maybe one day you'll go back and see who judges who. I already sais what I had to say, and I hold no bad feelings for you.

Peace

Panchito Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> maybe one day you'll go back and see who judges
> who. I already sais what I had to say, and I hold
> no bad feelings for you.
>
> Peace

I couldn't word my posts any kinder or respectful than i often do, which usually means IN MY OPINION at the start of everyone. Least i take the respect to do that, because my opinions are only that, my opinion.

I can't believe im lowering myself to sit and post back to this childish garbage, time and time again.

Good day Panchito.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 01/20/2013 04:53PM by powerlifer.

There's a big difference between attacking a diet and offering full disclosure. If our current knowledge tells us that cooked and raw gives us the most complete nutrient spectrum, people should know that. A lot of people come here who don't know anything about diet. They don't even know how to think about or research diet. To portray raw as the ultimate, unquestioned king of all diets to them is a flat-out lie. Seriously, is it a cult or a diet? If someone is 80% raw and adds in some steamed or soup veggies (in the middle of winter!?!), where's the sin?

My diet is 70-80% raw produce right now. The rest is instincto. Never felt better.


Panchito Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> powerlifer Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Why should my diet be relevant to whatever we
> are
> > discussing.
>
> When you attack the raw food diet in a raw food
> forum, the people of the forum cannot attack yours
> because you keep it hidden. Yes, it is that
> simple. Is that irrelevant? I think not. It is not
> fair. In order to judge the diets of other people,
> it is fair to post yours so that maybe we find
> whats wrong with your too and return the Favour.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/20/2013 05:01PM by HH.

Hey HH. I've never judged your diet. I am glad your diet really makes you feel good. Now, if you have time, please reflect whether you are judging others. If people are happy and healthy on a raw food diet, why throw stones like

"To portray raw as the ultimate, unquestioned king of all diets to them is a flat-out lie"

OK, I finally got around to reading this article this morning and updated my file on Raw Food Articles, which, by the way, is over 400 pages long.

Indeed, this article epitomizes what Arthur Schopenhauer once said, “Reason is usually the servant to desire.”

Before we begin to show the Flaws in what this author believes are 5 Misconceptions, let’s look at a classic example that shows a complete Lack of Logic where the author states, “Even doctors who prescribe and live by a vegan diet caution their patients against attempting a raw diet. The reason? You would greatly reduce the types of foods you can eat.”

Once again, there is simply NO LOGIC in this statement. Most of the Foods that most people are Eating are Foods that we are NOT Biologically Adapted to Eat and if we want to get and stay healthy, we have to “greatly reduce the types of foods we are eating.” And yes, this does require a little extra thought in the beginning simply because most of us have NOT been raised this way. But had we been raised this way, it would be a no brainer and would NOT be any more difficult for us to figure out what to eat than it is for a deer to figure out what to eat.

As Roman Devivo and Antje Spors wrote on page 47 in “Genefit Nutrition”: “Gustatory alliesthesia provides many obvious advantages over intellectual approaches. In fact, the nutritional instinct is as capable of solving math problems as the intellect is of solving dietary problems. Putting each tool in its perspective place, corresponding to its natural function, is the right way to go. Trying to set up our diet with our intellect is a little like using a screwdriver as a hammer; even if it somehow works, it wasn’t made for that.”

Now let’s look at the Flaws in what the author believes are 5 Misconceptions.

Misconception #1: Cooking destroys nutrients

It’s really SAD to see the same lame arguments used in EVERY Negative Article on Raw Food as if these clowns don’t have an original thought of their own. It’s always the same nutrients in the same foods - the lycopene in the tomatoes and the beta-carotene in the carrots where cooking increases its bioavailability.

Why don’t any of these articles ever address the fact that Raw, Uncooked Protein has TWICE the Biological Value as Dead, Cooked Protein according to the Max Plank Institute in Germany?

