing method that included arsenik, I believe it was. I thought to myself: I don't care if it's a doctor prescribing it, I would never be stupid enough to use it. I try not to be a lemming, even though I do the lemming dance.
PS: I am also totally impressed with THX's response. Now I see what you mean by scientific. I'm such a holistic hippie next to that. I think maybe I have a habit of looking of the total sum of all parts. But I need to learn the basics of the single parts. I'm working on it.
03-11-2006, 08:29 AM
Yesterday I read about a cancer healing method that included arsenik, .
I may be wrong on this (memory is not great) but I think that the active ingredient in Apricot Kernels is arsanic and that is being touted (valid or otherwise) as a cancer cure.
03-11-2006, 01:40 PM
Thank you again for your contributions to this thread all!
03-11-2006, 02:45 PM
I may be wrong on this (memory is not great) but I think that the active ingredient in Apricot Kernels is arsanic and that is being touted (valid or otherwise) as a cancer cure.That's probably it. Thanks. :-)
03-12-2006, 12:07 AM
I may be wrong on this (memory is not great) but I think that the active ingredient in Apricot Kernels is arsanic and that is being touted (valid or otherwise) as a cancer cure.
Yes, and it is not a new thing at all. It has been around for many, many years. William Reich recommended it maybe 50 years ago, and until a big medical quackery scandal 30 years ago or so, it was widely available in purified form, at least through Alternative channels, under the name Laitrile.
But scientific studies showed it was not effective, and though it is still available, and even prescribed, outside the US, it has been pretty strongly discredited.
03-12-2006, 12:12 AM
I thought laitril came from almonds, as Edgar Cayce directed people with cancer to tape 1 tsp of almond extract every day, and it cured cancers, evidentally it was laitril? Or at least that is what I heard many years ago.
Of course, almonds and peaches and apricots are all from the same family, so it may be accurate.
anyone know for sure?
03-12-2006, 12:36 AM
anyone know for sure?
Aw heck, not me. I told you I have CRSS. :)
03-12-2006, 12:43 AM
I thought laitril came from almonds,
Nope, just double checked and laitrile is derived from apricot pits, although it smells like almonds.The rest will be revealed.
03-12-2006, 05:49 AM
Thank you for adding this information Shivananda. :)
03-12-2006, 07:49 AM
"what the bleep do we know", "quantum physics" "spiritual science"-there IS no objective reality, dear ones.....
03-12-2006, 09:09 AM
"what the bleep do we know", "quantum physics" "spiritual science"-there IS no objective reality, dear ones.....
Sure, I agree with that spiritually, and I have had experiences that could not be explained within the common agreement of what is real. The story I recounted in another thread about my pendant disappearing on Easter Sunday a couple of years ago at Shree Muktenanda Ashram is a minor example of one of those experiences.
The physical laws that scientists study may not be able to give us absolutes, but they do give us very handy approximations of reality. We do know that if you fall off a 200' cliff, no matter what your spiritual beliefs or state of grace with god, you stand a 99.99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 99999999% or so chance of dying when you hit the rocks below. No, it isn't 100%, but it is close enough for me to be able to plan my life pretty well around the underlying principle. I'm just pragmatic that way.
03-12-2006, 09:16 AM
ive read nothing on this topic in my life . i just read thread last night and saw rp's question about almonds , so i punched in laiterile on my browser and read several sites and here are a few quotes = laiterile can be found in pits of apricots and other fruits + laterile is mainly derived from apricots , peaches , almonds . its also mentioned found in plum and apple seed .
Wow, that's one seriously-loaded question!! lol
Well, I've given this some thought and I have decided that, as in daily life, I would prefer to give you a frank and honest answer rather than 'toe-the-line' and give you a load of ambiguous fluff. Therefore, there may be opinions below which you find uncomfortable but I trust you will not feel that they render my membership of this board invalid or unproductive. I enjoy the helpful, supportive and friendly atmosphere here, as well as the sincere attempt by members to seek the truths of nature.
