Is it possible to live on green smoothies?

[Beyoncé]

Hello guys,

Is it possible to live on green smoothies? First of all, I want to lose weight but I want to keep live on it after my weight loss. I love green smoothies and I get so much energy from it. I dont care if I get bored, it is worth it. I am just afraid getting too few nutritions daily and get sick or something.

I also add oatmeal in my green smoothie and I get full for like 5 hours.

Best,

Beyoncé

[delmar]

I am certain that you can but it might be hard to get enough calories depending on your recipe. If you start loosing weight too fast or start having a lot of cravings it my be a sign you need to up the fat or carbs.

[Beyoncé]

I put raw oatmeal in my smoothie so can I get more calories and get more full.

[drraw]

Is there such a thing as raw oatmeal?

--drraw

[MysticTree]

Not generally but I have seen people who say that a very few companies supply it. If this is so then it's just a case of shopping judiciously.

[walnutty]

There are a lot of people that have changed their lives (weight and health conditions) just eating green smoothies.

I couldn't find the story I was looking for, but this one is a great one too!:

http://www.incrediblesmoothies.com/

[The Sproutarian (Mr Raw)]

You can live on many things, and green smoothies is one of them. The four great things about green smoothies is that: it's convenient, it's thrifty, it passes through the stomach quickly, and it allows one to feel cleansed and more energised, but living this way isn't going to give you the highest levels of health. Lots of folks are promoting smoothies as the way to go, but there are much better ways to go about things.

One thing to be careful of is not to blend fruit and greens togeather because the sugars and acids in the fruits ferment the carbohydrates in the greens. This means that the nutritional benefits of the smoothies are even less. How far does one want to water down their diet? Do people want to full effect of raw, or do people want convenience. l feel many folks who blend still have the old SAD mentality...they want convenience and they want the full feeling that they used to have on their old diets.

l lived on blended foods for over 12 months (a complete blended diet) and felt great and healed alittle bit. But no really deep healing occured to my insides. But as soon as l gave up blending and went onto juices and eating small amounts of food (very very careful chewing at night), l very quickly experienced a deep internal healing that blending could never do. The thing is, you can't consume as much nutrition from blending because it includes lots of fiber, and water is added to the smoothies; with juicing this is not the case, and you get to consume ALOT more greens with juicing. The other problem with blending is that is oxidises the food much more than juices drank immediately and the electromagnetic vibrations of the food is greatly decreased if food is blended for 2 minutes or more (try blending water, cooling it, and water plants with it...this should tell yoiu something).

Now, sure people with cancer and AIDS have been cured, but that is not necessarily deep internal healing...all that is, is starving the cancer and the AIDS virus and eating the outside crusts of their cells and giving it an environment where it can't survive. But it's not just about starving and killing the nasties, it also needs to be about healing and rebuilding the body, there is a difference.

Lots of hype about blending, so be aware of that. Evenstill, blending is a great way to start the raw journey, but if you really want the best health you should aim to live mainly on juices (consumed within 5 minutes) and eat a small homegrown FRESH salad each day. Eating one meal a day with lots of juices seems to be the best way, and it can be achieved over time if you listen to your body.

[Beyoncé]

You can live on many things, and green smoothies is one of them. The four great things about green smoothies is that: it's convenient, it's thrifty, it passes through the stomach quickly, and it allows one to feel cleansed and more energised, but living this way isn't going to give you the highest levels of health. Lots of folks are promoting smoothies as the way to go, but there are much better ways to go about things.

One thing to be careful of is not to blend fruit and greens togeather because the sugars and acids in the fruits ferment the carbohydrates in the greens. This means that the nutritional benefits of the smoothies are even less. How far does one want to water down their diet? Do people want to full effect of raw, or do people want convenience. l feel many folks who blend still have the old SAD mentality...they want convenience and they want the full feeling that they used to have on their old diets.

l lived on blended foods for over 12 months (a complete blended diet) and felt great and healed alittle bit. But no really deep healing occured to my insides. But as soon as l gave up blending and went onto juices and eating small amounts of food (very very careful chewing at night), l very quickly experienced a deep internal healing that blending could never do. The thing is, you can't consume as much nutrition from blending because it includes lots of fiber, and water is added to the smoothies; with juicing this is not the case, and you get to consume ALOT more greens with juicing. The other problem with blending is that is oxidises the food much more than juices drank immediately and the electromagnetic vibrations of the food is greatly decreased if food is blended for 2 minutes or more (try blending water, cooling it, and water plants with it...this should tell yoiu something).

