djatchi Wrote:

i merely responded to your statement about potatoes.

now below we are talking about something else, on which i have no need to dispute you.

> Every food item has some toxicity, even fruit and
> greens.


>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.

yes we've been over this already.
i don't want my body to tolerate them.
i love that my body talks to me.


> My main point is that you do no have to be 100
> percent raw to be healthy.

doesn't matter to me. you seem to be fixated on 100% raw, not me.

>People who are 10 or 20
> percent raw should be welcome in the raw camp,
> even the meat eater.

yes

> The 100 percent raw foodist cannot keep explaining
> their health problem with the am-too-clean cliche.

i have no health problems.
there are certainly 100 percent raw fooders that are unhealthy, yes.

>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.

you are entitled to that belief.
we all are doing what we can to the best of our knowledge.

i don't see the point of saying this over and over.
you've provided everyone with your viewpoint, and a warning about fruitarianism.

DJ, this is the first post that is very sobering for me

I agree with the sense of with much of what you write here except the terms themselves: balancing with the enzymes..needing more nutrients from non-vegan foods.

all people certainly are welcome here, I don't see people 10% raw being unwelcomed. I see them being unwelcomed when they make statements out of ignorance claiming they are facts, not those that have legitimate and honest concerns. sure, dogma and self agrandisment and '100% pride' come into play here as well. but for the most part its the people comming to the forum 'with all the answers' that get the kind of flak you are speaking of.

I don't think people are 'explaining their health problems with a cliche'..you are the one assuming that others have health problems...and defining certain phycial/social constructs as 'problems'. But yes, I agree one can use the umbrella of 'detox' to cloud legitimate concerns.

I also think that certain approaches to raw might ineed be better/safer health builders than others. and that a high fruit diet, could be far too cleansing for some. but I can't agree it has anything to do with lack of nutrients contained in non-vegan foods, because to my knowledge, there arn't any. All foods could indeed have some level of toxicity, however freah fruits certainly have the widest range of nutrients and the least ammount of antinutrients.

Anaken wrote:
-----------------------------
>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.

So if humans are designed to eat fruit, then what happens in our thousand of years history to force us to change to non optimal meat diet? Fruit diet just happen to stop working for us at some point in our history? Fruit may not have been adequate in rough environment and seasonal changes. There may be abundance in some places but in most areas of the world, the reality is drought, famine.

People get offended when the core belief in their raw diet is challanged. Fruit could not save T. C. Fry.
Potato may be toxic but it has many nutrients that are usable by the body.

yes I agree, 'a thousand years ago' there was probably a condition or change in the planet that caused a change in our diet and ways of thinking.

i'm not going to shift this to a discussion on the 'perils of frutarianism' although I can see that your motivation to prove your viewpoint underlies this entire conversation.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/19/2007 08:27PM by anaken.

There was never a motivation to prove a viewpoint or to argue for the shake of arguing. The thread was started in response to Bryan's statement that "A piece of bread is loaded with anti nutrients".
What came out of this discussion for me is that we can thrive on all raw diet but we can too on a diet that is less than 100 percent raw. And also complete rawness does not necessary build a healthy body if the food choices are not made properly. The body can process nutrients that may have been altered by heat thru cooking but the body cannot process nutrients that are missing such as b12 in a diet although raw. That is the point I am trying to make. A meal of raw vegetables and some cooked food item and some meat may prove more optimal than a meal of raw watermelon, durian, tangerines. A car may run on dirty fuel but it cannot run with no fuel at all. Thus Hyper sensitivity, super cleansing, detox may not be the problem with some rawfoodist but rather the missing nutrients.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 05/20/2007 12:09PM by djatchi.

I think the point is that you can get all your nutrients from an appropriate raw foods diet. Check out [www.fitday.com] to verify this, and make appropriate food choices and menus to satisfy your nutrient requirements.

Cheers,
J

i also only looked because it said grandma... i assumed it wsa about grandmas food she used to cook and about how those memories effect your food choice, or how hard it is to go to grandmas and not eat her "great" homecooked, home grown meal...

Love and Light

Tiffntwins

`•.¸¸.•´¯`•.¸.´¯`•...¸><((((º>

SWIM FREE FISHES!

Djatchi-Your point seems less about tolerating the beliefs of people on a less than 100% raw diet and more about not tolerating the belief that 100% is the healthiest way to live. It is fine to disagree but you seem to be wanting to change the beliefs of people who don't agree with you. I wonder why you would continue to bring this up on a forum that is raw vegan. Coming in here, you know what the belief is that everyone is gathering around. If you don't share that belief then why stay? Are you searching for an answer or a fight?