Reasons why I believe in the raw diet....
well, because so many paths of wisdom and research (to say nothing of common sense) converge upon the probability of a raw plant-based diet being an ideal primary basis upon which to support human health (although note that I do not feel the evidence necessarily points towards a 100% raw, plant-based, diet being ideal).
Caloric restriction (Roy Walford et al) discovered, in studies with a variety of different animals, that caloric restriction had an astounding influence on longevity. Raw foods provide precisely this kind of high nutrient, low calorie sustainance, along with a good level of fibre and hydration). This is no coincidence. We did, after all, evolve on such foods so it is only logical that we should be best adapted to them and that they should be most appropriate for us!
Alkalinity There is a growing body of scientific evidence pointing to the negative effects on physiological function (and thus health and longevity), more on which I'll discuss further down. If you'd like a brief synopsis on the benefits of actively promoting alkalinity, and thus the breakdown of stored acid wastes and preservation of stored minerals in the skeleton, then you might find this video clip interesting: www.royalwater.com/moive/water.MPG
Heart Disease Refined and fractionated foods, intended for longterm storage, have denatured and/or rancid fats. Fresh fruits contain a multitide of protective substances - hesperidin, rutin etc. Hybridised fruits lack the potent protective substances offered by the seeds which nature intended us to eat - a primary example being grape seeds - grape seed extract is an extremely potent anti-oxidant (or, more accurately, an extremely potent mopper-upper of free radicals generated by necessary oxidation of nutrients during energy liberation.
Cancer lack of carcinogenic elements (assuming food is fresh and not mouldy), abundance of anti-carcinogens, ever more being discovered by science day by day. Refined and fractionated foods often lack these protective substances. Oxygen deficiency and over-acidity (actually intimately-associated with one another) have been convincingly linked to cell mutation. Again, a plant-based, alkalizing, diet may be beneficial in avoiding cell mutation.
Diabetes Raw plant-based foods contain no insulin-response-hindering trans fats, no ultra-high glycemic index refined sugars, and have a high sulphur content which may support insulin function. Mushrooms and wholegrains also contain quantities of chromium which assist insulin response.
Arthritis Super Oxide Dismutase is known to be extremely beneficial to joint health and is available in certain plant foods such as wheatgrass. Uric acid deposits contribute to gout and to joint degeneration. An alkaline diet, and one that avoids the ingestion of pre-existing uric acid deposits, is surely a sensible approach for those wishing to avoid joint discomfort. Many plant foods are high in beneficial EFAs, and in a highly pure state, albeit requiring, perhaps, a little more conversion by the human body to render it as usable as that obtained from pre-converted EFAs from animal sources. Refined and fractionated foods, intended for longterm storage, have denatured and/or rancid fats, precisely because EFAs oxidise so rapidly. Raw nuts and seeds are superb healthy sources. Ginger, black pepper and Turmeric are potent anti inflammatories - you won't find these in animal flesh and these are only a tiny fraction of the beneficial plant-based foods that can assist healthy joint function.
Enzymes Members of the general public, these days, have an enlarged pancreas, believed to be the result of eating enzyme-deficient foods. Virtually all life function is absolutely dependent on enzyme activty. Although I do not necessarily believe (or, necessarily, disbelieve) the widely-touted 'wisdom' that enzyme-alive raw foods aid digestion, I do, nonetheless, believe that an enlarged pancreas points to something being awry with modern enzyme-deficient diets, and that we have evolved for thousands of years eating raw enzyme-rich foods so to cease doing so now is contrary to our evolved physiology, even if we do not yet understand the manner in which food enzymes contribute to our physiology and metabolic processes.
