fellow raw fooders

on one of the other threads we were discussing the origins of a human diet or what not...and I would love to see what you guys think of this:

What is NATURAL for us to eat?
If raw vegan is the answer- do you think it's because it's fantastically health-promoting and such, OR it is simply the BEST dietary match for human bodies?? (e.g. we have evolved to eat this way)

I've heard both opinions, so I wanted to see what people on this board thought

IMO, I think is a combination of both. I do think we were made to eat raw, however, this makes us become healthy.

More of a cause and effect relationship.

Without being divisive or too argumentative ( but being realistic ), asking a question phrased the way you have phrased it on this board is like being on a Christian board and asking if Christianity is the only true religion. What answer would you expect on a Christian board? Likewsise the question you are asking here.

Who's not to say that by eating 80 - 90 % raw and some cooked that by cutting down the volume of food you need thus causing less wear and tear it's not a better diet for longer life and health than a 100% overeating stomach stretching diet long term.

Just because a species' bodies evolved to deal with something, it doesn't mean it's ideal. For example, certain plants have evolved to survive the cold but will do MUCH better in warm climates. Simple analogy, but in the same way, it makes sense to me that although humans may have learned to tolerate meat, there is no advantage that I can identify to eating it. Seems our bodies might survive with it but thrive without it.

[fresherthanlife.com]

thanks for the replies!

I did talk to some raw vegans who think it is absolutely the most natural diet for our bodies thus it was the reason they ate raw..

I talked to others who did not claim it was the most natural diet but said it is simply the healthiest way to eat.

So that's the difference I was trying to see in your answers.

BJ, What is the "100% overeating stomach stretching diet"?? Is this a non-raw diet you're referring to? I got confused, sorry.

i don't think "natural" really matters
here
"evolution" is always in a state of constant flux
so to predicate a way of life based on what came before
is to ignore the fact that our environment is constantly changing
... the soil, the electrical matrix, the artifice... thus
whatever diet arose prior to our inhabiting this planet came hand in hand
with what their environment demanded
our environment is very different now, soi, air and water is compromised
forget past evolutionary devices
we are needing to evolve now and fast and ever more
the past is history
you describe "natural" as being what we were "evolved evolutionarily" to eat

those days are over
people, in those days did not have cars, planes, trains to load and unload food from different areas
they had to eat what was there, when it was there and in whatever amounts it was there

it is different now
vastly different

food is energy
energy is always an ever expanding territory
it may look as if it has been charted
and perhaps it has , singly ( like, we know what compounds are in broccoli and pretty much all other foods)

but , as a whole
and how it synergistically relates to our minds, body, spirit
and to each individual

and how, it correlates, to thought , beliefs etc.

is still, on the whole, something each person
is on the brink of figuring out
for themselves

the realm of nutrition is charted and mapped out for "groups"

it is always unchartered for the individual
who is always evolving within themselves and changing with their environment
and their internal environment

Raw foodism is not an accident. Just like every cycle has a counter reaction, we are the romanticsm of the industrial revolution. We are the opposite of what the masses do in order to balance the interpretation of life. I don't fall for the illusion of reason and I don't need to justify what I do or eat as natural or healthy. It is more about thinking in a different way than to think deeper on the same way in order to sell it. It does change the way of thinking and in so, it does not need from old justifications or intentions.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/24/2012 01:50PM by Panchito.

We know what monkeys eat to be healthy. They live in jungles with plenty of fruit year round. Humans live everywhere. So of course their diet must change to what's available. Whatever your beliefs on our origins are, we have almost identical digestive systems to monkeys. Good for monkeys, good for humans

My video to keep me inspired on my health quest: [www.youtube.com]

well, there isn't one type of a monkey digestive tract. monkeys and apes have a huge variety of digestive tracts some of which are designed to eat plants, and others of which are designed to eat meat, still others fruit, and still others, everything. but I get what you're saying

We have three tiny bones in the ear from reptiles jaws (we were reptiles). We have the same genetical information to fish fins on the hands when we are developing (we were fish). We have goosebumps to raise the hair and appear bigger to an enemy. We also have a dark side in the brain comparable to chimpanzes. Bobonos don't have that dark side and share their food, but I think this difference is because bobonos don't eat any meat. So the dark side comes from an initial and cultural meat introduction. And yes, people would not thrive in cold climates without eating other animals. But we could say the same if we where living on the moon and farming animals.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/28/2012 10:22AM by Panchito.

i think the dark side exists regardless of diet

Meat from animals have lot of saturated fat and this alters the hormones, which in turn alter the mind, which in turn alter the behavior (to violence). So diet and behavior are related. Protein does alter hormones too. If the 'authority' of the social system tells you to eat meat (like in the pyramid), then the darkness spreads.

