Guest guest Posted November 30, 2004 Report Share Posted November 30, 2004 Hello everyone! OK, in recent times I've been learning some stuff of interest to us raw foodists. It might upset some 100% vegans or advocates of vegetable-based rather than fruit-based diets. Also if anyone has some useful (and well referenced) contradictory info I'd be happy to hear it. The bulk of the ideas I'm going to share come from: http://www.waisays.com/ - I recommend reading through it. But not solely, and there's an amount of my own personal experience too. Firstly, the above website does advocate a completely raw diet as an ideal, and explains why in a much more detailed and convincing way than a lot of the vague and poorly qualified pseudoscience seen on many raw food website. All this is good for the cause of raw food. Also it recommends to avoid all vitamin and mineral supplements, and not to be bothered by the scaremongering tactics of those who tell you you won't get enough calcium, protien etc. Too much calcium (and protien actually) can speed up aging of the bones and hasten the onset of osteoporosis. So you don't need those leafy greens full of calcium either, especially as some of them contain a bunch of harmful oxalic acid. Total avoidance of all wheat and dairy is recommended. However, it recommends not eating vegetables, pulses and grains, or at least very few of them, due to toxins and anti-nutrients they contain for protection. Also it asserts that vegetables etc contain far too much fibre, which can cause gas, bloating, indigestion and constipation. And excess fibre supposedly inflicts a multitude of tiny little wounds in the digestive tract, speeding up the aging process as cells need to be replaced more often. So what is recommended is a mostly fruit and nut diet. My personal experience would back this up, as I have had constipation vanish on removing vegetables from my diet. I should stress that of course fruit includes tomatoes, peppers, avocado, courgette (zucchini), cucumber etc, so salads can still be eaten containing ingredients like these. Also, eating all those fibrous vegetables is just too much hard work, man! Where this site deviates most from the dogma of this particular group (and I hope the moderators are democratic enough to allow this post) is that it advocates a small amount of animal products. However it does advocate them raw, and limits it to raw egg yolk and sashimi (raw fish). The main reasons for this seem to be so that we get enough cholesterol (the right kind of cholestol ie raw), and the right quantities of certain fatty acids, both essential to the brain and nervous system. In fact the brain itself is 10-20% composed of cholesterol. This could be why domestic cats often eat only the heads of birds they catch. Obviously many would consider this a less ethical lifestyle than pure veganism. This may be true, but on the other hand there is good evidence that plants can also suffer and be aware of their surroundings. If that's true, then it puts eating plants on more of a level footing with eating animals, ethically. This would probably make a mostly fruitarian diet with a small amount of egg yolk and raw fish more ethical than a diet based on eating the plants themselves. Of course, the more vegan the diet, the less land is used to grow your food, so this is a counterbalancing issue. But to take it to the extreme, our most ethical option would probably be to eat sand and gravel and starve - then we'd have even less impact on the environment. Obviously I don't Recommend this. So it's a trade-off. I believe that we should eat whatever is healthiest for us as humans, just the same as no-one except the most ridiculously dogmatic vegan would advocate preventing lions from eating antelope and zebra. Luckily for the Earth, what's best for us seems at least almost entirely vegan. By the way all other primates eat a small amount of animal food, even if it's only insects - and yes, that includes gorillas. I personally feel it's important for us to honestly search for whatever makes us function at our best, because I believe in the goodness of human nature, when not distorted by bad health. And I have to say, having been to a raw food festival in London recently, although many raw-foodists look really great, some long-term raw vegans (and I include the raw-food 'gurus' here) don't look so hot, nor are they necessarily all that on-the-ball mentally. On the other hand, some of them look great, for instance Storm and Jinjee. While I'm at it, I should also state my scepticism of the wisdom of dehydrating. Obviously it's better than cooking, but it strikes me that consuming large amounts of dehydrated grains and flaxseeds etc can't be so good. Any dehydrated food I've eaten made me constipated. Eat natural, I say! Oh and by the way, apparently blending so forth cause heating on the molecular level via friction, therefore in essence partially cooking the food and deforming/destoying the nutrients. Still, again, it's better than actual cooking, but I thought you should know. Those 'raw' cakes and smoothies made with blended fruit and ground-up nuts and seeds may not be as raw as you think. Maybe all this (including dehydration) is why Juliano looks older than he should, even though he started on raw foods earier than me. He's only about my age (I'm 29), but I get mistaken for being 20 or so all the time, sometimes younger. I base this on the pictures in his book 'Raw - the uncook book'. Lastly I would like to say that if someone can provide me with alternative (vegan) ways to get the nutrients found in raw fish and egg yolk, I'd be really happy. I'm not trying to push any carnivorous agenda here, I just want the truth and good health. Love and Light to you all, Graeme xxx Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 30, 2004 Report Share Posted November 30, 2004 thanks for the post I've always thought that if something is are ideal diet we should be atracted to it. I can't say I really like many vegetables. I don't dislike them but I don't really like them. I just eat them because I thnk I need to. Speacially things like Kale. But fruit on the other hand is great, I love it, it is not a challenge to eat. On Tue, Nov 30, 2004 at 01:15:34PM -0000, Graeme wrote: > > > > Hello everyone! > > OK, in recent times I've been learning some stuff of interest to us > raw foodists. It might upset some 100% vegans or advocates of > vegetable-based rather than fruit-based diets. > > Also if anyone has some useful (and well referenced) contradictory > info I'd be happy to hear it. > > The bulk of the ideas I'm going to share come from: > > http://www.waisays.com/ - I recommend reading through it. > > But not solely, and there's an amount of my own personal experience too. > > Firstly, the above website does advocate a completely raw diet as an > ideal, and explains why in a much more detailed and convincing way > than a lot of the vague and poorly qualified pseudoscience seen on > many raw food website. All this is good for the cause of raw food. > > Also it recommends to avoid all vitamin and mineral supplements, and > not to be bothered by the scaremongering tactics of those who tell you > you won't get enough calcium, protien etc. Too much calcium (and > protien actually) can speed up aging of the bones and hasten the onset > of osteoporosis. So you don't need those leafy greens full of calcium > either, especially as some of them contain a bunch of harmful oxalic acid. > > Total avoidance of all wheat and dairy is recommended. > > However, it recommends not eating vegetables, pulses and grains, or at > least very few of them, due to toxins and anti-nutrients they contain > for protection. Also it asserts that vegetables etc contain far too > much fibre, which can cause gas, bloating, indigestion and > constipation. And excess fibre supposedly inflicts a multitude of > tiny little wounds in the digestive tract, speeding