So many suffer on the raw food diet, why is so? Is it perhaps because we are adapted to cooked food? Watch the video below, it really got me thinking.

Personally I think the most ideal diet consists of fruits, vegetables, nuts and potatoes, sweet potatoes etc.

Watch: [www.youtube.com]

Raw feels pretty natural to me.


RawGosia channel
RawGosia streams

It is like saying because you made a mistake and have fallen into a hole and broke your leg, you should not fix it.
You should continue to live with the broken leg.
It is painful initially but you should train your leg into walking straight.
This also prove why juicing is so important initially when we start with raw food.
Fruits and the juicing of green are a big win in the raw food.
Cooked food may digest easily but it has softened fiber that is source of many other problems in the digestive system.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 03/30/2015 12:27PM by RawPracticalist.

I understand what you're saying. It's interesting that all of the raw food staples except fruits and nuts do not occur in the Wild and even those must be planted. I never quite understood why bature didn't provide for us.

People say if you go to the tropics you will find food to raw vegan to eat in the Wild, but if you read Life in the 21st Century by Kulvinskas, many of the rawists at the time tried that, and found they had to plant and grow food to survive. They also found that they were starving trying to do the labor they had to endure i.e., the raw diet they were accustomed to didn't cut it in nature.

I read the book "Tending the Wild" and the American Indians throughout California ate a 70% plant based diet on average and intentionally cultivated Wild foods such as Blue Dicks, Tampah etc, working the landscape planting what grew naturally in each area but propagating more of it. Settlers that infiltrated the West couldn't believe the "Wild" abundance that was growing, but the Indians were responsible, not nature.

The interesting thing is that they cooked almost everything except berries and tender spring greens because the plants needed heat processing to remove toxins like acorns. People say the Indians did not live long, robust lives, but that is quite false if you read the book "Primitive Man, freely available on the net...Primitive Man

It's an interesting conundrum. Fire is what sets us apart from the other animals and is the basis for our inventions, computers, cars etc. The Devil?!?

nature did provide for us until the point that we came down from trees. then it became real complicated.

anyway.... a lot of what lisle said is accurate.

however...this is what he is missing

1. he is not differentiating between the two types of adaptation. one is gut morphology/jaw changes. the other is chemical adaptations/nutrient damage adaptations to cooked food. we have not Adapted to the second type. so he provided a half truth.

2. he ignores (as do many cooked food apologists) the negative impact of cooked food on the food itself and what it does to the body energy level and from a toxemia standpoint.

3. he incorrectly claims that we must alter raw food/blend/dehydrate to make it work, or that we are trying to replicate cooking. this is not true except for beginners because of addiction. and he acts as if spears and cooking are normal and natural for humans and blenders are not valid and useful.

fresh Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> nature did provide for us until the point that we
> came down from trees. then it became real
> complicated.
>
> anyway.... a lot of what lisle said is accurate.
>
> however...this is what he is missing
>
> 1. he is not differentiating between the two types
> of adaptation. one is gut morphology/jaw changes.
> the other is chemical adaptations/nutrient damage
> adaptations to cooked food. we have not Adapted
> to the second type. so he provided a half truth.
>
> 2. he ignores (as do many cooked food apologists)
> the negative impact of cooked food on the food
> itself and what it does to the body energy level
> and from a toxemia standpoint.
>
> 3. he incorrectly claims that we must alter raw
> food/blend/dehydrate to make it work, or that we
> are trying to replicate cooking. this is not true
> except for beginners because of addiction. and he
> acts as if spears and cooking are normal and
> natural for humans and blenders are not valid and
> useful.


Well the problem with raw food is that it is hard to get enough nutrients, many raw foodists have a serious trouble with this and need "the most careful planning"...

Thing is what I don't get with people saying that it hard to get the calories from raw food when it is really not. 20 bananas is roughly 1900 calories and really, takes about a few minutes to eat a couple of bananas. But still, our ability to absorb the various nutrients in vegetable matter is far greater when they are steamed. It is difficult to eat 10 carrots but if you steam them, it is easy. Since we have this vast difference in our digestive systems compared to other primates, I think since we began to use fire to cook our food, our digestive systems are less developed. They are not as strong, because evolution simply thought "ah, i receive so much cooked food, that i can downgrade and instead save energy for other things/functions/organs". No human can eat all day long, like the chimpanzee and other primates does. It would simply tire the digestive system out and as a result, produce toxemia.

