Frederic Patenaude's article

February 13, 2009

Thanks, Bro. Natural, for forwarding the article. I do understand the writer's frustration with all the misinformation that is out there. Although I have been similarly frustrated by all the opposing opinions and recommendations, I also appreciate it. As the raw food "movement" begins to have more and more opinions and schools of thought, the variety seems to be a byproduct of the growth, success and popularity of more diverse people choosing new ways of life. I would compare it to the art movement. A lot of people can be called artists although the methods, mediums, styles and tastes can be completely different (and not respected by other artists). I have been in California most of the past 12 months and have enjoyed trying all the raw food products and restaurants that are

readily available (even in some traditional grocery stores). I do agree with Patenaude that the majority of the restaurants do carry entrees heavy in nuts and oils. But these restaurants serve many purposes: 1, the raw imitations of favorite cooked entrees entice cooked food eaters to be exposed to some thing new (would a bowl of bananas excite a "normal" eater into increasing their raw food intake to a high percentage, I think not) and 2, these restaurants allow people who prefer to eat raw foods to have options for special occasions, cravings, etc and 3, a person who prefers to not eat a bunch of fat laden raw entrees can ask for whatever fresh veggies/fruits they want whether they are on the menu or not (but these restaurants do have them available and do not look at you strange when you make such requests). Basically, these restaurants seem to serve the same purpose as any restaurant--a place to get some thing for a special occasion, a place to eat

what you are accustomed to eating when you don't have your own food available, a place to be social or to enjoy the culinary creations and vision of a specific chef or owner. Most of the time, people really serious about their diets and their wallets do not depend on restaurants to be their food and nutrition conscience so I don't put that responsibility on raw restaurants just like I don't put it on ones that feature the standard American diet. Unless we are going to close down every restaurant and store that doesn't fit our specific ideal, last time I checked, people have choices and resources to make their own decisions as to what is best for them. Perhaps, if there is a specific way that Patenaude believes is healthier for most individuals, his program can be labeled some thing else exclusive of the raw food title. He can describe it as some type of healthy living "recommended" plan that happens to promote a simpler, raw diet. Why should he

have exclusive rights to using the raw food title when any thing raw can be labeled as such? Yeah, it might not seem right but for him to say that his way is better than the other ways is no different than a grafitti or contemporary artist trying to discredit all photographic or abstract artists. They all have the right to be in the same category whether others like it or not.

February 14, 2009

Great points Katrina. I also believe our bodies having differing needs. I for one would not do well without oils and fat in my diet. Danalyn--- On Fri, 2/13/09, katrina wilson <katdivine87 wrote:katrina wilson <katdivine87 Frederic Patenaude's article Date: Friday, February 13, 2009, 3:29 PM

Thanks, Bro. Natural, for forwarding the article. I do understand the writer's frustration with all the misinformation that is out there. Although I have been similarly frustrated by all the opposing opinions and recommendations, I also appreciate it. As the raw food "movement" begins to have more and more opinions and schools of thought, the variety seems to be a byproduct of the growth, success and popularity of more diverse people choosing new ways of life. I would compare it to the art movement. A lot of people can be called artists although the methods, mediums, styles and tastes can be completely different (and not respected by other artists). I have been in California most of the past 12 months and have enjoyed trying all the raw food products and restaurants that are

readily available (even in some traditional grocery stores). I do agree with Patenaude that the majority of the restaurants do carry entrees heavy in nuts and oils. But these restaurants serve many purposes: 1, the raw imitations of favorite cooked entrees entice cooked food eaters to be exposed to some thing new (would a bowl of bananas excite a "normal" eater into increasing their raw food intake to a high percentage, I think not) and 2, these restaurants allow people who prefer to eat raw foods to have options for special occasions, cravings, etc and 3, a person who prefers to not eat a bunch of fat laden raw entrees can ask for whatever fresh veggies/fruits they want whether they are on the menu or not (but these restaurants do have them available and do not look at you strange when you make such requests). Basically, these restaurants seem to serve the same purpose as any restaurant-- a place to get some thing for a special occasion, a place to eat