up the aging > process as cells need to be replaced more often. So what is > recommended is a mostly fruit and nut diet. > > My personal experience would back this up, as I have had constipation > vanish on removing vegetables from my diet. I should stress that of > course fruit includes tomatoes, peppers, avocado, courgette > (zucchini), cucumber etc, so salads can still be eaten containing > ingredients like these. Also, eating all those fibrous vegetables is > just too much hard work, man! > > Where this site deviates most from the dogma of this particular group > (and I hope the moderators are democratic enough to allow this post) > is that it advocates a small amount of animal products. However it > does advocate them raw, and limits it to raw egg yolk and sashimi (raw > fish). The main reasons for this seem to be so that we get enough > cholesterol (the right kind of cholestol ie raw), and the right > quantities of certain fatty acids, both essential to the brain and > nervous system. In fact the brain itself is 10-20% composed of > cholesterol. This could be why domestic cats often eat only the heads > of birds they catch. > > Obviously many would consider this a less ethical lifestyle than pure > veganism. This may be true, but on the other hand there is good > evidence that plants can also suffer and be aware of their > surroundings. If that's true, then it puts eating plants on more of a > level footing with eating animals, ethically. This would probably > make a mostly fruitarian diet with a small amount of egg yolk and raw > fish more ethical than a diet based on eating the plants themselves. > Of course, the more vegan the diet, the less land is used to grow your > food, so this is a counterbalancing issue. But to take it to the > extreme, our most ethical option would probably be to eat sand and > gravel and starve - then we'd have even less impact on the > environment. Obviously I don't Recommend this. So it's a trade-off. > I believe that we should eat whatever is healthiest for us as humans, > just the same as no-one except the most ridiculously dogmatic vegan > would advocate preventing lions from eating antelope and zebra. > Luckily for the Earth, what's best for us seems at least almost > entirely vegan. By the way all other primates eat a small amount of > animal food, even if it's only insects - and yes, that includes gorillas. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 30, 2004 Report Share Posted November 30, 2004 rawfood , " Graeme " <kimonokraken> wrote: > > > Hello everyone! > > OK, in recent times I've been learning some stuff of interest to us > raw foodists. It might upset some 100% vegans or advocates of > vegetable-based rather than fruit-based diets. > > Also if anyone has some useful (and well referenced) contradictory > info I'd be happy to hear it. > > The bulk of the ideas I'm going to share come from: > > http://www.waisays.com/ - I recommend reading through it. > I'm curious what you think about corn? Is corn a veg or fruit? I do know what you mean. I find veggies hard work to eat. When I go shopping I usually always end up eating my fruit quicker than my vegs. I have to actually plan to eat the vegs... the fruit goes away with out me thinking about it, it is just so convinient. I guess according to this guys site carrots therefore carrot juice would be out, right? Carrots are veggies I believe. That is one veg that I actually like but only when juiced what do you think about juicing carrots, celery, beets? The bloat from all the fiber isn't a problem. But I am searching for the best ideal long term diet and if I knew fruits where truly the way to go, I'd go that way in a heart beat. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 30, 2004 Report Share Posted November 30, 2004 Hey there, As someone who is mainly a lurker, until I learn a lot more, I have a few comments in response to Graeme's post. << However, it recommends not eating vegetables, pulses and grains, or at least very few of them, due to toxins and anti-nutrients they contain for protection. Also it asserts that vegetables etc contain far too much fibre, which can cause gas, bloating, indigestion and constipation. And excess fibre supposedly inflicts a multitude of tiny little wounds in the digestive tract, speeding up the aging process as cells need to be replaced more often. So what is recommended is a mostly fruit and nut diet. >> This seems counter-intuitive... but, rather than refute it, I just have to question how nuts are less likely to 'inflict little wounds in the digestive tract' than a well-chewed carrot or piece of celery. I would be inclined to agree if I never chewed my food... if I swallowed everything whole, then certainly it might be true that my intestines might be in trouble when whatever it was I ate reached them. But, I ascribe to the " Drink your food and eat your drink " maxim that tells us digestion begins in the mouth, and the more work done on the front end (so to speak) means an easy time the rest of the way. << on the other hand there is good evidence that plants can also suffer and be aware of their surroundings. If that's true, then it puts eating plants on more of a level footing with eating animals, ethically. >> If it IS true, that might be worth considering... however, the evidence of the suffering of animals is not difficult to see. Animals are demonstrative of their fear or pain. We can hear them scream, see them attempt to escape or writhe in pain. Their suffering is obvious. Plants, however, have no brain (thinking) or nervous system (feeling). Once I see evidence otherwise, I'll reconsider... << although many raw-foodists look really great, some long-term raw vegans (and I include the raw-food 'gurus' here) don't look so hot, nor are they necessarily all that on-the-ball mentally. On the other hand, some of them look great, for instance Storm and Jinjee. >> Gosh, I couldn't agree more here. I just last night watched a DVD-Zine sent by Storm and Jinjee. Storm and Jinjee look fantastic... but, they had a couple of other people talking that didn't look so wonderful. In fact, they looked as if they were starving or very ill -- extremely gaunt. I am just starting this journey, and -of course- am looking for encouraging signs that I'm on the right path. I'm looking for proponents of the diet who seem vibrant and healthy, as they claim the diet will do for us. Alissa Cohen and Shazzie, as well as Storm and Jinjee, all can " sell " me on the benefits... but, someone who looks like they just survived a concentration camp is going to make me a little skeptical. << While I'm at it, I should also state my scepticism of the wisdom of dehydrating. Obviously it's better than cooking, but it strikes me that consuming large amounts of dehydrated grains and flaxseeds etc can't be so good. >> Well, flaxseeds are one of those wonderful sources of Omega 3 fatty acids... which negates the necessity for that raw fish mentioned earlier. << apparently blending so forth cause heating on the molecular level via friction, therefore in essence partially cooking the food and deforming/destoying the nutrients. >> I'm not going to quibble about how much heat is produced by friction in my blender. Obviously it isn't enough to worry about or my smoothies would never be as cold as they are when I drink them. << Maybe all this (including dehydration) is why Juliano looks older than he should, even though he started on raw foods earier than me. He's only about my age (I'm 29), but I get mistaken for being 20 or so all the time, sometimes younger. I base this on the pictures in his book 'Raw - the uncook book'. >> Again... have to agree. Juliano isn't looking too healthy to me... but, I don't know that the reason could be attributed to using a dehydrator anymore than I might attribute it to the fact that he lives in sunny California and appears to be a sun worshipper. << Lastly I would like to say