Guest guest Posted January 20, 2007 Report Share Posted January 20, 2007 Hi Alix, and thanks once again for this great inquiry. I appreciate your sense of curiosity and willingness to reach out for the resources you need. I would call the thinking you describe as fundamentally misguided. Where the idea comes from that fruits can take minerals out of the body is beyond me. It's quite literally nonsense. We are designed to eat fruit, above all else, and green leaves. All the other stuff people tout is not primary food for our species. We teach people to build their base around sweet fruits, not acid fruits, I agree about that. But the acid fruits are then fine, particularly in the company of greens. If we consider what the human body needs in terms of nutrients, we get: 1. Oxygen, far and away #1, and not even considered a nutrient. 2. Water, far and away #2, and again not considered a nutrient. 3. Fuel -- simple sugars (glucose, fructose), in the case of our species. 4. Minerals, particularly alkalizing minerals. 5. Soft, digestible fiber. 6. Proteins and fats -- FAR less than most people imagine. And interestingly, the actual science is very consistent on this point. We need only about 5-6% of total calories from proteins, and about the same from fats. The ONLY foods that provide this mix are fruits, and greens fill in with additional minerals, fiber, and other nutrients found only or primarily in, well, green leaves. And guess what carbohydrates are typically found in green leaves? Glucose, fructose, and some sucrose. (A sucrose molecule consists of one glucose and one fructose molecule, bonded together.) Quite the consistent match! Nuts, seeds and grains are low in oxygen, water, fuel (again SIMPLE sugars), soft fiber. They are high in fats, somewhat high in proteins, and VERY high in INdigestible fiber. The are foods for other species. In fact, there is nothing in our design that makes us a biological match for these items as foods, certainly not primary foods. Vegetables other than soft, tender greens are indeed high in oxygen, water, and fiber ... but lots of indigestible fiber, and often lots of starch. We do not digest starch well. Hope all this is helpful. I'll add one more thing. I have had 3 teachers since being introduced to RF who have really been my primary influences. Of those, Ray Kent is probably the most significant, though almost no one these days knows who he is (in the U.S. anyway). Ray likes to say that all majority opinions are wrong. And in general, I agree. So if you see the majority of society motoring in a particular direction, look elsewhere. And if you see the majority in the RF world traveling a certain path or set of related paths, again, look elsewhere. What I describe is well supported in the sciences and almost completely ignored by, well, almost everyone. The knowledge is there, all we need to do is use it ... and trust Nature's design, over concoctions of the human forebrain. Eating should be, first and foremost, an entirely functional activity. And in Nature, that means it should follow a principle called the Conservation of Energy. We should not need to spend more time preparing a meal than we spend eating it. I'm not suggesting that we should never have fun in a kitchen. But I AM suggesting that much of what people do in the kitchen, they do because they think they " should " , or because " it's better for them, " or the like. I assure you that nothing could be further from the truth. We can pick up fruits and eat them ... that's our design. We can walk along, come to a fruit tree or vine, reach out with ease and pick the fruits .... that's our design. And if we rely upon fruits and leaves as our primary foods, we reach a point where we need to replenish only minimal amounts of water ... and THAT's part of our design ... to continue to thrive, even when Nature creates a drought/famine. I encourage anyone interested in this subject matter to participate in our upcoming FREE teleconferences: - What is Health? (Wednesday, January 24) - Messages from Within (Wednesday, February 7) - Eat to Live! (Wednesday, February 28) - Nutritional Self-Awareness (Wednesday, March 28) and an extra, on emotional eating and related matters, not yet announced (in a manner of speaking - Do I have two minds, or what? !! (Saturday, February 17) Wishing the very best to one and all, Elchanan _____ rawfood [rawfood ] On Behalf Of Alix Bernet Thursday, January 18, 2007 2:37 PM rawfood RE: [Raw Food] Heating raw foods (WAS: VERY new to raw food diets) Hello Elchanan, I red that eating a lot of fruit can take out of your body the essentials minerals. And not too much acids fruits (oranges...) because of the acidity on the teeth and not on the body because they act as an alkaline product. So basically