veggiefreak,

Hey, I am interested in you're candida problem. I want to see if i can help at all, just by discussing things. I was wondering, have you read 80/10/10 or no? I tried it for a month but started getting some weird symptoms I didn't like. What exactly do you eat let's say over a few days or so? Do you eat avocado in the morning, or at night? Do you eat only mostly sweet fruit? I'm prepared to compare your approach to mine, and see. Right now i eat mostly sweet fruit and do not have a candida problem, but rarely eat any fat at all. It may be the correspondence in the two..or it could be something totally different, and I'm prepared to go google my ass off to see. Any information on your current diet would be great and I hope I can help you, or that you find help to solve your candida!

hello,

Some cool answers, thanks.

I have been trying the warrior last week, - and when i do fast all day and then eat a couple of LARGE fruit meals with lots of greens, - i do get full from the food, but i still end up binging on other foods always cooked food, even when my stomach is full.
Im sure its the fruit.
When i eat fruit i can litteraly feel my blood sugar rise and i end up eating and eating especially if im eating just high carb food i.e fruit, i can just eat all day untill im OVER stuffed.

I have also had a few days where i haven't been eating much raw food and instead eating healthy cooked high protein meals and these meals do satisfie me alot more.

I did the 100% raw food thing a while ago and i remember how calming and nice i felt doing this, so i am going to try a few more things before i give in with the raw food diet.
Im convinced im not one for eating high fruit or probably ANY sweet fruit. - i do have candida by the way, not in a bad way but i do have a coating on my tounge.

So im going to try the warrior diet - fasting all day, i MAY have a juice first thing, then fast untill dinner,
Now im thinking of high greens, i love kale,
with some non sweet fruits - tomato and cucumber, maybe some peppers and lots of celery, and then avocado for the calories.
Obviously this is going to be classed as a high fat diet, and everyone is quick to say how unhealthy that is, but will that be better then eating cooked meals ?

I may add a starter of water melon, i do love water melon and maybe a quarter of a melon or half if i can aford it will be a good starter and high in calories, and then have a monster salad.
Im no good with nuts and dont do well with seeds either.
i do have a hemp protein drink which is nice and i will take that also, maybe before bed ?

I just want to add that the reason i would like to do the warrior diet is for the health benefits of fasting and also to stop obsessing over food,
AND also i actually think this way of eating may be a good way to maintain my weight, even though i wont be eating large amounts of calories, i should be saving alot of energy through the day from not digesting any food, and also if my metabolism slows down (especially if im not eating sweet fruits) then i shouldn't need as many calories to keep myself going, - right ?

What do you think ?

All the best,
Paulie.

veggiefreak,

It might work better to not eat any fat at all until the symptoms disappear. Once they disappear, then introduce fats again, backing off if the symptoms reappear again. Eating a half an avocado every 2-3 days seems like the right amount, when you are feeling healthy and symptom free.

Dear community builder

You wrote this of my post:

debbietook Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> No cooked meal is 'healthy'. You are eating
> damaged food.

Food that has been picked unripe or refrigerated for long periods or grown with pesticides is "damaged". Cooked = poison dogma is not particularly practical for the average person. And commentary such as "any raw food is healthier than anything cooked" gives people interested in raw a bad name.

***

I will stand by what I wrote. No cooked meal is 'healthy'. Cooked food is damaged food.

This is not 'dogma'! It is a FACT. Check out the 'science of raw' if you have any doubts about this. And it is quite ridiculous to be accused of 'dogma' on a raw food forum.

Also, you have put in quotes, ie as if I said it: 'any raw food is healthier than anything cooked'. Well, that's debatable, but I didn't actually say that, did I? For example, any rotting raw food might be unhealthier than anything cooked.

I did not make any claims about unripe raw food, but please note many fruits ripen on the ground, and food that is picked ripe then ripened at home is still good!
I did not say anything about food that has been refrigerated for a long time.
Neither did I make any health claims about raw food that has been sprayed with pesticides!

