I've been thinking about going fully raw but I would like to know what the benefit is of giving up cooked eggs. I don't think I'd be interested in eating raw eggs, so wouldn't eating hard or soft-boiled eggs be beneficial?

Raw vegan do not eat eggs.

Benefits - you don't harm/use/exploit other animals.

What about not eating eggs at all? Here's what happens as a result of the egg industry Undercover Investigation at Hy-Line Hatchery.

Difficult to watch.
We humans can be so insensitive to life.

eggs are bad for your health

[nutritionfacts.org]

I do not eat eggs but could you explain why they are bad.
The link you provided does not explain



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/22/2014 06:20PM by RawPracticalist.

RawPracticalist Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I do not eat eggs but could you explain why they
> are bad.
> The link you provided does not explain

yes it does but you have to first read it. Eggs are linked to too many diseases.

From the first video (there are many in the link above),

Who Says Eggs Aren’t Healthy or Safe?: [nutritionfacts.org]


"The American Egg Board is a promotional marketing board appointed by the U.S. government whose mission is to "increase demand for egg and egg products on behalf of U.S. egg producers." Now if an individual egg company wants to run an ad campaign, they can say whatever they want, but if an egg corporation wants to dip into the 10 million dollars the American Egg Board sets aside for advertising, because the board is overseen by the federal government, corporations are not allowed to lie with those funds. This leads to quite revealing exchanges between egg corporations that want to use that money and the USDA on what egg companies can and cannot say about eggs.

Thanks to the Freedom of Information Act I was able to get my hands on some of those emails. Of course a lot of what I got looked like this:

"Please note a number of items" about our “salmonella crisis module.” "Any questions?" Or even better--entire sheets of paper that literally just said this. That was the whole sheet of paper. Our tax dollars hard at work.

But check this out. This is some egg company trying to put out a brochure on healthy snacking for kids. But because of existing laws against false and misleading advertising the head of the USDA's poultry research and promotion programs reminds them that you can't couch eggs or egg products as being healthy or nutritious. See the words nutritious and healthy carry certain connotations (you know that a food is actually good for you), but because eggs have the amount of cholesterol they do (plus all the saturated fat) the words healthy and nutritious are problematic when it comes to eggs. This is the USDA saying this!

However, the USDA helpfully suggests, I believe you can say eggs are naturally nutrient dense.

Wait a second why can you say eggs are nutrient dense but not nutritious? Because there's no legal definition of nutrient dense. You can say twinkies and coca cola are nutrient dense, but legally, you can't say something is nutritious unless it's actually… nutritious.

So for example, the egg industry wanted to run this ad calling eggs a nutritional powerhouse that aids in weight loss. The USDA had to remind the industry that they can't portray eggs as a diet food because of the fat and cholesterol content. In fact they have nearly twice the calories of anything that can be called low-calorie.

"Nutritional powerhouse" can't be used either. Fine, the industry said, they'll move to plan B, and headline the ad Egg-ceptional nutrition. Nope, because again given the saturated fat and cholesterol you can't legally call eggs nutritious. So the ad ended up "find true satisfaction" and instead of weight loss they had to go with "can reduce hunger." USDA congratulated them on their cleverness. Yes, a food that when eaten can reduce hunger—what a concept.

You can't even say eggs are relatively low in calories. Can't say eggs are low in saturated fat—they're not. Can't say they're relative low in fat, they're not! Can't even call them a rich source of protein, because they're not.

It's illegal to advertise that eggs pack a nutritional wallop—can't truthfully say that, or have a high nutritional content. You can't say eggs are "nutritious" at all. Can't say nutritious; cannot say eggs are nutritious. (Sometimes you have to tell the industry a few times). Eggs have so much cholesterol you can't even say they contribute nutritionally. Can't say eggs are healthful, certainly can't say they're healthy— have you seen how much cholesterol there is in those things? Can't say healthy. Can't even say eggs contribute healthful components.

