I believe I understand most of the current ideas about the benefits of a raw diet. however, the only thing I can't find an answer of is why are 100% raw people not more strong when occasionnally eating cooked food. that point is a mystery to me. if we are all over more healthy when raw, then we should be strong and have a strong digestion either. Doesn't seem to be the case here. So why ?

Strong digestion eh?

Well when I was on cooked food my digestion was awful and slow, my @#$%& stank, my gut was bloated and I was constipated many times.

When I went raw I went through an adjustment period where my stomach got cleaned out slowly but surely, now my digestion is how it is supposed to be because I'm not clogging it back up with cooked foods.

F1

I think worrying & regret will make your digestion react weakly to cooked food. I eat cooked food every now and then, at first my body reacted very poorly to cooked food and it was enhanced by thoughts of worry & regret. Now I just tell myself "Damn son, you are super rawman, this cooked food ain't nothing but temporary fuel for the car, nothing to worry about."

I don't get the same digestive reactions to cooked food now

[www.youtube.com]

I am only nearly 17 days mostly raw, but I noticed some things. On cooked, I needed super colon cleanse pills to go...now, it is like a whole new experience using the toilet! I was often constipated, had autointoxication (I was big on colon health) often...now, it is flowing better. The smells are not as bad, though the gas tends to be.

The reason why, I think, that eating cooked causes probs is because WE AREN'T SUPPOSED TO EAT COOKED FOOD. It binds us up, gets caught in the gut...all sorts of things. Mucoid plaque is another HUGE issue. As one ages, the intestines of cooked people (like arteries) get a plaque on them and the passageway narrows...that is why colon cancers are soooo common with older people. You can easily see the plaque if you do the Master Cleanse. It looks like dark, rubbery ropes.

If you have had a baby, you will know that whatever you put into them affects their bowel movements. We adult humans, whether cooked or raw, are the same. Breastfed babies have a pleasant, odorless scrambled egg type movement. Add some cereal and it becomes ICKY.

After a week of raw, though I had my initial bouts with diarrhea in the cleansing process, my movements became what my hubby called 'a fluffy cloud', coz he had them too. I cannot describe it any other way. it was just gentle, efficient evacuations with minimal odor and effort.

Raw, to me, is the only way to process foodstuffs. I am a newbie and I am convinced.

cynthia Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I believe I understand most of the current ideas
> about the benefits of a raw diet. however, the
> only thing I can't find an answer of is why are
> 100% raw people not more strong when occasionnally
> eating cooked food. that point is a mystery to me.
> if we are all over more healthy when raw, then we
> should be strong and have a strong digestion
> either. Doesn't seem to be the case here. So why ?


i think it's a misinterpretation of the word "strong".

it's a good thing to react to non-foods (cooked).

it's a good strong reaction.

it's what is supposed to happen.

True. Still, I wish I could eat anything without any consequences. I really do lol!

Gosia


RawGosia channel
RawGosia streams

well-my system can not take alot of raw greens...it bunches up in me and plugs me up.but i can eat pots of cooked greens.i can take fruit.it does not plug me up.i am doing green smoothies and this seems to help. i do not worry if i have a bit of cooked foods.when i went raw-100%-and then i eventually ate some cooked...it did not settle well.but now i try to not eat cooked but if i do-i have no bad reactions.maybe it is just a case of what our systems are use to.like if we eat raw all the time-and then eat cooked...we get a reaction.like if we are eating cooked all the time and go raw-we get detox.take care-taylor

[img10.mytextgraphics.com]

Ok, so if I eat some bad food after being 99% for a while, I notice that my body is not dealing with it very well. I might feel tired. This is not necessarily a different reaction to when I ate cooked, the important distinction is that I notice it a lot more, it's the relative difference which is much greater coming from high raw.

Rob

--
Rob Hull - Funky Raw
My blog: [www.rawrob.com]

The above posts are great.

There are 2 kinds of 'immunity'. One where you simply remove your ability to notice symptomology.......and this is a lowering kind of immunity. And one where you raise your level of sensitivity and consciousness to where you can consciously avoid bad things. Which do you want?

-David Z. Mason

WWW.RawFoodFarm.com

Great question! One that's been on my mind too! And the answers have all been helpful.