You have, in effect, put words into my mouth that I did not say.

I will say again 'no cooked food is healthy'. Certain cooked foods may be less UNhealthy than others, but that's as far as we can go.

When we cook food, we not only destroy enzymes, but vitamins are destroyed/damaged, and minerals are rendered less assimilable by our bodies.

We receive a combination of chemicals in proportions that were never intended, and anyone who has studied chemistry at any point in their lives will know that chemicals work together in precise proportions.

Now, community builder, if you do wish to build a community, it would be a good rule of thumb not to accuse a raw foodist who is simply commenting that no cooked food is 'healthy', and that, yes, it is all 'damaged', (note I did NOT use the emotive word 'poison' either!) of promoting 'dogma'!

iLive, the enzyme thing is endlessly debated.

But, even leaving that aside, there are many other things that cooking damages and/or destroys in our food, and of course cooking can create toxins.

There's a potted version of 'science of raw' on my website (www.rawforlife.co.uk), but you'll be able to find much more.

Here are a few interesting links i found, there are loads more also=


[health.learninginfo.org]

[www.foodprocessing.com]

[www.beyondveg.com]
GO TO THE NEXT PART OF ARTICLE
there are lots of pages to this article =
An interesting read.


Paulie.

cooking can, yes, decrease vitamin levels in food. But think about it. If you're boiling a vegetable in water, all of that water-soluble vitamin is leaching right into that water. It's in the water. So if you were making a soup, you would be getting all of the vitamins...with it even easier to reach other vitamins in the vegetable because the cooking process also helps break down cell walls. It's not always a soup though, there are other methods of cooking that take away vitamins, but still, they raise levels of other vitamins or other micronutrients that aren't taken away when cooked.

for example, cooking a tomato may decrease vitamin C (though all of it isn't completely gone..it can be decreased anywhere from 12-29% but it's not like all the vitamin C leaves) -- but cooking a tomato also increases a very powerful antioxidant called lycopene which is absorbable by the body

when enzymes of food are ingested, they do not act in the body; this is why we have human enzymes..to digest our food. Plant enzymes and human enzymes do not have the same functioning.

Cooking can also kill anti-nutrients in raw foods that can effect absorption..
Also, some of the nutrients lost can only make up often 1% of the total vitamin content of a given fruit or vegetable. So it makes no sense to say "oh yeah, all the vitamins in that food are getting drained from being heated too high..." When its more like a percentage of most likely a water-soluble vitamin.

We have to consider both sides. One argument is no different then the other. If you want people to read about raw food, why would you neglect reading about the science of cooking food? Accusing a person of only knowing there side is hypocritical, I think, if you do not in fact research both and compare terms and what is realistic.

no one every said raw food was bad, though, actually most people agree eating a good amount of raw food should be aimed for. so i don't understand why everyone has to read one article about enzymes and automatically think that cooked food is a problem. how sound is this information?

The lycopene argument is very weak. There is more lycopene in watermelon than in tomatoes, so the argument for cooking tomatoes is moot.

If foods have anti-nutrients that are toxic to humans, the question is did nature designate that food to be food for humans, and does consuming that food provide the highest level of nutrition and health for humans?

The raw versus cooked foods really can't be addressed practically by scientific or factual argumentation. Even if we could conclusively prove that raw foods were the basis for superior health, how many cooked food eaters would convert their diets? In my opinion, very few.

With all the existing mainstream proof of the dangers of cooking foods at high temperatures. look how many people continue to eat those foods. Most people are creatures of habits, and are typically unwilling to eliminate their otherwise satisfying diets based on non-experiential information found in the press or scientific journals.

the argument is simply stating that different nutrients can be hightened by the process of cooking; it's not true for only tomatoes, of course, it is just a general example. there are a certain amount of toxins in every food. nature would tell you what to do if you randomly migrated somewhere and had to adjust to the plants around you, you would think. how could a generation of people who adapted to extremely cold weather have access to fruit if still living in such harsh conditions? The whole theory of humans never should have gone out and explored past the tropics is kind of silly, if you ask me.

