Guest guest Posted August 24, 2006 Report Share Posted August 24, 2006 I hope everyone won't mind me bringing up this debate once more to take my turn in making a comment on what Kristen stated: " I think it's not healthy to rule out so very many good foods. I believe in a diet with some real variety in it..It's unfortunate that the raw foods movement has so much orthorexia going around ...but any severe/extreme diet I suppose is bound to attract people who harbor that tendency inherently. " - I don't mind being called orthorexic if labeling my tendency helps to confirm one's very own position in his/her very own raw food lifestyle. For me personally, I feel relief in learning after much research that I can eliminate certain 'foods' from my diet and not have to complicate my meals by incorporating them. On my raw food journey since January, it's actually been my goal to simplify my eating habits until I feel ready to do the mono diet often. I realize now that our primal ancestors did not have access to such a world-wide variety of foods, and so we were biologically designed to develop over the years on a regional diet of limited food resources. It seems that the mono diet would actually keep boredom at bay, if say, there were only 20 different raw foods to eat and we ate several, one at a time, throughout the day - that would mean repeating one of those foods once every 5 days. -Tiffany Lohr kmdaven <kmdaven wrote: Elchanan, I agree. But I do think a lot of the source of confusion and argument here is centered around these issues: Some people believe this is a " Natural Hygiene " group. Some people believe this is a " vegan raw " group. Some people believe this is simply a " raw " group. This last (just a " raw " group) is what I want, personally -- DAIRY, for instance, can be raw... in fact, the Natural Hygiene movement accepts that raw milk/cheese is a pretty good thing and everyone should check out the work of the WESTON A PRICE FOUNDATION (google that) about the differences between raw dairy and pateurized dairy. It's astounding, with solid research behind it. Heck, there ARE people who eat raw meat and believe it is good for them. I am not in this category, but my cousin is in absolutely glowingly fabulous health, on a diet of raw eggs, raw meat, raw dairy, raw vegetables/fruits. But some people on this group think this is not a place to discuss all raw diets. And, IMHO, I think there are a good number of people here who are probably over the edge into the category of " orthorexic " who start ruling out all kinds of foods randomly... (snip) ...I just think there is a lot of misinformation and bad science on this group, which is a shame, because the basic tenet of raw food is incredibly healthful. But people have these one-man agendas against certain specific foods (whether it's dates or corn or raw garlic) and so no matter what you might want to eat, someone on here pipes up about how it's going to give you cancer or destroy your myelin sheath if you eat it. (And I'm not talking about those who say that a certain food doesn't make them feel good -- that is something else entirely.) I think it's not healthy to rule out so very many good foods. I believe in a diet with some real variety in it.. It's unfortunate that the raw foods movement has so much orthorexia going around ... but any severe/extreme diet I suppose is bound to attract people who harbor that tendency inherently. The raw diet is pretty severe/extreme in our society (even if it is healthy), so...there you have it. But I do think some clarification about whether it's a RAW group, a Natural Hygiene group, or a vegan raw group, might help? Kristen Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 24, 2006 Report Share Posted August 24, 2006 I have a slightly different take on this, just my opinion, and I'd love to hear other people's views: From what I've read, our ancestors ate far more different kinds of foods than we do. " While chimpanzees are known to eat 123 different plant varieties in a year, even the most health-conscious westerner rarely consumes more than 20 or 30. Seventy five percent of our global food supply comes from just 12 crops. " (from http://www.primates.com/misc/index.html ) This is also interesting, as the human body has evolved to make use of many of the poisins present (in tiny quantities) in most plants. The fact that we eat such a limited variety may well be part of the reason disease is so prevalent. If you buy a good foraging book for your part of the world, it will list probably more than a hundred edible plants you can forage - and these are the sorts of things our ancestors ate (and tribal people living away from 'civilisation' still consume). Of course, what you say about eating simply is still valid, it's very unlikely that a primitive human would mix 20+ ingredients together (as some complex raw recipes do). More likely, they ate what they found at the time (on it's own), after searching for the kinds of foods they fancied and/or were in season. I imagine our ancestors may well have nibbled on wild