tanawana Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
> Taste and appetite satisfaction may or may not be
> indicators of lower quality.

[www.tandjenterprises.com]

read the above and tell me what you think.

> Also, what does nerve damage actually feel like,
> can you feel such a thing?

numbness, pain, limited movement.
it's just a correlation that i made between what i was eating and the symptoms.
i can't prove it.

Okie Dokie then

TroySantos Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Cool thread. I like all this. I know I myself
> often think about what to eat rather than eat what
> feels appealing. It's time to start letting go of
> this. Thanks. I've been eating more and more mono
> lately and that is nice.
>
> Nora, I'm also really interested in your article.
> I'll have a lookie see at the website you link to.
> If I don't see it then maybe I'll ask where we can
> find it. I am impressed by your writing in this
> thread. And I hope you didn't ever think or feel
> that I was being in the least bit hostile about
> your stance on Graham's teachings and writings. I
> do like clarity though. That's all. Graham did
> answer the question. Here's his response:
>
> "Most people that don't like greens have just
> never eaten them,
> don't know what taste ranges they could be
> appreciating, and
> simply have never even attempted to develop a
> liking for them.
> They are missing out.
>
> "No, I don't recommend eating greens that taste
> bad, bitter, or foul.
> No, I don't recommend eating greens all the time,
> always, no
> matter what. I often go days, and sometimes weeks,
> without eating
> greens. I have gone months without eating them,
> back when my
> diet was more random. But I do not recommend
> avoiding greens
> entirely. I believe they are a part of an overall
> healthy and
> nutritious diet.
>
> Dr D"

I forced myself to eat greens for a long while because people told me I'd die without it, but it was horrible, it was reaching the point where I wanted to gag everytime I ate it, I tried all types of greens....it just does not appeal to me!

F1

hehe i am/was the exact opposite .. i have always been into veggies and greens .. i used to say how much i hated fruit ...adding fruit to my diet on a regular basis was actually very challenging to me

and now i LOVE FRUIT !!!!

i guess its partially a retraining of the tastes

growing up i never did have/developed a sweet tooth even for candies/cakes etc ..i was a salt craver , so i think thats the reason i didnt care much for fruit .. that and most of the fruit i remember growing up was mushy apples and underripe oranges

...Jodi, the banana eating buddhist

fresh:

Sometimes I write things late at night...and they arn't well composed or thought out.

yet don't see why you took personal offence to what I wrote..as it was referring to the discussion surrounding Billings, and not about anyone's general experience per se.

If I had a good hearted meaning (and i'd like to think I usually do) ..it was to stress the minor relevance of the conventional 'factor', and certainly the 'under-eating' factor..although in his case it did seem like a binge/purge kind of thing. I DO believe, expecting some kind of system or program will take care of you..instead of allowing one to take responsibility to do some real work..on themselves..can be quite dangerous.

theres lots that can be said about the organic/conventional thing

My personal belief can be summed up by simply stating that the pesticide load in washed/pealed produce is less significant to the internal toxins of lifetime(s) of toxin ingestion/cellular makeup. My belief on nutrients is exactly what Nora said..so while I agree about organic probably having more nutrition...I disagree..you know? So I can't see how having weaker quality stuff (if this is the case) or small ammounts of toxin (in the face of large amounts of environmental crap, and the mixing of foods with internal deposits) would present any significant distress.


I really don't assume your life is a joke, but if it is..that is certainly OK...just laugh. You can laugh at my life to.


> hello anaken. (so sorry i checked the main board!
> ;-) )



I have the 'other topics' on self-parental block

"Most people that don't like greens have just never eaten them, don't know what taste ranges they could be appreciating, and simply have never even attempted to develop a liking for them.
They are missing out.

"No, I don't recommend eating greens that taste bad, bitter, or foul. No, I don't recommend eating greens all the time, always, no matter what. I often go days, and sometimes weeks, without eating greens. I have gone months without eating them, back when my diet was more random. But I do not recommend avoiding greens entirely. I believe they are a part of an overall healthy and nutritious diet.