Summary: we have accustomed ourselves to cooked food over the thousands years of ou existence, that we simply dont have enough digestive force to digest raw foods (i think vegetables, fruits should always be eaten raw imo, they are easy on the system), raw vegetables so that we get ENOUGH of all the nutrients we need. So in order to get enough nutrients, we simply have to steam vegetables. This makes them easier to absorb, it is much easier to eat them that way, etc.

Vitality Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
>
> Well the problem with raw food is that it is hard
> to get enough nutrients

it is not hard at all.
me as an example...mostly fruit, some veg, a little nuts, 30 years, nutrient testing good, no symptoms, no ailments, no problems. not hard, not deficient.

, many raw foodists have a
> serious trouble with this and need "the most
> careful planning"...
>

many raw foodists don't know what they are doing.


> Thing is what I don't get with people saying that
> it hard to get the calories from raw food when it
> is really not. 20 bananas is roughly 1900 calories
> and really, takes about a few minutes to eat a
> couple of bananas.

true

But still, our ability to
> absorb the various nutrients in vegetable matter
> is far greater when they are steamed. It is
> difficult to eat 10 carrots but if you steam them,
> it is easy. Since we have this vast difference in
> our digestive systems compared to other primates,

yes some "food" may be better steamed.

yet we don't Require those foods. so i don't see the problem.

if one wants to eat those foods there are many ways to do it, blend, juice, steam whatever.


> I think since we began to use fire to cook our
> food, our digestive systems are less developed.
> They are not as strong, because evolution simply
> thought "ah, i receive so much cooked food, that i
> can downgrade and instead save energy for other
> things/functions/organs". No human can eat all day
> long, like the chimpanzee and other primates does.
> It would simply tire the digestive system out and
> as a result, produce toxemia.
>

which is why it's perfect that we have developed fruits and veggies that are high caloric and high nutrient value to enable us to do it.


> Summary: we have accustomed ourselves to cooked
> food over the thousands years of ou existence,
> that we simply dont have enough digestive force to
> digest raw foods (i think vegetables, fruits
> should always be eaten raw imo, they are easy on
> the system), raw vegetables so that we get ENOUGH
> of all the nutrients we need. So in order to get
> enough nutrients, we simply have to steam
> vegetables. This makes them easier to absorb, it
> is much easier to eat them that way, etc.

fine. for those vegetables that you WANT to eat.
but you DON't NEED those vegetables from a nutritional standpoint.
leafys and celery etc are sufficient.

I think most of the adaptations to cooked foods happen after we are born, and it's not too difficult to undo these adaptation. The cooking of food is to make inedible foods to have the same textures as the easy to eat raw foods, being fruits and salad type vegetables. The process of cooking is to adapt the foods to match the human palate, rather than the human has adapted to eat cooked foods.

