Guest guest Posted November 2, 2003 Report Share Posted November 2, 2003 This article is a bunch of bunk. It's full of either lies or half-truths. If you want to see the real and overwhelming scientific evidence in support of eating a raw diet then read, " Eat to Live, " by Dr. Joel Fuhrman. Every single negative point in this article is easily explained or overcome in this book. Roger Do You Have These Problems With Your Raw Food Diet? 1. You are addicted to your favorite cooked foods and going out to restaurants. 2. Friends and family discourage you, think you are weird and tell you that you'll get sick 3. You are afraid of becoming too thin. I'll resolve these problems, myths and misconceptions for you with a free & no obligation 20-minute telephone or email consultation. Email me or visit www.SuperbeingDiet.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 2, 2003 Report Share Posted November 2, 2003 Raw versus Cooked: Which is More Natural? From the November 2003 newsletter of Michael Greger, M.D. http://www.veganmd.org/november2003.html [Dr. Greger is a general practitioner specializing in vegetarian nutrition. He is author of Heart Failure: Diary of a Third Year Medical Student and has contributed to a number of books on veganism and food safety issues. Dr. Greger is a graduate of the Cornell University School of Agriculture and the Tufts University School of Medicine. He is internationally recognized speaker on a number of important public health and social justice issues.] " Raw foodist " lifestyle advocates tend to argue that cooking is unnatural. They often argue that since we evolved eating raw foods like the rest of the animal kingdom, we are better adapted to eat that way. In a landmark article just published in the journal of Comparative Biology and Physiology, however, two Harvard anthropologists argue just the opposite.[10} First, they note that other than the new deliberate " raw foodists, " there do not seem to be any current or historical populations, small groups or even individuals living for more than a few days without access to cooked foods. Then they take on the belief that cooking is a recent phenomenon for our species. Mammalian species like ourselves can evolve adaptations in as few as 5000 years. Human beings have been cooking for at least 250,000 years, and maybe as long as 1.9 million years, long before we were even Homo sapiens. They argue that not only have humans adapted to eating cooked foods, they argue that human beings have adapted so much that eating cooked food now seems obligatory for optimum health. And indeed the medical literature backs them up. The only study I know of 100% raw foodists followed for years was published in 1999.[11] It showed that a third of the raw foodists were suffering from Chronic Energy Deficiency. Many were just wasting away. Most of the women suffered menstrual irregularities and half of the women lost their menstrual periods altogether, which could lead to devastating osteoporosis. And this was in modern urban people with relatively low activity levels who had access to high-quality high-calorie produce from around the world year-round. How might our nontropical gatherer/hunter ancestors lived through a single winter without cooking, especially with their extreme energy expenditure? There have been major changes in our digestive biology over the past few hundred thousand years, and the researchers argue that these changes may have been due to the availability of cooked foods. 100,000 years ago, for example, the size of our jaws and molar teeth started to shrink, perhaps as an adaptation to softer, easier-chewed cooked foods. They also posit that perhaps other differences between our digestive systems and those of the great apes may also have been because of our adaptation to cooked foods--our smaller gut volume, longer small intestine, smaller colon, and faster gut passage rate. They conclude that while well-supported individuals in an urban environment with a relatively sedentary lifestyle may be able to thrive on a raw food diet, it is neither natural nor necessarily desirable for optimal health. REFERENCES [10] Comparative Biology and Physiology 136(2003):35. [11] Annals of Nutrition and Metabolism 43(1999):69. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 2, 2003 Report Share Posted November 2, 2003 Very interesting post, Looks as though some intelligent people have come in on a superficial level to support their self fulfilling propositions. This shows signs of becoming the current hot topic. After four years of eating raw I am nowhere near depleted. My energy and concentration levels are significantly up. I suspect there may be others about with the same observations which would not be helpful to the Doctor's thesis. However we should bear in mind that the failures are likely to land on his doorstep whereas the strong and healthy will not want to interrupt his day. Peter janet [raweats] 02 November 2003 16:17 rawfood [Raw Food] Raw vs Cooked: Which is More Natural? Raw versus Cooked: Which is More Natural? From the November 2003 newsletter of Michael