The Science

[khackett]

Any doctors? Any biochemists?

I'd really like to know professional opinions on this. A biochem friend of mine:

(23:00:11) Soroosh: Um, speaking as a biochemist, which is what that all is (biochemistry) that's not how it works...cooking food does nothing to them other than start breaking it down (i.e. easier to digest). In some cases, boiling can extract some soluable vitamins from some veggies, but not that big a deal. The only other case for raw food is Salmon, cause it's rich in Omega-3 fatty acids, you don't wanna break those down cause they're all kinds of "goodness"
(23:02:12) Me: a friend of mine went raw and was just raving; she said she's never felt better
(23:02:47) Soroosh: she proabably never felt better cause she is forced to eat more fruits and veggies so she's getting more vits. in her diet. But not because anything is UNcooked.

I don't want flames against me or my friends, I genuinely want a medical prof. opinion, if there is one out there. I know what everyone SAYS, but... is it true?

[Sharon in Colorado]

Try asking Dr. Doug Graham @ http://www.vegsource.com/talk/raw/index.html

[misslinda]

I'm not a scientist or biochemist but Soroosh said it herself about boiling--- how "some soluble vitamins can be extracted--not a bid deal". the fact that she states "some"---- proves that there is a level of breakdown (nutrients) of the original RAW food. Which then would signify RAW as being natural state of optimal source of it's own nutrients.


I suppose it's a matter of choice--there are so many school of thoughts but if you have the opportunity to choose, what will you choose? I've run into this myself being brought up with Eastern and Western dietary habits. There seems to be a level of intuitive nature with raw food eating--you know your body likes it and is functioning toward optimal health.

Sorry not a professional but this was an interesting topic!

luv,
linda :p

[khackett]

he ;)

I'm happy to hear whatever input you have, as long as it's constructive. I did a little googling... most science articles don't advocate the raw food "thing" (wont to say diet).

[misslinda]

I dont' think "Science" really likes to advocate what is reallllly right or good for us--alot of people would be without jobs! :eek:

[khackett]

....I have to disagree and here say that I think that's silly. and kind of paranoiaist.

I'm sorry, I do like you (and this board), I just don't quite agree. :) Hope I haven't offended!

[misslinda]

I know it sounds extremely absurd but try looking at it from this angle.

If you live in a world where everyone is healthy, then would we need doctors by the millions? scientists? gazillion diagnoses? insurance companies--OMG the list goes on and on.

Interesting how Europe recognizes aspartame as being a health hazard --while US decided to feed it to its own people. DDT from WW2 in considered ill legal here but we produce it--sell it to Chile then they use it in their agriculture and we import those foods back(DDT infected). My cousin is a doctor and like his collegues, they don't want you and I to tell their patients the "secrets" of healing....otherwise they don't make the $$$$$$ to live in their half a million dollar homes and play golf everyday. Seems but the more you get involved in the "system," the more you see how it all keeps it running.


the world is coming to an end :eek:
linda

[khackett]

I hear ya.

I'm just not one for .. conspiracy theories.

I do understand money driven societies (ha! I'm an ACTRESS. ... in FILM! you bet your arse I get it!).

I'm just really wont to believe that scientific academics, doctors, etc. etc. etc. are ALL trying to screw us. ALL of them. Not ONE Patch adams in the bunch? I mean, c'mon. That's a lot of awfulness.

I can't really convince you of anything, just as you can't convince me. But I do see your argument, I respect it/you, and... well. I do want to know the science behind raw fooding. Still. ;)

[misslinda]

some night reading material everyone!

http://www.wnho.net/fda_paid_off.htm

[khackett]

But look at your source!!

You're reading articles from within the natural food circuit, in your circle. Skepticism should reach all, not just the selected few who may or may not disagree with your/our (because I'm doin' this too!) eating habits.

[glad_2beme]

Mt science is God created fruits vegetables and nuts. Man created cooking it.

[misslinda]

Conspiracy is lack of a better word---don't get me wrong....I think it's great that we developed a "system". However, at the expense of people's health and lives--no, not a chance. Do I think they get results with their approach? Sure, perhaps not the most "healthy" one.



sick sick sick,
linda

[khackett]

1. Do you not believe in evolution? ... If you don't, ignore this:

Only the fittest survive. And evolve. Humans, biologically speaking, are among the most advanced creatures on earth. (just run with it)

We cook our food because it makes it POSSIBLE to eat things like meat.

A caveman's diet? Mostly veggies. Mostly fruit. SOME, not a lot, of meat.

Yes? Yes.

So that man created cooking? ... who cares?

2. misslinda, darling, I don't follow your analogy.

[misslinda]

"It's not a perfect world.......--that is why God made pencils with erasers....Robin!!!!" :o

Batman,
linda

[misslinda]

It's all about choices and ultimately what you and I are going to choose- becuase what we put into our mouths, should be a big deal. Your right, there are alot of "credible" folks that are not swayed. However, since creation and mordernization of foods that are out there (good percentage cooked) and the inclination of diseases,sicknesses, inability heal etc--the correlations I draw for myslef are water, food and air.

It's nice to have that choice and I hope others take advantage of it as well.

:) good times,
linda

[caramba]

If I can weigh in with my tuppence worth....don't want to get political but I think it's an interesting example...

If the Australian (& US) governments won't ratify the Kyoto agreement because it will affect their coal industries (well, that's our governments excuse anyway) why would they espouse something (eating Raw - even partially) that would jeopardize the beef cattle, dairy cattle, poultry indutries, mainstream monocultural agriculture in general, the pharmaceutical industry (vitamins, supplements, antidepressants etc)...?

I'm no scientist but I believe that cooking, whilst perhaps not affecting the VITAMINS so much, definately destroys the enzymes. And these are as essential as the vitamins in the first place (not much use getting vitamin-rich food if you've got no enzymes to break them down with...)

Kate, BWIW, I came across this line of "argument" from my Mum..."But people have been eating meat for 100's of 1000's of years..." Felt very ignorant in NOT being able to refute this. But isn't it that Man (you know what I mean) developed the TOOLS to support agriculture, thus ensuring a consistent supply of food and THEREFORE was able to dedicate his/her energies to other areas (weapons, fire, housing etc) and therefore "dominate" other species....?? (not eating meat & cooked food per se, which may have in fact worked against us, but because we'd developed other technological advantages we could still get away with it)

Wow...that was more like a couple of dollars worth (rather than tuppence).

[glad_2beme]

science i.e., doctors, pharmaceutical companies, etc... do not cure our illnesses they mask them with drugs. If they cured us, they would be out of business. Whole foods are healthy, good and natural! For those that don't believe it - so be it, they can go eat meats, bottled dressing, cheese, p&b sandwiches, and we don't bother them. We ask that they don't bother us. We are here to support each other in our journey.

[Sweet lips]

It interesting to me how periodically this thread comes up from time to time questioning the science behind the raw diet. It is interesting because in reading the post, these post typically come from person who will write that they are not 100% raw and they don't plan to be, they like their lifestyle the way they have choosen, which is fine.

I also think that we should not judge whether some ones' points are constructive, it is preception and board etiquette should be considered as, what works for one, may not work for another, but let each one have his/her say without feeling that they will be chewed up and spit, and also lets agree to disagree.

The most recent post is : //www.rawfoodtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=714. Medical sites are posted here as well as an interesting discussion about the science.

I do agree that we need to research that which we do, to be the best informed, instead of blindly following someone and perhaps end up tied up in knots and not knowing how one got in that situation.

In saying that, for me, and me only, my medical record and my blood results are showing that being raw is successful for me.

A few sources that may assist you with your research: Gabriel Cousen MD -He is the world's foremost physician promoting live-food nutrition for physical health and spiritual growth. A leading researcher and practitioner in the field of rejuvenation.

Don't drink your milk by Frank A Oski, MD - www.notmilk.com

Dr. Dean Ornish - landmark study on reversing heart diseas

Dr. Joel Furhman - another pioneer in the field who advocates a mostly raw diet with the addition of bean and landmark results for diabetics

I am sure there are others, but again, we can find research studies to say what we want them to say, what we don't want them to say, to agree and disagree with which ever position we choose to take.

Hope this helps and enjoy your day

[Rawkinlocs]

Thank you Sweetlips (and others) for your points.

I agree, you can find a "professional" to give you whatever proof or lack thereof you seek in anything. We can find doctors who will advocate the raw diet and we can find doctors who will go against it and both will have their "proof" to back what they are saying.

But when it's all said and done, it's up to US to decide what we are or are not going to do with the information given. I have found also (and this isn't directed at you Kate) that many times people will search for the hard facts not because they really want to make sure they're doing the right thing, but to justify their reasons for NOT wanting to do a thing. It's like, "I really want to eat meat...let me find the LACK of proof that eating meat is bad for me so I can feel comfortable about eating it."

