Guest guest Posted April 9, 2005 Report Share Posted April 9, 2005 ________________________ COPYRIGHT NOTICE Copyright under Natural Law and Common Law, 5765 (2005 CE) by The Office of the Presiding Chaplain of Vibrant Life and His/Her Successors, a Corporation Sole. All rights reserved. Permission is hereby granted to any natural man, woman, or child to excerpt or use all or any portion of the following text for any noncommercial purpose whatsoever, subject to the following conditions: 1. Any portion excerpted must be sufficiently complete to assure no loss of meaning or context. 2. The man, woman or child excerpting or otherwise using all or any portion hereof must place the following (or substantially similar) text prominently and in close proximity to the material excerpted or used: Written by Elchanan. Copyright under Natural Law and Common Law, 5765 (2005 CE) by The Office of the Presiding Chaplain of Vibrant Life and His/Her Successors, a Corporation Sole. All rights reserved. ________________________ As a species, we are designed to chew, and we are designed to eat one food at a time. In fact, our primary satiation mechanism (in the mouth) works ONLY when we consume one food at a time AND chew the food. These are optimal approaches to eating for our species, anything else is suboptimal, under most circumstances. Whenever you take someone whose diet has been, say, a 2 or 3 on an imaginary 10 point scale, and you feed that person even a 4 or 5, their health will improve noticeably. But this does not mean the 4/5 is optimal, only that it is sufficiently superior to make an immediate and palpable improvement. I am not saying Ann's diet was a 4 or 5, quite the contrary, I am only attempting to create a context in which to consider the topic at hand. For all her wisdom, the late and beloved Ann Wigmore, referenced below, appears never to have grasped this point or at least not to have considered it important. None of us entered the world with a blender any more than we entered the world with a stove. Blending is fine under certain circumstances, but blending does not explain Ann's success. Her success arose from feeding people a diet so far superior to what they had been eating that they could only improve dramatically and quickly. However, this did not occur primarily because of blending, but rather because of the replacement of depleting substances with nourishing substances. This principle is utterly basic, and therefore easily overlooked. As a species, we seem inclined to overlook the obvious, by which I mean simply, that which is in harmony with Nature's design, and give ourselves credit for the brilliance of our own inventions (I like the phrase " concoctions of the forebrain " ) instead. We are indeed a wonderfully curious and inventive species, but we have not ever transcended Nature itself. Ann was attempting to use rejuvelac as a supplement. But those of us who use no supplements at all provide a living testament to the absence of any need for them and the fallacy of claims made on their behalf. Further, the notion that the tiny quantity of vitamin E in a gallon of rejuvelac somehow prevents oxidation is preposterous chemistry. The creation of rejuvelac is a fermentation process, plain and simple, just as any other fermentation process, and if you let it run an extra day or two, you get " champagne, " by which I mean measurable alcohol content, bubbles and all ( " carbonation " ), just as with any fermentation process. In this sense, it is no different than making beer or wine, only the ingredients at the start are different, and not really much so, in comparison with beer. Also, though not the topic of this post, the whole enzyme-in-raw-food notion, which Ann and so many others have all adopted from the work of Dr. Howell, is misguided and just plain poor science. The body MUST secrete virtually all the enzymes required to digest food, cooked or raw, because of the timing involved. And in any event, the act of blending, particularly at high speed, introduces significant oxidation, which if anything may damage not only enzymes but many nutrients, in comparison with their state in any whole, unblended food. (Blending literally whips air into the food. This approach, in fact, resembles how most modern " ice cream " is made!!) So I suggest that we all blend for convenience or for enjoyment, but that in the main we eat whole food the way Nature makes it, not the way Ann Wigmore or any other human prescribes. Best to all, Elchanan _____ Dale writes: Ann Wigmore wrote a book, " The Blending Book " . Here are some quotes: " Blending is the easiest and most efficient way to provide food that is both nourishings and easy to digest. By blending foods, we can counteract the poor eating habits most of us have developed over the years, and that are the cause of many of the physical problems we have. " page 7 " Blending living foods with Rejuvelac, for example, prevents the loss of vitamins because the vitamin E in the Rejuvelac acts as an antioxidant. Adding shredded carrots, zucchini, or other vegetables to your blending mixture will provide extra fiber, which is very important for digestive health. " Page 8 " The most important key to health is to use blended foods in small amounts frequently throughout the day. I realize that this may seem drastic, but if you are serious about maintaining or restoring your health, I can assure you that this is the most beneficial way. " pages 8-9 She goes on to say, " I have seen so many students come to my centers with all kinds of diseases. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that every one of these people suffer from an inability to assimilate nourishment, which leads to deficiencies and illness. When easy-to-digest, high-energy blended foods are provided, the changes in their health are immediate. " page 9. She also says, " My personal opinion is that a diet should consist of 70 percent blended foods and 30 percent other living foods. But each person has a different system and different needs; one must learn to listen to his or her own body. " Page 11. Dr. Ann said, " I cannot emphasize enough the importance of blended foods in order to give the body a chance to assimilate nourishment to supply the missing elements. " Page 20. " By blending fresh, raw, organically grown foods, we not only relieve our metabolic enzymes of extra job of digestion, but we add to the store of enzymes in our body. Another advantage of blending is that a very satisfying meal can be obtained from a relative small amount of food. This further relieves the enzymes in the digestive tract and avoids the overworking of a longoverburdened system. " Page 25. What blender did Ann Wigmore use? " At the Ann Wigmore Foundation, we use a Vita-Mix blender; I have found that this is the best blender to use in the long run. " Page 35. -- ---------------------[ Ciphire Signature ]---------------------- vlinfo signed email body (5614 characters) on 09 April 2005 at 15:56:57 UTC rawfood ------------------------------- : Ciphire has secured this email against identity theft. : Free download at www.ciphire.com. The garbled lines : below are the sender's verifiable digital signature. ------------------------------- 00fAAAAAEAAABJ+1dC7hUAAF0DAAIAAgACACBZ36NZd8ice9rJ4ZlYrt6BrEjH8O zzmKDQLsTNDUWDmAEAhgSkE5NuzzvORJkeFIi/NVXB9GCG1XVfaMj+yPGZ0X2etA joVDBGpmolahibeq0d2JGq/hgvjTYHiro23QdhUA== ------------------[ End Ciphire Signed Message ]---------------- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 9, 2005 Report Share Posted April 9, 2005 Excellent...thank you for the whole article! Especially helpful was your point about any improvement in diet showing up as an improvement in life, but does not necessarily mean an optimal way of life. That absolutely reflects my life experience....every time I changed something for the better, there was definite improvement, but I would always find I would hit a kind of " limit. " I still love my smoothies, but I'm increasing the amount of chewable foods, and saving myself some dishwashing to boot! Peace, Valerie " INFO @ Vibrant Life " <VLinfo wrote: As a species, we are designed to chew, and we are designed to eat one food at a time. In fact, our primary satiation mechanism (in the mouth) works ONLY when we consume one food at a time AND chew the food. These are optimal approaches to eating for our species, anything else is suboptimal, under most circumstances. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 9, 2005 Report Share Posted April 9, 2005 Wow!!!!!!!!!! " INFO @ Vibrant Life " <VLinfo wrote:________________________ COPYRIGHT NOTICE Copyright under Natural Law and Common Law, 5765 (2005 CE) by The Office of the Presiding Chaplain of Vibrant Life and His/Her Successors, a Corporation Sole. All rights reserved. Permission is hereby granted to any natural man, woman, or child to excerpt or use all or any portion of the following text for any noncommercial purpose whatsoever, subject to the following conditions: 1. Any portion excerpted must be sufficiently complete to assure no loss of meaning or context. 2. The man, woman or child excerpting or otherwise using all or any portion hereof must place the following (or substantially similar) text prominently and in close proximity to the material excerpted or used: Written by Elchanan. Copyright under Natural Law and Common Law, 5765 (2005 CE) by The Office of the Presiding Chaplain of Vibrant Life and His/Her Successors, a Corporation Sole. All rights reserved. ________________________ As a species, we are designed to chew, and we are designed to eat one food at a time. In fact, our primary satiation mechanism (in the mouth) works ONLY when we consume one food at a time AND chew the food. These are optimal approaches to eating for our species, anything else is suboptimal, under most circumstances. Whenever you take someone whose diet has been, say, a 2 or 3 on an imaginary 10 point scale, and you feed that person even a 4 or 5, their health will improve noticeably. But this does not mean the 4/5 is optimal, only that it is sufficiently superior to make an immediate and palpable improvement. I am not saying Ann's diet was a 4 or 5, quite the contrary, I am only attempting to create a context in which to consider the topic at hand. For all her wisdom, the late and beloved Ann Wigmore, referenced below, appears never to have grasped this point or at least not to have considered it important. None of us entered the world with a blender any more than we entered the