Hiya

Shazzie was a long-term vegan who had started to get all sorts of health problems on her cooked vegan diet. She transformed her health on raw (which was, AT THAT TIME :-)) a diet with lots of lovely fruit! Her eulogies to fruit, eg papayas, were quite inspirational).

debbietook Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Communitybuilder, you had said that my statement
> on the unhealthy aspects of certain cooking
> processes was my 'opinion'.
>
> I then simply posted some information to show that
> that statement was more than 'opinion' - it was
> based on fact.
>
> For some reason, that reply really upset you.
> Interesting.

It didn't upset me so much as it annoyed me.

Your opinion is not based on fact. You said a cooked item can "never be healthy" because it's lost a portion of it's nutritive value. That's like saying a raw tomato picked underripe and left in the fridge for a week is automatically unhealthy because it's lost much of it's nutritive value.

It doesn't seem you're interested in honest discussion though & this could go back & forth for weeks with no one the wiser (except hopefully savy thread readers) so I'll opt out & let you get the last word if you like.

The founder of the vegan society lived to be 95. He was cooked vegan.
[en.wikipedia.org]

Given how much easier it is to eat vegan these days, I think (cooked) vegans are being exposed to more and more junk food, making the vegan diet appear more unhealthy than what it once was. Sugar, salt, fat. The stress 'trying' to be raw causes probably does my body worse than a weekly jacket potato.

[Re steaming and baking, cooking processes so often used by those who eat cooked food, they may be less unhealthy than a deep-fried Mars Bar, but, nevertheless, they're not 'healthy'and will have consequences for our health, if not today in the long-term. ]

Baking is worse than steaming.

But light steaming and boiling can't be all that bad.

The population with the highest well-documented incidence of centenarianism got most of their calories from cooked vegetables (biggest source of calories was the sweet potato) and secondly, cooked grains (mostly white rice) in the diet. I am referring to the Okinawan elders, who were not vegan, but the the ones who made it to the 100s generally had low fat (20%), low protein (around 14%), and low calorie diets, heavily based on cooked starches. They weren't even vegan, but they did get about 95% of their calories from plants, which is pretty close.

Granted, these people might have made it to 110 instead of 100 if they were mostly raw. But clearly it isn't all that poisonous to eat something that has been exposed to heat if it's the right kind of cooked food (lightly steamed including some starchy vegetables, sparing use of grains, preferrably whole).

Personally I think it's better to eat a high raw diet that includes some lightly steamed veggies and cooked legumes than to eat a high raw high fat gourmet junk raw diet with lots of processed superfoods that relies heavily on fiberless juice.

But there are lots of different ways to go about it.

I think the people who emphasize minimally processed f+v are on the right track, provided they don't believe the need for B12 is a conspiracy from BIG BAD PHARMA or whatever, and also provided that they do not believe in magical thinking. Diets are important but they can only do so much. They can't turn back the clock.

For me, raw food is much healthier than cooked. I eat a varied raw food diet that keeps me satisfied - lots of fruits, some veggies, seeds, nuts, and even occasional raw grain (and a B12 supplement). I don't eat raw junk food. The only processed raw foods I eat are cold-pressed organic olive oil and occasional raw wheat germ.

When I ate cooked foods, steamed fruits and veggies were the easiest to digest. Any kind of starch, including potatoes - steamed or baked - forget it! A week of recovery at least!

I guess we're all somewhat different, and yet some things are probably the same.

Arugula - sure, it's all relative. And I'd be over the moon if some people I knew would swap some of their fried/roasted/barbecued/smoked cooked food for steamed/baked!

In fact, I say that in the article the information on steaming and baking came from, here, which does provide some context for my earlier post.

[debbietookrawforlife.blogspot.com]

And, suncloud, your diet is typical of many raw fooders, and I'd agree with you - that it could certainly be argued to be healthier than a cooked diet.

Arugula also made the point that a high-raw diet with a little steamed/baked food could be better than an all-raw diet consisting mainly of dried powdered superfoods/cacao/miracle potions/whatever, and it's certainly true that a significant number of raw fooders are following those sorts of diets. And I think I'd be inclined to agree with A that it's possible that the first diet could be better.

I feel such comparisons are valid, as a diet containing cooked food is here compared with a type of raw food diet that IS actually followed by a significant number of raw fooders (unfortunately...) rather than with a diet consisting of food from 'one food group', which of course is completely atypical of that followed by raw fooders, even those on a high-fruit diet.

I am now finding this thread very interesting. I sometimes struggle to remain raw for many reasons - one being the sometimes delicious vegan food that I cook for my family. I am heartened to think that a little steamed food is not so bad.

