or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › Benefits of Eating Raw Food
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Benefits of Eating Raw Food

post #1 of 60
Thread Starter 
The first five posts here are from the thread about raw oysters. The focus there is just raw oysters, as it should be. I posted something related, and it quickly got off topic. So whether it's legal on this forum or not, here are the five posts again, to kick off the topic on the benefit and problems of eating raw food in general.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Splinemodel View Post


. . . food poisoning with raw seafood most often comes from spoiling taking place during the phase between harvesting and the dinner plate.


I frequently eat raw salmon, which is caught and then frozen while still on the ship. (According to the store literature.) I thaw the salmon in a bowl of water, to which I add ten drops of GSE, grapefruit seed extract. GSE kills any bacteria. Never have been sick from it. Raw foods contain important enzymes that are lost in cooking.

I wouldn't recommend eating anything raw but ocean fish. There is a difference between the bacteria in saltwater and freshwater creatures.

Also, if you don't know about GSE, it is one of the most useful things to keep around the house, or to take with you camping or traveling in uncivilized areas. Ten drops to a gallon will kill bacteria from mountain stream water, for example. If you get amoebic dysentery or food poising, drink a glasses of water with 15 drops of GSE added, several times a day, or until symptoms disappear. It is very bitter, but you can add a sweetener like stevia.

post #2 of 60
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by hardeeharhar View Post


Uh, huh... Important enzymes, eh? Ones that miraculously survive digestion? I think you might mean cofactors, but you used the term enzymes, which makes me further believe you don't actually know what you are talking about... There is no nutrient so essential that cooking meat will cause you to lose all sources of it.


". . . you don't actually know what you are talking about . . ." I only know what I read. There are 'digestive' enzymes in raw food which help our bodies digest it. When we cook, the high temperature destroys them, just as enzymes in milk are destroyed by pasteurizing. If you are so well informed about nutrition, please write something that will let me correct my miscomprehension, rather than simply saying I don't know what I'm talking about.

Maybe you are thinking about coenzymes, which are actually vitamins. For some unknown reason, coenzyme Q10 is not referred to as a vitamin, but rather CoQ10.

post #3 of 60
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by e1618978 View Post


A number of medications should not be taken with grapefruit juice itself. These include certain immunosuppressants, cholesterol-lowering drugs, and antihistamines - if in doubt consult a physician.

from wikipedia:

Grapefruit can have a number of interactions with drugs, often increasing the effective potency of compounds. . .


Grapefruit is something to avoid, especially for men. It affects hormones. Also, I avoid any drugs, but prefer natural approaches to healing and keeping well. I guess it works. I was sick only once in the last 10 years, a minor, one day bout with the flu with a 99.5 degree fever. The net result was that I got a little extra sleep.

Back to GSE, which is not grapefruit, but an extract from the seed and pulp I believe. You can find more information on Google, searching 'grapefruit seed extract.' Wikipedia takes a dim view of it, but I know first hand that it works very well.

post #4 of 60
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by hardeeharhar View Post


Enzymes in food do not survive digestion. They don't assist digestion. Those that survive the acid in the stomach are proteolyzed in the gut.


As I said before, I only know what I read. Do you have any reference links I can read? Your view is different from most of what I read so far. Here is what Wikipedia has to say about raw food.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raw_food_diet


Quote:

Ubiquinone (Q10) is not a vitamin. We get all of the q10 we need from bacteria in our digestive track.

I have not read that bacteria produces Q10, so that is new information. Regarding whether it is a vitamin or not, the answer seems to be 'sometimes.' Here is what Wikipedia has to say about Ubiquinone being a vitamin:

Quote:

"Young people are able to make Q10 from the lower numbered ubiquinones such as Q6 or Q8. The sick and elderly may not be able to make enough, thus Q10 becomes a vitamin later in life and in illness."


post #5 of 60
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by hardeeharhar View Post


You cite an article from wiki, a questionable source for such specific information to begin with, that talks about the BELIEFS of people who eat raw food. Beliefs.


I thought the Wikipedia page was fairly balance. It did talk about beliefs in the section on background, but also discussed research. Some of the beliefs are of course invalid, but many were shown to be correct.


