This requires immediate discussion!

[Theobroma]

Some of these people are just... well I'll let you figure it out

http://www.chow.com/stories/11426/

Read all 3 pages if you can... especially the last page.

It figures some people can be so... INSANE and ignorant. I didn't realize there were ignorant people on both sides of the food pyramid.

[Thick]

I assume you got especially upset at the idiots leaving opionated comments?

This part of the article~

"the pop-lite megachurch version of gourmet raw versus the messianic approach of purists like Graham. The megachurch may get more members, but they may not be well schooled in the particulars."

~makes it so obvious of the affilation of the author. They really bother me, personally. Why does it have to be their business to try to convert people to their lowfat way of eating? Why the constant criticism? Why does not eating pecan pie make them so "purist" and "well-schooled"--talk about holier than thou..sheesh

and I had to stop reading the comments, poor things=/

[Revvell]

You're kidding right? This world is populated by ignorance ~ "ignorance" meaning ~ they choose to ignore. I really liked one of the writers who said how we've actually gotten to this point BECAUSE of all the research and study we've done whereas those who eat as always have done little or none. (paraphrasing)

*shrugs* Whatevah! Really, no discussion needed. It's like spitting in the wind. I live my life eating and doing what's right for me and leave others to their otherness. It's right for them! :)

[coco]

What exactly did you not like about it? It was only an opinion piece and the author was obviously biased to begin with. His ignorant comments summing up Ann Wigmore made that abundantly clear. It could have been way worse.
I can't disagree with some of what was said about raw gourmet foods though, I personally don't think those are any healthier than some cooked foods. In fact I'm nearly certain that some simple cooked dishes are better for you than raw vegan cakes and dehydrated anything. And I certainly agree that food that sits on a counter or in the fridge loses nutrients and becomes less healthy.
There are different levels for different people, some "purists" think that only the first bite out of a piece of freshly picked food is life giving and vibrant enough to matter. Some people won't eat nightshades, some won't eat onions or garlic, others won't eat fruit or greens, not even a bite of any of them, etc etc etc. The way it gets discussed sometimes sure does make this "group" seem fanatical and loopy. You have to admit that there is a LOT of dogma.
I personally think that one should eat what (truly) makes them feel good and happy. That is at least as beneficial as what it's made out of.

Oh yes, and taking opinions like those with a grain of (sea) salt. Healthiest option for your mind at least.

[Theobroma]

“If you boil vegetables to death, you’ll lose some of the vitamins, but most people don’t do it this way,” says Bruce N. Ames, professor of biochemistry and molecular biology at the University of California–Berkeley

Uhhh... actually the majority of people I know boil the crap out of their veggies, burn their food and eat vitamin enriched food obviously because they need it and could care less and proudly state, as long as it tastes good they don't care.:rolleyes:


Dina is one of the purists: For breakfast he has a few cantaloupes; for lunch, salad; for dinner, salad. But he thinks eating lots of vegetables, even if you’re also eating cooked grains and the occasional piece of meat, is better than eating a bunch of sweet, processed foods that just happen to be raw. He jokingly calls people who go raw, only to eat packaged foods and restaurant dishes, productarians.
----
Ugh! I don't know about some of you but I could not eat like that as part of a lifestyle! Food is supposed to be one those wonderful things in life, and experimenting with food and making these wonderful dishes and going out for them to me is kind of a no brainer. I see bonus if we can eat healthy and enjoy it! I don't see how this is bad.

---
“This is nonsense,” says David A. Levinsky, professor of nutritional sciences and psychology at Cornell University. “One of the first things our body does when a particular food is ingested is break the proteins down anyway, so we can absorb them.” The body produces more than enough enzymes, say scientists, to digest food without the help of the plants’ enzymes.
---

Don't know how this guy got so far in life when he clearly misses the simple point. Yes! Our bodies can break food down! Yes it produces enzymes to break down food! No one said otherwise. On top of that considering what certain places such as the states has mostly ingredients that don't even qualify as "food" foods that aid in digestion seems like a good idea no?
There are like a ton of diseases and disorders out there, mainly because of the "food" thats out there and these people have the audacity to make it seem like we're the ones wrong with looking after our health.

I lost a link that some women went on how these new raw foods are mostly sugar and fat, and scoffs that these imitate foods that were never good for you. Honestly this person must not know anything about nutrition. What does she think carbohydrates are? And since when are the fats we use bad...?

I also don't know about the rest of you but I don't exactly want to drop any healthy weight because I'm not getting enough calories or nutrients from a a bunch of cantaloupes and salad. :eek:

[coco]

4 melons and 4 lbs green salad =
2,155calories 11.4g fat 523.6g carbs 55.2g protein
meets and in most cases far exceeds all nutritional needs listed on fitday.com except vit B12, D, 80% vitE, 80% selenium and surprisingly 97% sodium.

That Dina dude is doing better than me! And you know I actually enjoy foods eaten on their own, especially melon, though I prefer salad with dressing and possibly some seeds. Simple is good for me, gourmet leaves me feeling heavy and sleepy a lot of the time.

