Khale,

yeah, we've certainly come across this before, and I hear you..to a certain extent. There are certainly concerns about 'survival' in that respect if you are talking about how someone goes about a life in this thing the world.

I still don't think that disputes what I wrote..sure, you could argue which is an 'ideal' situation then another. I certainly know of people who keep steamed vegetables in their diet for this very reason..but I also know of people who can't stomach them without 'detox', or even certain raw (whole) foods, nuts...vegetables..leafys..even certain fruits after awhile. Theres certainly no judgement towards existing at a level that makes sense for the individual.

as for 'the people on this board'...well that depends..if someone has been eating raw for a bit and eats steamed vegies and gets ill...is that a digestive thing? who knows, I certainlty wouldn't say one has cleansed of that food enough to create problems.


DJ,

yep, I agree,
there are certainly people eating 100% raw that are eating 60% unhealthy for reasons pretty commonly pointed out on this board. There are those that also eat all their foods in poor combinations that potentially create more bad then good (acidity, fermentation), that never really experience detox due the density and complexity of their diet saping up energy that could go to healing...
- yet they are perfectly 'healthy' because by and large they are eating nutritously
- yet other people who have gone a different path..become 'scientific anomoloies' Who can't possibly [insert pretty much anything here: exist on a single fruit for one season, live on juices, under-consume calories etc..]

which brings to the other type that eatings 100% raw 'healthful' foods that essentialy detox quicker than they can keep up with...they might not develop symptoms of 'illness' for years, and see this as some kind of miracle. always keeping blind faith that what they are doing is ideal, and whats natural.

so in that, I agree with you, its certainly better to be honest about where you are coming from and eat at a level that feels right and is not striving for an ideal

>I am sure you did accomplished great things in your life before turning raw.

maybe, but thats a pretty relative position. I certainly wasn't bringing consciousness to what I was doing in quite the same way, so if I was doing great things..who was benefiting? This goes back to the are vegans more spiritual conversation...of course most people contributing spiritually in the past or present have not been raw or vegan...

it is just really bizzare how you use all of these type of arguments to disprove that something is 'necessary'. When of course, being a vegan isn't necessary to be spiritual (depending on the vantage point of what is spiritual), being raw isn't necessary to be healthy (depending on what your definition of health is). it simply comes across like YOU don't see the point in making a change because YOU are at a level that is right/comfortable to you. its fine to point out that you don't NEED to be 100% anything to be healthy, morally pure or whatever, of course, but the arguments themselves are a problem. That said, no one is accusing you to change, you shouldn't always take it that way.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/06/2007 07:29PM by anaken.

arugula wrote:

Well, I think there are two possibilities with GI upset after introducing foreign foods:

1. your stomach gets used to secreting less pepsinogen and gastrin, your pancreas gets used to secreting less of the proteases, lipases, and amylases, and when after a long period of time they are secreting less and they you suddenly throw a meal at them which requires much greater secretion, they lag a little bit.

2. psychosomatic effect: you are convinced that this food is a poison, and your body responds accordingly


These possibilities ring sound and true to me.

In dealing with the first possibility, I personally have continued to take digestive enzymes, even with raw meals, and often on an empty stomach during the morning "fast" to assist my body in breaking down food. From what I've gathered here and there, our conventional raw food supply (and this includes in many cases organic as well) are not as rawking and rollin in enzymes as they could be in better circumstances (such as if we grew our own food), and because of my age and my own dietary and digestive history, I feel that digestive enzymes are beneficial. I also began taking betaine-hci starting this past week.

The second possibility is more difficult to address. I've been wary of becoming "food crazy" and would like to think that I am immune to such, but, of course, I'm not. Any confusion in my mind as to what I think I SHOULD be eating as opposed to what I am eating is bound to affect digestion, at least to some degree. The mind and the stomach are "twins separated", not at birth exactly, but during the development of the fetus, and so, to quote the bible if I may, "whatever is not eaten in faith" becomes a "sin", and guilt is a sauce that doesn't go down easy.

