Guest guest Posted July 12, 2007 Report Share Posted July 12, 2007 Perhaps the ultimatum statement regarding focus isn't correct. Didn't Gandhi state something about god revealing itself through food? If that is a revelatory statement, then we should focus on our food. Then again, I am a food fascist! tev Laurie Swanson <laurie wrote: Well, Neal, when people post looking for help with staying on raw or dealing with emotional eating... Laurie rawfood , neal wrote: > > On Tuesday 10 July 2007 23:14, Jen V wrote: > > But what Elchanan and others, I believe, are saying, is > > that you are compromising something by eating them. So long as your focus > > is on food and not on true health, then you are still sort of a prisoner to > > food, > ____________________ 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][http://www.urantia.org/] _____________________ http://www.vegconnect.com/ _____________________ Need a vacation? Get great deals to amazing places on Travel. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 13, 2007 Report Share Posted July 13, 2007 Erica, I see my name in what you wrote, however, I have to ask.......... " Are you talking to me?? " LOL If you are, I have to say, I can not speak to ...... " why people (not just me) would feel the need to post the definition of fascism as well as fanaticism in this group's forum. " Perhaps I am missing the context of this sentence you wrote. I may have missed the post(s) that this refers to. Care to elaborate? Thanks, Jeannie your time is the most cherished gift of all, tomorrow is promised to no one. School Of Rawk <schoolofrawk rawfood Thursday, July 12, 2007 11:49:54 AM Re: cipes are GOOD! [Raw Food] Bored with raw I would simply ask you, Jeannie, actually, why people (not just me) would feel the need to post the definition of fascism as well as fanaticism in this group's forum. That's all. Don't be flakey. Get Mail for Mobile and always stay connected to friends. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 13, 2007 Report Share Posted July 13, 2007 em wrote: > >Now, if I do eat som guacamole from a restaurant, and it > > has garlic and/or onions, I REALLY notice. My heart seems > > to beat a little faster and my mouth feels a bit burned. Not to fly in the face of what anybody else has said(Heaven forbid!!!), but.... if you are having this kind of reaction, you might consider the possibility that you are allergic to something, or (even more fun) that you have candidiasis! If you are allergic to some food (or ingredient in that food), you may have a quick reaction (if you are lucky). You may even find the taste of the food unpleasant (this is how my milk *protein* allergy was finally identified -- I cannot even bear the smell of milk or fresh milk products, such as cottage cheese, American cheese, and farmer's cheese) If a food is distasteful to you, do not question it... simply avoid it! If you get a weird reaction from eating a food, stop eating it!!! Now, if you do not have a weird or unpleasant reaction to food, go ahead and eat it. Traditional herbal medicine suggests that, for example, eating garlic is good for you. Along comes X Guru, who claims that garlic is bad for you. What do you do? If garlic is the way to go for your cure, have some, in a raw/natural hygiene meal, and see what happens. If you get weird results (intestinal gas would be the most likely), don't eat garlic anymore. On the other hand, if you get a tingle on your tongue from eating garlic, hot peppers, or onions, consider that you are finally noticing the wonderful taste sensations of said food, and [then] watch to see if you have some weird reaction or not. the probability is that you will not. Tingling on your tongue is not a bad thing unless you do not like it, or unless it signals the start of *other* unpleasant symptoms. Garlic *will* give you a tingle, particularly if you eat enough it at a time. So will hot peppers, onion, and a lot of other things. Red bell peppers will notify your taste buds of a sweet taste... does this mean that you should avoid them? The best way to know what food is bad for you (personally) is to eat some (if you want to), and pay attention to what happens. If the reaction is unpleasant, do not eat that food again. If the reaction is not necessarily unpleasant, eat the food as you will. I'll give an unrelated example we all know: I do not like the feeling in my mouth if I make a very proper " z " sound (I never have liked that feeling, since I was a child) I say " s " instead, because that " z " feeling is disgusting in my mouth. A food example might be: I eat marinated kale with garlic. If I am not uncomfortable (uncomfortable means, here, gassy), I can eat some more. Caron wrote: > I noticed this when I had a roast <snip> Has it at all occurred to you that your reaction might have been from the meat? One of the problems I see in the