Troy,
No, I didn't get the feeling you were being hostile or anything. Thanks for making it clear that you are just seeking the truth. I greatly respect that.

Thanks for posting Dr. Graham’s answer. Firstly, I think it is inappropriate for Dr. Graham to assume we’re talking about anyone other than people like myself (and F1, apparently) who DO try greens (lettuce and celery) regularly and, more often than not, find them unappealing. Obviously, we DO know what we’re missing – we’re missing eating a food that doesn’t taste good to us.

Dr. Graham’s response is really too vague and dismissive to be helpful, imo. It’s of no use for people trying to figure out if they should force greens down their gullet to hear that he doesn’t recommend avoiding them “entirely”. To figure out what he means by that, all we can do is make assumptions. It appears he thinks it’s okay to go “weeks” without them, but that “months” is where the trouble begins. (Which, btw, validates what I said earlier in this thread, which I’ll repeat, just for clarity: “I’m sure if pressed he would say it's fine to follow your senses in the short term, but his position is very firmly on the side of forcing greens down at some point if it happens that they still don't appeal to you after a certain undetermined (and undeterminable, I might add) threshold.”) The point is, whether it's weeks or months, at some point, apparently, the advice for people who don't like greens will be, "eat them anyway".

There seems to be pretty unanimous agreement among raw fooders and raw gurus that rather than doing without greens entirely, it’s better to get them down by disguising them or combining them with other foods. And while it’s true that these foods combine with other foods best of all foods, it’s also the case that digestion is maximized when only one food at a time is eaten. Combining of foods is a very important transitional tool, and I did as much of it as anyone else in my first few years of being raw. But it should only be done for its entertainment value. Combining foods for some perceived nutritional benefit is counterproductive. After a few years of eating very simply, I can say with absolute certainty that a meal of one type of whole fruits is much more easily handled by the body than a celery and banana smoothie or a salad with a complicated, no-fat dressing. To me, the law of nature is clear and irrefutable: If a food can’t be eaten pleasurably without being disguised or flavored, it should NOT be eaten. The longer I’m raw, the more inclined I am to obey this law. As much as I was addicted to combining foods earlier in my transition, I am amazed to be able to say that.

This issue presents us with a perfect example of how we sometimes do things out of fear that end up being worse for us than the thing we’re fearful of. In general, I think we need to think very critically about ideas that make us fearful, including the idea that certain foods need to be eaten regardless of how they taste to us.

There is a very important fundamental principle at risk when we start telling people that their only choices are between fooling and ignoring their senses. Who tells the animals what to eat? Why do we have to be told what to eat? Why can't we eat what tastes good, as long as it comes directly from nature? Why can't we enjoy ALL the benefits of living naturally, including only eating things that give us pleasure? Whoever says we should eat things we don't like -- under any circumstances -- needs to answer these questions.

Best regards,
Nora
www.RawSchool.com

GREENS: Do We Need To Eat Them, Even if We Don't Like Them?
by Nora Lenz © 2005 * www.RawSchool.com

It's a question many raw fooders are asking. The perceived threat of mineral deficiencies inspires even those who don’t like the taste to eat them regularly, if not daily. Conventional wisdom insists that a diet low in greens leads to nutrient deficiencies. So why do some long-term raw fooders thrive by allowing their desires to drive their consumption of greens, even though this can mean going months or years without eating them at all?

In order to experience real health, about 90% of what our culture “knows” about eating needs to be thrown out. Nobody gives up their old ways of thinking overnight, but identifying and correcting the following four myths is a good start.

