|
|
Vicious Vacuous Vapid Vegetarian/Vegans
Posted by:
John Rose
()
Date: January 05, 2016 03:15PM [www.ecologos.org]
Vicious Vacuous Vapid Vegetarian/Vegans Wolves in vegetarian/vegan clothing ... [www.rawfoodsupport.com] Critique of Dr. Harris tao (12.42.25.---) Date: 07-17-01 11:29 Critique of Raw vs Cooked by Dr. Harris, who is one of the people that critiques the enzyme theory: >Raw food enthusiasts have always been a part of the vegetarian/vegan scene. Their core idea is that enzymes are still active in raw food whereas they're denatured, hence inactive, in cooked food. No contest. Next question: So what? No, this is not the core idea, or if it is, it should not be, as it is unproven. >In this article the authors mostly repeat the well understood effects of heat in breaking down vitamins, amino acids, and producing undesirable cross-linkages in proteins, particularly in meat. What's interesting is that Harris does not note this fact as a good reason to eat raw food, instead focusing on the enzyme argument, and other arguments. >Cooking is a form of predigestion in which heat is used to hydrolyze nutrients which would otherwise be hydrolyzed at body temperature by digestive enzymes. The end result is the same. The end result is not the same. Cooking is a general term, and most if not all cooking is far more damaging than internal human digestion. >Some of the pros and cons of the raw diet: >Pro: Humans are the only species on the planet who cook their food, so cooking is unnatural.. >Con: We're also the only species that build computers and write treatises. That's unnatural, too. There is no relationship between the food we eat and building computers. >Pro: We've only been cooking for a half million years so we're not well adapted to cooked food. >Con: On the other hand, one recent author suggested that the learned ability to cook raw tubers over a million years ago resulted in such an increase in dietary Calories that it reduced sexual dimorphism in the pre-humans who employed it, and that in turn led to the psychosexual bonding that gave rise to human families and civilization The Con has nothing to do with the Pro. Either we have adapted to it or not. >Pro: A raw vegan diet rather reliably leads to weight loss and that would be great for the 30% of Americans who are either overweight or obese. >Con: What happens to the people who are already raw fooders but continue to lose weight from reduced Calorie intake? Any dietary regimen can result in ill health. >Further food limitations on a raw diet: >A raw diet places even further restrictions on the vegan diet. Among the first dietary restrictions would be grains. Whole grain bread may be good for most people but for a subset of new vegans the gluten content may unmask a previously unrecognized celiac syndrome. >Raw fooders respond to this by saying that grains should not be milled but sprouted and this usually does improve nutrient values and digestibility. False. Most raw fooders state that grains are not necessary to the diet and need not be eaten. >On a raw diet, potatoes, a generally well tolerated staple, also go out. To counter that, it can be said that potatoes with green skin contain solanine, a toxic alkaloid that has been popularly, though not scientifically, incriminated in some arthritic conditions. But we could probably get along without potatoes, too. Yes. we could probably get along without them. End of another bogus topic. >Other casualties would be soy and many other beans. Raw soy contains trypsin inhibitors... Who said that beans should be eaten at all? Another bogus argument. >All the foregoing sounds like a frontal assault on the raw fooders, but it's not. I agree with them that raw foods should be a major if not sole part of the diet but not for their reasons. That's because you got the "reasons" wrong. >Raw foods are not healthiest because they're "live food" or because of "life force", "living enzymes", "nerve energy", or "chi", but because the foods that can be eaten raw (mostly vegetables, fruits, nuts and seeds) coincidentally have enormously higher nutrient values than the foods that either have to be, or usually are, cooked. Wrong again. it has nothing to do with having higher nutrient values, it has something to do with APPROPRIATE food for the physiology and digestion of the being ingesting it, irrespective of "higher" nutrient values. >Here is a six-bar stacked and rotated graph assembled from blah blah blah.... >Raw they may be but they are also high in fat. Misplaced fear of fat. [www.rawfoodsupport.com]  Re: Vicious Vacuous Vapid Vegetarian/Vegans
Posted by:
Horsea
()
Date: January 05, 2016 06:55PM There is no relationship between the food we eat and building computers.