food for humans is not exactly designated at all...the fact that we did an awful lot of scavenging for thousands of years should be enough proof of that, and looking at our most recent ancestors that indeed evolved into what we are today..

so, did you eat cooked food once? would you classify yourself as just another "cooked food eater" or what, are all of them the same? ignorant and unwilling to give up something that they believe to taste good? Are you doing the same thing, only with health and a different diet? One person might call a raw foodist unhealthy, and unwilling to forget about the fact that raw foods help them, and the raw foodists will call the cooked eater unhealthy and unwilling to forget about the fact that they just want to eat food they don't want to give up because it's most likely a form of love or thanks they share with someone, or perhaps a passion, or just a pleasure -- but NOT healthy? But who really knows? It really isn't that crazy to not go to raw foods. I just think more people should accept that. Cooking is not just simply cooking; it's the basic background of nearly every culture. I mean, go out in africa, look at how some of those tribes survive. Some of the tribes have been in existence for yeeeaaarrsss, without change, and still, you don't see a diet of ALL raw food. Just examine every different culture, seriously. Sure, yes, there is disease and cancer in the world, but it also exists in animals, in the wild...and to say it is non-existent in a raw food world would be false. If someone is serious about changing their diet because they feel miserable, then yes, I would encourage they do that. But one diet for all is not the answer to all of our problems, and I think it's been demonstrated just by looking at plain observations of the world today..

If I can be well aware of the fact that people can cure diseases on raw foods; why is it so hard to be aware of the fact that specified cooked diets have helped people saying the same things raw food people say about their diet. It's all about finding what you want to eat and what makes you feel better. But pushing down other diets because one thing worked for you, or what you've seen and experienced shows your mind that you are more correct should not be something anyone should be doing when considering helping healing people. There are just too many theories out there, and sooo many different diets. It just bugs me that things seem like they are stated as plain fact here. I guess that's what happens in any board for or against any kind of food. I just want people to see more. just be more open. ah.

whats more healthy =

a high fat raw vegan diet, 40 - 50% fat

or a low fat cooked food diet ?

For any diet, its possible to have an unhealthful version of that diet. For a raw vegan diet, a 50% fat version will be unhealthful in the long term.

For any kind of diet (omni, veg, vegan, etc), there are healthful versus unhealthful versions of that kind of diet.

A low fat cooked vegan diet, with lots of raw fruits and vegetables, will be very healthful. However, it is possible to have a low fat cooked vegan diet that isn't very healthful. For example: a low fat vegan diet based on pasta, cooked wheat, canned sauces, where nothing is fresh and everything is processed, devoid of fruits and vegetables, is going to be unhealthy.

So is a low fat cooked vegan diet that is unhealthy going to be healthier than a high fat raw vegan diet that is unhealthy?

Does it matter?



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 12/21/2008 01:21AM by Bryan.

i think you should answer the question with your experience

iLive,

Please share your experience of raw foods. I certainly have shared plenty of mine.

I think experience is definitely an important issue with raw food diet.

Once people have actually BEEN on an exclusively raw food diet successfully for a fair amount of time, THAT'S when they really become aware of the difference. At that point, many seemingly logical arguments just no longer appear to present a complete picture.

For instance, we're presented with the argument that eating cooked vegetable soup will supply the same amount of vitamins as eating those vegetables raw. Such arguments may be TRUE, but they just don't present a complete picture.

There's so much more happening with raw vs. cooked than what has so far been addressed by science. I believe more and more information will eventually be discovered and scientifically proven. But for now, and maybe for always, the most convincing evidence comes from the results of just actually DOING it.

Along the way to successful raw, many people do enough individual comparitive experimentation - deliberately, and not so deliberately - that they are able to not only FEEL the difference, but to actually SEE very obvious visual differences when they look in the mirror. And the older a person becomes, the more obvious the differences become.

For myself, at a certain point, and reaching a certain age, I pretty much HAD to conclude that I could no longer afford to suffer the worsening consequences of eating cooked food.

