Condiments

August 23, 2005

The problem with the rhetorical doctrine of: " ...if you can't make

entire meal out of it, it isn't food... " is wholly problematic. The assertion

simply isn't true. For instance, nuts. I don't ever make a meal

out of nuts, but I do eat them. Nuts are food, and are not poisonous.

The rawfood arena is full of bombastic assertions such as the previous

(and the origin of this particular beauty is actually with Doug Graham, I

believe).

I find such absolutes deleterious to understanding and insight.

My opinion is that some of the so-called condiments may very well

provide benefit. They may not be needed with every meal. They

may not be needed in large amounts.

My opinion regarding salt is exactly opposite to Bob's, Elchanan's,

and some others on this forum. I believe salt is an essential nutrient;

for I believe we are sodium chloride life forms (BTW, there are chloride

ion metabolic pathways too). The fact of the matter is that without

the chemical nature of salt, the way sodium and chlorine combine

into a stable compound, there wouldn't be any usable sodium or

chloride ions--usable either by plant, or by the animal who eats the plant.

There is no onus on you Tim to follow Bob's, or Elchanan's or anyone

else's so-called optimal health definition. If the condiments give you

benefit, have at it brother.

warm regards,

tev

Tim Winders <twinders wrote:

Thanks Bob.

Your question, " why not aim for optimal Health? " is interesting. I think at

this point, I am not convinced that what you describe as being optimal health

is really optimal. I made the 100% raw food plunge 8 months ago because it

made sense to me. But, I'm not sure about the no condiments. The basic

thought of " if you wouldn't eat it as an entire meal, it is poisonous " doesn't

" feel " right.

I know that sodium ions are a required element for normal neural functions in

our body. In the wild, animals seek out salt to add to their diets. As

humans, the only large source of sodium would be eating animal products, sea

vegetables, or directly through salt intake.

As far as this passage in the text below on sodium:

> " Salt (sodium chloride) canot by used by the body to meet any of thses

> mineral requirements. Salt is an *inorganic* mineral that cannot be

> metabolized by the body. Salt enters the body as sodium chloride, it

> circulates as sodium chloride, and it leaves the body as sodium

> chloride. At no point is it broken down into sodium and chlorine and

> used by the body. "

> " Sodium chloride is a very strong and stable molecule. It cannot be

> broken down in the digestive tract or by the liver. The body cannot

> used the bonded sodium chloride molecule in any way. "

My wife (a chemist) had this to say:

Well, this part of it is not correct. Salt breaks up immediately in

aqueous solution into sodium ions and chloride ions (ie disolves). It

is absorbed into the bloodstream.

It is inorganic (but so are all of the required minerals like chromium,

calcium, magnesium). It isn't even really a " molecule " but an ionic

compound with a crystalline latice structure. It is never " broken down "

in the sense that covalent compounds can be (like sugar and fat, and

medicines), and it does leave the body as aqueous sodium ions and

chloride ions.

Sodium ions are necessary for proper cell function. " isotonic " is the

word we use for solutions that have the same osmotic pressure as the

cell - sodium ions are responsible for creating some of that osmotic

pressure.

(back to me)

So, her explaination, and the fact that we need sodium to survive, don't mesh

up with what is being said about condiments below. Just like you mention

about fat, we need it to survive, we just need it in moderate amounts. I

don't know what that moderate amount is (for sodium). It might be that we

consume all we need in fruits and veggies. Maybe not. But, I'm not convinced

that zero condiments is optimal.

Another example on moderation... breathing 100% nitrogen is poisonous, but the

air we breath is 79% nitrogen and is completely normal. It's all about

balance. Just because something is fatal at 4 ounces (salt, the example

below) doesn't mean that it is not HELPFUL in smaller quantities. In fact,

with zero sodium intake, you would indeed die as your nervous and muscular

systems would shutdown.

So, as I said above, I'm not convinced... yet. I have seen and felt the

change in my body since I have been raw. I know for me that (at least right

now) it's the correct thing to be doing. Perhaps I will also see a difference

after the 5 day cleanse and decide I don't need the condiments and I will

increase my intake of sea vegetables to ensure I take in enough sodium. I

don't expect I will see much difference after a 5 day cleanse, so I may extend

that to 30 days for the condiments and just add fat back into my diet on

Monday.