Now, sure people with cancer and AIDS have been cured, but that is not necessarily deep internal healing...all that is, is starving the cancer and the AIDS virus and eating the outside crusts of their cells and giving it an environment where it can't survive. But it's not just about starving and killing the nasties, it also needs to be about healing and rebuilding the body, there is a difference.

Lots of hype about blending, so be aware of that. Evenstill, blending is a great way to start the raw journey, but if you really want the best health you should aim to live mainly on juices (consumed within 5 minutes) and eat a small homegrown FRESH salad each day. Eating one meal a day with lots of juices seems to be the best way, and it can be achieved over time if you listen to your body.

Thanks for the great information!

The thing is that I can not afford to buy a juicing machine for a while so I want to start living on green smoothies for now, I only have a blender. Maybe for 1-2 years. I need to know how to get out the most nutrional benefits from the smoothies as possible.

[Beyoncé]

There are a lot of people that have changed their lives (weight and health conditions) just eating green smoothies.

I couldn't find the story I was looking for, but this one is a great one too!:

http://www.incrediblesmoothies.com/

Thanks Wulnutty! Very inspirational :)

[The Sproutarian (Mr Raw)]

I am just afraid getting too few nutritions daily and get sick or something.



Yes, this could well be a problem in the long term l imagine, especially if you are mainly blending store bought fruit and vegetables. The soils are so much less nutritous than what they used to be 150 years ago, and with the additions of much higher stress levels, pollution and radiation in the modern world, + the destruction of nutrients via blending...where the heck are people getting their nutrition from. How well are our raw food blending advocates going to be holding up in 20 or 30 years...l suspect that there will be many who will have to admit that they got it wrong.

[The Sproutarian (Mr Raw)]

Thanks for the great information!

The thing is that I can not afford to buy a juicing machine for a while so I want to start living on green smoothies for now, I only have a blender. Maybe for 1-2 years. I need to know how to get out the most nutrional benefits from the smoothies as possible.

Blending is a great start, so don't worry about it. But, if l were you l would buy a cheap manual juicer for about $50 (a plastic model) or buy a metal manual juicer for $250, if you do this and also blend you will be off to a flying start. Have two green juices per day and blend the rest of your food. Easy!

[Beyoncé]

Yes, this could well be a problem in the long term l imagine, especially if you are mainly blending store bought fruit and vegetables. The soils are so much less nutritous than what they used to be 150 years ago, and with the additions of much higher stress levels, pollution and radiation in the modern world, + the destruction of nutrients via blending...where the heck are people getting their nutrition from. How well are our raw food blending advocates going to be holding up in 20 or 30 years...l suspect that there will be many who will have to admit that they got it wrong.

It could be, because I buy my fruits and vegetables from the store. But I live in Scandinavia, so it is less severe I hope. I dont think the fruits and vegetables here contains as much chemicals as in USA. I have already a way of dealing with stress(I am pretty calm person) but I hate the modern world.

I mean, whats wrong with blending? How can the nutrients get destroyed by blending the fruit and vegetables?

[Beyoncé]

Blending is a great start, so don't worry about it. But, if l were you l would buy a cheap manual juicer for about $50 (a plastic model) or buy a metal manual juicer for $250, if you do this and also blend you will be off to a flying start. Have two green juices per day and blend the rest of your food. Easy!

Thanks. I really cant afford it, I am a university student. Broke student. lol

[Living Food]

(try blending water, cooling it, and water plants with it...this should tell yoiu something).

That is disturbing to me, because just oxidizing water wouldn't cause it to impact plant growth in any way. That would only be the case if you energetically damaged it (for example, microwaved water will kill plants, even if it is cooled first).

I'm pretty sure anything that rotates in clockwise direction damages the energy of foods, liquids, etc, and a counterclockwise direction energizes them. But I could have my directions wrong. If you look at your blender it will probably rotate clockwise (if I don't have them mixed up).