If people feel good eating cooked food or raw/cooked combinations of food, that's fine for THEM. I believe it's best to be tolerant of everyone's food choices, whether we agree or not.

But some people do feel SO MUCH BETTER when they eat ONLY raw, and it's not up to people who aren't eating that way to determine that the people who ARE eating that way are mistaken or closed-minded. Raw food eaters KNOW how they feel within THEIR OWN BODIES. It's unjustifiable to assume that they don't, especially given the considerable ongoing scientific advances in nutrition that are only just beginning to delve deeply into this controversial subject.

As always, the REAL proof is in the (mashed banana) pudding.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 12/21/2008 09:56AM by suncloud.

I watched Suzanne Somers on the Larry King show a little while ago and she shared an amazing story about how she found out the hard way the importance of eating healthy and not eating chemicals. But I thought she was making the pursuit of good health entirely to complicated. One thing that anyone who has experienced a simple fresh raw foods lifestyle long enough to get the beneficial results has figured out that its not about complicated but its about keeping it simple. She has just written a book detailing all of the complicated steps she took to regain her health but actually its so much simpler then that. Just eat raw foods ! She goes into detail about the 70 supplements she takes everyday to maintain health and while I agree with her about the importance of good health I just think it does't have to be all that complicated. What do you think ?

[What do you think ?]

She is selling something.

Anyone can do it, there are no qualifications or requirement for honesty.

oh i was talking to paulieGB; i think he should answer his questions with what he experiences on each

thanks for reply's

The thing is right now im caught in the middle of eating lots of raw fruits and vegtables and also eating cooked starches and also cooked lean meats.

Now i know i have to get away from the cooked starches i.e bread, rice.

But im finding it real difficult to eat a diet high in fruits, the sugar is no good for me.
And also everyone is saying to not eat high fat, its unhealthy ? why is that ?

So if i cant eat sweet fruits and i cant eat fats, im left with protein, unless i live of vegtable, which i cant do, theres no calories in them.

So really to be honest im thinking of eaither eating lots of fresh raw salads with non sweet fruits some very lightly cooked broccoli, and lean meats.
Or -
To eat a diet of raw salads/greens with non sweet fruits and also seeds, a few nuts and sprouts.

I need to get my calories from somewhere.

Any coments, advice ?

[im finding it real difficult to eat a diet high in fruits, the sugar is no good for me. ]

Where did you get that idea?

because it makes me crave food 'sugar' all the time,
and i lose so much weight eating just fruit and also look really bad.

paulieGB Wrote:

> So really to be honest im thinking of eaither
> eating lots of fresh raw salads with non sweet
> fruits some very lightly cooked broccoli, and lean
> meats.
> Or -
> To eat a diet of raw salads/greens with non sweet
> fruits and also seeds, a few nuts and sprouts.

Definitely, I would choose the second option. Cucumbers are great!
After a while, you might even find that your tolerance for the sweeter fruits has improved. (Keep in mind that fructose from fruit is processed differently inside your body than glucose from sugar.)

Paulie

I hear you on how contradictory all the information sounds..but really there is a very easy way to circumvent this " you have to pick a side mentality"


but I must ask..are you in some kind of crisis? if not why not just step back to what WAS working for you and slowly integrate some of these other concepts

I think what people are saying is to definitively know before having experience - prior to actually having that experience is probably not going to happen for you or anyone else for that matter, but personally someone elses experience - while helpful - isn't going to necessarily apply either.

if you want to stick with he warrior type way of eating and feel good doing that

you might try just vegetable juices and small ammounts of swet fruits during the day

then in the evening have your large salad, sprouts etc... and alternate nights where you have either your animal protein, nuts or similarly dense raw recipe, or simple cooked vegan fare (quinoa/sweet potato).

then if you are still hungry (like in warrior) only eat more cooked starches after the protein gets a chance to digest (to avoid or at least ameliorite food combing issues) don't try to throw more raw foods 'on top'


when you got that working and again...arn't experiencing any kind of crisis... you can systematically make choices that make the most sense to you (removing the cooked starches and adding more sweet fruits earlier in the day, or removing the animal protein and adding some acid fruits before your raw salads/meals, or WHATEVER you think is holding you back or that you want to try out)

if someone is just beginning their journey I imagine either of those approaches to be a start I would think, as anyone who begins to make conscious choices about which foods are healthful or not FOR THEM and sticking to those choices can only be a fast track to health...or at least closer to figuring out what can and will work.






Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/22/2008 03:02AM by anaken.

paulieGB Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> because it makes me crave food 'sugar' all the
> time,
> and i lose so much weight eating just fruit and
> also look really bad.

If you are losing weight and looking bad it means you are not eating enough. Maybe you have a hard time keeping your belly full with so much fruit, well, in that case you could feel better with more fat and some protein. I use cooked beans, also "virgin" olive oil and some steamed vegetables, along with nuts and seeds, to complement my fruits and raw vegetables. I can't say this is healthier but I can't eat only fruit either, not for health reasons but because I don't have the discipline.

Thanks for the replys everyone.


anaken Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Paulie
>
> I hear you on how contradictory all the
> information sounds..but really there is a very
> easy way to circumvent this " you have to pick a
> side mentality"
>
>
> but I must ask..are you in some kind of crisis? if
> not why not just step back to what WAS working for
> you and slowly integrate some of these other
> concepts
>
> I think what people are saying is to definitively
> know before having experience - prior to actually
> having that experience is probably not going to
> happen for you or anyone else for that matter, but
> personally someone elses experience - while
> helpful - isn't going to necessarily apply
> either.
>
> if you want to stick with he warrior type way of
> eating and feel good doing that
>
> you might try just vegetable juices and small
> ammounts of swet fruits during the day
>
> then in the evening have your large salad, sprouts
> etc... and alternate nights where you have either
> your animal protein, nuts or similarly dense raw
> recipe, or simple cooked vegan fare (quinoa/sweet
> potato).
>
> then if you are still hungry (like in warrior)
> only eat more cooked starches after the protein
> gets a chance to digest (to avoid or at least
> ameliorite food combing issues) don't try to throw
> more raw foods 'on top'
>
>
> when you got that working and again...arn't
> experiencing any kind of crisis... you can
> systematically make choices that make the most
> sense to you (removing the cooked starches and
> adding more sweet fruits earlier in the day, or
> removing the animal protein and adding some acid
> fruits before your raw salads/meals, or WHATEVER
> you think is holding you back or that you want to
> try out)
>
> if someone is just beginning their journey I
> imagine either of those approaches to be a start I
> would think, as anyone who begins to make
> conscious choices about which foods are healthful
> or not FOR THEM and sticking to those choices can
> only be a fast track to health...or at least
> closer to figuring out what can and will work.
>
>
> [farm4.static.flickr.com]
> 3aaff62_o.jpg


Love this answer, thats helpfull, thank you.

ILive and others who've mentioned the tomatoes/lycopene thing

You may find this article of interest. Getting a sense of deja vu here - think may have linked to this in another thread recently.

[debbietookrawforlife.blogspot.com]

Yeah, I agree with what Debbietook says about blending. To get more of the lycopene et al. you don't have to cook it to break down the fibrous matrix, just throw it in the blender.

Despite all the hoopla about cooking to release specific nutrients, raw vegetables and raw nonsweet fruits provide more cancer protection than cooked ones.The only advantage I see to cooking is that if it helps you to eat more vegetables or reach your needed calories, and you already had your huge raw salad and as much fruit as you can stand for the day, then it's ok.

Also, better a lightly steamed veg than no veg at all.

We are not all perfect, certainly not me. I admire those who can eat more raw than I can and I wish them well, but I don't think anyone should feel discouraged or guilty if they don't get enough calories from the way they are doing raw.

You have to find what works for you, and this requires periodic tweaking.