what you are accustomed to eating when you don't have your own food available, a place to be social or to enjoy the culinary creations and vision of a specific chef or owner. Most of the time, people really serious about their diets and their wallets do not depend on restaurants to be their food and nutrition conscience so I don't put that responsibility on raw restaurants just like I don't put it on ones that feature the standard American diet. Unless we are going to close down every restaurant and store that doesn't fit our specific ideal, last time I checked, people have choices and resources to make their own decisions as to what is best for them. Perhaps, if there is a specific way that Patenaude believes is healthier for most individuals, his program can be labeled some thing else exclusive of the raw food title. He can describe it as some type of healthy living "recommended" plan that happens to promote a simpler, raw diet. Why should he

have exclusive rights to using the raw food title when any thing raw can be labeled as such? Yeah, it might not seem right but for him to say that his way is better than the other ways is no different than a grafitti or contemporary artist trying to discredit all photographic or abstract artists. They all have the right to be in the same category whether others like it or not.

February 14, 2009

KATRINA I LOVE THE WAY YOU THINK

CRITICAL / ANALYTICAL / OBJECTIVE / INCISIVE / SHARP.

KEEP ME INFORMED OF YOUR CALENDAR OF EVENTS / PRODUCTS / SERVICES / ETC.

DR.NATURAL

718-783-3465

From: katdivine87Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2009 12:29:27 -0800 Frederic Patenaude's article

Thanks, Bro. Natural, for forwarding the article. I do understand the writer's frustration with all the misinformation that is out there. Although I have been similarly frustrated by all the opposing opinions and recommendations, I also appreciate it. As the raw food "movement" begins to have more and more opinions and schools of thought, the variety seems to be a byproduct of the growth, success and popularity of more diverse people choosing new ways of life. I would compare it to the art movement. A lot of people can be called artists although the methods, mediums, styles and tastes can be completely different (and not respected by other artists). I have been in California most of the past 12 months and have enjoyed trying all the raw food products and restaurants that are readily available (even in some traditional grocery stores). I do agree with Patenaude that the majority of the restaurants do carry entrees heavy in nuts and oils. But these restaurants serve many purposes: 1, the raw imitations of favorite cooked entrees entice cooked food eaters to be exposed to some thing new (would a bowl of bananas excite a "normal" eater into increasing their raw food intake to a high percentage, I think not) and 2, these restaurants allow people who prefer to eat raw foods to have options for special occasions, cravings, etc and 3, a person who prefers to not eat a bunch of fat laden raw entrees can ask for whatever fresh veggies/fruits they want whether they are on the menu or not (but these restaurants do have them available and do not look at you strange when you make such requests). Basically, these restaurants seem to serve the same purpose as any restaurant--a place to get some thing for a special occasion, a place to eat what you are accustomed to eating when you don't have your own food available, a place to be social or to enjoy the culinary creations and vision of a specific chef or owner. Most of the time, people really serious about their diets and their wallets do not depend on restaurants to be their food and nutrition conscience so I don't put that responsibility on raw restaurants just like I don't put it on ones that feature the standard American diet. Unless we are going to close down every restaurant and store that doesn't fit our specific ideal, last time I checked, people have choices and resources to make their own decisions as to what is best for them. Perhaps, if there is a specific way that Patenaude believes is healthier for most individuals, his program can be labeled some thing else exclusive of the raw food title. He can describe it as some type of healthy living "recommended" plan that happens to promote a simpler, raw diet. Why should he have exclusive rights to using the raw food title when any thing raw can be labeled as such? Yeah, it might not seem right but for him to say that his way is better than the other ways is no different than a grafitti or contemporary artist trying to discredit all photographic or abstract artists. They all have the right to be in the same category whether others like it or not.

Windows Live™: E-mail. Chat. Share. Get more ways to connect. See how it works.