Vitality Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> fresh Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > nature did provide for us until the point that
> we
> > came down from trees. then it became real
> > complicated.
> >
> > anyway.... a lot of what lisle said is
> accurate.
> >
> > however...this is what he is missing
> >
> > 1. he is not differentiating between the two
> types
> > of adaptation. one is gut morphology/jaw
> changes.
> > the other is chemical adaptations/nutrient
> damage
> > adaptations to cooked food. we have not
> Adapted
> > to the second type. so he provided a half
> truth.
> >
> > 2. he ignores (as do many cooked food
> apologists)
> > the negative impact of cooked food on the food
> > itself and what it does to the body energy
> level
> > and from a toxemia standpoint.
> >
> > 3. he incorrectly claims that we must alter raw
> > food/blend/dehydrate to make it work, or that
> we
> > are trying to replicate cooking. this is not
> true
> > except for beginners because of addiction. and
> he
> > acts as if spears and cooking are normal and
> > natural for humans and blenders are not valid
> and
> > useful.
>
>
> Well the problem with raw food is that it is hard
> to get enough nutrients, many raw foodists have a
> serious trouble with this and need "the most
> careful planning"...
>
> Thing is what I don't get with people saying that
> it hard to get the calories from raw food when it
> is really not. 20 bananas is roughly 1900 calories
> and really, takes about a few minutes to eat a
> couple of bananas. But still, our ability to
> absorb the various nutrients in vegetable matter
> is far greater when they are steamed. It is
> difficult to eat 10 carrots but if you steam them,
> it is easy. Since we have this vast difference in
> our digestive systems compared to other primates,
> I think since we began to use fire to cook our
> food, our digestive systems are less developed.
> They are not as strong, because evolution simply
> thought "ah, i receive so much cooked food, that i
> can downgrade and instead save energy for other
> things/functions/organs". No human can eat all day
> long, like the chimpanzee and other primates does.
> It would simply tire the digestive system out and
> as a result, produce toxemia.
>
> Summary: we have accustomed ourselves to cooked
> food over the thousands years of ou existence,
> that we simply dont have enough digestive force to
> digest raw foods (i think vegetables, fruits
> should always be eaten raw imo, they are easy on
> the system), raw vegetables so that we get ENOUGH
> of all the nutrients we need. So in order to get
> enough nutrients, we simply have to steam
> vegetables. This makes them easier to absorb, it
> is much easier to eat them that way, etc.


Most people today do not currently have the digestive power to eat a 100% raw food diet because they have created such a toxic environment in their guts. They have too much sludge stuck in their intestines and too little probiotic bacteria. That being said, this is reversible. Steaming vegetables is not a logical choice when trying to increase the bioavailability of certain nutrients compared to its alternative. If you want to significantly increase absorption of carotenoids, such as lycopene, you simply consume it with fat because it is fat-soluble. Look at how many successful long-term raw foodists there are, do you really believe what this guy is saying - that raw foods don't contain enough nutrients? There are a lot of people spewing out bogus information to justify their personal food choices. Not surprising to see someone who's addicted to cooked food trying to convince himself (and others) that we don't have the digestive force anymore for raw foods. I eat a 100% raw food diet and my digestion is great and probably wouldn't have any deficiencies if I was tested today and I'm sure the tests would reveal lots of antioxidants and phytochemicals in my bloodstream. Strategic nutrition is important.

But question is, is cooked food really that harmful? MANY populations have thrived on both raw/cooked foods and are in good health. The ancient greeks (SO HIGH in their evolution) ate cereals. One of their gods was Ceres, also important figure in astrological mythology.

Is it possible to raise a child on only raw? And I honestly doubt that a little celery and a few soft tender greens are sufficient together with fruits. I think its something that will be missing.

Vitality, its not just a "a little celery and a few soft tender greens". For a person to get their full mineral needs met, it might be a pound or two of greens, a large as a variety as possible, until the body says to eat less. For people coming off of SAD, they will have a high mineral need, and it could take years for the body to not need so many minerals. But when the body becomes saturated, greens won't look or taste good any more, until the need for mineral arises again.

Use Cronometer(or fitday or nutritiondata, or another nutritional calculator) to make a daily menu of a pound of various greens and salad vegetables, as well as a variety of fruit to make 2000 calories, to see what is deficient. Then compare that daily intake of vitamins and minerals to a typical cooked vegan diet.

Great video. I feel the raw food world gets many ideas wrong including ideas that we will be disease free forever if we eat raw. Raw food when eaten appropiately will be better than cooked anyday, but it is only a small part of the whole health picture. A winning attitude, treating people extremely welland living with high levels of integrity will go much much much further than raw food will ever take you in my strong opinion.

Raw food vegan with a bad attitude = on a losing streak and a future full of disease

Cooked food vegan with great integrity and a winning attitude = on a winning streak.

I see many raw food vegans with bad attitudes and greedy attitudes and lowlevels of integrity. They have lost the race to health before they have even begun. They may last longer and stay stronger for longer, but they will eventually go down hill like the average SAD person.

www.thesproutarian.com

>Raw food vegan with a bad attitude = on a losing streak and a future full of disease

>Cooked food vegan with great integrity and a winning attitude = on a winning streak.

Then the question is does not the food affect our attitude?

Should not raw food make us calmer, more loving, more in control of our basic instincts?