Quote:

This article attempts to be balanced but lays out the fact that the raw food benefits you cite are essentially bullshit . . .


Thank you for that link. I thought the article was quite good. Strange how I got an entirely different impression of what was said. Anyone reading this thread and interested in nutrition should read this article, and make up their own mind what it says. What I appreciate is the balance approach they take. Raw foods have benefits, but must be approached with some caution. I think that is the bottom line.

We are very selective what we eat raw. Salt water fish, fruits, nuts, and a few vegetables. We did drink raw milk, but it was banned in Oregon by some over zealous health officials. BTW, if you live in a state that permits raw milk, I would add twelve drops of GSE to each gallon to eliminate contamination, which would be rare, but I lean to the cautious side.

Most vegetables need to be steamed to break down the cellulose, I think it's called, so it can be digested easily. We don't have a stomach like a cow. Also, cooking can eliminate toxic effects of certain plants, like rhubarb and to a lesser extent garlic and onions.

Don't even think about eating any meat raw, except salt water fish.

FYI, the rest of our diet is what we do not eat, or eat in small amounts: starchy vegetables, grains and grain products, refined sugar, all supermarket oils, except virgin olive oil. We also add flax seed oil and fish oil to our diet.


Quote:

. . . the only scientific benefits are associated with the lower fat and salt consumption that comes with many raw only diets, the rest are all placebo-like 'feel-good' that wear off . . .


I've been on a diet like this for a long time. I definitely feel good, and it has not worn off in over ten years now. I must be due for a big crash any time now, right?

post #6 of 60
I'd definitely agree that raw food is vital for well-being, as well as being detrimental to well-being.

Part of the western increase in bowel cancer is linked to the increasing tendency towards highly processed and manufacturered foods with higher additives of uncertain function. Whereas vegetables constitute roughage (cellulose) for a healthy diet, it does so mostly by stimulating regular bowel movement to prevent stasis. This in turn enables bowel hygiene. Fruit and vegetable, raw or slightly cooked, I think most people can grasp this.

Travelling around the Far East last year, I discovered how delicious Japanese sushi is - the Japanese chefs use the best slithers of meat from fish, away from the gut and intestinal parts of the fish. I notice in the literature that the incidence of stomach cancer is also higher in Japanese populations - a reflection of their dietary preoccupation perhaps. Although one wonders with the amount of malachite green toxin in fish nowadays, whether it's possible that the two are linked.

Please don't mention oysters.....I'm going to get post-traumatic stress just thinking about an oyster shucker in my dreams...
post #7 of 60
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Justin View Post


I notice in the literature that the incidence of stomach cancer is also higher in Japanese populations - a reflection of their dietary preoccupation perhaps.


I read it was their liking for many pickled foods. I don't think anyone knows for sure, however.


Quote:

Please don't mention oysters.....I'm going to get post-traumatic stress just thinking about an oyster shucker in my dreams...


Okay. I've been there, eating something that disagreed with me. I could not eat it again for a long time.

BTW, I mentioned eating raw nuts, which are good. However, do not eat raw peanuts. Technically, these are not nuts, and should only be eaten roasted.

post #8 of 60
Quote:
Originally Posted by snoopy View Post

I frequently eat raw salmon, which is caught and then frozen while still on the ship. (According to the store literature.) I thaw the salmon in a bowl of water, to which I add ten drops of GSE, grapefruit seed extract. GSE kills any bacteria. Never have been sick from it. Raw foods contain important enzymes that are lost in cooking.

I wouldn't recommend eating anything raw but ocean fish. There is a difference between the bacteria in saltwater and freshwater creatures.

First off, let me preface anything I say with a short disclaimer: if whatever you're doing as far as health and diet is working for you and you're happy with the results, I'm not going to tell you that something else is better for you. With that said, I actually shy away from raw foods myself. I think sushi is great, but the big caveat is that it can contain parasites, such as tapeworms, flukes, etc. Granted, there are ways of taking care of these, natural and artificial, but I'd rather avoid. I also cook all of the vegetables I eat, since my digestive tract is no good at breaking down cellulose. Also in regard to produce, I try to only eat organic stuff since overfarming has pretty much leeched all the nutrients out of standard, grocery store produce. Unless you need the fiber, it's better to just take a good, daily vitamin.
Cat: the other white meat
Reply
Cat: the other white meat
Reply
post #9 of 60
Quote:
Originally Posted by snoopy View Post

". . . you don't actually know what you are talking about . . ." I only know what I read. There are 'digestive' enzymes in raw food which help our bodies digest it. When we cook, the high temperature destroys them, just as enzymes in milk are destroyed by pasteurizing. If you are so well informed about nutrition, please write something that will let me correct my miscomprehension, rather than simply saying I don't know what I'm talking about.

