There is an old saying "death enters through the mouth". If thats true then the food and drink choices become very important to everybody.

ilive,

It is commonly accepted in most raw food camps that toxemia is the source/process of health -> disease -> death

disease is what the body uses to save it from death.

taking the following route

Enervation
Toxemia.
Irritation
Inflammation.
Ulceration.
Induration.
Cancer.

cancer being the dramatic final atempt for the body to 'safely' store and expel toxins in the most inconsequential way it can
the reasons cancer kills is due to the modern nature of the toxic load of which the body is not designed for. one cant put the blame solely on the treaments or lack of healhful living once the cancer stage is reached.

IMO many of the above, shelton, fry, kroc, experienced symptoms which led to death that only a modern man would have

this must mean according to the theory of toxemia that there is a unconsidered pre-existing internal waste on the cellular level awakened by the diet/lifestyle that was not being handled by the diet/lifestyle


you are right when you say simply eating raw might not be foolproof but these leaders were also proponents of all facets of health:
getting enough rest and sleep, physical exercise, sunshine, fresh air, being in loving relationships, reducing stress, worry, anxiety.


so either
a.)they were not practicing what they preached or they preached too much!:
some say they were affected by their lifestyle of proselytizing, which never made much sense to me, as most people I think would gain great joy from such a profession of spreading knowledge, whereas the more healer types: wigmore (who died in a fire), and Fred Bisci who are/were in their 80's I imagine it would be quite upsetting dealing with ill people all the time.

b.)that a lifestyle of proper food and health practices - while able to reverse many instances of disease and create great health - is not sufficient in itself for the body to cleanse and repair on a cellular level. and in some cases the increase of healthful habits might - even of long termers in proportion to a lifetime and genetic inheritance of toxin - will accelerate the process of disease.

I think people have voiced this when looking at Johnny Lovewisdom's case where a pure diet and pristine environment probably accelerated his death.

I'm not trying to start a conflict,
just my own conclusions



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/04/2008 12:10AM by anaken.

how do you know they weren't practicing what they preached if they didn't do it? I mean, come on now, you can't just say "Oh they must of done something they were talking about wrong" You know, you just don't know for certain if they were even correct in the first place. It could be by chance that people who may have followed them died of old age or are still living. Yes, they could have had disease "buried in them" and not been able to get rid of it, but this doesn't mean it was only cooked food that caused the problem. There are plenty of carcinogens and chemicals people aren't meant to ingest and it's not only in food but in the air and water, etc.

so for someone to go as far as to say "raw is right - plain and simple" is like someone who sees a commercial for tylenol and says that works for them - because it works and other people have had it work. This isn't true for all people who delve into raw food, ofcourse, but generally, I would agree that most people who are novice seem to act the same as one who is for the "magical" powers of tylenol. --keep in mind it's the state of mind, not what tylenol does vs. what food does. It's like comparing a democrat to a republican. Who's right? The ones who think they're right.

And that's just how the human mind works today, we just want to have a solution to everything, and some things can't be answered so quickly as to just reading a book or following someone's made up diet plan; I know we all want to know the answer to healing the body, and yes keeping yourself healthy is a good start - but believing you're better then someone for the way you eat is not something I like to agree with - or believing someone so quickly and calling it truth when you know deep down there's always that 1% chance it could be false

I guess all I'm trying to say is eat what makes sense to you(you being general), keep the preachings on your insides and if someone is interested, let them know some things you've heard, but never tell them what to do. They are the decider, and no one should be turned into a sheep.

maybe enjoying life(the way you want to) is all we need to live as long as we want

actually if u want to know what live foodists die from
just observe the animal kingdom

ALL animals are raw foodists
and yet they still die

i'd just say wear and tear
that's all

pure and simple !

there's a lot more to the animal kingdom then that; there's a lot more research on the human brain then that as well

i think alot of raw foodists die from falling from coconut trees ... thats quite a drop !!

=D

Swimmer lol you are too funny
Jgunn likewise.

I think Anaken has made some good points, and Kwans post is so good it is worth reiterating in its entirety.

kwan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Seajaee--
>
> Here are some of my observations. I'm 59, so these
> questions are important to me too. I'm quite
> confident of the raw food diet's integrity; so
> please read all the way to the end or you might
> get the wrong idea:
>
> As the raw food community comes of age (and its
> adherents and leaders age) we are finding out
> what's really going on, what we are really made
> of, and what has to be fine-tuned-- at least
> that's why I look at it. I think we'll probably
> adjust our philosophy a little, but we'll come out
> just fine.
>
> So far there have been some cancer deaths (Yukta
> Kulvinskas of colon cancer at 58 and Morris Krock
> with a cancerous lesion on his leg -- I'm not sure
> how old he was, maybe in his 60s). T.C. Fry had
> congenital heart failure and had a cancerous
> lesion on his lung when he died relatively young.
> Herbert Shelton died of Parkinson's disease, and
> I've always heard that it really was Parkinsons
> and he was in bed and pretty much incapacitated
> for a couple years before his death, but some
> people are now saying no, it was just caused by
> his being kicked in the head by a horse. (So I'm
> not sure what really happened.) Rene Beresford had
> prostate cancer. These are the ones I know about.
> But there are also a number of older leaders in
> the raw food movement who are pictures of
> glorious, radiant health. And in the middle, so to
> speak, there are some aging leaders in the raw
> food movement who are not suffering from any known
> diseases, but don't look the picture of health.
>
> One of the most outstanding raw foodist writers
> and educators was Norman Walker, in my opinion. He
> lived 99 years and was in excellent health. He
> promoted juice fasting and raw foods, but he
> wasn't 100% vegan all the time. Gabriel Cousens --
> isn't he nearing 70?-- I think he looks wonderful,
> but I haven't met and observed him close at hand.
>
>
> Our raw elders are not that huge a community yet;
> so almost by necessity our examples have to be
> very anecdotal. It feels 'sketchy' sometimes, but
> patterns are emerging.
>
> Meanwhile, look at all the amazing and unequivocal
> evidence that raw food/or fasting heals just about
> every imaginable type of disease, and that the
> detoxification involved in the vegan raw food diet
> creates a clean and healthy internal environment
> which makes for unsurpassed vitality, fitness and
> even physical attractiveness in the short term and
> even for many decades, and we have to admit that
> no diet comes close.
>
> I did a Paleo diet (meat & vegies, mostly) for a
> couple years, after having been raw vegan for
> several years, and I didn't feel good, and I
> started to look noticably older and more 'rough'.
> My heartbeat became erratic and I felt tired all
> the time. It was quite shocking. I got back on the
> raw path and restored my health pretty quickly.
>
> So what about the problems noted above? I'm
> thinking there are some things we still haven't
> figured out. We don't have the whole picture yet,
> but we're almost there. In other words, is there
> still a missing factor? Observe: there are (and
> were) Taoists who live on a raw food diet (or some
> near equivalent, maybe with occasional steamed
> vegies) and fasting, and because they have learned
> to meditate to cleanse and perfect their minds,
> and they have perfected their bodies with fresh
> air, exercise and qigong exercises (yoga works
> too, I think) that help them to assimilate prana,
> they often have lived-- and even today I think--
> they live to a grand old age (100+ very common),
> diseaseless and quite young looking, with
> beautiful, fit bodies. I believe the secret is
> also calorie restriction, and even learning to
> mentally not think of food as our only sustenance.
> When we get past the reproductive age, if we are
> still eating a lot (even an optimal raw diet) we
> see deterioration most of the time, and disease
> can take hold. But not if we 'switch over' to the
> evolutionary food of life-- prana. Does this mean
> we're supposed to stop eating? No! But by
> preparing the body over the years with a pure
> diet, detoxifying it and teaching it to ask for
> less and less food, and finally we can, for
> example, spend some of our time every day eating,
> and several hours not eating every day during
> which our bodies begin to assimilate prana and
> unleash the power within to rejuvenate. I think
> it's a natural process that's part of the human
> evolutionary destiny.
>
> This is how I see it at the moment, anyway-- just
> my 2 cents worth. Not sure this will help or
> hinder you in convincing your friend, but maybe it
> will provide some food for thought for your own
> research. I hope he decides to try it.


I would also like to add that like many other posters have pointed out, simply being a "raw foodist" is not a complete picture of health. As I understand it there are many factors that make up our health, and also many variables which are either unknown or haven't been allowed for within the mainstream raw perception of it.

Factors like the inescapable modern day toxin exposure from the environment, and low nutrient values in our foods due to the growing methods etc. This as well as variables such as the earlier living practices and state of health of the "raw foodist" being considered, and the debatable accuracy of the conclusions reached due to the still incomplete understanding of the whole picture by those making them.

Like Kwan says, the raw science is still in its infancy and we are all still pioneers. I honestly believe that our health goes beyond the diet and physical practices into the realms of spirit eventually, with an end result that I am guessing is something akin to Kwans concept of prana. But for us right here and now we are still dealing with the unrefined wisdom contained within our current state of health and beliefs.

So we work on the first step that we can, which is moving away from actually poisoning ourselves, toward forms of dietary and living practice that are less harmfull to our bodies. Then we progress on to the subtler nuances still being discovered, of what aspects of raw food are the realy helpfull ones, and not simply a break from the toxic bombardment which realises the immediate health benifits so commonly experienced. Also the holistic relationship of the other areas of our lives, which IMO are more profoundly important than what any of us yet know.

lightform--
>...and Kwans post is so good it is worth reiterating in its entirety.<

Hey, thanks! ;-) Once again, we're on the same wavelength.

Sharrhan:


[www.facebook.com]

For Shelton and Fry, they definitely didn't practice what they preached. For Fry, he quit eating raw foods at some point, at the request of his partner. He was also under a lot of stress, both financial and social. And at some point Fry submitted to some therapies that were not hygienic (ozone treatments). And with all the mistakes he made, he still managed to live to 72, when at 40 he was told he would be lucky to make 45.

As for Shelton, he overworked himself, was always being sued, plus the thing about getting kicked in the head (which caused his brain damage). And with all his abuses, he lived to 89 or so.

And what can we learn from these mistakes? Am I making these mistakes? I know I don't always get the rest and sleep I need. Its a compromise, and there are consequences. I would prefer to get the rest and sleep, as I certainly feel better when I do, but I don't always give that to myself.

All this says is this: seek not to follow in the footsteps of the masters, seek what the masters sought.

i have to ammend my previous thought after much research .. not only do raw foodists die from falling OUT of coconut trees .. BUT more die from the coconuts dropping on their heads and even occaisionally the trees themselves

i like to think of it as a bit of coco-karma



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/06/2008 09:50AM by Jgunn.

Bryan that is interesting. Norman Walker lived really long.

EZRIDER I love your quote and
it has also been said that " Hell ( disease ) is OTHER PEOPLE"

La Veronique that was smart too



What about thoughts??

Even as a pure raw foodist one can be in a cruel relationship with abusive/cruel man and be unhealthy or unhealthy relationship to money, or a number of things, like bad jobs, evil people that come along with it..seemingly good..but you wonder why you feel bad still..

It helps to work on these things either in therapy or THE WORK or just having a coach that will objectively look at your life and help you.

Thoughts are toxins and blessings.

If you are in a bad job get out, if in bad relationships get over it and out. Find out who your friends really are and who really loves you. You may not know this yourself and have to ask for help. Pay someone to help you or listen....do what you can and be happy..

Bryan you seem like you really have your life together!!





Edited 5 time(s). Last edit at 11/06/2008 05:04PM by suvine.

you can be angry your whole life and live to 100, and you can eat fast food and drink beer and live to 101 - but maybe it's not about longevity..maybe it's just how you want to feel for however long you live.

ultimately you have the choice to be happy for your life, or the choice to be stressed, annoyed, anxious. So what does it really matter how long you live? Live for the moment you're in and as long as you are making it enjoyable for yourself, then I strongly encourage that. It will most likely be more fulfilling

like Bob Marley said, don't worry be happy

Bobby McFerrin was the guy who made the song famous ;O)

really? cool fact

Bryan--
Good points about Fry and Shelton. Did you happen to get ahold of the long article about T.C. Fry that was published on 'Health and Beyond'? Clearly, he wasn't always following his own advice, and probably had a pretty stressful life.

Sometimes we forget: the pundits and health gurus are human beings too! :-)

>'...seek not to follow in the footsteps of the masters, seek what the masters sought.<

Right!

Sharrhan:


[www.facebook.com]

Shelton had "brain damage"? Not according to the rather quirky & lengthy essay by one of his followers, Victoria Bidwell, which is an "external link" from his Wikipedia page.

"Timeline For The Life and Hard Times of Dr.Shelton....

"1945 Dr. Shelton kicked in the mouth by his stallion and this marks the beginning of his slowing down His teeth are badly jarred and he begin to lose them, one by one, over the years. This impairs some of his nutritional well-being."

The horse kick is never mentioned otherwise.

Perhaps it wasn't the horse kick. He did have Parkinson's at the end, which is a form of brain damage. It could be the Parkinson's came from his eating commercial foods, as he never got into the organic food habit.

la_veronique Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> actually if u want to know what live foodists die
> from
> just observe the animal kingdom
>
> ALL animals are raw foodists
> and yet they still die
>
> i'd just say wear and tear
> that's all
>
> pure and simple !


Wear & tear, disease, violence. Animals can even die of grief & loneliness.

Eating raw food won't make you a friggin' superman. You're mortal & will die. Appreciate life & don't use your diet to make you feel special, it'll only make you lonely. And then you'll die sooner. No matter what you eat.

This public service announcement was brought to you by *a*z.

haha! that's what I'm saying

I think people who eat SAD and other negative habits can live long but they are the exception rather then the rule and survive in spite of their bad habits. I doubt if trading their bad habits for good habits would hurt them any and actually would help them live even longer.

Where are all the dead birds? I don't mean the ones who die as the result of human activity, but the others? And the dead fish. I don't mean the ones who die from poisoned streams etc,but the others.

i'd just say wear and tear
> that's all
>

Yes, but are cancer, Parkinson's and heart failure 'wear and tear,' or something different?

Sharrhan:


[www.facebook.com]

right.
I don't like to invoke science in this way, but I think its safe to say that none of the bones we have uncovered of ancient man died of degenerative disease. Only they truly died of 'wear and tear' from sheer expended energy, harsh climate, and lack of 'ideal' food.

hunter-gatherers and numerous non-industrial populations throughout the world do not get cancer. even when their diets are composed of 50-75% fat. (not supporting this, and of course there are many other factors involved)


if a raw food diet composed mostly of fruit reverses the stages of toxemia and fosters cellular repair.Then isn't it ridiculous that some lapse in diet or lifestyle will then totally recreate an amount of endogenous material in which the body has to revert to cancerous tumors in order to save itself? and at that point when none of the natural hygiene principles can reverse it so they revert to other treatments?

to me it points to a simple idea
that these endogenous toxins and cellular disrepair were never dealt with in the first place.

Living on a raw vegan diet was nearly impossible 80+ years ago, it's hard to know what true raw foodists die of and at what age.

Most on SAD who live long, live long in pain, those on living food may live long pain free

I don't know where you got the number 80, since the oldest of the folks being discussed (Shelton) didn't really even START experimenting with raw foods till around 80 or so years ago.

also it seems like food quality and variety were much higher in the past so, other then knowledge as a stumbling block I don't think your point is that accurate. Especially for those indigenous to the tropical zones, a fruit based diet would have been much more accessible, and on a biologically/cellular level - suitable.

its the modernized-tissued genetic-european folks who have the problems.

Oh I like how you think, anaken. Great observations. I think about that all the time; looking forward to getting into anthropology

Cancer is one, big, confusing thing and can be worsened probably, no doubt, by a diet. Perhaps maybe it's because the diet causes stress among the organs, or the person (meaning it could be if you struggled to stick to a diet, that can cause stress just as harmful). I remember I think when penicillin was "discovered" and it was brought into use, this had a play in creating-well the development of- "superbugs" that could fight antibiotics - these antibiotics which made us more susceptible to a disease/cold/virus now without the antibiotics to face the stronger superbugs. Perhaps they have a toll on human immune system as well. I mean, all the friends I know that take advil always get sick. I was eating vegan, but also off all the meds/painkillers for quite a while and I remember I got a cold once last year, but I never missed any school. It only got better the longer I steared clear of medication like that. So that could be a huge part of it.

We're surrounded by carcinogens all day long. Mattresses, plastics, other people's perfumes, car fumes, the off gassing of your fridge & couch.

It's naive to think that diet alone will necessarily "save" you.

Not to say you should just give up, but diet is just a small component.

For example watch this (kind of shocking but everyone, especially those with children should watch) :

(1/5) [www.youtube.com]
(2/5) [www.youtube.com]
(3/5) [www.youtube.com]
(4/5) [www.youtube.com]
(5/5) [www.youtube.com]

Community Builder, you are right about the environment.

You can eat organic raw exclusively and exercise daily but if you are inhaling asbestos neither will stop you from developing mesothelioma.