Here is what some raw foodists say on the topic:
Is some cooked food bad / okay?
Contributors: Alicia Grant, Anne Osborne, Don Bennett DAS, Dr Gosia O’Reilly, Lena Fn, Michele Martinez, Natacha Pura Vida, Drs Rick and Karin Dina

What do you say?


RawGosia channel
RawGosia streams

A brilliant thread Dr Gosia, l shall listen to it with great interest tomorrow. Really looking forward to it.

Being able to do all raw takes many conditions to be present for one to be able to do it successfully, so for some 100% raw can work and for others some cooked food will be advised. Many factors we need to take into account, eg, the diet, the state of the body, how one combines foods etc. A simple answer cannot be given because we must be able to help the person to tailor a diet their body can tolerate. Lots of anti-nutrients in many raw foods, and not everyone has adapted their body and diet to be able to deal with them effectively. I will go into more detail about this in another post.

If a person develops their body by conditioning it to a higher level and does certain things they will find that 100% raw will be the winner, but for people not quite doing things as well as they could be, 80 - 90% raw may be something more to aim for.

Very soon Dr Brian Clement releases another brilliant book full of scientific studies on the toxins/evils of cooked food.

www.thesproutarian.com

A great video, Gosia.

To me, 100% raw vegan food is best at this point in my life, when I feel that going back to just little cooked food would have a negative impact on my body and make me lose the benefits I've experienced so far. So I'm no longer willing to make any compromises.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Raw vegan for life. Vegan for the animals. Raw for my health.

Here are a couple old Posts (2000 & 2005) of mine on this topic...

[www.rawfoodsupport.com]
My 30 Day Experiment...THE 7TH COMPONENT OF WEIGHT
Author: John Rose (---.dsl.hstntx.swbell.net)
Date: 03-04-05 15:05

Once again, I'm including another one of my older posts that I wrote almost 5 years ago below that includes a 30 day experiment I did with cooked foods. This has got to be the one post that I have re-posted more than any other of my older posts and for those who have been around a while I apologize if you get tired of seeing this one. Nonetheless, this was a very enlightening experiment which has convinced me that all cooked food is bad news.

River wrote, "It was definitely some kind of adverse reaction to the baked sweet potato." If it wasn’t Beelzebub, maybe it was the Maillard Molecules...

[www.instinctive-living.com]
A kitchen is nothing else than a chemical laboratory.

At the beginning of the century, a French chemist named Maillard discovered that the simple act of cooking a potato in boiling water produces 420 new molecules, which are not present in the original unprocessed potato. He concluded that when a food product is exposed to heat, because of the molecular agitation so produced, sugar and protein chains break and combine randomly. Today, we call those molecules Maillard molecules.

What was only 420 for a cooked potato can become millions or even billions of different molecules in complex recipes. Because of the limitless number of artificial molecules produced by cooking, modern chemists have still not been able to completly identify all of them.

Maillard reactions are chaotic. It is impossible to completely foresee what types of new chemical substances will be produced in any given recipe.

Further research has shown some of those new molecules to be:
• toxic (producing body intoxication)
• carcinogenic (producing cancer cells) ()
• mutagenic (disturbing DNA replication) () ()
• neurotoxic (affecting brain functions) () ()

A molecule is called toxic, carcinogenic, neurotoxic or mutagenic when the body doesn't have the ability to handle it safely. Or, in other words, the body is not genetically adapted to that given molecule (). Maillard molecules are only one category of new chemical substances the body is confronted with since the invention of food processing; there are numerous other ones that have not yet been taken into consideration.
[www.instinctive-living.com]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[www.rawfoodsupport.com]
Subject: THE 7TH COMPONENT OF WEIGHT
Author: JR...(John Rose) (HSTNA030-0121.splitrock.net)
Date: 05-10-2000 00:18

Jeff N wrote:

<<< to the person who said they gain weight on a 2000 calories defecit, and loses wt on a 2000 calorie excess, I would offer you to come to my center and let us observe you under controlled setting ( or any other rseacrh center) and have this documented. You would become world famous. >>>

In my above post I wrote:

<I have been able to gain weight on a caloric deficit of 2000 calories, and I have been able to lose weight on a caloric surplus of 2000 calories. In both cases, the weight was not fat, muscle or water weight - it was uneliminated waste matter - the residue from unnatural food.>

And now this was my response to Jeff N:

This normally does not happen to me, but it has before, and it can happen to you or anyone else. Let me be more explicit. Since I've been 100% raw for 5 years now, if I were to go out tomorrow and eat 600 calories of dead food and that was all I ate, I would probably gain 2-3 pounds. It wouldn't be fat, muscle or water. How do I know? Because I would then do a Juice Fast the next day, and even if I juiced 2000 calories more than I burned, I'd see the residue from this cooked food come out of me and I would lose the 2-3 pounds that I gained.