Greger, M.D. http://www.veganmd.org/november2003.html [Dr. Greger is a general practitioner specializing in vegetarian nutrition. He is author of Heart Failure: Diary of a Third Year Medical Student and has contributed to a number of books on veganism and food safety issues. Dr. Greger is a graduate of the Cornell University School of Agriculture and the Tufts University School of Medicine. He is internationally recognized speaker on a number of important public health and social justice issues.] " Raw foodist " lifestyle advocates tend to argue that cooking is unnatural. They often argue that since we evolved eating raw foods like the rest of the animal kingdom, we are better adapted to eat that way. In a landmark article just published in the journal of Comparative Biology and Physiology, however, two Harvard anthropologists argue just the opposite.[10} First, they note that other than the new deliberate " raw foodists, " there do not seem to be any current or historical populations, small groups or even individuals living for more than a few days without access to cooked foods. Then they take on the belief that cooking is a recent phenomenon for our species. Mammalian species like ourselves can evolve adaptations in as few as 5000 years. Human beings have been cooking for at least 250,000 years, and maybe as long as 1.9 million years, long before we were even Homo sapiens. They argue that not only have humans adapted to eating cooked foods, they argue that human beings have adapted so much that eating cooked food now seems obligatory for optimum health. And indeed the medical literature backs them up. The only study I know of 100% raw foodists followed for years was published in 1999.[11] It showed that a third of the raw foodists were suffering from Chronic Energy Deficiency. Many were just wasting away. Most of the women suffered menstrual irregularities and half of the women lost their menstrual periods altogether, which could lead to devastating osteoporosis. And this was in modern urban people with relatively low activity levels who had access to high-quality high-calorie produce from around the world year-round. How might our nontropical gatherer/hunter ancestors lived through a single winter without cooking, especially with their extreme energy expenditure? There have been major changes in our digestive biology over the past few hundred thousand years, and the researchers argue that these changes may have been due to the availability of cooked foods. 100,000 years ago, for example, the size of our jaws and molar teeth started to shrink, perhaps as an adaptation to softer, easier-chewed cooked foods. They also posit that perhaps other differences between our digestive systems and those of the great apes may also have been because of our adaptation to cooked foods--our smaller gut volume, longer small intestine, smaller colon, and faster gut passage rate. They conclude that while well-supported individuals in an urban environment with a relatively sedentary lifestyle may be able to thrive on a raw food diet, it is neither natural nor necessarily desirable for optimal health. REFERENCES [10] Comparative Biology and Physiology 136(2003):35. [11] Annals of Nutrition and Metabolism 43(1999):69. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 2, 2003 Report Share Posted November 2, 2003 First they ignore you they they laugh at you then they fight you and then you win. --- janet <raweats wrote: > Raw versus Cooked: Which is More Natural? > > From the November 2003 newsletter of Michael Greger, > M.D. > http://www.veganmd.org/november2003.html > > [Dr. Greger is a general practitioner specializing > in vegetarian > nutrition. He is author of Heart Failure: Diary of a > Third Year Medical > Student and has contributed to a number of books on > veganism and food > safety issues. Dr. Greger is a graduate of the > Cornell University > School of Agriculture and the Tufts University > School of Medicine. He > is internationally recognized speaker on a number of > important public > health and social justice issues.] > > " Raw foodist " lifestyle advocates tend to argue that > cooking is > unnatural. They often argue that since we evolved > eating raw foods like > the rest of the animal kingdom, we are better > adapted to eat that way. > In a landmark article just published in the journal > of Comparative > Biology and Physiology, however, two Harvard > anthropologists argue just > the opposite.[10} > > First, they note that other than the new deliberate > " raw foodists, " > there do not seem to be any current or historical > populations, small > groups or even individuals living for more than a > few days without > access to cooked foods. Then they take on the belief > that cooking is a > recent phenomenon for our species. > > Mammalian species like ourselves can evolve > adaptations in as few as > 5000 years. Human beings have been cooking for at > least 250,000 years, > and maybe as long as 1.9 million years, long before > we were even Homo > sapiens. They argue that not only have humans > adapted to eating cooked > foods, they argue that human beings have adapted so > much that eating > cooked food now seems obligatory for optimum health. > And indeed the > medical literature backs them up. > > The only study I know of 100% raw foodists followed > for years was > published in 1999.