In this section, the author writes, “As for the concept of life energy in raw food, this is a spiritual belief beyond the realm of science, so debating its benefit, let alone existence, would be futile.”

First of all, if anyone wants to study the Science regarding the “life energy in raw food,” there are over 40 Scientific Organizations in Germany doing research on Biophotons, which I discuss below.

And then, all one needs to understand the “concept of life energy in raw food” is just a little bit of Common Sense. Take a handful of seeds and plant them in the ground and see what happens? Take those same seeds and Cook them first and then plant them and see what happens?

Remember what happened with the Pottenger Cat Study! The excrement from the cats fed on raw food was used as fertilizer and resulted in healthy and strong plant growth. The plants fertilized with the excrement from the cats on cooked food produced week and stunted plants.

Indeed, we reap what we sow! What is so hard to understand? Oh yea, “Reason is usually the servant to desire.”

Misconception #2: Cooking destroys enzymes

I stopped using this argument a long time ago and it’s Not because it’s Not True, which the author admits, but there simply is not enough science one way or the other to truly understand this phenomenon and it only allows others to use it as an attack. I also never believed in Howell’s belief that humans have a finite number of enzymes as it just did not appeal to my Sense of Logic.

Misconception #3: Raw foods are detoxifying

The biggest Piece of the Puzzle that everyone seems to NOT have, especially from those who should know better and would know better if Psychopaths didn’t Rule the World and Control what Doctors and Nutritionists are taught, has to do with our Elimination System. This is my area of expertise and I have done research in this area that is unparalleled. Nutritionists only focus on what’s in Food and have no idea about how this Food is Eliminated.

The reason why Raw Foods help cleanse the Body is because they Reduce the Ionic Pressure in our Colon and that allows our Colon to do one of its Primary Jobs as a Depository for all of the other Waste Matter from all of our Cells. And then, the reason why Juice Fasting/Feasting is even more cleansing is because it DRASTICALLY Reduces the Ionic Pressure in our Colon and turns our Colon from a Balloon with too much Pressure into a Black Hole that sucks waste matter from every cell in our Body, which is why thousands of my students have seen Miracles when they take a Solid Food Vacation and drink nothing but Juices!!!

Sure, there are lots of FOOLS with NO EXPERIENCE, except their own failed attempts, that insist that this is NOT True, but don’t listen to anyone who speaks from a place they’ve never been!!! I’ve Juice Fasted/Feasted for 1005 Days in the last 20 years on 136 different occasions and I KNOW!!! I’ve coached thousands of people and I KNOW!!! I’ve only had a handful of people out of thousands that did not respond well when they drank nothing but Juices and most of them could not or would not drink enough Juice.

Under this section, the author writes, “Another argument is that burning fat — in this case, on a raw vegan diet — would release toxins from the body. But fat cells don't burn up, as if into ashes, liberating their contents. Fats cells merely get bigger or smaller, depending on the amount of fat within the cell that's used.”

This is a Straw Man Argument as I have never heard of this argument from any Raw Food Proponent in my 24 years as a Food Research Scientist. The author falsely states that “fat cells merely get bigger or smaller, depending on the amount of fat within the cell” and yet, in this very article the author writes, “In reality, toxins can accumulate anywhere in the body, particularly in fat and fatty tissue, but also in proteins and bone.”

So fat cells can get bigger or smaller depending on not just the amount of fat within the cell, but also the amount of Toxins!

Misconception #4: Raw veganism is healthful

Under this section, the author writes, “The most apparent problems are nutritional deficiencies, particularly for vitamins B12 and D, selenium, zinc, iron and two omega-3 fatty acids, DHA and EPA. Without taking supplements in pill form, it would be very difficult (and, for B12, impossible) to obtain a sufficient amount of these nutrients from raw, plant-based foods.”