not too much fruit and no more than two acids fruits a day. What do you think of this argument ? Alix. London Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 20, 2007 Report Share Posted January 20, 2007 Actually, public schools teach that there are six nutrients: Water, Vitamins, Minerals, Carbohydrates, Fat, Proteins. I agree that water should be part of the list. Thanks for your insights Elchanan. They are quite helpful. Pat _____ rawfood [rawfood ] On Behalf Of Elchanan Friday, January 19, 2007 8:22 PM rawfood [Raw Food] Are fruits really our primary foods? (WAS: Heating raw foods (WAS: VERY new to raw food diets) Hi Alix, and thanks once again for this great inquiry. I appreciate your sense of curiosity and willingness to reach out for the resources you need. I would call the thinking you describe as fundamentally misguided. Where the idea comes from that fruits can take minerals out of the body is beyond me. It's quite literally nonsense. We are designed to eat fruit, above all else, and green leaves. All the other stuff people tout is not primary food for our species. We teach people to build their base around sweet fruits, not acid fruits, I agree about that. But the acid fruits are then fine, particularly in the company of greens. If we consider what the human body needs in terms of nutrients, we get: 1. Oxygen, far and away #1, and not even considered a nutrient. 2. Water, far and away #2, and again not considered a nutrient. 3. Fuel -- simple sugars (glucose, fructose), in the case of our species. 4. Minerals, particularly alkalizing minerals. 5. Soft, digestible fiber. 6. Proteins and fats -- FAR less than most people imagine. And interestingly, the actual science is very consistent on this point. We need only about 5-6% of total calories from proteins, and about the same from fats. The ONLY foods that provide this mix are fruits, and greens fill in with additional minerals, fiber, and other nutrients found only or primarily in, well, green leaves. And guess what carbohydrates are typically found in green leaves? Glucose, fructose, and some sucrose. (A sucrose molecule consists of one glucose and one fructose molecule, bonded together.) Quite the consistent match! Nuts, seeds and grains are low in oxygen, water, fuel (again SIMPLE sugars), soft fiber. They are high in fats, somewhat high in proteins, and VERY high in INdigestible fiber. The are foods for other species. In fact, there is nothing in our design that makes us a biological match for these items as foods, certainly not primary foods. Vegetables other than soft, tender greens are indeed high in oxygen, water, and fiber ... but lots of indigestible fiber, and often lots of starch. We do not digest starch well. Hope all this is helpful. I'll add one more thing. I have had 3 teachers since being introduced to RF who have really been my primary influences. Of those, Ray Kent is probably the most significant, though almost no one these days knows who he is (in the U.S. anyway). Ray likes to say that all majority opinions are wrong. And in general, I agree. So if you see the majority of society motoring in a particular direction, look elsewhere. And if you see the majority in the RF world traveling a certain path or set of related paths, again, look elsewhere. What I describe is well supported in the sciences and almost completely ignored by, well, almost everyone. The knowledge is there, all we need to do is use it ... and trust Nature's design, over concoctions of the human forebrain. Eating should be, first and foremost, an entirely functional activity. And in Nature, that means it should follow a principle called the Conservation of Energy. We should not need to spend more time preparing a meal than we spend eating it. I'm not suggesting that we should never have fun in a kitchen. But I AM suggesting that much of what people do in the kitchen, they do because they think they " should " , or because " it's better for them, " or the like. I assure you that nothing could be further from the truth. We can pick up fruits and eat them ... that's our design. We can walk along, come to a fruit tree or vine, reach out with ease and pick the fruits .... that's our design. And if we rely upon fruits and leaves as our primary foods, we reach a point where we need to replenish only minimal amounts of water ... and THAT's part of our design ... to continue to thrive, even when Nature creates a drought/famine. I encourage anyone interested in this subject matter to participate in our upcoming FREE teleconferences: - What is Health? (Wednesday, January 24) - Messages from Within (Wednesday, February 7) - Eat to Live! (Wednesday, February 28) - Nutritional Self-Awareness (Wednesday, March 28) and an extra, on emotional eating and related matters, not