[11] It showed that a third of the > raw foodists were > suffering from Chronic Energy Deficiency. Many were > just wasting away. > Most of the women suffered menstrual irregularities > and half of the > women lost their menstrual periods altogether, which > could lead to > devastating osteoporosis. And this was in modern > urban people with > relatively low activity levels who had access to > high-quality > high-calorie produce from around the world > year-round. How might our > nontropical gatherer/hunter ancestors lived through > a single winter > without cooking, especially with their extreme > energy expenditure? > > There have been major changes in our digestive > biology over the past > few hundred thousand years, and the researchers > argue that these > changes may have been due to the availability of > cooked foods. 100,000 > years ago, for example, the size of our jaws and > molar teeth started to > shrink, perhaps as an adaptation to softer, > easier-chewed cooked foods. > They also posit that perhaps other differences > between our digestive > systems and those of the great apes may also have > been because of our > adaptation to cooked foods--our smaller gut volume, > longer small > intestine, smaller colon, and faster gut passage > rate. > > They conclude that while well-supported individuals > in an urban > environment with a relatively sedentary lifestyle > may be able to thrive > on a raw food diet, it is neither natural nor > necessarily desirable for > optimal health. > > REFERENCES > > [10] Comparative Biology and Physiology > 136(2003):35. > [11] Annals of Nutrition and Metabolism 43(1999):69. > > Exclusive Video Premiere - Britney Spears http://launch./promos/britneyspears/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 2, 2003 Report Share Posted November 2, 2003 I concur with Peter, Rufus, and Roger. Even the vegetarian ideas promulgated by Greger are dubious. From personal experience, I was very unwell (chronically tired and overweight) as a vegetarian until I started on rawfoods (and simple short fasts). In an effort to balance the posting I present this: Rudy T. beats cancer and goes vegan 10/13/2003 10:10 PM By: Hathaway, Tad Former Rockets head coach Rudy Tomjanovich In more than a decade as Rockets head coach, Rudy Tomjanovich appeared on hundreds of call-in radio shows, but none quite like this one. You see, this radio show has nothing to do with basketball, as you might surmise from its title, " Go Vegan Texas. " " I don't care what someone else says, I know how I feel, " Rudy says. He feels great in large part due to his new diet of raw fruits and vegetables, and his doctors latest prognosis that the cancer discovered in his bladder last season is now gone. " I've always believed in turning negatives into positives, and this has been another case where something that looked really horrible has turned around, " Rudy says. His lifestyle has turned around as well. Gone are the cigarettes, caffeine and animal products that used to be part of his daily routine. For the past five months, he's worked constantly with nutritionist John Rose and adopted much of the vegan lifestyle. " I remember when I worked with him within 20 days, people were coming up to him and saying, 'You look so great. What are you doing? You're starting to glow. You're losing weight.' You're losing weight in a good way. You're losing the garbage that we accumulate in our pipes, " Rose says. " People think that I'm on a weird diet, but it's really the most basic diet you can be on, and I feel great, " Rudy says. With both his physical and mental health back on track, Rudy T. says he doesn't miss the stress of coaching the Rockets, and adds that he'll continue to work with the club on scouting and hopefully, cheer them and their new coach back into the playoffs. " I love those guys, " Rudy says. " I'll be their number one fan. The new coach, Jeff Van Gundy -- I'm going to be his number one fan. " Vegans don't eat meat or any animal by-products like cheese, eggs or butter. As part of his diet, Rudy drinks around seven glasses of fresh juice each day, and eats a wide array of raw vegetables. ___ The Bionomic Nutrition Forum http://venus.nildram.co.uk/veganmc/forum.htm FORUM_Digest also available Roger Haeske <roger wrote: This article is a bunch of bunk. It's full of either lies or half-truths. If you want to see the real and overwhelming scientific evidence in support of eating a raw diet then read, " Eat to Live, " by Dr. Joel Fuhrman. The experience of dynamic religious living transforms the mediocre individual into a personality of idealistic power. Religion ministers to the progress of all through fostering the progress of each individual, and the progress of each is augmented through the achievement of all. [The Urantia Book: 1094:1] Exclusive Video Premiere - Britney