This has been long winded, I know. Hopefully it will shed some light on what

" state of being " I am in right now.

---

Tim Winders

Associate Dean of Information Technology

South Plains College

Levelland, TX 79336

____________________

The experience of dynamic religious living transforms the mediocre individual

into a personality of idealistic power. Religion ministers to the progress of

all through fostering the progress of each individual, and the progress of each

is augmented through the achievement of all. [The Urantia Book:

1094:1][http://www.urantia.org/]

_____________________

Start your day with - make it your home page

August 24, 2005

Hi Tev..

no rhetorical doctrines of anything. One of the purposes of this

group, taken from the group home page is to:

" ...You are also welcome to share your experiences with NATURAL

HYGIENE. Animals in the wild live according to their instinct and the

laws of nature. They live their lives without getting cancer, heart

disease, stroke and the other diseases of so-called " civilization. " No

animal in the wild takes supplements. They just eat the foods they are

biologically adapted to.

Natural Hygiene is a study of nature and of health. So come and share

your experiences of nature in action. We can also discuss the writings

of authors in the raw food movement including Dr. Herbert Shelton, Dr.

Douglas Graham, David Wolfe, Dr. Gabriel Cousens and so on. "

the comments regarding salt were taken directly from one of the

Natural Hygiene classics.

yes, sure...anyone is free to make any choices they'd like; they are

not, however, free to choose the consequences - those are automatic.

and, you can easily make an entire meal out of nuts. I can eat all of

any nut that I want until I'm *full*; that is true. The fact that we

don't doesn't change that we *can*. We still can't do that with salt.

The only person making any *bombastic* comments is you. and whether

or not Doug Graham (a successful 25 yr.+ raw fooder) said something he

is one of the ones listed on the home page for this list that says it

ok to talk about....)

Some of the condiments may provide some benefit; and, not according to

the quoted NH classic. I think we have to continue to recognize that

we live in one of the most pathological/diseased societies in the

industralized world.

and I understand, and respect, your opinion regarding salt - they fact

that you think that a small amount of a poisonous substance is ok, or

that it's an " essential " nutrient is interesting, and I've not found

any Natural Hygiene support for such a position.

yes, yes, we can't eat rocks - that's what the plants do for us -

change it into a form that we can use.

and as far as condiments/poisons providing any benefit, I'd suggest

the NH Law of Dual Effect would be appropriate to review here. Is it

providing a " long-term " , positive benefit? or is it an

" excito-toxin? " , stimulating and whipping the body into a short term

frenzy? Natural Hygiene literature supports the latter.

and I absolutely agree that neither Tim nor anyone else should blindly

follow anyone else's definition of " optimal " ; and I believe the topic

of attempting to define and understand what optimal is, is worthwhile.

all the best,

Bob Farrell

Personal Health Creation Coach

rawfood , tev treowlufu <goraw808> wrote:

> The problem with the rhetorical doctrine of: " ...if you can't make

> entire meal out of it, it isn't food... " is wholly problematic. The

assertion

> simply isn't true. For instance, nuts. I don't ever make a meal

> out of nuts, but I do eat them. Nuts are food, and are not poisonous.

>

> The rawfood arena is full of bombastic assertions such as the previous

> (and the origin of this particular beauty is actually with Doug

Graham, I believe).

> I find such absolutes deleterious to understanding and insight.

>

> My opinion is that some of the so-called condiments may very well

> provide benefit. They may not be needed with every meal. They

> may not be needed in large amounts.

>

> My opinion regarding salt is exactly opposite to Bob's, Elchanan's,

> and some others on this forum. I believe salt is an essential nutrient;

> for I believe we are sodium chloride life forms (BTW, there are chloride

> ion metabolic pathways too). The fact of the matter is that without

> the chemical nature of salt, the way sodium and chlorine combine

> into a stable compound, there wouldn't be any usable sodium or

> chloride ions--usable either by plant, or by the animal who eats the

plant.

>

> There is no onus on you Tim to follow Bob's, or Elchanan's or anyone

> else's so-called optimal health definition. If the condiments give you

> benefit, have at it brother.