Myth 1: Our senses aren't reliable
Raw fooders and mainstream nutritionists cling to the idea that some foods need to be eaten regardless of whether they taste good. One raw food “expert” even suggests that if greens taste bitter to you, this indicates a greater need for them. Others tout “green smoothies” as a way to get more greens into the diet--blending them with fruit to disguise their taste. These ideas fly in the face of nature. Sensory input has guided human food choices through millions of years of successful existence on this planet. That we prefer mangoes to kale is not an accident. Our bodies automatically know that sweet, flavorful foods are nutritious. That’s why processed food is sweetened--to trick us into eating it. But when choices are limited to biologically appropriate foods, it becomes unnecessary to disguise them, and the senses can once again be trusted.

Myth 2: Modern food is inadequate
The “deficient” commercial food supply is often cited as one of the reasons why modern humans should not rely on their senses to direct their food choices, as prehistoric humans did. Some fear allowing our senses to dictate food selection means we will incorrectly desire sweet fruits only and end up with dietary deficiencies. However, not only is there no evidence that even cultivated fruit can't fulfill ALL our nutritional requirements, it's also the case that very long term, high fruit eating raw fooders don't just eat sweet fruit; they eat non-sweet fruits (tomato, cucumber, etc.), celery, lettuce, young spinach perhaps, and lots of other un-sweet foods. Yes, their diets typically center on foods that are sweet, but this makes sense; the human body needs sugar in greater quantities than any other dietary nutrient. Besides, sweetness is not the only quality that makes a food appealing: a pleasant texture, color, high water content, ease of digestion, and the way a person feels after eating it are all essential considerations.

That commercial farming has caused modern foods to lack integrity to varying (but ultimately unknowable) degrees is no reason to toss out a system that has been perfected by nature over millions of years. If it were necessary to eat perfect food in order to experience a high level of health, nobody would survive even 5 years of eating the standard American diet; and yet people eating diets largely made up of cooked, processed junk are living, on average, into their mid-70s. Considering how far ahead of them raw fooders are, the theoretical shortcomings of the food supply needn't be of concern.

Aiding the confusion is the prevailing idea that cultivated food is somehow artificial. We don’t trick nature into producing fruit for us; we can only recreate the conditions under which a tree or vine will be sufficiently healthy to procreate, which is what fruit production is all about. The conditions we create are inferior to those that are present when food grows voluntarily, of course, but that doesn’t mean the food is artificial or not capable of sustaining a very high level of health in people to eat it. We may do the planting, fertilizing, etc., but nature is still producing the food. We’re not that smart yet.

Myth 3: Greens are “healing” foods
Recovery from illness is typically attributed to whatever was employed in treatment. However, in every case where disease is eliminated, the common denominator is always that the cause of the disease was eliminated. There is no such thing as a healing food; the body heals itself when its impediments are removed. Healing happens quickest when we stop eating entirely. The second fastest way to heal is to eat the foods that are easiest to digest. Only tender greens, like lettuces, are easy to digest, and even these require more work than fruit. The deeper greens, like kale and collard greens, are much more difficult to digest, so eating them slows down healing.

Some also say that dark greens should be eaten because they contain large quantities of chlorophyll, a chemical molecularly similar to the hemoglobin in human blood. This is a specious argument, however, because it can be used to rationalize the consumption of all manner of inappropriate foods, including meat (after all, what’s more similar to the human body than the flesh of other animals?). There are innumerable examples of molecular similarity between substances that poison and those that nourish, so that can’t be used as a criterion. Nevertheless, people who truly like greens can and should eat them, but not because of their molecular structure.

Myth 4: Nutrient deficiency testing is necessary
Many will suggest that periodic testing for “deficiencies” is the answer. However, test results may not reflect the healthful changes in progress in a beginner, and in a long-term raw fooder, the results are irrelevant in the face of more self-evident signs. If people feel and look better, they ARE better. Health is visible. Symptoms are all that is needed to indicate the need to address the health mistakes that are commonly made by raw fooders, especially beginners. When the mistakes are fixed, symptoms go away. Medical tests are not necessary for people who want to put 100% of their faith in themselves and nature. For those who need validation from “experts” in order to stay raw, testing may have some merit. For everyone else, the success that other species enjoy provides sufficient evidence that eating foods which naturally appeal leads to success.

