There is little dispute on the value of raw unaltered food in our body, it introduces order, equilibrium, and above all the life principle. We easily reverse years of neglect and destructive practices and because we become healthier, life itself becomes worth living and we become more loving and the earth is a better place for all.

When a new discovery in living is made, usually humans get organized in groups, movements to promote that new life style. The good news get carried to all corners of the world to those willing to embrace it and change their lifestyle. It is a great help to humanity to carry the great news to all. But that has to be done with responsibility and great care because we can easily turn away many.

Here is a quote from Bryan from another thread [www.rawfoodsupport.com]
"A piece of bread is loaded with anti nutrients"

One can easily find scientific papers that support or refute that statement. But using personal experience is that statement really true? If a piece of bread was loaded with anti nutrients then many of us will be dead by the time we reach 10 or maybe the body has the ability to survive for years on anti nutrients.

People should be encouraged to embark on a new lifestyle at the pace that is confortable to them. Those who choose to be 100 percent raw should be welcome as well as those you choose to be 5 percent raw.

GrandPa and GrandMa are in their 90's, their health has slowed down and they have decided on advice from their raw GrandSon to try raw food but GrandPa cannot let go its baked potato with cream and steamed peas. GrandSon was willing to make a fruit salad for GrandPa but GrandMa came up with this meal.

1. Glass of carrot and celery juice
2. baked potato with non dairy cream and steamed peas
3. Grated carrots and romain lettuce

The meal may not be 100 percent raw but GrandPa is happier to eat it and the meal has enough raw elements in it. And because GrandPa is happier in eating it, it will be more digestable to him. It may have taken hours for him to finish the fruit salad. If I was visiting the grand parents I would personally choose that meal over the fruit salad.

Another point that was made by Bryan in the thread was:
"sensitivity is not a weakness but a strength"

To me strength of a living organism or anything else comes from the ability to survive in adverse conditions. Raw food introduces order, the life principle in our body, cells are regenerated, the body parts are functioning properly in a well coordinated manner. When that happens we are full of energy and our body starts building reserve for bad times. Nature works on the survival of the fittest principle. It is not important to me how sensitive I become in distinguishing an organic banana from a non organic one, it is rather my ability to survive from the strength I gained from raw food in rough environments. We say this is good car because of its ability to run on rough terrain not because it run well on clean surfaced roads. If being on raw food regenerates my body then I should have the strength to survive in non optimal environments even if I did not have raw food for weeks. If I should get sick from sharing a bread with GrandMa then the body I tried hard to rebuild with raw food did not really materialize.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/15/2007 03:11AM by djatchi.

nature doesn't work on the survival of the fittest principle. its just a made up thing that frames the way we conceptualize how nature works.

raw food doesn't introduce order. not in the least. people become healthier by removing their addictions, both physical and mental to unatural foods and habits, not by adding raw living foods.

as I said on the other thread..to me you don't seem concerned with 'us' 'turning folks away'. more in just proving your idea that one should be able to consume un-healthful things in moderation and be 'healthy'..which is only true to a point.

sensitivity happens through the body cleansing itself of the ability to process unhealthful foods, the current state of the body will tell you what constitutes unhealthful at that moment. A smoker might pound 2 packs a cigarettes in a matter of hours and feel fantastic. an alcholic can down a bottle of Jack Daniels...same thing....There is no such thing as a moderate ammount of a bullet in the head. you can only have healthful things in moderation, being able to have un-healthful things in moderation is - by definition - not healthy. Anyone able to consume large ammounts of alcohol or cigarettes is less healhty then someone who cannot, whther they can live a more comfortable and enjoyable life is a subjective pointles argument, just as yours is.

you cannot build an immunity to a substance without haveing a sizeable ammount of it in your system. therefore your concept of 'rebuilding' to have the ability to process gluten is false. The only reason you can, is because your diet is heavy on sprouted grain. If YOU think this makes for the appropriate level of health for interacting with your enviornment, interacting socially, then you are certainly right, other then that, everything else here is just false metaphors

djatchi,

Beautifully written post, I enjoyed it immensely.