yet announced (in a manner of speaking - Do I have two minds, or what? !! (Saturday, February 17) Wishing the very best to one and all, Elchanan _____ _._,___ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 20, 2007 Report Share Posted January 20, 2007 Last summer I was playing with FitDay to see how close to 80/10/10 I could come and one day all I ate was watermelon. Believe it or not, it came in at 8/1/1. Really shocked me. Where's the fat in watermelon? Who cares, it tasted good and I felt great. Shari Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 20, 2007 Report Share Posted January 20, 2007 What a great observation, Shari. First, I'll tell you that the protein and fat values on FitDay are slightly overstated, and the USDA database has been updated. I believe that, if you were to run the numbers today, you'd see a bit less fat and protein. But that aside. no animal or plant life can exist without SOME fat. Fat is a thermal and electrical insulator, and certain substances are fat soluble (dissolve in fat), not water soluble. So fat really is an essential part of life. Best, Elchanan _____ rawfood [rawfood ] On Behalf Of SV Friday, January 19, 2007 7:34 PM rawfood Re: [Raw Food] Are fruits really our primary foods? (WAS: Heating raw foods (WAS: VERY new to raw food diets) Last summer I was playing with FitDay to see how close to 80/10/10 I could come and one day all I ate was watermelon. Believe it or not, it came in at 8/1/1. Really shocked me. Where's the fat in watermelon? Who cares, it tasted good and I felt great. Shari Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 20, 2007 Report Share Posted January 20, 2007 Thanks, Pat, I was unaware that the schools had added water to the list. I wonder how widespread this new perspective may be. And thanks, also, for your very kind words of appreciation. I sure do love what I'm doing! Elchanan _____ rawfood [rawfood ] On Behalf Of Pat Carson Friday, January 19, 2007 7:28 PM rawfood RE: [Raw Food] Are fruits really our primary foods? (WAS: Heating raw foods (WAS: VERY new to raw food diets) Actually, public schools teach that there are six nutrients: Water, Vitamins, Minerals, Carbohydrates, Fat, Proteins. I agree that water should be part of the list. Thanks for your insights Elchanan. They are quite helpful. Pat <http://geo./serv?s=97359714/grpId=5520395/grpspId=1705015482/msgId =27213/stime=1169306089/nc1=4299915/nc2=4025375/nc3=3> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 20, 2007 Report Share Posted January 20, 2007 I was Home Economics teacher for 20 years. We always taught that water is a (n essential) nutrient (is part of the curriculum in Texas and as far as I know, most home economics teachers are of the same belief). I was taught in college and high school also. Trouble is, I am not sure how much time most devote to nutrition outside what is promoted by large industry who provide many free teaching materials. You know where that has led. Pat _____ rawfood [rawfood ] On Behalf Of Elchanan Saturday, January 20, 2007 1:18 PM rawfood RE: [Raw Food] Are fruits really our primary foods? (WAS: Heating raw foods (WAS: VERY new to raw food diets) Thanks, Pat, I was unaware that the schools had added water to the list. I wonder how widespread this new perspective may be. And thanks, also, for your very kind words of appreciation. I sure do love what I'm doing! Elchanan _____ rawfood@ <rawfood%40> .com [rawfood@ <rawfood%40> .com] On Behalf Of Pat Carson Friday, January 19, 2007 7:28 PM rawfood@ <rawfood%40> .com RE: [Raw Food] Are fruits really our primary foods? (WAS: Heating raw foods (WAS: VERY new to raw food diets) Actually, public schools teach that there are six nutrients: Water, Vitamins, Minerals, Carbohydrates, Fat, Proteins. I agree that water should be part of the list. Thanks for your insights Elchanan. They are quite helpful. Pat <http://geo.. <http://geo./serv?s=97359714/grpId=5520395/grpspId=1705015482/msgId > com/serv?s=97359714/grpId=5520395/grpspId=1705015482/msgId =27213/stime=1169306089/nc1=4299915/nc2=4025375/nc3=3> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 21, 2007 Report Share Posted January 21, 2007 Hi Elchanan, Thanks for your information. I didn't meant that fruit are bad. I think they are really good in a moderate quantity mainly the sweet one, but the acide ones aswell in more moderate quantity. Because even if there are really healthy there are full of sugar (even the fructose the best sugar) and so contributes to high variation of glucose in your blood which is not very very good. Isn't it ? But perhaps my knowlegdes are not complete. Personnally since i m 100% raw (8th days Hourray) i just eat fruit the morning (mainly sweet grapes watermelon apples bananes..) and two or four during the day (with