I'm with Gosia. I want a digestion that can handle anything like the one I had as a kid. On the other hand, I want keen instincts and a discriminating system that "knows" what to eat and not to eat, like a good healthy mammal. (As an example, farm animals will instinctively turn away from GMO grain and feed in preference for non-modified feed...I want THAT level of instinctual sensitivity)

I don't like the idea that in a pinch, or in an emergency, a raw diet has made me ill-equipped to adapt to necessity. The hurricanes that hit this area two years ago drove home the fact that @#$%& do happen. Folks in New Orleans were lucky to find fresh water, much less fresh fruit and vegetables, and because we received a great many people who were forced to leave N.O. we experienced food shortages at the groceries for awhile until the stores adjusted.

Still, most of the discomfort I feel when eating "strange" comes from binging or over-eating. If I stay real, I find that the tons of raw fruits and veggies I'm eating actually help to work as a protective barrier against the onslaught of cooked. But I always feel the difference.

khale

funky rob made a comment about being tired after eating incorrectly which reminded me of something.

for years, I low carb'd. One interesting thing I noticed if I cheated and ate grains, was a sweaty 'wave' that would wash over me. It had something to do with an insulin rush, I read. One would get the feeling of sweats and tiredness. I've also experienced less of the indigestion when I ate improperly on this diet on and more of the fatigue.

I spent 6 months working is SE Asia a few years ago. At that time I was omni. I went through WEEKS of diarrhea and other things adjusting to the diet and food. My children, who usually can eat anything, ALSO experienced the same things. I often lamented (when I was there) that I'd once had an 'iron' stomach as a kid and wished it would return. However, even my 'iron stomach'd' boys DID NOT have it.

My point is, in a survival situation, you MAY GET SICK...but eventually YOU WOULD ADJUST...if you lived, that is. One just has to build up a resistance to the bacteria.

cynthia Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I believe I understand most of the current ideas
> about the benefits of a raw diet. however, the
> only thing I can't find an answer of is why are
> 100% raw people not more strong when occasionnally
> eating cooked food. that point is a mystery to me.
> if we are all over more healthy when raw, then we
> should be strong and have a strong digestion
> either. Doesn't seem to be the case here. So why ?


Most of us have become raw after our health has failed and have tried many things that have not helped. Once we adjust to raw, we find that when eating cooked food, our system slows down and we quickly notice the ill effects of eating cooked. That is because we have become more aware and sensitive to how things affect us and how our body works. Though many people survive on cooked foods, just visit any hospital and see what happens to many, and all the medications they take to survive. Since our bodies appreciate the ideal food (raw) when we eat cooked food, it kind of quickly lets us know that this is not the ideal food and it is not what it wants. In reality, it is harder for the body to digest cooked food than raw food.

_________________________________

Proverbs 15:17 (New International Version) "Better a meal of vegetables where there is love than a fattened calf with hatred."

I actually disagree with most of the interpretrations here. its pretty simple reason actually to the initial question. You gain health by - and only by - eliminating certain foods completely from your system. if you do this your body actually 'forgets' how to process an unnatural food, it becomes a 'poison' that has an effect far more severe than for someones who's body welcomes that posion as the norm.

easiest comparitive paradigm: drugs -> withdrawal -> time way from drugs -> positive or negative experience when taking drugs/ammount of drugs able to consume without resulting in ilness or death.

this was discussed in this thread about a small boy who had been raw for 5 years, what he ate seemed simple enough but was basically unrecogniziable at that point by his extremely clean body.

[www.rawfoodsupport.com]

it does sound kinda unfortunate, but I have to say, if you are having an easeful time introducing (not cooked vegies), but SAD foods like spaghetti (gluten) with tomato sauce, pizza, cake, basically any kind of processed starch or sugar, your body hasn't responded yet from eating a raw diet.

theres hazerdous effects (not just digestive discomfort) from flip flopping too far out on the spectrum once your body becomes clean. that is why its important to do things progressivly at the level you are comfortable at and not backtrack without testing the waters a bit.