OK, we’ve discussed B12 ad infinitum on this website and everyone recognizes that B12 Deficiency is epidemic across the entire population and that has everything to do with the Ripple Effect and cannot be used to Negate the fact that our Anatomy is NOT designed to Eat Dead Burnt Bodies!!!

We’ve also discussed Vitamin D and we’re NOT supposed to get this from our Food, unless we are so Foolish or unfortunate to live in an unhealthy environment where we can’t get enough Sunshine.

As for selenium, all we have to do is eat one or two Brazil Nuts a day depending on how big they are.

As far as DHA and EPA, these are Level 2 Nutrients that all healthy people are able to make and if you are NOT Healthy, then you may need to Supplement on a Temporary basis. Once again, just like B12, this has to do with the Ripple Effect and NOT Cause & Effect.

As far as Zinc and Iron, this is what Jeff N. wrote…

“Concerns for Zinc are based on current recommendations. Realize that the traditional concerns over a vegan diet are usually only for a few nutrients, which are Protein, Calcium, Iron and Zinc. Now, think about it, do you notice anything in common about these foods? One thing should stick out, Animal products are traditionally thought to be good sources of these nutrients. We know the beef industry has influenced the protein requirements and a vegan diet is more than sufficient. And now we know that excess protein, especially from animals can be harmful in many ways. We also know that the dairy industry has influenced the calcium recommendations and that a vegan diet and proper lifestyle can easily meet the calcium requirements. And now we know that taking in dairy products can be harmful in many ways.”

And then, this article quotes another Cooked Food Proponent, Caldwell Esselstyn where he writes, "The problem with the raw food diet is where do you get your energy food?" I’ve been eating this way for over 22 years and just because Esselstyn can’t figure it out doesn’t mean the rest of us can’t. Yes, a lot of people do eat too much Fat and those who don’t know any better will say that the only Food that we have a Symbiotic Relationship with and actually want us to eat them - Fruits - are BAD!!! We must stop listening to people who don’t know how to make this work and as Panchito said on another post, find those who do and Model what they do keeping in mind that we all have our own Individual Weaknesses which is where the Ripple Effect comes into play. I call this the Art of Healing and you can search this website where I discuss this in much more detail.

Also under this section, the author writes, “But there is no evidence that, even given the resources to prepare a variety of raw foods daily, the raw vegan diet would be more healthful than the plant-based diets promoted by McDougall or Esselstyn, or than the diets that allow modest amounts of animal products. Vegans would have to ask themselves what the added benefit would be from going raw if the raw diet offers no additional moral satisfaction, other than a reduced use of cooking fuel.”

First of all, Absence of Evidence is Not Evidence of Absence and the “added benefit” is called a Biophoton!!! Dr. Fritz-Albert Popp proved that there is a direct correlation between Biophoton Levels and Health in ALL LIVING SYSTEMS and COOKING DESTROYS BIOPHOTONS!!! Once again, you can search this website where I discuss this in much more detail.

Misconception #5: Raw-only foods are natural

The author writes, “That said, no known human culture has ever attempted to survive solely on raw plant foods.”

Once again, Absence of Evidence is Not Evidence of Absence.

The author writes, “In a natural setting, without electricity, anyone located outside of a narrow belt of land near the equators, which have year-round growth potential, would need to dedicate their entire day to growing, gathering, preserving and storing food. Even around the tropics, where vegetation is plentiful, humans have been cooking as long as humans have been human — at least 200,000 years and likely longer in our hominid form.”

Yes, we are Tropical creatures and yes, we are meant to live around the Equator and if we don’t live where we’re supposed to live, then we have to adjust accordingly, which is due to the Ripple Effect and you cannot use this as an excuse to discount the Law of Cause & Effect. Once again, you can search this website where I discuss what I call the Science and Art of Healing or Science and Art of Problem Solving in much more detail.