garlic (especially the young shoots, which are a mild and delicious green, a bit like garlicky chives), but it seems unlikely they would have had a clove or two of bulb garlic a day! From what I understand, there are poisins in many natural foods (to protect them from predators), but in tiny amounts these are actually beneficial. The danger is when we over-consume the same limited number of foods. Variety, eaten in a simple way, is the key. --- Tiffany <bluelairess wrote: > I hope everyone won't mind me bringing up this > debate once more to take my turn in making a comment > on what Kristen stated: > " I think it's not healthy to rule out so very many > good foods. I believe in a diet with some real > variety in it..It's unfortunate that the raw foods > movement has so much orthorexia going around ...but > any severe/extreme diet I suppose is bound to > attract people who harbor that tendency inherently. " > > - I don't mind being called orthorexic if labeling > my tendency helps to confirm one's very own position > in his/her very own raw food lifestyle. For me > personally, I feel relief in learning after much > research that I can eliminate certain 'foods' from > my diet and not have to complicate my meals by > incorporating them. On my raw food journey since > January, it's actually been my goal to simplify my > eating habits until I feel ready to do the mono diet > often. > I realize now that our primal ancestors did not > have access to such a world-wide variety of foods, > and so we were biologically designed to develop over > the years on a regional diet of limited food > resources. > It seems that the mono diet would actually keep > boredom at bay, if say, there were only 20 different > raw foods to eat and we ate several, one at a time, > throughout the day - that would mean repeating one > of those foods once every 5 days. > -Tiffany Lohr > > kmdaven <kmdaven wrote: > Elchanan, I agree. But I do think a lot of the > source of confusion and argument here is centered > around these issues: > Some people believe this is a " Natural Hygiene " > group. > Some people believe this is a " vegan raw " group. > Some people believe this is simply a " raw " group. > This last (just a " raw " group) is what I want, > personally -- DAIRY, for instance, can be raw... in > fact, the Natural Hygiene movement accepts that raw > milk/cheese is a pretty good thing and everyone > should check out the work of the WESTON A PRICE > FOUNDATION (google that) about the differences > between raw dairy and pateurized dairy. It's > astounding, with solid research behind it. > Heck, there ARE people who eat raw meat and believe > it is good for them. I am not in this category, but > my cousin is in absolutely glowingly fabulous > health, on a diet of raw eggs, raw meat, raw dairy, > raw vegetables/fruits. > But some people on this group think this is not a > place to discuss all raw diets. And, IMHO, I think > there are a good number of people here who are > probably over the edge into the category of > " orthorexic " who start ruling out all kinds of foods > randomly... > (snip) > ...I just think there is a lot of misinformation > and bad science on this group, which is a shame, > because the basic tenet of raw food is incredibly > healthful. But people have these one-man agendas > against certain specific foods (whether it's dates > or corn or raw garlic) and so no matter what you > might want to eat, someone on here pipes > up about how it's going to give you cancer or > destroy your myelin sheath if you eat it. (And I'm > not talking about those who say that a certain food > doesn't make them feel good -- that is something > else entirely.) > I think it's not healthy to rule out so very many > good foods. I believe in a diet with some real > variety in it.. It's unfortunate that the raw foods > movement has so much orthorexia going around ... but > any severe/extreme diet I suppose is bound to > attract people who > harbor that tendency inherently. The raw diet is > pretty severe/extreme in our society (even if it is > healthy), so...there you have it. > But I do think some clarification about whether it's > a RAW group, a Natural Hygiene group, or a vegan raw > group, might help? > Kristen > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been > removed] > > _________ All New Mail – Tired of Vi@gr@! come-ons? Let our SpamGuard protect you. http://uk.docs./nowyoucan.