My belief is that most of us were not raised raw but instead were raised on cooked foods from the womb....so most of us have never known what it's like to be raw or breast feed from a raw mother, when we go raw as adults we eventually forget/lose the feelings of suppression and ill health that we grew up with on cooked foods then when we return to cooked foods we get those issues back again, I don't think that it's because our digestive system has weakend because we are being failed by eating raw foods, I think it's a consequence of going back to cooked foods.

Just my opinion.

F1

Here's the thing...if you can accept that cooked food is poison, consider the following.

It is possible to build up a tolerance to poison. Sometimes serial rapists and the like build up a tolerance to mace so that if someone tries to use mace against them, it will be ineffective. I think we can agree that mace is a harmful thing to have in your eyes. But on the other hand, we also see that some people have built up a tolerance to it.

If we are raised cooked, we have all built up a tolerance to cooked food! So, once we are weaned off of cooked food, we can no longer tolerate it.

Just like the criminal can tolerate mace, we were able to tolerate cooked food.

But just as the criminal who does not continually expose himself to mace will lose the tolerance, so again will we be affected by cooked food should we choose to eat it again.

anaken Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I actually disagree with most of the
> interpretrations here. its pretty simple reason
> actually to the initial question. You gain health
> by - and only by - eliminating certain foods
> completely from your system. if you do this your
> body actually 'forgets' how to process an
> unnatural food, it becomes a 'poison' that has an
> effect far more severe than for someones who's
> body welcomes that posion as the norm.

Most of us would agree with what anaken has written above. Some of us may, however, disagree as to what "certain foods" should be eliminated COMPLETELY from the system. The foods all of us know should be eliminated completely include processed white sugar, refined carbohydrates, all processed, boxed, packaged 'convenience' foods, frankenfoods, unhealthy fats and cooked fats, meats and dairy (although not all would agree on the last two.)

A blanket category called "cooked" would be included by many of us here. As this is a raw and living foods site, that's not at all surprising. But just for the sake of argument, IF the raw food diet is a corrective, healing, and restructuring diet, then it stands to reason that it should restore the digestive system sufficiently that it can process moderate, whole, and natural foods of the cooked sort, such as grains like brown rice, millet, amaranth and quinoa, or fresh beans or lightly cooked vegetables. If the raw diet can not restore healthy digestion of healthy foods, whether raw or not, then its not a healing diet.

Common sense should dictate that take-out pizza, burgers, cheeto's and all the other junk readily available out there ain't gonna set well on a digestive system that's adjusting to a high raw, raw, or whole food diet. In fact, I would venture to guess that none of that junk was setting well before, hence the reason many of us are here in the first place. But common sense takes issue with a dietary regime that renders the digestive system fragile, overly sensitive and ill-equipped to handle moderate foods eaten in moderate proportions. Something disturbs me about this. And I think this unease characterizes the spirit of the initial question.

When we immerse ourselves in a worldview or culture or lifestyle, it can become difficult to appreciate the perceptions, needs, and concerns of those outside it, and it can become all too easy to relegate these to hell, figuratively speaking. "Cooked" does not equal "poison" and those who will never embrace a 100% raw diet will not die a horrible and gruesome early death. To believe otherwise is extreme, elitist, and ultimately harmful to the future of dietary health for the majority. People should be able to come to raw to heal their bodies without feeling that they will relapse totally if they take a bit of brown rice or steam (gasp!) some broccoli. They should be able to understand that the more raw fruits and vegetables they eat, the better, without feeling that its an all or nothing proposition. And an abundance of raw foods should strengthen the digestive system, enabling it to process a variety of healthy foods eaten in moderation, not weaken it. Or something is wrong.

khale

khale Wrote:

>
> A blanket category called "cooked" would be
> included by many of us here. As this is a raw and
> living foods site, that's not at all surprising.
> But just for the sake of argument, IF the raw food
> diet is a corrective, healing, and restructuring
> diet, then it stands to reason that it should
> restore the digestive system sufficiently that it
> can process moderate, whole, and natural foods of
> the cooked sort, such as grains like brown rice,
> millet, amaranth and quinoa, or fresh beans or
> lightly cooked vegetables. If the raw diet can not
> restore healthy digestion of healthy foods,
> whether raw or not, then its not a healing diet.

you consider grains, cooked beans, cooked vegetables healthy.
I do not. so i would say that your conclusion above is invalid.
others may not.

