[www.amazon.com]

She's advocating for high-raw, which I think makes a lot more sense. If you feel better at 100%, then go for it. But for those who find it very daunting and impractical (unless you live in a tropical climate and/or have a variety of in-season produce at your disposal), I think it's more reasonable to encourage people to eat more raw than not overall, but not necessarily ban all cooked foods, as long as they are prepared in a healthful way.

The irony is that when I first read "12 Steps to Raw Foods," I found her claim that even eating 5% cooked was much worse than being totally raw to be discouraging. This is way more inspiring because it's do-able!

I should add that she is saying that the raw vegan diet may be too high in Omega-6s. I don't know about that. I can't imagine that it could cause an imbalance if you're consuming raw nuts versus cooked oils that are hard to process. But what I am wondering about is her sources for Omega-3s. I mean, flax and hemp? Hopefully she's not eating fish now!

*I was able to preview some pages (intro and index) and it looks like the omega-3s may be coming from chia and other plant sources because I didn't see any fish recipes in the back. I recommend reading the intro because I think the authors make a good case for their shift.

I agree with this. Expecting immediate dietary evolution is not reasonable. Human beings will soon have more compassionate and healthy diets, but it will be a process. No need to force it, especially with the state of the world and the difficulties that your average person faces.

For what it's worth, I'm really struggling right now. The local markets are bereft of any organic variety. What they have is usually garbage. I do live a bit off the map though. Maybe this problem isn't universal.

banana who Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> [www.amazon.com]
> rming-Paradigm/dp/1583943579/ref=pd_ys_qtk_fr_2?pf
> _rd_p=53351022&pf_rd_s=center-2&pf_rd_t=1501&pf_rd
> _i=home&pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_r=08HE8XQQ15NQ
> WC580NPR
>
> She's advocating for high-raw, which I think makes
> a lot more sense. If you feel better at 100%, then
> go for it. But for those who find it very daunting
> and impractical (unless you live in a tropical
> climate and/or have a variety of in-season produce
> at your disposal), I think it's more reasonable to
> encourage people to eat more raw than not overall,
> but not necessarily ban all cooked foods, as long
> as they are prepared in a healthful way.
>
> The irony is that when I first read "12 Steps to
> Raw Foods," I found her claim that even eating 5%
> cooked was much worse than being totally raw to be
> discouraging. This is way more inspiring because
> it's do-able!

I am pretty frustrated with mangoes and papayas. In the past, the Chicago area has been able to get good-quality ms and ps but lately I find most mangoes to be hard as rocks and not ripe-able (LOL) and papayas seem RADIATED I even am irritated at how much avocados seem to cost these days. Although now is the best for it--$1 is what I paid this morning.

Victoria says in her intro that it was easier for her family to be 100% when living in Colorado (sunshine) but when they moved up to Oregon it was a lot more overcast. Living in Chicagoland, it's easy to be very raw in summertime when it's so hot I don't want to cook and am more thirsty than hungry. But the body naturally craves heated foods come wintertime. Yes, you can get around that with thermogenic herbs like ginger and chilis but there is still so much water in them and sometimes we crave density. At least I feel this way.

I'll buy it, I really liked her revised 12 steps to raw version where she takes a way more gentle approach. None of that "even 1% cooked ruins the benefits" nonsense. She seems to have had her own struggles which I appreciate, these gurus who claim perfection are not as appealing to me as someone who has had a real life experience with ups and downs.

coco Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
these gurus who
> claim perfection are not as appealing to me as
> someone who has had a real life experience with
> ups and downs.

Most of these people also eat a little cooked food but ego stops them from letting on that they have which is what makes them seem perfect.

[www.vegankingdom.co.uk]



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/28/2011 08:43PM by powerlifer.

I was very surprised but very impressed when Ani Phyo mentioned having gone off 100%. She didn't have to go there but probably felt it was a matter of integrity, given her prior position. I have two of her books and I just felt that all those nuts and fussy raw recipes in general are too much! If I lived somewhere hot all the time, it wouldn't be much of a debate. I would be happy with fresh melon and avocados and coconuts. I live in the Midwest. It gets very cold here. I don't get as thirsty and I do in July. Having a lot of water-rich foods seems more intuitive in the summer than now. That doesn't mean I have to eat cooked JUNK, though!

depends. The body has a limited capacity to convert short chain omega 3 fatty acids (alpha linoleic acid, e.g. from flax seed) to long chain omega 3s such as dha and epa. Big problems for vegans if there are eating too many omega 6 sources (e.g. corn)

There aren't many natural sources of direct long chain omega 3s (some seaweed, but then run the risk of iodine overload). direct dha and epa vegan supplements exist for those that would prefer a little protection.


And of course, running a blood test is the best way to see if your body is effective at converting omega 3s from greens or flax seed into dha or epa. Better safe than sorry.

Paul



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/29/2011 05:18PM by pborst.

I'd love to read that. Do you have a link? I searched and couldn't find it.

THeSt0rm Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I read an article about a study that compared the
> DHA and EPA quantity in vegans and carnivores.
> Something along the lines of that vegan's bodies
> adapt to the lower intake of DHA/EPA from direct
> sources and that their conversion rate improves to
> make up for the deficit.

I haven't seen the book yet but from the sample pages provided by Amazon, it appears that fish is not used as a supplement. I hope so, anyway.

The main reason I am happy is that I have read more than one raw guru being very dismissive of anything but 100% and I feel that it will turn off many more people than it will inspire. I feel sorry for people who browbeat themselves for going off 100%, as if they are somehow defective people. That's not the point of life! Being "perfect" in one's diet doesn't make you a good person and not eating totally raw doesn't make you a bad person.

there is an argument and a blood test to be made that no supplement is need for vegans not overloading themselves with omega 6 can make enough omega 3 long chains from short chains. DHA from algae is the insurance. You can pick your poison but as a vegan, you cannot escape the conclusion that our lifestyle doesn't include deficiency risks beyond b-12. Omega 3s are just one. Fortunately for Omega 3s, flax seed is cheap and then there is always the alternative

Paul

THeSt0rm,

Here's a start:

[www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov]

If you Google, "Dietary intake status of n-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids . . . " the title of the study, you should get other links. Good luck!