|
|
100% raw or less?
Posted by:
flipperjan
()
Date: February 15, 2010 02:48PM I wonder if it is more difficult to get all the nutrients one needs when not 100% raw.
The reason that I am thinking this is that the non raw part of ones diet might comprimise all the good work the raw bit is doing. For instance it is quite easy not to eat so many greens if you are including say some cooked veggie soup or some bread. Having said that it seems to me that you have to be really on the case to get a properly balanced 100% raw diet with no deficiencies or inbalances. Sorry if this is a bit confused but I feel a bit confused - zinc, amino acids, Vit B12, Vit D etc etc rattling around in my head. I read totally convincing stuff from different camps and then don't quite know what I think. (Arugula - I do miss you - you used to put things in perspective for me) Re: 100% raw or less?
Posted by:
Tamukha
()
Date: February 15, 2010 03:07PM flipperjan,
I agree that cooked food may displace nutrition from raw foods--that's why it is recommended when one is starting out to gradually increase your raw foods until they displace the cooked in your daily regimen. I want to ask, because the chatter about deficiencies has gotten keyed up of late and I can see how it would be confusing, how are you feeling? I find I can easily start to fret if I read this or that which is plausible, but it always helps to put things into perspective to listen to my body, to notice its signals at work and at rest, and to observe any negative changes over time. Only then, do I further investigate something I've read or heard, because otherwise, it's just a needless complication. So, I hope that you are doing well, generally, and that you stay well. Re: 100% raw or less?
Posted by:
debbietook
()
Date: February 15, 2010 07:17PM Yes, flipperjan.
For example, (my understanding is that) cooking depletes grains of B vitamins, thus our bodies' reserves are raided to metabolise chemicals in the grains. Re: 100% raw or less?
Posted by:
Anonymous User
()
Date: February 15, 2010 07:36PM It's easy to get all the vitamins you need if you are eating a reasonable amount of food including fruits and veg and other foods in their whole state.
The thing to pay attention to, if this is something you're concerned about, are minerals. Vitamins are altered or eliminated with the application of heat, not so with minerals. That isn't to suggest that they aren't somehow changed if cooked, there hasn't been enough research into that to say for sure. My point being that if one is concerned about deficiency, ensuring the inclusion of mineral rich foods in the diet is a good way to go. A little wheatgrass juice or seaveg, lots of dark leafies, other dense foods. And of course paying attention to the body. You know, for those who have questions fitday.com is a great way to just take a look at the average day's nutritional profile. Re: 100% raw or less?
Posted by:
Utopian Life
()
Date: February 15, 2010 10:09PM I second the fitday recommendation. You can put a day in and see how you're doing and try to do better where you're not doing well. Try to do a great week and not worry so much about every single individual day.  Re: 100% raw or less?
Posted by:
suncloud
()
Date: February 15, 2010 10:48PM Agree with all of the above. I don't think it's difficult to get all the necessary nutrients on raw as long as a person eats a varied raw food diet.
I do supplement with B12. Re: 100% raw or less?
Posted by:
Anonymous User
()
Date: February 15, 2010 10:51PM Utopian Life Wrote:
------------------------------------------------------- > I second the fitday recommendation. You can put a > day in and see how you're doing and try to do > better where you're not doing well. Try to do a > great week and not worry so much about every > single individual day.
And not to worry so much about every single meal (or mouthful as the case may be). I see a lot of that with people eating raw. It's amazing to me how much more we worry eating what we know is a very healthy diet when the chips and pop crowd hardly seem to think on it at all. Re: 100% raw or less?
Posted by:
Bryan
()
Date: February 16, 2010 02:02AM It seems the one nutrient that is easy to get on cooked foods is calories - whether it comes from starch, fat, protein, etc.
I agree with coco, that people eating SAD don't worry about nutrients and seem to rarely have issues with deficiencies. And in reality, their illness comes from over nutrition, not under nutrition. Yet on the raw diet, the automatic first response to not feeling well is deficiency. Yes, deficiencies happen, but I suspect is more of because of habits that deplete nutrients, rather than lack of supply in the diet. For example, B12 issues are more an issue of malabsorption rather than lack of B12. If availability of B12 in the diet were the only issue, no meat eater would ever get B12 deficiency. Re: 100% raw or less?
Posted by:
flipperjan
()
Date: February 16, 2010 12:45PM Yes thanks - that all makes a lot of sense. Of course it's true that people who eat very badly (imo) never concern themselves I smiled when I read that.
It is easy to get too self absorbed isn't it. I think I will go and see if I can do something for somebody else and stop thinking about me!! Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
|
|