>

> warm regards,

>

> tev

>

> Tim Winders <twinders@s...> wrote:

> Thanks Bob.

>

> Your question, " why not aim for optimal Health? " is interesting. I

think at

> this point, I am not convinced that what you describe as being

optimal health

> is really optimal. I made the 100% raw food plunge 8 months ago

because it

> made sense to me. But, I'm not sure about the no condiments. The basic

> thought of " if you wouldn't eat it as an entire meal, it is

poisonous " doesn't

> " feel " right.

>

> I know that sodium ions are a required element for normal neural

functions in

> our body. In the wild, animals seek out salt to add to their diets. As

> humans, the only large source of sodium would be eating animal

products, sea

> vegetables, or directly through salt intake.

>

> As far as this passage in the text below on sodium:

>

> > " Salt (sodium chloride) canot by used by the body to meet any of thses

> > mineral requirements. Salt is an *inorganic* mineral that cannot be

> > metabolized by the body. Salt enters the body as sodium chloride, it

> > circulates as sodium chloride, and it leaves the body as sodium

> > chloride. At no point is it broken down into sodium and chlorine and

> > used by the body. "

> > " Sodium chloride is a very strong and stable molecule. It cannot be

> > broken down in the digestive tract or by the liver. The body cannot

> > used the bonded sodium chloride molecule in any way. "

>

> My wife (a chemist) had this to say:

>

> Well, this part of it is not correct. Salt breaks up immediately in

> aqueous solution into sodium ions and chloride ions (ie disolves). It

> is absorbed into the bloodstream.

>

> It is inorganic (but so are all of the required minerals like chromium,

> calcium, magnesium). It isn't even really a " molecule " but an ionic

> compound with a crystalline latice structure. It is never " broken down "

> in the sense that covalent compounds can be (like sugar and fat, and

> medicines), and it does leave the body as aqueous sodium ions and

> chloride ions.

>

> Sodium ions are necessary for proper cell function. " isotonic " is the

> word we use for solutions that have the same osmotic pressure as the

> cell - sodium ions are responsible for creating some of that osmotic

> pressure.

>

> (back to me)

>

> So, her explaination, and the fact that we need sodium to survive,

don't mesh

> up with what is being said about condiments below. Just like you

mention

> about fat, we need it to survive, we just need it in moderate

amounts. I

> don't know what that moderate amount is (for sodium). It might be

that we

> consume all we need in fruits and veggies. Maybe not. But, I'm not

convinced

> that zero condiments is optimal.

>

> Another example on moderation... breathing 100% nitrogen is

poisonous, but the

> air we breath is 79% nitrogen and is completely normal. It's all about

> balance. Just because something is fatal at 4 ounces (salt, the example

> below) doesn't mean that it is not HELPFUL in smaller quantities. In

fact,

> with zero sodium intake, you would indeed die as your nervous and

muscular

> systems would shutdown.

>

> So, as I said above, I'm not convinced... yet. I have seen and felt the

> change in my body since I have been raw. I know for me that (at

least right

> now) it's the correct thing to be doing. Perhaps I will also see a

difference

> after the 5 day cleanse and decide I don't need the condiments and I

will

> increase my intake of sea vegetables to ensure I take in enough

sodium. I

> don't expect I will see much difference after a 5 day cleanse, so I

may extend

> that to 30 days for the condiments and just add fat back into my

diet on

> Monday.

>

> This has been long winded, I know. Hopefully it will shed some light

on what

> " state of being " I am in right now.