So, as Glad2beme said, this forum is a place where we come to give and get support because we WANT to eat a raw diet (whether that be 100% or mostly raw with some cooked). We can find upteen sources online and offline to go to and hear all the negatives, all the doubts, all the questionableness (I know that's not a word...just came to me to say it :p ) but here, it's kinda like a place of solitude from all that so we can focus on becoming, being, and/or staying raw.

I'm sure you won't find what you're seeking here because:

1. to my knowledge none of us here are doctors or biochems (although we DO have a Nutritionist or two in our midst)

2. You're seeking a "credible" answer from a "credible" person that is NOT in our natural health/food circle (per your comment to Misslinda when she supplied that link) So, that automatically would discredit any of us if we WERE doctors, etc. because if we're here, then that would mean we're in the "natural circle". Also, that automatically discredits Dr. Cousens, MD or Dr. Graham or any of the other doctors mentioned because they, too, are in the "natural circle".

For many of use here, science...medical science and their lack of ability to help us heal from our illnesses, etc. is the reason why we're here doing what we're doing...because all the medical advice, all the pills, all the whatever else that science supplied; none of it worked to allow our bodies to be healed from fibromyalgia or diabetes or high blood pressure or eczema....like eating a diet of raw, whole foods did. That's proof enough for us :)

I honestly don't think you're going to find the answers you seek...at least not here and that's simply due to the criteria under which you wish to find them.

So, my question to you is, if you don't get those satisfactory answers you seek from the people you wish to get them from, will that cause you to like, totally give up on being raw?

[khackett]

Pshew! So much to address: FYI, these are all thought out & not "spring" responces... I took 10 min. away in order to not come across angry or feeling victimised. So's ya know. ;)

....
"But isn't it that Man (you know what I mean) developed the TOOLS to support agriculture, thus ensuring a consistent supply of food and THEREFORE was able to dedicate his/her energies to other areas (weapons, fire, housing etc) and therefore "dominate" other species....?? (not eating meat & cooked food per se, which may have in fact worked against us, but because we'd developed other technological advantages we could still get away with it)"

Is that a ...bad thing? I'm confused as to your line of argument... Why is the development of fire/tools/etc bad?

---

"In saying that, for me, and me only, my medical record and my blood results are showing that being raw is successful for me."

Fantastic! But I need more than that. I'm a questioning person, I like to hear the WHY (scientifically, even if ya don't believe in science) of things; give me molecules, give me chemistry, hard facts I can see, ya know? We're different people, that's all!


"I also think that we should not judge whether some ones' points are constructive, it is preception and board etiquette should be..."

I never meant to insinuate that someone's opinions were worthless. Forgive! I just didn't want this thread to be one big flame. Ya never know if you're new to boards what will kick people the wrong way.

"It interesting to me how periodically this thread comes up from time to time questioning the science behind the raw diet. It is interesting because in reading the post, these post typically come from person who will write that they are not 100% raw and they don't plan to be, they like their lifestyle the way they have choosen, which is fine."

You say that's fine, but I do get the impression from your statement that because someone isn't 100%, they shouldn't question. ...why is that?

----

"... many times people will search for the hard facts not because they really want to make sure they're doing the right thing, but to justify their reasons for NOT wanting to do a thing."

Maybe. I don't know. I DO know that I want to know the hows and the whys on a more concrete level than just trusting what everyone says about how they feel. MAke sense? Can you understand at all where I'm coming from?

"...[I]f you don't get those satisfactory answers you seek from the people you wish to get them from, will that cause you to like, totally give up on being raw?"

Like, depends! ;)

No, probably not. Not unless (and I *KNOW* this won't happen) a doctor or whomever says to me: This is BAD for you. You need to stop.

That won't happen. I know that. Veggies=good things. Fruits=Yay! They know that, they've said such. I promise, I'm not going to abandon raw, but I'm a fan of "everything in moderation", so perhaps a Crazy Day! every now and then.

[Rawkinlocs]

I hear ya Kate. I think that that at some time, we have all questioned something or if we haven't, we will at some point due to one thing or another and there's nothing wrong with that.

Your question was/is valid, but again, I just don't think you're gonna get it here..at least not until we get a doctor up in our mix.

I even wonder myself if cooked food really is devoid of nutrients or if it's poison as some say...but that doesn't really matter to me because that's not the reason I'm doing this. I didn't go decide to go raw because someone said to me, "Hey knucklehead! Don't you know cooked food is poison and has absolutely no nutritional value?!?" Then, I might be doing what you're doing.

Many of us here do incorporate some "healthy" cooked foods into the raw diet and that works for them. But some of us here do it all or nothing or at least try to because it just works better for us. Some of us don't have the discipline to eat even the small percentage of cooked (healthy) food because that small amount will lead to the UNhealthy cooked foods by default and that is probably due to some eating disorder that hasn't been addressed for some...for some maybe not.

But I do understand what you're saying and that you are one who needs the hard facts...you're not alone in that. Just saying you might not get them here because we will only give the same spiels that you don't want from "us".

So just kick ya feet up and chill out here with the rest of us and just do the dang thang while you await those facts, figures, statistics, calculations, blah blah, blah.... :D

[Sharon in Colorado]

It really is going to come down to personal experience in the end anyway. You haven't given raw a fair shot yet so you really don't know. Give 100% raw a full chance, at least 6 months and then you can come back and argue. And make sure you were 100% the whole time, not 50% or 95% because then it's not a true expirement.

It just doesn't make sense to be arguing with data and experiments and studies outside of your own personal experience. The arguments would just be endless and quite pointless, IMO.

[misslinda]

Hey it's the A team :D :D :D :D :D

How 'bout if we look at it this way........Does science prove that "cooked" is better for you?

:p linda

[Sharon in Colorado]

Oh, one more thing about really trying this.

Look at it as an acting assignment.

What about all those actors who had to lose and gain extraordinary amounts of weight and change their diets for a part?

What about actors who have had to live a certain way for months and months on location to play a different part?

The really dedicated ones stayed in character, didn't they, or maybe they just went back to their trailors and ate the catering?

You can make a decision to do this for yourself. You are young enough and free enough to go all the way with this if you want to. Something to look back on and say "it worked great for me" or "it didn't work for me at all"...you can make history for yourself!

[Smileen]

It would be interesting to see the blood chemistry of Alissa Cohen vs. Bill Clinton.

[Sweet lips]

Kate,

Since we do not know each other , and you had to take some time to write, I am who I am as you are who you are - I respect you for that, nor do I jusge for who you are - but I do expect fairness.

Please if you are going to quote me - be accurate :p , I didn't say that I did not believe in Science - anywhere in my message, I, in fact provided you with some tools to review the science behind this lifestyle. My blood work is based on science and if anything, that does not deny my belief in science. but lets you know that my results are backed up by science.

You commented on several things I wrote and yet, I do not see any comments that you read the links provided and any discussion points from that from the medical community - I gave Dr's who are not quacks, but scientist in their own right, who :) use blood test to determine the accuracy of their methods.

To answer you - I meantwhat I said that it is fine what you choose to do and again you were provided with tools from my limited resource bank. Apparently, since I don't know you, and you don't me, it sounds to me as if you felt it was a "negative critique" of you or anyone else who is not 100% raw - I have no reason to lie to you, I don't care that you are or you are not, I have not been 100% raw but that was my observation. I chose to take the 100% raw route after much study, (where do you think I got the resources from), much prayer and observation for what works for me

Again, please quote the things that support you as well "I do agree that we need to research that which we do, to be the best informed, instead of blindly following someone and perhaps end up tied up in knots and not knowing how one got in that situation." so if you feel critiqued, or otherwise, note that in my message particular, you received both pros and cons to your positon, and again, I do sincerely hope you have a good day and utilize the resources if you so choose that were provided. ;)

[Smileen]

Kate...certainly debate and information is healthy, but this kind of feels like an atheist going to a Christian website and asking them to prove that God exists.

[glad_2beme]

""You say that's fine, but I do get the impression from your statement that because someone isn't 100%, they shouldn't question. ...why is that? ""

We love answering questions and being SUPPORTIVE of each other - We are all full of questions, this board is FILLED with every imaginable one

What we do not do is get on here and say that we are truly trying when we are not.


And I like the actor idea, Demi Moore and Woody Harrelson are good starts for you to research!!!!

[SHANE]

Maybe if more people researched the SAD way of eating as much as they do RAW they would be more open to a new way to eat. ;)

[khackett]

Rawkinlocs:

Thank you for your honest approach. :) I have nothing to rebuke and nothing to say against what you said. It's logical. ;P

Sharon in Colorodo:

I'm not arguing anything, I'm asking for facts. I don't know one way or another.

Sweet Lips:

If I misquoted, I'm surprised: I copied & pasted. Apologies. I never meant to convolute what you were saying.

Most likely, I misconstrued in my analysis of your words.

I didn't feel ...well, perhaps I did feel a little critiqued, but it wasn't enough to send me flying into a blind rage. ;) I understand what you're saying, I'm offering my feedback. That's all. I didn't take offence. I'm here to learn, not to start arguments.

Smileen:

I'm not here to provoke anger and irritation. I'm trying to learn.