that if someone can provide me with alternative (vegan) ways to get the nutrients found in raw fish and egg yolk, I'd be really happy. I'm not trying to push any carnivorous agenda here, I just want the truth and good health. >> Well, I mentioned the flax seed earlier... and walnuts... are good dietary sources of omega-3 fatty acids. As for cholesterol, our body produces its own and enough of it that no other source need be used to supplement it. Cats are obligate carnivores (bird-head eating reference), and what they eat doesn't influence my own diet. I do think this is an interesting discussion, and I hope more posters respond with their take on the points raised here. I'm interested to hear everyone's viewpoint! Suzy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 1, 2004 Report Share Posted December 1, 2004 Last I checked, we are not cats and gorillas. They don't even eat the same diets as each other, and neither do we, so why must we be compared to them (and other odd choices...cows, pigeons??) The whole idea that we " come from monkeys " is just that, a theory. It has not been proven (and I am not a Christian or even a religious person, so I don't think that we spontaneously arrived on the 6th day or whatever), so to compare us to primates and their diets is foolish. Macrobiotics (which comes from the applauded, healthy Asians) shuns the use of much fruit because it is so acidic and the point (of more than just macrobiotics) is to alkalize your body. As far as the " we are not pigeons, we are not cows, therefore we do not need to eat grasses and cereals...!! " how many people do you know that live on grass or birdseed?? Furthermore, cows are herbivores. They aren't supposed to eat grain! " Therefore humans did only start eating plants after having discovered how to use fire to prepare food. " (which they are really guessing here, were they there??) Not all of our prehistoric ancestors ate the same diet. And if this web site is trying to tell us that eating fruits & nuts are the cure for more ailments...you can get the same results by changing ANY part of most American's diet! I'm betting that most people he " researched " ate high sodium/sugar/bad fat diets, while our ancestors had very little of this, and the food that they did eat was much more nutrient-dense and they exercised a LOT more. If you are going to compare us to those people, compare us to the WHOLE picture! " There is not a single nutrient in vegetables or cereals, fruits do not contain " well, you could turn that around and say " there is not a single nutrient in fruits that veggies don't contain " . Its all about how you choose to illustrate your point. And as far as certain veggies containing chemicals that bind or leach, how do they know it is replicated in the body? If caffeic acid sticks to a nutrient in a lab dish, how can it be assumed that it is going to do the same inside your body? I have a hard time believing that veggies are full of bad things and should be avoided. When someone is trying to prove their (usually radical) point, they will use only what serves their purpose. I'm not saying that veggies are necessarily the best thing to eat, but if you are trying to debate the usefulness of something, you are most likely going to take whatever negative component you can and play it up. I didn't have the desire to read the entire site, but it doesn't strike me as something I'm going to put much faith in. I am neither 100% raw nor am I for any specific type of diet (i am vegan). It is your own personal choice what you choose to eat, I personally don't see that his website is all that convincing. And if plants can suffer, than why don't apple trees scream when we take their children, how do you know that pineapple isn't secretly crying for its mother? If you are going to say that vegetables are suffering, I don't see how you don't apply the same things to fruits & nuts. Rather, you should eat only raw eggs because you spared that unfertilized embryo the misfortune of having it's beak cut off and spending its life tortured in a tiny cage. If you are going to think that plants are in misery because you ate them, you are not going to have an enjoyable life, and will soon start to feel bad for the tree that is imprisoned in the ground or the living cotton fibers in your shirt. ~Alissa On Tue, Nov 30, 2004 at 01:15:34PM -0000, Graeme wrote: > > > > Hello everyone! > > OK, in recent times I've been learning some stuff of interest to us > raw foodists. It might upset some 100% vegans or advocates of > vegetable-based rather than fruit-based diets. > > Also if anyone has some useful (and well referenced) contradictory > info I'd be happy to hear it. > > The bulk of the ideas I'm going to share come from: > > http://www.waisays.com/ - I recommend reading through it. > > But not solely, and there's an amount of my own personal experience too. > > Firstly, the above website does advocate a completely raw diet as an > ideal, and explains why in a much more detailed and convincing way > than a lot of the vague and poorly qualified pseudoscience seen on > many raw food website. All this is good for the cause of raw food. > > Also it recommends to avoid all vitamin and mineral supplements, and > not to be bothered by the scaremongering tactics of those who tell you > you won't get enough calcium, protien etc. Too much calcium (and > protien actually) can speed up aging of the bones and hasten the onset > of osteoporosis. So you don't need those leafy greens full of calcium > either, especially as some of them contain a bunch of harmful oxalic acid. > > Total avoidance of all wheat and dairy is recommended. > > However, it recommends not eating vegetables, pulses and grains, or at > least very few of them, due to toxins and anti-nutrients they contain > for protection. Also it asserts that vegetables etc contain far too > much fibre, which can cause gas, bloating, indigestion and > constipation. And excess fibre supposedly inflicts a multitude of > tiny little wounds in the digestive tract, speeding up the aging > process as cells need to be replaced more often. So what is > recommended is a mostly fruit and nut diet. > > My personal experience would back this up, as I have had constipation > vanish on removing vegetables from my diet. I should stress that of > course fruit includes tomatoes, peppers, avocado, courgette > (zucchini), cucumber etc, so salads can still be eaten containing > ingredients like these. Also, eating all those fibrous vegetables is > just too much hard work, man! > > Where this site deviates most from the dogma of this particular group > (and I hope the moderators are democratic enough to allow this post) > is that it advocates a small amount of animal products. However it > does advocate them raw, and limits it to raw egg yolk and sashimi (raw > fish). The main reasons for this seem to be so that we get enough > cholesterol (the right kind of cholestol ie raw), and the right > quantities of certain fatty acids, both essential to the brain and > nervous system. In fact the brain itself is 10-20% composed of > cholesterol. This could be why domestic cats often eat only the heads > of birds they catch. > > Obviously many would consider this a less ethical lifestyle than pure > veganism. This may be true, but on the other hand there is good > evidence that plants can also suffer and be aware of their > surroundings. If that's true, then it puts eating plants on more of a > level footing with eating animals, ethically. This would probably > make a mostly fruitarian diet with a small amount of egg yolk and raw > fish more ethical than a diet based on eating the plants themselves. > Of course, the more vegan the diet, the less land is used to grow your > food, so this is a counterbalancing issue. But to take it to the > extreme, our most ethical option would probably be to eat sand and > gravel and starve - then we'd have even less impact on the > environment. Obviously I don't Recommend this. So it's a trade-off. > I believe that we should eat whatever is healthiest for us as humans, > just the same as no-one except the most ridiculously dogmatic vegan > would advocate preventing lions from eating antelope and zebra. > Luckily for the Earth, what's best for us seems at least almost > entirely vegan. By the way all other primates eat a small amount of > animal food, even if it's only insects - and yes, that includes gorillas. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 1, 2004 Report Share Posted December 1, 2004 Corn is something that does not digest well for me, but I have friends who include raw corn in their diet with no problem. RE: veggies, including carrots. I find eat hard to eat a lot of veggies, so I juice carrots with celery, cucumber, apple and beets, and drink 2-4 glasses on most days, while trying to keep most of my other intake fruit and a few nuts and seeds (on the days I make it all raw! ). I feel much better when I have the juiced veggies, so I'm not worrying about it. I think it's really important not to put too much weight on any one voice out there in the raw food world. So when I read things like this, I bear the information in mind, but I find I am listening more to my own body and seeing what works for me and what doesn't. Takes a lot of the pressure off. Peace, Valerie John de la Garza <john wrote: rawfood , " Graeme " <kimonokraken> wrote: > > > Hello everyone! > > OK, in recent times I've been learning some stuff of interest to us > raw foodists. It might upset some 100% vegans or advocates of > vegetable-based rather than fruit-based diets. > > Also if anyone has some useful (and well referenced) contradictory > info I'd be happy to hear it. > > The bulk of the ideas I'm going to share come from: > > http://www.waisays.com/ - I recommend reading through it. > I'm curious what you think about corn? Is corn a veg or fruit? I do know what you mean. I find veggies hard work to eat. When I go shopping I usually always end up eating my fruit quicker than my vegs. I have to actually plan to eat the vegs... the fruit goes away with out me thinking about it, it is just so convinient. I guess according to this guys site carrots therefore carrot juice would be out, right? Carrots are veggies I believe. That is one veg that I actually like but only when juiced what do you think about juicing carrots, celery, beets? The bloat from all the fiber isn't a problem. But I am searching for the best ideal long term diet and if I knew fruits where truly the way to go, I'd go that way in a heart beat. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 1, 2004 Report Share Posted December 1, 2004 >Hello everyone! OK, in recent times I've been learning some stuff >of interest to us raw foodists. Well that would depend on your definition of " raw foodist " . Are you referring to raw meat eaters or other? >It might upset some 100% vegans or advocates of vegetable-based >rather than fruit-based diets. Hmmm...your message is entitled " a couple of issues that need raising " ....followed by " it might upset others... " . Are your words coming from a place of peace or other? Dare I read on? >Also if anyone has some useful (and well referenced) contradictory >info I'd be happy to hear it. The bulk of the ideas I'm going to >share come from: http://www.waisays.com - I recommend reading >through it. But not solely, and there's an amount of my own personal >experience too. Well that is how one should address all knowledge...take what benefits you and leave the rest. > Firstly, the above website does advocate a completely raw diet as an > ideal, and explains why in a much more detailed and convincing way > than a lot of the vague and poorly qualified pseudoscience seen on > many raw food website. All this is good for the cause of raw food. What is your definition of " pseudoscience " ? Sarcasm? >Also it recommends to avoid all vitamin and mineral supplements, and >not to be bothered by the scaremongering tactics of those who tell >you you won't get enough calcium, protien etc. Too much calcium (and >protien actually) can speed up aging of the bones and hasten the >onset of osteoporosis. So you don't need those leafy greens full of >calcium either, especially as some of them contain a bunch of >harmful oxalic acid. Hmm...are you simply repeating what you've read and agree with for yourself, or telling others what they should or should not do? It's hard to tell...your last paragraph ended with the words " so you don't need...blah blah blah " . Can you truly determine what everyone else or anyone else " needs " ? > Total avoidance of all wheat and dairy is recommended. However, it >recommends not eating vegetables, pulses and grains, or at least >very few of them, due to toxins and anti-nutrients they contain for >protection. Also it asserts that vegetables etc contain far too >much fibre, which can cause gas, bloating, indigestion and >constipation. And excess fibre supposedly inflicts a multitude of >tiny little wounds in the digestive tract, speeding up the aging >process as cells need to be replaced more often. So what is >recommended is a mostly fruit and nut diet. My personal experience >would back this up, as I have had constipation vanish on removing >vegetables from my diet. Then the above is an example of what works for " you " from this article. Congratulations on the decrease in constipation. >I should stress that of course fruit includes tomatoes, peppers, >avocado, courgette (zucchini), cucumber etc, so salads can still be >eaten containing ingredients like these. Also, eating all those >fibrous vegetables is just too much hard work, man! Hmmm...presuming most readers don't have a clue which fruits are often mistaken for vegetables? lol Thank you for sharing " your " new found knowledge concerning the above. Hey...don't forget olives, squash, and pumpkin. >Where this site deviates most from the dogma of this particular >group and I hope the moderators are democratic enough to allow this >post) is that it advocates a small amount of animal products. >However it does advocate them raw, and limits it to raw egg yolk and >sashimi (raw fish). The main reasons for this seem to be so that we >get enough cholesterol (the right kind of cholestol ie raw), and the >right quantities of certain fatty acids, both essential to the brain >and nervous system. I've never understood why people attempt to persuade their views on others in a group that CLEARLY has a specfic focus and choice of belief. I compare this to voluntarily choosing to visit the home of someone else, and upon arrival telling them why they should or should not have designed their home a particular way. Again...very presumptuous...a wee bit arrogant...and somewhat rude to say the least. >In fact the brain itself is 10-20% composed of cholesterol. This >could be why domestic cats often eat only the heads >of birds they catch. Should we also eat the raw heads of birds? >Obviously many would consider this a less ethical lifestyle than pure veganism. This may be true, but on the other hand there is good >evidence that plants can also suffer and be aware of their >surroundings. If that's true, then it puts eating plants on more of a level footing with eating animals, ethically. This would probably >make a mostly fruitarian diet with a small amount of egg yolk and raw >fish more ethical than a diet based on eating the plants themselves. This plant theory would only have importance for those who choose a raw vegan lifestyle for spiritual or moral reasons. Many people simply choose to eat this way to improve their health and overall feeling of well being. Presumptions, presumptions. >Of course, the more vegan the diet, the less land is used to grow >your food, so this is a counterbalancing issue. But to take it to >the extreme, our most ethical option would probably be to eat sand >and gravel and