at least one or two acids one). I try to focus more on vegetables mainly greens. Big salads with all kind of veggies, seaweeds, wheatgerm, flaxseeds oil, and sprouted seeds are my two main meals. But I eat a lot of nuts aswell (100 or more per day) because even if i know that there is protein in veggies, seaweed, and sprouted seed i need them (even if there are very fat). Twice a day since i began i ate a mixture of : 2-3 dates (or dried fruits) 1 or 2 table spoon of tahini or peanut butter 2 or 3 small spoons of sunflower seeds or cashews or pistachio 1 banana or an apple some apple juice It's delicious and heavy so i m not hungry for 4 or more hours during my work. The nuts are heavy and a little bit difficult to digest at the beginning (but every day less difficult to digest) but like this i don't need to feed myself every two hours and it's balanced my quite well. And plus i adore the taste ! I think it's a period of adaptation of my mind and my body. Because i will probably need more variety of food soon as i think i tasted all the different kind of nuts in the world. (Have you ever tried the tiger nuts ! very interesting). If you know some others things to eat i m interesting to know them. There are probably some unknown things. And I would like to know more about you aswell because you are the moderator of this forum and you give a lot of advices to everybody: How long have you been raw ? Are you 100% raw ? Why did you decided to be raw ? What is your work for living? What was your personnal mistakes and errors in your raw experience ? What is your best experience ? And anything else that permit me to know you better. Thanks a lot. Enjoy your day. Alix. > " Elchanan " <Elchanan >rawfood ><rawfood > >[Raw Food] Are fruits really our primary foods? (WAS: Heating raw >foods (WAS: VERY new to raw food diets) >Fri, 19 Jan 2007 19:21:36 -0700 > >Hi Alix, and thanks once again for this great inquiry. I appreciate your >sense of curiosity and willingness to reach out for the resources you need. > >I would call the thinking you describe as fundamentally misguided. Where >the >idea comes from that fruits can take minerals out of the body is beyond me. >It's quite literally nonsense. > >We are designed to eat fruit, above all else, and green leaves. All the >other stuff people tout is not primary food for our species. > >We teach people to build their base around sweet fruits, not acid fruits, I >agree about that. But the acid fruits are then fine, particularly in the >company of greens. > >If we consider what the human body needs in terms of nutrients, we get: > >1. Oxygen, far and away #1, and not even considered a nutrient. >2. Water, far and away #2, and again not considered a nutrient. >3. Fuel -- simple sugars (glucose, fructose), in the case of our species. >4. Minerals, particularly alkalizing minerals. >5. Soft, digestible fiber. >6. Proteins and fats -- FAR less than most people imagine. And >interestingly, the actual science is very consistent on this point. We need >only about 5-6% of total calories from proteins, and about the same from >fats. > >The ONLY foods that provide this mix are fruits, and greens fill in with >additional minerals, fiber, and other nutrients found only or primarily in, >well, green leaves. And guess what carbohydrates are typically found in >green leaves? Glucose, fructose, and some sucrose. (A sucrose molecule >consists of one glucose and one fructose molecule, bonded together.) Quite >the consistent match! > >Nuts, seeds and grains are low in oxygen, water, fuel (again SIMPLE >sugars), >soft fiber. They are high in fats, somewhat high in proteins, and VERY high >in INdigestible fiber. The are foods for other species. In fact, there is >nothing in our design that makes us a biological match for these items as >foods, certainly not primary foods. > >Vegetables other than soft, tender greens are indeed high in oxygen, water, >and fiber ... but lots of indigestible fiber, and often lots of starch. We >do not digest starch well. > >Hope all this is helpful. I'll add one more thing. > >I have had 3 teachers since being introduced to RF who have really been my >primary influences. Of those, Ray Kent is probably the most significant, >though almost no one these days knows who he is (in the U.S. anyway). Ray >likes to say that all majority opinions are wrong. And in general, I agree. >So if you see the majority of society motoring in a particular direction, >look elsewhere. And if you see the majority in the RF world traveling a >certain path or set of related paths, again, look elsewhere. What I >describe >is well supported in the sciences and almost completely ignored by, well, >almost everyone. The knowledge is there, all we need to do is use it ... >and >trust Nature's design, over