[The Sproutarian (Mr Raw)]

It could be, because I buy my fruits and vegetables from the store. But I live in Scandinavia, so it is less severe I hope. I dont think the fruits and vegetables here contains as much chemicals as in USA. I have already a way of dealing with stress(I am pretty calm person) but I hate the modern world.

I mean, whats wrong with blending? How can the nutrients get destroyed by blending the fruit and vegetables?

Here is a thread which talks about the issues involved:
http://www.rawfoodtalk.com/showthread.php?67897-Blending-destoys-many-of-the-nutrients&highlight=blending

[The Sproutarian (Mr Raw)]

That is disturbing to me, because just oxidizing water wouldn't cause it to impact plant growth in any way. That would only be the case if you energetically damaged it (for example, microwaved water will kill plants, even if it is cooled first).

.

The argument is that blending the water changes the vibrational frequency of the water so it becomes dead, but only if it the blending is done over a certain length of time.

l've tried proving it through an experiment, but l keep messing it up because l forget to keep on using blended water, but l will do it again.
Here is what Michael Bergonzi has to say on the subject: (see from 40:15 - 41:40)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h5KHwp8v53c


l blended water for 1 minutes and the sprouts grew fine (but my experiment was flawed), but l will try doing it again properly and will also try blending water for 1.5 minutes and another sample for 2 minutes and see what happens.

[MysticTree]

the whole micro-waved and blended water kills plants thing is not proven. It is one of those urban myths.

[The Sproutarian (Mr Raw)]

the whole micro-waved and blended water kills plants thing is not proven. It is one of those urban myths.

l'll find out for sure within a week.

[MysticTree]

l'll find out for sure within a week.

In a way I hope it isn't but since the original experiment which was done with just two plants I think there have been others who have carried out the experiment and not shown any ill effect to the plants from the microwaved water.

Let us know what happens. To do it properly you shouldn't which water you are giving to the plants as long as it's the same type to each plant each time. Do you have someone who could prep the water for you to make it more scientific?

[Living Food]

The microwaved part is proven, at least I did a test with 20 different tomato plants, 10 watered with water microwaved for one minute and then cooled to room temperature, 10 with ordinary water. I can't repeat it becuase I no longer have a microwave (yes!), but I'm sure others could verify it if they wanted to. None of the ones watered with microwaved water germinated, all of the others did.

There have been some studies showing how microwaved food is damaging to health, including one I remember where they fed a group of kids a diet of microwaved food and very son a defective protein that occurs in people who are undergoing radiation therapy showed up (in their urine I believe), so the researchers stopped the study because they were worried about seriously harming the kids.

Microwaves are dangerous, they do energetically damage whatever you put in them. And irradiated food is just as bad, if not worse.

Mr Raw:

Are you doing the experiment with sprouts grown in soil or with soil-less sprouts? I would do it with plants grown with soil becuase then they would end up taking in more of the water. It would probably be best to do the experiment both ways, though, to see if it really does make a difference.

Also, after you blend the water keep it away from your water energizer, if the blended water gets too close to it the damage could be undone and the experiment wouldn't work no matter what.

[Living Food]

It's not that it's an "urban myth" becuase it's false, it's thought of as an urban myth because many websites and people go to absurd lengths to try and convince the public that microwaves are harmless. Just another case of greedy people lying to you to sell their products - not just microwaves, but without microwaves there would be no need for microwaveable food, which is (sadly) a huge business.

[MysticTree]

It's not that it's an "urban myth" becuase it's false, it's thought of as an urban myth because many websites and people go to absurd lengths to try and convince the public that microwaves are harmless. Just another case of greedy people lying to you to sell their products - not just microwaves, but without microwaves there would be no need for microwaveable food, which is (sadly) a huge business.
It wasn't a website that claimed that I saw claiming it was false. It was a person with no axe to grind who was just interested. They didn't use the water to germinate seeds, they used it on young plants - forget which kind.

I can't do the experiment either ... like you, no microwave.

[MysticTree]

There have been some studies showing how microwaved food is damaging to health, including one I remember where they fed a group of kids a diet of microwaved food and very son a defective protein that occurs in people who are undergoing radiation therapy showed up (in their urine I believe), so the researchers stopped the study because they were worried about seriously harming the kids.