Maybe you are thinking about coenzymes, which are actually vitamins. For some unknown reason, coenzyme Q10 is not referred to as a vitamin, but rather CoQ10.


Coenzymes are NOT vitamins. Heme, which your body naturally produces is a coenzyme... it is NOT a vitamin... etc...

All vitamins are coenzymes, but the converse is not true.

As outlined in the article I cited in the other thread:

Bone density is diminished in people who eat raw only diets.
The supposed benefit of digestive enzymes IN the food is not real -- people produce 'ample enough enzymes" on their own.
Raw food sometimes CANNOT be absorbed, quite literally contrary to every claim out there that you can more easily absorb raw food...
Vitamin B12 deficiency.
Insufficient calories.
Nutritional deficiencies like:
Low Iron.
Low calcium.
low protein.

The only scientifically proven benefit is something we already know -- low sodium, low fat diets are healthier, but you DON'T NEED TO EAT RAW TO GET THIS BENEFIT.

In other words, snoopy, it is bullshit and carries more proven health risks than benefits...
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
post #10 of 60
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by hardeeharhar View Post


Coenzymes are NOT vitamins. Heme, which your body naturally produces is a coenzyme... it is NOT a vitamin... etc...

All vitamins are coenzymes, but the converse is not true.


Right, but CoQ10 is a vitamin for a large number of people, who's bodies are unable to make it from the lower Q6 or Q8. These are usually the sick and elderly. For them, Q10 is a vitamin. For those who's "body naturally produces" Q10, it is not a vitamin -- using your definition. It's a minor point anyway. What is significant is that many people are unable to make enough CoQ10 and it must be supplemented to stay healthy.


Quote:

As outlined in the article I cited in the other thread:

Bone density is diminished in people who eat raw only diets.
The supposed benefit of digestive enzymes IN the food is not real -- people produce 'ample enough enzymes" on their own.
Raw food sometimes CANNOT be absorbed, quite literally contrary to every claim out there that you can more easily absorb raw food...
Vitamin B12 deficiency.
Insufficient calories.
Nutritional deficiencies like:
Low Iron.
Low calcium.
low protein.


The article cited is very good in my opinion, being very balanced:

http://www.iowasource.com/food/rawfood_0806.html

Some of the problems you cite above are not a result of raw food at all. Some of the problems, such as a deficiency in vitamin B12, are brought about by a vegetarian diet that some raw food enthusiasts follow. Others are caused by ignoring a balanced approach, which the article advocates and so do I. We do not eat many raw vegetables because our body cannot break it down in our digestive track. Steam most vegetables, but some are okay raw.

Low protein can be a problem in any diet, and is not restricted to eating raw food. Saltwater fish can be eaten for protein, for those who are want almost all food to be raw. Vegans eat no animal products, however, and make it difficult on themselves, to get enough protein. We eat cooked meat and eggs for protein. Yes, eggs can be eaten raw, but my wife and son do not do this. Just be sure to wash the shell to avoid contamination. Mix it in a drink.

Regarding your comment that people produce enough enzymes on their own, I say it is like the Q10 issue. Not all people are the same and some are deficient in enzymes. Even for those who produce enough now, eating raw food puts less of a burden on the body. What happens when one of our system is overworked.? It sometimes wears out. Raw food is a step toward preserving our natural digestive system.

The bottom line is we must use our heads when approaching raw food, and take a balanced approach. Fanatics get into trouble in everything it seems -- not just with raw food diets. Raw food can be a large or small part of any diet. Let's face it, most of us seldom cook our apples and oranges.


Quote:

In other words, snoopy, it is bullshit and carries more proven health risks than benefits...