starve - then we'd have even less impact on the >environment. Obviously I don't Recommend this. So it's a trade-off. Well I actually read once that there was a woman who does exactly that...eat sand and is in her 90's. There are also people who claim to exist slowly on air alone...they're called Bretherans(or something like that). And there are people who believe that regardless what you eat...meat, junk food, raw food, or vegan, if your spiritual composition and mental state is advanced enough you can convert anything to exactly what you body needs and achieve healthy nutrition. Not sure what they are called...but google is open 24 hours a day if you'd like to find out more. Yet these people live longer than most. Should we now eat sand and air? Oh by the way...thank you for your approval of what " you wouldn't recommend " or what you consider a " trade-off " . I feel so much more enlightened. >I believe that we should eat whatever is healthiest for us as humans, >just the same as no-one except the most ridiculously dogmatic vegan >would advocate preventing lions from eating antelope and zebra. >Luckily for the Earth, what's best for us seems at least almost >entirely vegan. By the way all other primates eat a small amount of >animal food, even if it's only insects - and yes, that includes >gorillas. Out of this entire message...I suspect that ONE sentence sums it all up " we should eat whatever is healthiest for us as humans " . Though exchanging " individuals " for " humans " would be even more accurate. >I personally feel it's important for us to honestly search for >whatever makes us function at our best, because I believe in the >goodness of human nature, when not distorted by bad health. And I >have to say, having been to a raw food festival in London recently, >although many raw-foodists look really great, some long-term raw >vegans (and I include the raw-food 'gurus' here) don't look so hot, >nor are they necessarily all that on-the-ball mentally. On the >other hand, some of them look great, for instance Storm and Jinjee. They didn't look " right " according to who? You? It's not always about cosmetic appearance. There are many people who look absolutely beautiful...flawless skin ect ect...and are dying or die beautiful and healthy looking. I think often we have preconceived ideas about beauty and healthy appearance. To be honest, most of the people I've met who seem to have years of spiritual and nutritional experience and feel GREAT...aren't exactly my idea of movie stars in appearance. But then who am I to judge? If they feel great and are happy with their appearance it really doesn't matter what anyone else thinks. You know I was going to respond to the rest of your message....but it has become clear to me that it would be in vain. Your purpose doesn't appear to be interested in sharing or exchanging ideas, you seem to be " telling " others what is best for them, or trying to convince others why what they believe may be wrong. It would have been so much warmer to simply share the website link, and allow others to take what benefits them from the article, or voluntarily share their opinions with you. That being said...I actually agree with many of the points you've mentioned...and I have no desire to be 100% raw vegan...more like 75- 80%. However, the presentation was a bit cold to me. So...I'll let others respond to the rest of your message...I've learned to simply let go when it comes to those who are not willing to share thoughts...vs...telling their own thoughts. Peace to you... p.s. The following group is for those who eat raw foods of all types, including the raw fish and eggs you've mentioned. http://health.live-food Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 1, 2004 Report Share Posted December 1, 2004 On Nov 30, 2004, at 9:35 PM, Christy wrote: > >> I should stress that of course fruit includes tomatoes, peppers, >> avocado, courgette (zucchini), cucumber etc, so salads can still be >> eaten containing ingredients like these. Also, eating all those >> fibrous vegetables is just too much hard work, man! > > Hmmm...presuming most readers don't have a clue which fruits are > often mistaken for vegetables? lol Thank you for sharing " your " new > found knowledge concerning the above. Hey...don't forget olives, > squash, and pumpkin. > why do you do exactly what you are criticizing? you tell him not to do it but sarcastically do it back >> Where this site deviates most from the dogma of this particular >> group and I hope the moderators are democratic enough to allow this >> post) is that it advocates a small amount of animal products. >> However it does advocate them raw, and limits it to raw egg yolk and >> sashimi (raw fish). The main reasons for this seem to be so that we >> get enough cholesterol (the right kind of cholestol ie raw), and the >> right quantities of certain fatty acids, both essential to the brain >> and nervous system. > > I've never understood why people attempt to persuade their views on > others in a group that CLEARLY has a specfic focus and choice of > belief. I compare this to voluntarily choosing to visit the home of > someone else, and upon arrival telling them why they should or should > not have designed their home a particular way. Again...very > presumptuous...a wee bit arrogant...and somewhat rude to say the > least. > I think he was just referring us to something to consider, I for one really can relate to the info I do find to seem to be work to eat a big veg salad, when it comes to fruit it is effortless >> > > This plant theory would only have importance for those who choose a > raw vegan lifestyle for spiritual or moral reasons. Many people > simply choose to eat this way to improve their health and overall > feeling of well being. Presumptions, presumptions. that's why he says many not all. it's more than presuming, these types are very vocal Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 1, 2004 Report Share Posted December 1, 2004 On Nov 30, 2004, at 6:34 PM, Alissa wrote: > > > > > Last I checked, we are not cats and gorillas. They don't even eat the > same > diets as each other, and neither do we, so why must we be compared to > them > (and other odd choices...cows, pigeons??) The whole idea that we > " come from > monkeys " is just that, a theory. I agree it is a theory, but we are very close to them in makeup and our digestive systems are almost identical Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 1, 2004 Report Share Posted December 1, 2004 rawfood , " John de la Garza " <john@j...> wrote: > > I'm curious what you think about corn? Is corn a veg or fruit? Corn is a grain. The site recommends limiting intake of grains too. Grains (especially raw) contain compound like phytates, which bind to minerals and stop us from receiving their benefit. This may be why cooking and refining grains was done in the first place. I feel, as a general rule, that if we can't digest it easily raw, we probably shouldn't eat it. > I guess according to this guys site carrots therefore carrot juice > would be out, right? > Well yeah carrots are veggies, but i still juice them. Having said that they're the ONLY vegetable I juice. > > what do you think about juicing carrots, celery, beets? I don't know about the specific case for each vegetable juice, but I think there's a paranoia in many of us raw-foodists about not getting enough minerals, for instance. But it is just as possible to get too many minerals! Too much calcium hastens bone-aging, and too much iron is pro-oxidative (a bad thing), to give two examples. I think if we eat our natural diets, we shouldn't worry about minerals etc because we're eating what we've evolved to eat. It's a mistake to hear that our bodies use calcium, and therefore try and eat as much calcium as possible. Sometimes foods can be TOO nutritious! Along similar lines, too much vitamin C can help the growth of tumours apparently. Love