How many of you eat 100% raw (to me, that means not increasing the temperature of anything, including not using a dehyrator) v those that use dehydrators?

If you don't use any heat for any of your food, was that a progression for you to get there, or is that how you converted to raw originally?

I don't have a decent dehydrator and not sure I want to order one. I can make all kinds of food that looks a lot like what I used to eat with a dehydrator. I'm a little worried that if I go there I'll be more tempted to eat other kinds of crackers, desserts, etc.

It may have been easier for me to switch to raw during the summer months. When winter hits and I can't purchase fresh watermelon, cherries and all those other yummy summer fruits, I wonder what I will do! What do you long term raw eaters do during winter months when the selection of fresh fruits isn't quite as plentiful?

I started eating raw in 2004. various breaks along the way.

I have a dehydrator but have not used it for years. 'uncooking' complicated recipes did not suit me ( time wise or my digestion)
I have switched back to raw in the depth of winter. It was fine. I eat mainly fruit. I just eat whatever I'm into at the time. I juice and blend a lot so invested in a twin gear juicer and a vitamix. I found fresh to be best.
You will find your way.
ffx

Molli Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> How many of you eat 100% raw (to me, that means
> not increasing the temperature of anything,
> including not using a dehyrator) v those that use
> dehydrators?
>
> If you don't use any heat for any of your food,
> was that a progression for you to get there, or is
> that how you converted to raw originally?
>
> I don't have a decent dehydrator and not sure I
> want to order one. I can make all kinds of food
> that looks a lot like what I used to eat with a
> dehydrator. I'm a little worried that if I go
> there I'll be more tempted to eat other kinds of
> crackers, desserts, etc.
>
> It may have been easier for me to switch to raw
> during the summer months. When winter hits and I
> can't purchase fresh watermelon, cherries and all
> those other yummy summer fruits, I wonder what I
> will do! What do you long term raw eaters do
> during winter months when the selection of fresh
> fruits isn't quite as plentiful?

Molli,

I think your definition of 100 percent raw may be more narrow than a common understanding of that phrase. By which I mean, a dehydrator that operates below the magic 118 degree level at which it's asserted plant enzymes die, could still maintain living foods as you eat them. My point many people many consider themselves 100 percent raw by their definition and not yours.

Even among vegan MDs, the enzyme theory looks pretty bankrupt to me. When Bill Harris and Joel Fuhrman, no friends of the meat and dairy industry, debunk Howell's theory, I have to scratch my head. [www.vegsource.com]
[www.eatrightamerica.com]

Neither Harris nor Fuhrman would oppose a predominantly raw diet, but the absence of hard evidence about solid health benefits from heating below 118 degrees does raise questions to a healthy skeptic like myself. Before the thought police arrest me, what I would say is that eating raw has many benefits. They may not be the benefits claimed. But the best evidence is to look at the practioners. People who eat 100 percent raw look and act healthier than many plant-based diet practioners. They have more energy, more drive. Who cares why. If it works well. Do it. I'm still exploring myself. Best.

Paul

p.s. a clip of Harris's opinion, pretty much sums up where I am right now and that can change based on new studies evidence.

"All the foregoing sounds like a frontal assault on the raw fooders, but it's not. I agree with them that raw foods should be a major if not sole part of the diet but not for their reasons. Raw foods are not healthiest because they're "live food" or because of "life force", "living enzymes", "nerve energy", or "chi", but because the foods that can be eaten raw (mostly vegetables, fruits, nuts and seeds) coincidentally have enormously higher nutrient values than the foods that either have to be, or usually are, cooked."



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 08/17/2009 06:03PM by pborst.

I eat nothing heated anymore - that is, that "I" heat. But I do eat nuts on occasion, so that would bump me off the 100% chart, I suppose. I understand there are a few companies that you can buy raw nuts from, but I just haven't gotten around into looking into that yet.

It is on my "long" list of things to do!