world with a stove. Blending is fine under certain circumstances, but blending does not explain Ann's success. Her success arose from feeding people a diet so far superior to what they had been eating that they could only improve dramatically and quickly. However, this did not occur primarily because of blending, but rather because of the replacement of depleting substances with nourishing substances. This principle is utterly basic, and therefore easily overlooked. As a species, we seem inclined to overlook the obvious, by which I mean simply, that which is in harmony with Nature's design, and give ourselves credit for the brilliance of our own inventions (I like the phrase " concoctions of the forebrain " ) instead. We are indeed a wonderfully curious and inventive species, but we have not ever transcended Nature itself. Ann was attempting to use rejuvelac as a supplement. But those of us who use no supplements at all provide a living testament to the absence of any need for them and the fallacy of claims made on their behalf. Further, the notion that the tiny quantity of vitamin E in a gallon of rejuvelac somehow prevents oxidation is preposterous chemistry. The creation of rejuvelac is a fermentation process, plain and simple, just as any other fermentation process, and if you let it run an extra day or two, you get " champagne, " by which I mean measurable alcohol content, bubbles and all ( " carbonation " ), just as with any fermentation process. In this sense, it is no different than making beer or wine, only the ingredients at the start are different, and not really much so, in comparison with beer. Also, though not the topic of this post, the whole enzyme-in-raw-food notion, which Ann and so many others have all adopted from the work of Dr. Howell, is misguided and just plain poor science. The body MUST secrete virtually all the enzymes required to digest food, cooked or raw, because of the timing involved. And in any event, the act of blending, particularly at high speed, introduces significant oxidation, which if anything may damage not only enzymes but many nutrients, in comparison with their state in any whole, unblended food. (Blending literally whips air into the food. This approach, in fact, resembles how most modern " ice cream " is made!!) So I suggest that we all blend for convenience or for enjoyment, but that in the main we eat whole food the way Nature makes it, not the way Ann Wigmore or any other human prescribes. Best to all, Elchanan _____ Dale writes: Ann Wigmore wrote a book, " The Blending Book " . Here are some quotes: " Blending is the easiest and most efficient way to provide food that is both nourishings and easy to digest. By blending foods, we can counteract the poor eating habits most of us have developed over the years, and that are the cause of many of the physical problems we have. " page 7 " Blending living foods with Rejuvelac, for example, prevents the loss of vitamins because the vitamin E in the Rejuvelac acts as an antioxidant. Adding shredded carrots, zucchini, or other vegetables to your blending mixture will provide extra fiber, which is very important for digestive health. " Page 8 " The most important key to health is to use blended foods in small amounts frequently throughout the day. I realize that this may seem drastic, but if you are serious about maintaining or restoring your health, I can assure you that this is the most beneficial way. " pages 8-9 She goes on to say, " I have seen so many students come to my centers with all kinds of diseases. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that every one of these people suffer from an inability to assimilate nourishment, which leads to deficiencies and illness. When easy-to-digest, high-energy blended foods are provided, the changes in their health are immediate. " page 9. She also says, " My personal opinion is that a diet should consist of 70 percent blended foods and 30 percent other living foods. But each person has a different system and different needs; one must learn to listen to his or her own body. " Page 11. Dr. Ann said, " I cannot emphasize enough the importance of blended foods in order to give the body a chance to assimilate nourishment to supply the missing elements. " Page 20. " By blending fresh, raw, organically grown foods, we not only relieve our metabolic enzymes of extra job of digestion, but we add to the store of enzymes in our body. Another advantage of blending is that a very satisfying meal can be obtained from a relative small amount of food. This further relieves the enzymes in the digestive tract and avoids the overworking of a longoverburdened system. " Page 25. What blender did Ann Wigmore use? " At the Ann Wigmore Foundation, we use a Vita-Mix blender; I have found that this is the best blender to use in the long run. " Page 35. -- ---------------------[ Ciphire Signature ]---------------------- vlinfo signed email body (5614 characters) on 09 April 2005 at 15:56:57 UTC rawfood ------------------------------- : Ciphire has secured this email against identity theft. : Free download at www.ciphire.com. The garbled lines : below are the sender's verifiable digital signature. ------------------------------- 00fAAAAAEAAABJ+1dC7hUAAF0DAAIAAgACACBZ36NZd8ice9rJ4ZlYrt6BrEjH8O zzmKDQLsTNDUWDmAEAhgSkE5NuzzvORJkeFIi/NVXB9GCG1XVfaMj+yPGZ0X2etA joVDBGpmolahibeq0d2JGq/hgvjTYHiro23QdhUA== ------------------[ End Ciphire Signed Message ]---------------- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 9, 2005 Report Share Posted April 9, 2005 >>Elchanan wrote: > As a species, we are designed to chew, and we are > designed to eat one food > at a time.