Guest guest Posted September 10, 2007 Report Share Posted September 10, 2007 WE HAVE MINORITIES: How Can We Possibly Disregard People Who Might Benefit From a Raw Food Diet, Bit Who Cannot Follow Our Rules? I have just had an interesting exchange with someone who told me that " now that he could chew better " he was trying raw foods again. Now, I don't know what he meant by that, but I do know, from working with my clients, and from dealing with all sorts of people who need to learn pronunciation after losing teeth, that not everyone has the ability to chew prodigiously. Please consider yourself blessed if you can eat a carrot which has not been pureed. Please consider yourself lucky if you can bite an apple. Please consider, if you are a proponent of unprocessed raw foods, that you are terribly lucky to have the option to think that unprocessed foods are the only way to go.... people who cannot chew do not necessarily have the option to eat unprocessed leafy vegetables, fruit, or root vegetables. Those who believe in unprocessed foods, and who suggest that they are the onliest and the best, because our cave ancestors ate things like that, are blissfully ignoring the fact that our cave ancestors did not live much past the age of 30. Since they did not have top quality dentists in their caves, if they got past 30, they most likely did not have teeth (no one had invented floss or toothpaste). People without teeth could eat precious little. Their general response to the situation was to die. In modern society, we are blessed with longer lifespans. At the same time, there are so many hazards in modern life that some people wind up without teeth, and/or using prosthetic teeth. There are numerous other reasons that people might lose their teeth. If we, as raw foodists, are to embrace the widest population possible, we must find a way to become politically correct enough to eschew pronouncements on proper eating which exclude, whether intentionally or by accident, people whose physiology prevents them from eating most unprocessed foods. Perhaps we might learn to distinguish between " processed foods " which are found in supermarkets and foods which are " processed " by the eater, at home, where the ingredients are known and consciously included, based on raw food principles, as understood by the person creating the dish. When we definitively declare that only unprocessed foods should be eaten, and we define unprocessed foods as those which have not been altered from their original state, i.e., have not been cut, shredded, blended, or dehydrated, we are potentially eliminating people who might benefit from a raw food diet, but who cannot chew, cannot easily swallow, cannot eat solid food; and/or those who are recovering from, or dealing with life-altering physical situations (surgery, disease, etc.) How can we, who are supposed to be proponents of the healthiest way to eat, eliminate great numbers of people who might benefit, physically, mentally, or even emotionally from a raw food diet, simply because they are unable to eat unprocessed raw food? How can we be so high and mighty, so self-important, so sure of the right way, that we can exclude anyone who might benefit from a raw food diet, or even suggest that a way to eat raw food might be unacceptable? Do we not agree that the best way for everyone is a raw food diet? Is there any exception, in our language, to the word " everyone " ? Margaret Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 10, 2007 Report Share Posted September 10, 2007 It doesn't reduce the value of the food if you shred or puree or blend it. That's exactly what your teeth are for! If your teeth can't do that job anymore, then by all means puree an apple or make a greens smoothie, etc. That an apple is whole and " uncut etc " does NOT make it better. It is SUPPOSED to be pureed for consumption! If anything, those that NEED to puree their food with equipment might have an advantage over those of us who use the primitive method of pureeing (i.e., teeth). Truly, for ease of digestion, the more pureed the better generally. That's why we've always been taught to thoroughly chew our food - none of us actually do...unless you a Fletcherizer! Fletcher would chew his food for so long that all that was left was the cellulose of the plant, and then he would spit THAT out. This is nearly equivalent to juicing, although with Fletcherizing you still consume most of the fiber, which is obviously important and healthy. So apparently he had excellent health results from this and this is where the " chew your food thoroughly " maxim comes from. Obviously, using a blender does this for you without all the wearing of the teeth and huge jaw muscles. The method of pureeing the food is, really, inconsequential, obviously as long as you're not pureeing it at some high temperature...but I don't find my blender increases the temperature of my food AT ALL. So if anything, us toothed-primitives have something to learn from those without teeth. Joe rawfood , " Margaret Gamez " <manifestnow wrote: > > WE HAVE MINORITIES: How Can We Possibly Disregard People Who Might > Benefit From a Raw Food Diet, Bit Who Cannot Follow Our Rules? > > I have just had an interesting exchange with someone who told me that > " now that he could chew better " he was trying raw foods again. > > Now, I don't know what he meant by that, but I do know, from working > with my clients, and from dealing with all sorts of people who need to > learn pronunciation after losing teeth, that not everyone has the > ability to chew prodigiously. > > Please consider yourself blessed if you can eat a carrot which has not > been pureed. Please consider yourself lucky if you can bite an apple. > > Please