I have fasted over 600 days on 113 different occasions, and many of them were because I could not maintain a 100% raw diet when I first went raw about 10 years ago.

I have done research in this area that no one, that I know of, has ever done before.

The research I'm talking about is using my own body as a guinea pig. You would not believe how far I've gone to make some sense out of all of this.

About 6 years ago, I wanted to make sense out of all of the books that I had been reading, and I wanted to test whether an 80% raw diet was as good as a 100% raw diet. So I decided to eat 80% raw for the next 30 days to see what would happen. This was a step back for me - I had been 99% raw for the previous year. In the first 20 days, I gained 17 pounds. From days 21 to 30, I didn’t gain 1 pound. My suspicions were right. I filled up my colon back to where it was before I emptied it out from my Juice Fasting.

I remember after doing this experiment, reading about Paul Bragg and how he said that he was always hungry and didn’t have adequate energy during the first 2 years at 100% raw so he went back to 1 cooked meal a day, and he too coincidentally gained 17 pounds. I also read after my experiment, that the same thing happened to George Malkmus after he went 100% raw for 1 year to cure his colon cancer and he too went back to 1 cooked meal a day and he too very coincidentally gained 17 pounds. It is extremely coincidental that all three of us gained 17 pounds, but when you consider that we were all almost the same age when it happened to us, it’s not that surprising. The only difference between me and these two gentlemen is that I immediately went back on a Juice Fast and guess what happened - I p-o-o-p-ed those 17 pounds out of me.

Now I understand what Jesus meant in the "The Essene Gospel Of Peace, Book One" when he said, "For no man can serve two masters. For either he serves Beelzebub and his devils or else he serves our Earthly Mother and her angels. Either he serves death or he serves life. I tell you truly, happy are those that do the laws of life and wander not upon the paths of death. For in them the forces of life wax strong and they escape the plagues of death." Jesus made over 16 references in "The Essene Gospel Of Peace, Book One" about this uneliminated waste matter in our colon and referred to it as Beelzebub. Jesus said, "And fast till Beelzebub and all of his evils depart from you, and all the angels of our Earthly Mother come and serve you. For I tell you truly, except you fast, you shall never be freed from the power of Satan and from all diseases that come from Satan. If you look Beelzebub up in the dictionary, it says that it’s the chief devil - Satan. If you go to a King James version of the bible and look Beelzebub up in it’s dictionary, it says that it’s the Lord of the Dung Hill. This is a piece of the puzzle that I can get real excited about!!!

When asked how to keep this demon away after we destroyed it through fasting, Jesus said, "But I do say to you: Kill neither men, nor beasts, nor yet the food that goes into your mouth. For if you eat living food , the same will quicken you, but if you kill your food, the dead food will kill you also. For only life comes only from life, and from death comes always death."

I was on day 63 of my 90 day Juice Fast when I read the "The Essene Gospel Of Peace, Book One" and if I hadn’t seen Beelzebub with my own two eyes, I might of had a hard time believing what I read. All I know is that when I got all of this filth out of me, it changed my life forever. I finally felt connected to everything around me for the first time. Dr. Norman Walker talks about cosmic energy vibrations and how every cell and organ, etc. vibrates at a certain frequency, and as long as we are toxic, we will not vibrate at the right frequency. Dr. Gabriel Cousens also eludes to this in "Spiritual Nutrition And The Rainbow Diet," "It is a total mind-body-spirit ecstasy vibrating in every atom of our being with every atom in the universe."

So once again everyone, if you have not fasted until you stopped seeing Beelzebub come out of you, you don’t know what you’re missing - you’re in for a treat.

Peace and Love,
John Rose
[www.rawfoodsupport.com]

[www.rawfoodsupport.com]

It is good that Rick and Karen Dina addressed the commonly misunderstood issue in the raw movement that cooking destroys minerals. That is an absurd notion, and simple use of common sense and observation clearly shows that cooking does no such thing. If cooking did destroy minerals most humans alive would hardly have any minerals. And is someone going to tell me any heated objects will have no minerals?...l don't think so. Minerals are hardy things.