Glad to be:

.....If someone said "What we do not do is get on here and say that we are truly trying when we are not." to you, wouldn't you be a little upset?

I'm still in the discovery process. This, to my knowledge, is not a bad thing. Just because I'm questioning doesn't mean I won't try it. Doesn't mean I'm not trying.

I am a bit offended by that.

To All:

Not ONCE have I felt attacked, not truly. If I am/have been, I assure you: I'll tell you. I don't harbour grudges or hard feelings and I don't waste time getting irked without going to the source. I'm not here to annoy or anything, I'm just trying to understand where you did research, what you found, compare it to what I'm finding, ... be a good student.

[sweetgoddess]

Hi Kate. I thought I would just share with you an interesting scientific study involving raw and cooked in case it would be helpful to you in your quest for truth. You can buy the book at Amazon.com and im sure if you surfed a bit maybe find another way to read it. Its called Pottinger's Cats: A Study in Nutrition.
Dr. Frances Pottinger studied degenerative diseases and nutrition, but he was a pulmonary disease specialist. He did a famous study called Pottinger's cats.
One group of cats he fed all raw, the other all cooked. Check it out if you have the nudge --it is fascinating.

Blessings,

[glad_2beme]

NO I would not be offended, nothing to be offended by. I have read your journal and every post that is written on here. I made an observation - -to my knowledge this is not a bad thing.

[SHANE]

Maybe if people researched the SAD way of eating, or however they eat, as much as they do RAW, they would be less critical and more open to a new way of eating. ;)

[Sweet lips]

Carmel,

I forgot about that source - it is an excellent study. Actually, when I took anatomy and physiology, our professor who is also a Dr of Nutrition, used that in our labs as one of his tools - very interesting and clearly not normally taught - our professor was clearly not main stream and my class was the better for it.

Here are some references that some may choose to review. I did pull up medical reference from the science lib at school, but when pasted here, it required a password - but if anyone is a student, you should be able to access the information.

http://user.icx.net/~drherb/genetics.html - scroll down to the bottom of the page
http://www.healthfree.com/V4-8b-2.htm

:)

[Olive]

At some point when I first started posting here, I too posted a "where's the science" question. I'm by nature very curious and I like to have "facts" to back things up. I know part of that also comes from working in behavioral and medical research. Basically, I understand what you're asking Kate, but I don't think the information is out there, nothing conclusive anyway. There is no real source of objective fact-based information on the raw food lifestyle. And for me, it's because there is no such thing as objective. I had a teacher the other day tell me "the objective is only the shared subjective--never doubt that the subjective is always more real than the objective." I'm coming to truly agree with that--nothing but my own subjective experience will confirm something for me. Really believing in the subjective isn't always easy though, because we live in a society SO tied to the supposed objective, when in reality, it is not something that exists in and of itself.

Enough philosophizing though! In practical terms, I decided to more or less let go of the "science" question and experiment with raw. How do I feel? What changes have occured? How are my blood tests (I get tested once a year for b12, mineral and cholesterol levels)? Is my diet satisfying to me? Having these answers does not mean I don't also search out and consider nutritional research, but I take my personal, felt, subjective experience above anothers.

[Melissa]

Kate,
Hi. I think your questioning personality is great. In fact I've been a science writer professionally and will try to post a thread soon with info on digestive leukocytosis and some other interesting theories.
So, questioning is never a problem in my book :) But I also want to give you some feedback I hope you'll be open to hearing..I think that your posts can come across (unintentionally I'm sure) as a little bit glib/disrespectful. My strong sense is that you don't mean anything to sound rude (and I know this is the internet where nuance gets lost in communication). I just thought I'd pass along my impression.
Best wishes,
Melissa

[deb]

The proof is in the pudding. I'm 50 years old. When I was in my 20's & 30's, nothing I ate bothered me. Now, I've given it enough trial and error to know... my body is like a different organism eating raw vs eating cooked. When I eat cooked, my body rebells. My digestion shuts down. Within two days of eating raw, it comes alive. Everything starts moving smoothly, as it should. Emotionally, I am happy and stable eating raw. I am unstable and feel a tad insane eating cooked.

I have tested this at least a 1000 times and the results are the same each time. That's all the science I need. :D

[khackett]

Thanks, Melissa. I thought I was being careful and respectful.

And apologetic throughout each post. I'm not sure where I went wrong.

Anyway. Forget I asked, clearly this has rubbed people the wrong way.

[Sharon in Colorado]

Hey Deb - I'm 30 something and I have the same experience. I'll go along eating raw for several days or weeks, then have a bite of a cracker and my throat fills up with mucous. That is scientific enough for me to know better!

In fact, I've heard of raw families detecting the difference in their children when they get 'fed' something cooked by other people, or when they've allowed their children candy or what-not. I think it has made the children ultra-sensitive to the cooked/processed food. Doesn't seem like a good thing, but it is, it's just more of a challenge in this cooked & processed society.

So I think it can be felt at any age. You just have to be really in tune with how you feel.

Kate, forget the 6 monhts, try going raw for a week and have a slice of pizza or even a piece of bread. Write down how you feel.

Oh - and I really don't think anyone here has been rubbed the wrong way.

My reference to the 'arguing' is that often when people are presented with some kind of scientific reasoning or documentation, someone else will find something else that can refute that. It just ends up going back and forth. I meant it in general terms and not directed at you.

There was a study done on acrylimides (sp?) in another country. Basically that almost all cooked starches like flour and potato are carinogenic. Maybe someone here has the link to that one.

Here is a link to the other discussion

http://www.rawfoodtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=714&highlight=cooked+food+poison

[misslinda]

I THINK THIS SECOND LINK PROVIDES SOME INTERSTING INFORMATION--ONE FO THE MANY WAYS THAT RAW FOOD AFFECTS THE BODY.

http://www.breathing.com/articles/acrylamide.htm

http://www.purifymind.com/FoodHeat.htm

[twinyoga]

The first time I attempted raw I also wanted proof...proof from doctors. I wanted to know I was doing the right thing.

But now, I'm just enjoying the fact that I'm eating natural foods. Fruits, vegetables, and nuts. Nothing that comes out of a box, nothing that I can't pronounce (in the ingredients). I'm not craving cooked food. I'm really enjoying this and taking it one day at a time.

I will say that I eat some cooked food now and then. For example, I was at my folks tonight and had a huge salad but added a sliced cooked potato to it. That's my only cooked food in a couple of days (the olives probably weren't raw either).

I think the secret to eating raw is to enjoy it. Enjoy the pureness of it. That's where I'm at with it now.

Good luck.
Debbie

[Rawist]

I agree with glad_2beme. "My science is God created fruits vegetables and nuts. Man created cooking it."

[Rawist]

From my book of truth, The Urantia Book (the Andonites were the first humans):

P.715 - §6 The Andonites were fearless and successful hunters and, with the exception of wild berries and certain fruits of the trees, lived exclusively on flesh. ;) :cool: :rolleyes:


A caveman's diet? Mostly veggies. Mostly fruit. SOME, not a lot, of meat.

And they ate RAW flesh too, btw.

[Rawist]

I don't much care about the science behind eating raw. I believe the health benefits that are talked about but I'm just much more comfortable spiritually eating raw and that's all that's important to me. There are many people who eat cooked and don't overeat and are perfectly comfortable with eating cooked. It may be perfectly fine for them. Jesus ate cooked and he did pretty well for himself, so it's different for everyone. It may be perfectly, spiritually healthy for someone to eat cooked and they may achieve all the peace of mind and joy that one can attain in this life. And in the end, peace of mind, calmness, happiness are all that's really important to me.

I "don't have the discipline to eat even the small percentage of cooked (healthy) food because that small amount will lead to the UNhealthy cooked foods by default and that is probably due to some eating disorder that hasn't been addressed." I'm so obsessed on the raw diet that it may be an eating or mental disorder of some kind. I know that I can't take one bite of cooked food or that's all I'll eat in binge fashion. That's just how the depressiveness of it is and how my mind works. :mad: :) :eek:


I even wonder myself if cooked food really is devoid of nutrients or if it's poison as some say...but that doesn't really matter to me because that's not the reason I'm doing this. I didn't go decide to go raw because someone said to me, "Hey knucklehead! Don't you know cooked food is poison and has absolutely no nutritional value?!?" Then, I might be doing what you're doing.

Many of us here do incorporate some "healthy" cooked foods into the raw diet and that works for them. But some of us here do it all or nothing or at least try to because it just works better for us. Some of us don't have the discipline to eat even the small percentage of cooked (healthy) food because that small amount will lead to the UNhealthy cooked foods by default and that is probably due to some eating disorder that hasn't been addressed for some...for some maybe not.

[Rawist]

I haven't given raw a fair shot. I need to stay 100% raw for a year and see if I can start to enjoy it.

"It really is going to come down to personal experience in the end anyway. You haven't given raw a fair shot yet so you really don't know. Give 100% raw a full chance, at least 6 months and then you can come back and argue."

