I have a theory - and I am in no way bashing raw foods, because I'm mostly raw too - that a big part of people feeling and looking so amazing on the raw diet is that many people have allergies/sensitivities, and the raw diet automatically eliminates so many of the triggers: grains, gluten, dairy, sugar, preservatives, etc. Therefore, ailments clear up, acne/psoriasis disappears, stuffy noses no more, joints no longer ache, diabetes and cancer are reversed bloating ceases, weight melts off...Allergies are suspected to cause, or at least contribute to, all of these dis-eases and more. People say they feel so good on raw, and I have no doubt in my mind that raw foods heal, but I also believe that the elimination of these trigger foods is equally credible for helping people heal.

Personally, once I cut out all the foods I was supposedly sensitive to, I looked and felt better than I ever had before; I was still eating some cooked at this point. Then I went raw, and progress halted. Not that I feel bad on raw...just no different, though maybe a little weaker and spacier.

What do you guys think? (I don't mean to start any arguments here, just discussion!)

I believe that much of the SAD diet is poison, just not at all suitable as food. Once you eliminate the non-food, of course health improves.

It may be that 100% raw is not ideal for you at all times. It can sometimes be hard on weak digestions. Or it may be that what and how you are eating on 100% needs some fine-tuning.

the enchantress Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I have a theory - and I am in no way bashing raw
> foods, because I'm mostly raw too - that a big
> part of people feeling and looking so amazing on
> the raw diet is that many people have
> allergies/sensitivities, and the raw diet
> automatically eliminates so many of the triggers:




ok, but what is an allergy? for example, I'm "allergic" to grains. certainly there is a continuum to humans response to grains, or many other items, but as far as I'm concerned, grains are simply not a food - much more than just an allergen.

so we are left with, " when i stop eating this <not a food>, I feel better".
not a surprising conclusion.

the enchantress,

I don't know what your current diet looks like, but I'm guessing its not 80/10/10. The phenomenon you described, where 100% raw doesn't seem much different/better that eating cooked without the allergy triggering foods could be a few things:

- you didn't play with being 100% for long enough. It took me a year to see some significant differences.

- your 100% raw diet may have unhealhful elements still in it. For example, a raw diet with 30%+ fat intake and using condiments and spices (salt, pepper, strong herbs, vinegar, garlic, onion, chilies, spices, etc) can easily be less healthful than a cooked diet that is under 10% fat, no condiment and spices, and based on whole cooked foods plus a reasonable intake of fresh whole foods.

Enchantress, I think that there is much truth in what you say. My experiences with raw are similar. I have found that most people go raw from sad or from junk vegan diets, so any improvement in their diet (especially one with a huge amount of fresh food) is gonna be a massive improvement. Of course any diet that is mostly based on fruit / veg. will make you feel great.

I also find that people who can sustain these diets in the long term are of a particular type: they are those people who crave sweet foods, rather than savoury/proteinous foods, and they often live in climates conducive to raw living, with an abundance/variety of raw foods available.

Like you, I am mostly raw, so I'm not knocking the diet, but I have given up much hope of being 100% now, because it just doesn't work for me. And, as I said, I don't think that '100% raw' is the ultimate health-factor, I think that a large percentage raw is they key to health. I'll bet that someone who adds cooked food (perhaps steamed veg / fish) into their diet will be much much much healthier than the vast majority of the population, and perhaps more healthy than some raw vegans living on imported, and questionably 'raw', exotic powders and potions. One problem with those who propogandize about raw veganism is that it is largely counterposed to SAD diets. But this fails to recognize that not all non-raw people are SAD eaters.

Thanks for the variety of responses!

fresh - why do you say grains are "not a food?" Just curious. And I guess what I would consider an allergy is an extremely uncomfortable and/or life-threatening reaction to a certain substance that occurs every time one comes into contact with (or consumes, inhales, touches, etc.) it. I'd classify a sensitivity as a milder version of that. I'm no doctor, but...that's my understanding anyway.

Bryan - no, my diet is not 80/10/10...it's not high-fat either, but probably not that low. I don't eat a lot of highly seasoned foods; I like my sea salt, and occasionally some garlic or cayenne pepper, but am gradually moving away from those too. I eat pretty clean, whole food...very rarely do I make recipes anymore. However, I do agree that I should play with 100% for a while to fine-tune. I want to know what that raw high feels like!!!

SPARKLE - I agree!

Great points, all.

SPARKLE wrote:

"One problem with those who propogandize about raw veganism is that it is largely counterposed to SAD diets. But this fails to recognize that not all non-raw people are SAD eaters."

Right. I tried to make the same point on the digestive sensitivity thread. If someone is ill, or is wanting to correct and heal damages done through bad habits and decides to eat only raw fruits and vegetables in order to accomplish this, they SHOULD be able to return to a healthy, moderate, cooked diet if they so choose without a. feeling like a failure b. suffering a digestive system that can no longer efficiently process anything but raw food or c. feeling that they are compromising their health.

If the raw diet is embarked upon as a matter of personal decision then a choice is implied. Some would have it that the only choice available to you is either 100% raw or unhealthy. That's it!

I don't buy it.

khale

I do want to add that I believe it is very, very difficult to stay balanced, moderate and healthy on a cooked diet. Those foods considered healthy on a cooked diet are very bland and not at all exciting to the palate. There is nothing stimulating in a bowl of plain brown rice, or beans cooked without an abundance of seasonings.