and Light, Graeme Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 1, 2004 Report Share Posted December 1, 2004 Hi! Thanks for writing, I'll respond to a few of your points bit by bit... rawfood , " Christy " <yogafreeze> wrote: > Are your words coming from a place of peace or other? Dare I read on? I just want to share ideas, and get a little closer to the truth if I can. > What is your definition of " pseudoscience " ? Sarcasm? I'm referring to how many proponents of raw food simply re-interate the same dogma, in almost the same words, often without seeming to have looked into it themselves or to understand the basic principles involved. Even though this dogma is partly true, it's still slightly irresponsible. That's why both at the start and the end of the post I welcomed criticism and/or corrections. > Hmm...are you simply repeating what you've read and agree with for > yourself, or telling others what they should or should not do? It's > hard to tell...your last paragraph ended with the words " so you don't need...blah blah blah " . Can you truly determine what everyone else or anyone else " needs " ? This is the point at which I started to suspect (I may be wrong) that you'd taken exception to me and this post in general, and were therefore taking everything is the most insulting/insulted way possible. Like I say, I hope I'm wrong. > Then the above is an example of what works for " you " from this > article. Congratulations on the decrease in constipation. Thanks, it's a relief! > Hmmm...presuming most readers don't have a clue which fruits are > often mistaken for vegetables? It's not new-found, I just mentioned it because people coming to this list are often new to all this and don't know. > I've never understood why people attempt to persuade their views on > others in a group that CLEARLY has a specfic focus and choice of > belief. I compare this to voluntarily choosing to visit the home of > someone else, and upon arrival telling them why they should or should not have designed their home a particular way. Again...very > presumptuous...a wee bit arrogant...and somewhat rude to say the > least. They're not my views, they're an evolving structure. I try things out, I learn things, and if they seem useful, I try to share them. If no-one ever questioned how groups of people did things, the world would be much worse. We would still have slavery, and women wouldn't have the vote, etc etc. I wouldn't tell anybody that they shouldn't have designed their house in a certain way, as that would of course be petty and it's not important anyway. People's health, however, is. Again I defend myself against the charge of presumption, on the grounds that I, as mentioned earlier, welcome criticism. > Should we also eat the raw heads of birds? Er no of course we shouldn't. Please stop putting stupid words in my mouth, it's an unfair rhetorical debating tactic. Just stop it. > This plant theory would only have importance for those who choose a > raw vegan lifestyle for spiritual or moral reasons. Many people > simply choose to eat this way to improve their health and overall > feeling of well being. Presumptions, presumptions. I'm not presuming anything. I covered both the health and ethical angles. If I hadn't, THEN I might have been presuming. It's upsetting to watch how a prejudice can stop you thinking straight or giving people a fair hearing, or the time of day, or even common good will. So much for the lauded peace of mind of raw-foodists, huh? > Well I actually read once that there was a woman who does exactly > that...eat sand and is in her 90's. There are also people who claim > to exist slowly on air alone...they're called Bretherans(or something like that). And there are people who believe that regardless what you > eat...meat, junk food, raw food, or vegan, if your spiritual > composition and mental state is advanced enough you can convert > anything to exactly what you body needs and achieve healthy > nutrition. I know about breatharians. Some of the most famous have been shown to be fakes, although some others may be genuine. I don't think many of us are anywhere near being able to do that though. Otherwise starvation would be a logical impossibility, which it clearly isn't. Also I'd like you to find me someone who can eat burgers all day for years and have perfect health. I'd be impressed. Oh by the way...thank you for your approval of what " you wouldn't recommend " or what you consider a " trade-off " . I feel so much more enlightened. I can feel your spite from here. The mere offering of an opinion or information should not be repaid with such awful sarcasm. And it's even more awful to put that silly sarcastic smile at the end. > They didn't look " right " according to who? You? It's not always about cosmetic appearance. There are many people who look absolutely > beautiful...flawless skin ect ect...and are dying or die beautiful > and healthy looking. I think often we have preconceived ideas about > beauty and healthy appearance. To be honest, most of the people I've > met who seem to have years of spiritual and nutritional experience > and feel GREAT...aren't exactly my idea of movie stars in >appearance. But then who am I to judge? If they feel great and are >happy with their appearance it really doesn't matter what anyone >else thinks. Well, you make a good point here, but I think it can on the whole be said fairly accurately what bad health looks like, and good health. Although of course there can be exceptions, where someone's body is generally healthy but they have a skin complaint, or where someone is lucky with their skin or weight but has problems with their internal organs. But these are exceptions rather than the rule. Also, when a person has years of spiritual and nutritional experience, it's kinda hard to say whether they feel great because of the food or the meditation (or whatever other spiritual practice). I've read about mega-advanced yogis dying riddled with cancer, but they feel great and happy all the way to the end, which is of course beautiful and inspirational. > You know I was going to respond to the rest of your message....but >it has become clear to me that it would be in vain. Your purpose >doesn't appear to be interested in sharing or exchanging ideas, you >seem to be " telling " others what is best for them, or trying to >convince others why what they believe may be wrong. It would have >been so much warmer to simply share the website link, and allow >others to take what benefits them from the article, or voluntarily >share their opinions with you. I invited people to share their opinions/corrections, while giving out the information I had found - if that isn't exchanging ideas then I don't know how I'm to ever remain blameless! I just didn't want outright spiteful attacks, although I guess that comes with the territory when you offer alternatives ideas/modifications to certain people's closely guarded dogmas. If I find out something that is a valid challenge to ideas that may harm people, or to put it other way find information that may help, then of course I will share it, it would be callous not to. I gave a synopsis of the site because I thought it would be useful, as not everyone would have the time to read through the whole thing, as it's not an 'article', as you wrongly put it, it's a website full of many interconnected articles. >However, the presentation was a bit cold to me. So...I'll let > others respond to the rest of your message...I've learned to simply > let go when it comes to those who are not willing to share > thoughts...vs...telling their own thoughts. Peace to you... This paragraph is very very hypocritical and fake, in my estimation. If you intended peace to me, both your reply and my subsequent response would have been very different. Look to yourself. Putting three dots after every sentence is not going to make you seem peaceful, laid-back or unattached, after that unwarranted and ill-advised tirade. By the way, I do not intend to clog up this forum with any more of this kind of thing, so if you want to attack me some more, email me personally. Graeme Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 1, 2004 Report Share Posted December 1, 2004 Hey there Alissa, rawfood , " Alissa " <health@l...