[Rawist]

I like science a lot. I think raw food is the healthiest way to go and science would probably back me up on this. But all the technological advances we've made in the past 100 years are very beneficial for mankind. When I broke my heal bone a couple years ago, I'm real grateful that there was a foot doctor who could fix it to where I would have been in horrible walking condition had it healed without an operation. And when I had gonorrhea, I'm real grateful science had medicine that could cure me, otherwise I probably would have died, or suffered some horrible ailment like blindness or something.

"I didn't say that I did not believe in Science..."

[Rawist]

From http://www.purifymind.com/FoodHeat.htm:
Often people ask us for scientific proof that a raw-food diet is the ideal way to live. We often respond by telling them that the best proof is their own experience. Should they abandon their current eating habits and embrace a raw-food regimen for two years, they would be able to experience dramatic and positive results that no "magic pill" could provide. We might also tell them that although they might want to certify the validity of the raw-food theory, and they ought to do so, they never questioned what has been taught to them in the field of nutrition when they were in school, to verify its truthfulness.

I need to make it two years so I "experience dramatic and positive results" that will convince me to stay raw. But like glad_tobeme alluded to earlier, it's like faith, you can't prove God exists, you only know you believe. So it is for eating raw. And like this paragraph is alluding to, it's hard to change from what we're first taught, even if it's just an unconsciously true belief that that's what we want, for whatever reason, cooked.

[catherinethegreat]

This thread has been so interesting to read. It reminds me of when I was very involved in a spiritual community and other people outside the group would question me and the group. Some people would judge those people for being so "asleep" and sort of checkle at them in their "spiritual " way. And others would respect that everyone has a point of view and they respected tht point of view - even if it was different then thiers.

What I hear in this thread is that everyone respects everyone elses opinion and choice to be 50% raw or 100% raw - or to need scientific facts or to just go with inner intuition and response to the raw foods vs. cooked.

I must say - it's refreshing to see such an open group of people - who are not interested in "being right" in communicating with others - but in expressing their point of view and allowing others to take what they want and leave the rest.

It doesn't feel as though this group is trying to make people be raw - or to not ask the questinos asked - it just feels as though everyone has their way of figuring out what works for them and we are are here to support that.

I think asking questions is GREAT. And I'm so glad to hear them. My opinion about the scientific / doctor's opinion about raw vs cooked etc...is that no matter what you are looking for - there will always be two sides to every topic. So even if one docotr states one way - another will ultimately have a differing view.

My father is a doctor. People love him. He's a Cancer doctor. I hear from everyone in his care - that he is such a loving/gentle man - etce etc....and those people - are being taken care of in the manner that they understand and feel safest using. Chemo. etc.

My dad is a fantastic doctor - and does his work well. And he learned it from the best schools and always did the best in school. etcetc.

My point being....Cancer care is opening more and more opportunities to alternative types of care. ( And hopefully one day people will not have cancer ever at all anyhow and won't need the care )

People who want chemo and feel that the doctors who perscribe this MUST be the authority because they have a diploma and went to school for a zillion years. But these same doctors - only learned about health and illness from a particular point of view. It's not that it's a wrong point of view. It's just that if you went to my father and asked HIM about RAW vs. cooked foods he would look at you funny and say something about why would you want to go all raw? I don't see the point. ( my dad eats a steak every night for dinner )

In medical school there is one elective class in nutrition. That's it. So that's his reference point.

A nathropath on the other hand - is going to have extensive schooling in areas that a typical medical doctor didn't have.

So when we talk about getting "facts" by people outside the Raw community you will hear "facts" based on their point of view / schooling / their conditioning in life and their fears about things that are different.

It's like asking a born again christian how they feel about people who don't believe in Jesus.....They have the point of view that people will go to hell if they don't believe in him. But what if that non believer doesn't think Hell exists?

is he wrong???

no - it's just part of his experience.

ok - I've been in so many communities of thought - I'm sorry to go on and on - it's something I find interesting to discuss.

My point in short ( ha ha ) is that everyone no matter their "authority" has an opinion and that opinion may or may not be right for everyone.

thanks for listening!!!!!!

( ps. is there a spell check anywhere on the board?!?!? )

*c

[Sharon in Colorado]

Nice conversation you're having with yourself there, Rawist. ;)

[misslinda]

well said Catherine :) cool beans, my cousin is a OB/GYN and raves about some of the latest meds and procedures.....your right, attempting to have a well-disposed converstion about RAW --aint' happenin. two completely worlds--it's comical sometimes :p


good times,
linda

[aromaticwings]

I am new to this board and to the raw food life.. I still am not totally 100% yet.. as I still revert to cravings for certain cooked foods. BUT.... I have found through my usage of raw foods that my once depressed nature and heavy fat body with aches and pains of arthritis and what not has benefited by eating raw. My temperment is much more upbeat and lighter. That black cloud that used to hang around is not there any longer. I am sure if blood tests were taken they would see marked improvement also.

How can this be bad? Scientifically or not? Cooked food makes you feel weighted down and heavy and that old cloud comes back... I am sure there are scientific reasons for this if someone were to look for them. The references given (if from the raw community)are only because these NOTED scholars are interested enought to look into something like this. They have a broader mind to be more inquisitive. I am sure alot or most started out in the "NORMAL MEDICAL TEACHINGS".

On another group I have been privaleged to be a member of..yes raw but medically aware.... They stated that the medical schools actually teach that eating cooked food is bad for you. That RAW is better.. this is something that is said to students.. but from there they go on with the "Norm" of teaching... sounds a bit condtradictory to me... but then like some have said here.. and it really isn't JUST RAW people... For political greed reasons... we find things get swept under the carpet. so as "NOT TO PANIC" the public... to keep the money in the pockets of those that benefit..ranchers, pharmacuticles..etc....

To Me it is all in the perspective of what you want out of life.. What YOU want to support.. What seems EASIER for you... go with what makes YOU FEEL good. But I can almost bet.. we will see you on your bed complaining of this or that ailment while we will be living a most healthy happy life in tune with nature and the spirituality of life... :D

And this coming from someone who is just learning.. and what I have learned I love and believe in. I am not a follower.. I do what is right for me even if I do go upstream sometimes.. :cool:

[DotfromOz]

Veeery interesting. I got crosswise with some people on another raw foods site for doing what Kate's doing here.

In my case, it's that I'm scared. Scared sometimes of doing something so very different and "weird." I didn't realize how very different eating raw would seem to non-raw people when I first got into it, which reminds me of how dying people sometimes feel sad that others are taking their impending death so hard. They themselves are caught up in what they're experiencing, to which those not dying can't relate, something like eating raw. When I've backslid into SAD at work and people noticed, one commented recently, "Well, I'm glad to see you're eating normally again," as if I'd been eating the carpeting or something equally bizarre. Sheesh! If I could just keep my fat mouth shut and hadn't bragged about how fabulous I was feeling...

But, yeah, I wish there were more substantive evidence than just "I feel fabulous and tell you I'm healthier" to back up all the claims. Does someone's journal post any specific test result figures before and after, maybe? That might help us doubters and scaredy cats believe more in eating raw. :confused:

[JustMe]

What I have noticed is that everyone here is giving the facts on how they FEEL when they are raw. There have also been links provided to help with the scientific facts. But, K have you done any research yourself? You're asking everyone here for facts when it's just like rawkinlocs said-the resulting answers are probably not what you would consider credible because we are in a "circle". YOu say you are open to the facts we provide, yet it's not good enough. To do research yourself, all you have to do is use your search engine ;).

People who are experienced raw fooders have all said the same things of what they have felt. even look at their journal photos!! Especially yani's and allison's. Those with before and after pictures you can clearly see a change in their glow. Their eyes get brighter-which is a sign of a healing liver.

They all have said that just being one week on raw and then eating something cooked gave them the feeling of it just sitting in their stomach, like it was not digesting. Well, it is digesting, just not at the best effeciency of eating whole foods. I'm sure you can find lots of research on the timing of digestion between a raw apple and a cooked apple. ;)

There was another thread on here a while back that was really fascinating about the Gerson therapy. Definitely check it out. This is an institution that has healed I don't know how many cases of UNCURABLE diseases. People have gone there as a last resort because their doctor told them that there was nothing they could do and gave them so long to live.

http://curezone.com/forums/m.asp?f=37&i=1441

As people have stated before-it is the same in the end anyway. What do you believe?

[aromaticwings]

I have been reminded today that there ARE scientific proofs out there of what we speak... we just have to find them... we just need to go to the medical journals and look for them or the scientific reports.. Alot of the norm tho refute what alot of the scholared raw foodist say because they do not want to admit they are wrong or.... they may be looking at the subject from a different perspective.

Kate's friend was right to a degree... but why on earth would someone who is eating to be healthier.. to gain ALL vitamins and minerals want to break it down "just to be easier to digest" when it is fine like it is.. Our bodies can digest them so much easier in the raw form.Cooked food is dead and eaten on other cooked food.. it sits and putrifies.... Why not eat it as nature intendedand enjoy ALL the benefits.