I'm sure that it is apparent that I am experiencing some digestive difficulties or this would not be such a hot topic to me. In some ways my digestion seems worsened since I've begun this raw experiment than before, at least in the sense that it has become less and less tolerant of any dietary infarction, and I must admit to feeling some trepidation that I am in process of "marrying" a dietary regime that only death can dissolve. I have problems with commitments on this scale.

Still, to address anakens concerns that some of us find problems with the diet in order to justify staying where we are comfortable whether optimal or not: I am honestly not trying to discredit the diet. I am trying to take in all the factors involved; consider all the anecdotal and scientific data I encounter and make an intelligent decision that is not muddied by ideology or emotional need that has nothing to do with diet at all. This is not easy to do.

khale

An optimal raw diet plan should build a strong, healthy and resilient body. If I am 100 percent raw or close to that and my body cannot tolerate a slice of bread from grandma then there is a problem, it is not the bread, it is that my body is just too weak. A healthy body should have plenty of reserve.

Some raw foodists try to hide their less than optimal diet plan on the idea that they are just too clean or are detoxing and the simple act of eating a non organic banana will harm them. If there was a natural catastrophe on the scale of Katrina with poluted waters, non organic produce, the rawfoodists will be the first to perish, they will just be too weak in that environment. They will be of no help cleaning the flooded city. A newly domesticated wild animal is even more resilient, he would surive on SAD for years before being taken to the vet.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/07/2007 09:11PM by djatchi.

I would say that after a natural catastrophe on the scale of Katrina a raw foodist would have a much better chance of surviving. He could fast without shocking his body, he could survive on an orange (non-organic) a day because with his clean body he would get maximum benefit from very little (raw) food and he would not need much and certainly far less water than a SAD eater and with his strong, heatlthy raw body he would be of tremendous use cleaning the flooded city. Just my way of looking at this scenario

Francis

djatchi Wrote:

do you say things like the below just to be contrary, or do you really believe it?

-------------------------------------------------------
> An optimal raw diet plan should build a strong,
> healthy and resilient body. If I am 100 percent
> raw or close to that and my body cannot tolerate a
> slice of bread from grandma then there is a
> problem, it is not the bread, it is that my body
> is just too weak. A healthy body should have
> plenty of reserve.

you can say this 1000 times and it won't make it true.

define reserve and it's relationship to your statement.

> Some raw foodists try to hide their less than
> optimal diet plan on the idea that they are just
> too clean or are detoxing and the simple act of
> eating a non organic banana will harm them.

pesticides are 100% safe and non toxic in the human body.
that is your contention? i wonder how they kill bugs then.
perhaps they target bug dna, but are harmless for us, eh?

>If
> there was a natural catastrophe on the scale of
> Katrina with poluted waters, non organic produce,
> the rawfoodists will be the first to perish, they
> will just be too weak in that environment. They
> will be of no help cleaning the flooded city.

is this supposed to support your argument in some way?

Frannie Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I would say that after a natural catastrophe on
> the scale of Katrina a raw foodist would have a
> much better chance of surviving. He could fast
> without shocking his body, he could survive on an
> orange (non-organic) a day because with his clean
> body he would get maximum benefit from very little
> (raw) food and he would not need much and
> certainly far less water than a SAD eater and with
> his strong, heatlthy raw body he would be of
> tremendous use cleaning the flooded city. Just
> my way of looking at this scenario
>
> Francis
Good point but there are no oranges after days of floading in rawcity, no refrigeration, no clean waters, just canned food. Weak raw foodist would perish in that environment.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 05/07/2007 10:38PM by djatchi.

djatchi wrote:

"An optimal raw diet plan should build a strong, healthy and resilient body. If I am 100 percent raw or close to that and my body cannot tolerate a slice of bread from grandma then there is a problem, it is not the bread, it is that my body is just too weak. A healthy body should have plenty of reserve."


I'd have to agree. At least in theory.

And I don't see that djatchi is saying anything particularly offensive. This is bound to be a subject within raw foodism that people are not gonna agree on. From where I sit, djatchi's opinions are as valid as any I've yet heard here.

Also, this is an important topic to everyone here. If the "optimal raw diet" does not build a resilient body; if, instead, it conditions ones body to eating only raw food and the body becomes resistent to food prepared in any other way, then it follows that once 100% raw one could be actually damaging their body anew if they return to food prepared any other way. This is a serious consideration.