concoctions of the human forebrain. > >Eating should be, first and foremost, an entirely functional activity. And >in Nature, that means it should follow a principle called the Conservation >of Energy. We should not need to spend more time preparing a meal than we >spend eating it. I'm not suggesting that we should never have fun in a >kitchen. But I AM suggesting that much of what people do in the kitchen, >they do because they think they " should " , or because " it's better for >them, " >or the like. I assure you that nothing could be further from the truth. > >We can pick up fruits and eat them ... that's our design. We can walk >along, come to a fruit tree or vine, reach out with ease and pick the >fruits >... that's our design. And if we rely upon fruits and leaves as our primary >foods, we reach a point where we need to replenish only minimal amounts of >water ... and THAT's part of our design ... to continue to thrive, even >when >Nature creates a drought/famine. > >I encourage anyone interested in this subject matter to participate in our >upcoming FREE teleconferences: > >- What is Health? (Wednesday, January 24) >- Messages from Within (Wednesday, February 7) >- Eat to Live! (Wednesday, February 28) >- Nutritional Self-Awareness (Wednesday, March 28) > >and an extra, on emotional eating and related matters, not yet announced >(in >a manner of speaking > >- Do I have two minds, or what? !! (Saturday, February 17) > >Wishing the very best to one and all, >Elchanan > _____ > >rawfood [rawfood ] On Behalf Of >Alix Bernet >Thursday, January 18, 2007 2:37 PM >rawfood >RE: [Raw Food] Heating raw foods (WAS: VERY new to raw food diets) > >Hello Elchanan, > >I red that eating a lot of fruit can take out of your body the essentials >minerals. >And not too much acids fruits (oranges...) because of the acidity on the >teeth and not on the body because they act as an alkaline product. So >basically not too much fruit and no more than two acids fruits a day. >What do you think of this argument ? > >Alix. >London > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 23, 2007 Report Share Posted January 23, 2007 Hi Pat, Wow, this is really eye-opening for me!!! Here I've been observing " nutritional science " all these years when I should have been observing home economics!!! (NOT joking!!! ) Thanks! Elchanan _____ rawfood [rawfood ] On Behalf Of Pat Carson Saturday, January 20, 2007 12:49 PM rawfood RE: [Raw Food] Are fruits really our primary foods? (WAS: Heating raw foods (WAS: VERY new to raw food diets) I was Home Economics teacher for 20 years. We always taught that water is a (n essential) nutrient (is part of the curriculum in Texas and as far as I know, most home economics teachers are of the same belief). I was taught in college and high school also. Trouble is, I am not sure how much time most devote to nutrition outside what is promoted by large industry who provide many free teaching materials. You know where that has led. Pat <http://geo./serv?s=97359714/grpId=5520395/grpspId=1705015482/msgId =27256/stime=1169479737/nc1=4299907/nc2=4025375/nc3=3> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 23, 2007 Report Share Posted January 23, 2007 Good Morning Elchanan, After funding cuts, getting a bad rap from the likes of Ross Periot, and teachers who thought they should be teaching only the craftier side - baking cookies and making aprons -- while slighting the science of Home Economics), Home Economists encouraged a greater emphasis on the science (social sciences included) and changed the name to Family and Consumer Sciences. If you are interested in observing, you can read more about Family and Consumer Sciences and FCS curriculum @ these web sites: Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Home_economics American Association of Family and Consumer Sciences: www.aafcs.org/ For National Education Standards: Here you will find a link for food science, dietetics, and nutrition education standards. http://www.doe.state.in.us/octe/facs/natlstandards.htm Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills for Home Economics (a little slow to catch on to the new name) This site outlines the essentials to be taught in FCS @ the high school level. Other states have similar sites. www.tea.state.tx.us/rules/tac/chapter122/ch122e.html Pat _____ rawfood [rawfood ] On Behalf Of Elchanan Monday, January 22, 2007 8:19 PM rawfood RE: [Raw Food] Are fruits really our primary foods? (WAS: Heating raw foods (WAS: VERY new to raw food diets) Hi Pat, Wow, this is really eye-opening for me!!! Here I've been observing " nutritional science " all these years when I should have been observing home economics!!! (NOT joking!!! ) Thanks! Elchanan _____ 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.