Plus, optimal portions of these foods are relatively small, so one can not eat as much food on cooked as one can on raw. A quarter cup for a woman to a half cup for a man of brown rice would be considered a serving. That's not a lot of food. So, the tendency is to over-eat. And because the food is bland the temptation is to get too fancy with the seasoning, to over-salt and etc. Plus, the temptation to veer off into less than optimal cooked food choices stays more keen on a healthy cooked diet, than it does on a predominately raw diet. Or so it seems to me. Also, proper food combining becomes even more critical.

So, in many ways, a healthy cooked diet requires even more self-discipline and vigilance than does a raw food diet.

As a personal note: I am actively preparing for 7 weeks of 100% raw starting mid-May. I, contrary to the impression I seem to have given some, am not at all negative toward a 100% raw diet. To the contrary; I'm quite enthusiastic about it. But as one studying formally in hopes of assisting others, it is important that I acknowledge other healthy alternatives AS healthy alternatives so that I can meet people where they are and work from there.


khale

the enchantress Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Thanks for the variety of responses!
>
> fresh - why do you say grains are "not a food?"
> Just curious. And I guess what I would consider an
> allergy is an extremely uncomfortable and/or
> life-threatening reaction to a certain substance
> that occurs every time one comes into contact with
> (or consumes, inhales, touches, etc.) it. I'd
> classify a sensitivity as a milder version of
> that. I'm no doctor, but...that's my understanding
> anyway.
>

thanks for your explanation above.

without even getting into details of things like taste, and antinutrients, and ability to chew, and calories, and allergies, etc..

i think that we need to evaluate things that grow in their natural state.
if i go into a field of wheat i will starve.
if i go into a field of blueberries, i will be satiated.

of course, I also think i would have trouble getting coconuts in their natural state, climbing the tree and all, and i do enjoy those. at least all of the other qualities that determine whether it's suitable are acceptable.

Bryan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> - you didn't play with being 100% for long enough.
> It took me a year to see some significant
> differences.
>
>
>This is the kind of thing thats really good to know, really helps give perspective to those of us who are still newer or who have started and abandonned raw before.

khale Wrote:

> So, in many ways, a healthy cooked diet requires...

"healthy cooked diet"

again, the above is an oxymoron.

from d graham:

"Applying heat to foods provides no nutritional benefit to the food and is detrimental to the person ingesting the cooked food. "

" nutrients are damaged or destroyed"

"Cooking food denatures the proteins "

"cooking carcinogizes the fats"

"cooking caramelizes the carbohydrates"

"The regular consumption of cooked foods results in the detrimental enlargement of the pancreas."

conversely, plucking a fruit off a tree results in little or no nutrient losses, damages to molecules, caramelization, etc.

unless one does not believe in the above statements, how can a cooked diet be healthy? I'm not understanding it.

of course some cooked diets are HEALTHIER than others, but they simply contribute in varying degrees to limiting the possibility for the highest POTENTIAL health, in other words, they are UNhealthy.

why harp on this?
because concepts determine actions.
actions determine results.
false concepts result in wrong actions and poor results.

having a concept that cooked diets are in fact not healthy does not mean that one has to be 100% raw or one is a failure.

one can keep true principles in mind, and still communicate intermediary diets for those that cannot return to the optimal diet.

finally, it would be interesting to hear your philosophy on this topic after you go all raw.

fresh wrote:

"why harp on this?
because concepts determine actions.
actions determine results.
false concepts result in wrong actions and poor results.

having a concept that cooked diets are in fact not healthy does not mean that one has to be 100% raw or one is a failure.

one can keep true principles in mind, and still communicate intermediary diets for those that cannot return to the optimal diet.

finally, it would be interesting to hear your philosophy on this topic after you go all raw"


You make some good points here. And yes, no doubt my "philosophy" on this topic will undergo metamorphosis as I go all raw. In fact, my dietary philosophy is constantly undergoing changes as I am involved in an intense learning process and have to endure the contradictions and confusions that many here are facing as well.

I still think the umbrella category "cooked" is misleading. Some foods, such as natural fats and fruits, should never see fire, while some vegetables and grains release certain nutrients only AFTER being cooked.

Brown rice, as an example, is very difficult to eat raw; the soaking process is long and the results not very satisfying, while cooked brown rice is a rich source of certain minerals, particularly manganese and magnesium and iron, along with selenium, vitamins B1 and B3, and, of course, lots of fiber. It has been argued that these nutrients can be gotten in fruits and vegetables quite easily and therefore unnecessary to get it from cooked rice. However, individual whole foods, whether cooked or raw, provide nutrients in ways unique to themselves, in unique combinations that have unique affects on the body. In effect then, one can not say that the magnesium one receives from spinach is the same quality of magnesium ones gets from cooked brown rice. One may not be better than the other, just different, with different benefits, protective qualities and so on...

These are things that I'm busy working through in my own head.

Stay tuned, as I have no fear of contradicting myself. In fact, I fully expect it.


khale

khale Wrote:
>Some foods, such as natural fats and
> fruits, should never see fire, while some
> vegetables and grains release certain nutrients
> only AFTER being cooked.


here's a very interesting study with charts showing vit c and beta carotene
before and after cooking and other preparation types.

[www.choice.com.au]

Very interesting indeed!


Thanks ; )