Now regarding what others say.. Yes, sometimes it is better and wiser to not say much... let those that question find out for them selves. but to be embarrased because you do not eat as they do is something you as your own person need to address.. i ahve something on my screene saver that says..He who angers you.... conqures you.... So for me if they have a problem with it they can go elsewhere... no one conqures me but me... :D

:D Edited to add this link I just found.. might be of some interest...
http://www.jordanmaerin.com/whyraw2.htm

[DotfromOz]

I'll begin with apologies for this being so lengthy. I'm an ex-debate coach, so I gotta line it all out and deal with each point with which I take issue. I'll try not to do this often. Promise!


I have been reminded today that there ARE scientific proofs out there of what we speak... we just have to find them... we just need to go to the medical journals and look for them or the scientific reports.. Alot of the norm tho refute what alot of the scholared raw foodist say because they do not want to admit they are wrong or.... they may be looking at the subject from a different perspective.

Okay, so who would be the "scholars" of raw foodism to whom you refer? I'm fairly familiar with several names such as the Boutenkos, Cousens, etc. although I've not read anything by either but intend to. EVERYthing I've found to date says pretty much what I see here: "I feel fabulous and am soooo much healthier. Cooked food is poison, etc."


Kate's friend was right to a degree... but why on earth would someone who is eating to be healthier.. to gain ALL vitamins and minerals want to break it down "just to be easier to digest" when it is fine like it is..Our bodies can digest them so much easier in the raw form. Chemically breaking down the structure of foods doesn't necessarily mean that vitamins and minerals are being lost, which was the point Kate's friend made. Heat can cause cellular breakdown, as I understand it (perhaps mistakenly), something akin to crushing the structural elements of a fruit when it's juiced in order to release the juice, so that breaking down a less-easily digested cellular structure could make a given food easier to digest for some people. Nor are raw foods necessarily "fine as is" for everyone. I've read enough accounts here and on other sites from people who find there are some foods they simply can't eat raw. (It would be interesting to know if they can't eat said foods cooked either, IMO.) Consequently, I disagree with you on this point.


Cooked food is dead and eaten on other cooked food.. it sits and putrifies.... Why not eat it as nature intendedand enjoy ALL the benefits.

Once again, I've heard this repeated and repeated as if "Everyone raw just knows it's true, so why would you doubt it?" but I've still not seen any definite proof that ALL cooked food is "dead," as you put it. I need to do some research on this, as I don't recall what I've read about canned-cooked vs. frozen-cooked vs. fresh-cooked in terms of nutrients destroyed or lost. Much would depend, IMO, upon how skillful the cook is, i.e. whether or not s/he boils veggies to mush, for instance, as some nutrients are definitely destroyed or lost by excessive heat or too-lengthy cooking.


let those that question find out for them selves. Questioning others who have longterm experience that one does not have IS a means of finding out for oneself. It's a preliminary, IMO, but still a means of gathering information and evidence. Why would questioning and doubting be regarded as "not to be done" unless the person stops at that point and never pursues other avenues of learning? It bothers me a great deal that the attitude of quite a few on raw foods sites seems to be, "Don't question. Just belieeeeeeeeve. :::::returning to oft-chanted mantra::::: Cooked foods are bad. Only raw are good, etc."


but to be embarrased because you do not eat as they do is something you as your own person need to address Good point. I DO agree with you here.


So for me if they have a problem with it they can go elsewhere... This is reasonable, IMO, if a doubter clearly and consistently demonstrates that s/he's only wanting to challenge and argue, that no answer offered hir is satisfactory in any perceivable way. However, I don't see Kate as that sort of person thus far. I perceive her to be asking legitimate questions that happen to be mine, too. And I, too, would like more substantive answers.

Here's something that would come closer to one for me. Let's say you were type-2 diabetic before eating 100% raw. You ate SAD exclusively, none of the healthier ethnic cuisines, and mostly processed and junkfood SAD at that. You post your blood sugar readouts before you went raw; you went 100% immediately and post test results regularly that show increasingly better blood sugar levels. Finally, your MD says, "This is astonishing! You're no longer diabetic." THAT would come closer to proof that raw foods truly are better than cooked ones, but it still might not be definitive proof, as you could also be eating much less than you did, would definitely be eating far healthier foods than you were, maybe also exercising more, focusing more on a positive attitude, etc. So, eating raw may have worked for you...but still wouldn't necessarily for everyone, particularly if s/he doesn't find the balance of foods--not too many fats, enough protein, etc.--that will bring about and maintain good health for that individual.

Could experienced raw foodists please be a little less hasty to give the impression that doubting and questioning mean the person doing so just isn't really "One of US, vs. being One of THEM"?

[DotfromOz]

I'd encourage anyone who checks the mini-movies on the site JustMe offers about Gerson's therapy to listen very carefully. I noticed in segment 2, which covers how Gerson developed the therapy, that "some cooked vegetables," were used. So, Gerson's results don't do that much to support our theory here that cooked is bad and only raw is good.

Also, nothing is said about what exactly was Gerson's diet (or those of his patients who were cured) BEFORE. If he and they ate traditional German cuisine, I can understand why his diet would contribute substantially toward their cures as German food is generally quite difficult for me to digest readily, German though my ancestry is.

This is not to say that incorporating far more raw veggies and fruits didn't help extraordinarily. However, nothing I saw there clearly demonstrates that a raw foods diet will cure ills in and of itself, especially as Gerson's therapy is not entirely raw and includes other agents that might be responsible alone or in combination with each other or with improved diet for the cures.

Closer, but not yet...and I'm off to search for the aforementioned thread on Gerson's therapy.

[Pailani]

Carrots are higher on the glycemic index when they're cooked when they're raw, and I'd guess that other foods are the same way. Then again, some foods are more digestible cooked than raw (potatoes, for one). So, at least in some instances, there's a chemical difference between raw and cooked foods that even the mainstream medical community aknowledges.

But whether that means that there's real documented proof that a 100 percent raw diet is best, I don't know. Maybe what's needed is a comparison between a varied 100 percent raw diet, and the healthiest, most produce-laden diet around, but that includes cooked foods. There could be a group of people doing both for a long time and then their health could be measured. It could be sort of a repeat of Pottinger's experiment, but with humans.

[heather]

i took a nutrition class back in college and i distinctly remember learning about how cooking destroys enzymes and denatures proteins. i was taught that foods in their natural uncooked state were better for you than cooked. the textbook (and instructor) said that tend to cook most of our food in todays society, we should try to incorporate more fruits and veges into our diet. the more the better. i find the scientific data on raw very fascinating. i am searching for more to post but here is one to get started.......


http://www.beyondveg.com/tu-j-l/raw-cooked/raw-cooked-1a.shtml
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protein
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denatured_protein
this one is good....http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raw_foods_diet

Beliefs and research
Those who follow this way of eating generally believe that:

Raw foods contain enzymes which act as catalysts to regulate the digestive process in the body.
Heating (or freezing) food degrades or destroys these enzymes in food.
Food without enzymes is thought to lead in the longer term to toxicity in the body, to excess consumption of food, and therefore *to obesity.
Living and raw foods is thought to usually have much higher nutrient values than foods which have been cooked.
The main idea behind the raw food diet is that cooked food is supposedly toxic, because cooking destroys the enzymes contained in food. This belief is based on the work of Artturi Virtanen, a Nobel Prize-winning biochemist, and on the research of Dr. Edward Howell, an Illinois physician who researched how enzymes played a role in a person's diet. The results of his research concluded that eating cooked food leads to health problems. In 1985, Howell conducted further research, and cited a study where laboratory rats that were fed cooked foods had an increased pancreatitis (though rats are particularly susceptible to disease of all kinds). Raw food diet proponents believe this shows that the pancreas is forced to work harder on a diet of cooked foods and that food enzymes are just as essential to digestion as the body's self-generated enzymes.

Additional research was conducted by Dr. Francis Pottenger in 1932, who conducted an experiment to determine the effect of cooked foods in cats. For 10 years, Pottenger fed half of the cats a diet of raw foods, the other half a diet of cooked foods. At the conclusion of his study, he reported that the cats who were fed raw foods appeared to be in better health. In addition, the exclusively cooked diet led to congenital problems including birth defects and deformities, after several generations. Research was also conducted by Dr Weston A Price as embodied by the Weston A. Price Foundation and The Price-Pottenger Nutrition Foundation.

Anthropologist Peter Lucas of George Washington University in Washington DC, US, was reported in NewScientist magazine on 19/2/2005 as having the theory that man being the only mammal with chronic poor dentition, and the only mammal to significantly process and cook his food, are causally linked. He believes that turning to cooking reduced the size of our jaw through evolutionary processes, but not the size of our teeth. Hence the blossoming science of orthodontics.

Raw food proponents believe a raw food diet consisting of enzyme-rich raw foods will reverse health problems and strengthen the immune system. The benefits of the diet are said to include maintaining stable body mass index, clear skin, more energy, and minimising a range of common illnesses, from the flu to obesity-related illnesses.