Oxygenation linked to Alkalinity A fresh, unadulterated, fruit and vegetable diet is largely alkalising in nature. Our ideal blood pH is 7.4 - slightly alkaline. Furthermore, comparison of the human gastric system with that of other primates reveals that we have evolved on the basis of a largely (though not exclusively) frugivorous diet. Additionally, animals do not cook. For the most part, then, the consumption of a raw fruit, vegetable, and nut&seed diet can be seen to be the most logical path from a comparative evolutionary perspective. Furthermore, a huge part of our body (water notwithstanding) is calcium. Plant-based foods are high in calcium, since they draw natural minerals from the soil, and their alkaline nature protects calcium reserves in the human skeleton. Acidity of the body is linked to a thickening of the blood (clumping of blood cells) and associated reduction in blood flow to the outer peripheries of the venous system. This, in itself, is more evidence for the health-promoting benefits of an alkaline-balance diet, so ably provided by plant-based foods (not forgetting that animal flesh is often high in uric acids produced by the animals own metabolism while alive). However, acidity of the body is also linked to an increase in anaerobic organisms such as various pathogenic bacteria, which is obviously not a healthy state to be in - why, then would one choose a diet which tips the pH balance in the acid direction? Every nanosecond of our lives, our cells are totally dependent on oxygen in order to function - anything which impedes oxygen availability in the body is akin to slow suicide. Alkalinity is intrinsically linked to oxygen availability (and thus a healthy state), and a plant-based diet is unarguably best-suited to perpetuating an oxygen-rich physiological environment. By some estimates, the quanitity of oxygen in the atmosphere has been depleted by nearly half, largely on account of Co2 emissions at a rate unwitnessed by the planet for many millennia, if ever. This makes the need to ensure good oxygenation of the body even greater (any of you who don't practice deep diaphramatic breathing of the kind practised in many of the traditional arts such as Qi Gong, meditation etc., should seriously consider taking up regular practice of the breathing elements, even if you do not have time for the rest of these arts. Good, deep, diaphramatic breathing will increase your sense of wellbeing immeasurably).
Chronic Dehydration unadulterated raw foods are well-hydrated, not having had water molecules driven from them by heat. They also contain healthy forms of H2o which the body understands and can utilize properly.
...I'm just brain-storming here and could, of course, give you more examples, but I think the above shows where I am coming from, in my enthusiasm for raw plant-based foods.
However, we cannot honestly deny that mankind discovered fire many thousands of years ago - the historical and archaelogical evidence proves this beyond doubt. Cooking has been a part of mankind's evolution, at least in part, whether we choose to acknowledge it or not. The truth is that we do not yet understand what contribution this has made to mankind's evolution, but we may be certain that no thing of such significance as fire (and thus cooking) can possibly have exerted no influence whatsoever, particularly over so many thousands of years. Certainly, the age-old debate over grain consumption (grains are. of course, largely indigestible if not cooked) will linger on long after all of us depart this mortal coil, so more of an issue is the practicalities of consuming adequate calories - consuming cooked starches is a practical method of increasing one's calorie intake without having to consume vast quantities of bulky low-calorie raw foods (assuming one isn't cheating the equation by over-consuming fats, that is). Now, I know that there are many reasons why a high-bulk low-caloric-density diet is, perhaps, preferable, from a scientific point of view - I fully acknowledge that and I've said as much, with regard to longevity. Nevertheless, we live in the real world in society where the economics, practicalities, and available time in a busy life may put the commited 100% raw foodist under strain to obtain enough calories without over-consuming fats. That is just one reason why I am willing to accept that 100% raw may not necessarily be the optimum approach from a practical perspective (I won't get into the carotenoid liberation / assimilabilty argument, by the way, since this was covered very recently elsewhere on the forum).