> wrote: > >The whole idea that we " come from monkeys " is just that, a theory. >It has not been proven (and I am not a Christian or even a religious >person, so I don't think that we spontaneously arrived on the 6th day >or whatever), so to compare us to primates and their diets is >foolish. Well given that we're genotypically and phenotypically far more similar to them than any other group of living things on the Earth, don't you think it's at least likely? > Macrobiotics (which comes from the applauded, healthy > Asians) shuns the use of much fruit because it is so acidic and the > point (of more than just macrobiotics) is to alkalize your body. Not all asian populations are that healthy, but they will of course normally seem healthy in comparison to those on the SAD, until of course they adopt it themselves. Also, I've tried the macrobiotic diet, for a couple of years in fact, and I felt way worse than on my current diet - so I personally trust that experience. You of course don't have to. > As far as the " we are not pigeons, we are not cows, therefore we do >not need to eat grasses and cereals...!! " how many people do you >know that live on grass or birdseed?? Furthermore, cows are >herbivores. They aren't supposed to eat grain! I should state, for the record, that you're not quoting me here, you're quoting the website, which I never said represented me 100%. And unless I'm reading it out of context due to your cutting and pasting, the above does not expressly state that cows are supposed to eat grain. Read it again and you'll see what I mean. The point that Wai is making (I think) is that we are not equipped to digest or handle large amounts of fibre, as we don't have multiple stomachs, or a crop, nor do we chew the cud. Luckily we have fruit, hooray! > " Therefore humans did only start eating plants after having discovered how to use fire to prepare food. " (which they are really guessing here, were they there??) That's a good point. However, if you lived in the tropics, would you for preference eat fruit or raw plants? I know what I'd choose, but of course I leave everyone else's choices to them. Actually the primates (who you debate we're all that related to) seem to vary. The larger-brained primates seem to have a much higher proportion of fruit than vegetables, interestingly. > " There is not a single nutrient in vegetables or cereals, fruits do >not contain " well, you could turn that around and say " there is not >a single nutrient in fruits that veggies don't contain " . Its all >about how you choose to illustrate your point. Well the point being made is that fruits don't contain chemicals that bind to useful minerals. That's the difference. > And as far as certain veggies containing > chemicals that bind or leach, how do they know it is replicated in >the body? If caffeic acid sticks to a nutrient in a lab dish, how can >it be assumed that it is going to do the same inside your body? Well you can't assume it 100%, but it's likely, don't you think? > I have a hard time believing that veggies are full of bad things and >should be avoided. Yeah, I doubt they're as bad as meat and dairy. But that would only make them relatively healthy, and what if there's a diet that's relatively MORE healthy? >And if plants can suffer, than why don't apple trees scream > when we take their children, how do you know that pineapple isn't >secretly crying for its mother? Well, we don't, but the biological purpose of fruit is to help spread the seeds, so in those terms, the plants WANT us to eat the fruit. And if it is painful, well childbirth is also painful, but equally necessary. And children may cry for their mother, but it would be preposterous to advocate them staying in the womb. And er apple trees don't scream because they don't have mouths or vocal cords ;-D (please indulge my puny humour) > Rather, you should eat only raw eggs because you spared that >unfertilized embryo the misfortune of having it's beak cut off and >spending its life tortured in a tiny cage. Well not the eggs I'd eat, because I go for organic free-range. And I even feel ethically dubious about that. It's a minefield ain't it? > If you are going to think that plants are in misery because you ate >them, you are not going to have an enjoyable life, and will soon >start to feel bad for the tree that is imprisoned in the ground or >the living cotton fibers in your shirt. No, I just do the best I can, and try not to feel bad, as life's too short for such obsessive self-recrimination. Life in this world always feeds on other life, of whatever sort, unless it photosynthesizes or lives on minerals from deep-ocean trenches. And of course I don't feel bad for tree imprisoned in the ground, any more than I feel bad for dolphins 'imprisoned' in the oceans. It's just the natural habitat. And the fibres in my shirt aren't alive as far as I know - correct me if I'm wrong! Isn't cotton the fibres left over from the cotton plant flowering, or am I hopelessly wrong again? Thanks for your reply, I like being forced to think! Love and Light, Graeme Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 1, 2004 Report Share Posted December 1, 2004 Hi there Suzy, thanks fo the reply! I'll respond to points in your post as they come up: rawfood , " Sikora, Suzy " <sgaia@u...> wrote: > This seems counter-intuitive... but, rather than refute it, I just > have to question how nuts are less likely to 'inflict little wounds >in the digestive tract' than a well-chewed carrot or piece of celery. > I would be inclined to agree if I never chewed my food... if I > swallowed everything whole, then > certainly it might be true that my intestines might be in trouble > when whatever it was I ate > reached them. But, I ascribe to the " Drink your food and eat your > drink " maxim that tells us > digestion begins in the mouth, and the more work done on the front > end (so to speak) means > an easy time the rest of the way. When I say little wounds I mean miniscule. But on the cellular level this is still huge, enough to kill cells. Nuts and seeds contain a certain amount of fibre, but not as much as vegetables - so it's a matter of degree. But I agree, the more chewing, the better, it's just that one can never chew the fibre to a small enough level not to inflict damage by it's passage on the cellular scale. I have to admit that I have not seen proof of this point, but when I read about it, such damage seems inevitable, just mechanical necessity. Like how a bunch of our alveoli explode every time we cough. > Plants, however, have no brain (thinking) or nervous system >(feeling). Once I see evidence otherwise, I'll reconsider... Here you're assuming that conciousness and awareness are solely possessed by those with a brain and nervous system. However biologists and physicists recently discovered new possible mechanisms of communication and awareness via quantum coherence in the microtubules in each cell of the organism, which makes sense of the data indicting that plants react not only to damage, but to damage to nearby plants, and even to the intention of humans to harm them. It's interesting. > Storm and Jinjee look fantastic... but, they had a couple of other > people talking that didn't look so wonderful. In fact, they looked >as if they were starving or very ill -- extremely gaunt. I am just >starting this journey, and -of course- am looking for encouraging >signs that I'm on the right path. I'm looking for proponents of the >diet who seem vibrant and healthy, as they claim the diet will do for >us. Alissa Cohen and Shazzie, as well