[www.sciencedaily.com]

"Decent people participate in horrific acts not because they become passive, mindless functionaries who do not know what they are doing, but rather because they come to believe -- typically under the influence of those in authority -- that what they are doing is right"

It's interesting that some of us believe the diets of the past don't matter/we should live in the present. Indeed, that's a good point!

But the really interesting part is that natural hygienists (didn't RAW come out of those ideas?) state that they "in general agree that the optimal diet for humans equals the diet that ancient primitive peoples thrived on".

P.S. sorry, forgot to mention that's according to the International Natural Hygiene Society; other Natural Hygiene branches (e.g. the one in California, Healthful Living International) is pro-vegan/raw!

rawesome cat (uhh.. mispelling... rawsome)

<<It's interesting that some of us believe the diets of the past don't matter/we should live in the present. Indeed, that's a good point!

But the really interesting part is that natural hygienists (didn't RAW come out of those ideas?) state that they "in general agree that the optimal diet for humans equals the diet that ancient primitive peoples thrived on".>>

firstly, ancient primitive people had a plethora of diets depending on who they were what was available etc. so not sure how this applies at all whatsoever.. which ancient primitive people are they referring to? which continent? which local? what era? what year? what ... anything?

they can't possibly lump them all in one category

ancient

primitive

that could refer to anything beyond a certain year

that is also how people who eat meat justify their diet as well
by saying that ancestors hunted and ate meat

we're still living in the current age
dealing with the present moment

people act as if the past was the be end of the end all
as if primitive people actually held the golden key to well being

the past has been riddled with war, brutality, violence and a myriad of other maladies

why on earth would anyone look to the past to anoint the present
when the past was no picnic
and the people, on the whole, behaved deplorably in waging wars ad nauseum

the past is not a proper teacher

the present is

natural hygienists or other teachers are who they are

ultimately, you must become your own teacher

and stop blaming gurus or hygienists when things don't work out

its a tough sport

a blood sport

an unwanted sport

tough to be on the edge

having to figure it all out by yourself

but that's the way it goes

people just point to clues

little puzzle pieces scattered all over the floor

each person has to get that jigsaw puzzle that has fifty thousand pieces

and fit it all together

and if it doesn't fit

they have to create their own brand new puzzle

and create their own hybrid of things that work

tough world

tough people

the past is mute

like a whistle in a faraway cave

and they look, with something akin to remote curiosity, at the fact that we look to them for answers

and they look to us for Presence

If food were equivalent to fuel then the question would be what is the best available fuel. Isntead of asking what is the best fuel, you can also ask what is the worse fuel and whatever is left is the best fuel. Protein is bad when used for energy as it produces ammonia. Fats are bad in excess (like when eating other animals). So, what is left? fruits and vegs.

Ammonia is a by product of protein metabolism, but the human body also requires amino acids in order to function so there has to be a trade off here again.

As long as protein intake isn't excessive and liver function is healthy, ammonia really is of little issue. To those with chronic liver disease and eating massive amounts of protein however will have issue.

[www.vegankingdom.co.uk]



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 11/29/2012 01:57PM by powerlifer.

Really? I know that some primates will rip apart one of their own and eat it raw, and sometimes they eat ants. But do they ever eat anything bigger, and regularly? I've always thought that when they do animal testing, the very last before human trials is primates, because of similar digestive systems maybe I need to do more research I'm 1 year 8 months into this, a raw baby

My video to keep me inspired on my health quest: [www.youtube.com]

hey la_veronique,

sure, your point is essentially true: There is no set diet. Different people have different proportions of meat to plants, different ones use sea food or land food, etc. People in south america ate manioc (cassava) and small game. People in the arctic circle ate caribou. etc. we're omnivorous indeed.

But in regards to your question, when speaking about "ancient" diets, usually we talk about diets of anatomically modern humans before the invention of agriculture and the widespread domestication of livestock. The time span is roughly 200,000 years ago to 10,000 years ago when agriculture was invented. The diet varied regionally, but typically constituted meat or sea food (fish and mollusks), eggs (for coastal dwellers), fruit, and the ancestral vegetables, roots and tubers.

Anyway, it doesn't matter to some people, but some particularly want to understand where we're coming from and what that means for our current lifestyle. It's important for me personally to keep analyzing

p.s. oh, I thought the Natural Hygiene website was interesting because they don't advocate straightly vegan diets (they changed their previous stance). That seemed fascinating since I think that's what inspired Raw.


la_veronique Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> rawesome cat (uhh.. mispelling... rawsome)

>
> firstly, ancient primitive people had a plethora
> of diets depending on who they were what was
> available etc. so not sure how this applies at all
> whatsoever.. which ancient primitive people are
> they referring to? which continent? which local?
> what era? what year? what ... anything?
>
> they can't possibly lump them all in one
> category



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 12/01/2012 06:36PM by RawsomeCat.