Beyond the misconceptions
Myths and false notions notwithstanding, greens can play an important role in the diet of transitioning raw fooders. For one, newcomers tend to eat more than their share of fats, and greens combine better with fats than fruits do. Also, transitioning raw fooders typically appreciate the complexity, variety, and familiar feelings of satiety that greens can add to the diet, just as fats and other heavier fare do.

Perhaps the best thing about greens is their low calorie content, which is sometimes helpful in addressing overeating issues. Overeating can be a useful tool for beginning raw fooders, and may be necessary for years as they gradually develop new habits. But for advanced raw fooders who are eating simply and in the proper macronutrient ratios (high fruit/low fat), overeating can be the final frontier. Part of achieving health is eating only adequate amounts of food. As health improves and the body becomes more efficient, it becomes necessary to gradually decrease overall consumption. Habitually exceeding the body’s fuel needs burdens the eliminative channels with waste, compromising the ability to create energy and causing nagging symptoms. Some of the signs of overeating that are often ignored are chronic thirst, acid indigestion, biting of the tongue or lips while chewing or getting food into the airway, hiccups, yeast issues, weakness, lethargy, difficulty sleeping through the night, frequent nighttime urination, mouth sores, poor concentration, an urgent desire to eat before noon, and more. For intermediate or long-term raw fooders who experience these problems, it's worth trying things like skipping breakfast, eating smaller amounts of food or more greens and other low-calorie foods to see if the symptoms abate.

Optimal greens
Nobody can intellectually know the precise nutritional needs of his/her body. The body possesses that knowledge inherently. Sensory feedback is the way it communicates this information to the conscious mind. This means that everyone, regardless of where s/he is in transition, has the ability to select the right kinds and quantities of greens based strictly on appeal and desire. People preferring the mild-tasting greens to denser, darker ones needn't agonize over the myth that the former are nutritionally inferior. Iceberg lettuce has a reputation as a useless food, yet it tastes sweet, light and pleasing to the human palate; this is an indication that it is healthful and easily digested. By contrast, dark greens have a reputation as superior foods, despite the fact that they contain irritating and indigestible constituents. A bitter taste notifies the conscious mind that a food contains toxic substances that will be difficult for the body to process. Sometimes the stimulating effects of these substances are mistaken for “energy,” which is one reason why greens are commonly and falsely thought to be “energizing” foods. In reality, there are no energizing foods, as the body must expend energy in digestion before energy can be derived from the food.

Determining suitability
For those who are interested in experimenting, dark greens can be replaced in the diet with the milder varieties. After six months or so, these can be added back in to see what effect they have. In this scenario, dense greens often cause uncomfortable reactions not previously experienced, like flatulence, nausea, constipation, frequent urination, night sweating, accelerated heart rate or numbness/tingling in the extremities. This is a good way to test any questionable food, since the body becomes more sensitive and communicative as it becomes healthier.

Another useful criterion a person can apply is whether s/he would eat the food all by itself. Interestingly, most people who promote high consumption of greens rarely enjoy a simple, unadorned meal of greens only. More often, greens are part of complex meals with complicated ingredients and even oily dressings. Wanting to eat greens this way does not indicate a genuine need for them; it indicates a desire to be entertained, comforted or otherwise stimulated by food. Although this is acceptable in transition, it is important to recognize the folly of eating foods--even highly nutritious ones--saturated in difficult-to-digest substances. Flavorants that are commonly used to make greens appealing--like vinegar, nama shoyu, oils, salt, herbs and spices-- greatly impede digestion, damage our digestive organs and ultimately convert perfectly good food into waste which must then be eliminated by the body.