Where was this study carry out? I ask because in the UK at least, carry out studies on children is very difficult legally.

[Living Food]

I'm not 100% sure it was carried out on children, but I'm pretty sure that it was. And I think it happened in the US. We do studies on children for all sorts of things (medicine, effect of X or Y on Z, etc), although probably mainly on children who have some sort of disease - give them toxic drugs and make them worse, but it's okay becasue their parents get paid for it. To be fair, they probably think the drugs will help.

[MysticTree]

I'm not 100% sure it was carried out on children, but I'm pretty sure that it was. And I think it happened in the US. We do studies on children for all sorts of things (medicine, effect of X or Y on Z, etc), although probably mainly on children who have some sort of disease - give them toxic drugs and make them worse, but it's okay becasue their parents get paid for it. To be fair, they probably think the drugs will help.
here we have pretty much no drugs testing on children - unethical - except I think when the child is so ill that any possible risk is considered worth it because they are on countdown to death.

[Charybdisjim]

Now, sure people with cancer and AIDS have been cured, but that is not necessarily deep internal healing...all that is, is starving the cancer and the AIDS virus and eating the outside crusts of their cells and giving it an environment where it can't survive. But it's not just about starving and killing the nasties, it also needs to be about healing and rebuilding the body, there is a difference.

I only know of 3 documented cases where someone has been cured of AIDS; that is to say where they could arguably go about the rest of their lives without worrying about infecting anyone else or any chance of reemergence of the disease. Even if you find a natural means of managing the HIV/AIDS virus it would be grossly irresponsible to consider yourself cured and unable to ever spread the disease since this requires a full replacement of your immune and marrow cells. For the AIDS virus to be starved out of your system, you would have to starve each and every immune system and bone marrow cell in your body because it lies dormant in virus-infected genes of those cells.

Now there are a good deal of raw foods which show they might be incredibly powerful at fighting and managing viral infections including HIV. The distinction here though is between cure and treatment; this should be considered a treatment that helps manage the symptoms and effects of the infection rather than a cure which can eliminate it then stop being used.

[Beyoncé]

I guess it is more healthy to live on smoothies than eating proccessed food and meat? Is there anyone who have lived on green smoothies? I am a student and cant afford to eat complete raw meals(except smoothies and stuff) but is it dangerous to only live on GS and what can I do to get the most nutriets from the GS?

[Raw Angel Mom]

Your teeth needs to exercise through mastication. If you do liquid diet always, you will have to find a way to keep your dentition in balance.

I find, that it is important to include the food that grows in your area.

There is also an energy soup that you can make once in a while, it is compose of greens and many live food. Search for dr. Ann Wigmore (costa rita).

All the best!

[The Sproutarian (Mr Raw)]

Let us know what happens. To do it properly you shouldn't which water you are giving to the plants as long as it's the same type to each plant each time. Do you have someone who could prep the water for you to make it more scientific?

The experiment will be done properly this time and everything will have big labels so l don't forget. l will carry out many experiments over a few months and document them all. These are some of the tests l will do:

* microwave tap water and soak/rinse fenugreek seeds
* blend tap water ......
* Microwave filtered water
* blend filtered water..........
* blend enbergised tap water............
* blend energised filtered water........
* compare sprouts grown by filtered energised water to filtered water to tap water

Blending will range from 1 minute, 1.5 minutes, and 2 minutes iniatially. That's about 15 experiments at least to start off with, and l will start a tread and show my results on an ongoing basis.

l will do jar grown fenugreek sprouts originally and see what happens. Later l may do microgreens, but we'll see.

[The Sproutarian (Mr Raw)]

I only know of 3 documented cases where someone has been cured of AIDS; that is to say where they could arguably go about the rest of their lives without worrying about infecting anyone else or any chance of reemergence of the disease. Even if you find a natural means of managing the HIV/AIDS virus it would be grossly irresponsible to consider yourself cured and unable to ever spread the disease since this requires a full replacement of your immune and marrow cells. For the AIDS virus to be starved out of your system, you would have to starve each and every immune system and bone marrow cell in your body because it lies dormant in virus-infected genes of those cells.
l guess there are many theories people have about this.