As far as “humans have been cooking as long as humans have been human — at least 200,000 years” does not mean that we should continue making Mistakes. With this sort of twisted Logic, we should just keep drinking Sodas and Eating Processed Foods. Based on my research, humans did not consistently start Cooking their Food until 50 to 60 thousand years ago and this is the Fall of Mankind. This is when we Destroyed the Biophotons in our Food and Lost 1 of our Senses - our 6th Sense. This Changed our Mentality and now we are so Foolish that we Compete for Resources on an Abundant Planet and Prey upon our own Species. If we ever want to Return to the Paradise, we have to Change our Mentality and the only way to Change our Mentality is to stop Destroying the Nutrient that Feeds our 6th Sense!!!

The author writes, “Most scientists are in agreement that a combination of, first, eating meat and then cooking food enabled the development of the human brain. Cooking in particular opened up a new world of calories and nutrients. The human brain, after all, requires a lot of energy.”

Most scientists Eat Dead Burnt Bodies and once again, “Reason is usually the servant to desire.” Since most of the fat content of both coconuts and mother's milk is lauric acid, I believe that it was coconuts that increased our brain size, but I have never been able to ascertain when coconuts first appeared on our planet. If anyone knows, please let me know.

Peace and Love..........John

To portray it as the ultimate without questioning/examining/telling all sides of the story is not the truth. Perhaps we see this forum differently. I take the word "support" in rawfoodsupport to mean that we support people (give them advice and recommendations) in the raw vegan end of their diet and their pursuit of health. You apparently see "support" as meaning support raw vegan foods like people support a sports team.

IMO, raw vegan foods are best complimented by some cooked veggies, especially for people who live in places like I do where the sun virtually dies for 9 months out of every year.

There's no judgment of you in my opinion other than the belief that blind support for one way is not as helpful as a more comprehensive examination.

Panchito Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Hey HH. I've never judged your diet. I am glad
> your diet really makes you feel good. Now, if you
> have time, please reflect whether you are judging
> others. If people are happy and healthy on a raw
> food diet, why throw stones like
>
> "To portray raw as the ultimate, unquestioned king
> of all diets to them is a flat-out lie"

hi HH. I don't remember anybody talking about "ultimate diet." You were the first person who said that if I am not mmistaken. In your eyes, you think we (people who eat like 100%) feel superior. We all fall prey of our opinions as best. We are not perfect. Not everybody can do this diet, many factors like being practical in a moderm world. The thing is that people use assumptions on their words. Sometimes the words are loaded and make things appear as either true or false. It is in the words.

"To portray raw as the ultimate, unquestioned king of all diets to them is a flat-out lie"

ultimate, king, flat-out lie

People get lost in politics because they believe the words, which only exist in the mind as imagination figures



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 01/20/2013 08:04PM by Panchito.

We're all orthorexic or we wouldn't be on here.

Debating the raw food diet is almost as contentious as debating politics...

A bit of Deja Vu on this board at the moment - arguments and petty mindidness.This is what it used to be like for a long long time, but fortunately it has evolved to a board to help real people deal with the real world we live in.

The reality is that whilst the 100% raw works for some people, it doesn't work for a lot of people, and to pretend it would work for everyone irrespective of their genetics, where they live, or their circumstances, is like putting your head in the sand and ignoring the reality of the situation.

Also, let's not make the mistake of thinking '' what works / has worked for me '' will work for everyone.That's one of the biggest flaws in the health food / raw food movement.

I agree. Raw food maybe is not for everybody. But to say that it does not work for all people is a strech. Maybe people who succeed do different things.

I'm done with this thread. If we can't discuss the whole story, we're no better than rigid allopaths who won't even consider the alternative health world and who believe that one pill has the same effect on all people. Noobs deserve to get the whole story. It helps them to make the most informed dietary decisions possible.