Since you can't say eggs are a healthy start to the day, the USDA suggests a satisfying start. Can't call eggs a healthy ingredient, but you can call eggs a recognizable ingredient. Can't truthfully say eggs are good for you. Can't say they're good for you. By law, the egg industry "needs to steer clear of words like healthy or nutritious”.

For a food to be labeled "healthy" under FDA rules, it has to be low in saturated fat—eggs fail that test—and less that 90mg of cholesterol per serving—even half an egg fails that criteria. For the same reason you can't tout ice cream for strong bones, you can't say eggs are healthy because they exceed the threshold for cholesterol.

Egg corporations aren't even allowed to say things like "Eggs are an important part of a well balanced, healthy diet" on an egg carton because it would be considered misleading, according to the USDA's National Egg Supervisor since eggs contain significant amounts of fat and cholesterol, and therefore can contribute to the leading killer in the United States, heart disease.

The industry can't afford to tell the truth about the eggs, or even the hens that lay them. The industry crams 5 to 10 birds in cages the size of a file cabinet their whole lives, but when providing footage to the media the American Egg Board instructs "do not show multiple birds in cages--they look too crowded and open us up to activist criticism." In other words, do not show… the truth.

Not only is the industry barred from saying eggs are healthy, they can't even refer to eggs as safe, "all references to safety must be removed." because more than a hundred thousand americans are Salmonella poisoned every year from eggs.

The egg board’s response to this eggborne epidemic is that Salmonella is a naturally occurring bacterium. The egg industry didn't think that should necessarily be the key message, fearing "it may be counterproductive by implying there is no avoiding Salmonella in eggs aside from avoiding eggs altogether."

That's why the American Egg Board can't even mention anything but eggs cooked hard and dry. No soft-boiled, no over-easy, no sunny-side up because of Salmonella.

The American Egg Board's own research showed that the sunny-side up cooking method should be considered unsafe.

And also because of avian influenza. In light of bird flu viruses eggs must be cooked firm. The VP of marketing for the Egg Board complained to the USDA saying they'd really like to not have to dictate that the yolks are firm— what about some Washington Post article saying runny yolks may be safe for everyone except pregnant women, infants, elderly, or those with chronic disease? Turns out it was a misquote—they can't be considered safe for anyone.

Instead of safe you can call eggs fresh, the USDA marketing service helpfully suggests. But you can't call eggs safe, you cannot say eggs are safe to eat, Can't say they're safe, can't even mention safety, can't say they're healthful. All "references to healthfulness must be deleted" as well.

Wait a second: Eggs can't really be called healthy? Eggs can't even really be called safe? Says who… Says the United States Department of Agriculture."

Thank you so much Panchito.
Yes it has all of the info I needed to know.
Even though I was not into eggs I thought they were still acceptable.

temp Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> RawPracticalist Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----

> High cholesterol and saturated fat intake, sure im
> in agreement they may be linked to the development
> of health problems, but we have to get out the
> mentality that cholesterol and saturated fats are
> bad for us, because they are both vital to health.


The mentality we have to get out of is that eating meat is necessary for human health.


> Balance and somewhere in the middle is where the
> truth always lies.


Let's stay on the topic of diets and call a spade a spade here - this is pure 1950's dietspeak you are promoting.



> The body produces its own cholesterol, although in
> times of chronic stress, adrenal fatigue, injury
> and/or inflammation, the body might not produce
> enough to waive dietary cholesterol intake.
> Especially if you suffer from a sluggish and/or
> dysfunctional liver.


BS.

Thank you Suez.
Some people have total unshakable conviction that we need meat, fish, eggs.
I feel better not eating them.

temp Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Prove to me that it isn't essential for health
> then Suez, because you can't without telling me
> supplementation such as vitamin b12 is also
> essential. If were calling a spade, a spade
> then...

