What I Think of Raw Foodism and Dr. Phil for that matter

[Guest guest]

Just another faddish trend and fake diet to sell books.

 

On Wednesday, July 7, 2004, at 05:36 AM,

wrote:

 

> Message: 7

> Wed, 07 Jul 2004 08:31:15 -0000

> " Stephen " <tanan603

> Raw Food

>

> Hello Guys

> What do you guys think about " Raw Foodism " and is there one among

> you?

>

>

Oh, I love God; he's so deliciously evil.

--Stewie the baby on FAMILY GUY

(Seth MacFarland, cartoonist)

[Guest guest]

i would dispute you there. i've incorporated more raw & fermented (living0

foods into my diet and i'm feeling much better & cleaner for it. i don't think

i could ever go 100% though because there are some things that i just like

cooked.

 

Megan Milligan

Desert Rose Musings (www.desertrosemusings.com) (parts still under construction)

Cal-Neva Animal Rescue (www.desertrosemusings.com/calnevarescue/index.htm)

-

The Stewarts

Wednesday, July 07, 2004 6:52 AM

What I Think of Raw Foodism and Dr. Phil for

that matter

 

 

Just another faddish trend and fake diet to sell books.

 

> Raw Food

>

> Hello Guys

> What do you guys think about " Raw Foodism " and is there one among

> you?

 

 

[Guest guest]

A raw food diet, or faw foodism as you call it, is not a fad, and is how man was

intended to eat. read the essene works and some other ancient writings. The more

raw food you eat that contains live enzymes the less enzymes you body must

manufacture to digest your food. Thus improving and sustaining life. Without

eating at least some raw food, your body would age at a remarkable rate. The

more raw food you can eat the better for you, and as far as Dr. Phil is

concerned I AGREE!!! although Ihave not hear his espouse a raw food diet!!

 

The Stewarts <stews9 wrote:Just another faddish trend and fake diet to

sell books.

 

On Wednesday, July 7, 2004, at 05:36 AM,

wrote:

 

> Message: 7

> Wed, 07 Jul 2004 08:31:15 -0000

> " Stephen " <tanan603

> Raw Food

>

> Hello Guys

> What do you guys think about " Raw Foodism " and is there one among

> you?

>

>

Oh, I love God; he's so deliciously evil.

--Stewie the baby on FAMILY GUY

(Seth MacFarland, cartoonist)

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Mark Jackson <thesportsguru47 wrote:

 

>A raw food diet, or faw foodism as you call it, is not a fad, >and is how man

was intended to eat.

 

Funny, I hear the same thing from meat eaters all the time, regarding their way

of eating.

 

>read the essene works and some other ancient writings.

 

To which essene works and other ancient writings do you refer? You need to be

more specific.

 

>The more raw food you eat that contains live enzymes the less >enzymes you body

must manufacture to digest your food.

 

Not all raw foods contain " live enzymes " to aid digestion (milk is an

exception.) In fact, most vegetables are most easily digestible raw when they

are, by human standards, " overripe, " and even then, most of them are not as

digestible as they are cooked. Cooking actually breaks down most of the

undigestible matter in food- it makes food more digestible than it was when it

was raw, which is why early humans started cooking food. They found that cooked

food was more easily digestible.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Your argument is specious. Comparing cooked food and eating meat is like

comparing apples and oranges. I refer specifically to the essene writings. The

essenes were a sect of jews and were prolific record keepers. Christ was an

essene, not that that is important for this discussion. Living food does in fact

contain enzymes, please tell me a living food that does not contain enzymes.

Enzymes give life, and by its very definition if it has enzymes it is living.

Everything you eat must have enzymes to be digested. If the food is devoid of

enzymes then your body must manufacture enzymes to digest the food. I know of no

study, credible of otherwise that supports your theory. Food is not more easily

digestible when it is cooked. It may be easier to chew, go down easier, but not

more easily digested. Food rots because of enzymes. Put an oreo cookie and an

orange in the hot sun and see which one rots!! Put a raw piece of meat and a

cooked piece of meat in the sun and see which one putrifies.