And as far as enzymes, that is the one huge issue that has been talked about since the inception of the raw foods movement and TONS of people still operate under the erroneous impression that the enzymes in food help us digest them better when eaten.

I'm just saying here, to each their own. I'm not seeing how one is right and the other wrong so long as we are all doing what makes US feel best, and I mean what makes our bodies feel best, not eating crap because it's tasty etc. For some that means just plain old fruits and veg, for some it's gourmet, for some it's 100% and for some including a percentage of cooked foods has a negligable negative impact on them.

The article is trash, written by someone who did minimal research and only focussed on the flashiest bits of what they found out. BUT some of it was not untrue once you got past the crap.

[D'vorah]

Quote: "And therein lies the conundrum for the raw foods movement. How do you commercialize vegetable matter in its natural state? How do you sell a diet that’s founded on the idea that you can do nothing better for your health than picking and eating weeds from a vacant lot? The answer is, you can’t."

If by "sell" they mean market it in a way that makes the "seller" rich, no, you probably can't. But if by "sell" they mean make the lifestyle available to people who then adopt and live this way, it's happening. Lots of people are living the simple raw life. It's my goal, but I'm not there.

As for Dina, I attended one of his conferences in Hawai'i a few years ago and I found him to be very intellegent, articulate and gently passionate about health.

I think it's a thought-provoking article. I've heard more than one source cast doubt upon the enzyme theory. If the enzyme arguement is null and void, which it may or may not be, does that make the diet any less healthy, healing and energizing? Of course not. There are still the issues of peak availability of vitimins and minerals, the removal of unhealthy fats, allergens, foods that cause leaky gut, foods that are laced with opoids leading to addictive dietary practices, etc, etc, etc. The raw diet removes foods that result in cardiac disease, inflammatory disease, vascular disease, etc, etc, and it goes farther than the cooked vegan diet that allows for glutens and other foods that aren't health supporting.

The raw food movement isn't just one singular approach. That's not a problem for most raw foodists I've met, but it is problematic when we try to approach the SAD public. We have a ways to go.

Deborah

[holistica]

Some of these people are just... well I'll let you figure it out

http://www.chow.com/stories/11426/

Read all 3 pages if you can... especially the last page.

It figures some people can be so... INSANE and ignorant. I didn't realize there were ignorant people on both sides of the food pyramid.

This article is full of BS. It stinks like rotting meat on a hot driveway.

I guess it stands to reason that if you eat NOTHING but nuts and dehydrated raw foods, you probably won't lose any weight, but that's not even all it's about. We know that dehydrated stuffs are a treat, and this article is making ALL raw foodists look foolish... To anyone who bothers reading it. It's biased and under-researched.

It's BS, but I don't think it's going to turn a lot of people away from the raw food diet. People who wouldn't eat raw anyway might use it as an excuse not to change, but that's their own problem.

I bet most of us on here have a big salad with their slice of raw pizza too. Oh, oh! And who has ever eaten "weeds from a vacant lot" or "green mush served by somebody with a pageboy haircut?" Not I!

[coco]

There are still the issues of peak availability of vitimins and minerals, the removal of unhealthy fats, allergens, foods that cause leaky gut, foods that are laced with opoids leading to addictive dietary practices, etc, etc, etc. The raw diet removes foods that result in cardiac disease, inflammatory disease, vascular disease, etc, etc, and it goes farther than the cooked vegan diet that allows for glutens and other foods that aren't health supporting.

Deborah

Rawk on, now you're talkin' sister.

[gabriele]

To me the main point that i got from that article is the great irony that eating raw foods often gives you WAY MORE fat than even the SAD diet. And that is really sad. If the bulk of everything you eat comes from nuts, seeds, oils, avocado, nut butters, nuts this and nuts that, in my opinion that is not healthy. Fat is not healthy if the percentage is so high in your diet. That seems pretty basic. So the author, in trying to denounce the whole raw food movement, latched on to it's basic flaw, i think. The high fat problem.....

The comments people left the article are typical of what you would hear from your co-workers, your family and the mainstream. Most people will just never get it....

[D'vorah]

To me the main point that i got from that article is the great irony that eating raw foods often gives you WAY MORE fat than even the SAD diet. And that is really sad. If the bulk of everything you eat comes from nuts, seeds, oils, avocado, nut butters, nuts this and nuts that, in my opinion that is not healthy. Fat is not healthy if the percentage is so high in your diet. That seems pretty basic. So the author, in trying to denounce the whole raw food movement, latched on to it's basic flaw, i think. The high fat problem.....

The comments people left the article are typical of what you would hear from your co-workers, your family and the mainstream. Most people will just never get it....

I don't see the article as denouncing the raw food movement, but rather, exposing some of the struggles and inconsistencies within.

The section title "Weird Science" speaks volumes to me. There is research that supports a plant-based diet, but there are no comprehensive, in-depth reliable research projects on the books regarding a raw diet vs. a cooked diet, and there are a great many people who won't buy it without that. And if such research were conducted, which version of this lifestyle would be used? We all know there are multiple approaches, and that's what this article focuses on.