If, on the other hand, an "optimal raw diet" DOES build a resilient body, then it is safe to use the diet for healing, cleansing, strengthening and etc. without making a lifelong commitment to eating nothing but raw food for the rest of your life.


khale

khale Wrote:


> And I don't see that djatchi is saying anything
> particularly offensive.

it's not offensive, it's improperly using words and phrases like

"resilient"
"food"
"food prepared in any other way"
"bread" (food? yes or no?)
"reserve"


> then
> it follows that once 100% raw one could be
> actually damaging their body anew if they return
> to food prepared any other way.

yes, the body is damaged by eating "food prepared in any other way"
i don't see how this supports your position.

fresh wrote:

"yes, the body is damaged by eating "food prepared in any other way"
i don't see how this supports your position."


wrong fresh, but nice try. the discussion involves acknowledging food prepared in any other way as food. if you like we can further classify food into categories, "healthy and unhealthy" or "good and bad" if that will help you image what we are trying to say (we for the time being, djatchi and I) but we can not have a discussion if you insist that there is only one way for human beings to eat and thrive, because, for one thing this is demonstratively untrue, and for another, this is not your call to make. It is for the individual to decide whether or not food that is not raw is food for them.

"bread" (food? yes or no?)"

Uh, yes. duh.


khale

Khale wrote:

>If, on the other hand, an "optimal raw diet" DOES build a resilient body, then it >is safe to use the diet for healing, cleansing, strengthening and etc. without >making a lifelong commitment to eating nothing but raw food for the rest of your >
>life.

In your reasoning the raw diet would be used for healing, cleansing, from what, the effects of eating improper foods, right? Then, when your body is healed and cleansed you would go back to eating improper foods so you could make it ill again?

Francis

> wrong fresh, but nice try.

oooh, i love when i'm wrong!

>the discussion involves
> acknowledging food prepared in any other way as
> food.

thanks for the groundrules !

thoughts and concepts lead to actions lead to results.

since you think bread is a food ("good" is Implied, otherwise we would be calling it something else - i won't use the P word), then all the false conclusions stated above will flow from that.


> "bread" (food? yes or no?)"
>
> Uh, yes. duh.

as you wish mon ami

DJ, why don't we just pick off the raw foodists now with a rifle? perish weak raw foodist!

that way if there is ever a distaster they won't be shareing your raft or cramping your style at the stadium...because then you'd be in the awkward position of explaining to the everyone why they insisted on being vegan even though you tried to explain how there were no cases of long term 100% raw vegans because they squashed bugs and ate store bought dates...and why their weak dispositions were going to kill them anyway..so you all might as well gang up on em and throw em overboard or take their seat or whatever because half the people around could certainly use 2 seats to be comfortable. explaining that to everyone would be really awkward

as for the bread made with love...I don't see how anyone with any knowledge of how the body cleanses itself has any trouble with this one. the idea of a reserve makes no sense...a reserve of what? The only loophole I can see is that if it was indeed pure love..and the being in question was the manifest of love...that it might tolerate the foreign substance as exit it as love...and i'm being totally serious there...if not its just some heap of glue that the body can't even understand nevermind process

its even more complicated then gettling clean, healthy only to once again fill up with 'junk'...you get healthy by loseing the ability to recognize 'the junk' the first place...your best bet..if at all..would be weaning back on 'the junk'

Khale, I agree about what you are saying 'being a serious consideration' but the fact that you are trying to disprove the actually concept, not philosophy surround it, as if it is some kind of proof, is disconserting. i'm truly sorry that you see raw food eating as a comitment to a life of fear rather than possibility



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/07/2007 11:49PM by anaken.

