she has all these certification courses but is she at all qualified to give them? especially at such high prices? does she have any science background? is she a dietician?
just wondering. because i didn't think that you could be a reliable raw food advocate without some kind of formal college education..

any thoughts?

Here's her bio - [www.alissacohen.com].

This is an excerpt: Cohen is also a Certified Fitness Trainer, Nutritional Consultant and Mind-Body Therapist.

depends on the education.

sometimes more dietary "education" results in a less wholistic and overly detailed set of principles that depart from the big picture .

I'm pretty sure she has been at it and teaching for over 20 some years and obviously has been successful. Which in the RAW world I think means more to me than being schooled.

I think many assume alot about her without reading her book which surprised me after a read it actually. She has a very common sense and intelligent thought process with her approach. She seems to attract alot of high nut recipe seekers though which many think that's what she is about, which isn't true.

datesandfigs Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> she has all these certification courses but is she
> at all qualified to give them?

They are only worth what you think they are worth.

> does she have any science background?
> is she a dietician?

No and no. You are better off with the dietician who posts here.

> just wondering. because i didn't think that you
> could be a reliable raw food advocate without some
> kind of formal college education..
>
> any thoughts?

I agree totally.

> just wondering. because i didn't think that you
> could be a reliable raw food advocate without some
> kind of formal college education..
>

why? because a college grad discovers how to better question and learn, or some specific information that you feel is only found in college regarding diet, or some other reason?

Someone please correct me if I'm wrong, but from what I know, her Living on Live Food courses (which produces "certified" raw teachers) seem to largely center around meal prep and recipe training. I don't think it is meant to be a comprehensive course in raw nutrition, if that helps.

Sarah
[goingbananasblog.com]





Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/17/2007 11:23PM by Sparkler.

I ad to this that it's a common thing that those without PhDs think that those with are the experts, while those with are acutely aware how little do they know. Formal education is certainly not a prerequisite for knowledge. More often, it is an obstacle to real truth, in particular when a person is a scholar blindly believing in what they read, with little understanding of how scientific research operates and what role uncertainty plays in that research.

Gosia


RawGosia channel
RawGosia streams

Gosia wrote: "More often, it is an obstacle to real truth, in particular when a person is a scholar blindly believing in what they read, with little understanding of how scientific research operates and what role uncertainty plays in that research. "

Music to my eyes! This is how a lame idea like the germ theory can last as long as it has. People who are struggling to attain status within a given field do not objectively examine that which they learn -- there is no incentive to do so. In fact, there is much pressure on them to stride in lockstep with the other insiders in the field. So critical thought doesn't happen DURING the educational process, typically (there is the rare individual who discovers the truth while in medical school and drops out, for example), and AFTER the education is in place, people have way too much invested in what they've been taught to ask hard questions.

It is up to objective outsiders ("laypersons" to bring the truth to the people. It ain't gonna happen any other way.

Regards,
Nora
www.RawSchool.com

One must go through the exercises of general chemistry, organic chemistry, core biology, microbiology, anatomy & physiology, physics (preferrably with calculus), and statistics to develop critical thinking skills and a strong foundation.

Then one must go further.

It can be done either formally, with an advanced degree in the life sciences or food science, or informally, with an advanced degree in the hard sciences or engineering as an auto-didact, teaching oneself biochemistry and molecular biology and reading papers fiendishly, which is rare but not impossible. Physicians and PAs also have a strong foundation for advanced nutritional topics.

But to assume you have a clue when you have no real understanding of metabolic processes and electron pushing is to make a colossal mistake. You will almost assuredly be lacking in some very critical knowledge. You can't develop a feel for the details that are or are not likely to be true without the strong foundation in the sciences and the state of what is "known," and the more you know, the more skeptical you become.

Alissa is not completely ignorant but she has big gaps. She has the intelligence to fill them. Maybe one day she will decide to do so. But there is probably not sufficient impetus to do so if she if financially successful as is.

the question was referring to being a "reliable raw food advocate".

so arugula, without your prereq's (listed below, in no particular order),
general chemistry
organic chemistry
core biology
microbiology
anatomy & physiology
physics (preferrably with calculus)
statistics
life sciences
food science
biochemistry
molecular biology

the person would not be reliable as a raw food advocate?

further, give an example of the critical knowledge that is necessary (like electron pushing, perhaps?) relating to diet, in order to design said proper diet for oneself and intelligently advise others.

