Article: Raw food heats up some pros and cons

[Guest guest]

Wed, Aug. 24, 2005

 

Raw food heats up some pros and cons

 

By Marilynn Marter

Knight Ridder Newspapers

 

Raw food as an alternative lifestyle has been promoted since the

'50s. In recent years, the success of raw-food restaurants in

California has spread the concept nationwide.

 

With Raw (Ten Speed Press, 2003), two visionary chefs -- Charlie

Trotter in Chicago, Roxanne Klein in San Francisco -- created a

landmark volume celebrating raw food, giving it gourmet glam and

nudging it into the culinary mainstream.

 

Certainly, eating some raw food is natural and healthful; raw-food

vegetarian diets can promote health and healing. But questions of

long-term success, and possible vitamin deficiencies, remain. Face

it, the concept runs counter to evolution and thousands of years of

cooking.

 

 

Also from the article:

Katherine Tallmadge, spokeswoman for the American Dietetic

Association, has said that a raw food diet is apt to be

nutrient-poor, protein-deficient and ``dangerous,''

 

 

Full story:

http://www.ohio.com/mld/ohio/living/food/12460765.htm

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Hello!

 

If interested, here is my email to the editor regarding their raw food article.

 

Here is the email address for anyone else who is interested in

commenting on the article:

Letters to Voice of the People (letter to the editor) vop

 

Jeff

 

 

 

Regarding:

Raw food heats up some pros and cons

Wed, Aug. 24, 2005

By Marilynn Marter

Knight Ridder Newspapers

http://www.ohio.com/mld/ohio/living/food/12460765.htm

 

Dear editor,

 

Thank you for the interesting article on raw foods. It raised some

thoughts for me. Ms Marter made the following comment about raw food:

 

>Face it, the concept runs counter to evolution and thousands of

>years of cooking.

 

Science suggests we have evolved for 400 million years or more.

" Thousands of years " is miniscule compared to the entire time we have

been here, in one form or another. Even early humans were around at

least 35 million years. That means that, by far, the majority of our

evolution had humans consuming raw diets (no cooked foods at all!)

Considering our white blood counts increase as a result of consuming

cooked foods (digestive leukocytosis,) but not raw foods, it sounds

like " evolution " has not properly adapted us to eating cooked foods.

Yes, our bodies will do their best with whatever we feed them, but

the habits of today's majority does not mean that cooked food is the

ideal. Considering, all the reported health benefits from

testimonials from those trying raw food diets, it seems we should not

necessarily look at the advent of " cooking " as a positive thing.

 

Included in Ms. Marter's article was the following:

>Katherine Tallmadge, spokeswoman for the American Dietetic

>Association, has said that a raw food diet is apt to be

>nutrient-poor, protein-deficient and ``dangerous,'

 

I don't know if Ms. Tallmadge has been paying attention to all the

information available about raw foods, including testimonials, but

whole, raw, organic produce is nutrient dense (yes, including

proteins and amino acids!) Raw foodists, though more slender than

average Americans, are extremely healthy and appear to have far less

incidents of disease, including colds and flues (it is common for raw

foodists to stop getting colds and flues. Many have overcome

hypertension and even cancer, among other diseases!) From what I have

learned from raw foodists, as well as vegetarians, vegans, and those

on a standard American diet, is that the most " dangerous " diet is the

latter!

 

Sincerely,

 

Jeff Rogers

Seattle, WA

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Thanks, Jeff. Excellent letter!

 

Judy Pokras

_www.RawFoodsNewsMagazine.com_ (http://www.RawFoodsNewsMagazine.com)

 

 

In a message dated 8/28/2005 2:06:39 AM Eastern Standard Time,

jeff writes:

 

Hello!

 

If interested, here is my email to the editor regarding their raw food

article.

 

Here is the email address for anyone else who is interested in

commenting on the article:

Letters to Voice of the People (letter to the editor)

vop

 

Jeff

 

 

 

Regarding:

Raw food heats up some pros and cons

Wed, Aug. 24, 2005

By Marilynn Marter

Knight Ridder Newspapers

http://www.ohio.com/mld/ohio/living/food/12460765.htm

 

Dear editor,

 

Thank you for the interesting article on raw foods. It raised some

thoughts for me. Ms Marter made the following comment about raw food:

 

>Face it, the concept runs counter to evolution and thousands of

>years of cooking.