I've said many times on this forum that after many decades on a vegetarian diet, and a year or so of eating raw vegan with no supplements, my B12 blood test last year was just under 500 which is almost as high as the Japanese average for all eaters there.

I have also relayed that my hunting highly carnivorous brother who had the same digestive problems I did and is, unlike me, an extremely high energy athlete was diagnosed with a B12 deficiency and must take supplement.

I am not the only non meat eater here who has told you many time that their B12 is fine without supplementation. Maybe you think we all are not telling the truth.


> Your high oil diet is no better than the
> 80/10/10ers diets either, imbalanced and
> restrictive in completely the opposite direction,
> most likely very unsafe and completely unproven,
> whether consuming that much oil is healthy or
> beneficial for you to begin with. Common sense and
> research would probably dictate otherwise.
>
> The conductivity diet you follow, is just as prone
> to these nutritional pitfalls as with any other
> vegan diet.


Time will tell if the diet I'm on works long term for me. It's turned around the prediabetic state I went into after eating low fat high carb vegan for 11 months and I really like the effect it's having on my brain and nervous system especially. As I have said I get tests every year and it's almost that time again so I'll be able get a better idea of what's going on that I'm not aware of.

Powerlifter, how many times do you have to be told that B12 is not a vegan diet problem? It's a problem that is caused by destroying your body's ability to create B12 through previous unhealthy practices, such as processed foods laced with chemicals, pesticide-laden produce, drugs, etc. Cooking meat and eating it wouldn't do anything for B12 levels, B12 is a soil-based organism which is killed off when cooked. And both chlorella and nori have been scientifically linked to increased B12 levels (vegan sources).

jtprindl Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Powerlifter, how many times do you have to be told
> that B12 is not a vegan diet problem? It's a
> problem that is caused by destroying your body's
> ability to create B12 through previous unhealthy
> practices, such as processed foods laced with
> chemicals, pesticide-laden produce, drugs, etc.
> Cooking meat and eating it wouldn't do anything
> for B12 levels, B12 is a soil-based organism which
> is killed off when cooked. And both chlorella and
> nori have been scientifically linked to increased
> B12 levels (vegan sources).

Yet like ive said 100 times, the majority of scientific research shows this to be a vegetarian and vegan diet related problem, these groups always score lowest for vitamin B12, as they do a number of other nutrients like i outlined in my article compared to omnivores.

temp Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
. Where
> are you planning to get this nutrient out of
> interest dietary


Same as always - unwashed organic bought and home grown root veggies. And yes, if you do your homework, you will find that that some of the sea veggies will do that too if you give the good stuff a chance and stop insisting on taking the floor sweepings/compost quality kelp you are taking now in capsules.



> We can only see long term and the same goes for
> the sproutarians and any other diet that will
> continue to pop up, including Paleo. 80/10/10 well
> like i tried to tell everyone 1-2 years ago, it
> was always destined to fail and guess what, yep it
> failed for all the so called gurus or youtube
> personalities.
>
> Although you didn't need a degree to work out that
> was going to happen. You'll find the majority will
> struggle to ever adhere strictly to the diets
> there trying so hard to promote to others around
> here.
>
> You've got members from before 2010 on here, who
> still haven't been able to make a raw vegan diet
> work. It would be laughable if it wasn't actually
> sad. Its pains me to see people hold out in hope
> as if "santa or the tooth fairy" is real and that
> one year there gonna suddenly manage to make this
> vegan diet work once and for all. Sproutarian it
> will be this year, Gabriel Cousens High fat the
> year before, 80/10/10 before that, try
> liquidarian, back to cooked vegan and SAD
> dieting.
>
> Its just pains me to see anyone go through that
> orthorexia, jumping from fad diet to fad diet, and
> feelings of guilt eating "non pure or unhealthy
> foods".


That's nothing to what will pain you if you start your own diet forum. I not only think that will not be good for your health I think the stress would drive you to eating more meat. Seriously, don't do that to yourself. Can't you see that's not your calling?