One has enzymes and one does not. I would certainly be interested in reading

any research or study you have to the contrary!! Early man did not start cooking

food because it was more easily digestible. Reading the works of Josephus the

roman historiian, might give you a different perspective. Have a wonderful day

 

reptile grrl <reptilegoddess wrote:Mark Jackson

<thesportsguru47 wrote:

 

>A raw food diet, or faw foodism as you call it, is not a fad, >and is how man

was intended to eat.

 

Funny, I hear the same thing from meat eaters all the time, regarding their way

of eating.

 

>read the essene works and some other ancient writings.

 

To which essene works and other ancient writings do you refer? You need to be

more specific.

 

>The more raw food you eat that contains live enzymes the less >enzymes you body

must manufacture to digest your food.

 

Not all raw foods contain " live enzymes " to aid digestion (milk is an

exception.) In fact, most vegetables are most easily digestible raw when they

are, by human standards, " overripe, " and even then, most of them are not as

digestible as they are cooked. Cooking actually breaks down most of the

undigestible matter in food- it makes food more digestible than it was when it

was raw, which is why early humans started cooking food. They found that cooked

food was more easily digestible.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

I don't think the comparison of what meateaters often say and what

you said was meant to be a literal comparison of meat and raw foods.

No one implied raw foods were necessarily unhealthy or unethical

(simply that it may be hard to keep a balanced diet on 100% raw

foods). The qualm I have with you saying things like " man was

intended to eat " raw foods is that it ressonates of religious dogma

that is handed down by a deity and thus not to be questioned nor

require a logical explanation. (i.e. " Man was intended to rule over

animals " ). Perhaps it was only an expression but if you had phrased

it as something like " since humans have been eating raw foods for

most of our evolutionary history and are therefore best adapted to

eating a raw food diet " it would come off as a scientific theory

rather than dogma and new age propaganda.

 

(For argument's sake assume we're talking about foods whose enzymes

are destroyed in cooking). What is the real nutritional downside of

having to produce your own enzymes? Presumably it will require more

calories to produce these enzymes, but have any scientific studies

shown a downside to creating enzymes as oppoosed to ingesting them???

 

, Mark Jackson

<thesportsguru47> wrote:

> Your argument is specious. Comparing cooked food and eating meat is

like comparing apples and oranges. I refer specifically to the essene

writings. The essenes were a sect of jews and were prolific record

keepers. Christ was an essene, not that that is important for this

discussion. Living food does in fact contain enzymes, please tell me

a living food that does not contain enzymes. Enzymes give life, and

by its very definition if it has enzymes it is living. Everything you

eat must have enzymes to be digested. If the food is devoid of

enzymes then your body must manufacture enzymes to digest the food. I

know of no study, credible of otherwise that supports your theory.

Food is not more easily digestible when it is cooked. It may be

easier to chew, go down easier, but not more easily digested. Food

rots because of enzymes. Put an oreo cookie and an orange in the hot

sun and see which one rots!! Put a raw piece of meat and a cooked

piece of meat in the sun and see which one putrifies.

> One has enzymes and one does not. I would certainly be interested

in reading any research or study you have to the contrary!! Early man

did not start cooking food because it was more easily digestible.

Reading the works of Josephus the roman historiian, might give you a

different perspective. Have a wonderful day

>

> reptile grrl <reptilegoddess> wrote:Mark Jackson

<thesportsguru47> wrote:

>

> >A raw food diet, or faw foodism as you call it, is not a fad, >and

is how man was intended to eat.

>

> Funny, I hear the same thing from meat eaters all the time,

regarding their way of eating.

>

> >read the essene works and some other ancient writings.

>

> To which essene works and other ancient writings do you refer? You

need to be more specific.

>

> >The more raw food you eat that contains live enzymes the less

>enzymes you body must manufacture to digest your food.