As I have pointed out many times - there are 2 Groups of Needs we must Satisfy based on #1) the Law of Cause & Effect, which is where we are Biologically Adapted to Eat Raw Plant Food and #2) the Ripple Effect where some of us have either Temporary Impairment or Permanent Damage and now we might need to Modify what we are Biologically Adapted to Eat in order to get some of those Level 2 Nutrients that we might not be able to produce if we and our planet were healthy. Nowhere does this include COOKED FOOD! If you want or desire COOKED FOOD, it's because your brains are stuck in your taste buds!

COOKED FOODS are just like a Drug and Drugs don’t contain Highs, they trigger Highs in the Brain’s Pleasure Pathways, circuits that have evolved long ago to Reward and Reinforce Behaviors crucial to our Survival. In that sense, our Brains are Addicted to Life, which means that any activity that produces Rewards in the Brain’s Chemistry has at least the Potential of Addiction.

In the final analysis, Cooking our Food Destroys our 6th Sense and this is the reason why we have a Dark Side to our Behavior and this is the reason why most people don't know and don't want to know that Cooking is the Fall of Mankind. In other words, Cooking is Not an Art as we have been lead to believe - Cooking is a Sin - it’s the Original Sin - it IS the Fall of Mankind.

Peace and Love..........John

The story of one person does not make the Whole story. Mine doesn't. What usually happens is that people are drawn into a conehead web full of reasoned traps which only exists in the mind. Best way to find out is to try out. People who fail may try to silence the successful ones so that the web holds.

[imgur.com]

HH Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Compare the nutrition facts of a 1/2 cup raw
> broccoli vs. 1/2 cup boiled broccoli. You need to
> adjust the serving sizes when you go to each page.
> Besides the mysterious and currently
> unquantifiable "life energy," cooked broccoli wins
> on all counts. Personally, I like a combination of
> raw and cooked with nearly all veg.
>
> [nutritiondata.self.com]
> -vegetable-products/2356/2
>
> [nutritiondata.self.com]
> -vegetable-products/2357/2

---l
sorry, but you aren't evaluating this correctly. cooked food has water content removed. you neeed to do a calorie for calorie comparison to be accurate, and in that case, if you checked it correctly, you'd see that raw broccoli has more or comparable nutrition.

Can you explain in-depth what you mean when you say "water content removed" and exactly what that means and how it affects nutrition? Thanks.

Utopian Life Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> HH Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Compare the nutrition facts of a 1/2 cup raw
> > broccoli vs. 1/2 cup boiled broccoli. You need
> to
> > adjust the serving sizes when you go to each
> page.
> > Besides the mysterious and currently
> > unquantifiable "life energy," cooked broccoli
> wins
> > on all counts. Personally, I like a combination
> of
> > raw and cooked with nearly all veg.
> >
> >
> [nutritiondata.self.com]
>
> > -vegetable-products/2356/2
> >
> >
> [nutritiondata.self.com]
>
> > -vegetable-products/2357/2
>
> ---l
> sorry, but you aren't evaluating this correctly.
> cooked food has water content removed. you neeed
> to do a calorie for calorie comparison to be
> accurate, and in that case, if you checked it
> correctly, you'd see that raw broccoli has more or
> comparable nutrition.

You were evaluating based on cup size or weight. You need to compare based on caloric amount because 1/2 cup of cooked broccoli will have more broccoli than 1/2 cup of raw broccoli.

I've never seen broccoli shrink in a pot of soup like spinach does. That's why I chose broccoli as an example. I suppose it does a little, but not enough to negate the nutrient disparity.

Utopian Life Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You were evaluating based on cup size


I must be in a silly mood, because that made me laugh

Here is what Utopian Life is talking about:

Here is 100 calories of raw brocoli:


Here is 100 calories of boiled brocoli:


There are minor differences in the nutrient content of the two, though the raw broccoli is 3.4 cups, and the cooked broccoli is 1.83 cups. Some nutrients were destroyed, and some were enhanced by the cooking.





Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/08/2023 01:52AM by Prana.

KidRaw Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Utopian Life Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > You were evaluating based on cup size
>
>
> I must be in a silly mood, because that made me
> laugh

hahaha, me too.
thanks, prana, for posting.

