Guest guest Posted January 10, 2007 Report Share Posted January 10, 2007 In the College of Living Arts (inwhich Gabriel and David Wolfe are the main professors) we are taught that 80% raw is enough to safe the planet. But, why 100%? Well, Gabriel teaches that 100% is not a goal, but rather it is something that is important for people who are very serious about their spiritual path. Gabriel teaches (some may disagree here, but remember that this is Gabriel's personal religious teachings as I remember them told to me) that yes the yogis eat cooked food and a little dairy and some do become liberated, but they are doing rigorous spiritual activity... lengthy meditation, lots of chanting (and the Rishi's, the super hard-core devotees to God; some if not many, do live on live-vegan food). Take the Tibentans... they eat animal flesh... but they must do extremely lenghy and rigorous spiritual practices to balance it out. So, Gabriel teaches that, as American, if you are sericous about " waking-up " and " Liberation " that because of our strong work ethic (and relative low amount spiritual practices) we should eat a diet that is low karma and high light energy (i.e. a vegan high live- food diet.) Gabriel teaches that one cannot eat your way to God (or chant, dance, pray, etc.), but when you do go to eat... choose that which will best create you into a light body that the Divine energy can shine through (check it out: http://treeoflife.nu/foundation6.html)! Blessings! I hope this helps! Peace and Love. Shawna rawfood , " mstrong56 " <mstrong wrote: > > OK, I'm sure this old ground, but people ask me why 100% raw is the > goal. I ask others. The usual answer is enzymes are live and are > killed over 115 or so. Others, like vegan anatomy & phisiology > professors, Dr. Fuhrman, etc., say nonsense, enzymes are protiens and > aren't " killed " by steaming or cooking in soups. In fact, Dr. Fuhrman > says some nutrients are made much easier to assimilate by conservative > cooking. > > I'm basically 80% raw, 100% vegan and my medical issues have responded > beatifully. What is there to gain by going 100% raw ? > > I'm not a scientist, but I am an astute observer and it is my current > thought that most of the health improvement I have obtained is a result > of eliminating animal products, fats (of ALL sources) and processsed > foods. The rest I chalk up to intention & visualization.... like I > said, I'm not a scientist ;-) > > Mark > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 11, 2007 Report Share Posted January 11, 2007 Hi Mark, I'll reply below. rawfood , " mstrong56 " <mstrong wrote: > > OK, I'm sure this old ground, but people ask me why 100% raw is the > goal. I ask others. The usual answer is enzymes are live and are > killed over 115 or so. Others, like vegan anatomy & phisiology > professors, Dr. Fuhrman, etc., say nonsense, enzymes are protiens and > aren't " killed " by steaming or cooking in soups. Actually Dr. Fuhrman never actually stated that enzymes aren't killed by steaming and cooking. You are mixing ideas from his message. One of his points was that enzymes aren't all that useful to us anyway. The enzymes in raw foods are destroyed by the digestion process. Higher enzyme levels in the food isn't really why going raw is so beneficial. However, after reading Dr. Fuhrman's comments on the problems of eating a 100% raw food diet and watching his video presentation where he talked about that I have much to disagree with him on those points. I'd say just about the only thing I agreed with him on was the enzyme issue. Now some people have problems going 100% raw and that is usually due to doing the diet incorrectly. A high fat raw diet certainly isn't what we could possibly eat in nature and yet a most raw foodists consume over 60% of their calories in fat. This is just one of the reasons why people fail on a 100% raw food diet. But getting back to why to eat 100% raw. Because almost every single person I met who went 100% raw felt at least twice as good as being 80% raw. Even my raw food mentor who ate 70% raw for 30 years, said there was a night and day difference by eating a 100% raw food diet and 70% raw. He had some serious detoxification even after 30 years of a vegan and 70% or so raw food diet, with few junk foods. Another major reason is that you can never overcome your addiction to cooked food if you are still consuming it on a regular basis. Once you stay away from cooked food (not really food but cooked matter) for 30 to 60 days, you find you don't want to eat cooked food. And you start to break the lifelong addiction to cooked food. Personally, I only gained the major benefits of going raw by doing it 100%. At 50% it was a major improvement but it doesn't even come close to what 100% did for me. I hope that helps Mark. Roger Haeske http://www.HowToGoRaw.com/RawFoodCoaching.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 11, 2007 Report Share Posted January 11, 2007 rawfood , " Roger " <subs1 wrote: > > Personally, I only gained the major benefits of going raw by doing it > 100%. At 50% it was a major improvement but it doesn't even come close > to what 100% did for me. > > I hope that helps Mark. > Not Really, I hear Save Planet, Spiritual, Religious, Addiction to Cooked Foods and you say " I only gained the major benefits of going raw by doing it 100%. " What EXACTLY are those benefits, from a purely biology, physiology, disease prevention/reversal, physical universe perspective, considering ONLY the PHYSICAL consequences on the individual human eating this way ? > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 11, 2007 Report Share Posted January 11, 2007 Hi, Mark, I am commenting here because I am enjoying this conversation and learning stuff myself (I'm still