>

> Not all raw foods contain " live enzymes " to aid digestion (milk is

an exception.) In fact, most vegetables are most easily digestible

raw when they are, by human standards, " overripe, " and even then,

most of them are not as digestible as they are cooked. Cooking

actually breaks down most of the undigestible matter in food- it

makes food more digestible than it was when it was raw, which is why

early humans started cooking food. They found that cooked food was

more easily digestible.

>

[Guest guest]

Those who think that it is hard to keep a balanced diet on raw foods simply do

not understand or are misinformed. I honestly do not know how that statement

resonates of relgilus dogma. I have mentioned nothing of religion. Somehow to

you it does apparently though and I am sorry. I mention nothing of theory

because it is not theory but fact. For arguments sake as you propose, eating

food devoid of enzymes makes the body have to work to produce them, and it puts

a strain on the body, causing it to work longer and harder to manufacture those

enzymes. The body was not designed to live indefinitely being treated the way we

treat it.Vegeterians live longer than meat eaters overall, People eating a raw

food diet, or closer to 100 percent raw live longer than vegeterians. If you

incorporate juicing into your diet then you live longer. This is not ancient

history even, read the books of Norman Walker and Paul Bragg. If you study

histroy which is one of the things I do, and I mean ancient

histroy, there are so many ancient writings that are being kepr from people,

then it is easy to see and understand that people lived mucb much longer then.

There are many reasons for this, some relating to food and others not. For life

extension and healthier life the body must be fed differently than what we are

currently doing. I mean no offense to you or anyone else.

 

dave <dave4sale wrote:I don't think the comparison of what meateaters

often say and what

you said was meant to be a literal comparison of meat and raw foods.

No one implied raw foods were necessarily unhealthy or unethical

(simply that it may be hard to keep a balanced diet on 100% raw

foods). The qualm I have with you saying things like " man was

intended to eat " raw foods is that it ressonates of religious dogma

that is handed down by a deity and thus not to be questioned nor

require a logical explanation. (i.e. " Man was intended to rule over

animals " ). Perhaps it was only an expression but if you had phrased

it as something like " since humans have been eating raw foods for

most of our evolutionary history and are therefore best adapted to

eating a raw food diet " it would come off as a scientific theory

rather than dogma and new age propaganda.

 

(For argument's sake assume we're talking about foods whose enzymes

are destroyed in cooking). What is the real nutritional downside of

having to produce your own enzymes? Presumably it will require more

calories to produce these enzymes, but have any scientific studies

shown a downside to creating enzymes as oppoosed to ingesting them???

 

, Mark Jackson

<thesportsguru47> wrote:

> Your argument is specious. Comparing cooked food and eating meat is

like comparing apples and oranges. I refer specifically to the essene

writings. The essenes were a sect of jews and were prolific record

keepers. Christ was an essene, not that that is important for this

discussion. Living food does in fact contain enzymes, please tell me

a living food that does not contain enzymes. Enzymes give life, and

by its very definition if it has enzymes it is living. Everything you

eat must have enzymes to be digested. If the food is devoid of

enzymes then your body must manufacture enzymes to digest the food. I

know of no study, credible of otherwise that supports your theory.

Food is not more easily digestible when it is cooked. It may be

easier to chew, go down easier, but not more easily digested. Food

rots because of enzymes. Put an oreo cookie and an orange in the hot

sun and see which one rots!! Put a raw piece of meat and a cooked

piece of meat in the sun and see which one putrifies.

> One has enzymes and one does not. I would certainly be interested

in reading any research or study you have to the contrary!! Early man

did not start cooking food because it was more easily digestible.

Reading the works of Josephus the roman historiian, might give you a

different perspective. Have a wonderful day

>

> reptile grrl <reptilegoddess> wrote:Mark Jackson

<thesportsguru47> wrote:

>

> >A raw food diet, or faw foodism as you call it, is not a fad, >and

is how man was intended to eat.

>

> Funny, I hear the same thing from meat eaters all the time,

regarding their way of eating.

>

> >read the essene works and some other ancient writings.

>

> To which essene works and other ancient writings do you refer? You

need to be more specific.