"critical thought doesn't happen DURING the educational process, typically"

Exactly. I see this all the time. Education is typically memorization. This is why it so common to see "educated" people talk crap (on nutrition, for example).

Power to critical thinking!


Gosia


RawGosia channel
RawGosia streams

Yes, I'd prefer advice from somebody who had all of them. But I have to say that the quality of research in nutrition is weak and you have to keep an open mind, even for things that repel you.

Most of the Ph.D.s at my local uni in nutrition/food science are not vegans and there is a reason for that.

I myself had some gaps, I was an applied math type, I had a lot of science but it was mostly hard rather than soft. I am currently working on filling the gaps in soft science.

I tell you the truth, after a few semesters back in school with some filled gaps, it's all a lot clearer. Some of the papers that I'd read years ago are much less opaque now. That second semester of organic was critical for me.

The more you learn and know, the easier it is to continue learning and growing. This is not a bad thing. Also PLOS is making many papers public access so we will all be in a better position to know what really matters soon. There is still the problem of who funds particular studies but it's required to be open about that.

But rather than relying on an "expert" I will suggest that each person makes his or her own effort to learn and understand and make his or her own decisions.

Community colleges are cheap and easy compared to unis and they accept anyone so there really isn't any excuse.

* insert that famous Einstein quote here *



-----------------------------------------

. wisdom is the ensouling of knowledge

. just because someone instructs you that honesty is the best policy, it means
NOTHING until one ensoules it in their own life and it is important for THEM to be honest.

. often, people that have advanced knowledge are really poor examples of applying that knowledge to their own life or to others..it is merely their 'occupation of expertise' in some theoretical construct outside of life - which allows 'experts' to go home and eat Cheetos'...or at a greater extreme...build a better bomb.

. having a wealth of knowledge does prepare one for wisdom as long as they don't continue to decipher everything only through THAT matrix of understanding.

. if one remains a 'skeptic' well 80 years from now the joke is one them. ha!

just my spur of the moment ideas.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/18/2007 03:01AM by anaken.

>One must go through the exercises of general chemistry, organic chemistry, core biology, microbiology, anatomy & physiology, physics (preferrably with calculus), and statistics to develop critical thinking skills and a strong foundation.

Then one must go further.... (etc.)<

I've got an idea. Let's do a poll of all the best mathematicians, chemists, physicists, med students, and so forth and see what they have to say about how to correctly approach the raw food diet. I live near Harvard and MIT; I'll get on it right away! I bet they have some fabulous raw recipes!

;-p Just kidding.

arugula Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Yes, I'd prefer advice from somebody who had all
> of them. But I have to say that the quality of
> research in nutrition is weak and you have to keep
> an open mind, even for things that repel you.

arugula,

well that seems contradictory to me, but it was autodidactic, which is good

you didn't answer my other question, but thanks anyway for your view.

ha, yeah.

I was certainly being gentle on the matter

I once got in a discussion with my uncle (who is a PHD specialist in disease who in fact went to MIT) and I mentioned to him about food combining. To his credit..he didn't dismiss the idea but merely admitted he had NEVER thought that it might matter what types of foods were being digested by the stomach. nevermind any of the specifics about how the body only secretes specific enzymes for certain types of foods at one time. and how it is in fact incapable of processed most of what is considered 'food' for that reason.

then he said...I never eat white bread, except when SHE buys it *points to wife *

yet it is always there.


his cupboards are filled with every processed food imaginable and the bathrooms have so much phrama they could double as a meth lab.

Physics is the only science currently worth taking. It's actually amazing and not misguided with mountains of misinformation.

Chemistry's alright.

Biology is a freaking mess though. I went to school for it. It was so wrong.

I do love the scientific process.

>>Biology is a freaking mess though

The funny thing about biology was how every semester you learned to ignore what you were told the previous semester because it was only half-true.

Regarding the OP, I don't think one needs a science degree to have an opinion worth listening to. Personal experience/experimentation are just as important.

Where a degree would come in handy is in making sense of all the conflicting advice we must sort through. I agree with Arugula that everyone owes it to themselves to learn as much as they can and make your own decisions about diet/lifestyle. Strangely, we also owe it to our epigenome to take care of ourselves so future generations aren't as messed up.

fresh Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> the question was referring to being a "reliable
> raw food advocate".
>
> so arugula, without your prereq's (listed below,
> in no particular order),
> general chemistry
> organic chemistry
> core biology
> microbiology
> anatomy & physiology
> physics (preferrably with calculus)
> statistics
> life sciences
> food science
> biochemistry
> molecular biology
>
> the person would not be reliable as a raw food
> advocate?