Pborst,

By my definition of raw, which I know is very narrow, what I was wondering the most about is whether raw food eaters are trying to reproduce foods that they used to eat on a SAD diet by varying the recipes and using a dehydrator, or whether more were just eating fruits, veggies, seeds without a dehydrator. I'm not saying that either choice is better or worse then the other, but for me, I think that I'm just trying to welcome the nutrition into my body and have a completely different outlook about food. If I start making cakes, cookies, crackers, etc. with a dehydrator then I think that just for me, I might be more likely to welcome cakes, cookies, etc. that are baked in an oven! So I was just asking about others experiences and whether during their transitional phase they use dehydrators or whether they moved to or from dehydrators at some point in their raw diet. I have been thinking about ordering an excalibur dehydrator, but I know myself and my cravings (which are sweets) and I think that if I could make up a batch of raw cookies that I might decide to eat way too many of those instead of cutting a melon open and eating it instead.

I never used a dehydrator, but bought pre-made snacks and food. It has lessened greatly each year. Now I very rarely eat them. It's definitely the best way to go not eating them from the beginning if you can. They're great for those that struggle with raw or are transitioning. Later we're meant to simplify our diet.

I agree it can also be an issue with craving more of those foods when you eat them. It's just really a matter of what works for you. How one becomes and stays raw is different for each person.

Simple Raw Recipes & Health Tips

I'm 100% raw, but definitely didn't get there overnight. It took a lot of experimentation, mistakes, experience, and finally, a commitment.

I can't use a dehydrator where I live. Dehydrators use a lot of energy, and I'm on solar. They're probably fun, but unnecessary; and I kind of think I'm probably better off without one.

Actually, I never use my juicer either. I used my blender twice this year, and the second time I used it, it broke. Pretty good papaya, banana, pineapple smoothie though.

To Paul, yes, we currently do not have sufficient (if any) science-based evidence to support an all-raw diet (nor do we have evidence to dispute it). And yes, we don't have sufficient evidence to support Howell's enzyme theory.

But if the only reason for the success of a raw food diet were the high nutrient content of raw foods, then adding cooked food (cooked vegan food for example) to the exact same raw food diet would not be a problem. It's definitely a problem for me.

Science has a long, long way to go. Science is just barely scratching the surface even on a vegan diet. Best not to reach conclusions about the value of a diet that is 100% raw food vegan until sufficient studies are in, and/or, in the case of each individual, at least until we've tried it ourselves for some considerable length of time.

Suncloud,

How do you do it? I do use a juicer for a couple of reasons. I just don't know if I could possible eat all the veggies that I put in my juicer every day! I have beening thinking about my juicer as packing in the nutrition. I also wouldn't eat several of the veggies that I juice raw. Are you mostly a fresh fuit eater?

Molli

Quote

How many of you eat 100% raw (to me, that means not increasing the temperature of anything, including not using a dehyrator) v those that use dehydrators?

I eat almost 100% all raw. The exceptions are: 1) vitamin B12 supplement, all year long 2) vitamin D supplement, wintertime only. Everything else I eat is fresh raw. I don't have a dehydrator.

Quote

If you don't use any heat for any of your food, was that a progression for you to get there, or is that how you converted to raw originally?

I went all raw - all at once. Either way you do it theres a learning curve with two things to be mindful of: 1) Be kind to yourself 2) learn from your experiences.

Quote

I don't have a decent dehydrator and not sure I want to order one. I can make all kinds of food that looks a lot like what I used to eat with a dehydrator. I'm a little worried that if I go there I'll be more tempted to eat other kinds of crackers, desserts, etc.

I don't plan on getting a dehydrator but if I were ever get one you can be sure that it will have a temperature control so that I can keep the temperature under 118 degrees F. Also I prefer my food to be simple and fresh and not oxidized.

Quote

It may have been easier for me to switch to raw during the summer months. When winter hits and I can't purchase fresh watermelon, cherries and all those other yummy summer fruits, I wonder what I will do! What do you long term raw eaters do during winter months when the selection of fresh fruits isn't quite as plentiful?