<< What evidence do we have of this? How do we know that the earliest humans didn't pick some almonds fresh from the tree, pick a nearby fruit and some wild greens, assemble them altogether on a rock somewhere and then sat down to enjoy a delicious raw meal? >In fact, our primary satiation mechanism > (in the mouth) works > ONLY when we consume one food at a time AND chew the > food. Do you mean that when we monomeal our body knows that it's satisfied when it's really satisfied, as opposed to overeating to please appetite which is what most of us do and what our culture encourages? Again, what evidence do you have of this? How can this be measured in a society when our appetites and eating habits have been perverted since we were very young? > > Whenever you take someone whose diet has been, say, > a 2 or 3 on an imaginary > 10 point scale, and you feed that person even a 4 or > 5, their health will > improve noticeably. But this does not mean the 4/5 > is optimal, only that it > is sufficiently superior to make an immediate and > palpable improvement. I am > not saying Ann's diet was a 4 or 5, quite the > contrary, I am only attempting > to create a context in which to consider the topic > at hand. > Okay, so if Ann's diet -- which cured people of their cancer and helped lead them to vibrant health -- isn't a ten (bc any diet that includes blended foods is suboptimal in your estimation -- then what exactly our we aiming for here with our diet -- total and complete nirvana? Immortality? >>>None of us entered the world with a > blender any more than we > entered the world with a stove.<< In the beginning, humankind also did not enter into a world saturated with pesticides, pollution and other toxins. If blended food helps people digest their nutrients better than whole food bc of our compromised digestive systems (from years of eating SAD) and compromised immune systems, then maybe the optimal diet for a suboptimal world does include blended foods. Not trying to be a " noodge, " I'm just trying to understand. Thanks, swinbolder Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 9, 2005 Report Share Posted April 9, 2005 Valerie writes: Excellent...thank you for the whole article! Especially helpful was your point about any improvement in diet showing up as an improvement in life, but does not necessarily mean an optimal way of life. That absolutely reflects my life experience....every time I changed something for the better, there was definite improvement, but I would always find I would hit a kind of " limit. " I still love my smoothies, but I'm increasing the amount of chewable foods, and saving myself some dishwashing to boot! _____ Well heck, let's also remember that ANY smoothie ANY of us would ever create is a huge improvement over what ALL of us probably used to eat! Elchanan -- ---------------------[ Ciphire Signature ]---------------------- vlinfo signed email body (561 characters) on 09 April 2005 at 21:29:21 UTC rawfood ------------------------------- : Ciphire has secured this email against identity theft. : Free download at www.ciphire.com. The garbled lines : below are the sender's verifiable digital signature. ------------------------------- 00fAAAAAEAAAAxSVhCMQIAAMQBAAIAAgACACBZ36NZd8ice9rJ4ZlYrt6BrEjH8O zzmKDQLsTNDUWDmAEAhgSkE5NuzzvORJkeFIi/NVXB9GCG1XVfaMj+yPGZ0X2eaa QLpixGbjuZeyLSJmbEu4mCKKtgcyCdWhUNNOBMQw== ------------------[ End Ciphire Signed Message ]---------------- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 9, 2005 Report Share Posted April 9, 2005 Hi there, You are not a noodge (sp??) at all! I really appreciate your questions. I have company arriving and will respond in a day or two, just want to let you know. Best, Elchanan swing bolder [swingbolder] Saturday, April 09, 2005 2:22 PM rawfood RE: [Raw Food] Chewing vs. Blending >>Elchanan wrote: > As a species, we are designed to chew, and we are > designed to eat one food > at a time.<< What evidence do we have of this? How do we know that the earliest humans didn't pick some almonds fresh from the tree, pick a nearby fruit and some wild greens, assemble them altogether on a rock somewhere and then sat down to enjoy a delicious raw meal? snip snip -- ---------------------[ Ciphire Signature ]---------------------- vlinfo signed email body (618 characters) on 09 April 2005 at 22:30:24 UTC rawfood ------------------------------- : Ciphire has secured this email against identity theft. : Free download at www.ciphire.com. The garbled lines : below are the sender's verifiable digital signature. ------------------------------- 00fAAAAAEAAACAV1hCagIAAFoCAAIAAgACACBZ36NZd8ice9rJ4ZlYrt6BrEjH8O zzmKDQLsTNDUWDmAEAhgSkE5NuzzvORJkeFIi/NVXB9GCG1XVfaMj+yPGZ0X0TKi FDCeT4Igk4OwZq99Ulo+WyYYdInn865ei7BuES6A== ------------------[ End Ciphire Signed Message ]---------------- 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.