Do we need to eat greens, even if we don't like them?
The simple answer is “no.” Obviously raw fruit is the centerpiece of the optimal diet of a frugivorous species like humans. All frugivores do eat foods other than fruit. The extent that these are eaten should be determined strictly by personal preference. For beginners and seasoned raw fooders alike, there is nothing unhealthy about eating greens only if and when a real desire for them arises. Interest in greens will ebb and flow as tastes change during transition and throughout one's lifetime. The more that food selection is allowed to be a sensory experience, rather than an intellectual one, the healthier the results will be.

not really offended anaken. thanks for your comments.

on gorillas...


[blogs.discovery.com]

excerpted from above:

As for eucalyptus, I know the gorillas often come out of the forest to eat the bark. No one knows for certain why they do it. This plant was introduced as a source of wood and charcoal 100 years ago. Mountain gorillas didn't evolve with it, but they routinely leave the forest for the farms to eat it. Some say they take it as medicine. Others think gorillas will go for any novel food item.

Francois shook his head when I asked if those particular leaves were safe for me to taste. I don't know why he answered no, actually. He swallowed them and led me over to another tree. Using his knife, he cut into the bark and peeled it away to expose the softer inner layer, then dug in a bit more. Using his fingertips, he scraped out a tiny bit of the pale green pulp and offered it to me, saying, "Take the water only." I interpreted this to mean that I should put it in my mouth without chewing it and then spit it out. So I did. The delicate, slightly sweet, mint taste answered my question. The gorillas must simply like it.

[www.jotform.us]



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/02/2007 03:08AM by fresh.

i think mineral deficincies in all our produce organic or not fruit or vegetables are more then a perceived threat nora .. alot of the food grown nowadays doesnt compare to the mineral rich food grown by our ancestors due to the soil abuse conventional farming has caused all over the world, we have things growing in unnatural ways in unnatural habitats , i think is irresponisible not to question what were eating is as healthy as it could be

the old saying an apple a day might have applied a hundred years ago but it might more be 5 apples a day nowadays to make up for it !


(and before you poo poo me i have been conventionally farming and my family and my bf family have over a 100years of farming background and im the first to break into the *lets go organic* movement in our families)

...Jodi, the banana eating buddhist

excellent article nora, thanks for posting it.

[www.jotform.us]

Jodi,
We don't need food that's "as healthy as it could be". I didn't get healthy eating food that was grown 100 years ago, I got healthy eating supermarket food. People who think their symptoms are the result of deficiencies need to stop making mistakes of excess and their symptoms will go away.

Regards,
Nora
www.RawSchool.com

mistakes of excess are not the only reason of deficencies nora ..some people do have dietary defincies and to say they dont seems rather irresponsible to me in my opinion, some people have environmental issues and genetic issues that play into this as well

what scientifc studies have you done to back up your *myth*olgical theories? are you willing to put your theories to the test with cancer patients ? aids patients? let me know when you do so i can applause your successes

15 years we were growing corn on our farm that the ag agent told us (with scientific testing) was nutritionally slightly better then chewing on cardboard .. can you exist on cardboard? 10 years ago our *hothouse tomatoes* fared slightly better then that.. this is the kind of normal food found in conventional groceries

you say when people feel and look better they are better

when i returned from living in a monodiet vegetarian villages lifestyle eating simply some steamed rice , raw fruits and vegetables i felt better then i ever have felt in my life .. literally elevated beyond beleife i felt i was my perfect weight , my spirit was higher then it had ever been , i was happy and engorged with love and peace

untill i got home and was diagnosed with cancer

by your theory was i better then ever?

Quote: Medical tests are not necessary for people who want to put 100% of their faith in themselves and nature

without medical tests i would never have known i was sick untill it was possibly too late .. faith has no place in science

im spiritual but not stupid thank you very much

...Jodi, the banana eating buddhist




Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 10/02/2007 03:53AM by Jgunn.