Sharing a meal with loved ones is sacred to me. The "form" of my diet is secondary to sharing the love. When I traveled back east to Tennessee and Georgia to visit my family last year I indulged in some small amounts of the good ole Southern style cooking from my past. One of the dishes wasn't even vegan (cornbread made with egg in the batter). No shame or guilt came up for me. In that place I was not adversely affected by the food that is no longer part of my diet.

For me, I see the strength of a living organism in its ability to THRIVE in adverse conditions.

djatchi,

The main purpose of this forum is support people in their process of eating raw and vegan foods. Debating for the sake of debating, while it may be fun for you, is not the purpose of this forum.

If you were interested in being supported in your attempt to eat more raw or more vegan, I would love to support you. But at this point you've convinced me that you are more interested in being right rather than being supported. In this regard, I am not interested in participating this pursuit of yours.

Others here are welcome to participate in this debate. Being that this is more of an intellectual pursuit, rather than a support issue, expect this thread to migrate to the other topics forum.

djatchi Wrote:

> optimal environments even if I did not have raw
> food for weeks. If I should get sick from sharing
> a bread with GrandMa then the body I tried hard to
> rebuild with raw food did not really materialize.


we disagree on almost everything in your post here, but that's fine with me.
i'd be interested in hearing about your time spent in africa though.

uti Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Sharing a meal with loved ones is sacred to me.
> The "form" of my diet is secondary to sharing the
> love. When I traveled back east to Tennessee and
> Georgia to visit my family last year I indulged in
> some small amounts of the good ole Southern style
> cooking from my past. One of the dishes wasn't
> even vegan (cornbread made with egg in the
> batter). No shame or guilt came up for me. In
> that place I was not adversely affected by the
> food that is no longer part of my diet.
>
> For me, I see the strength of a living organism in
> its ability to THRIVE in adverse conditions.


i have done the same in the past. enjoyed non raw meals. no sense in guilt i agree.

sometimes i have been affected by what i would consider to be poor food choices and sometimes not so much or seemingly at all.

i will also say that to assume that certain people are thriving and some are not based on external reactions is not necessarily valid.

one person may in fact be thriving better, while exhibiting some defensive reactions. perhaps the persons energy level is higher or other health factors are more favorable.

our negative bodily reactions to ingested foods are often hidden. other times they are more evident. that does not mean that the cooked fooder is thriving under adverse conditions and the raw one is not. external reactions are not the sole determinant of what you call thriving.

i hope i'm being somewhat clear...

anaken wrote

Quote

nature doesn't work on the survival of the fittest principle. its just a made up thing that frames the way we conceptualize how nature works.

Yes it does. After a huge storm in the forest, the weak trees will all fall. Weak galaxies in the universe are swallowed by stronger galaxies. All stars in our solar system are gravitating around the sun because the sun has a stronger pull on them. The stronger structure in the universe controls all structures around it, the same for the intense volcanic pressure which crushes everything around it. We cannot just keep making statements on this board.

Bryan wrote:

Quote

The main purpose of this forum is support people in their process of eating raw and vegan foods. Debating for the sake of debating, while it may be fun for you, is not the purpose of this forum.

Are you saying that people eating 90 percent raw are not eating raw, they are and they need to be supported, they cannot be told that cooked food is toxic when it is not. This is not debating for the purpose of debating, you made a statement and I am proposing a different take on it. People should be encouraged not being told they are eating toxic food and feel guilty about it when there is no evidence on that notion of toxicity.

As for where the topic belongs or should be posted or if it should be posted at all, you have the right to close it or move it because you can do that but the truth is it raises serious question on statements you made. Answer to a point you made should be posted where the point was made.