It's also good that Rick touched on anti nutrients and how eating raw spinach for the iron is not neccessarily going to work. Actually, it seems to be that chlorella also holds onto the iron because doctors have reported that chlorella isn't really effective in stopping iron deficiency anemia.

There is also the issue of poor protein availability in various seeds such as chia and (l think) sunflower seeds. There is also the heavy zinc, copper and iron chelation to tannins in nuts (not all tannins are equal), and probably many other anti nutrients stopping full digestion. Same goes with green juices and all their anti nutrients. THIS is why it is important to build up the bacteria levels in the body to be able to digest these raw foods much better, because my experienments on myself and others have shown that when people consume probiotic ferments people start digesting food better and symptoms such as gas greatly reduce. This tells us that raw foods are not always enough to bring a body to health because detox and prebiotics can often be of limited value, so sometimes we must bring in the big guns called probiotics to give the body the solid kickstart it needs because most people's body's are in poor condition and need that boost. We also need to detox the organs and strengthen them so they can handle the food much better. We can do raw hap hazardly and not get ideal results or we can get to the crux of making raw work by fixing various issues.

There is also the issue of toxins and how to deal with them effectively. Probiotic ferments and rotation and cleansing and toxin chelation strategies need to be employed here depending on the person and diet practise.

See, lots of things we need to do to make the most of all raw, and the things mentioned are only some of them. Raw can take a long time to make work because the sick body (probably most people) needs to be brought back to as close to original functioning as possible in this world, but it takes time to build a body up.

Is all raw good? You bet your sweet boots it is, but all raw isn't going to neccessarily get results until we fill certain conditions such as choosing a complete healing diet and fix the body and lifestyle. When this point is reached it is my deep opinion that cooked is way below standard and dubious, but until we reach that point we cannot hold such a view. Personally l would like to see a world where everyone is 100% raw vegan and NO cooked food at all.

Note: l am assuming a perfect world where one has the opportunity to eat raw and can stick to all raw.

www.thesproutarian.com



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 12/11/2014 10:33PM by The Sproutarian Man.

"Actually, it seems to be that chlorella also holds onto the iron because doctors have reported that chlorella isn't really effective in stopping iron deficiency anemia."

You can take chlorella with or shortly after something containing vitamin C and it should greatly increase iron bioavailability.

Do you have links for the chlorella-iron deficiency reports? I think it would also depend on the quality & amount of chlorella used.

jtprindl Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> "Actually, it seems to be that chlorella also
> holds onto the iron because doctors have reported
> that chlorella isn't really effective in stopping
> iron deficiency anemia."
>
> You can take chlorella with or shortly after
> something containing vitamin C and it should
> greatly increase iron bioavailability.



YES! Studies have also shown that heavily bound iron due to tannin binding can be overcome with 50 mg of vitamin C. But personally l feel that tannin binding is not the issue here, but none-the-less, vitamin C will likely help absorb some more of that bound iron, BUT there are no studies l am aware of that show heavy metal chelators can be overcome by vitamin C, and this could be because we actually don't know what the chelators are therefore their effects haven't been measured scientifically.


>
> Do you have links for the chlorella-iron
> deficiency reports? I think it would also depend
> on the quality & amount of chlorella used.

No studies, but Gabriel Coisens and Dr Mercola both report having very limited success using chlorella to treat anemia despite what all the fancy chlorella books and alternative medicine journals like to tell you. See, chlorella is a heavy metal chelator and it appears that it might bind much of the iron, but general reports tells us that this may not be the case with zinc.

Btw, Dr Clement's new book has just been released on the evils of cooked and bad foods with hundreds of studies. It should be a beauty.

One important issue Karen Dina brought up was about cooking methods and leaching and toxin production. This is a critical point too.

www.thesproutarian.com



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/11/2014 11:22PM by The Sproutarian Man.

Thanks everyone for your responses. It is a rather compelling topic in my view, and I have observed a number of shifts in the popular view on this in the raw community, but I am not swayed by popular opinions. Personally, after my experience with raw and plenty of time to analyze the issue in and out, I gravitated towards raw being my keen preference. At the same time I think it is important to do it in an intelligent way. It is good that we can share and learn from each other.


RawGosia channel
RawGosia streams

Thanks rawgosia. Very good discussion!

I agree with those who mentioned that if a person happens to be deficient in some particular nutrient, this might lead to craving a cooked food that could help supply that nutrient. (This is only a theory of course, but I think it's a good one.) And eating this cooked food would then of course be preferable to having a deficiency!