When we went through the aftermath of Katrina I couldn't make it here. I went to friends for two weeks. There is no doubt in my mind that I couldn't survive better now. I am freakin' strong now. I could have survived on figs, dates and nuts for a long time if fresh fruit weren't available, which it was. As it was my husband didn't eat most of the MRE (meals ready to eat) FEMA passed out. He ate food we purchased on our way home from evacuating. Anyway I think if anything like that happened again I would certainly rather have Storm around then most healthy cooked 60 year old men. I believe raw fooders that are so clean that they couldn't survive being forced to eat McDonald's food would eat grass if they had to. Are these people weaker? More susceptible to anything other than processed, cooked food and drugs? Is that the only way they are weaker? I think the definition of "bad" food is food that makes you sick. Coffee now makes me sick. Am I weaker or stronger because my body is now tuned so well that I can recognize toxins at a fantastic height of awareness? Cigarettes make me sick does that mean I am weaker than I used to be when I smoked? Should I start smoking again so I can be stronger?

I'm sorry I mis-wrote. Our hurricane was Rita not Katrina.

great post. there is no such thing as moderation when it comes to issues of cleansing and un-healthful things...the state of the body is what defines what is un-healthful. so no use arguing about what is a food. but the comparison to the stimulants/drugs is an exact fit...your body only tolerates what it has adjusted to experiencing..spicy food, rotting flesh, alcohol..with no exception the body does adapt...by losing health.

immunity to hemlock is from drinking hemlock. look what happened to the native americans when we intoduced our foods...why compare to wild animals...animals might do ok with SAD foods i'm skeptical but I had no clue nor do I care..they also have totaly differnt digestive systems..and many function FAR better (idealy) with meat.

I've been eating about 93% mono for the last two years. Gotta say, I feel amazing.

-Ryan
radicalvitality.com

Frannie Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> In your reasoning the raw diet would be used for
> healing, cleansing, from what, the effects of
> eating improper foods, right? Then, when your
> body is healed and cleansed you would go back to
> eating improper foods so you could make it ill
> again?

No Frannie. In fact, its ever so slightly insulting that you think I'm making a case for eating "improper foods". The hook I'm hangin on here is the "there is no food other than 100% raw food" hook. I'm still trying to maintain that there are healthy alternatives to the 100% raw diet.

Many here have gone from SAD to RAW, or from unhealthy vegan-vegetarian to RAW and have perhaps never experienced a simple, plain, healthy diet that includes some cooked, because the concept is apparently alien.


Fresh wrote:

"thanks for the groundrules"

It does help, fresh, to reach some consensus regarding our terms. It's difficult for me to discuss this with you as long as you and I don't define "food" in the same way. Bread is a food; whether you consider it a good or bad food is completely up to you. I'm aware that bread sticks to the villi like glue; that it is hell on blood sugar and etc. I'm also aware that not all breads are created equal and that "white, processed" bread is a poison which no one should eat and so on. Nevertheless, I still maintain that bread is food and that when wheat and gluten free, made with sprouted grains and seeds, slow-baked at low temps, and etc. and eaten in moderation can be a part of a healthy diet. Certainly not something that should put you in ICU (all hyperbole aside)


Pakd4fun wrote:

"I believe raw fooders that are so clean that they couldn't survive being forced to eat McDonald's food would eat grass if they had to"


Very romantic. But this is the kinda comment that makes me want to pull my hair out! Is it all Raw or MacDonalds?! Is there nothing in between? You either eat raw or you eat junk? Maybe you guys are all way more committed and disciplined than I am, but doesn't it concern you at all that the more raw you eat the less of anything else you can tolerate? And who of you are so dedicated and established in this diet that you KNOW that you will never eat Mexican food again? Do you have any idea how fuckin horrible the average Mexican food meal actually is? Imagine putting that on top of a digestive system that's been raw for a significant amount of time. We can all hope that we won't revert back to icky food habits, but how many of us have stopped yo-yo-ing up to now? Please.

This is apparently something I'm going to have to work out for myself.

