Guest guest Posted March 14, 2006 Report Share Posted March 14, 2006 I *REALLY* didn't want this to turn into a discussion of the book -- I was looking for information related to cravings and their physiological causes. > what science is she quoting? If you read the book you'll find she says things that just don't wash. For example, she devotes a chapter to bacteria. She REALLY digs bacteria. In the chapter she says... " Can bacteria cause disease in humans? Yes and no. Yes, if a human body is filled with toxic waste. No, if a body is clean inside. Bacteria is not interested in our muscles, heart, eyes or brain but only inrecycling toxins in our body. The more waste and toxic matter we accumulate in the body the more we attract bacteria. That is why people who eat mostly cooked food get infections so easily. If you are afraid of infections disease, the best thing you can do is keep your insides clean. Eating raw food is a good way to do this. " So, evidently those who eat raw food will not get bacterial infections. The whole bit about " attracting " bacteria is ridiculous as well. She also refers to parasites in the blood throughout this chapter and how eating raw food eliminates these from the system. Even worse, she espouses a theory of hers on how much of the nutrients in the food we eat is actually absorbed. Granted, she admits that she cannot prove the theory because she doesn't have the money for a study to do so. That doesn't stop her from dedicating a few pages to this though. She even provides a TABLE of data. Percentage Cooked Food to Raw Food Consumed & Percentage Nutrition Assimilated % of raw food % cooked food % assimilation 5 95 .03 10 90 .06 25 75 .1 50 50 .3 75 25 1.0 99 1 3.0 100 0 30.0 According to her theory, this table shows how the amount of cooked food we eat in our diet relates to the amount of food that is assimilated into the body. To really get the bang though, you have to go 100%. If you eat even a tiny portion of cooked foods, you'll never really experience the benefits of going raw. Somehow, this is also supposed to explain obesity among those who consume cooked foods. According to the author, those who eat cooked food assimilate so little nutrients from their food that they are essentially starving themselves and always hungry. It's just plain ludicrous. There's more of the same throughout the book, along with other wishy-washy, new-agey stuff that just destroys any credibility this book could possibly have. It's just poorly written and an utter waste of money. I *THINK* the publisher for this book is her own publishing company -- i.e., she owns it. What's even more frightening is that this author has at least some small following and does classes. Gabriel Cousens writes the forward to the book and gives it a 2-thumbs-up type of review. I've been referred to Cousens' books for useful information and although I have not yet picked one up, reading Cousens' forward to this book certainly doesn't lend much credibility to Cousens. James Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 14, 2006 Report Share Posted March 14, 2006 You know, I have heard/read the exact same points made by other supposed raw gurus. That AIDS and other infectious diseases etc aren't caused by bacteria, but are caused by other things and that no one would ever have infections if they ate raw. >To really get the bang though, you have to go 100%. If you eat even >a tiny portion of cooked foods, you'll never really experience the benefits >of going raw. Somehow, this is also supposed to explain obesity among >those >who consume cooked foods. According to the author, those who eat cooked >food assimilate so little nutrients from their food that they are >essentially starving themselves and always hungry. It's just plain >ludicrous. I've heard this before too, and people have referred to these experts as legitimate. However, I, like you, have my doubts. > " Noctaire " <noctaire >rawfood ><rawfood > >[Raw Food] " 12 Steps to Raw Foods " >Mon, 13 Mar 2006 21:00:26 -0500 > >I *REALLY* didn't want this to turn into a discussion of the book -- I was >looking for information related to cravings and their physiological causes. > > > > what science is she quoting? > >If you read the book you'll find she says things that just don't wash. For >example, she devotes a chapter to bacteria. She REALLY digs bacteria. In >the chapter she says... > > " Can bacteria cause disease in humans? Yes and no. Yes, if a human body >is >filled with toxic waste. No, if a body is clean inside. Bacteria is not >interested in our muscles, heart, eyes or brain but only inrecycling toxins >in our body. The more waste and toxic matter we accumulate in the body the >more we attract bacteria. That is why people who eat mostly cooked food >get >infections so easily. If you are afraid of infections disease, the best >thing you can do is keep your insides clean. Eating raw food is a good way >to do this. " > >So, evidently those who eat raw food will not get bacterial infections. >The >whole bit about " attracting " bacteria is ridiculous as well. She also >refers to parasites in the blood throughout this chapter and how eating raw >food eliminates these from the system. > >Even worse, she espouses a theory of hers on how much of the nutrients in >the food we eat is actually absorbed. Granted, she admits that she cannot >prove the theory because she doesn't have the money for a study to do so. >That doesn't stop her from dedicating a few pages to this though. She even >provides a TABLE of data. > > Percentage Cooked Food to Raw Food > Consumed & Percentage Nutrition Assimilated > >% of raw food % cooked food % assimilation > 5 95 .03 > 10 90 .06 > 25 75 .1 > 50 50 .3 > 75 25 1.0 > 99 1 3.0 > 100 0 30.0 > >According to her theory, this table shows how the amount of cooked food we >eat in our diet relates to the amount of food that is assimilated into the >body. To really get the bang though, you have to go 100%. If you eat even >a tiny portion of cooked foods, you'll never really experience the benefits >of going raw. Somehow, this is also supposed to explain obesity among >those >who consume cooked foods. According to the author, those who eat cooked >food assimilate so little nutrients from their food that they are >essentially starving themselves and always hungry. It's just plain >ludicrous. > >There's more of the same throughout the book, along with other wishy-washy, >new-agey stuff that just destroys any credibility this book could possibly >have. It's just poorly written and an utter waste of money. I *THINK* >the >publisher for this book is her own publishing company -- i.e., she owns it. >What's even more frightening is that this author has at least some small >following and does classes. > >Gabriel Cousens writes the forward to the book and gives it a 2-thumbs-up >type of review. I've been referred to Cousens' books for useful >information >and although I have not yet picked one up, reading Cousens' forward to this >book certainly doesn't lend much credibility to Cousens. > >James > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 15, 2006 Report Share Posted March 15, 2006 rawfood , " Jennifer Corris " <jencorris wrote: > > You know, I have heard/read the exact same points made by other supposed raw gurus. That AIDS and other infectious diseases etc aren't caused by bacteria, but are caused by other things and that no one would ever have infections if they ate raw. AIDS is caused by a *virus.* The flu is also caused by a *virus.* Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 15, 2006 Report Share Posted March 15, 2006 kohlrabi wrote: >Jennifer wrote: > > You know, I have heard/read the exact same points made by other > >supposed raw gurus. That AIDS and other infectious diseases etc > aren't caused by bacteria, but are caused by other things and that no > one would ever have infections if they ate raw. > AIDS is caused by a *virus.* The flu is also caused by a *virus.* I think the ruling concept is supposed to be that people who eat raw are supposed to have stronger, more effective immune systems, which will fight off invading bacteria, viruses, and other " attackers " . Advocates of mega-vitamin therapies often make similar claims. 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.