I do not feel that one need be 100% congruent with the 100% raw vegan doctrine of this board in order to contribute to, and benefit from, the discussions that ensue herein. I fervently believe in the benefits, and logic, of a high-raw, primarily plant-based diet. I also believe in the broader message of this board that unadulterated whole, natural foods are the primary way to nourish oneself healthily. A good percentage of the members of this board, despite being valued contributors, are not 100% rawfoodists, as might be expected, coming, as they do, from all walks of life, but I'll spare you all the cliche'd 'shades of grey' speech! ;)
In short, I do believe in the efficacy and logic of high-raw nutrition, but I do not necessarily believe in the necessity to religiously follow a 100%raw doctrine - for those of us who find 100% raw an easy line to stick to, that's great but others may struggle with this and there are, potentially, negative psychological implications in becoming overly-preoccupied with this goal, with little or no physical benefit over a more relaxed high-raw approach. 100% raw is a fantastic cleansing diet but not many people can make this work for the whole of their lives. Consequently some of my remarks in certain posts may sound a little disparaging of 100% raw but that's not to say I look badly upon 100% raw-foodists - far from it. It's simply to say that I do not believe in 100% raw as a Holy Grail - life really isn't as simple as 'eat 100% raw and you'll be magically healed and magically healthy 'til the end of your days'. Health is a holistic thing and psychological and emotional health is intimately intertwined with physiology - supporting one's physiology with a clean, largely-raw, wholefoods diet is an excellent approach but the moment one becomes overly-fixated upon maintaining absolute fidelity to 100% raw, the potential creeps in for one's health to be undermined from an emotional and psychological standpoint. Taoism is particularly fascinating on this issue - if you are prepared to accept that the entire body is one big energy conduit, then it is possible to conceive of energy (or Chi) being influenced on a macroscopic and a microscopic, cellular, level, by psychology and emotion - stress, for example, is one of the biggest disruptors of healthy physiological functioning. Even mainstream Western scientists agree on this.
Therefore, if you can comfortably maintain 100%, great; if you are more comfortable with high-raw, then that's also great and don't sweat it, enjoy life! What we can all agree on is that consuming a high-raw diet of natural, unadulterated, wholefoods is one of the best possible ways to support vibrant health. That the consumption of raw foods also, by association, generally means that the consumer ingests fresh foods of higher mineral content than most SAD foods, also coincides with McCarrison & Wrench's 'Wheel of Life' as a primary contributor to healthy physiological function (EVERY person on this board should beg borrow or steal a copy of the book ('A Hunza Trip With Bernard Jensen / The Wheel Of Life') and read it's contents - I am not kidding. You can get it from http://www.taobook.com )
I hope that answered your question satisfactorily, Rawkinlocs, even though I realise that some of my remarks may not sit comfortably with your own beliefs. As I said, I wish to be open and honest with you, rather than 'blow sunshine up yer arse', to coin an indelicate phrase! :)
All the best,
03-13-2006, 07:11 PM
Thank you Arky! I knew you'd come through for me ;)
Surprisingly, I agree with more of what you wrote than you probably expected, but whether I did or didn't, I wanted you to answer in honesty and how you really felt and I thank you for doing just that!
Again, my intial post was just for me (and I guess others here who may have been curious as well) to learn more about what drove you all to raw, not necessarily why you post on this board despite disagreements of beliefs, etc. I think that all of you who I summoned contribute a lot to the board and while we may not see eye-to-eye on ALL, we agree on a lot!
Thank you for the links you provided, I'll check 'em out!
Well, again, thank you to all who answered! :D
03-13-2006, 07:44 PM
Just saying thanks again for the post. I hope it's okay but I did a little copy and pastin' of THX (concise and one of the best explanations I have seen) Shiva (of the many arms....or is that Vishnu?...and someone else who reads Reich!) and yumyum (what humility you have to admit you are still working on it!) Science as kindergartner....
I'm fairly intutive and will go with my gut but some part of me needs the analytical/scientific proof. If for nothing else than to show others "see, it's not crazy, it's REAL" as if science is really real. I, however, don't have a scientific/analytical bone in my body. Corner me in a debate and I'll run, even though I'm still convinced I'm right....just can't figure how to prove it or put it in words. This post really did the trick!!
So, Rawkinlocs, when can we expect to see the first draft of your new book..? :D ;)
03-20-2006, 07:20 PM
Thanks for an interesting question.