I go 100% raw for 7 weeks starting Monday, May 14. My concern that there is a possiblility that 100% won't suit me long term and that in the 7 weeks I've so changed my body chemistry that adjusting to any other diet will be difficult, if not damaging, will just have to be something I deal with on faith. Apparently everyone here thinks it moot.


khale

Dear Khale,

I can hear how you are struggling with yourself and I feel for you and did not mean to be insulting in my above post. I can say in all honesty that I love eating raw and have no cravings for any cooked foods and am absolutely certain in my mind that I will eat like this for the rest of my life. I love how it makes me feel, both physically and mentally and I also love how it tastes. And when I say improper foods I really mean all foods that aren't raw and natural to our bodies but that's just my opinion. And I have left the stage of feeling holier than though because of my, what I believe to be superior, diet behind me a while ago. This works for me and I wish it for you and everyone else in the world without being condescending. And I respect everyone's right to make different choices and don't think any less of them for doing so. I think my body is stronger for being able to recognize and reject food that will hurt it, not weaker.

I remember my first year of eating raw and cravingwise it was not so bad but I also remember my then boyfriend who could not stick to raw because he had such bad cravings for cooked food and like you could not foresee a future for himself where he would never eat cooked food again. Personally I believe this has to do more with emotional and social attachments to food than physical and as your body and mind clean on the raw food you will slowly release these attachments. In the meantime I'm not making light of your worries and if you think this will work better for you I believe it's certainly possible to live a healthy live on say 80% raw and 20% cooked although I don't think it will be possible to include mexican food.

Wishing you all the best on your first week raw. If I were you I would just start and see where you end up. Who knows, maybe this time next year you won't even want to eat anything else but 100% raw and you're worrying about something that will never happen. Maybe David Zane Mason's wise words about starting from where you are now and taking it at a pace that you are comfortable with would be appropriate here Don't compare yourself to where other people are and if you believe that bread prepared in the way you described above will be a good food choice for you and if your body will accept it as such go ahead and eat it. Which brings us back to the point you are trying to make; if your body at some stage cannot accept this bread anymore without having a bad reaction to it is it therefore weakened from eating raw? I would say on the contrary, your body has become strong enough to let you know what it wants. Whereas before it was so snowed under with foods it did not know how to deal with it had no voice left to let you know how it felt. Trust your body and give it a chance to heal and let you know what it wants and tell your mind to give over and busy itself with other things. This is a journey you're embarking on, an adventure with ups and downs. Don't try to impose rules or preconceived ideas on it but keep an open mind instead and enjoy the learning process even when the going gets rough sometimes, as it will.

Love, Francis

khale wrote

>It's difficult for me to discuss this with you as long as you and I don't define "food" in the same way. Bread is a food; whether you consider it a good or bad food is completely up to you. I'm aware that bread sticks to the villi like glue; that it is hell on blood sugar and etc. I'm also aware that not all breads are created equal and that "white, processed" bread is a poison which no one should eat and so on. Nevertheless, I still maintain that bread is food and that when wheat and gluten free, made with sprouted grains and seeds, slow-baked at low temps, and etc. and eaten in moderation can be a part of a healthy diet. Certainly not something that should put you in ICU (all hyperbole aside)


yes, there is certainly a continuum of healthy foods of all types.

and you can make bread sound quite innocuous.

and we can say the same thing about steamed broccoli. safe and healthy and a good food right?

safer and healthier than some things, yes.

but i am of the opinion from knowledge and experience that anything altered from fresh and raw has a negative effect on me at least.

that doesn't mean that someone can't do quite well mostly raw and it doesn't mean
guilt is necessary and there's no intention to engage in elitism, or any intent to criticize anyone that is not all raw. it's a minor conceptual point, that's all.

....

how about this?

is hemlock food?
is tobacco food?

there's lots of nutrients in tobacco

perhaps food could be something that causes more good than harm, or virtually all good and very little harm.

i think bread of any type including your sprouted bread causes more harm than good. you may feel otherwise? you're aware of all of the negatives about grains, not just the ones you mentioned i presume.

just because it's something grandma makes doesn't make it good.

doesn't matter to me whether someone calls it food or not, except that
I try to point out that our cultural concepts and practices don't serve us well and lead us to do things that are not good for us, just because we've always done them.