Some want us to believe that health comes from removing things from our system not by adding, I think it is both. You need to remove the bad and add the good. Removing alone has not work for many breatharians.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/15/2007 06:55AM by djatchi.

Quote

Are you saying that people eating 90 percent raw are not eating raw, they are and they need to be supported, they cannot be told that cooked food is toxic when it is not.

No, this is what YOU are saying.

What I am saying is that you are not looking for support, you are looking for debate. If you are looking for support, please share with me the problems you are having on your raw and vegan diet and I and others will share with you the benefit of our experience. If you are looking for debate, or support for non-vegan issues, or support for cooked foods, please try the NFL forum, as that forum is rich with people who love to debate or have the expertise you desire.

djatchi:

I enjoyed your explanation in the above post too. I've often thought that you'd receive more favorable feedback from your posts if you would be more clear about your position and I think you accomplished that in the above admirably. And I am quite sure, by way of observing many, many posts on this list in many many other threads, that a great many here, who choose to remain silent, agree with you more than they don't.

I do think that you need to have more faith in the intelligence and instincts of other people; that you may enjoy this list more as well as the list enjoying you more, if you will yield to supporting people in their process with the understanding that all processes change and evolve by nature.

In many ways I agree with what you say, as I've been quick to state many times before. I think it beggars good logic to state that a healthy body is one that a piece of bread sends to an ICU, and though I realize that fresh was only overstating to make a point, I think that pride in a hyper-sensitive body may be mislead.

Often djatchi a criticism is leveled against you for being an uncaring person; that you post only to throw your own weight around and that you have no genuine caring for the people on this list other than their role as audience for your objections. Personally, I don't agree with this evaluation. I sense a strong caring in you. Some of us come off more harshly in print without benefit of tone of voice or body language than do others. I've always thought that this is your main problem here.

...anyway, thanks for the clarification of your ideas djatchi.


khale

Thanks for articulating so well Djatchi.

I've thought about this so much since the issue coming up a couple months ago when Khale and I first met in person. I had always considered raw fruits and vegetables to be the only "food" for humans. Even before learning how to properly eat all raw I thought this is the way. It wasn't until Khale said to me that there are healthy cooked foods that I even considered that thought. Now I have thought a lot about it. I guess I shall have to see where I end up after eliminating what doesn't feel good. I invision ending up high fruit and that does seem to be where I am headed. It is good to know that Uti and Fresh haven't gone to the ICU for eating "old school."

I keep getting stuck on the rare situations of having to live on foods other than raw. Katrina is an example but not a good one. Finding water was more of a concern. You could live without food for quite a while. What about a car accident? A physical attack? It is much more likely. After taking my father to physical therapy I know I am in better shape to bounce back from physical injury if on a raw diet. If your body is as healthy as it can be it is my belief any and all hardships will be better dealt with. The most likely scenario would be nothing ever happening and you just grow old as healthy as you eat and live.

heh, all in your head dj, all the galaxies are crashing towards you.

Khale, who is remaining silent? one can only agree about which is a more optimal way of living. its a subjective argument. the physical concept remains.

of course as Uti and fresh articulated. one can transcend such things, sure. certain 'immunities' can be tapped into, strength gained in certain circumstances. But really, in the day to day physical reality, you would either have to work up an immunity to a foreign substance. or already have enough already in your system for it not too cause much of a stir..no which way to argue it. Are grains something humans had to adjust over time to eating? certainly. Are they toxic and harmful to everyone, one could argue yes, but really it depends on the state of the individual. Just because skiny mcraw is too tired to get out of bed doesn't mean he's less healthy then a doughboy marathon runner, I think thats just common knowledge for people keyed into health.



so really, if one wants to put foward their anxieties about becoming 'sensitive' in a non-optimal setting..theres plenty room here for supportive discussion. but starting fights based on dated 'textbook' info or saying, yes were are with you because this is what we WANT to believe, should remain here in the black hole of 'other topics'

heyyyyyyyy =p i like it down here in other topics .. theres some pretty cool stuff down here !!