My own last experiment with cooked food was with adding small quantities of steamed cruciferous veggies (broccoli, cauliflower, Brussels sprouts) to my salads. The first couple of days were OK. By the third day, I liked to have died from gas and bloating!

I guess if I'd stuck with just a day or two, I'd have been at least OK. But people like me, who have a very difficult time with any kind of cooked food, may find it essential (and preferable) to consistently include all raw vegan food categories - many varieties of veggies, fruits, nuts, seeds, seaweeds, sprouts (including sprouted legumes), and whatever else comes to mind.

Everything doesn't need to be eaten everyday of course;, but certainly whenever a person wants a particular kind of raw vegan food, it's OK to eat it imo - with the possible exception of during an occasional preplanned detox, like a fast.

Unfortunately, some raw vegan diets may be consistently deficient - and the risks for this are probably substantially increased when entire food groups are left out or severely restricted. If people attempting to follow such diets lose or gain an excessive amount of weight or especially if they are often overtaken by cravings and feel out of control, then I would encourage them to consider if they might be more comfortable with either relaxing their raw food restrictions (by adding more raw variety) OR choose to add some cooked foods on a sustainable basis.

What's important though is the discussion AND a spirit of tolerance for each person's individual choice.

I do not like forcing grandma to make me a raw cake at little joe birthday.

Grandma doesn't need to make you a raw cake, you can make it yourself and bring it and share with everyone.

Raw birthday cake may do for little joe but probably not for hoss.

There's a lot more to good nutrition than cooked vs. raw.

Consider two people who are eating their fruits and greens and getting 1800 kcal from them.

And then they have 200 kcal left.

Person A has 200 kcal of gourmet high fat dessert.
Person B has 200 kcal of steamed green beans and sweet potato.

I don't think a person B is a failure. Person B's diet has a higher nutrient density and probably fewer AGEs.

GrandMa get insulted if you do not eat her cake.
And she does not like raw cake.
For one time a year, GrandMa wishes are granted.
I am on raw living food, I am super healthy
I can handle a cooked cake.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/02/2015 01:38PM by RawPracticalist.

RawPracticalist Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> GrandMa get insulted if you do not eat her cake.
> And she does not like raw cake.
> For one time a year, GrandMa wishes are granted.
> I am on raw living food, I am super healthy
> I can handle a cooked cake.

Good, but for everyone else that is lucky enough to still have a cake baking grandma it's never too early to inform them if you are gluten intolerant. Good grandmas do not get offended if you do not eat what the doctor tells you not to eat.

Grandma's who ate raw cake for the first time ever, would be on the toilet all night.

( I am watching this video. Thanks for the link, I agree with the educators who say 100% is ideal. It is)


I agree with the circumstances lady too. I agree. Yes, if you are time traveled back to Victorian England, it might be hard to eat 100% raw, indeed. The transition idea makes sense too. Individual needs.

But for me it's 100%, that is my ideal. Coming here I get inspired and checked and hang out social laugh and also I can write what I eat and helps me be impeccable.

Gosia. I love her voice, so calming. She is so graceful. Eloquent with her feelings. She sounds like a ballet dancer, tall thin and tight. Raw bullies. Wow. Must be passionate person. She is a good spokesperson for raw faddists everywhere like us. Maintaining a raw diet, that is what we all do, we all hear her. I like her confessions. I been there girl. She says we have to respond to the bodies need.

Michele. Tweeking out on if nori has b12, or if it is analog. I been there, thinking for hours and hours about these kind of details. ( " Is water that's been boiled, is that raw?') I like Tony Robbins too. He has a new book out on audible I think, I just saw it the other day.

It is YES or NO answer. This is long interview.


WHO IS FRUITSCIENTIST, is he on here?





Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 01/03/2015 01:50AM by coconutcream.

For me, there is no in-between. I`m an all or nothing person.

I have been raw since 1997 but have fallen off the wagon several times. Having a little cooked food, for me, has been my undoing each time.

Years ago, when I was posting to this bulletin board, I said I was beginning to eat a little cooked food. Someone posted to me saying that I was on a slippery slope.

THEY WERE RIGHT!

It`s my intention to never do that again.

I tend to subscribe to the idea that cooked food is an addiction. I have had a few addictions in life and the end result is always the same when you begin to have "just a little". It's an unconscious effort to "dance with the devil". In my world, it's the beginning of the end.

NO THANKS!

coconutcream, to answer your question, this is the Fruit Scientist, it is an e-zine and a collaborative network:
http://www.thefruitscientist.com/


RawGosia channel
RawGosia streams

I am with the Dinas.