I eat a lot more Honey Crisp Apples during the winter and also grapefruit. There are plenty of raw foods available in the winter but not as many as during the summer. Also I switch to more juicing. Basically I eat whole fruits and juice veggies. During the winter I start my day with about 3 or 4 hours of juicing instead of the watermelon that I typically start my days with during the summer.

suncloud Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> To Paul, yes, we currently do not have sufficient
> (if any) science-based evidence to support an
> all-raw diet (nor do we have evidence to dispute
> it). And yes, we don't have sufficient evidence
> to support Howell's enzyme theory.
>
> But if the only reason for the success of a raw
> food diet were the high nutrient content of raw
> foods, then adding cooked food (cooked vegan food
> for example) to the exact same raw food diet would
> not be a problem. It's definitely a problem for
> me.
>
> Science has a long, long way to go. Science is
> just barely scratching the surface even on a vegan
> diet. Best not to reach conclusions about the
> value of a diet that is 100% raw food vegan until
> sufficient studies are in, and/or, in the case of
> each individual, at least until we've tried it
> ourselves for some considerable length of time.


Suncloud,

I agree with you completely. It's why I quoted Harris. 100 percent raw may well be the best diet. An all raw diet might be the best diet for many people for a variety of reasons including and apart from nutrient density. You're right about that.

Best.

Paul



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 08/17/2009 07:39PM by pborst.

I am about 80% raw.
I'm sorry,but the idea of never again having a hot cup of tea,or a fresh home made cup of veggie soup on a winters day doent appeal to me at all.
Vinny

Molli,

Yes, you guessed right. I do eat mostly fruits. I eat only as many vegetables - and only the kinds of vegetables - that I want to eat, and I only eat them in their whole raw state. I don't eat greens that I don't like. I like a lot of different kinds of raw greens, but not raw greens beans or broccoli, or artichokes. I like raw cauliflower a lot, and all the salad greens, mustards, and choys. I like raw seaweeds at least once a week, especially fresh when I can get them. Otherwise, I eat dried raw organic nori.

Maybe I'd feel more like vegetable juices were necessary if I never ate raw nuts and seeds. Nuts and seeds are a very concentrated source of minerals, not just fats. Without them, maybe juicing a lot of greens is a way of getting enough of the minerals that are abundant in nuts and seeds. I only eat nuts or seeds that are raw, organic, and whole. I never eat nut butters.

I'm one of those old-school purist types that considers whole raw foods to be optimal, and I consider a small amount of nuts and seeds to be appropriate and healthy.

Like EZ, I take a B12 supplement.

Paul,

I'm very glad you agree, and I thought your response was perfect! Thanks!

suncloud Wrote:

> Science has a long, long way to go. Science is
> just barely scratching the surface even on a vegan
> diet. Best not to reach conclusions about the
> value of a diet that is 100% raw food vegan until
> sufficient studies are in, and/or, in the case of
> each individual, at least until we've tried it
> ourselves for some considerable length of time.


I couldn't agree more. I have seen several posts on here lately that seem to relate to the question of how much science can teach us about a raw/living foods lifestyle. I like what Tim VanOrden said about how scientists estimate that there are about 10,000 substances in an apple, but have only started truly exploring a few hundred of them. Tim then says something like, in the end, if they keep researching long enough, they will explore all 10,000 substances, and then they will find out that they all work as co-factors, so "Just eat the apple!"

My background is in mathematics, and I am not unfamiliar science, but we have to be realistic, too: When scientists can take pure, refined chemical elements and create an apple out of them, then I may want to look to science to guide my nutritional decisions. When they can create even something as simple as cyanobacteria out of chemical elements, then we can talk. When they can tell me what 10% of the substances contained in an apple are and what they do in the apple or in the human body, we can start to look toward science for nutritional guidelines, but at the current state of infancy, where we have started looking at a few dozen of the thousands of substances contained in natural foods, I have a hard time with people even trying to look for "scientific" proof when it comes to true health and nutrition.