I think (today - it changes as i read and learn) that it is better to have a cooked vegetable soup and stay raw for the rest of the day than to crave 'something' and crumble and have a slice of toast and marmite or something.

I tend to get obsessive about things and think it has to be all or nothing - this thread is helping me to find balance - to realise Rome wasn't built in a day - to use a tired old saying.

Thanks for the comments folks

Toast and marmite!!

Ah...almost every day for 20 years my breakfast was toast and marmite. My husband made me a special 'Debs Loves Marmite' bread bin!

When I went/moved towards raw I only went 75% initially. Why? Because giving up my evening cooked meal was no problem. Giving up most things cooked was no problem. But, giving up toast and Marmite...?

So for the first two or three months I was pretty much 'raw plus toast and Marmite', although I graduated to 'warm bread and Marmite', then 'bread and Marmite'!. I only went to 95% when I felt confident that I could kick 'the addiction' (!). Two days later I was on fruit breakfasts and have never looked back.

For non-UK readers, Marmite is a very strongly-flavoured salty yeast extract with the appearance and consistency of tar.

Oh dear, hope all this talk hasn't got you heading for the fat brown jar, flipperjan!

It's been ages since I tasted toast and Marmite, but now that you're talking about it . . . darn you, flipperjan and debbie--eeeevil temptresses, the both of you!

Luckily, no Marmite or bread in the house. All is well.

Concerning raw vs. cooked, I understand the above points, and definitely agree.

I guess I'd just like to keep sight of the consideration that for many (some?) - or at least for me, a "healthy" raw vegan diet is healthier than a "healthy" cooked vegan diet.

That may not be true for everybody, but it's true for me, and I just wanted to throw it out there. (I put "healthy" in quotation marks, since there's so many who have different ideas about what that means).





Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/13/2009 10:33PM by suncloud.

What is an unhealthy raw vegan diet ?
high fat ?
So would eating 1 pound of kale 2 avocados and loads of tomatoes and celery be unhealthy ?
That would work out to about 40% of calories from fat, but is that unhealthy ?

Just wondering what everyone means by an unhealthy raw diet.

Would cooked potatoes and vegtables be better than the diet above ?

And are people saying that juicing is bad ?
Fresh juices are not good, are you serious.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/13/2009 11:26PM by paulieGB.

Unhealthy to me would be

unlimited fruit juice (no fiber, processed but at least raw)

1 cup or more of nuts/seeds with limited O3 fat (i.e. sunflower and brazil. nuts are generally at least partially cooked)

a couple of tablespoons of olive oil (more fat, some heat processing)

an avocado (more fat, but at least raw)

green "superfood" powder (instead of leaves)

very sparing use of other fruits/vegetables, maybe only a few calories of each.

no legitimate B12 or D sources

It would be low in fiber, very high in fat (60%), pretty highly processed, and have an O6:03 ratio of 51:1 whereas it should be more like 2:1.

ok thanks,

So the diet i posted above, you would say is VERY healthy ?

Paulie,

I plugged for 1 lb kale, 1 lb tomato, 1 lb celery, and 2 California avocadoes and it came up to 894 calories, 49% fat. You have to be eating a lot more than that. Each lb of tomatoes is only 82 calories, each lb of celery only 73.

Regarding how healthy it is, yes for a day or two, but I don't think a lb of cruciferous vegetables day after day year after year is all that great.

I think it would be better to get greens from all families but mostly lettuce, which is mildest and tolerated best in "massive" quantities.

Like: 1 lb romaine or other lettuce, 1/4 lb kale or other crucifers, 1/4 lb spinach or other goosefoots, would be a better daily alternative.

And then fill up on a wide variety of other fruits and vegetables, with a handful or two of nuts/seeds/fatty fruit.


That's how I do it.

But I also do some nonraw: small amts of cooked legumes, some light steaming, occasional grains, and beer. Plus B12 and D2 supps. All raw is too draconian and expensive for me.

I eat like you do Arugula, except for the very last paragraph of your above post. And I occasionally eat raw sprouted grain or raw wheat germ.

It's not a severe choice for me, because it's what I'm used to eating, and because I'm careful to eat the required nutrients, and because eating cooked food - especially cooked grains and cooked legumes - has severe consequences for me every time I eat it.

Also, 100% raw is not expensive for me because I grow most of my food.

Arugula, I think what you eat is probably a very healthy diet for you. Would you agree that the possibility of a healthy 100% RAW food diet (not necessarily mine) also does exist?

Where do you live cloud?

Suncloud, yes, provided that B12 and D are sufficient.