There are a few layers to my attitude about all that. I am a scientist, and so I do not have as much respect for science as others might have. This is because I know exactly how science operates, which includes writing scientific papers with statistical data, for example. Non-scientific public often puts scientists on a pedestal, and believe that whatever scientists say or imply, must be the truth. Or even, when someone who claims that they've done scientific research, when they have not done really anything scientific at all, public thinks that just the inclusion of the word "scientific" is the proof of whatever claim is being made. In reality, scientists, or people that claim to be them, are people just like everybody else, and know as little, or even less than anyone else. Knowledge of science, or scientific tools, gives no-one immunity to making mistakes. Therefore, the argument that some research said this or that, does not work with me. It is not too hard to publish research claiming anything we wish for, especially if someone pays us big $$$ for doing that. I can think of many examples of published research, in which claims made have proven to be untrue. I am sure you could easily find such examples too. You can even find published papers which claim the opposite results. I guess, the source of $$$ might explain many of such examples.
Furthermore, public is far too quick to interpret findings of statistical analysis, without proper understanding of what the numbers really mean. The examples of such errors can be found daily in popular papers/magazines. This is my favourite example illustrating that correlation is not equivalent to causal relationship:
Just because someone publishes that there is a correlation between eating icecream and drownings, does not prove that eating icecream causes drownings.
Some facts about science:
* many of the results that science is trying to prove, have been already known by clever non-scientists (common sense, intuition)
* science has made claims that have already been proven wrong, or will be proven wrong in the future.
When I first went raw, which I did for egotistical reasons (to be healthy and beautiful), I spent quite a lot of time serching the literature (= I did scientific research, didn't I lol!). During this time, I was able to find published literature to contradict every claim against raw/veganism (such as a totally false claim "veganism cause B-12 deficiency") that I considered. After some months of doing this, I decided that I was not going to waste my time anymore. Why look for published research, knowing that whatever is published is not the complete knowledge at all. Published literature is only the record of what scientists currently know. It is by no means that complete picture of reality, and definitely not the absolute, undisputable truth, for the reasons I mentioned above.
Consequently, I turned to the ultimate source of wisdom - my own common sense, intuition.
For example, it was really not that hard to observe that after eating cooked food, I feel tired and look uglier. It was not hard to observe that it is best to eat fruit all day and leave denser foods till later. In summary, these days I only do research on myself. My body is the source of infinite wisdom. All it takes is to have open eyes and alert mind.
03-20-2006, 07:32 PM
Excellent reply Gosia, Excellent. Forever Young
03-21-2006, 12:13 AM
Arky...moi? Write a book? Why what ever gave you that idea? ;)
Gosia, I really appreciate what you wrote! Thank you my dear lover-of-fruit :)
Arky...moi? Write a book? Why what ever gave you that idea? ;)
No comment!!! ;)
03-22-2006, 03:25 PM
I am pretty new here, and I don't post often, but I have a 2 cent coin I'd like to throw in. I came across raw looking for "the answer" to my health problems. I was out looking for a new "diet" that would work for me. I had tried it ALL. I was constantly searching because nothing ever worked or made sense, until I came upon a web site that opened my eyes and to me everything finally made sense. I have not questioned what I believe in since. This persons instruction was of scientific nature basically showing the effects of cooking foods explaining why disease orginates to types of foods that aren't digestible for humans even if they are raw explaining why people can't figure out why they can't eat certian foods. And it was all well documented and studied, footnotes and all, not just someone's enlightend opinion.
I immediately noticed a difference in my physical body and mental state as well when I ate the foods that are meant for us. And when I ate foods that everyone considers food today(cooked, etc.), I knew it was wrong by the way my body responded and had became because of these foods. The imflamation came back, my skin looked poor, you name it I could see it as actual proof in my own body! That made me a believer.
So, guess you could say I am raw because of science and personal experience.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.1.4 Copyright © 2013 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.