Raw vs Cooked article

[Guest guest]

<a href=http://www.vegsource.com/harris/raw_vs_cooked.htm

target=new>http://www.vegsource.com/harris/raw_vs_cooked.htm</a>

[Guest guest]

This article sounds like the rantings of a cooked

food addict to me. I believe every raw food book I

have read adresses each of the points he brings up,

with counter studies. Every nutritionist (I use the

term losly) and so-called medical professional, always

brings up this same old crap about enzymes being killed

in the stomach. There is one study that showed that,

and it was (obviously) done with animal sourse

enzymes (animal sourse enzymes cannot handle acid). There

have been SEVERAL studies showing that plant source

enzymes not only survive into the intestine but into the

blood. However these people never seem to see these

opposing studies. I also noticed the author didn't address

the problem of UNDIGESTED CRAP clinging to the walls

of the intestines of cooked food eaters (the average

adult has 15 pounds). Showing that the bodies digestive

enzymes are wholly inadequate.<br><br>I went to Wall Mart

with my ladie friend, and while she was shopping, I

spotted a blood pressure machine in the pharmacy. My

blood pressure was 108 over 67, I don't know anything

about this stuff, but I wasen't even on the chart. My

blood pressure would have to go up, just to be

normal.<br><br>Doug

[Guest guest]

& gt; & gt; & gt;This article sounds like the rantings

of a cooked food addict to me.<br><br>Here are some

wuotes from Dr Harris:<br><br> " In general, a diet

centered on vegetables and fruit, preferably raw, with

grains, nuts, seeds, and starches used to fill in Calorie

requirements will satisfy nutrient requirements... " <br><br> " I

agree with them that raw foods should be a major if not

sole part of the diet but not for their reasons. Raw

foods are not healthiest because they're " live food " or

because of " life force " , " living enzymes " , " nerve

energy " , or " chi " , but because the foods that can be eaten

raw (mostly vegetables, fruits, nuts and seeds)

coincidentally have enormously higher nutrient values than the

foods that either have to be, or usually are,

cooked. " <br><br> " Summary: The Raw Fooders are probably right but maybe not

for their stated reasons. " <br><br> & gt; & gt; & gt;There

have been SEVERAL studies showing that plant source

enzymes not only survive into the intestine but into the

blood.<br><br>Could you please give me the references so I can read

them??<br><br><br>If this is true why have scientists had to go to

such a huge extent to put enzyme supplements in

capsules so they can survive and be

used??<br><br> & gt; & gt; & gt;always brings up this same old crap about enzymes

being

killed in the stomach.<br><br>This is basic science of

digestion. you seem to agree with anything that supports raw

with out applying much skepticism.<br><br>Also you can

find several studies to support any point. If these

studies are coherent they still don't prove anything. To

make a decision you have to look at all the research

not just a few narrow studies that agree with your

ideal. The huge majority of research shows that dietary

enzymes are not used.<br><br>The argument for raw does

not and should not hinge on

enzymes.<br><br>Blake<br><br>BTW your blood pressure sounds like a healthy low

range to me.

[Guest guest]

That same article on the internet also had this

to say about the argument (and in my opinion

astounding fact) that of the hundreds of thousands of animal

species on the earth, human beings are the ONLY one that

cooks its foods (I'm going to paraphrase because it's

been a few days since I read it:<br><br>{Human beings

are also the only animal species that builds

computers, robots, etc. So what does that prove}.<br><br>How

can one argue with a statement like that? We're

talking about biology, and the author wants to make an

illogical statement that is supposedly analagous like that!

Reminds me of trying to argue with a complete idiot. When

someone argues from a totally illogical standpoint, you

can't get anywhere with that nonsense. That, along with

a few lesser things, caused me to largely dismiss

the point of the article.<br><br>For good or bad, I

don't have enough free time or the inclination to

re-read everything I've ever read on the subject.

However, at the time I read various books on enzymes and

nutrition there seemed to be enough evidence to me that the

importance of food enzymes should not be

dismissed.<br><br>The author " could " be correct that raw fooders are

doing the right thing but for the " wrong reasons " . At

this point in my life, I've made decision for a number

of reasons that more raw is good, and I don't

consider canned fruit or pasteurized juices to be " raw " .

Sure, I absolutely believe pasteurized and canned

fruits are better than the SAD staples of potato chips,

boxed cereal grain-based denatured products, etc. But I

don't think enzyme dead fruit products are up to par

with fresh produce.<br><br>Hopefully some of you guys

can get back to the various source study documents

and rationalize this. I've read what I believed to be

at the time valid studies that pointed to the

importance food enzymes play in digestion and health. I know

Blake is sincere to reach an unemotional unbiased

opinion, and if he keeps looking I believe he'll come to

the same conclusions. If I find time this weekend to

review my sources, I'll let you know what I

find.<br><br>P.S. I clocked myself whittling a fresh pineapple down

into bite sized pieces in 3 minutes this morning! This

stuff is getting simpler all the time!<br><br>Mallon

[Guest guest]

& gt; & gt; & gt;{Human beings are also the only

animal species that builds computers, robots, etc. So

what does that prove}.<br><br>I agree that's not

really a fair comparison but I guess his point was that

natural does not imlpy good.<br><br> & gt; & gt; & gt;The

author " could " be correct that raw fooders are doing the

right thing but for the " wrong reasons " .<br><br>This is

generally my position as well.<br><br> & gt; & gt; & gt;I know

Blake is sincere to reach an unemotional unbiased

opinion, and if he keeps looking I believe he'll come to

the same conclusions. <br><br>Thanks, that is what I

am trying to do, aply the same amount of skepticism

to both sides of arguments and keep my posible

biases for raw foods and veganism out of my head. I am

not closed to the idea that enzymes do what raw

fooders say the do, if I see the evidence and it seems

strong then I will belive it, until then I don't have

any desire to agree to every argument that supports

raw foods.<br><br> & gt; & gt; & gt; If I find time this

weekend to review my sources, I'll let you know what I

find.<br><br>thanks<br><br>Blake