One experiment that I would like to see, though, would be this: Would someone who disagrees with me and wants to prove how valuable science is when it comes to nutrition, would that person please spend 30 days eating nothing but isolated substances, in exactly the quantities science has determined would be optimal? In other words, don't eat an apple or a cherry or bread or anything except for 100% of the RDA of vitamin A every day, 100% of the RDA for folic acid, 100% RDA for protein or amino acids etc; but none of it in the form of natural foods, but all of it in pill or capsule or otherwise pure and refined form.

I would not be surprised if 30 days on that diet sould render you in even worse condition than the person who ate only McDonald's for 30 days. Personally I have no interest in performing that experiment on myself, because to me it seems obvious that science is nowhere near the level that would be necessary for me to take its advice over the virtually self-evident truth of raw foods.

kleinphi Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> One experiment that I would like to see, though,
> would be this: Would someone who disagrees with me
> and wants to prove how valuable science is when it
> comes to nutrition, would that person please spend
> 30 days eating nothing but isolated substances, in
> exactly the quantities science has determined
> would be optimal? In other words, don't eat an
> apple or a cherry or bread or anything except for
> 100% of the RDA of vitamin A every day, 100% of
> the RDA for folic acid, 100% RDA for protein or
> amino acids etc; but none of it in the form of
> natural foods, but all of it in pill or capsule or
> otherwise pure and refined form.
>
> I would not be surprised if 30 days on that diet
> sould render you in even worse condition than the
> person who ate only McDonald's for 30 days.
> Personally I have no interest in performing that
> experiment on myself, because to me it seems
> obvious that science is nowhere near the level
> that would be necessary for me to take its advice
> over the virtually self-evident truth of raw
> foods.

I think they did this experiment on our babies with the man-made baby formula mixes! ("formula"... hee hee... how scientific) It may just be my own experience, but in the last 12 years (since my twins were born) I've heard more and more people mentioning how the nurses at the hospitals are encouraging women to breast feed their babies to prevent health issues. My mother told me that when I was born, it was discouraged and women who breast fed were looked down upon as being old fashioned or trashy.

Anyway, just look up the benefits of of breast feeding a baby and I think you'll see how the experiment with man made nutrition is going

3 of my 4 kids all had human breast milk. One is adopted, so we didn't have the opportunity with her.

Bill

I think for myself, I'm not as concerned about "absolute proof" for science since such a standard is very rare and hard to meet. I like thinking about a "weight of evidence" approach, through looking at study design, the study outputs, strength of correlation, statistical significance or lack thereof and compare all of the above with personal experience. I agree completely that science probably will never answer the question of the value of a raw vegan diet (though what it has done is suggest tremendous value for this and other plant based diets). What it does do for me is help me to understand tradeoffs and adjust personal choices based on cost, risk and benefits. YMMV.

Paul

pborst Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I think for myself, I'm not as concerned about
> "absolute proof" for science since such a standard
> is very rare and hard to meet. I like thinking
> about a "weight of evidence" approach, through
> looking at study design, the study outputs,
> strength of correlation, statistical significance
> or lack thereof and compare all of the above with
> personal experience.

I agree. There are many things that can't be scientifically proven, yet, we know they exist. The first things that come to mind are the instincts that most animals display, the placebo effect and of course love.

Bill

Wow, this thread has taken a turn.....I wonder if the OP will get some answers.

Utopian Life Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Wow, this thread has taken a turn.....I wonder if
> the OP will get some answers.


I gave my response on post # 3 of this thread. That said, thread drift is common and can often be insightful. Of course, Utopian, you could give your answer to the OP's question instead questioning other thread respondents who have already given theirs. Door's open.

I'm not interesting in posting a fact answer to a simple question only to have my answer quarreled with. Sorry, not worth my time.

Utopian Life Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I'm not interesting in posting a fact answer to a
> simple question only to have my answer quarreled
> with. Sorry, not worth my time.


Nobody's quarreled with an answer not presented or a false assumption. You made an incorrect observation that the OP had no response to her original query. I was simply suggesting if you care that much that you talk about your experience instead of criticizing others.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/18/2009 04:58PM by pborst.