Only the risks that people open themselves up to when they don't use their head. The benefits can be many in my opinion. If your digestive system is pumping out lots of enzymes, and you are not concerned about over taxing it, then cook all your food if you prefer. But saying there are no benefits for anyone else is simply not true. We are all different and should make our own choices, while using our brains of course.

BTW, you made the statement in an earlier post that enzymes are destroyed by acid in the stomach. I have not found this in any of the articles I've read. If you have a link I'd like to see it. I'm open to learn something, but at this point I believe digestive enzymes in raw food do assist digestion.

post #11 of 60
Quote:
Originally Posted by snoopy View Post

However, do not eat raw peanuts. Technically, these are not nuts, and should only be eaten roasted.


What's wrong with raw peanuts?
"If I had played my career hitting singles like Pete (Rose), I'd wear a dress." - Mickey Mantle
Reply
"If I had played my career hitting singles like Pete (Rose), I'd wear a dress." - Mickey Mantle
Reply
post #12 of 60
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Guybrush Threepwood View Post


What's wrong with raw peanuts?


I don't know, and a brief search didn't find anything. It is something I read years ago, and since I never had any intention of eating raw peanuts, I didn't check it out. If anyone likes raw peanuts, check it out before continuing to eat them. That's what I'd do.

post #13 of 60
Quote:
Originally Posted by snoopy

Even for those who produce enough now, eating raw food puts less of a burden on the body. What happens when one of our system is overworked.? It sometimes wears out. Raw food is a step toward preserving our natural digestive system.

No; no it doesn't. You cannot possibly over tax your digestive system unless you were constantly feeding. Your claim that it is less of a burden is unproven. The heating that causes enzymes to break down also breaks down other proteins and DOESN'T prevent you from extracting protein, starches, sugars or fats from your food. The ONLY reasonable suggestion is that ALL diets should have some RAW OR STEAMED VEGETABLES, and ONLY SOME for BETTER sources of vitamins. That being said, vitamin deficiencies are often caused by the genetics of the person rather than the source of food. Supplements of vitamins are more than SUFFICIENT to supply the needed nutrients if they are lacking at all.

Once again, the digestive system isn't like muscles, it doesn't wear out. It can become diseased but it does not wear out. It is not overtaxed by cooked foods. There are no benefits to even a mostly raw diet that cannot be found in diets that reduce fat and salt.

Again. It is a personal preference, but not one that benefits anyone...
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
post #14 of 60
Looks like we got the usual showdown of the experts here fueled by the wealth of knowledge from Wikipedia.
Have you reached any conclusions yet? I'm about to run out for some sushi...

I think we should move on to discussing one of the more difficult subjects such as OS X vs. XP or just home much Apple is better than Dell.
post #15 of 60
What? We are discussing an article which has been cited twice in this thread...
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
post #16 of 60
I expect someone with the name "Hannibal" to join this discussion any minute.
"Good evening, Clarise."

V/R,

Aries 1B
"I pictured myself sitting in the shade of a leafy tree in a public park, a stylus in hand, a shiny Apple Tablet computer in my lap, and a pouty Jennifer Connelly stirring a pitcher of gimlets a...
Reply
"I pictured myself sitting in the shade of a leafy tree in a public park, a stylus in hand, a shiny Apple Tablet computer in my lap, and a pouty Jennifer Connelly stirring a pitcher of gimlets a...
Reply
post #17 of 60
I've read and watched some stuff of wheatgrass juice and its health benefits despite the supposedly horrid smell and taste of the stuff. I'm thinking of having a go at it. Anyone tried it before?
MacBook Pro 15" (Unibody)/2.4GHz Core 2 Duo/2 GB RAM/250GB HD/SuperDrive
iMac 20"/2 GHz Core 2 Duo/2 GB RAM/250 GB/SuperDrive
PowerBook G4 12"/1 GHz/1.25 GB RAM/60GB/Combo
iMac G3 333 MHz/96 MB...

Reply
MacBook Pro 15" (Unibody)/2.4GHz Core 2 Duo/2 GB RAM/250GB HD/SuperDrive
iMac 20"/2 GHz Core 2 Duo/2 GB RAM/250 GB/SuperDrive
PowerBook G4 12"/1 GHz/1.25 GB RAM/60GB/Combo
iMac G3 333 MHz/96 MB...