consider, if you are a proponent of unprocessed raw foods, that > you are terribly lucky to have the option to think that unprocessed > foods are the only way to go.... people who cannot chew do not > necessarily have the option to eat unprocessed leafy vegetables, > fruit, or root vegetables. > > Those who believe in unprocessed foods, and who suggest that they are > the onliest and the best, because our cave ancestors ate things like > that, are blissfully ignoring the fact that our cave ancestors did not > live much past the age of 30. Since they did not have top quality > dentists in their caves, if they got past 30, they most likely did not > have teeth (no one had invented floss or toothpaste). People without > teeth could eat precious little. Their general response to the > situation was to die. > > In modern society, we are blessed with longer lifespans. At the same > time, there are so many hazards in modern life that some people wind > up without teeth, and/or using prosthetic teeth. There are numerous > other reasons that people might lose their teeth. > > If we, as raw foodists, are to embrace the widest population possible, > we must find a way to become politically correct enough to eschew > pronouncements on proper eating which exclude, whether intentionally > or by accident, people whose physiology prevents them from eating most > unprocessed foods. > > Perhaps we might learn to distinguish between " processed foods " which > are found in supermarkets and foods which are " processed " by the > eater, at home, where the ingredients are known and consciously > included, based on raw food principles, as understood by the person > creating the dish. > > When we definitively declare that only unprocessed foods should be > eaten, and we define unprocessed foods as those which have not been > altered from their original state, i.e., have not been cut, shredded, > blended, or dehydrated, we are potentially eliminating people who > might benefit from a raw food diet, but who cannot chew, cannot > easily swallow, cannot eat solid food; and/or those who are recovering > from, or dealing with life-altering physical situations (surgery, > disease, etc.) > > How can we, who are supposed to be proponents of the healthiest way to > eat, eliminate great numbers of people who might benefit, physically, > mentally, or even emotionally from a raw food diet, simply because > they are unable to eat unprocessed raw food? > > How can we be so high and mighty, so self-important, so sure of the > right way, that we can exclude anyone who might benefit from a raw > food diet, or even suggest that a way to eat raw food might be > unacceptable? Do we not agree that the best way for everyone is a > raw food diet? Is there any exception, in our language, to the word > " everyone " ? > Margaret > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 11, 2007 Report Share Posted September 11, 2007 rawfood , " Margaret Gamez " <manifestnow wrote: > > WE HAVE MINORITIES: How Can We Possibly Disregard People Who Might > Benefit From a Raw Food Diet, Bit Who Cannot Follow Our Rules? > > In response to your full piece, is anyone really doing that? Blended foods are optimal -- even those who can physically chew okay are kidding themselves, generally, because they don't chew ENOUGH and surely have compromised digestion (unless raw since birth, etc). Dr. Ann fed EVERYONE blended soups 3 meals a day. Energy soup. For that reason. Erica Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 12, 2007 Report Share Posted September 12, 2007 no. i do the best i can, or i try, or i consider it. maybe its not best to eat a whole apple at some moment. maybe the right choice might be to make apple sauce sometimes. i find that i have a strong contact with my innate with i am totally honest with myself. i find i can taste the food better when i chew it. i enjoy chewing it. i prefer to chew it. and somewhere, maybe there is a magical quality in the mouth, thats helps to prepare the food properly for its journey into the pit of digestion. you talk like an expert but i don't care jrellis rawfood , " Joe Postma " <joepostma wrote: > > It doesn't reduce the value of the food if you shred or puree or blend > it. That's exactly what your teeth are for! If your teeth can't do > that job anymore, then by all means puree an apple or make a greens > smoothie, etc. > > That an apple is whole and " uncut etc " does NOT make it better. It is > SUPPOSED to be pureed for consumption! If anything, those that NEED > to puree their food with equipment might have an advantage over those > of us who use the primitive method of pureeing (i.e., teeth). Truly, > for ease of digestion, the more pureed the better generally. That's > why we've always been taught to thoroughly chew our food - none of us > actually do...unless you a Fletcherizer! Fletcher would chew his food > for so long that all that was left was the cellulose of the plant, and > then he would spit THAT out. This is nearly equivalent to juicing, > although with Fletcherizing you still consume most of the fiber, which > is obviously important and healthy. So apparently he had excellent > health results from this and this is where the " chew your food > thoroughly " maxim comes from. Obviously, using a blender does this > for you without all the wearing of the teeth and huge jaw muscles. > > The method of pureeing the food is, really, inconsequential, obviously > as long as you're not pureeing it at some high temperature...but I > don't find my blender increases the temperature of my food AT ALL. > > So if anything, us toothed-primitives have something to learn from > those without teeth. > > Joe > > > > > > rawfood , " Margaret Gamez " <manifestnow@> wrote: > > > > WE HAVE MINORITIES: How Can We Possibly Disregard People Who Might > > Benefit From a Raw Food Diet, Bit Who Cannot Follow Our Rules? > > > > I have just had an interesting exchange with someone who told me that > > " now that he could chew better " he was trying raw foods again. > > > > Now, I don't know what he meant by that, but I do know, from working > > with my clients, and from dealing with all sorts of people who need to > > learn pronunciation after losing teeth, that not everyone has the > > ability to chew prodigiously. > > > > Please consider yourself blessed if you can eat a carrot which has not > > been pureed. Please consider yourself lucky if you can bite an apple. > > > > Please consider, if you are a proponent of unprocessed raw foods, that > > you are terribly lucky to have the option to think that unprocessed > > foods are the only way to go.... people who cannot chew do not > > necessarily have the option to eat unprocessed leafy vegetables, > > fruit, or root vegetables. > > > > Those who believe in unprocessed foods, and who suggest that they are > > the onliest and the best, because our cave ancestors ate things like > > that, are blissfully ignoring the fact that our cave ancestors did not > > live much past the age of 30. Since they did not have top quality > > dentists in their caves, if they got past 30, they most likely did not > > have teeth (no one had invented floss or toothpaste). People without > > teeth could eat precious little. Their general response to the > > situation was to die. > > > > In modern society, we are blessed with longer lifespans. At the same > > time, there are so many hazards in modern life that some people wind > > up without teeth, and/or using prosthetic teeth. There are numerous > > other reasons that people might lose their teeth. > > > > If we, as raw foodists, are to embrace the widest population possible, > > we must find a way to become politically correct enough to eschew > > pronouncements on proper eating which exclude, whether intentionally > > or by accident, people whose physiology prevents them from eating most > > unprocessed foods. > > > > Perhaps we might learn to distinguish between " processed foods " which > > are found in supermarkets and foods which are " processed " by the > > eater, at home, where the ingredients are known and consciously > > included, based on raw food principles, as understood by the person > > creating the dish. > > > > When we definitively declare that only unprocessed foods should be > > eaten, and we define unprocessed foods as those which have not been > > altered from their original state, i.e., have not been cut, shredded, > > blended, or dehydrated, we are potentially eliminating people who > > might benefit from a raw food diet, but who cannot chew, cannot > > easily swallow, cannot eat solid food; and/or those who are recovering > > from, or dealing with life-altering physical situations (surgery, > > disease, etc.) > > > > How can we, who are supposed to be proponents of the healthiest way to > > eat, eliminate great numbers of people who might benefit, physically, > > mentally, or even emotionally from a raw food diet, simply because > > they are unable to eat unprocessed raw food? > > > > How can we be so high and mighty, so self-important, so sure of the > > right way, that we can exclude anyone who might benefit from a raw > > food diet, or even suggest that a way to eat raw food might be > > unacceptable? Do we not agree that the best way for everyone is a > > raw food diet? Is there any exception, in our language, to the word > > " everyone " ? > > Margaret > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 12, 2007 Report Share Posted September 12, 2007 rawfood , " Erica " <schoolofrawk wrote: > Dr. > Ann fed EVERYONE blended soups 3 meals a day. Energy soup. For that > reason. Erica i was greatly inspired by ann wigmore, and always cherish the memory of meeting her. but her diet was influenced by her bad teeth, thats what she told me. jrellis Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 13, 2007 Report Share Posted September 13, 2007 rawfood , " rahtymz " < wrote: > > no. > > i do the best i can, or i try, or i consider it. > maybe its not best to eat a whole apple at some moment. > maybe the right choice might be to make apple sauce sometimes. > i find that i have a strong contact with my innate with i am totally > honest with myself. i find i can taste the food better when i chew it. > i enjoy chewing it. i prefer to chew it. I too enjoy chewing and texture contrasts. > and somewhere, maybe there is > a magical quality in the mouth, thats helps to prepare the food > properly for its journey into the pit of digestion. Saliva, baby! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saliva -Erin http://www.vegandonelight.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 13, 2007 Report Share Posted September 13, 2007 > > Erica > i was greatly inspired by ann wigmore, and always cherish the memory > of meeting her. > but > her diet was influenced by her bad teeth, thats what she told me. > jrellis > Surely influenced by that, but her decision to feed it to others had a lot to do with digestion. Have you read her entire book on Blending? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 13, 2007 Report Share Posted September 13, 2007 > Erica > i was greatly inspired by ann wigmore, and always cherish the memory > of meeting her. > but > her diet was influenced by her bad teeth, thats what she told me. > jrellis I was friends with Ann's best friend Loretta. Dr. Ann never ever drank wheatgrass for years, but made sure all her clients drank 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.