Khale- When I used the example of McDonald's I wasn't making the point you implied I was. My point was being IF a raw fooder was not able to eat what was available to them they would survive on grass, if need be. You can insert Grandma's bread, wild rice, anything you like. My entire point is if something makes you sick and you are not aware of it because your body is acclimated, that something is still making you sick. The only thing raw does is heightens your sensitivities to toxins it doesn't cause toxins. What I am understanding you to be saying is if you are 100% raw and you can't eat wild rice or beans, or whatever you consider to be healthy, that it is the cause of raw. That simply isn't so. If a food makes you ill it can be considered bad for you. What are you really afraid of? Giving up certain foods? The social aspect? It isn't A flaw in raw that causes these issues, it is caused by our history as humans. If raw doesn't suit you just slowly acclimate yourself back to the foods you want to keep. You should know that if they make you sick that doesn't go away with acclimation, you just aren't feeling the affects right away.

ive often thought about this over the last years but never put it out there...

im travelling along in the desert ..run out of food days ago (ok not realistic lol), starving ! ... im hoping as i crest the next hill there will be an oasis of earthly delights (insert avocados and olives here hehe)

i reach the top of the hill and what do i see ? the golden arches !! bloody h! do i ...

a. well im not eating meat anymore so fries are about the only viable alternative (this mcD's doesnt have salads yet) with all that grease, i know theyre just gonna go thru me faster then a bobsled at the winter olympics, quick in quick out no harm no foul !?


or ...

b. decide ..oh well now was a good time time as any to go on a fast anyways ... can i please have 2 glasses of water no ice ? in a large cup ..thank you !

...Jodi, the banana eating buddhist

Khale,

you are foucusing most of your energy on the discussion on your issues surrounding the concept (primarily: what the body will tolerate as 'food' in what state). I've already agreed that these issues are indeed legitimate concerns for some/many

yet even though you make statements like: "You either eat raw or you eat junk? Maybe you guys are all way more committed and disciplined than I am, but doesn't it concern you at all that the more raw you eat the less of anything else you can tolerate?" basically agreeing to the concept that the body would no longer tolerate certain foods..yet you still continue disputing it, as if holding on to your beliefs without belief. worse yet, using what is actually a social/emotional dilemma as a point of argument against a physical concept.

plus no one (I think) is making that generalizations of raw OR junk (some certainly might, and could probably prove such a statement). you are the one making the implication as some kind of defense.

I agree you can be plenty healthy including a range of things in your diet that many might label as un-heathful...its when they become un-healthful to you (through cleansing of them..alowing even greater health..theoretically) that is important to be mindful of such concepts

of course nothing is set in stone..and certainly some might be able to become 'strong' enough (full of love) to not suffer from some kind of indiscretion or poisoning, yet it would certainly be wiser to test the waters if one found themselves in that position. and leaving the imagination of what might happen eating mexican food after years eating fruit to the imagination...and opt for the corn tortilla after a big salad and see what happens. or ..heres a mind bender...maybe even just the salad. (food...not food?)

i'll round this up with a simple grimm analogy. IMO the raw diet is essentialy one extended fast relative to how most people eat and live. on an extended fast...theres an interesting historic incident published in a famous fasting book about someone who broke their fast with boiled potatoes. The depiction in the book, quite gruesome involves cutting the dead man open and chipping the potatoes from a big sack of mucucs.

>quite gruesome involves cutting the dead man open and chipping the potatoes from a big sack of mucucs.

Not to belabor the issue but visibly recognizable GI tract contents during autopsy is standard. From my sister's autopsy-- "the stomach contains 400 cc of brown liquid with vegetable fibers and corn."

We have goblet cells interspersed throughout the simple columnar epithelium of our intestines. Their purpose is to secrete mucus. This is a healthy and good thing! Mucus protects against shear stress and chemical damage. A person who does not secrete adequate mucus would be very unhealthy. But in some disease states there is too much mucus, such as cystic fibrosis and chronic pulmonary obstructions.

[www.vivo.colostate.edu]

exactly

mucus is a good thing for trying to eliminate what isn't natural in the body...or to aid in the elimination of waste in general. in fact, people who have a large build up of mucus can eat all the burritos they want and feel fantastic...to the point of it becoming practically hereditary of certain races being able to call certain foods...foods. certain races who don't, for instance: native americans..suffered the worse when introduced to non-optimum foods...even though of course they wern't raw, or vegan.

the point is that the man...very clean and 'healthy' from the extended fast. ate the potatoes and died I beleive that day.the body attempted to do its job of course surrounding 'it' in mucus.