Jodi,
I think it would be helpful for you to read about the real causes of disease, including cancer. Cancer doesn't appear for no reason. If you had it, it's because you caused it, even though you may have thought you were living healthfully. There is a great lesson on cancer and its causes in the Life Science Course at RawFoodExplained.com.

Nora
www.RawSchool.com

i have read it and understand it

and no i didnt cause it , i am a victim of the environment i worked in and i chose to be in a the moment and for you to say i am the cause of it otherwise is ignorant ..not all cancers are caused by excesses of diet .

ok maybe i did cause it because i beleived i wasnt in any harm (misplaced faith?) but i certainly didnt go out of my way to cause myself harm, lol does that make you feel correct?

again please forward to me your scientific studies on your theories

i dont buy into fluffy thoughts and theories without something scietific backing things up, that kinda thinking might work for some poeple lookin but i question everything from all sides and place faith in nothing. maybe that is my biggest mistake.

again im not looking to having a pissing in the sandbox contest with you, besides your grandmother what exactly is YOUR personal experience with cancer? with mine .. faith was not enough for me at them moment as there was no time .. had i just put my faith in things been theres a good chance i wouldnt be here today .. or maybe i would be

who has the right to say what is right or wrong to do untill they walk in the shoes of those that have tread that path , do you think you do? that seems like a rather pompous attitude to take

...Jodi, the banana eating buddhist




Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 10/02/2007 04:14AM by Jgunn.

i seriously hope nora that you are never in the position of having to face a critical life or death decision

and if you choose to rely on faith to take you through that then all the power to you, kudos to you , i guess you a stronger person them me

i have to say im greatly disturbed by your assumptions that i havent done my research and background , i have pored over rawfoodexplained (as opposed to paying for the course at your website) for nearly a year reading everything there word for word and have forwarded that site to a hundred people on my mailing list that im concerned for their well being

i would also like to add that im personally offended by your constant advertising for people to go to your sight for advice leading to paid coaching and other paid services. You should do whats right and offer the webmaster of this board to pay for a proper advertisment for your site like the other advertisers do instead of riding off a freebie, im not sure how you have been getting away with it, but if you are making money off people here you should at least be paying for it. That said I hope you do the right thing.

...Jodi, the banana eating buddhist




Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 10/02/2007 04:32AM by Jgunn.

I just want to comment that not every disease, such as cancer, that a person gets is caused by what they did. It could also be caused by what their parents or grandparents did. The Pottenger cats study proved this. It took 3 generations of healthy eating to bring the sickly cats (sickly because their parents and grandparents ate cooked food only) back to health. The healthy eating did not return the current generation back to full health. It did improve their health, but it took 3 generations to regain full health.

The book "Nutrition and Physical Degeneration" also talks about this.

karennd, i agree

the above assumptions/statements by nora has that cancer is caused by what we eat or dont eat is not only stupid but naive and dangerous. cancer can be manifested by environmental issues as well and to say otherwise is irresponsible and for to assume that my diet at the time is what caused me to be sick is not only absurd but a complete insult.

but again im not here to have a pissing contest on whats right or wrong with anyones diets and/or cancer with nora lenz self proclaimed raw food expert/guru .... after all shes got all the answers figured out already *rolls eyes*

...Jodi, the banana eating buddhist




Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 10/02/2007 05:32AM by Jgunn.

Let's keep it nice guys....it's really not worth all that kinda energy, we are all way better than that!

F1

Jodi,

Medicine is a belief system, not a science. Science works, it aligns with nature, always, 100% of the time. Medicine as a rule does not do that, although researchers do use scientific principles in their work.

I'm glad you found at least part of the truth in raw food eating. I gather you're not suffering from cancer anymore. It takes flagrant abuse to create cancer, and people can engage in extremely harmful practices (or inflict them on their children) without realizing it. Cancer can't be created by what a person's grandparents did to their bodies, despite all the medical propaganda to the contrary. It serves the medical industry to have us thinking we have no control over our diseases, and that disease can sneak up on us no matter what we do, as you imply in your post. Obviously you must not accept that idea 100% or you wouldn't be here.