>

> >The more raw food you eat that contains live enzymes the less

>enzymes you body must manufacture to digest your food.

>

> Not all raw foods contain " live enzymes " to aid digestion (milk is

an exception.) In fact, most vegetables are most easily digestible

raw when they are, by human standards, " overripe, " and even then,

most of them are not as digestible as they are cooked. Cooking

actually breaks down most of the undigestible matter in food- it

makes food more digestible than it was when it was raw, which is why

early humans started cooking food. They found that cooked food was

more easily digestible.

>

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Of course there are many paths and your is as valid as any. I have

known two raw foodist who had a lot of trouble with the diet when the

snow season came up in high Sierras which led me to take more stock

in macrobiotic phylosphy [eat what is indiginous to your area and

within climate, etc]. The most successful raw foodist I know live in

warm climates and I think that it is worth considering in choosing

one's path though I understand people can find creative ways of

adapting. Knowing that raw foodist include breads made from sprouted

grain, etc., balance can be acheived even in adverse situations.

I find a vegan diet works best for me but I can only speak for

myself. Beyond what we consume and our physical practices, being

open to change and having the ability to accept the bittersweet

aspects of life with laughter and wonderment are important too. At

52, I am in excellent health and having a rich life. Cheers, David

, Mark Jackson <thesportsguru47> wrote:

> Those who think that it is hard to keep a balanced diet on raw

foods simply do not understand or are misinformed.

[Guest guest]

There is much truth in what you say. I do eat bee pollen which although is not

an animal product perse, it is gathered by animals. I do also eat honey, which I

suppose puts me in a non vegan category, I suppose we are going to have to agree

to disagree on some issues however. I look at life differently than you perhaps

or than almost all people. Most people say as you do that at 52 I am healthy. I

also am 52 by the way, so although we do not know each other, and have walked

different paths.we are the same age. There is much good in macrobiotic cooking,

and yes it is hard to live in the sierras and be on raw foods, I do agree with

that. Most people accept aging and death as a fact of life, I DO NOT, that is

probably where we differ. At 52 I have no gray hair, I can still bench press

0ver 300 pounds, and I can still do everything I did when I was 25. I have spent

decaades studying researching and seeking. If you give the body the right tools

to work with, it will go on and on and on.

For me it is about quality of life. I do not accept that quality of life should

be diminished as you get older, and neither should you!!!! nor anyone else for

that matter. I think that it is a shame that people do. They do this because

they have been raised to believe and accept such.as a way of life. You bring

about death and disease by what you put into your mouth. Just so you know, you

do not need to eat grains to get a balanced diet, although they sure can be good

and tasty and have many wonderful qualities. One of the major reasons that

people age, is that they allow their hormonal levels to fall, because they eat

improperly and the body does not have the ability to make up for it. This can

be achieved through diet and herbs,herbs really are a part of diet!!! The word

diet having the same root as deity or gods. That is where the expression " Food

of the Gods " came from. What you put into your body or your temple is of

paramount importance. I certainly do agree that ones

attitude as you say, looking at life with wonderment and laughter are

important. I say that laughter is the grease that keeps the wheels of life

turning. Without it, life would be tough certainly. My favorite phrase is... Let

us not look back in anger, nor forward in fear, but around in awareness!!! Being

aware of life and all the possibilities it has to offer is what leads you to new

discoveries!!I If you are interested in at least knowing more of about how food

affects you, and how to lengthen and improve the quality of life through

diet,which I have spent a life studying, I welcome you to join my group

becomingyounger. I certainly have enjoyed listening to you, and feeling your

passion. WITH LOVE MARK.

 

David Star <hempprince wrote:Of course there are many paths and your

is as valid as any. I have

known two raw foodist who had a lot of trouble with the diet when the

snow season came up in high Sierras which led me to take more stock

in macrobiotic phylosphy [eat what is indiginous to your area and

within climate, etc]. The most successful raw foodist I know live in

warm climates and I think that it is worth considering in choosing

one's path though I understand people can find creative ways of

adapting. Knowing that raw foodist include breads made from sprouted

grain, etc., balance can be acheived even in adverse situations.