*hurrumph* black hole =p

...Jodi, the banana eating buddhist

oh...that was just me being clever..black hole..galaxies..woosh

much respect to the other topics crawlers

also, error in what I wrote substitute 'agree about', with 'discuss'



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/15/2007 11:21PM by anaken.

heheee =p no prob i was teasin =p

...Jodi, the banana eating buddhist

Fresh wrote:

Khale, who is remaining silent? one can only agree about which is a more optimal way of living. its a subjective argument. the physical concept remains.


Check how many forum members viewed this thread before it was placed off topic. (and just for grins, compare it to the average views of the other threads) That should answer your question. Of course "one can only agree about which is a more optimal way of living". What's your point?

I don't agree that its a subjective argument. I can subjectively choose a way of life without projecting that subjectivity into univerals. I can both choose to eat 100% raw AND maintain that it is possible to be healthy and to not eat 100% raw.

...and which "physical concept" remains? or should I say whose?


khale

khale Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Fresh wrote:
>
> Khale, who is remaining silent? one can only agree
> about which is a more optimal way of living. its a
> subjective argument. the physical concept remains.
>
>
>
> Check how many forum members viewed this thread
> before it was placed off topic. (and just for
> grins, compare it to the average views of the
> other threads) That should answer your question.
> Of course "one can only agree about which is a
> more optimal way of living". What's your point?
>
> I don't agree that its a subjective argument. I
> can subjectively choose a way of life without
> projecting that subjectivity into univerals. I can
> both choose to eat 100% raw AND maintain that it
> is possible to be healthy and to not eat 100%
> raw.
>
> ...and which "physical concept" remains? or should
> I say whose?
>
>
> khale


i don't think i wrote the above....

sorry fresh, my mistake, it was anaken.

peace

khale

yes, as I noted, I meant one can discuss which is a more appropriate lifestyle. but one cannot cleanse their body of a substance and expect to tolerate it just the same. if you want to believe this, fine. i'm done here.

maybe more people looked at it because of the word grandma? and why would that indicate people were remaining silent and agreed it was a sound principle that a healthy person should be able to eat whatever they want? personally I find most vistors here more intetigent then that, and if they kept silent, it was probably because they don't have the desire or time to waste like we do. but forget those are questions, because I really don't care to continue.

I looked at this thread because it said "Grandma".

TL..LOL

also I flipped through Bisci's interview raw spirit today in a store, which you quote from often.

Fred has a great quote

paraphrasing: I grew up Italian, if I thought there was any way I could eat raw dairy..I WOULD



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/18/2007 03:20AM by anaken.

peas and romaine

stimulating conversation going on here

what i found the most esoteric though is the non dairy cream

i don't know what that means

i never had cream
what is cream?
is it just congealed whipped cow milk?
if so, how does gramps have non dairy cow milk?
interesting

i learn something new every day

anaken Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> yes, as I noted, I meant one can discuss which is
> a more appropriate lifestyle. but one cannot
> cleanse their body of a substance and expect to
> tolerate it just the same. if you want to believe
> this, fine. i'm done here.
>


A baked potato is not a toxic food. In going raw we are not cleansing ourselves from a damage from a baked potato especially when the meal has other raw element in it. The body maybe has harder time digesting a cooked food because it has to provide more digestive enzymes. This problem is easily solved when you add raw juice or raw vegetables and fruit to your meal.

I lived in the deep forest of africa for years, we would frequently go in and capture thru various traditional means wild animals and bring them home, we would feed them cooked food. One could say but you do not feel their pain, it is true but we do not see them agonazing in pain either. These animals were 100 percent raw for years but are able to survive on a cooked food diet for months. Some of these animals would have died if cooked food was toxic.
We see the same everywhere around the world, wild animals, wild bears will approach humans or go into camps looking for cooked and processed food.