Of course, on the other hand, I've seen opposing research projects used to prove and disprove the exact same hypothesis, so, there's that. Variables can be controlled to lean toward a desired outcome. But, that's poor science.

Most of us on here are content with anecdotal evidence. I know a lot of people who aren't.

We have been presented to the world as a movement, but there are vastly opposing approaches that cause this movement to look inconsistent (which it often is) and flaky. I don't see the article as denoucing the movement as much as exposing those issues.

Meanwhile, the best we can do is do the best we can.

Deborah

[EZ rider]

Interesting article. Everyone finds the way to do raw that works for them.

[D'vorah]

Interesting article. Everyone finds the way to do raw that works for them.

Nicely put. :)

[Queen Bean]

some of those comments amazed me...

someone said so pityingly of us that we must be 'joyless' people. the world is sepia-toned when i eat cooked compared with the colour of raw.

somebody else asked what kind of life we have if we don't drink alcohol? maybe we don't need it, we're already there.

the following person may heal their illness if they followed a raw diet.

violet22: Hear, hear. As a Crohn's sufferer, I shudder to think how long it would take a raw diet to land me in the hospital. Two meals, perhaps? Simple carbs are my friend.__Regardless, life is too short for such culinary sacrifices in the name of health, and food is one of the few simple joys in life. I'd far sooner live to be 50 and have thoroughly enjoyed the food I ate than live to be 100 and have missed out on all the wonderful meals I've enjoyed so far.__Furthermore, I do believe in listening to my body in the majority of circumstances, tempered with common sense. I think people who binge on bad food are simply used to eating bad food and thus feel compelled to eat more of it because they associate it as food and hence, due to its low nutritional content, require much more of it to meet their nutritional needs, so they crave what they know.__I generally eat healthy (in the context of my health condition), but given the fact that Crohn's causes malabsorption, my body often tells me what it needs, rather like a pregnant woman, I'd imagine. For example, a few times a week I become aware that I need a big dose of fat, and so I'll have a natural meal rich in it: e.g. organic apple pancakes with loads of butter and non-chemical laden bacon. Other times it's glazed carrots, or mangoes, or bananas.

[HereAndThere]

Dinner, they [raw foodists] believe, should be salad, or maybe tomatoes puréed with mango. Obviously, the SAD author has never seen this page (http://www.alissacohen.com/raw.html). Sorry, but those pictures do not look like salad or mango/tomato puree. :D

I absolutely love the comment left by notasnot on that page. It really said it all in ways I wish every SADist could hear.

[Queen Bean]

when i read that i thought who is eating tomato and mango puree for dinner anyway...

[jane b]

For someone who is not a Raw Foodie, I thought the author of the article presented a fairly balanced tome. The issue was not so much how healthy the food is, but rather how unhealthy some attitudes are. And that was even more apparent in the comments. As my Scots grandmother used to tell us, "'tis better to be silent and thought a fool, than to speak and remove all doubt." But then, some folks just can't help themselves.

My decision to do Raw has much more to do with health than a religious conviction. I already have a religion, thank you very much. We had a farm for many years, raised our own beef, chickens, and goats, so I knew exactly what was going in my mouth. I have no philosophical qualms with consuming honey from the bees I keep, either. I try very hard not to harm any of "the girls" when I check the hives, but I'm not going to have a fainting spell if one accidently gets crushed.

DH, the Omnivore who prefers a large salad most of the time, nailed it for me. After sampling some raw zucchini slathered with Walnut Basil Pesto, he declared that Raw could be considered another "ethnic" cuisine.

And I think he might be onto something...

jane b

[Seedy]

All-in-all I thought the article was well balanced (for a non-raw fooder). The schism between the raw food chefs like Alissa and Ani Pho, and the monomeal eating purest like Doug Graham is very real and starts many a debate in the raw food community. Eventually, everyone who stays raw finds a happy medium between the two. As much as I like Alissa's recipes, I can't eat like that every day - heck, ALISSA doesn't eat that way. Look at the food log she has in her book. In her book and DVD she makes it pretty clear that the recipes are transitional. First you learn to uncook and make the recipes. Then over time you simplify your diet till you reach a 'sweet spot' where your weight is stable and your food is simple and delicious. For me, I eat low-fat green smoothies, fruit salads, greens, veggies and sprouts at my meals - and THEN have some nice nutty pie or crumble as a dessert. As for the comments, well that's the attitude at large towards raw food. I did my research, and I believe the facts support that a raw food diet is the healthiest way to go. That doesn't mean there is plenty of wacko stuff out there. If the Standard American Diet can produce an Atkins or South Beach diet, the vegan raw food world can produce its fair share of quackery too.
Seedy

[RawYorkCity]

I enjoyed the article. The author is correct on a couple points. Some people are making a business out of raw food and they use the terms "raw" or "super food" to market "healthy" meals or supplements that might otherwise not be.

His ending point about Dr. Graham is spot on. He cannot make or exploit money from his way of eating because it involves the individual to turn to nature, not a restaurant for food.

Anyway, it's common sense that the more ripe, whole, organic, produce is going to be the optimal choice.