raw food community is that people have issues (as all humans will) and when they eat something, they look at the wrong part of the picture and then blame the rest of the picture. If you are supposedly raw, and you eat a roast, and then you have a reaction, would it not be smarter to look at your raction to eating the read meat than to hasten to the idea that the problem was that you wree pregnant and there were more pregmant people to help out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 13, 2007 Report Share Posted July 13, 2007 - prettysmartideas >Has it at all occurred to you that your reaction might have been from the meat? It occured to me that, as the reaction occured immediately after my first bite, which happened to be a small piece of roast sweet red potato with gravy on it, that perhaps it might have been from that. >If you are supposedly raw, and you eat a roast, and then you have a reaction, would it not be smarter to look at your raction to eating the read meat than to hasten to the idea that the problem was that you wree pregnant and there were more pregmant people to help out. Would you mind clarifying what you mean by this? Caron Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 13, 2007 Report Share Posted July 13, 2007 This is in response to your question about people expressing their thoughts, Jeannie. My counter-question, because I feel I've expressed the answer, as have others, is why would people have to post these definitions, saying this is their summary of this group? Why would ANYone get that impression at all if you are right? The problem is not posting, it's the monopoly of a supposedly open group that only promotes one very extreme form of raw foodism that only works for some and causes deficiencies in the other. The OTHER problem of concern is that no feasible drawbacks are listed for that extreme form unless others bring it up. It is promoted as though that one radical model works for all and all legit reports of health problems it has led to in others are not tolerated or discussed and are rejected or excused. THAT is actually the biggest, most alarming concern. It's as if promoting this one diet is more important than promoting health for all, and it is a huge turn-off and not a positive reflection on those who are so insistent it's working even when people deteriorate on it. Care to comment on WHY that is? We're all waiting on it. Erica Luggage? GPS? Comic books? Check out fitting gifts for grads at Search. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 13, 2007 Report Share Posted July 13, 2007 I tend to concur with Erica. Not only did I not sense any rage in her posts, I see that she exhibits thoughtfulness and concern. I think it unfair to ad hominemly discredit her posts with the label " rage. " I am sure all of us can nod in agreement that Elchanan's contribution to the forum is appreciated. His great breadth of knowledge, insights, experience, and, his willingness to share all that freely is a credit to his character. Still, I do find that there is a tendency to state in absolute terms. Such statements rub me wrong. I can't help it, I am part eraser. Regarding the recipe issue, it is simply too dismissive to wave away a long time human behavior. Ralph Waldo stated that " all sorts of things go together to make up the wind and weather " and I believe our finite minds haven't enwrapped all that it is enwrappable. As an artist, I am constantly amazed at the sublties I continously discover when I revisit a work; subtleties that I " missed " before. I suggest there is more than meets the eye and that we should be more cautious about our dismissiveness. tev Erica <schoolofrawk wrote: " just because he posts on things a lot and tries to show another point of view doesn't make him a fanatic. " Fanatic: (n.) 1. a person with an extreme and uncritical enthusiasm or zeal, as in religion or politics (or natural hygiene) Another point of view? The whole problem that many are having is that no other points than his are seemingly allowed. Are you following that at all? Not upset, but here to clarify... Erica ____________________ 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][http://www.urantia.org/] _____________________ http://www.vegconnect.com/ _____________________ Get the toolbar and be alerted to new email wherever you're surfing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 13, 2007 Report Share Posted July 13, 2007 Great post, Tev, and THANK YOU! :-) I agree that we get along more than we all don't get along, but I do show alarm at some of these absolutes, as do many others. :-) Expecting? Get great news right away with email Auto-Check. Try the Mail Beta. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 13, 2007 Report Share Posted July 13, 2007 Elchanan, I dispute this design theory. Please cite your data from the " Designer " . Thanks. Oh, and please do not suggest " Nature " is the designer. It is simply not true. tev Elchanan <Elchanan wrote: Hi Bryan, I agree with all that you say here ... except that what David says about smoothies is sorely misguided. To bypass our own design, in this case to bypass the act of chewing, is not productive in the long run. Liquefied diets are for people who cannot chew ... infants, those who have no teeth, and for those whose digestive systems are virtually in shreds. Best, Elchanan ____________________ 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][http://www.urantia.org/] _____________________ http://www.vegconnect.com/ _____________________ Building a website is a piece of cake. Small Business gives you all the tools to get online. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 14, 2007 Report Share Posted July 14, 2007 Liquefied > diets are for people who cannot chew ... infants, those who have no teeth, > and for those whose digestive systems are virtually in shreds. > Liquified diets are for those who are looking to strengthen their digestion, period, and to enhance their assimiliation/absorption. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 14, 2007 Report Share Posted July 14, 2007 Nope. You cannot strengthen any function by underutilizing that function. There were NO liquefied diets until very recent time, from an historical perspective ... it's all just marketing arising from new products and technologies, not a bit more. Best, Elchanan _____ rawfood [rawfood ] On Behalf Of Erica Friday, July 13, 2007 4:16 PM rawfood Re: cipes are GOOD! [Raw Food] Bored with raw Liquefied > diets are for people who cannot chew ... infants, those who have no teeth, > and for those whose digestive systems are virtually in shreds. > Liquified diets are for those who are looking to strengthen their digestion, period, and to enhance their assimiliation/absorption. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 16, 2007 Report Share Posted July 16, 2007 Tev, I would like to make a suggestion, not just directed at you but others, just as y ou disagree with Elchanan as would like him to cite his data when you or anyone else disagree can you add the data to back up your thoughts and beliefs just to have a full picture on both sides? tev treowlufu <goraw808 wrote: Elchanan, I dispute this design theory. Please cite your data from the " Designer " . Thanks. Oh, and please do not suggest " Nature " is the designer. It is simply not true. tev Elchanan <Elchanan wrote: Hi Bryan, I agree with all that you say here ... except that what David says about smoothies is sorely misguided. To bypass our own design, in this case to bypass the act of chewing, is not productive in the long run. Liquefied diets are for people who cannot chew ... infants, those who have no teeth, and for those whose digestive systems are virtually in shreds. Best, Elchanan ________ 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][http://www.urantia.org/] ________ http://www.vegconnect.com/ ________ Building a website is a piece of cake. Small Business gives you all the tools to get online. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 17, 2007 Report Share Posted July 17, 2007 Hi Bryan, Smoothies are great and I have them regularly. However, it's important to give the pearly whites something to do. Teeth need to be worked daily. It does a mouth good. Janet rawfood , Bryan Au <rawbryan wrote: > > Elchanan, > > I hear you and agree but there are breatharians and some people who only do urine and swear that is the most optimal and the best in health too, then there are sun gazers, but not everyone does those things or even wants to...everyone is at their level and everyone has their little pleasures and joys...for you it is different for someone else and everyone also has different health goals, and reasons...I agree with you and hear you but recipes are fun and most people are into it even if technically it may not be the most super optimal way. David Wolf recently says that doing Smoothies instead of eating meals is good too because it is fast, easy to digest but again most people would probably not replace all their meals with smoothies even with all the benefits although great advice... > > Bryan > > Elchanan <Elchanan wrote: > Well, then, I must be not be real, and I must be well acquainted with > nobody! > > Bryan, learning the distinction between stimulation and health still lies > before you ... you need only open to new possibilities. > > Best, > Elchanan > > _____ > > rawfood [rawfood ] On Behalf Of > Bryan Au > Tuesday, July 10, 2007 9:33 AM > rawfood > Re:cipes are GOOD! [Raw Food] Bored with raw > > Ok I hear what everyone is saying but lets be REAL! No one is going to sit > around and eat like one thing, then another and maybe one more and that is > it, > > 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.