I incorporate a small amount of cooked legumes and sometimes steamed vegetables.

I see no harm in this. I would say it allows me to adhere to a 90% raw vegan diet rather than having an occasional binge on garbage.

It also make it easier for me to eat huge quantities of raw vegetables.

But I would not push my preferences on anyone except that I prefer for everyone to be as healthy as possible for as long as possible.

I do not want people to feel lame or imperfect if they can't do 100% raw 100% of the time and abandon their diet. I don't think that any of the gurus are doing that. But they sure do make a lot of money saying that they do.

coconutcream Wrote:
>
> Michele. Tweeking out on if nori has b12, or if it
> is analog. I been there, thinking for hours and
> hours about these kind of details.

I was so hopeful, after reading many studies and books on seaweeds - especially nori - that I would be able to raise my B12 to average Japanese levels by taking a lot of very clean, but UNWASHED, seaweed everyday on a raw vegan diet that I tested it for a year and a half on myself. I was very disappointed. For the first time in my life my B12 actually fell below the acceptable level.

SueZ Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> coconutcream Wrote:
> >
> > Michele. Tweeking out on if nori has b12, or if
> it
> > is analog. I been there, thinking for hours and
> > hours about these kind of details.




> I was so hopeful, after reading many studies and
> books on seaweeds - especially nori - that I would
> be able to raise my B12 to average Japanese levels
> by taking a lot of very clean, but UNWASHED,
> seaweed everyday on a raw vegan diet that I tested
> it for a year and a half on myself. I was very
> disappointed. For the first time in my life my B12
> actually fell below the acceptable level.


I now strongly suspect B12/seaweed studies done on raw vegans may have had other factors involved which would wholly invalidate such studies. There are plenty of loud "the ends justifies the means" "ethical" raw vegans who are not above doing that aren't there? Maybe the results were due to those being studied wearing B12 patches.

I help people all the time with cooked Vegan herbs. Just helped someone yesterday in an emergency situation: he could barely breathe from broken ribs. The pain meds were not enough. I went into my pharmacy and grabbed like 3-4 precooked formulas, and 4 precooked single herbs and mixed them together and served it to him in 5 minutes. He drank it in one minute and in five more minutes he was already feeling better. Relief peaks in an hour. THat was fast service. Sometimes in this life, we do what is practical, rather than what is ideal.

Truth be told, too many herbs need to be cooked and would be toxic raw. I have talked to diehard rawists and they scoff at such herbs. I say fine, but please don't have that attitude, if you ever get seriously injured or sick.

My favorite is raw herbs. My favorite is raw food. Hey, but we don't always get our favorite. My favorite is pure air and pure water. I settle for distilling spring water into a glass container and bringing in more house plants for more oxygen. We do what we can. My favorite would be to live in pristine paradise, but welcome to reality.

No matter what our ideal might be with raw food, Dr. John McDougall makes a point that civilizations grew because of cooked starch. When I have a house full of people over, I fall back on John McDougall's wisdom and that is what I serve to people. When I have to just prepare food for 2-3 people, ah what a joy it is to make just raw vegan food.

I peruse this site with the shared belief that high raw vegan for long durations and 100% raw vegan for limited duration has the potential to be very healing for masses of people. I do believe that certain individuals can be lifelong healthy raw foodists. Yet, in examining the global landscape, one can see that truly healthy SUFFICIENT raw vegan produce is limited to only certain populations as an exclusive diet.

"I settle for distilling spring water into a glass container"

Do you have a spring near your home?


"I have talked to diehard rawists and they scoff at such herbs. I say fine, but please don't have that attitude, if you ever get seriously injured or sick."


It's pretty ridiculous that some raw foodists have this distorted perception that they are better than other people or something because they eat raw food, or that anything cooked is to be looked down upon even if it has significant therapeutic properties.

JTP wrote:
Do you have a spring near your home?

Tai:
No, I wish. I buy spring water in plastic bottles, and I distill it with the hopes of removing the plastic. I am like the princess and the pea with water. I really don't like distilled filter water or distilled tap water (gross). If I can't get spring water, then yes, I will distill filtered tap water (0.35 micron filter), but I can still taste the difference.

But, hey, it's all relative. Let's take colon hydrotherapy. For someone coming from the SAD diet, using filtered tap water is okay, because of the level of dirt in their bodies. They need SO much water. There isn't enough pure water for their colonics, so filtered tap will do. But let's say someone is trying to really remove finer debris, like plastics out of their body, then they need finer water.

