51% raw question...

[Rawvioli]

I have heard that the digestive systems of people following a conventional American diet suffer because their bodies treat cooked food like poison and attack it as a foreign body, thus stressing the immune system. The implication was that if you ate 51% or more raw food, your body would not treat the food you ate that way. Of course, organic is always better, but will your body still attack itself if you are eating conventional raw food?

[Revvell]

I have no clue and I wonder how folk come up with this percentage theory. I'm pretty sure our immune systems are pretty well compromised by the amount of chemicals we're breathing, eating and taking in in any number of ways which is why there's so much illness.

Our bodies don't attack themselves (unless we have AIDS or something of that nature) ~ our immune systems attack the foreign bodies.. if they can.

Things like vaccinations, pesticides, herbicides and anything it doesn't recognize. It either stores (which puts a lot of pressure on the liver, joints and other organs causing dis-ease) or releases it.

[GreginND]

Forgive me but I am having a hard time following your question. On one hand you are talking about the body attacking food. And then you ask if the body attacks itself when eating raw food?

First, the body's immune system does not "attack" foreign bodies in the digestive track. Food that is cooked is not considered poison. As with anything, cooked or raw, there may be molecular compounds that are detrimental to living cells ("poisons"). As a matter of fact some of the most poisonous substances known are natural compounds found in plants.

51% isn't any kind of magic number. Eating 51% raw wouldn't be any different than 45% or 60%.

What is conventional raw food? Do you simply mean non-organic? Organic does not necessarily mean less harmful. The nutritional value of organic vs non-organic foods are not different. Organic foods are not treated with herbicides and pesticides which is a big benefit. However, I think the organic vs inorganic fertilizer debate is more important for sustainability than it is for safety. Organic fertilizers (e.g. manures) are often less safe due to the presence of bacteria.

[jevans]

I think what the OP was referring to is the movie "Food Matters" has authorities claiming that eating processed cooked foods is like a poison and that when ingested, our bodies attack it as if it were a poison. They claim that eating at least a 51% raw diet can help reverse this "attack" and put us on a path of better health.

Their point is that they want us to at least eat more raw than cooked. Hope this clarify's things.

[Revvell]

I think what the OP was referring to is the movie "Food Matters" has authorities claiming that eating processed cooked foods is like a poison and that when ingested, our bodies attack it as if it were a poison. They claim that eating at least a 51% raw diet can help reverse this "attack" and put us on a path of better health.

Their point is that they want us to at least eat more raw than cooked. Hope this clarify's things.

Eating pretty much any more raw will do that for many yet, my question stands ~ how does one figure 51%? People read something like this and take it literally then make eating raw difficult and complicated. I tell clients and students ~ keep it simple! Don't over-think it and eat raw!

[jevans]

Eating pretty much any more raw will do that for many yet, my question stands ~ how does one figure 51%? People read something like this and take it literally then make eating raw difficult and complicated. I tell clients and students ~ keep it simple! Don't over-think it and eat raw!

Absolutely. I am somebody that researches, extensively, everything I venture into and sometimes the bombardment of information can over-load you and make you even more confused. But, as you know, the 51% figure they are referring too is probably just stating to eat more raw than cooked. But I agree with you on the "literally" statement. People that are unsure of what they are doing will most likely pull their scales out.:confused

[amoux]

For anybody who is interested, here's a link to a short summary of the research on the effects of eating cooked or raw foods - it's not that cooked food is poison, the point is that it triggers leukocytosis:

http://www.rawfoodinfo.com/articles/art_leukocytosisandcooked.html

[GreginND]

Thanks. I will try to find the original 1930 study and see if the claims are valid.

[GreginND]

According to that rawfoodinfo article, the claims refer to experiments done by a Swiss M.D. Dr. Paul Kouchakoff. It refers to a talk he gave at the First International Congress of Microbiology in 1930 and the summary of his talk was published as a "proceeding". In scientific literature, proceedings are not peer-reviewed papers but papers provided by the presenter of a talk on what they talked about at the scientific meeting.

Regardless, in this proceeding the Dr. Kauchakoff refers to experiments with 10 individuals and vaguely mentions white blood cell counts after eating foods heated to critical temperatures (critical temps 191 degrees F to 206 degrees F). There is no data to be found in the proceeding and it certainly does not contain methods or experimental details. There is absolutely no mention of enzymes in the paper as well.

Contrary to many web sites touting Dr. Kauchakoff's work, I don't see the evidence for many of the claims about it.

Also, He is not a Nobel prize winner despite what many web sites claim.

Here is a link to a PDF English translation of the proceeding (http://www.seleneriverpress.com/cancer-and-sugar/396-the-influence-of-food-cooking-on-the-blood-formula-of-man/download)

[amoux]

Here is a link to a PDF English translation of the proceeding (http://www.seleneriverpress.com/cancer-and-sugar/396-the-influence-of-food-cooking-on-the-blood-formula-of-man/download)[/QUOTE]

Thanks for this.

Edited to add: just came across this piece which makes interesting reading:

http://www.beyondveg.com/tu-j-l/raw-cooked/raw-cooked-1i.shtml

[climbing]

According to that rawfoodinfo article, the claims refer to experiments done by a Swiss M.D. Dr. Paul Kouchakoff. It refers to a talk he gave at the First International Congress of Microbiology in 1930 and the summary of his talk was published as a "proceeding". In scientific literature, proceedings are not peer-reviewed papers but papers provided by the presenter of a talk on what they talked about at the scientific meeting.

Regardless, in this proceeding the Dr. Kauchakoff refers to experiments with 10 individuals and vaguely mentions white blood cell counts after eating foods heated to critical temperatures (critical temps 191 degrees F to 206 degrees F). There is no data to be found in the proceeding and it certainly does not contain methods or experimental details. There is absolutely no mention of enzymes in the paper as well.

Contrary to many web sites touting Dr. Kauchakoff's work, I don't see the evidence for many of the claims about it.

Also, He is not a Nobel prize winner despite what many web sites claim.

Here is a link to a PDF English translation of the proceeding (http://www.seleneriverpress.com/cancer-and-sugar/396-the-influence-of-food-cooking-on-the-blood-formula-of-man/download)

Thank you for finding this... I see a lot of claims that aren't backed up by much. This is good to know.

[sport]

I know exactly what you are talking about and I have posted about it here on many occasions.