 

Science suggests we have evolved for 400 million years or more.

" Thousands of years " is miniscule compared to the entire time we have

been here, in one form or another. Even early humans were around at

least 35 million years. That means that, by far, the majority of our

evolution had humans consuming raw diets (no cooked foods at all!)

Considering our white blood counts increase as a result of consuming

cooked foods (digestive leukocytosis,) but not raw foods, it sounds

like " evolution " has not properly adapted us to eating cooked foods.

Yes, our bodies will do their best with whatever we feed them, but

the habits of today's majority does not mean that cooked food is the

ideal. Considering, all the reported health benefits from

testimonials from those trying raw food diets, it seems we should not

necessarily look at the advent of " cooking " as a positive thing.

 

Included in Ms. Marter's article was the following:

>Katherine Tallmadge, spokeswoman for the American Dietetic

>Association, has said that a raw food diet is apt to be

>nutrient-poor, protein-deficient and ``dangerous,'

 

I don't know if Ms. Tallmadge has been paying attention to all the

information available about raw foods, including testimonials, but

whole, raw, organic produce is nutrient dense (yes, including

proteins and amino acids!) Raw foodists, though more slender than

average Americans, are extremely healthy and appear to have far less

incidents of disease, including colds and flues (it is common for raw

foodists to stop getting colds and flues. Many have overcome

hypertension and even cancer, among other diseases!) From what I have

learned from raw foodists, as well as vegetarians, vegans, and those

on a standard American diet, is that the most " dangerous " diet is the

latter!

 

Sincerely,

 

Jeff Rogers

Seattle, WA

 

 

 

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

YES! Awesome letter, Jeff! Thank you for sharing!!

 

Jeff Rogers <jeff wrote:Hello!

 

If interested, here is my email to the editor regarding their raw food article.

 

Here is the email address for anyone else who is interested in

commenting on the article:

Letters to Voice of the People (letter to the editor) vop

 

Jeff

 

 

 

Regarding:

Raw food heats up some pros and cons

Wed, Aug. 24, 2005

By Marilynn Marter

Knight Ridder Newspapers

http://www.ohio.com/mld/ohio/living/food/12460765.htm

 

Dear editor,

 

Thank you for the interesting article on raw foods. It raised some

thoughts for me. Ms Marter made the following comment about raw food:

 

>Face it, the concept runs counter to evolution and thousands of

>years of cooking.

 

Science suggests we have evolved for 400 million years or more.

" Thousands of years " is miniscule compared to the entire time we have

been here, in one form or another. Even early humans were around at

least 35 million years. That means that, by far, the majority of our

evolution had humans consuming raw diets (no cooked foods at all!)

Considering our white blood counts increase as a result of consuming

cooked foods (digestive leukocytosis,) but not raw foods, it sounds

like " evolution " has not properly adapted us to eating cooked foods.

Yes, our bodies will do their best with whatever we feed them, but

the habits of today's majority does not mean that cooked food is the

ideal. Considering, all the reported health benefits from

testimonials from those trying raw food diets, it seems we should not

necessarily look at the advent of " cooking " as a positive thing.

 

Included in Ms. Marter's article was the following:

>Katherine Tallmadge, spokeswoman for the American Dietetic

>Association, has said that a raw food diet is apt to be

>nutrient-poor, protein-deficient and ``dangerous,'

 

I don't know if Ms. Tallmadge has been paying attention to all the

information available about raw foods, including testimonials, but

whole, raw, organic produce is nutrient dense (yes, including

proteins and amino acids!) Raw foodists, though more slender than

average Americans, are extremely healthy and appear to have far less

incidents of disease, including colds and flues (it is common for raw

foodists to stop getting colds and flues. Many have overcome

hypertension and even cancer, among other diseases!) From what I have

learned from raw foodists, as well as vegetarians, vegans, and those

on a standard American diet, is that the most " dangerous " diet is the

latter!

 

Sincerely,

 

Jeff Rogers

Seattle, WA