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 24, 2006 Report Share Posted August 24, 2006 Hi Elaine, Well said! I think your thinking, backed up by science, makes perfect sense. We know this is how early humans ate, based on observing and speaking with Native American (and other) elders. Makes sense to make our meals more along these lines, to quote from you: " Variety, eaten in a simple way, is the key. " Your quote re: chimpanzees ties in nicely with Victoria Boutenko's thoughts too. I've been reading Fats That Heal, Fats That Kill by Udo Erasmus. In chapter 67 Oils and Sunshine--Light and Health, he talks about how in places with more sun (like the tropics), people eat less fat, and where there is less sun, the diets are heavier on fats. In temperate areas, like where I live, we eat more with the seasons--we can eat like in the tropics during the summer and like the arctic during the winter. Since going raw, I've definitely seen myself going more and more with these natural seasonal ways. All summer I ate like the chimpanzees: mostly fruit and greens. This winter, I'll eat heavier, with more olive and hemp oils, nuts, and seeds. The author of the book says that where we can take in lots of the sun's rays (like in the tropics), we don't need as many oils to keep the fatty acid levels in our bodies (and the vitamins that go with them) at healthy levels. In colder places, we need more fats in our diets to keep those fatty acids and vitamins in our bodies at the right levels for physical and mental health. It's fascinating material! Blessings, Jennifer rawfood [rawfood ] On Behalf Of Elaine Bruce Thursday, August 24, 2006 3:22 AM rawfood Re: [Raw Food] Kristen - purpose of this list I have a slightly different take on this, just my opinion, and I'd love to hear other people's views: >From what I've read, our ancestors ate far more different kinds of foods than we do. " While chimpanzees are known to eat 123 different plant varieties in a year, even the most health-conscious westerner rarely consumes more than 20 or 30. Seventy five percent of our global food supply comes from just 12 crops. " (from http://www.primates <http://www.primates.com/misc/index.html> ..com/misc/index.html ) This is also interesting, as the human body has evolved to make use of many of the poisins present (in tiny quantities) in most plants. The fact that we eat such a limited variety may well be part of the reason disease is so prevalent. If you buy a good foraging book for your part of the world, it will list probably more than a hundred edible plants you can forage - and these are the sorts of things our ancestors ate (and tribal people living away from 'civilisation' still consume). Of course, what you say about eating simply is still valid, it's very unlikely that a primitive human would mix 20+ ingredients together (as some complex raw recipes do). More likely, they ate what they found at the time (on it's own), after searching for the kinds of foods they fancied and/or were in season. I imagine our ancestors may well have nibbled on wild garlic (especially the young shoots, which are a mild and delicious green, a bit like garlicky chives), but it seems unlikely they would have had a clove or two of bulb garlic a day! From what I understand, there are poisins in many natural foods (to protect them from predators), but in tiny amounts these are actually beneficial. The danger is when we over-consume the same limited number of foods. Variety, eaten in a simple way, is the key. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 24, 2006 Report Share Posted August 24, 2006 Thanks for clarifying on me, Elaine - instead of me writing: " ...and so we were biologically designed to develop over the years on a regional diet of limited food resources. " , I should have written " ...on a regional diet of food resources. " , as what I meant was that we didn't have access to foods like we do now from other continents. I also didn't take into consideration that there were so many more varieties of local plants for our ancestors to harvest - historically, natural as well as human catastrophes must have caused our limitations for today. Yet speaking of 'evolving' around a diet of a huge variety of regional plants, I believe some may be healthy to eat today while others would be toxic to most people even in small amounts, even though our ancestors ate freely of them. When it comes to inheritence of tendencies for specific food allergies, our development and adaptation is influenced within just a few generations. (Take for example, some Native Americans and their genetic tendency to become obese given today's ample fatty food resources and the fact that their recent ancestors ate from the earth.). I would love to get my hands on one of those foraging books! Thinking about growing my own variety of ancient edible plants and herbs from the different lands of my ancestors makes me very curious in what other fresh tastes exist that I'm missing out on. -Tiffany Lohr Elaine Bruce <lilelil wrote: I have a slightly different take on this, just my opinion, and I'd love to hear other people's views: From what I've read, our ancestors ate far more different kinds of foods than we do. " While chimpanzees are known to eat 123 differentplant varieties in a year, even the most health-conscious westerner rarely consumes more than 20 or 30. Seventy five percent of our global food supply comes from just 12 crops. " (from http://www.primates.com/misc/index.html ) This is also interesting, as the human body has evolved to make use of many of the poisins present (in tiny quantities) in most plants. The fact that we eat such a limited variety may well be part of the reason disease is so