Some research does not support the idea that enzymes in foods somehow survive the stomach (pepsin in the stomach quickly breaks down nearly all proteins, including enzymes). It is agreed that foods cooked at high heat contain toxins not found in raw or boiled foods, such as acrylamide, benzopyrene, and methylcholanthrene. There is no consensus as to whether these toxins introduced by high-heat cooking methods are cause for alarm, and the World Health Organisation is sponsoring continued research. It stated that 'Acrylamide is known to cause cancer in animals. Also, certain doses of acrylamide are toxic to the nervous system of both animals and humans.'

[DotfromOz]

Thanks, Heather. I appreciate not only the benefit of your educational background on this issue but also the sources you offered.

Think I'll get a copy of Pottenger's book. I'd like to see for myself precisely how his experiment was conducted as well as what safeguards he incorporated to insure he was getting valid results.

::::::dashes off to fly around the Net researching these sites:::::::::

Thanks again for several more incentives to my successfully resisting doing housework. :p

[sweetgoddess]

Dot~here is a great link for you on Raw Vegan/Raw Food Diet Research that includes links to abstracts posted in the U.S. National Library of Medicine

http://www.beyondveg.com/cat/links-...-research.shtml

[heather]

http://www.price-pottenger.org/Articles/Dehydrators.htm
http://www.price-pottenger.org/Articles/PottsCats.htm
http://www.bioedhttp://www.nexusmagazine.com/articles/Enzymes1.html online.org/news/news.cfm?art=1046


http://www.healingdaily.com/detoxification-diet/enzymes.htm
http://www.bioedonline.org/news/news.cfm?art=1506

this one is really good for those that need a chemistry lesson....
http://tuberose.com/Cooking.html

[Lara]

I highly highly recommend Dr. Gabriel Cousins' book Conscious Eating (in its newest edition). You want science, facts, figures, he's got 'em. I'm a chiropractor, with a good background in science, and that book gave me everything I needed to feel confident in this way of being/eating.

Dr. Cousins has treated many patients over the 20+ years in medical practice, has extensive scientific research documenting just about everything he says in the book, and his own personal experience in his raw foods evolution. At times, while reading his book, my head would nod off with the extensive data, but I stuck to it, cause I'm a "show me the facts kind of person"-most of the time anyway...

I hope this helps!!!
Lara

[DotfromOz]

I'd been considering getting Cousens's book. Will definitely check into doing so, Lara. Thanks to you, too, for the evaluation of it and recommendation.

[aromaticwings]

All I have to say further is those that question this way of life are not being made happy with the answers that are given to you... those who have EXPERIENCED THIS WAY OF LIFE can only go so far to give you their reasons.. why it is better...

Not having been "educated" as some and not having done my own research to PROVE.. I was not able to give links and publications..names... But I do have my own proof of my body and how it feels...nothing and I repeat NOTHING has done this good regarding eating exercise or anything...cooked foods.. high protein low protein low fats high fats..nothing....

You.. who question... are totally capable to do the research without someone else giving you the links etc... so why do you feel it is easier to come and down raw foodists... and denie their thoughts and feelings and beliefs?? I just can not understand.. the medical journals are full of many studies... both good and bad... teach yourself... but my question now is will you believe them?? Those sources of info... since some think that the given proof of info is onesided due to coming from the raw foodists.. well it makes me question if you will believe anything else unless you just plain try it and live it yourself...AND do your own research in the places you will more likely believe..... tis all i am saying... TRY IT YOU'LL LIKE IT!!! :D

[khackett]

Aromatic:

That's .. not at ALL what we're doing. Please read the rest of the thread.

[Sharon in Colorado]

Hello again Kate! Long time no see. Nice to see you back here. :)

[rawpriestess]

Hi,

If you go to www.Alissacohen.com, you will find many testimonials of people who went raw, and cured many ailments, and obesity.

If you go to www.rawfamily.com the entire family of 4 have been raw for 11 years, and cured Valya's Athsma, Sergie's Juvenile Diabetis-he had gone into a coma twice, Igor's Thyroid Goiter, and Victoria's obesity.

The book Rawfamily tells this story, but I am sure that Victoria will explain more if you simply ask her.

If you go to www.thegardendiet.com Jinjee struggled to go raw and has been raw for about 8 years, now, and Storm has been raw for about 30 years now. They are doing a film about the physical effects of going raw, they will have evidence if you ask them. They also have several ebooks that are totally interesting. Like the hours of labor while Jinjee was raw or cooked, is fascinating. 45 hours of labor while cooked, 1 hour of labor while raw. I may have the details wrong, but it is some unbelievable thing like that.

I can give you my own personal evidence, I just didn't think anyone would be interested.

I weighed 285 on Jan 19, 2005, now I weigh 260. My blood preasure was 220 over 150 and my resting heartrate was 160 now my blood preasure is 150 over 90 and my resting heart rate is 76.

I don't know if this is what you are looking for but I will list a few of my symptoms that have changed since I went raw less than 2 months ago.

I have a detached retina and was totally blind in one eye, I can now see quite well, just not enough to read in that eye, but enough to drive. BIG CHANGE

I had digestive challenges, uncontrolable flatulance, and belching, every few minutes, now it is totally gone. I have none of this.

I used to have urgent urination, I would go pee about 20 times a day, and it was very urgent, incontinence was not funny, now none, no urgency or incontinance, I can cough or sneeze and no issues, or wet pants.

I used to get up 3 to 5 times a night to go pee, now I sleep through the night.

I used to have sinus headaches, and drainage every day and take medication for it, now I take no medication at all, and no sinus headaches or drainage of any kind.

I used to be constipated and had a BM about 1 or 2 times a week, very painful, now I have a BM at least 2 to 3 times a day, and no pain.

I used to have terrible migraines about once a week that lasted about 2 or 3 dfays, not one since I went raw, a small headache the first day, not a migraine.

I used to have terrible hip knee and ankle pain, so bad that when I walked, I walked like a duck, people would ask me if I had a sprain or what? Now, no pain, and I walk normally.

I used to be so winded I couldn't even get in my hottub, or up the two stairs in my home without help, now I run up and down those two stairs daily with no challenges. And I am in and out of the hottub like a kid.

I had to hire a gardener and houskeeper, because I couldnt' mow the lawn or vacuum or wash windows. or weed, now I do it all myself. I have let them both go. (they worked for me for over 10 years)

I used to have PMS so bad that I actually went to the emergency room twice with pain, and now no pain, and no clotting. And instead of a heavy flow for 6 days, I only have a very light flow for 1 or 2 days. (could be menopause though)

My hearing is way better, and my eyesight is drastically improved, I have new glasses now, with a much smaller perscription than just a few months ago.

I do not take daily afternoon naps anymore. And I have lots of energy.

But that is just me, and I've only been raw for 2 months.

Now before you think anything, let me say I was a vegetarian for 10 years, and a vegan for 7 years before I went raw.

I do not smoke, drink, or take any kind of drugs.

So, as far as I am concerned, it is the raw food, and that alone.

Also, my friends, tell me that I look about 10 years younger. If you don't belive me, take a look at my before raw pics, I just put up a new one today, in front of some of my paintings, and take a look at my closeup of my face, now don't you think I look about 10 years younger? I do.

Blessings,
Rawpriestess

[sweetgoddess]

How fabulous rawpriestess..big changes wow. So thrilled for you.

Kate~I had been wondernig about you and here you are. How's it going?

[Wendy]

I have a few comments myself after reading the thread. One, a doctor can very well tell you to eat cooked food. Happened to me just this week. My doctor tells me I have digestive problems and that cooked food is better for me than raw. I also have been having bowel movements sometimes more than 5 a day, so there might be cause for concern about the nutrition I am actually getting out of my food. The increase in bowel movements happened before raw. I also take a lot of thyroid. I have serious medical issues too. But, I don't really believe that cooked food, which I've ate for 4 years while very ill, is the answer for me.

The doctor told me to think about a colonoscopy. I told him that no one was putting a stick up my butt and I won't take the suggestion seriously at this point until I try other things first.. I told him if he told me first to add more enzymes and probiotics to see how I do, I would be more impressed. I believe in trying to do things the natural way first.

And this doctor is a D.O. and big into alternative healing methods, but he doesn't suggest that first?

Secondly, I understand Pottenger's Cats and can say, that there are many vegetarian/vegan stories out there of cats and dogs doing fantastic on that type of diet (cooked not raw). My dog is a vegetarian. Based on the idea that raw is better, he should be eating raw, right? But, I did my own research and found that vegetarian/vegan cats and dogs can live longer and disease free this way. And, no animals have to suffer to support my dog, I don't have to touch a carcass, and his health can be and is great.

What I am trying to say is that we have to be open to all kinds of ideas and not get stuck on science or other things we espouse. While I support the raw food movement, it never bothers me to hear people ask rational questions. I do not think Kate was attacking anyone here, just asking questions.