Spears Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 3, 2003 Report Share Posted November 3, 2003 I have to agree with the rest of the group. If I were you, I would try RAW and come to your own conclusion. You will find controversial articles on every Diet and Nutritional program there is. Once you get the food combining you have crossed the biggest hurdle. I know you will notice big a difference in your performance as you fine-tune your nutrient intake. I don’t know where this study got its participants; I have so much energy sometimes I feel like I am going to jump out of my skin. When you look at food from a nutritional point of view you will clearly see that RAW is a far superior Body Fuel to Cooked food. The following point is likely what they are trying to exploit to prove we cannot digest RAW as efficiently. When people move to a 100% RAW diet after eating Cooked food for most of their lives their digestive systems are use to foods being broken down. You have to remember the digestive system is a muscular tube. When food first gets to the stomach it is retained in the stomach by the sphincter valves. The stomach has to churn the food there prior to releasing it to the intestines where it is squeezed and pushed down the 30’ of tube. Just like every other muscle in the body it takes time and conditioning to reach peak performance. It is no different from going out and trying to run a marathon after just running a few miles. This is why a well-planned transition diet is best. When you come from a cooked food diet you do not maintain a good level of flora (Good) and enzymes. I would take a Digestive supplement as you transition to RAW to build flora and help digestion. Best of Luck, Bruce janet <raweats wrote:Raw versus Cooked: Which is More Natural? From the November 2003 newsletter of Michael Greger, M.D. http://www.veganmd.org/november2003.html [Dr. Greger is a general practitioner specializing in vegetarian nutrition. He is author of Heart Failure: Diary of a Third Year Medical Student and has contributed to a number of books on veganism and food safety issues. Dr. Greger is a graduate of the Cornell University School of Agriculture and the Tufts University School of Medicine. He is internationally recognized speaker on a number of important public health and social justice issues.] " Raw foodist " lifestyle advocates tend to argue that cooking is unnatural. They often argue that since we evolved eating raw foods like the rest of the animal kingdom, we are better adapted to eat that way. In a landmark article just published in the journal of Comparative Biology and Physiology, however, two Harvard anthropologists argue just the opposite.[10} First, they note that other than the new deliberate " raw foodists, " there do not seem to be any current or historical populations, small groups or even individuals living for more than a few days without access to cooked foods. Then they take on the belief that cooking is a recent phenomenon for our species. Mammalian species like ourselves can evolve adaptations in as few as 5000 years. Human beings have been cooking for at least 250,000 years, and maybe as long as 1.9 million years, long before we were even Homo sapiens. They argue that not only have humans adapted to eating cooked foods, they argue that human beings have adapted so much that eating cooked food now seems obligatory for optimum health. And indeed the medical literature backs them up. The only study I know of 100% raw foodists followed for years was published in 1999.[11] It showed that a third of the raw foodists were suffering from Chronic Energy Deficiency. Many were just wasting away. Most of the women suffered menstrual irregularities and half of the women lost their menstrual periods altogether, which could lead to devastating osteoporosis. And this was in modern urban people with relatively low activity levels who had access to high-quality high-calorie produce from around the world year-round. How might our nontropical gatherer/hunter ancestors lived through a single winter without cooking, especially with their extreme energy expenditure? There have been major changes in our digestive biology over the past few hundred thousand years, and the researchers argue that these changes may have been due to the availability of cooked foods. 100,000 years ago, for example, the size of our jaws and molar teeth started to shrink, perhaps as an adaptation to softer, easier-chewed cooked foods. They also posit that perhaps other differences between our digestive systems and those of the great apes may also have been because of our adaptation to cooked foods--our smaller gut volume, longer small intestine, smaller colon, and faster gut passage rate. They conclude that while well-supported individuals in an urban environment with a relatively sedentary lifestyle may be able to thrive on a raw food diet, it is neither natural nor necessarily desirable for optimal health. REFERENCES [10] Comparative Biology and Physiology 136(2003):35. [11] Annals of Nutrition and Metabolism 43(1999):69. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.