In my personal experience of being more then 90 percent raw for 20 years an occasional cooked meal has not been a problem. What I have found from experience is that the freshness of the food is more important than the food being organic. I do not buy organic produce. My diet is mostly greens from indoor greens, sunflower, buckwheat, wheatgrass. I juice them or make smoothies or salad from the growing greens. I buy greens I cannot grow indoor such as dandelion, spinach, colloard greens. I do buy a lot of non sweet fruits. In addition once a week I would eat cooked meat or fish just by itself, not mixed with anything. Very few nuts, no grains. No single health problem, none. I am always full of energy, so I am sometimes amazed to read on this board from some rawfoodist that this or that single non organic food made me sick or I got sick from drinking coffee or tea.
Was the body healthy to begin with, it may have been very clean but was it healthy and resilient? We are not saying you should it cooked food it you do not want it but if some organism always need the clean environment and organic food element to function then that organism cannot survive in rough situations and cannot be labelled resilient



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 05/18/2007 09:54AM by djatchi.

djatchi Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

i'm sorry - i'm a bit bored right now...

>
> A baked potato is not a toxic food.

do you understand the concept of a continuum from a very health promoting food and a very toxic food? nobody says that you eat a toxic potato then you keel over and die.

> In going raw
> we are not cleansing ourselves from a damage from
> a baked potato especially when the meal has other
> raw element in it.

then why do you need to say "especially..." ?

>The body maybe has harder time
> digesting a cooked food because it has to provide
> more digestive enzymes.

no, there are other reasons why the body has a harder time.

>This problem is easily
> solved when you add raw juice or raw vegetables
> and fruit to your meal.

so there is a problem, then.

> Some of these animals would have died if cooked
> food was toxic.

no they would not have died, just like i did not die when i was a cooked fooder.
just like many other people do not die as cooked fooders.
i started out as a 100% raw fooder, then i became a cooked fooder. i DID NOT DIE.
then i returned to being a raw fooder.

> We see the same everywhere around the world, wild
> animals, wild bears will approach humans or go
> into camps looking for cooked and processed food.

so what?

> In my personal experience of being more then 90
> percent raw for 20 years an occasional cooked meal
> has not been a problem.

get back to me when you are long time Fresh and RAW.

>What I have found from
> experience is that the freshness of the food is
> more important than the food being organic.

yes, freshness is good.

> anything. Very few nuts, no grains. No single
> health problem, none.

eat all raw and all fresh for one month and tell me whether you have ANY cleansing symptoms at all.

>I am always full of energy,

maybe you are the have the very fullestest energy ever.
or maybe not. it is not possible to tell until you have experienced a different level of energy.

> so I am sometimes amazed to read on this board
> from some rawfoodist that this or that single non
> organic food made me sick or I got sick from
> drinking coffee or tea.
> Was the body healthy to begin with, it may have
> been very clean but was it healthy and resilient?

I think you have said this about 4000 times already.
i get it.

-------------------------------------------------------
> djatchi Wrote:
> potatoes are not toxic

are you sure?

Toxic compounds in potatoes


Potatoes contain glycoalkaloids, toxic compounds, of which the most prevalent are solanine and chaconine. Cooking at high temperatures (over 170 °C or 340 °F) partly destroys these. The concentration of glycoalkaloid in wild potatoes suffices to produce toxic effects in humans. Glycoalkaloids occur in the greatest concentrations just underneath the skin of the tuber, and they increase with age and exposure to light. Glycoalkaloids may cause headaches, diarrhea, cramps and in severe cases coma and death; however, poisoning from potatoes occurs very rarely. Light exposure also causes greening, thus giving a visual clue as to areas of the tuber that may have become more toxic; however, this does not provide a definitive guide, as greening and glycoalkaloid accumulation can occur independently of each other. Some varieties of potato contain greater glycoalkaloid concentrations than others; breeders developing new varieties test for this, and sometimes have to discard an otherwise promising cultivar.