I don't need scientific proof, although I have a background in biology and the law, so I am a logical person in many ways. To me, the question was innocent and natural.

[heather]

i totally agree with Wendy.
hey kate! how are you doing?????

[Pailani]

<<Now before you think anything, let me say I was a vegetarian for 10 years, and a vegan for 7 years before I went raw.>>

I would be really curious to know if it's the type of food rather than whether it's raw or cooked. I mean, when you go raw, you remove grains, refined sugar and processed foods from the diet. I wonder if what's left--the fruits and veggies--would still give remarkable results if they were steamed or whatever? Is there any group of people who live on mostly fruits and veggies, no grains or processed foods, but cooks some of them?

[aromaticwings]

But look at your source!!

You're reading articles from within the natural food circuit, in your circle. Skepticism should reach all, not just the selected few who may or may not disagree with your/our (because I'm doin' this too!) eating habits.
This quote here shows me that you are not wanting to believe what anyone in the raw food lifestyle says... just because it is coming from a rawfoodist...


That's .. not at ALL what we're doing. Please read the rest of the thread.

I HAVE READ THE FULL THREAD..

There are alot of articles and medical journals out there that do give the same information about this subject that are not from rawfoodist or they weren't at the time. Alot of the raw foodists are so because they took the time to do research and found true that it is healthier for all.. Not just some.

Do your own research and make your own decision. Asking questions here and debating them does not get the answers even if you were to run across a practicing MD who turned raw.. Would you believe them? And why then? Just because he/she is an MD? It is not the fault of those here that have been well educated and researched this subject that the "government" does NOT recognize their works to be real honest to God truth for the mainstream medical field. The scholars of the raw food lifestyle (yes, like David Wolfe, Cousins, and the like. Many of whom have been and still are medical Drs and researchersof mainstream medical.) did not just pick this out of the air to say "Hey let's eat this way and tell everyone it is better for you".

Do your own research where you will be satisfied and trusting in their knowledge.. then come back to the raw foodists that have said the same exact things many years earlier... then decide... Those that WERE MD's, surgeons, and the like in the mainstream medical fields... :D

[Carolyn]

I think asking questions is GREAT. And I'm so glad to hear them. My opinion about the scientific / doctor's opinion about raw vs cooked etc...is that no matter what you are looking for - there will always be two sides to every topic. So even if one docotr states one way - another will ultimately have a differing view.

Hey Catherine, I just had to jump in and make a comment on this one. :) When I went to see my doc recently for a shoulder injury, I had one of my raw food books with me. (I thought I'd be in the waiting room for awhile, but since I had a book with me, I was called right in ... didn't even get to read any of it. :( ) :)

My doc saw the book, and surprisingly she made the comment that it's definitely healthier (than cooked). Kind of surprised me at the time, but she's been really great and is open to holistic/alternative healing methods. (Since I'm one who's always "can I try this or that rather than the medications" ... I do it with my own doc and also the vets for my cats. lol ...)

But it was very encouraging to find a doc who actually feels that raw food is healthier. Whether or not she's raw, who knows. But it was nice to get such a positive reaction on it. :)

[Elizabeth]

This is hilarious.

Human beings are animals...bound by the same biological realities affecting other animals. Our intellects have allowed us to alter our environments and food, and to mitigate, or at least postpone the negative effects of breaking natural laws. That fact does not change the natural laws. Eating Raw food makes infinitely more sense than eating cooked food. Food is naturally Raw. If you want to alter something from its natural state, you must provide the justification for the alteration.

The fact that eating altered, cooked food has become customary, and that industries of medicine, psychology, and cosmetics have developed to help people avoid or postpone the negative physical and psychological/emotional effects of eating unnaturally, does not constitute proof that eating cooked food is superior to eating food uncooked.

Eating Cooked is not the original "default" position. It is common sense that people ate food uncooked before they ate it cooked. And, since nature provides foods uncooked, and animals eat uncooked food...it seems very obvious that our animal bodies also thrive on uncooked foods. (Good old Ockham ;) ) The burden of proof is not on those who are eating fresh, Raw foods...it is on those, who for the sake of custom, habit and addiction,
choose to alter their food..and to consume things that are not food, but food flavored artifacts.


If you want to argue for the appropriateness of something - eating cooked food- that no other animal in the (natural) world does...then you need to prove that somehow humans are biologically exceptional, and that our bodies and cells do not require live food as do the bodies and cells of every other animal on the planet.


There are medical doctors who espouse Raw eating..and studies that support it. There are people who live it and are themselves proof. You said that you would not accept "evidence" from a person within the Raw community. Why do you accept evidence supporting Cooked eating from people within the Cooked community? :confused:

Eating Raw is inconvenient and difficult. Why would people put themselves through this unless they were getting significant results? On the other hand, eating cooked is the easiest thing to do in a "cooked" world. And many, many people have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo. Billions and Billions of dollars are made on the fact that people eat cooked, prepared foods and become ill. Sickness is big business..and nutrition is not the focus of a physicains education. Why are you so ready to trust those who benefit materially from things continuing on as they are?

Scientific evidence can be presented in different ways to support different- even mutually exclusive- points of view. And scientific "truths" are "true" only until someone disproves them. The world never was flat...even before the technology existed to prove that it was round. Atoms existed...even before the technology was developed to prove it. Scientific "truth" is not the same as Truth. We are energetic, electrically charged beings...and that is not accounted for in the current mainstream model of nutrition....




Even so, mainsteam science is still chipping away at the Cooked food paradigm. First it was hydrogenated oils..then oils that were simple heated to a high temp. were found to be altered structurally in a way that made them unusable by the body and damaging to arteries. Then came the study concerning the creation of carcinogenic acylamides in heated carbohydrates. Also, there have been studies showing that there is an increase in the level of white blood cells after eating cooked food, but not after eating Raw food. This increase in wbc count is the result of an immune system response to a perceived threat. If our immune systems respond to cooked food as if it it were an invading bacteria then how do you justify eating it? It is only a matter of time until thinking and honest people will have to acknowledge the truth that eating Raw is superior.

Then everyone will wonder why something so obvious was ever ridiculed and questioned. If you can step outside the existing culture of consumption, you may get glimpses of how ludicrous the current ways of eating and living are. The restaurants lining the streeets and highways. Drive-thrus everywhere..as if we are afraid of being more than a few minutes away from a meal...while overweight, obesity and degenerative disease are rampant. The sodas, candy, chips..anything to shove in the mouth..are ubiquitous. These are the things that should be questioned..not whether eating raw fruits, vegetables, nuts and seeds is healthy.


It is just ludicrous.... :)

[JustMe]

Elizabeth said: "If you want to alter something from its natural state, you must provide the justification for the alteration."

And that justification would be because all of those chocolate desserts are so darn good!!!!!!!!! LOL Isn't it horrible???? lol

She also said: "Even so, mainsteam science is still chipping away at the Cooked food paradigm" followed by some example studies.

Even though you say these things, I'm sure they won't accept them because what they originally asked for was documentation right in their faces as proof.

But like Elizabeth said again: "You said that you would not accept "evidence" from a person within the Raw community. Why do you accept evidence supporting Cooked eating from people within the Cooked community?"

I don't know how many people have told them that on here...

You know I think I need to join a debate class. Usually in an argument, I tend to clam up a bit and then I can't get my views straight and they all can't come out for that matter! I think it would be very beneficial with those squabbles with my husband :D

I myself will tell of a study i remember (although i can't remember the site i saw it on, but i guess this will be more for the raw foodies) where they did research on how our blood reacts when cooked food enters the body. Anyone heard of this? Well, when we put cooked food into our bodies our white cell count shoots up. Well, when does our white blood cells increase? When our body recognizes foreign things in our body. I will try and look for the site, but i'm sure i can find it (as well as Kate and Dot) by just typing in white blood cells and cooked food. I'll let you guys know.

[EmmaBlue]

hi Kate,

I think your question is great, and I hope you are still around!

There is scientific evidence on both sides, both pro and con for a raw diet.

Many here have cited evidence in favor, but there is a website with a great deal of detailed research by Tom Billings, who was an insider in the raw movement for over 30 years, and he concluded that it is a great diet in the short term (very rejuvenative and healing) but not sufficient for the long term. His website is: www.beyondveg.com

There are lots of personal testimonies of how people feel great after eating raw in the short term, but most do eventually slip with cooked now and then, so it is hard to know if the occasional egg or fish meal is actually helping to prevent them from acquiring deficiencies if they had been perfectly 100% raw for years.

The longest lived raw foodist was 90, but he included goat's milk in his diet.
Many long-term raw foodists are also using (and selling ) expensive supplements. Some are not. It is hard sometimes to really know what is true!

I could be wrong, but I don't think anyone on this board has been 100% raw more than five years, other than Alissa.