Actually I think you do understand that and are just coming back here to get us to kick you out of our lives by pissing us off because you have trouble leaving on your own. Take care. I wish you well in your new, and more appropriate for you, endevours.

temp Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> jtprindl Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Powerlifter, how many times do you have to be
> told
> > that B12 is not a vegan diet problem? It's a
> > problem that is caused by destroying your
> body's
> > ability to create B12 through previous
> unhealthy
> > practices, such as processed foods laced with
> > chemicals, pesticide-laden produce, drugs, etc.
> > Cooking meat and eating it wouldn't do anything
> > for B12 levels, B12 is a soil-based organism
> which
> > is killed off when cooked. And both chlorella
> and
> > nori have been scientifically linked to
> increased
> > B12 levels (vegan sources).
>
> Yet like ive said 100 times, the majority of
> scientific research shows this to be a vegetarian
> and vegan diet related problem, these groups
> always score lowest for vitamin B12, as they do a
> number of other nutrients like i outlined in my
> article compared to omnivores.


B12 comes from the soil, why would we need to eat animals to get it? And again, chlorella and nori are vegan sources of B12. B12 deficiency in vegans could also be due to deficiencies in other nutrients which promote the absorption of B12. This would be the result of a vegan diet that was not well-planned.

Oh and by the way, check this out: [ajcn.nutrition.org]

"Although earlier reports consistently identified a lower vitamin B-12 concentration in lactovegetarians than in nonvegetarians, in the absence of clinical findings, it was difficult to confidently characterize that characteristic as representing a vitamin B-12–deficient state."

SueZ Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> That's nothing to what will pain you if you
> start your own diet forum. I not only think that
> will not be good for your health I think the
> stress would drive you to eating more meat.
> Seriously, don't do that to yourself. Can't you
> see that's not your calling?
>
> Actually I think you do understand that and are
> just coming back here to get us to kick you out of
> our lives by pissing us off because you have
> trouble leaving on your own. Take care. I wish you
> well in your new, and more appropriate for you,
> endevours.

Yes this is where we agree and i will no longer be opening any forum.

The world isn't ready for a civilized adult conversation on diet yet, these people want to tear each others throats out. Or maybe its just the raw vegans ? its not like this on any other diet forum, even cooked vegan forums aren't like this place.

You guys take diet critique and questioning, as some type of personal insult, you have become your diet labels essentially and no i don't get a kick out of this place. Like i discussed with another member privately, i leave here most days with severe depression rather than feeling like anything positive has been achieved. If i had just been left to do my own thing, i could have been so much more useful with my time, most of the time im defending moronic posts.

So your right, getting as far as i can away from this crap movement is essential. Infact does anyone enjoy this place, no wonder so few take part and are actually embarrassed too. Im embarrassed at myself for even posting for so long and being trolled by people who are no more vegan than i am.

Ive wrote to prana personally 4+ times now via the report post function requesting for this account to be banned for days now, just perma ban this account so i am not tempted to keep replying to this nonsense.

Im out adios.



Edited 11 time(s). Last edit at 04/23/2014 04:59PM by temp.

temp Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> SueZ Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > That's nothing to what will pain you if you
> > start your own diet forum. I not only think
> that
> > will not be good for your health I think the
> > stress would drive you to eating more meat.
> > Seriously, don't do that to yourself. Can't you
> > see that's not your calling?
> >
> > Actually I think you do understand that and
> are
> > just coming back here to get us to kick you out
> of
> > our lives by pissing us off because you have
> > trouble leaving on your own. Take care. I wish
> you
> > well in your new, and more appropriate for you,
> > endevours.


> Yes this is where we agree and i will no longer be
> opening any forum.


Good I'm glad you see that would not be for you.

Internet communications is kind of like being dropped off in an inner city slum in the middle of the night. It's not for everyone that's for sure.