Hey Tiffany, cool signature! haha

tiffany Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> i also only looked because it said grandma... i
> assumed it wsa about grandmas food she used to
> cook and about how those memories effect your food
> choice, or how hard it is to go to grandmas and
> not eat her "great" homecooked, home grown meal...

The main point in this thread is that you can be healthy without being 100 percent raw. Some want us to belief that cooked food is loaded with anti nutrients. I disagree and I think some people are offended because I disagree with Bryan. That is why the thread was named GrandMa's Cookings.

pakd4fun Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Djatchi-Your point seems less about tolerating the
> beliefs of people on a less than 100% raw diet and
> more about not tolerating the belief that 100% is
> the healthiest way to live. It is fine to
> disagree but you seem to be wanting to change the
> beliefs of people who don't agree with you. I
> wonder why you would continue to bring this up on
> a forum that is raw vegan. Coming in here, you
> know what the belief is that everyone is gathering
> around. If you don't share that belief then why
> stay? Are you searching for an answer or a fight?

If you read the first post on this thread, I will be surprised to see you find any offensive comments. I only open this thread to respond to the statement that cooked food was loaded with anti nutrients. I am not here to change people mind but I think the forum is better served by listening to differing views on serious matters such as health. Maybe the thread does not belong to the vegan topic on the board but I think it belongs to other topics such as other health issues or where Bryan has it now. I do not know how I am offending or trying to change your mind on this issue. I am just stating that although we can thrive on 100 percent raw diet, we can too on less than 100 percent raw and we should welcome rawfoodists who are not 100 percent.
Personally I eat greens but I am interested to know more about some serious studies or findings that discuss all problems related to eating greens. I always question my belief because there is some much I do not know.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/21/2007 11:29PM by djatchi.

I don't find any of your statements offinsive only redundant. Like I said "Your point seems less about tolerating the beliefs of people on a less than 100% raw diet and more about not tolerating the belief that 100% is the healthiest way to live." You seem to be the one intolerant of 100%ers. I have only been 100% for 7 days yet I have been on this forum for nine months and have felt nothing but welcome.

djatchi-I am not saying I think the topic is uninteresting or unimportant. I am just stating my opinion of how you're coming off and what your motives are.

Geez -- I'm sorry I checked out this thread Too intellectual for me.

dj, while you say over and over that is your point, to convince people it is not necessary to be 100% raw to be healthy, which everyone agrees, it is clear that your point really is that people who live off a diet of fruits or fruits and vegtables are weak. that they are lacking in nutrients that a non-vegan diet contains. while one could argue this. the argument that one can't tolerate a piece of bread because they lack nutrients found in non-vegan foods, or even in vegan fresh foods is a total disaster of an argument. there are no 'nutrients' the body could have that would allow it to digest bread. bread is indigestable. and those who cannot tolerate it have a system that is more acclimated to eating a natural diet. while this might not be an appealing or healthy situation to YOU it certainly is what all the current evidence/peoples-experience points to.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/22/2007 02:59AM by anaken.

pakd4fun Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> djatchi-I am not saying I think the topic is
> uninteresting or unimportant. I am just stating
> my opinion of how you're coming off and what your
> motives are.

So presenting an argument against the statement that "A piece of bread is loaded with anti nutrients" hides some particular motives?
You have the right to your opinion but should not you be fair with me too or at least show me the lines in this thread where I am "coming off" in a way you do not like or where my non likable "motives" are showing?

Anaken Wrote:
----------------------------------------------------
>there are no 'nutrients' the body could have that would allow it to digest bread. bread is indigestable

There are many people whose diet is mostly cooked starch, bread, how do they make it.
I have seen people traveling for days and living on breads, they are not getting sicker, hungryer



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 05/22/2007 06:08AM by djatchi.

Djatchi- When you state if people cannot tolerate a piece of bread on 100% diet than there is a flaw in the diet and someone who supports a 100% raw diet states it is not a flaw, it is heightened awareness, it should end right there. Agreeing to disagree. For you it doesn't end. That is why, IMO, you are coming off as intolerant of other beliefs and sound like you are trying to make people agree with you. You are not simply making the argument, you are pushing your beliefs.

pakd4fun wrote:
---------------------------------------------------------
>When you state if people cannot tolerate a piece of bread on 100% diet than there is a flaw in the diet and someone who supports a
>100% raw diet states it is not a flaw, it is heightened awareness, it should end right there
>

But that is where the problem is what is "heightened awareness"?
It cannot end there. Some rawfoodists are hiding behind the detox or "heightened awareness" where there may be a health problem. There is no such thing as "heightened awareness" in nature.
I totally refuse to apologize or change my tone for that. I have the right to disagree and the right to present my counter argument, that is what a forum is

It is not important to me whether you call me intolerant or not.
You are the tolerant and I am the intolerant, that is fine but I cannot just take for granted the "heightened awareness" argument. If you do not like my posts, then read posts from others, it is ok but leave me alone with your intolerant comments.

"
There are many people whose diet is mostly cooked starch, bread, how do they make it. "

is this actually a mystery? some kind of shocking factoid? people can live off a diet of bacon fat and fish guts and live to be 100. but they can't obtain the level of health or consconsciousness that people on this board are striving towards. It is clear that you have some kind of mental block which prevents you from understanding that, therefore its quite obvious why you are unable to support others, especially since you don't seem to have the slightless clue what the difference between 'health' and 'eating healthy' is, or any basic concepts of cleansing.

a diet of cooked starch is essentially what the macro-biotic diet is, this in contrast to the SWD *could* be a healing diet. because it allows the body to cleanse of meat, dairy (in most cases macros are vegan). its hard to be truly 'healthy' on this diet because it contains very little fresh food, and the grains (especially glutenous ones) have a gradually straining effect on the body. It also never allows for any true detox of the organism, therefore people stay fairly close to the level of health they were already at, only not damaging it as quickly if they follow food combining. they would certainly do even better. So yes it is *possible* to be healthier then most on a starch diet.

if someone went from macro to raw, they would still experience great detox..particularly because processed grains are hell on the body (references abound on this) and things like soy, legumes, peanuts etc.. are extremly acid/mucus forming. After allowing their body to cleanse on raw they would gradually have discomfort returning to foods they used to consume as the 'base' of their diet which provided their 'energy' for decades with no over symptoms-that they would think to link to it anyway. (there are as many studies and testimonials out there on this one also).

you could hook such a person up to a 24/7 b12 IV. There is NO nutrients the body could 'have' that would help digest any food never mind something that is no longer 'food', certainly nothing taken in by FOOD will help break down other food. nutrients just don't break down food.

Your pattern of arugeing is to put foward some mindless 'science' to defend your choice of lifestyle. then when someone answers it, you just pick another one, and cry out till someone answers it. are you playing devils advocate or something? secretly righting your own textbook on the subject with others replies?



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 05/23/2007 12:54AM by anaken.

Anaken Wrote:
----------------------------------------------------
>there are no 'nutrients' the body could have that would allow it to digest bread. bread is indigestable

This is what you wrote and I am not changing subject or coming up with some other lines of reasoning to deviate from that.

If bread is non disgestable how do people survive on it for years?

I know your answer is:
>they can't obtain the level of health or consconsciousness that people on this board are striving towards

What is that level of conscienceness people are experiencing on this board that is different from what we see with the general public.

I eat mostly raw and understand the value of that lifestyle but it does not imply that people who choose not to be 100 percent raw and choose to eat some cooked food including bread cannot experience great health.

Instead of qualifying my reasoning as "mindless science", why don't you explain how you survive for years before turning raw. Maybe you were from the beginning.

I answered that question in the most thorough way possible!
I disucessed how people DO survive for years, that nutirients from food have nothing to do with digesting food. what else do you want? should I retranslate it in LATIN and then back again? how else can i answer this quesiton...here goes

you can fill a car up with nitro and it will run fine until it dies.

people have physically adapted to eating less then healthful foods over millenia by giving up their natural vitality. The only way they can obtain that level of health is by eliminating certain things entirely from their diet and cleansing of those substances.

makes perfect sense to me.

one doesn't need to be 100% raw to do this, no.

if I had to make a guess why we 'survive' for years is because food really isn't all that important towards health till the body can no longer keep up with what is comming in, not to mention, the body is amazing in terms of the abuse it takes and its healing/cleansing capabilities.

I know some atheltic heroin adicts, some pious gluttons, and some unhealthy raw foodists, yes, everyone 'survives' till their tipping point. yet this has nothing to do with health. who has it and what defines it.

It is not important to you to be considered tolerant of others but important for them to be tolerant of you? Hmmm. OK. That explains a lot.

anaken Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I answered that question in the most thorough way
> possible!
> I disucessed how people DO survive for years, that
> nutirients from food have nothing to do with
> digesting food. what else do you want? should I
> retranslate it in LATIN and then back again? how
> else can i answer this quesiton...here goes
>
Am I missing something here, to get nutrients from cooked food, the food needs to be digested first, but cooked food is not digestible according to you, so how do you get the nutrients from cooked food?