I find a vegan diet works best for me but I can only speak for

myself. Beyond what we consume and our physical practices, being

open to change and having the ability to accept the bittersweet

aspects of life with laughter and wonderment are important too. At

52, I am in excellent health and having a rich life. Cheers, David

, Mark Jackson <thesportsguru47> wrote:

> Those who think that it is hard to keep a balanced diet on raw

foods simply do not understand or are misinformed.

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Mark Jackson <thesportsguru47 wrote:

 

>I have mentioned nothing of religion.

 

Well, actually, you did mention religion, more than once.

 

>I mention nothing of theory because it is not theory but fact.

 

It is indeed theory.

 

>The body was not designed to live indefinitely being treated the way we treat

it.

 

The body was not designed to live indefinitely, period.

 

>People eating a raw food diet, or closer to 100 percent raw >live longer than

vegeterians.

 

Once again, can you point to any evidence that supports this claim?

 

>If you study histroy which is one of the things I do, and I >mean ancient

histroy, there are so many ancient writings that >are being kepr from people,

 

Actually, Mark, we have something in common: I DO study ancient *history*. My

main region of interest is ancient Mesopotamia, but it's not the only thing I

study. I have also spent a lot of time studying ancient religious texts,

including the Essene texts which you claim to be the basis for raw foodism. So

I know that a) these texts actually are not kept from people- they are quite

easily available and b) the Essene texts do not advocate a raw food diet.

 

Here's a page from a modern Essene church, which refutes the idea that ancient

Essenes were raw foodists:

http://essenes.net/rawfood.html

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

I have read the Essene gospel of peace and things about this group

but had only ascertained that they were primarily vegetarian. Since

they depended on the sun to cook there food i am guessing that if

they ate fish, it was raw. David*

 

, reptile grrl <reptilegoddess> wrote:

 

> Here's a page from a modern Essene church, which refutes the idea

that ancient Essenes were raw foodists:

> http://essenes.net/rawfood.html

>

[Guest guest]

The " Essene gospel of Peace " is actually a twentieth-century document, so it

can't be relied upon to really tell us anything about the actual Essenes.

 

Ancient people ate a lot of foods, including fish, pickled or dried (often with

salt) though. Not exactly cooked, but still not raw.

 

Does anyone know the specific term for foods that are pickled? I mean, they're

not cooked, but they aren't considered to be raw either- is there any term,

besides " pickled " , that describes that state?

 

David Star <hempprince wrote:

I have read the Essene gospel of peace and things about this group

but had only ascertained that they were primarily vegetarian. Since

they depended on the sun to cook there food i am guessing that if

they ate fish, it was raw. David*

 

,

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

You're not going to be happy with just 'marinated' here, really. That's all I

can

think of. You mean like 'cooking' sea life in lemon or lime juice, as they do in

the South Pacific (and I'm sure lots of other places). No heat, just the juice.

And yes it's 'cooked'. There must be a term for that process other than pickled

or marinated. Help!

 

Best,

Pat in Montreal

 

> Ancient people ate a lot of foods, including fish, pickled or dried (often

with

salt) though. Not exactly cooked, but still not raw.

>

> Does anyone know the specific term for foods that are pickled? I mean,

they're not cooked, but they aren't considered to be raw either- is there any

term, besides " pickled " , that describes that state?

[Guest guest]

I think of vinegar when you say pickled but if refering to beer or

miso, the word fermented comes to mind. When refering to " raw " fish,

I generally think of process that the Japanese use to saute without

using heat.

 

, reptile grrl <reptilegoddess> wrote:

 

> Ancient people ate a lot of foods, including fish, pickled or dried

(often with salt) though. Not exactly cooked, but still not raw.

>

> Does anyone know the specific term for foods that are pickled? I

mean, they're not cooked, but they aren't considered to be raw either-

is there any term, besides " pickled " , that describes that state?

>