If you don't believe in supplements that means (to me IMHO and all that) that

a. you have to deliberately expose yourself to the same UV rays that promote wrinkles, sags, immunosuppressive problems, pigmentation problems, basal, and squamous cell carcinomas, and even then this is only possible all year round at latitudes near the equator.

b. you have to fertilize your food with lots of fresh animal manure, there will be some uptake in the plant of B12 if you do this but you don't really know if it's "enough"--so

c. since you opt not to supplement, you have to get tested periodically, every year or so would be good, before symptoms occur, to be sure you maintain adequate B12 and D levels. The "experts" keep wanting to raise the bar on both of these and so I believe there is some warrant for prudency.

I think it's easier to supplement. I also wish that I had the fortitude to do 100% raw for food and skip the beer, they are both crutches. But I have my weaknesses and perfection eludes me.

Quote

I think it's easier to supplement. I also wish that I had the fortitude to do 100% raw for food and skip the beer, they are both crutches. But I have my weaknesses and perfection eludes me.

If I had the "strength" to stick to a super limited diet I'd rather use that strength to motivate myself to do other things like daily strength training and studying things I want to understand intensely.

They'll always be something to beat yourself up about arugula, don't do it!

Narz,

I live in Hawaii and can grow greens year round. Currently we're harvesting 2 kinds of Asian choy, arugula, cilantro, Okinawan spinach, collards, purple mustard spinach, 3 kinds of lettuce, and many wild greens.

We also have several varieties of fruit from over a thousand fruit trees, including avocados, that we planted ourselves. And we have macadamia nut trees. I buy a few things, but nearly all my produce is home-grown.

Arugula, I hope you don't mind, but I'd like to reply to each of your points.

arugula Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Suncloud, yes, provided that B12 and D are
> sufficient.

I supplement regularly with B12, as do many raw food vegans. There's plenty of sun here for Vitamin D, but I do have to be careful not to get TOO much sun. In fact, I probably should have listened more closely to some of your previous warnings. I've had a few unwelcome skin PRE-cancers, and so have several of my caucasian friends.

I have to go outside to take care of things; but now I protect myself.

For all the food we all eat, someone was outside in the sun, growing it. Might as well be me. But like I said, I do protect myself. I'm 58. I have to.

(So far, I don't think I look very wrinkly though. I think it's the hydration from all the fruit).

> and even then
> this is only possible all year round at latitudes
> near the equator.

I live in Hawaii.

> b. you have to fertilize your food with lots of
> fresh animal manure, there will be some uptake in
> the plant of B12 if you do this but you don't
> really know if it's "enough"--so

Everything I grow is fertilized with animal manure. It's too expensive to keep the trees fed with plant-based fertilizers, and I wouldn't consider using chemicals. Personally I don't consider fertilizer to be a sufficient B12 source, unless a person deliberately eats a few spoonfuls of it every day, directly (yech!).

> c. since you opt not to supplement,
> you have to
> get tested periodically, every year or so would be
> good, before symptoms occur, to be sure you
> maintain adequate B12 and D levels. The "experts"
> keep wanting to raise the bar on both of these and
> so I believe there is some warrant for prudency.

I supplement now (and for the last 7 years) because I've had B12 deficiency symptoms in the past. If I'd known better, I would have started supplementing earlier. I think you're very smart to supplement with B12.

> I also wish
> that I had the fortitude to do 100% raw for food
> and skip the beer, they are both crutches. But I
> have my weaknesses and perfection eludes me.

Arugula, don't worry, we all have weaknesses, no matter what we eat! I eat all raw, but I have plenty of other weaknesses (that's for sure!). And anyway, if you're happy with the way that you eat, then eating that way is not a weakness. If you'd rather not consume the cooked foods though (and the beer), that's OK too. I love your posts here. It's great there are people here who go against the raw food norm like you and Narz!

Thank you so much for your response. Much good wishes and aloha!



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 02/14/2009 06:44AM by suncloud.

Thank You everyone for your responses. I have decided to have fun with this and not get down on myself if I slip - draconian is not for me.
My wife and I went to what was for me one of my favorite restuarants for our anniversary. I have been eating raw the better part of only 3 weeks and I couldnt believe how salty the food tasted - The steamed veggies were mushy and the pasta was dead tasting - LOL -my taste buds are getting to be much more sensitive.- I think you all are getting to be a bad influence - and I want to thank you for that.

"If you're not tough it's hard to survive in this world; and if you're not kind then you don't deserve to survive." –Raymond Chandler

If I had to eat one cooked thing, it would be steamed broccoli. I don't like raw broccoli, unless it's juiced.

But I think 100% or 99% raw is best (for me).

Raw broccoli is fine shredded, in a slaw or as sprinkled over a leafy salad.

I know; I don't like the taste of it raw, for whatever reason!