Breeders try to keep solanine levels below 0.2 mg/g (200 ppmw). However, when even these commercial varieties turn green, they can approach concentrations of solanine of 1 mg/g (1000 ppmw). Some studies suggest that 200 mg of solanine can constitute a dangerous dose. This dose would require eating 1 average-sized spoiled potato or 4 to 9 good potatoes (over 3 pounds or 1.4 kg) at one time. The National Toxicology Program suggests that the average American consumes at most 12.5 mg/person/day of solanine from potatoes. Dr. Douglas L. Holt, the State Extension Specialist for Food Safety at the University of Missouri - Columbia, notes that no reported cases of potato-source solanine poisoning have occurred in the U.S. in the last 50 years and most cases involved eating green potatoes or drinking potato-leaf tea.

Solanine is also found in other plants, in particular the deadly nightshade. This poison affects the nervous system causing weakness and confusion.


acrylamide in cooked potatoes

[findarticles.com]

fresh wrote:

Quote

eat all raw and all fresh for one month and tell me whether you have ANY cleansing symptoms at all.

I think you are confused. My aim is to be healty, I am not trying to prove to anyone that I am 100 percent raw. I do not need to be 100 percent raw to be healthy. The role of cleansing is to prepare the ground for a healty body, I have done that 20 years ago after reading Norman Walker and Ann Wigmore. I can eat raw for a month or eat cooked for a month and I will be fine. My body has plenty of reserve to do that, I know myself.
I make potato juices sometimes and suffer nothing. I can eat a baked potato and I suffer nothing.
fresh wrote:

Quote

maybe you are the have the very fullestest energy ever.
or maybe not. it is not possible to tell until you have experienced a different level of energy.
------------------
think you have said this about 4000 times already.

Tell us about your own experience, how healthy are you?
4000 times? I thought I was the only bad guy on this board? I have company now.

djatchi Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> A baked potato is not a toxic food.


You have a very narrow definition of the word toxic. Toxicity exists in all levels and its effect differs for each being (human, beast, etc.). Because you have a very healthy body, cooked food is fine for you in the amount you eat it. But I wonder why you need to press your personal experience here so persistently, since we all have equal value in each having one voice and yours is just one amongst the rest.

There must be some reason you eat 90 percent raw, not 90 percent cooked. You seem to agree with the tenets of raw foodism, but argue in favour of cooked. Not really sure what you believe........

So you are 100 percent raw now or since you were born?

djatchi Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
> I think you are confused. My aim is to be healty,
> I am not trying to prove to anyone that I am 100
> percent raw. I do not need to be 100 percent raw
> to be healthy.

try and pay attention. i didn't say anything about you proving to anyone that you're all raw. i said, go all raw and fresh and you will see what happens and what it means. we can sit around a campfire and talk about what happens while we share some of grandpa's famous bread.


> The role of cleansing is to prepare
> the ground for a healty body, I have done that 20
> years ago after reading Norman Walker and Ann
> Wigmore. I can eat raw for a month or eat cooked
> for a month and I will be fine.


do it then..

> My body has plenty
> of reserve to do that, I know myself.
> I make potato juices sometimes and suffer nothing.
> I can eat a baked potato and I suffer nothing.

WHEN I WAS COOKED I COULD EAT A BAKED POTATO AND SUFFER NOTHING.
reread the above a few times.


i'm quite happy with my health, to answer your question.


i love how people say something, and then you show them clearly that it is not so (potatoes and toxicity) and then there is silence.