prevalent. If you buy a good foraging book for your part of the world, it will list probably more than a hundred edible plants you can forage - and these are the sorts of things our ancestors ate (and tribal people living away from 'civilisation' still consume). Of course, what you say about eating simply is still valid, it's very unlikely that a primitive human would mix 20+ ingredients together (as some complex raw recipes do). More likely, they ate what they found at the time (on it's own), after searching for the kinds of foods they fancied and/or were in season. I imagine our ancestors may well have nibbled on wild garlic (especially the young shoots, which are a mild and delicious green, a bit like garlicky chives), but it seems unlikely they would have had a clove or two of bulb garlic a day! From what I understand, there are poisins in many natural foods (to protect them from predators), but in tiny amounts these are actually beneficial. The danger is when we over-consume the same limited number of foods. Variety, eaten in a simple way, is the key. Tiffany wrote: I hope everyone won't mind me bringing up this debate once more to take my turn in making a comment on what Kristen stated: " I think it's not healthy to rule out so very many good foods. I believe in a diet with some real variety in it..It's unfortunate that the raw foods movement has so much orthorexia going around ...but any severe/extreme diet I suppose is bound to attract people who harbor that tendency inherently. " - I don't mind being called orthorexic if labeling my tendency helps to confirm one's very own position in his/her very own raw food lifestyle. For me personally, I feel relief in learning after much research that I can eliminate certain 'foods' from my diet and not have to complicate my meals by incorporating them. On my raw food journey since January, it's actually been my goal to simplify my eating habits until I feel ready to do the mono diet often. I realize now that our primal ancestors did not have access to such a world-wide variety of foods, and so we were biologically designed to develop over the years on a regional diet of limited food resources. It seems that the mono diet would actually keep boredom at bay, if say, there were only 20 different raw foods to eat and we ate several, one at a time, throughout the day - that would mean repeating one of those foods once every 5 days. -Tiffany Lohr Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 25, 2006 Report Share Posted August 25, 2006 That's a good point you made about Native American's inclination to obesity on an SAD diet. I remember reading how the first Europeans to come to America decimated friendly local populations, by each consuming in a day what would last the locals most of a week, and hence eating much of their available food. But I'm not sure there's a massive genetic difference (more an adaptive difference after birth) - after all, look how many people of European descent are also obese on the SAD. I've not known of anyone who forages having a reaction to the foods they'd eaten, though you're right, it's always wise to procede with caution when it comes to new foods. I think our limitations in terms of different foods these days are caused by taste preferences, what foods are easily transportable, and particularly agriculture. Agriculture meant we could choose the sweetest/starchiest/fattiest foods and grow huge quantities. We were also able to selectively breed them to be even sweeter/starchier/fattier. In terms of taste, just as a typical SAD-eater would find an advanced RF diet pretty much unpalatable (where's the sugar? the salt? the fat? the spices?) until their taste bads adjust, so even a RF would need time to acclimitise to the very bitter tastes of some of a foraging human's diet. But those original foods are still out there, we just have to go out and find them. And fortunately, there really is nothing so fun as going for a trip to the countryside and looking for nice foods. I've found that children particularly enjoy foraging - I guess it's a natural instinct, and they love getting closer to nature. It also gives an aim to a country walk. I love to take my (husband's) daughter out to pick wild strawberries, blackberries, elderberries and flowers, etc. in season. She sees different plants and berries and asks 'can we eat this?' and I wish I knew a bit more so I always had an answer! When out in the country as a child we always ate wild fennel leaves, dandelion leaves, shepherd's purse, pansy flowers, hazelnuts, etc. as we walked along. I really can't recommend foraging enough, if you have access to some countryside or unpolluted waste land near you. In the UK, even in the cities you can find a lot of nice edibles in the strangest places! My foraging book cost me £4 ($6?), so it's already paid for itself in the foods I've gathered. Growing these foods is an excellent idea - many of the edible greens are considered weeds so they're really easy to grow. If you find some are common in your area, your neighbours might be grateful if