new to doing this consistently), but probably not exactly answering your questions (although you do get a bunch of science info in the MA)... To Rodger: Yeah, addictions!!!!! I need to be on 100% (I do take some heat treated supplements, just for example, hot water extracts of mushrooms) because any amount of cooked food leads to my binging! I have totally found this out about myself after 9 years of trying to stay raw (as to why I would even want to be 100% to begin with, it was just a light switch that went off in my head when I first of the concept 9 years ago, and yes because I want the FULL- ON benefits!) Gabriel admits in his intro to Victoria's 12 Steps to Raw that addiction is not his area of expertise. Thanks for reading... this non-eating-cooked-food junky appreciates the support! Love and Peace, Shawna rawfood , " Roger " <subs1 wrote: > > Hi Mark, > > I'll reply below. > > rawfood , " mstrong56 " <mstrong@> wrote: > > > > OK, I'm sure this old ground, but people ask me why 100% raw is the > > goal. I ask others. The usual answer is enzymes are live and are > > killed over 115 or so. Others, like vegan anatomy & phisiology > > professors, Dr. Fuhrman, etc., say nonsense, enzymes are protiens and > > aren't " killed " by steaming or cooking in soups. > > Actually Dr. Fuhrman never actually stated that enzymes aren't killed > by steaming and cooking. You are mixing ideas from his message. One of > his points was that enzymes aren't all that useful to us anyway. The > enzymes in raw foods are destroyed by the digestion process. > > Higher enzyme levels in the food isn't really why going raw is so > beneficial. > > However, after reading Dr. Fuhrman's comments on the problems of > eating a 100% raw food diet and watching his video presentation where > he talked about that I have much to disagree with him on those points. > > I'd say just about the only thing I agreed with him on was the enzyme > issue. Now some people have problems going 100% raw and that is > usually due to doing the diet incorrectly. > > A high fat raw diet certainly isn't what we could possibly eat in > nature and yet a most raw foodists consume over 60% of their calories > in fat. This is just one of the reasons why people fail on a 100% raw > food diet. > > But getting back to why to eat 100% raw. Because almost every single > person I met who went 100% raw felt at least twice as good as being > 80% raw. Even my raw food mentor who ate 70% raw for 30 years, said > there was a night and day difference by eating a 100% raw food diet > and 70% raw. > > He had some serious detoxification even after 30 years of a vegan and > 70% or so raw food diet, with few junk foods. > > Another major reason is that you can never overcome your addiction to > cooked food if you are still consuming it on a regular basis. Once you > stay away from cooked food (not really food but cooked matter) for 30 > to 60 days, you find you don't want to eat cooked food. And you start > to break the lifelong addiction to cooked food. > > Personally, I only gained the major benefits of going raw by doing it > 100%. At 50% it was a major improvement but it doesn't even come close > to what 100% did for me. > > I hope that helps Mark. > > Roger Haeske > http://www.HowToGoRaw.com/RawFoodCoaching.html > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 13, 2007 Report Share Posted January 13, 2007 Many of the raw ideas and philosophies are invalid and when investigated, there is no proof that these ideas or theories are true. However, there is mainstream proof for a lot of the benefits of raw foods. The benefits include: Raw foods have a higher concentration of vitamins, minerals, fibers, and phyto-nutrients that their cooked counterparts. Almost every study that looks into this finds this to be true, except for perhaps the " tomatoes and lycopene " study. However, raw watermelon has more lycopene than cooked tomatoes. In general, the heating of foods diminishes the vitamin, mineral, fiber, and phytonutrient contents of that food. Raw foods have fewer toxins in them than cooked foods. This is because cooking introduces toxins into the foods. All foods have some fat in them. Subjecting fats to high temperatures creates carcinogens, including acrolein, butyric acid, nitropyrene, nitrobenzene, and nitrosamines. Subjecting proteins to high temperatures and the protein coagulates, that is, the amino acids fuse together in such a way that the body cannot break them apart. This creates long chain amino acids that the body sees as poisons, and an increase of white blood cells occurs after eating cooked proteins to clean them out of the blood. Subjecting carbohydrates to heat can create the carcinogen acrylamide, a powerful carcinogen. However, there are a bunch of unfounded ideas in the raw movement: In the raw movement, there are a bunch of bogus ideas that have no bearing in science and have never been examined or proved. The enzyme theory is one of them. However, this is a useful theory for people who sell enzyme supplements, as raw foodists (who believe in the enzyme theory) who are not 100% raw are excellent prospective customers for these products. The whole concept of mucoid plaque is not based in science either. Ask people who administer colonoscopies if they've ever seen " mucoid plaque " . The stuff that is claimed to be mucoid plaque is a combination of psyllium seed and bentonite clay and your digestive fluids. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 15, 2007 Report Share Posted January 15, 2007 What a refreshing and useful post! bryan_yamamoto <no_reply > rawfood Saturday, 13 January, 2007 12:20:48 AM [Raw Food] Re: Why Raw ??? Many of the raw ideas and philosophies are invalid and when investigated, there is no proof that these ideas or theories are true. However, there is mainstream proof for a lot of the benefits of raw foods. The benefits include: Raw foods have a higher concentration of vitamins, minerals, fibers, and phyto-nutrients that their cooked counterparts. Almost every study that looks into this finds this to be true, except for perhaps the " tomatoes and lycopene " study. However, raw watermelon has more lycopene than cooked tomatoes. In general, the heating of foods diminishes the vitamin, mineral, fiber, and phytonutrient contents of that food. Raw foods have fewer toxins in them than cooked foods. This is because cooking introduces toxins into the foods. All foods have some fat in them. Subjecting fats to high temperatures creates carcinogens, including acrolein, butyric acid, nitropyrene, nitrobenzene, and nitrosamines. Subjecting proteins to high temperatures and the protein coagulates, that is, the amino acids fuse together in such a way that the body cannot break them apart. This creates long chain amino acids that the body sees as poisons, and an increase of white blood cells occurs after eating cooked proteins to clean them out of the blood. Subjecting carbohydrates to heat can create the carcinogen acrylamide, a powerful carcinogen. However, there are a bunch of unfounded ideas in the raw movement: In the raw movement, there are a bunch of bogus ideas that have no bearing in science and have never been examined or proved. The enzyme theory is one of them. However, this is a useful theory for people who sell enzyme supplements, as raw foodists (who believe in the enzyme theory) who are not 100% raw are excellent prospective customers for these products. The whole concept of mucoid plaque is not based in science either. Ask people who administer colonoscopies if they've ever seen " mucoid plaque " . The stuff that is claimed to be mucoid plaque is a combination of psyllium seed and bentonite clay and your digestive fluids. _________ New Mail is the ultimate force in competitive emailing. Find out more at the Mail Championships. Plus: play games and win prizes. http://uk.rd./evt=44106/*http://mail..net/uk Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 16, 2007 Report Share Posted January 16, 2007 " This creates long chain amino acids that the body sees as poisons, and an increase of white blood cells occurs after eating cooked proteins to clean them out of the blood. " I'd love to see the research performed to obtain this conclusion. Specifically, I'd like to see the data showing the body's inability to break down the long-chain amino acids; and the data showing that the body not only conveys these so-called useless amino acids into the blood stream (instead of into the large intestine), it then attacks them as " invading bodies " (which is the fight response). Can you point me in the direction of this data? Thanks. tev bryan_yamamoto <no_reply > wrote: Many of the raw ideas and philosophies are invalid and when investigated, there is no proof that these ideas or theories are true. However, there is mainstream proof for a lot of the benefits of raw foods. Subjecting proteins to high temperatures and the protein coagulates, that is, the amino acids fuse together in such a way that the body cannot break them apart. This creates long chain amino acids that the body sees as poisons, and an increase of white blood cells occurs after eating cooked proteins to clean them out of the blood. Subjecting carbohydrates to heat can create the carcinogen acrylamide, a powerful carcinogen. Recent Activity 26 New Members 1 New Photos 6 New Files Visit Your Group Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 17, 2007 Report Share Posted January 17, 2007 rawfood , tev treowlufu <goraw808 wrote: > Yes, I want to see this data too. Let me be clear to my fellow group members, I think there are benefits to eating mostly raw, certainly a whole lot of plant fiber keeps things pretty well scrubbed out and moving along. I feel pretty energized eating mostly raw. I do eat some lightly steamed and no fat crock pot soups and I like that too. I'm trying to get at the FACTS about all raw vs. raw and some conservatively, low fat cooked plants. So far actual FACTS seem elusive, mostly parroting of old and long discredited (poorly done) research. I enthusiastically repeated much of this in my early raw phase, taking what I had heard as fact. I've been challenged to prove it and as I dig I am finding proving it difficult to say the least. I do think my life was saved, or greatly prolonged in good health, by discontinuing consumtion of animal products, refined foods and fats. I recall enthusiastically announcing to my wife that my goal was to be 100% raw. She replied that's a stupid pronouncement as it's about the journey, not the destination. She said I thought your goal was to be 100% healthy. She's right of course and now with that goal in mind, I am more critically examining the different, vegan, roads that lead there. Part of intelligently evaluating the roads is asking " where is the SPECIFIC evidence " ? > " This creates long chain amino acids > that the body sees as poisons, and an increase of white blood cells > occurs after eating cooked proteins to clean them out of the blood. " > > I'd love to see the research performed to obtain this conclusion. > Specifically, I'd like to see the data showing the body's inability > to break down the long-chain amino acids; and the data showing > that the body not only conveys these so-called useless amino acids > into the blood stream (instead of into the large intestine), it then > attacks them as " invading bodies " (which is the fight response). > > Can you point me in the direction of this data? > > Thanks. > > tev 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.