If we are what we eat

RawPracticalist Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> >Raw food vegan with a bad attitude = on a losing
> streak and a future full of disease
>
> >Cooked food vegan with great integrity and a
> winning attitude = on a winning streak.
>
> Then the question is does not the food affect our
> attitude?
>
> Should not raw food make us calmer, more loving,
> more in control of our basic instincts?
>
> If we are what we eat


We are farrr more than what we eat,to say otherwise is not to see the bigger picture imo. Humans are a product of many things,and food is only a smallpart of it. No evidence that raw foods can tame the savage beast within, but imo the food can bring out the good in some people's character when it is organic and raw due to lack of toxins disturbing brain functioning, but the diet must also be suitable without causing blood sugar mood issues also. But if a person has questionable character, the lack of toxins doesn't seem to be enough to bring forth good behaviour 24/7,and this can clearly be observed from behaviour online.

It is very important to be well behaved and treat others like you would like to be treated, to do otherwise is a ghastly tragedy.

If you don't behave with integrity it doesn't matter what you eat, you are lost and of little value until you can learn to behave!

So what is all this about. Hint = it revolves around high level spiritual talk that goes really reeeely deep. Nothing else will be said, people either see it or they don't. If people choose to believe we are what we eat, so be it. If people choose to think raw vegan foods solely tame the savage beast, so be it.

I only choose to share some things to think about.

www.thesproutarian.com



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/02/2015 10:58AM by The Sproutarian Man.

Prana Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Vitality, its not just a "a little celery and a
> few soft tender greens". For a person to get their
> full mineral needs met, it might be a pound or two
> of greens, a large as a variety as possible, until
> the body says to eat less. For people coming off
> of SAD, they will have a high mineral need, and it
> could take years for the body to not need so many
> minerals. But when the body becomes saturated,
> greens won't look or taste good any more, until
> the need for mineral arises again.
>
> Use Cronometer(or fitday or nutritiondata, or
> another nutritional calculator) to make a daily
> menu of a pound of various greens and salad
> vegetables, as well as a variety of fruit to make
> 2000 calories, to see what is deficient. Then
> compare that daily intake of vitamins and minerals
> to a typical cooked vegan diet.


Sure but the question remains; how much gets absorbed? It's so rare with long-term (10+ years) raw foodists.

The mineral content from grains for example, is easily absorbed. But I agree, greens taste wonderful when one needs minerals.

RawPracticalist Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> >Raw food vegan with a bad attitude = on a losing
> streak and a future full of disease
>
> >Cooked food vegan with great integrity and a
> winning attitude = on a winning streak.
>
> Then the question is does not the food affect our
> attitude?
>
> Should not raw food make us calmer, more loving,
> more in control of our basic instincts?
>
> If we are what we eat


Such a great question. This have I asked myself many times. While I think that a vegan diet generally makes a person less nervous, more confident, more brave, less scared, more loving and AWARE, less hateful, angry, irritable etc I must say that raw foodists tend to be fanatic. If they are and were fanatic before getting into raw foodism, I don't know. But some raw foodists are so fanatical it's crazy.

Raw foodists should possess superior mental and physical qualities, but they don't. When I see raw foodists on TV shows etc they don't look healthier than any other health-promoting vegan.

The Sproutarian Man Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> RawPracticalist Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > >Raw food vegan with a bad attitude = on a
> losing
> > streak and a future full of disease
> >
> > >Cooked food vegan with great integrity and a
> > winning attitude = on a winning streak.
> >
> > Then the question is does not the food affect
> our
> > attitude?
> >
> > Should not raw food make us calmer, more
> loving,
> > more in control of our basic instincts?
> >
> > If we are what we eat
>
>
> We are farrr more than what we eat,to say
> otherwise is not to see the bigger picture imo.
> Humans are a product of many things,and food is
> only a smallpart of it. No evidence that raw foods
> can tame the savage beast within, but imo the food
> can bring out the good in some people's character
> when it is organic and raw due to lack of toxins
> disturbing brain functioning, but the diet must
> also be suitable without causing blood sugar mood
> issues also. But if a person has questionable
> character, the lack of toxins doesn't seem to be
> enough to bring forth good behaviour 24/7,and this
> can clearly be observed from behaviour online.
>
> It is very important to be well behaved and treat
> others like you would like to be treated, to do
> otherwise is a ghastly tragedy.
>
> If you don't behave with integrity it doesn't
> matter what you eat, you are lost and of little
> value until you can learn to behave!
>
> So what is all this about. Hint = it revolves
> around high level spiritual talk that goes really
> reeeely deep. Nothing else will be said, people
> either see it or they don't. If people choose to
> believe we are what we eat, so be it. If people
> choose to think raw vegan foods solely tame the
> savage beast, so be it.
>
> I only choose to share some things to think about.