>But common sense takes issue with
> a dietary regime that renders the digestive system
> fragile, overly sensitive and ill-equipped to
> handle moderate foods eaten in moderate
> proportions.

i think you've said the same thing here, but replaced the word healthy with moderate. you're using euphemisms to make something sound better than it is, imo.


> "Cooked" does not equal "poison" and those who
> will never embrace a 100% raw diet will not die a
> horrible and gruesome early death.

you're making vague statements and extremist statements at the same time.

first you would need to define poison.
and nobody is saying that non 100%ers will die a horrible and gruesome early death, so not sure who you're arguing with there.


>To believe
> otherwise is extreme, elitist, and ultimately
> harmful to the future of dietary health for the
> majority.

oh really? very interesting.
my beliefs damage the future dietary health for the majority?
seems absurd to me.
don't you think that people are free to think and decide on their own?

it's like me saying, I like a particular music group. they are the best ever.
you would seemingly
claim that my preference is somehow controlling others tastes and
future well being, and enjoyment of music.

> People should be able to come to raw to
> heal their bodies without feeling that they will
> relapse totally if they take a bit of brown rice
> or steam (gasp!) some broccoli. They should be
> able to understand that the more raw fruits and
> vegetables they eat, the better, without feeling
> that its an all or nothing proposition.

to some, it is all or nothing. to others it is not.
each person is free to make up their own mind.
you seem to be trying to direct everyone to think like you.



>And an
> abundance of raw foods should strengthen the
> digestive system, enabling it to process a variety
> of healthy foods eaten in moderation, not weaken
> it. Or something is wrong.

yes, your definition of "healthy foods" may be wrong.

this is just a counterpoint.
I'm not trying to fight with you or tell you you're wrong.

khale Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------


"whole, and natural foods of the cooked sort, such as grains like brown rice, millet, amaranth and quinoa, or fresh beans or lightly cooked vegetables. If the raw diet can not restore healthy digestion of healthy foods, whether raw or not, then its not a healing diet. "

I do disagree with this statement also, but I don't quite go as far as Fresh on this one. I do agree if you are finding these to be healthful foods, and they agree with you then they are healthful foods. They CAN be part of a diet that is healing along with other factors (like for one NOT flip flopping with the 'junk' you outlined) and you can certainly achieve a level of health that is optimal for you.

"Common sense should dictate that take-out pizza, burgers, cheeto's and all the other junk readily available out there ain't gonna set well on a digestive system that's adjusting to a high raw, raw, or whole food diet."

I do think it is important to reitirate a crucial point that this interpretation of 'food not sitting well' is a bit naive, and i'll stand by my original statement.

>
> I don't like the idea that in a pinch, or in an
> emergency, a raw diet has made me ill-equipped to
> adapt to necessity.

I think alot of what your saying springs from this kind of conodrum of curveball chaos, like if you are depriped of your lifestyle from interventions of weather, government regulation, location (all the paranoia flooding this board actually) etc...i.e. external stuff throwing you a curveball. And I totaly feel you on this one. I've often thought about these things myself, what I would eat in certain circumstances. part of me believes these arn't the most healthy thoughts, part also acknowledges is good to have some kind of 'plan' in that respect, and I think staying at a system that you are comfortable at is the only solution. no?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/14/2007 05:23PM by anaken.

thanks everyone for your great posts.

Things seem clearer to me. A healthy person should not be upset (I mean one's digestion) by a bowl of rice given by a friendly hand... If so, it is propably because the pure state of cleanliness is not yet reached, although quitte near. Thus, strong reaction may be good generally when not overpowering, then it would be good to slow down, if one thinks it is best.

I like the idea to come back to the iron stomack of my youth, if it is at all possible... Would I have detox a lot then, with a 100% raw diet ?

Sorry, evveryone. maybe I was a little too harsh in my precedent post about purety and cleanliness - I mean, how can I talk about something I have been trying only a month whereas others have years long experience? If real benefits do manifest after one year, or more, than I should come back in 12 montths and speak about the results then, not before.

love,

Cynthia