That is just how it is with food and people.

<<<Dr. John McDougall makes a point that civilizations grew because of cooked starch.>>>

If we put the Human Existence on a Football Field, we didn't start eating Cooked Food consistently until the 1 Yard Line (99% into our existence), we didn't start eating Animals consistently until the 2.5 Foot Line, we didn't start eating Grains until the 6 Inch Line and we were NOT "Civilized" until the 3 Inch Line, which explains why "civilizations grew because of cooked starch"!

All 3 of these Events are MISTAKES and the 1st Mistake on the 1 Yard Line is referred to as the Fall of Mankind.

Is the 3rd Mistake better than the 2nd Mistake?

You bet, but the 1st Mistake is the WORST MISTAKE we have ever made as a Species and is the Root Cause or the First Cause to all of our Problems that are 100% Within our Control.

John Rose, you wrote a beautiful, dreamy passage. I really like it. You are very inspiring.
Can you share your source of knowledge that makes you so certain that this was the fall of mankind?

Also, John, just curious what you think of Michael Cremo and his work on forbidden archeology, and how he shows that many civilizations have lived on earth. As one civilization reached its peak, it got wiped out, a few survived and then repopulated. From his research, there has been many "falls" of mankind. And what do you think of the mention of the "vimanas" (ufos) that are recorded in the Vedas, so long ago. The vedas make it sound like very early man recorded sightings of ufos. Do you believe that's all bogus, that we are alone here...totally in charge of our destiny and there is no outside influence or technology except that what comes from humans? I am sincerely curious to know your cosmology in a few sentences.

sproutarian wrote:

<<Very soon Dr Brian Clement releases another brilliant book full of scientific studies on the toxins/evils of cooked food.>>


sproutman, what are you talking about?

is the above statement you wrote

FACT

or

FICTION

John Rose,

Dr. DAJ Jenkins (a highly respected researcher in nutrition) did an experiment on three diets to test their effects on blood lipids and bile acids.
[www.researchgate.net]

Diet 1 was the standard lame therapeutic advice--low fat, white bread, egg beaters, fat-free cheeses. It didn't do much.

Diet 2 was a low-fat starch-based diet--whole grains and legumes. I did more than diet 1.

Diet 3 was a very high fiber diet with 165 g per day of fiber, practically starch-free, 55 servings of f+v per day and three handfuls of nuts. It was phenomenal. Not all raw but a great deal of it was raw.

I agree we are more adapted to very high fiber intakes.

But modern life makes that very difficult. When I was eating like that I needed 1.5 hours for food prep and 2 hours to eat every day. It's not possible if you have a demanding job and a commute.

Dr. Jenkins knows that diet 3 is impossible for most people. So he tried to tweak diet 2 to get more benefits. He calls this his "Portfolio Diet" but it just doesn't have the same schwing.

I am afraid of juicing too much, having read those works of his and taking them to heart. We really do better with all that fiber.

Whatever you can do, do it!

RAW4Ever! I hear ya!!!

Tai Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> John Rose, you wrote a beautiful, dreamy passage.
> I really like it. You are very inspiring.
> Can you share your source of knowledge that makes
> you so certain that this was the fall of mankind?
>
>
> Also, John, just curious what you think of Michael
> Cremo and his work on forbidden archeology, and
> how he shows that many civilizations have lived on
> earth. As one civilization reached its peak, it
> got wiped out, a few survived and then
> repopulated. From his research, there has been
> many "falls" of mankind. And what do you think of
> the mention of the "vimanas" (ufos) that are
> recorded in the Vedas, so long ago. The vedas
> make it sound like very early man recorded
> sightings of ufos. Do you believe that's all
> bogus, that we are alone here...totally in charge
> of our destiny and there is no outside influence
> or technology except that what comes from humans?
> I am sincerely curious to know your cosmology in a
> few sentences.
Interesting points, tai. I also enjoyed what John posted, but must also add that I think the football field analogy paints a very horizontal line of evolution, start to finish, whereas I think there's a multitude of evidence to suggest otherwise, at least outside of mainstream anthropology which has proven time and again to have a strong bias towards the modern west as the pinnicale of humanity.


You bring up the Vedas, what do you think about the dogon and their knowledge of Sirius as well as their cosmology and myths behind their said knowledge?



What is civilized anyway? Check out the beautiful cave paintings at chauvet that date back to 30,000 years or older. Appreciation of art seems to go hand in hand with civilization. Humanity seems more cyclical in nature.