Personally, I strive to eat as much fresh fruits and vegetables as possible, but I also eat organic eggs and some cooked veggie foods.

love, Emma

[JustMe]

http://www.mercola.com/2002/may/29/over_cooking.htm

This is the website about the study of white blood cells. But, also keep in mind that he does say something about if you were to keep eating cooked food to do it a certain way. And it came clear to me why:

The raw food "movement" i guess i can say talks about how it is living food with the enzymes present to help digest better. I think all of us forgot this crucial point as to why the enzymes are important: FOR DIGESTION.

RAw food passes through our digestive tract fairly quickly because of those enzymes. Overly cooked on the other hand will linger for a while because of lack of enzymes which can lead to consipation. If things stay in our digestive system too long our body starts to have autointoxication-where we actually reabsorb these toxins thru the digestive tract because our food sits too long in our stomach and putrifies. Meat is a good example of this as we cannot digest meat too well like other carnivores. they have a shorter GI tract so the meat is eliminated from their body faster. Our tract is what 30 feet long? HOwever if we keep things moving efficiently especially with those food packed with nutrition that also digest easily we get the maximum benefits from it.

THere is a theory about how our gastrointestinal system is the key to a person's health. I have not personally read this book, but after doing lots of research on raw food that theory makes sense which is about autointoxication that i just described above.

I'll have to look up the name of the book on this theory.

[Myka]

I'm on day 24 of the Raw Food Lifestyle but to continue discussion on the science aspect of eating Raw, here is more info from a Vegan Doc.

Many of the Raw Books I read mention Dr.Fuhrman as a resource because he advocates eating a lot of raw foods but they did not mention what he thought about an all raw diet. Someone on his site asked him whether cooked food was harmful. Here is his reply.

www.drfuhrman.com
July 12, 2004
Question: I heard that all foods should be eaten raw as cooked foods have lost all their enzymes and cannot support health. I was taught cooked foods stick to the walls of your digestive treat crating hard, rubbery “gook” and mucous that can only be removed by colonics.

Dr. Fuhrman: "The enzymes needed for proper digestion is supplied by our body, not by the food eaten. Our body has the ability to analyze the food and secrete the precise proportion and amount of enzyme needed for that particular food. We have to rely on the body’s genius to get just the right amount, not too much and not too little. Enzymes in plants are put there for the plants needs, not ours, but some plant enzymes do have nutritive benefits, not functional benefits. Some nutrients, photochemical and enzymes which have photochemical benefits are lost or destroyed in high heat cooking but many are also made more absorbable by cooking. Water-based cooking as in soups, steaming, and cooking in a pressure cooker results in very little loss of nutrients and a significant increase in the absorption of phytochemicals. To fear eating a steamed vegetable, or vegetable/bean soup is entirely unfounded and without scientific support.

Plaques of mucous do not build up on the wall of our guts from cooked foods. Actually, thousand of people undergo colonoscopies each day, never do we see any build up on the wall of the gut. I have performed my own scoping for years and have never seen any build up in people, nor did I find it in cadavers in medical school or in the morgue. However, certain alternative medicine practices are potentially harmful such as ingesting bentonite clay which can be adherent and solidify in the colon. I agree with the message of the raw food community that raw food is essential for good health and I agree that certain type of cooking is potentially harmful, especially fried foods, browned and burnt foods and baked goods. The disagreement comes when you claim that steaming a vegetable will hurt you, your diet should be 100 percent raw and nothing should be eaten cooked. Then you are diminishing the nutritional quality of your diet and overly restricting yourself without merit or benefit." end quote.

Just for further info, Dr. Fuhrman's weight loss and disease reversal plan from his best selling book Eat To Live goes like this:
Unlimited fruits per day but at least 4.
Unlimited vegies in the form of two huge salads to be eaten first during lunch and dinner. Cooked vegies twice a day after the salad for lunch and dinner.
1 cup of starch a day in the form of whole grain bread, grains, a potato, brown rice)
1 ounce of raw nuts per day. (more if you are thin and active)
1/2 avocado per day.

No animal products,
No diary,
No oil of any kind, (an exception of one tablespoon of olive oil per day is ok if thin and active)
No fruit juice or dried fruits.
No salt. Braggs is ok to use as a substitute.

He also is an advocate of fasting and has a book devoted to that.

[khackett]

Wow, I didn't know everyone missed me! I kept quiet, particuarily in this thread, because I just didn't have anything worth adding. :)

Anyway.

The reason I asked was to learn, aromatic. Not piss people off. I'm sorry if that's hard to imagine.

I feel like everyone here has tried their best to explain to me, and I'm greatful. I admit: I'm not 100% on the raw bandwagon, but I'm working on it. I aim for 1 meal/day being cooked (and we're talking ...steamed broccoli), sometimes I get there, sometimes I have a bit of bread.



Again, I feel like I don't have anything worth saying ... soooo... carry on. :P

[sweetgoddess]

LoL ;)

~~~~

[sweetgoddess]

Odd how this old thread flared up!

I suppose it all comes down to one thing. You cannot proove anything to anyone but yourself.

Truth is not found in any book, written or verbal exchange. It is only found within yourself.

[Rawkinlocs]

Can you say that again SweetG? That's SO true! We all have to find our own truth for ourselves...what's right for us be it raw, cooked, both, etc.

[Pailani]

Sorry, wrong thread!

[nobletroll]

The below link is to a story about acrylamide that is a chemical that forms spontaneously in starch-rich foods from heating. That is jest one we know of. You only find things if your looking for them and no one is looking into the possible problems with cooked foods because humans have been doing it for a long time and it jest seams normal.

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medicalnews.php?newsid=20863

[Sharon in Colorado]

Wow, I didn't know everyone missed me!

Well, I missed reading your quirky but funny ramblings! :)

Welcome back to guinea pig central.

Where the truth lies within ourselves and our own experimentation.

Pull up a chair and a shot of wheat grass juice and put your cravings on the back burner while the toxins flow out of your pores and your breath scares people away.

Stay a while until your energy peaks and your mind is freed from brain fog, and you melt off the pounds that you never really needed.

Learn how to deal with ordering in a restaurant, getting along with your cooked equal-half, feeding your children milk substitues or how to keep them away from the in-laws hiding chocolate bunnies behind their backs.

Soon you too will be living, breathing proof that by walking the narrow path has rewarded you with a healthier, happier lifestyle and those around you will be constantly asking you questions about their Aunt Bertha with Cancer and Uncle Seymore with Diabetes.

Enjoy!

[flutterfly]

My proof os my body and at 58 years young I feel that it is proof enough thanks.

[Autumn]

I'd say the "proof is in the (raw) pudding"! In your pic, Flutter, you look about 35!

[sweetgoddess]

Sharon, too cute!! :p

[flutterfly]

I'd say the "proof is in the (raw) pudding"! In your pic, Flutter, you look about 35!

Thanks Autumn, I am a Great Grandma :eek:

[JustMe]

Question: I heard that all foods should be eaten raw as cooked foods have lost all their enzymes and cannot support health. I was taught cooked foods stick to the walls of your digestive treat crating hard, rubbery “gook” and mucous that can only be removed by colonics.

I would like to see "study" out there that gives the why on how raw food digests easier and quicker than cooked foods. I'm sure it has to deal with cooking food chemically alterating the structure.


Dr. Fuhrman: "The enzymes needed for proper digestion is supplied by our body, not by the food eaten. Our body has the ability to analyze the food and secrete the precise proportion and amount of enzyme needed for that particular food. We have to rely on the body’s genius to get just the right amount, not too much and not too little. Enzymes in plants are put there for the plants needs, not ours, but some plant enzymes do have nutritive benefits, not functional benefits.

Yes, our body does have its own enzymes, but how is it that over-the-counter enzymes work to help with digestion? There is one enzyme from a brand that is nothing but PAPAYA enzyme. If scientists can isolate that certain enzyme and put it in a pill then certainly enzymes from raw food acts the same. So I guess that all those enzyme supplements don't work?


To fear eating a steamed vegetable, or vegetable/bean soup is entirely unfounded and without scientific support.

Well, after reading that website i provided about the white cell study, he says to lightly steam things, etc. if you want something cooked. BUT, isn't that what our dehydrator does? Heat comes from that fan that is still applied to the food, but the difference is the heat is so low that the enzymes stay intact.

"Plaques of mucous do not build up on the wall of our guts from cooked foods. Actually, thousand of people undergo colonoscopies each day, never do we see any build up on the wall of the gut. I have performed my own scoping for years and have never seen any build up in people, nor did I find it in cadavers in medical school or in the morgue."

I know dairy causes mucous. In fact, i'm sure that is why he stated in his plan-no dairy. but, for him to say he has NEVER seen a colon impacted with old poop is a little odd and for him to say that mucous cannot harden is odd too. does anyone else agree?

[flutterfly]

It is very odd. I have seen what comes out of people and it sure isn't a pretty sight or smell for that matter.

[heather]

Pull up a chair and a shot of wheat grass juice and put your cravings on the back burner while the toxins flow out of your pores and your breath scares people away.

Enjoy!

LMAO!!!!!!!!!! you are too funny tonite!