as Storm and Jinjee, all can > " sell " me on the benefits... but, someone who looks like they just >survived a concentration camp is going to make me a little skeptical. Yeah I find this issue fascinating. I wonder whether it's due to them having different kinds of raw diets, or other aspects of lifestyle that infringe on their health, or what? Health is obviously about more than just food. I think some people on raw diets might not eat enough, which makes sense as it's a lot more food to take in to get a similar amount of calories as on a cooked diet, and more effort, especially if it includes lots of fibrous vegetables. Personally I try and eat a hell of a lot, because I'm naturally slim anyway. I also love eating! > Well, flaxseeds are one of those wonderful sources of Omega 3 fatty > acids... which negates the necessity for that raw fish mentioned > > > earlier. That's a very good point, flax seeds (and hemp seeds I think) do contain Omega 3. However the proportion of omega 3, 6 and 9 to each other is also apparently important, which is where flax seeds fall down, although they are otherwise excellent. However I find them almost impossible to digest properly unless ground into powder. Seeds are designed to pass through the digestive tract, and seem to, unless really well chewed or ground up. I get the same thing happening with hemp and sunflower and pumpkin seeds. > I'm not going to quibble about how much heat is produced by friction > in my blender. Obviously it isn't enough to worry about or my >smoothies would never be as cold as they are when I drink them. This issue isn't the 'bulk' temperature of the smoothie when prepared, it's the localised heating that takes place at the leading edge of the blade, which has, locally, a similar effect to cooking. Having said that it's not as comprehensive an effect as cooking itself, and so not as bad. I still have smoothies every day, it's a good 'n' tasty way to consume ground-up seeds. > Again... have to agree. Juliano isn't looking too healthy to me... > but, I don't know that the reason could be attributed to using a >dehydrator anymore than I might attribute it to the fact that he >lives in sunny California and appears to be a sun worshipper. I would personally guess it's a combination of dehydrating, eating lots of raw grains, and abominable food combining. The sun I'm not sure about, it depends. I'm yet to be convinced that the sun is all that aging for the skin, unless you actually burn which is definitely cellular damage, radiation burns in fact. Many people find sensible sunbathing does wonders for their skin (myself included) not to mention happiness levels. I guess the jury's still out. > Well, I mentioned the flax seed earlier... and walnuts... are good > dietary sources of omega-3 fatty acids. As for cholesterol, our >body produces its own and enough of it that no other source > need be used to supplement it. Cats are obligate carnivores > (bird-head eating reference), and what they eat doesn't influence >my own diet. Again, I refer you back to my earlier omega-oils comment. When it comes to cholesterol, we use a lot of it because our brains are so big, and cholesterol is such a large component of brain tissue. Hence, human milk has much more cholesterol in it than other animal's milk - which shows we use dietary cholesterol from birth, i guess. We do produce our own cholesterol, but that doesn't mean we produce an optimal amount in the abscence of dietary sources. Interestingly, cholesterol levels are on average lower in suicide victims (or so I've read). > I do think this is an interesting discussion, and I hope more posters > respond with their take > on the points raised here. I'm interested to hear everyone's > viewpoint! Thanks Suzy, yours is probably the most well-balanced and intelligent response I've had so far. Thank you! Love and Light, Graeme Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 1, 2004 Report Share Posted December 1, 2004 Hi Valerie It's good that you're listening to your own body in this and not just preconceived dogma. My approach is to read about stuff, and if it seems reasonable, try it out to see if it works. If it doesn't, it falls by the wayside. Simple. I would agree that juiced veggies are probably better that whole, and a lot less effort too! A large part of the problem with veggies seems to be the fibre rather than the cytoplasm (juice!). This seems to be because a) excess fibre can over time incrementally damage the walls of the digestive tract b) bacterial decompostion of fibre causes gas, bloating etc and c) fibre inhibits that uptake of healthy dietary cholesterol (rather than the unhealthy kind in cooked foods). This last one is why companies push shredded wheat on us " because it reduces cholesterol " . But that's only any use when you're eating mostly bad forms of cholesterol from cooked and processed foods. Thanks for writing, Namaste, Graeme rawfood , Valerie Mills Daly <valdaly> wrote: > RE: veggies, including carrots. I find eat hard to eat a lot of veggies, so I juice carrots with celery, cucumber, apple and beets, and drink 2-4 glasses on most days, while trying to keep most of my other intake fruit and a few nuts and seeds (on the days I make it all raw! ). I feel much better when I have the juiced veggies, so I'm not worrying about it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 1, 2004 Report Share Posted December 1, 2004 On Wed, Dec 01, 2004 at 03:10:27PM -0000, Graeme wrote: > > Well the point being made is that fruits don't contain chemicals that > bind to useful minerals. That's the difference. Just for my clarity... you are saying that these chamicals are bad and prevent utilization by us right? And that fruits minerals are more avaiable do to lack of thse chemicals? I'm very interested in this topic... I am and have been leaning more and more towards fruit. If I did only what I felt like doing and did nothing out of some kind of obligation I would be a fruitarian. I have pretty much eaten veggies and leafy greens for the past time in a planned way. If I didn't plan my veggie meals they would just happen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 1, 2004 Report Share Posted December 1, 2004 rawfood , John de la Garza <john@j...> wrote: >I think he was just referring us to something to consider, I for one >really can relate to the info I do find to seem to be work to eat a >big veg salad, when it comes to fruit it is effortless If it works for " you " it's a good thing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 1, 2004 Report Share Posted December 1, 2004 rawfood , " Graeme " <kimonokraken> wrote: > By the way, I do not intend to clog up this forum with any more of > this kind of thing... Thank you..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 2, 2004 Report Share Posted December 2, 2004 Yes, that's my understanding anyway. I guess the thing to do is try it and see what it does for you. That's what I'm doing. Hope that clarifies it :-D Love and Light, Graeme > On Wed, Dec 01, 2004 at 03:10:27PM -0000, Graeme wrote: > > > > Well the point being made is that fruits don't contain chemicals that bind to useful minerals. > > Just for my clarity... you are saying that these chamicals are bad and > prevent utilization by us right? And that fruits minerals are more > avaiable do to lack of thse chemicals? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 4, 2004 Report Share Posted December 4, 2004 rawfood , " Graeme " <kimonokraken> wrote: > Again... have to agree. Juliano isn't looking too healthy to me... Someone could look at your gaunt profile photo and say the same about you? Some people are have a naturally slim build. I could never be in the public eye because people are too superficial and quick to criticize. http://www.planetraw.com/gallery/juliano/angel11_sml http://www.planetraw.com/gallery/juliano?page=3 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.