>

> ---

>

> Tim Winders

> Associate Dean of Information Technology

> South Plains College

> Levelland, TX 79336

>

> ____________________

> The experience of dynamic religious living transforms the mediocre

individual into a personality of idealistic power. Religion ministers

to the progress of all through fostering the progress of each

individual, and the progress of each is augmented through the

achievement of all. [The Urantia Book: 1094:1][http://www.urantia.org/]

> _____________________

>

> Start your day with - make it your home page

>

August 24, 2005

i have to say bob, you are filling in nicely for elchanan.

rawfood , tev treowlufu <goraw808> wrote:

> The problem with the rhetorical doctrine of: " ...if you can't make

> entire meal out of it, it isn't food... " is wholly problematic. The

assertion

> simply isn't true. For instance, nuts. I don't ever make a meal

> out of nuts, but I do eat them. Nuts are food, and are not

poisonous.

but when i hear other people think that, nuts are poisonous for

example, i can't help but think that even though they're wrong for

that reason, maybe there's some unknown reason to them and to me that

i shouldn't be eating raw nuts for some reason. i'm not real

comfortable with them, although they're harmless, i don't know why,

it's just an inner hint that i get, so i plan to give them up

eventually. i don't even have to know why i'm giving them up, i just

have to trust my intuition that they're not optimal and probably not

food for me for some unknown reason.

> There is no onus on you Tim to follow Bob's, or Elchanan's or anyone

> else's so-called optimal health definition. If the condiments give

you

> benefit, have at it brother.

>

> warm regards,

>

> tev

August 24, 2005

rawfood , " Froggy " <seconaphim> wrote:

> i have to say bob, you are filling in nicely for elchanan.

>

Thanks, Rich..

That's a very nice compliment.

Elchanan and I are like-minded in many ways regarding foods.

all the best,

Bob Farrell

Personal Health Creation Coach

August 24, 2005

i can't believe this long vacation elchanan's on, he was so devoted to

this group for so long. oh well, i guess it just goes to show that

everybody needs a break now and then.

rawfood , " Bob Farrell " <rjf2@t...> wrote:

> rawfood , " Froggy " <seconaphim> wrote:

> > i have to say bob, you are filling in nicely for elchanan.

> >

>

> Thanks, Rich..

>

> That's a very nice compliment.

>

> Elchanan and I are like-minded in many ways regarding foods.

>

> all the best,

>

> Bob Farrell

> Personal Health Creation Coach

August 25, 2005

Bob:

Discussion is not the same as posting opinions as fact.

You continue to claim that sodium chloride is a poison

without defining the term poison. Is salt only poisonous to humans?

Perhaps it is so deadly it kills other animals too? Dolphins

perhaps? Seals? Deer? Elephants? It is so caustic, perhaps, that if

we bath in a solution of it we will burn our skin? Since I consider

salt an essential nutrient, should I also call iron a poison? Oxygen?

Zinc?

I see that you have preconceptions about salt, Bob; which evidently

you have acquired from the Natural Hygiene rhetoric, et al. Not to

question the assertions of NH, et al, seems sychophantic to me. Are

you suggesting that because it is written by some NH-ist, or promulgated

by some long term rawfoodist, that the assertion has to be true?

As for the nuts, eating many nuts makes me sick. I can't do it. I can't

make a meal out of them without severe consequences.

But that is irrelevant. My point was that the assertion that a substance

must be judged as food or edible or useful nutrition by the " whole

meal " method is a specious and misleading construct. One nutrient isn't

necessarily

packaged in the same way as others; nor necessarily retrievable from

its natural state in the same way. What exactly is a meal anyway? A bite?

A whole bowl? 10 pieces? Satiation? If satiation, what if I am satisfied

with that particular " food " after only one small piece?

BTW, I do consider the making of assertions as facts, without supporting

evidence, to be " bombastic " --as do I consider calling a substance (or food) an

excito- " toxin " , when it does not fit the narrowly defined NH doctrine. Perhaps,

these substances supply something which we are not aware of, as yet. I prefer

to experiment with them.

I understand the arguments against salt--stickiness (which a student

of the workings of water softeners knows is completely false claim), specific

gravity (pure water is 1.0; salt water is 1.015, depending upon salinity; and

which argument doesn't hold water, for there is no pure water in nature). I

think

they are all specious and fabricated to sustain a given preconception.

If you stated: " In my opinion, salt is poison; " rather than: " salt is poison " ,

then we'd be having a discussion. It is because of the tendency of certain

folk on this forum to abuse this discussionary format, that my comment

concerning " rhetorical doctrines " was made.

I am not trying to be unreasonable or intentionally mortifying or intractable. I

am

interested in optimal health just as much as you.

swaraj,

tev

Bob Farrell <rjf2 wrote: