RusticBohemian,

Please don't get me wrong here, as I said, I applaud what you are doing...

I've read Dr Grahams book, and had a great conversation with him a few years ago. I think highly of him, he's a good guy, smart, and has a healthy ego. I've been helped by his work. However 80-10-10 does not work for everyone. I personally do better on higher carb, and less fat/protein in the summer, and a slightly higher fat diet in the winter even though I live in San Diego. I've been evolving my raw diet as I've learned more about nutrition and me for almost 6 years now. This year however, after being injured at work, I find myself needing to go back to almost no overt fats to keep my weight down.


By other sources, I mean science in general. If you are going to make statements about minerals, genetics, etc, research the subject so you are accurate in what you write. While there may not be scientific studies relating directly to raw, there is a world of information about human biology, bio-chemistry, and human genetic variations. I believe accuracy is extremely important because people will use incorrect statements within the article as an excuse to disregard the rest of the valid info. Research and science are not evil. Pharmaceutical companies and greedy CEO's make incorrect statements about disease, not science.

As an example of what I mean...Look at your description of minerals in the article you linked at the top of this post. Are you sure you want to let that stand?

I do not believe in "Raw Leaders or Gurus" I believe in researching, verifying, and assimilating information. I believe we, as individuals need to find what works best for our bodies, and not blindly follow others who have developed a philosophy based on their experiences in there own bodies.


I would not presume to tell you how or when to share with others, I only request that you try to be accurate as possible, and that you recognize that there so much science out there that can aid you in your efforts.


Peace.

> I believe I've addressed the fruit vs fat vs
> greens question, but I'd love to expand the
> article if there are additional questions that
> people have. Please let me know if you have
> questions.

Also, Please read this statement of yours, and tell me if you meant it as authoritative and definitive as it sounds. Are you aware that there are people here who have been into raw food for decades?

There are several others, like me, who have spent many, many hours researching ways to deal with inherited diseases caused by genetic abnormalities that are not curable, but definitely manageable by a raw lifestyle.

Peace.

Swimmer

I by no means think research is evil. I'm all for it. When research is available, I use it quite a bit. For instance, you'll enjoy my article on the effect of diet on the enviornment. I cited quite a bit of technical information: [www.raw-food-health.net]

You wrote:

"If you are going to make statements about minerals,genetics, etc, research the subject so you are accurate in what you write."

I did a search of my article and it does not include the word genetic or genes, so I'm not sure how I'm commenting on genetics. As for minerals, I don't think I've said anything that you won't find in any basic biology text book.

I wrote:

"Greens are the best source of the 12 mineral salts ( admittedly, some believe there are more than this, but only 12 have been proven) used in the body, each for a specialized function. Without minerals, the body is unable to force waste products out of cells and to let nutrients in. Give it too much, though, and the body will die of dehydration, which is why salt beyond the perfect proportion provided in fruits and vegetables will damage your body.

Raw greens are also the second best source, after fruit, of vitamins. These are necessary for normal metabolic function, and a lack of them bring on diseases like scurvy, and rickets.

Vegetables also contain the enzymes the body needs to perform thousands of tasks."

What do you see that is incorrect in there? Have I made a mistake? I can expand on the use of salts for the elimination of bodily waste and the inflow of nutrients at the cellular level, if that's what you're concerned over. It just seems a bit technical for a short article on why greens are good for you.

I'm still not sure what specifically you find false in my article. Are you saying greens should be avoided? The preponderance of evidence shows that people need them.

I'm also curious to know what changes for you in winter to make high fat more desirable.

swimmer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> RusticBohemian,
>
> Please don't get me wrong here, as I said, I
> applaud what you are doing...
>
> I've read Dr Grahams book, and had a great
> conversation with him a few years ago. I think
> highly of him, he's a good guy, smart, and has a
> healthy ego. I've been helped by his work.
> However 80-10-10 does not work for everyone. I
> personally do better on higher carb, and less
> fat/protein in the summer, and a slightly higher
> fat diet in the winter even though I live in San
> Diego. I've been evolving my raw diet as I've
> learned more about nutrition and me for almost 6
> years now. This year however, after being injured
> at work, I find myself needing to go back to
> almost no overt fats to keep my weight down.
>
>
> By other sources, I mean science in general. If
> you are going to make statements about minerals,
> genetics, etc, research the subject so you are
> accurate in what you write. While there may not be
> scientific studies relating directly to raw, there
> is a world of information about human biology,
> bio-chemistry, and human genetic variations. I
> believe accuracy is extremely important because
> people will use incorrect statements within the
> article as an excuse to disregard the rest of the
> valid info. Research and science are not evil.
> Pharmaceutical companies and greedy CEO's make
> incorrect statements about disease, not science.
>
> As an example of what I mean...Look at your
> description of minerals in the article you linked
> at the top of this post. Are you sure you want to
> let that stand?
>
> I do not believe in "Raw Leaders or Gurus" I
> believe in researching, verifying, and
> assimilating information. I believe we, as
> individuals need to find what works best for our
> bodies, and not blindly follow others who have
> developed a philosophy based on their experiences
> in there own bodies.
>
>
> I would not presume to tell you how or when to
> share with others, I only request that you try to
> be accurate as possible, and that you recognize
> that there so much science out there that can aid
> you in your efforts.
>
>
> Peace.

I apologize for sounding definitive.

My aim was to ask if the article was clear. In other words - when you read this do you have questions? How can I improve it. That's what I was asking.

swimmer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> > I believe I've addressed the fruit vs fat vs
> > greens question, but I'd love to expand the
> > article if there are additional questions that
> > people have. Please let me know if you have
> > questions.
>
> Also, Please read this statement of yours, and
> tell me if you meant it as authoritative and
> definitive as it sounds. Are you aware that there
> are people here who have been into raw food for
> decades?
>
> There are several others, like me, who have spent
> many, many hours researching ways to deal with
> inherited diseases caused by genetic abnormalities
> that are not curable, but definitely manageable by
> a raw lifestyle.
>
> Peace.

RusticBohemian Wrote:
-
> I did a search of my article and it does not
> include the word genetic or genes, so I'm not sure
> how I'm commenting on genetics. As for minerals, I
> don't think I've said anything that you won't find
> in any basic biology text book.
>
Please read what you wrote here:

"Without minerals, the body is unable to force waste products out of cells and to let nutrients in. Give it too much, though, and the body will die of dehydration, which is why salt beyond the perfect proportion provided in fruits and vegetables will damage your body."

to repeat: "Give it too much, though, and the body will die of dehydration"

I'm sorry but this is oversimplified to to point of being inaccurate, and displays a lack of knowledge in the subject. You may be well versed in a subject, but statements like that do not show it. And I have to say that if you can find that in a basic biology book, I suggest you get another book.

I should have specified that my quote regarding genetics was response to a statement you made on another page about "bad genes". I would not do you the disservice of looking at only one of your articles, out of context, without trying to understand where you are coming from in general. Also, perhaps you can understand why someone like me would point that one out, considering what I wrote about my own battle with genetics.

Look, I really don't want to tear your articles down or argue details. If your aim here is for us to critique your article, please take my previous comments to be constructive, as well as the following observations. I think, you have made the same mistake that may authors in the raw food web world. It is my suggestion that you go over your articles with a very critical eye. Look for any instances where you have allowed your enthusiasm to outweigh facts. Site real sources, AND your sources sources. Build a drum tight argument that shows people how this lifestyle really can help them. Don't count on people believing what you say, and don't give a reader any reason to discount your entire article because of a few carelessly written phrases. As an example, declaring "most" of a group does something or other is simple not valid without siting your survey data.


To answer your questions about me. Obviously, I have nothing against greens, but I only consume about 1/3 pound of leafy greens per day, which is way short of what would be needed for 80-10-10. My digestion system can not handle that kind if quantity. I do far better on a very high fruit diet. In the cooler months, I get too cold internally, and a small amount of fat every evening helps. I can't eat anywhere near your 3000 calories and, as you know a person can surpass 10% of calorie intake quickly with a serving of nut butter, or a large avocado. I fight a battle for my health every day, even with raw foods, genetic predisposition prevents me from obtaining perfect health. I know, through experience, that stuffing more greens into my digestive system would cause more harm then good.

Thank you for your article RusticBohemian.

I don't agree with all of it, but it's definitely sparked a healthy debate!

Your statement that greens are the best source for minerals would be correct only if a person never eats nuts or seeds, or possibly if a person follows 80-10-10.

USDA nutrition charts show consistently that nuts and seeds are a far more concentrated source for minerals than greens (check www.nutritiondata.com).

Whether or not fat from plantfoods is good for us is another debate entirely, but the pure and simple fact is that nuts and seeds are a most excellent source for minerals.

I'm one of those long-term raw food vegans who doesn't follow 80-10-10. Not that I load up on lots and lots of oil-rich raw foods, but I do eat more than Doug Graham would recommend; and that works very well for me.

I also eat lots and lots of fruit. I eat more fruit than anything else.

Back to greens. I absolutely love greens, but they've always given me more trouble than either fruits or nuts/seeds. Eating greens can give me swollen eyes, dry skin, stomach aches, and even some depression.

Still, I've come to believe that greens are important. Over the long term, I do much better if I eat them - though not everyday.

I'm now better able to digest greens than ever before. The one thing I'm doing differently is that I'm fasting more often. When I'm able to fast twice a week (water fast), I have no problem at all with greens - none, zero, zilch. In fact, the greens make me feel like.....um.....Superwoman! Even just one fast a week definitely helps.

It's not because the fasting means I'm eating less overall. I'm not a really big eater (usually). I only weigh around 90 pounds (5'1". It's that the fasting gives my body a chance to rest, catch up, and rewind.

I believe science is important. Much scientific evidence has been accumulated that can actually help us raw folks find a viable path to allow us to stay raw and vegan.

On the other hand, scientific research - especially clinical trials - is definitely incomplete for the raw food vegan diet. We do still have to rely to a certain extent on our own experiences, sometimes over the span of many years.

fresh said:

<< la v,

i understand you don't wish to debate, but if you have any reputable source that indicates that

1 - we need a blood purifier
2 - that chlorophyll is a blood purifier
3 - that the body can't purify blood without chlorophyll

i'd love to see it.>>

Well, let's break it down into its components. Your first question was this:

"We NEED a blood purifier." That is an opinion, specifically MY opinion. This is up to you to decide whether or not you need it. If you live in a pristine area where the air is incredibly good, and ditto with the water and soil and thus food supply, and your diet was very clean as well... the answer would differ than someone who lived in URBAN-ica and had the opposite quality of the above mentioned.

2. "Chlorophyll is a blood purifier." This, you can easily look up or just google and you will have thousands of articles. On one search engine, i saw 9 000 articles just for typing in chlorophyll and blood purifier and one of them was from Andrew Weill, a doctor who is known for his "alternative" views. It does closely mimic the constitution of the human blood.

3. " That the blood can't purify without chlorophyll." I didn't say this verbatim. It is something that you came to the conclusion of because it was perhaps subversively if not overtly implied by what I wrote. A better way to state this is to just go back to #2 . Simply because chlorophyll is a blood purifier does not entail that the blood cannot be purified without chlorophyll.

la_veronique Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> "We NEED a blood purifier." That is an opinion,
> specifically MY opinion. This is up to you to
> decide whether or not you need it. If you live in
> a pristine area where the air is incredibly good,
> and ditto with the water and soil and thus food
> supply, and your diet was very clean as well...
> the answer would differ than someone who lived in
> URBAN-ica and had the opposite quality of the
> above mentioned.

my query was more along the lines of
- does the body require specific substances such as chlorophyll as in this case to cleanse the blood or is it a normal bodily process that occurs using normal body cells and processes. or something like that.



> 2. "Chlorophyll is a blood purifier." This, you
> can easily look up or just google and you will
> have thousands of articles. On one search engine,
> i saw 9 000 articles just for typing in
> chlorophyll and blood purifier and one of them was
> from Andrew Weill, a doctor who is known for his
> "alternative" views. It does closely mimic the
> constitution of the human blood.

the number of articles doesn't prove anything which is why i said reputable.
if the source is even close to being objective and scientific i would consider it, but i was asking you because i haven't found any. certainly andrew weil does not hold views with which i agree for the most part and also not in this case.

here's another example - i can find thousands of articles showing how to cure the flu, but curing the flu in the manner they speak of is counter to the truth as i know it to be which is that there are no cures, only cessation of cause.

i can have an opinion about anything.
i was asking for some sort of physiological process by which chlorophyll would purify blood. you could be right, but i simply haven't seen anything that indicates that it is so.

here's an example from someone who is selling something

"While the body has ingenious ways of purifying the blood, it sometimes helps to give these systems a little helping hand. The liver, kidneys and lymphatic system work tirelessly to cleanse the blood of unwanted toxins and impurities. However, sometimes the work load is just too much and these toxins begin to build up in our muscle tissue and blood. Taking blood purifiers help the body remove these harmful toxins from the body."

obviously i don't agree with their conclusion above.

can't find anything about chlorophyll.....



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 11/29/2008 10:21PM by fresh.

I like to eat a plate of greens all by themselves. No dressing. No fruit or veggies thrown in. Just the green leaves. Its delicious. try it you might like it.

Yes, I enjoy the same thing. There's something so satisfying about simple greens.

EZ rider Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I like to eat a plate of greens all by themselves.
> No dressing. No fruit or veggies thrown in. Just
> the green leaves. Its delicious. try it you might
> like it.

>
> to repeat: "Give it too much, though, and the body
> will die of dehydration"
>
> I'm sorry but this is oversimplified to to point
> of being inaccurate, and displays a lack of
> knowledge in the subject. You may be well versed
> in a subject, but statements like that do not show
> it. And I have to say that if you can find that in
> a basic biology book, I suggest you get another
> book.

I don't see how you could possible consider this an oversimplification. When you ate cooked foods did you ever notice after eating a salty food that you got thirsty? Your body has to use water to isolate mineral salt outside of what is found in fresh fruits and vegetables. Added salt dehydrates the body.It's harmful if not isolated by the water.

Think about salt water from the ocean. We're talking about water here...only with salt in it. So you drink that water (if you can keep it down) and you keep drinking it, and you'll die of dehydration. The salt is so harmful that you can be drinking water and still die of dehydration. It's actually really telling about salt if you think about it.

So, yes, salt can cause the body to die to dehydration.

But regardless, I don't especially want to argue the point anymore, so let's just let this rest.



Site real sources, AND your
> sources sources. Build a drum tight argument that
> shows people how this lifestyle really can help
> them. Don't count on people believing what you
> say, and don't give a reader any reason to
> discount your entire article because of a few
> carelessly written phrases. As an example,
> declaring "most" of a group does something or
> other is simple not valid without siting your
> survey data.

I certainly respect what you're saying here, and I certainly will continue to stride to use science in my articles.

>
> To answer your questions about me. Obviously, I
> have nothing against greens, but I only consume
> about 1/3 pound of leafy greens per day, which is
> way short of what would be needed for 80-10-10. My
> digestion system can not handle that kind if
> quantity. I do far better on a very high fruit
> diet. In the cooler months, I get too cold
> internally, and a small amount of fat every
> evening helps. I can't eat anywhere near your 3000
> calories and, as you know a person can surpass 10%
> of calorie intake quickly with a serving of nut
> butter, or a large avocado. I fight a battle for
> my health every day, even with raw foods, genetic
> predisposition prevents me from obtaining perfect
> health. I know, through experience, that stuffing
> more greens into my digestive system would cause
> more harm then good.

I respect your battle, and I wish you the best of luck on your path towards health.

-Andrew

fresh

the fact is that i was too damn lazy to find out which articles were pure reviewed etc.

hope u can do a better job

i just simply had no desire to re research what i believe in and works for me

sure, not my intention to give you an assignment.

anything counter to the health science concept
of "the body is the active agent, and not specific foods"

is liable to be questioned by me.

nothing personal

yeah but you would have to eat a lot of salt and salt water to die of dehydration, given it's a hot day, you've got no regular water and no shelter and you don't sweat (though that's pretty much impossible)

you can die of drinking too much water; fruit has a lot of water; i'm sure if you drank a lot of water (or ate a lot of fruit) and never urinated and kept eating fruit/drinking water you would die

so i think what the point behind saying "eat salt and you will dehydrate and die" is a little over the top, because it is implying that if you add salt to a meal, that you will simply dehydrate and die. I know it's not what you mean, but the way you wrote it sounds like that.. and the fact that there are people out there that eat a minimum amount of salt (hardly anyone in the u.s. eats what is actually required) AND eat raw that are healthy

there are also so many articles, i'm sure, out there that have some sort of explanation on how salt could benefit you (grey salt, celtic sea salt) - some recommended by doctors/naturalists

perhaps it is unfair to compare the salt content in a big mac or fries vs. salt in kale -- it would be a different study if you studied someone who ate under or near the recommended daily intake of salt vs. someone who ate only greens for salt (and/or nuts - as i saw posted above)

that's what would be the scientific part anyway.. there's so much more that could be said theory and philosophical wise of course, and that's always fun

This is my two cents: we don't have the mandible, dentition, or gastrointestinal tract of a carnivore[tiger, lion. etc.]. We do have primate physiology, and that entails consumption of a plant based diet. The term omnivore is overused; possibly invalid for being inapplicable consistently. You maybe CAN eat everything, but OUGHT you to? There are reams of clinical data, besides the China study, that show the SAD results in disease. It's acidifying, low in micronutrients, and higher in unusable calories. Atherosclerosis, Diabetes, cancers, and rheumatic disorders have all been linked, at least partly, to the SAD. This is news to none of you, I'm sure. Lastly, and just as an intriguing interjection: the primatologist Robert Sapolsky has noted that the baboons which eat a more omnivorous diet, including consumption of human foods from dumpsters, exhibit the worst health and most erratic socialization patterns; especially where violence is concerned. Baboons, people! Nasty stocky befanged monkeys! Curious, no?

P.S. Doesn't anybody on these boards use a Vitamix?!

fresh,

How can you not find anything about the tonifying attributes of wheatgrass?! Isn't it common knowledge that chlorophyll is almost identical to human hemoglobin? I learned this in science class; must I cite the primary source of every fact I have accumulated over several decades? I am so tired from just thinking about it . . .

..bet when we all lived in the sea we ate greens.. a little seaweed, some stuff along the shores..

Tamukha Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> fresh,
>
> How can you not find anything about the tonifying
> attributes of wheatgrass?! Isn't it common
> knowledge that chlorophyll is almost identical to
> human hemoglobin? I learned this in science
> class; must I cite the primary source of every
> fact I have accumulated over several decades? I
> am so tired from just thinking about it . . .


its not almost identical there are several differences in structure and function.

no you do not need to do anything that you do not want to do.

the body's organs cleanse, not chlorophyll, until proven otherwise.

tamukha, i think you are over-simplifying studies in primates and humans. Being omnivorous does not mean you necessarily consume a large amount of meat and grains, but it allows you to have a very large scale of what you can eat - a varied diet - which is what chimpanzees do. They have an extremely varied diet, which does not just include plants. Baboons are not so much related to people..and simplifying why they have a high death rate and why they have weird tempers based on diet is not extremely valid

while I agree diet probably has a large part in deciding whether you get a disease or get sick, it's certainly not a fact when picked through -- and when you pick through it and start saying "well it's because they aren't vegan" or "its the fat" or "no it's actually the sugar" or "too little protein" -- you see no matter what side, each one is over simplifying and narrowing each view, but you simply can't state either as more factual because each have evidence that is valid and that both contradict in some way.

we also do not have exact primate physiology, it's very interesting how we differ actually...and it's worth looking at

anyway, i feel like people here over-compare us to apes, and should consider how we evolved over the past million years or so from the monkey and what early man (or perhaps most-like-us-man) ate. I mean..it did make us what we are today and basically sculpted our systems to what they can and can't handle -- and even more so there are so many different kinds of people. Just think about the domesticated dog - it's certainly similar to that philosophy. Dogs are very very different from wolves and certain are more alike - yet they diverged for even a shorter amount of time from them then people have apes.

Quote:
"...the SAD results of disease. It's acidifying..."

Dark leafy greens are known for their alkalizing affect.. the alkalizing mineral magnesium is in chlorophyll and easily released and (more or less) absorbed when digested.... not that we all need extra, but I notice the difference in my pH when eating greens..

"Green vegetables such as spinach are good sources of magnesium because the center of the chlorophyll molecule (which gives green vegetables their color) contains magnesium." [ods.od.nih.gov]

fresh: [www.wheatgrass.com]
Yes, one has a porphyrin ring with iron and the other with magnesium, and one has a bit more oxygen than the other. But as a cursory internet search shows, the amount of anecdotal evidence suggesting the tonifying attributes of chlorophyll outnumbers the obscure number of double blind in vitro and in vivo studies on the tonifying attributes of chlorophyll(and I'm not holding my breath for Johns Hopkins to get on this, either). Also, when my late cancer patient mother began to have the inevitable problems with hemoglobin production and mpv, I dosed her with large amounts of chlorophyll[going on considerable left-brain investigation on my part] and her counts went up, all other things being equal. Repeatedly. Could have been coincidences; I cannot say. But I can say this: as it is not molecularily similar to hemlock, I shall keep consuming chlorophyll and feeling "good!"

iLIVE: I only mentioned Sapolsky to see if anyone was familiar with his work. Guess not. And I'm only reporting what thems that study primates have noted, with regard to nutrition. The concept that nutrition directly affects socialization has been applied many times to human populations, most recently in the Central Alternative High School experiment in Appleton, Wisconsin a few years ago. Numerous papers have been written on the subject of crime rates in times of famine or specific nutrient deprivation, also. They are fascinating reads. My analogies are deliberately simple, as this isn't a board for biochemistry Phds. We are, in fact, anatomically more like apes than we are like tigers, and this does not preclude there being differentiations among individuals in our species: those that thrive on high animal tissue, those that can digest lactose, etc. All I'm saying is given x, logical extrapolations to y may be made. Also, anthropologists posit that "early man" likely scavenged rotting raw carcasses left by large carnivores, which means he had more in common with the hyena than with you or me, I daresay. : )

once again, it's not as simple as stating it as just "early man"- there were so many stages. And as some did scavenge, they also hunted. Even chimps hunt, they actually created the spear. Though most ..early men.. ate MUCH less meat in comparison to the western diet (in different parts of the timeline). Of course we are MORE alike with chimps then with tigers. But who called us carnivores? I'm not saying that at all. But we aren't chimps, and we aren't tigers. We evolved as HUMANS and that makes us contain a completely different digestive system then either all together, which, again, has been studied extensively in the the science of anthropology. There is always something more to read. So I can never be sure what our diet is predestined to be, if there is an "our" of if its more like a "some here" "some there" "you specifically". It's great to read about though, because it is such a mystery, there for every time I read something knew and seemingly factual I get excited. But there will be no learning without comparison to as much knowledge as you can find out there.

Interesting, Supersaurus - I've seen 'loosing' written for 'losing' so many times on forums that I'd assumed the Americans spelt it differently from UK. Are you American, Supersaurus? Agree with you re 'you're' and 'your'. Probably all down to teachers being frightened to correct mis-spellings in case creativity stifled etc etc yawn...

(I am a former teacher who used to point out every mis-spelling, as, after all, how would children know they'd spelt a word incorrectly unless told?! Unfortunately, as the teachers of the children's previous school years hadn't, I was sometimes up to the early hours marking...)

Apologies for digression. Back to raw!

ILive, who do you know that has lived off meat and not got sick? I've never met any meat-eater that has not got sick at some point in their lives. Come to that, I've never met any cooked-food eater full stop that has not got sick.

However, a raw friend of mine who came today was telling me about some interviews she'd seen with some people who had been brought up raw vegan. Wish I could remember the source as, of course, these examples would be few and far between! However, these people had never been sick, just as I have never been sick (not even a cold) in two years of raw.

this study is not very comprehensive or well controlled but interesting.
in other words, a grape may do the same thing.
hard to say what the cause is.

[carcin.oxfordjournals.org]

fresh: The study IS interesting. I remember having a conversation about just that with an oncologist several years ago. There was also something about haem iron being carcinogenic and non-haeme iron being prophylactic that I found interesting; it ballasts the "greens protect you from cancer" argument. But it was one of those conversations that really wander, so you don't have enough time to focus on one thing. Why do you mention grapes, though? Surely you weren't expecting a DEFINITIVE result? I love me some clinical research studies, but they are kind of politically/financially motivated[Vitamin E causes heart attacks, dontcha know], so I am not expecting a really comprehensive chlorophyll study . . . ever. And as for conclusive--there is no such thing. Maybe where gravity is concerned. But otherwise, no.

well, i mean, they could have used pencils, or rocks, or fruits or many other things, and that would help to determine what does and does not decrease cytotoxins. and whether what is decreased is a good thing or not is tbd. so it was interesting like i said but not definitive or enough for me.

ithinklaughtercleansestheblood
perhapsitisthesamestructureaschlorophyll

heeeheeee

everything contains carcinogens to some extent, most likely

debbietook, It's not that I am dissing raw foods just to diss raw foods; I truly believe raw foods are incredibly capable of healing; but I also do not believe cooked foods are the cause of the damage in the first place. It is a possibility, but I think that the real mystery behind most people on raw food not getting sick is the amount of vitamin C ingested. Like, I recently added cooked food and have been pretty much 80% raw for a couple months and believe it is all the fruit I'm eating WITH the vitamin C that is causing me not to get sick. (Also, like the very second day of raw foods a wart on my thumb totally vanished. Later I was reading on what deficiencies cause different things, and low and behold under vitamin C deficiency was "warts" pretty cool stuff, but also an example of jumping to conclusions) Could factors in processed foods play in account on the immune system? Well, I don't know, I haven't really read about that or studied it, myself, it's kind of hard to do, haha. Could be that completely..or this could have surprisingly a very little effect. I just think things are put way to generally. Kind of like a magic trick.. You see it and you don't..IT MUSt have disappeared! Anyway, please don't see me as trying to sabotage the thought of raw foods..I really am only intending to find out things for the bare cause of them; I'm also one to never decide on a side! And I feel like that's a good thing, I hope..

happy traillss