According to Norman Walker. Potatoes are a toxic, acid forming food

According to Norman Walker. meat and dairy are the most acid forming foods, and represent the MOST detrimental of all substances we label foods.

although I don't think it carries much weight in all arguments like what we SHOULD be eating, however, humans ARE designed to eat fruit. period...we had to adapt/mutate to eating grains, grasses, tubers, meat, and dairy of other animals.

animals have a different set of salivary and digestive systems than humans. many can break down things like starch and meat far better then we were designed to do, and far more then our mutated 'evolved' systems can. I'm not suprised wild animals can tolerate even our most processed junk, not one bit. it doesn't disprove or even correspond with the issue at all as far as I understand, particullary because animals can't consciously take control over the cleansing of their bodies. I understand the urge to bring in animals as 'healthy' specimens, but to me it carries no weight.

people that have symptoms of celiac or lactose intolerance are healtier then those that do not. why? because having the ability to digest these things is an in-human trait. whether having this trait makes one mesh well better with a society, and therefore 'thrive' in that way is the subjective argument I was speaking of.

of course NW's diet plans included these 'un-natural' foods in moderate ammounts. it was meant to be a practical system for individuals to reverse their states of health. His program was very structured around alkalizing the body with vegetable juices, and of course cleaning the body internally through the colon...These things outweighing and in his opinion..balancing out the negative impact of these substances..

I think this is what you are getting at

To me its sort of a false premise. And the contemporary views expressed by people comming out of Walker, for instance, Fred B. still emphasises the juices and the internal cleansing over most other aspects of the diet, agree that the more 'unnatural' foods one leaves out of their body completly, the cleaner the individual is internally. and the cleaner the individual is internally, the less tolerant, and then later intolerant one is of these 'foods'. Being clean internally, deffinetly does not correspond with being able to thrive in situations where the optimal conditions of rest, sunshine, exercise, fresh food, pure water, are not present, say..in a POW death camp. This does not make it an unsustainable diet , and the people that view life as this state of deprivation, of lack and of fear/repurcussions, are blocked in their own prisons from seeing the true state of the universe as a 'place/state' of abundance. Only the human society frames the world in scarcity, and the most wild of animals don't have the ability to precieve this scarcity, which is probably the key to their vitality

As for unatural vegan foods of course they abound as well

From the heavily processed 'faux-foods' to the 'simple' whole forms.

Gluten, Soy, Peanuts, and Sugar represent the most acid forming, most cultivated, least natural vegan foods. Starch in general isn't easily assimilatable to humans, the ones with the most problems with starch, particulalary raw starch, like brocolli, yam, same phenom as above except on a different plateu of 'health'.

In all cases. if one wants to include any of these things in their diet, they cetainly can, and can be healthy. But if one wants to make a progression in their health, to get out of their current prison of belief, they have to make decisions progressivly. making positive choices for a lifetime about what THEY think are the most healthful foods.

fresh wrote:
------------------------------------------
>love how people say something, and then you show them clearly that it is not so >(potatoes and toxicity) and then there is silence.

Every food item has some toxicity, even fruit and greens. The main issue is how does the body balance out that toxicity with the enzymes, the life principle and the non toxic nutrients. What I keep reading from you is that you are all clean and you body does not need the toxic food items and could not even tolorate them.

My main point is that you do no have to be 100 percent raw to be healthy. People who are 10 or 20 percent raw should be welcome in the raw camp, even the meat eater.
The 100 percent raw foodist cannot keep explaining their health problem with the am-too-clean cliche. Maybe they were not that healty to begin with. I think instead of using the the my-body-is-too-clean or detoxing explaination, they need to look at the raw diet itself, maybe the all fruit, the watermelon diet is deficient in essentials nutrients and maybe a 90 percent raw diet including some animal products may have some toxicity but it provides key essential nutrients missing in the fruit diet making it a better health builder than a fruit diet.

An all raw diet can build a very healthy body but what we are reading on this board may not be optimal. Watermelon for lunch, 15 tangerines for dinner, the body needs more nutrients than what those food items can provide, you may be cleanse but you may not be healhty in form of resilience. That is why you always need an optimal environment with no scarcity.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/19/2007 07:01PM by djatchi.