All l know about this is that people go to HHI with cancer and AIDS and eventually (if they continue the lifestyle program) these things can't be detected by doctors anymore. The phytonutrients or enzymes in the foods are supposed to eat the shell off the virus and cancer cells. l think they might be able to see what's happening through a microscope or something.

This is what Dr Hunt has to say about cancer and keeping it away. A very clever lady.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pMNwhaGVRGM

[Charybdisjim]

l guess there are many theories people have about this.

All l know about this is that people go to HHI with cancer and AIDS and eventually (if they continue the lifestyle program) these things can't be detected by doctors anymore. The phytonutrients or enzymes in the foods are supposed to eat the shell off the virus and cancer cells. l think they might be able to see what's happening through a microscope or something.

This is what Dr Hunt has to say about cancer and keeping it away. A very clever lady.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pMNwhaGVRGM

Yeah cancer and retroviruses like HIV are a bit different in this regard. Eliminating all cancer cells in the body is equateable to curing that cancer; eliminating all of the HIV currently in the bloodstream does not equate to curing AIDS/HIV. This is because HIV integrates into the genome of host cells and can lie dormant across multiple cell generations. This latent stage of the virus - where it exists as dormant instructions within the body's own cells - is protected from he immune system and anti-virals (natural and snythetic alike) because those methods of fighting the virus do not target segments of DNA within the host cells. Rendering the protein coat unable to protect the virus or unable to penetrate cell membranes is useless in eliminating the latent form as no protein coat exists in this form and it is undifferentiable from the normal cell DNA for these purposes.

In this sense then natural anti-virals suffer from one of the same limitations in treating HIV/AIDS as pharmaceutical AIDS medications do. That is to say they can not be said to have cured the infection, only treat it. They can reduce the active viral loads in blood serum to below detectable levels, but can not remove latent infection in the form of viral DNA integrated into the host genome. So even by acheiving a low viral load - such that the blood test would return a negative result - one who knows they have been infected and has tested positive before can not know when or if the dormant latent infection will later produce an active infection again. That said they can perhaps be used in combination with other treatments (shitake and several other natural sources of anti-viral agens) to achieve an effective zero active viral load; this results in potentially symptom-free living as well as reduces the risk of infection posed to others.

It is very important however to emphasize that this would be a treatment and not a cure. Such a person would need to continue using whatever anti-viral combination achieved success (be they natural or synthetic) or risk rapid progression should any latent elements of infection become active while the anti-viral was no longer being introduced by diet or by drug. Additionally, the virus changes rapidly and can mutate between human cell generations even while in its latent stage. This means that the treatment may not continue to be effective and may require finding new and different natural sources of anti-virals. Additionally, were the latent forms to become active while a person had stopped treatment they run an increased risk of developing strains that will be unaffected by the previously succesful natural treatment (this holds true regardless of whether natural or synthetic anti-virals are used.) Such a person should continue to use increased caution in preventing infection to others; a negative test today does not mean no viral load a week from now. This much holds true whether or not one continues using whatever natural or synthetic anti-virals have worked before - as resistance could develop even when continuing treatment.

Sorry if I belabored my point a bit. It's a matter of semantics to some degree I'll admit, but in this specific case it matters particularly because of what one generally means by cured.

Now there are some promising lines of research in both pharmaceutical and natural remedies which hope to attack the dormant form of the HIV virus. One means of potentially doing this involves using or stimulating the production of immunoglobulin M (IgM). This has been shown to be able to direct the body's immune system to attack cells whose HERV (human endogenous retro-virus) DNA content is unusual. This would include cells carrying the latent stage of the HIV infection as well as a number of other potential retro-viral infections and would bypass the problems caused by the rapidly shifting nature of the virus's genetic code. There are some promising potential natural means of acheiving this, shiitake and some other mushrooms being notable in this regard. That being said, early studies have been promising but I would wait for the currently ongoing larger studies to conclude before betting my life on this potential source of treatment. There are still questions as to whether this form of treatment (by natural or synthetic means alike) can be effective without also triggering acute auto-immune syndromes in patients. If it does prove effective though, this might end up being the basis of both natural and pharmaceutical actual cures for HIV.