Yes, there are some really egregious environmental situations that would cause cancer but those aren't even worth talking about because they're so statistically rare. The vast majority of cancers are the result of people's everyday choices. I'm not 100% in control of my environment but I know with absolute certainty that I won't be contracting degenerative disease. Such is the power we each have over our own bodies.

Let's please agree to disagree and leave this thread for those who would learn from it. Remember the forum is being moderated a little more tightly these days and I don't want to see anybody get banned.

Nora
www.RawSchool.com

rawnora Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Jodi,
>
> Medicine is a belief system, not a science.
> Science works, it aligns with nature, always, 100%
> of the time. Medicine as a rule does not do that,
> although researchers do use scientific principles
> in their work.

where in any of my posts do i say anything about medicine? i asked what is YOUR scientific proof

>
> I'm glad you found at least part of the truth in
> raw food eating.

Dont be presumptious to think you know what i know or dont know about raw food eating



> I'm not 100% in control of my environment but I
> know with absolute certainty that I won't be
> contracting degenerative disease. Such is the
> power we each have over our own bodies.

it must be nice to be so certain

>
> Let's please agree to disagree and leave this
> thread for those who would learn from it.
> Remember the forum is being moderated a little
> more tightly these days and I don't want to see
> anybody get banned.

fine by me Nora your passive agressiveness towards me and insults to me is almost as bad as your manipulation skills. I havent said or done anything i wouldnt say to your face to get banned and if thats a weak attempt at a threat then go for it

my apologies to Fresh for hijacking the thread

...Jodi, the banana eating buddhist




Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/02/2007 03:19PM by Jgunn.

i love when people hijack threads!

and in the red corner, with her gunns drawn, fastest gunns in the west...jgunn
and in the blue corner, the lenzmeister, taking you to schooool!

let's get ready to ruuuummmmmbbbblllle!

maybe you're both right !?

lol @ fresh .. maybe yer right

i agree F1 its not worth the energy !

...Jodi, the banana eating buddhist

Yeah you guys - ease up please - This has been a "fantastic" thread for me considering I'm in a healing phase and can't digest greens in any form, even blended. Fruits only. :O)

Nora, I think you're losing credibility with your pompous attitude.

fresh Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> i love when people hijack threads!
>
> and in the red corner, with her gunns drawn,
> fastest gunns in the west...jgunn
> and in the blue corner, the lenzmeister, taking
> you to schooool!
>
> let's get ready to ruuuummmmmbbbblllle!
>
> maybe you're both right !?

Hilarious...ha,ha,ha...thanks for bringing a smile to my face, Fresh!!!

F1

Cucumbers, avocados, zucchini, & green bell peppers are fruit greens. In the Garden of Eden, they ate greens for food & medicine.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/02/2007 06:10PM by Rawrrr!.

I left Nora's Yahoo group sometime ago because I felt she was irresponsibly hurtful and arrogant at times in the way she responded to anyone who questioned or differed with her views.

Sad to see she is doing the same here.

Nora, your knowledge is a great thing, but perhaps you could lighten up a bit.

Sharrhan:


[www.facebook.com]



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/02/2007 07:31PM by kwan.

I'd like to say that anything I post is my opinion and I could be wrong, just based on a lot of reading and studying up on health for over 10 years. I don't believe anyone is right 100% of the time and I wish we would all state things as opinions, rather than absolute facts.

So, I wish everyone my best and still believe that even if a person ate a perfect diet and did everything perfectly - environment and inherited tendencies can come into play. IMHO

Now you can state yours. ;-)

Well stated Karen. As I embrace this lifestyle more & more and become aware of the hundreds (if not thousands) of web sites devoted to the raw diet, I see that everyone has their own nuance or set of opinions. They *all* can't be right!

Regards,

David

Exactly! None of them are 100% right, but all of them are right to some extent!

Peace to all. :-)