In which case you still need to eat 2 cups more raw broccoli than the cooked individual does to get near the same nutrients. If someone was to eat 3.4 cups of cooked broccoli they would be getting much more nutrients.

Interesting though, we have just about half the amount of cooked broccoli to raw by weight, yet it nearly rivals its nutrition despite being just about half the amount.

[www.natuhealth.co.uk]



Edited 5 time(s). Last edit at 01/22/2013 08:49AM by powerlifer.

if it the water is gone so is its juice. But what good would it be boiled juice?

Taking into account calories, volume and weight, cooked greens pawn raw greens many times over.

It is about nutrient density and digestibility, per volume cooked greens are the more nutrient dense option by just about 50%, which is pretty impressive. This would go heavily with the theory that it was increased nutrient density and digestibility from cooking that caused larger brain size and development. Greens such as Spinach in there raw form are not very digestible or well broken down at all and that is in individuals with good digestion. Its the cooking which softens and breaks down the hard fibers which increases digestibility.

That's not to say that diet shouldn't be balanced with adequate raw foods but i think its obvious what foods we should eat raw i.e fruits, salad greens, fresh culinary herbs etc. The bottom line is that cooked greens are far more nutritious and digestible than raw by comparison.

[www.natuhealth.co.uk]



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 01/22/2013 12:52PM by powerlifer.

some vegetables are not really edible when raw. To make them edible, you have to keep them at high temp for a while so that they soften and break or melt or whatever. So yeah, cooking helps when talking about non edible things and gives you a higher number of things to eat. The number one thing is grasses. Grass seeds (grains) are not really edible and people need to process them first in order to make them edible.

<<<So yeah, cooking helps when talking about non edible things and gives you a higher number of things to eat.>>>

Great point Panchito and one I've been meaning to make. Broccoli is NOT edible in its Raw State and if we cannot eat it RAW, we SHOULD NOT EAT IT!!!

<<<The bottom line is that cooked greens are far more nutritious and digestible than raw by comparison.>>>

Wrong again powerlifer, the only Nutrient we should focus on are Biophotons. Forget the Macro-Nutrients and the Micro-Nutrients unless you are Not Able to produce certain Level 2 Nutrients. Otherwise, forget what's in your Food and make sure that the Food you eat doesn't change the Ionic Pressure in your Colon or otherwise, you might end up with anyone of the tens of thousands of Dis-ease symptoms that have given names by our so-called Mis-Directed Experts based on the location and the Stage of Dis-ease.

"And we have made of ourselves living cesspools, and driven doctors to invent names for our diseases." -Plato

Peace and Love..........John

<<<Broccoli is NOT edible in its Raw State and if we cannot eat it RAW, we SHOULD NOT EAT IT!!!>>>

Broccoli and other dark leafy greens such as Spinach are some of the healthiest foods we can eat. Not eating them just because there not raw is just being dogmatic, especially with how much proven health benefits these dark greens possess.

[www.natuhealth.co.uk]



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/22/2013 01:28PM by powerlifer.

Every invention can have good and bad things. Cooking is a human invention. It help people live in places where they could not. It was the most powerful tool for surviving during the migrations of the human diaspora. It was what helped humanity populate the planet. Now the planet is overpopulated and without cooking humanity would collapse. It is as if traveling to the moon and figuring out ways to live out of the rocks.

Let's call it a draw!

<<<Broccoli and other dark leafy greens such as Spinach are some of the healthiest foods we can eat. Not eating them just because there not raw is just being dogmatic, especially with how much proven health benefits these dark greens possess.>>>

I never said dark leafy greens I said Broccoli. I eat 2 to 3 pounds of dark leafy greens every day, but I don’t eat Raw Broccoli because we cannot breakdown the cellulose in Foods like Raw Broccoli.

Peace and Love..........John