Reply
post #18 of 60
The Jamba Juice stuff is pretty good. It's like a tequila shot. Use the orange slice at the end and all is well!
"If I had played my career hitting singles like Pete (Rose), I'd wear a dress." - Mickey Mantle
Reply
"If I had played my career hitting singles like Pete (Rose), I'd wear a dress." - Mickey Mantle
Reply
post #19 of 60
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by DanMacMan View Post


I've read and watched some stuff of wheatgrass juice and its health benefits despite the supposedly horrid smell and taste of the stuff. I'm thinking of having a go at it. Anyone tried it before?


It is reputed to be very good for you. A juice bar will squeeze about an ounce of fresh grass. Very strong taste, but can be mixed with another juice to make it palatable.

post #20 of 60
Thread Starter 
For those who haven't yet tired of this discussion.

Here's an article explaining raw food fairly well. It is slightly commercialized, but you can skip that stuff if you are not interested. The replies I make below will be taken from this article.

http://www.mercola.com/2004/apr/28/raw_food_diets.htm

Quote:
Originally Posted by hardeeharhar View Post


You cannot possibly over tax your digestive system unless you were constantly feeding. Your claim that it is less of a burden is unproven.


"There are many health-promoting compounds and factors in whole, unbroken raw foods that we do not exactly or fully understand, even given all our scientific and technical advances. Dr. Price demonstrated this when he showed that butter from cows grazing on fast-growing grasses during a specific time period in the spring of the year contained a compound, not present at other times, that improved health, bone density and healing, much more effectively than cod liver oil alone. The compound, labeled Activator X, has still not been isolated."

Quote:
The heating that causes enzymes to break down also breaks down other proteins and DOESN'T prevent you from extracting protein, starches, sugars or fats from your food.

"Cooked food increases white blood cell count. Swiss researchers in the 1930s found that eating unaltered raw food or food heated at low temperatures did not cause a reaction in the blood, whereas food heated beyond a certain temperature, or refined, chemicalized or processed food always caused a rise in the white blood cell counts. This phenomenon was named pathological leukocytosis. The worst offenders, not surprisingly, were the high heat processed foods, including beer, refined carbohydrates such as white flour and rice, and homogenized, pasteurized or preserved foods."

Quote:
That being said, vitamin deficiencies are often caused by the genetics of the person rather than the source of food. Supplements of vitamins are more than SUFFICIENT to supply the needed nutrients if they are lacking at all.


"Taking supplements of isolated nutrients combined in a pill or capsule is not the same as getting nutrition from whole, natural, live foods. Even if the essential nutrients are included, nutritional supplements are almost always acidic, whereas live foods, especially greens, are alkalinizing."

"Theres no question about it, the body does better on whole, live, natural foods, from animal and vegetable sources, especially if they are organically grown. One study at Rutgers found that organic produce had an average of 83 percent more nutrients. Besides having higher nutrient density, being more sustainable and more harmonious to the earth and our bodies, this food tastes better--and helps us keep in balance more easily."

Thus far we have been discussing the general health benefits of raw food. The article I've been quoting also discusses the medical benefits.


"Live foods have also been used as a powerful healing treatment. Even as far back as 500 B.C., the wise teacher Pythagoras used raw foods to heal people with poor digestion. Throughout Europe and also here in the United States, completely live food and juice diets have been used to heal a variety of ailments, from arthritis, high blood pressure, diabetes, ulcers, heart and circulatory diseases to cancer and other degenerative diseases."

"Dr. Edward Szekely, for example, saw over 123,600 patients, 17 percent of who were diagnosed medical "incurables" over a 33-year period from 1937 to 1970 at his clinic at Rancho La Puerta, Mexico. Over 90 percent regained full health on a live-food diet."

Bottom line is that with all our scientific knowledge today, there are many things in nature we simply do not understand. When we tinker with our food supply, we tinker with things that are vital to our life. Do we trust trust those who make statements things like, "There is not significant difference between . . . ?" You fill in the blanks. The government at times is our worst enemy in a fight to stay healthy. Under the guise of protecting us they often deprive us of natural compounds essential to good health or life itself. Too many die too soon for lack of knowledge. Just my little rant about staying alive.

post #21 of 60
A lot of that is debunked nonsense...