You are all very kind and have shown a lot of patience toward me. I appreciate it.

I gave this a lot of thought throughout the day yesterday and finally understood what you guys were trying to get over to me. I even had to laugh at my self because it's all pretty simple really, isn't it?

Whatever my body no longer tolerates is no longer good for it.


There are days and weeks that the raw diet seems elegant and effortless.

Then there are the other days.

Thanks for being there...


khale

I will be joining Khale on a seven week all raw challenge starting May 14. I feel a little anxious and excited too. I will be so happy to hopefully feel the high energy that 100% raw fooders feel. I want so badly to be a super athletic person again and have the stamina and vigor of my youth. I am not really thinking about the challenges of the diet and trying to focus on the many more benefits. I am visualizing riding horses a lot, maybe competing again and possibly training one again all the while being a homeschooling mom and running a our little farm and animal rescue. I have been slowed by candida for years without even knowing it so raw has opened up a huge door for me.

Dear pakd4fun and Khale,

Good for you starting your raw challenge, it's so nice that you're doing this together.

pakd4fun you can be anything you want if you want it bad enough. Becoming a raw vegan can bring you so much joy, so much clarity as all the 'crap' literaly falls away and as khale so beautifully put it, it can be elegantly effortless and in being so it can make life elegantly effortless as well.

Nobody can tell you how your transition will go and what detox symptoms you will encounter but if you're willing to trust your body and come for the ride there will definitely be rewards at the other end.

I'm telling you this as I recall my own journey which started almost 5 years ago and it has been a very bumpy ride. I was 45 when I changed my diet, overnight, from meat eating, not very healthy cooked, to raw vegan. I had no health challenges that I was aware of at the time and looked pretty good for my age. I had a boyfriend who was 13 years younger than me who went raw with me. For the first couple of months I felt terrrific, had loads of energy, lost my waterweight and my cellulite. Then detox hit, I kept on losing weight, started looking scrawny and hagard and old, felt tired all the time and everybody around me thought I had anorexia. I looked in the mirror and saw my granny. My boyfriend was battling with emotional detox and couldn't handle the way I was looking. It became a relief when we split up and I could get on with my detox without worrying what I looked like to him. I withdrew within myself, went on a long juice fast for 9 weeks to speed up the detox, all the while trusting my body to know what it was doing. After the fast I was finally able to put on weight and I started looking better but I made the mistake to eat very high fat which held me back from attaining super health. It's only recently, as I've joined the Transformation Trial group and have cut down on fats and salt and spices and eating a very simple raw diet, that I've finally started experiencing high levels of energy and feeling amazing within myself.

Why the long story.... because I feel touched by your aspirations and I don't want you to lose heart if the going gets tough. I can see you, cleaned out on raw food, riding a horse in beautiful nature and it's one hell of a vision, you're one hell of a vision

I think everyone meets their own demons along the road as they clean out, don't let them stop you girls and you will realize your dreams.

Love, Francis

Arugula, I've looked throught this thread to see your comments. I only saw a couple. And unless I overlooked something, you've said nothing about how the mono mealing has been going. Maybe you've stopped. Maybe you've posted something in another thread. I haven't looked through the forum at all.

I'm real curious how you've been doing on this.



This way is not compatible with Zen practice. This way IS Zen practice. - Dr. Doug Graham

Nothing whatsoever should be attached to. - Buddha

Hey Troy! Good to see you. I think about you while in my garden.

Hi Troy,

It's too draconian for me. I can do it for an occasional meal if it's really high quality but not as a way of life. If I get some really good oranges or apples or whatever, I can sit there and eat just them until full. But not if they are only mediocre: I need more stimulation from my food.

Also I've learned in the last 2-3 months or so that I have to have more greens. I tried the very high fruit way for a while and it doesn't work as well for me. I got more cravings and I felt weaker. I think it's because I need more minerals.

So it's back to the very large, elaborate leaf-based veg salads twice a day, with a smaller fruit salad once a day for me. I can stick with it, feel better, and feel more satisfied. It's more expensive, though, that's the down side.