you forage their gardens for 'weeds' too! --- Tiffany <bluelairess wrote: > Thanks for clarifying on me, Elaine - instead of me > writing: " ...and so we were biologically designed to > develop over the years on a regional diet of limited > food resources. " , I should have written " ...on a > regional diet of food resources. " , as what I meant > was that we didn't have access to foods like we do > now from other continents. > I also didn't take into consideration that there > were so many more varieties of local plants for our > ancestors to harvest - historically, natural as well > as human catastrophes must have caused our > limitations for today. Yet speaking of 'evolving' > around a diet of a huge variety of regional plants, > I believe some may be healthy to eat today while > others would be toxic to most people even in small > amounts, even though our ancestors ate freely of > them. When it comes to inheritence of tendencies > for specific food allergies, our development and > adaptation is influenced within just a few > generations. (Take for example, some Native > Americans and their genetic tendency to become obese > given today's ample fatty food resources and the > fact that their recent ancestors ate from the > earth.). > I would love to get my hands on one of those > foraging books! Thinking about growing my own > variety of ancient edible plants and herbs from the > different lands of my ancestors makes me very > curious in what other fresh tastes exist that I'm > missing out on. > -Tiffany Lohr > > Elaine Bruce <lilelil wrote: > I have a slightly different take on this, just my > opinion, and I'd love to hear other people's views: > From what I've read, our ancestors ate far more > different kinds of foods than we do. > " While chimpanzees are known to eat 123 > differentplant varieties in a year, even the most > health-conscious westerner rarely consumes more than > 20 or 30. Seventy five percent of our global food > supply comes from just 12 crops. " (from > http://www.primates.com/misc/index.html ) > This is also interesting, as the human body has > evolved to make use of many of the poisins present > (in tiny quantities) in most plants. The fact that > we eat such a limited variety may well be part of > the reason disease is so prevalent. > If you buy a good foraging book for your part of the > world, it will list probably more than a hundred > edible plants you can forage - and these are the > sorts of things our ancestors ate (and tribal people > living away from 'civilisation' still consume). > Of course, what you say about eating simply is still > valid, it's very unlikely that a primitive human > would mix 20+ ingredients together (as some complex > raw recipes do). More likely, they ate what they > found at the time (on it's own), after searching for > the kinds of foods they fancied and/or were in > season. > I imagine our ancestors may well have nibbled on > wild garlic (especially the young shoots, which are > a mild and delicious green, a bit like garlicky > chives), but it seems unlikely they would have had a > clove or two of bulb garlic a day! From what I > understand, there are poisins in many natural foods > (to protect them from predators), but in tiny > amounts these are actually beneficial. The danger is > when we > over-consume the same limited number of foods. > Variety, eaten in a simple way, is the key. > > Tiffany wrote: > I hope everyone won't mind me bringing up this > debate once more to take my turn in making a comment > on what Kristen stated: > " I think it's not healthy to rule out so very many > good foods. I believe in a diet with some real > variety in it..It's unfortunate that the raw foods > movement has so much orthorexia going around ...but > any severe/extreme diet I suppose is bound to > attract people who harbor that tendency inherently. " > - I don't mind being called orthorexic if labeling > my tendency helps to confirm one's very own position > in his/her very own raw food lifestyle. For me > personally, I feel relief in learning after much > research that I can eliminate certain 'foods' from > my diet and not have to complicate my meals by > incorporating them. On my raw food journey since > January, it's actually been my goal to simplify my > eating habits until I feel ready to do the mono diet > often. > I realize now that our primal ancestors did not have > access to such a world-wide variety of foods, and so > we were biologically designed to develop over the > years on a regional diet of limited food resources. > It seems that the mono diet would actually keep > boredom at bay, if say, there were only 20 different > raw foods to eat and we ate several, one at a time, > throughout the day - that would mean repeating one > of those foods once every 5 days. > -Tiffany Lohr > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been > removed] > > _________ All new Mail " The new Interface is stunning in its simplicity and ease of use. " - PC Magazine http://uk.docs./nowyoucan.html 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.