Some would disagree with that statement, for example Richard Wrangham, who wrote Catching Fire: How Cooking Made Us Human. However, not everyone agreed with him, as you can read at the wikipedia entry, as well as reviews at amazon.com. Following is a brief extract from a naysayer: This is an interesting read. It certainly gives one a lot of food for thought. I debated on giving this work four stars since it is entertaining and presents a compelling set of arguments for the role of cooked food in human evolution. I always have problems with any set of arguments that describes one behavior as the driving force in evolution hence three stars. Meh. Re: Vicious Vacuous Vapid Vegetarian/Vegans
Posted by:
John Rose
()
Date: January 05, 2016 07:40PM As far as Catching Fire by Wrangham, he’s got it ass backwards and this is exactly what the Rulers of the World want us to believe.
Anthropologists, Evolutionary Biologists and Psychologists, like Richard Wrangham and Doug Lisel, for example, have the timeline backwards and no one agrees with their so-called evidence for the 1st use of Fire and there is NO evidence for Cooking our Food - it’s all conjecture to support their Theories. 1) Mastered Fire 2) Cooked our Food 3) Brains Grew Everyone else’s timeline makes more sense and everyone agrees with the evidence for the 1st use of Fire and everyone agrees with the evidence for when we starting Cooking our Food and, of course, everyone agrees with the evidence for when our Brains nearly doubled in size going from just under 400 CCs to almost 800 CCs. 1) Brains Grew 2) Mastered Fire 3) Cooked our Food If we put the Human Existence on a Football Field, our 1) Brains Grew around the 67 Yard Line, 2 million years ago and two thirds into our existence. We went another 20 Yards or another 1.2 million years down to the 87 Yard Line when we finally did something with that Brilliant Brain and that’s when we 2) Mastered Fire. And finally, we went another 12 Yards or another 730,000 years down to the 99 Yard Line or 1 Yard or 60,000 years from where we are today when we finally made a Bad Application and that’s when we started to consistently 3) Cook our Food. Now let’s compare those 2 timelines once again. Richard Wrangham and Doug Lisel 1) Mastered Fire - 2 million years ago 2) Cooked our Food - 2 million years ago 3) Brains Grew - 2 million years ago - Bogus Theory Why they Grew Everyone else 1) Brains Grew - 2 million years ago - No one Knows Why they Grew, but they Grew 2) Mastered Fire – 790,000 years ago 3) Cooked our Food - 60,000 years ago According to Richard Wrangham and Doug Lisel, we Mastered Fire, Cooked our Food and our Brains Grew all around the same time and all of it is based on so-called evidence that no one else accepts because it simply is NOT Proof for the man’s use of Fire. If we assume that we had Mastered Fire and was Cooking our Food, that’s not the only way we could have increased the quantity of our Macro-Nutrients, which is what some people believe is what Caused our Brains to Grow. The HUGE problem we have when we use Cooked Food to increase the quantity of our Macro-Nutrients is that we also decrease the quality of both our Macro-Nutrients and our Micro-Nutrients, so that doesn’t even make sense that Damaged Food or Cooked Food is going to make us Smarter. Remember, there are other ways we could have increased the quantity of our Macro-Nutrients without DESTROYING our Food and our Lives. “Whatever deceives men seems to produce a magical enchantment.” -Plato “And we have made of ourselves living cesspools, and driven doctors to invent names for our diseases.” -Plato “The gods created certain kinds of beings to replenish our bodies...they are the trees, the plants and the seeds.” -Plato Re: Vicious Vacuous Vapid Vegetarian/Vegans
Posted by:
RawPracticalist
()
Date: January 05, 2016 07:42PM >Pro: Humans are the only species on the planet who cook their food, so cooking is unnatural..
>Con: We're also the only species that build computers and write treatises. That's unnatural, too. Humans build computers but if you watch nature in the wild you will discover what tiny ants and other animals can build. They build complex structures like bridges. Intelligence is in every living organism, it keeps it alive and gives it the tools to protect itself against nature. Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/05/2016 07:43PM by RawPracticalist. Re: Vicious Vacuous Vapid Vegetarian/Vegans
Posted by:
Horsea
()
Date: January 05, 2016 08:44PM @John Rose:
Thanks for your input. I have no dog in this fight, but I do recall reading, ages ago, some literature by a man from the far east who said in effect that human's brains suddenly grew as a result of our planet and solar system, at some point in history, moving into a place under the influence of some celestial body and that the magnetism from this constellation or whatever it is caused the growth in intelligence. Of course, judging by the actions of those who rule us, I would say that we have long since past the point of diminishing returns and for some reason (more galactic movement?) we are now going backwards. Oh, well.  Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
|
|