And the people that go into extremes (because raw foodism is extreme and then I'm not saying that radical is bad, because radical is good and the truth is often times extreme) are often "sinners". Something brought them here, something made them extremists from the beginning.

And food have a major impact on one's character and I can say that for sure. I can guarantee it has. When toxemia is eliminated, most of the bad traits in a character is removed. Sometimes the person is still enervated, so the blood must be kept pure for at least a year, then the person would be completely pure.

Our character is based greatly on the condition of our bowels. If we keep our 3 bowel movements a day, then our character will be relaxed, calm and happy. We need to move our bowels thrice a day at least. Even if you eat two meals a day.

Also, putrefying or fermenting food in the stomach will give rise to irritability and other disorders of the character.

But most importantly, the condition of our bowels need to be good. Constipation kills the noble in us. And if you don't have 3 bowel movements a day, then you're suffering from constipation.

Just a few thoughts.

Vitality, can you tell us about your produce markets where you live? I think it's nice to hear sharing from different parts. Sometimes I think some forum members push for a particular diet without explaining the hardships of where they live, so other members do not understand them or why they eat the way they do.

I will start. Where I live there are farmer's markets year round. The winter is smaller but still enough. Not much fruit is available in the winter except citrus and apples, sapotes and bananas (from my trees) and berries. Greens cost between $1-$2 a bunch for organic. Fruit is usually $1.50 to $2.00 a pound. Spring, summer and fall have an abundance of everything. I realize just how lucky I am, compared to some people on the forum.

I can buy a box of organic garnet yams (like 40 lbs for just under $30). I like to juice yams. If you juice them, you get the living enzymes. If you juice them only once (sometimes I juice the pulp a second time), you can use the pulp for cooking because it's still moist. That is one way to get the benefits from the raw and still get more calories. I once got the deepest, most gorgeous purple yams. I juiced them all and the juice was heavenly; it almost tasted like blueberries. I couldn't throw away the pulp, because it was too precious, so I made a porridge, which people ate. These purples yams were grown by an asian farmer and I have never seen anything like that in the health food stores. THe ones in the health food stores still have a lot of white inside.

So, anyway, Vitality, I am just pointing out that if you have a good juicer, you can juice the non-toxic root vegetables (including potato) and get the living enzymes and nutrients that way and then use the pulp for cooking, especially when the produce costs a lot more in your area (and if you need the extra calories and fiber).

vitality,

you're right. we don't know how much is assimilated into our bodies.

we can get tests and monitor symptoms


>But question is, is cooked food really that harmful? MANY populations have thrived on both raw/cooked foods and are in good health. The ancient greeks (SO HIGH in their evolution) ate cereals. One of their gods was Ceres, also important figure in astrological mythology.

i can just as well say that a person observing me would have said that i was thriving for my first 20 years. but only i know that i wasn't. much of what is considered thriving is unseen.



> And I honestly doubt that a little celery and a few soft tender greens are sufficient together with fruits. I think its something that will be missing.

22 bananas and a head of romaine on cronometer:2400 kcal

most vitamins and mineral requirements are Exceeded.

enough fats, protein, vitamins except for D, b12 for which you may need sun or supplement

enough of all minerals except for calcium, selenium and zinc which only show as low according to rda (around 50% for sel and zinc and 30% for calcium) but this is only because the rda's are way too high.

caveat: i am not suggesting that any one eat those two foods exclusively, yet it shows that if we presume that cron is close to accurate, that it is very easy to get sufficient nutrients since it can be done on such a simple diet.