Hmm, seems you are saying that anyone with these cridentials is against raw food, not vegan, not vegetarian, and eats SAD, or what have you.

I'd like to think there are many brainy, formally educated people, with these credentials who are indeed into raw food, vegan & vegetarianism, and eating very healthy. And I love to listen to people like this vs. someone who dangerously puts information out there about how they lived on pears (sarcasm) for 3 years, and nothing else, lieing to those who are stupid enough to believe them.

I'm going back to bed now. I'm exthausted! *Said with Sylvester cats lisp*

I like Dr. Stanley Bass's work, because he really did the science. He experimented on himself, on mice, and on a few generations (!) of humans to try to understand what raw combinations work best. His teacher and predecessor, Dr. Gian-Curso, did a lot of rigorous observation, as well, of outcomes over time. Bass isn't into 'dogma' at all, and he seems totally honest in his willingness to pursue the truth regardless of where it takes him.

Sharrhan:


[www.facebook.com]

Rawrrr! Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Hmm, seems you are saying that anyone with these
> cridentials is against raw food, not vegan, not
> vegetarian, and eats SAD, or what have you.
>

no i wasn't saying that at all.

thaa thaa that's all folks!
sufferin' succotash!

Fresh,
We understand what you were saying. The vast majority of formally science-educated people do not think objectively about a topic like diet, because to get to the truth it is necessary to think WAY outside the box, which is not encouraged in our educational system.

It is absolutely not necessary to have a scientific background in order to design a diet that will bring a person to his/her highest health potential. I've done it for myself, for example, with no scientific training at all. It is helpful to understand a bit about biology and chemistry, which I've picked up along the way, but not necessary. The risk in learning these things in school is they teach so much that isn't true that people don't know how to separate the truth from the BS.

Regards,
Nora
www.RawSchool.com

fresh Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Rawrrr! Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> > Hmm, seems you are saying that anyone with
> these
> > cridentials is against raw food, not vegan, not
> > vegetarian, and eats SAD, or what have you.
> >
>
> no i wasn't saying that at all.
>
> thaa thaa that's all folks!
> sufferin' succotash!


Hehe! Ok

Many people believe whatever their professors tell them. A Doctor of Science, won't give you common sense, and yes, some think they are too smart, for their own good. Many of our raw pioneers were & are docs and scientists, tho. As a matter a fact, it seems they "get it" more often then the folks who are uneducated and poverty income bracket, in my experience. Not saying this is a hard and fast rule, tho. It's just some people are very simple minded and can't see outside of the herd.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/18/2007 07:16PM by Rawrrr!.

datesandfigs Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
i didn't think that you
>could be a reliable raw food advocate without some
kind of formal college education..
any thoughts?

Also Arugula wrote:
One must go through the exercises of general chemistry, organic chemistry, core biology, microbiology, anatomy & physiology, physics (preferrably with calculus), and statistics to develop critical thinking skills and a strong foundation.

My view:
There can also be such a thing as an educated fool. Those that are book wise, but not street smart.

Yes, it can be helpful to have a basic or in depth grasp of the sciences, molecular structure and function, etc, but this in itself will not produce a respected authority in a given field worth listening to, including nutrition.
For instance, there are cardiovascular (heart & circulatory system) surgeons and pulmonary (lung) doctors who smoke as if they were a natural human version of a nicotine chimney. Yet these people had years of indepth study on the human body. There are gastroenterologists (digestive system doctors) whose eating habits would make you cringe. Yet they could tell you even in their sleep about the chemistry and detailed aspects of their specialty given their years of training.

On the other hand there may be uneducated John Doe, who barely went past the front door of a school, but who's core belief is to eat foods in their natural state or at least as close to it..without additives nor synthetic chemicals. If this person has been successful in maintaining excellent health, and otherwise lives a life consistent with natural laws, then that is the person I would look up to as an expert, because they are producing results I'm looking for.

Wishing you vibrant health





Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/19/2007 12:05AM by Pistachio.

great post


cheers to happy/healthy (and hella smart!) folks in the poverty income bracket!