1) There is no increase in white blood cell (pathological leukocytosis) count after eating properly prepared foods -- there is never a citation to this study anyway as if it doesn't exist or is obscure. In fact, you will only see this if the foods are not cooked.

2) Unidentified factors coming from a herbivore eating grass at a very specific time of year speaks to the legitimacy and scientific repeatability of these results -- ie they are either an experimental artifact or complete crap. And given that this butter was so beneficial, one has to wonder whether why these vultures aren't marketing this already... screams of bullshit.

3) Acidifying and alkanizing foods... BULLSHIT! snoopy, you clearly have no understanding of biology. Our body is buffered, primarily through phosphate, but also through a variety of other protonateable groups. You cannot possibly change the pH of the fluids in your body by eating food -- the buffering capacity is just that great and our body responds to pH changes very rapidly. this concept screams wholistic unsupported bullshit. cooking food does not change the products into which that food is metabolized, meaning a cooked piece of fish is going to have the same propensity for changing the ph of your body fluids as an uncooked piece of fish. regardless... our stomach is pH 1... taking supplements which are absorbed in the stomach or even the colon that are "acidic" isn't going to appreciably change this pH...

4) Wait... Organic or raw? You have ben suckered into this diet, I think.

5) Ancient knowledge isn't accurate or reasonable knowledge... Pythagoras probably also believed that you vital spirits are held in the humors...

6) OOOH... you finish with the classic FUD statement... the g-man's gonna get you and those scientist, they don't know anything... shut the fuck up. you aren't one to judge anything. you have demonstrated a shear lack of critical thinking in this and the other thread; i should have realized this when you said you only know what you read...

THEN READ:
Read Me!
No, read me!
NO! READ ME!
NO! READ US ALL!

And before you go off proselytizing your next cause-du-jour check out:
Main site

I am done here... Enjoy living with your quackery...
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
post #22 of 60
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by hardeeharhar View Post


I am done here... Enjoy living with your quackery...


I sense we we have irreconcilable differences of opinion here.

Yes, I only know what I read, which goes for most of us. There are so many differing opinions out there that it's difficult to know who to believe. Whose advice do we follow when the experts disagree? When I really don't know, I look at the risk I take by following one or the others advice. Just a thought.

I sense you believe those with the highest reputations, who are in general agreement with their colleagues and most noted professional organizations. I, on the other hand, look to both the recognized experts and the mavericks. If there is something worth knowing, I want to know it and don't care where it comes from. So you are right that much of what I believe is unproven. I want the advantage of this knowledge during the 20 years or so it takes the experts to discover it is true. I'll live with the risks, but be cautious about what I accept.

Such differences of opinion are easy for me to accept. You go your way and I'll go mine, and we can still be friendly. 75 percent of my close friends don't believe me and don't want my opinions about health. That's okay, I don't share my knowledge with them unless they ask for it. I might venture a remark like, "Do you want to know what I think?" On a forum like this, no one is forced to read any of this stuff.

The only problem I have with difference of opinions is enforcement, like regulations that prohibit me from buying and eating what I want. If things get bad enough, I may need to investigate the freedom allowed in other nations. New Zealand is one that comes to mind.

Yes, there are those in power who think everyone should do it their way and only their way. Therefore, we who want to follow a different road must fight for this right. If it were not for the many who are willing to take regulatory agencies to court, we would not be free to buy half the supplements on the market today, which includes many of the most important. I understand it is worse elsewhere, and I really feel for those who must live there yet yearn to be different.

Those on one end of the population are happy with a great deal of regulation. Those on the other end want the freedom to buy what they wish. Those in the middle don't care. Almost no one on either end wants either total control or total freedom, but the distinction between the end groups is very clear. I'm in the freedom group obviously.

I'll give one personal example. My wife suffered from debilitating symptoms for over ten years, and has seen about ten different doctors with no help. A year ago she got on an internet health forum, and discovered her diagnosis: adrenal fatigue and hypothyroidism. She searched and found one doctor in Portland who sounded like he could help. He changed her diet, prescribed some new supplements and put her on a natural T3/T4 hormone. I'm glad we found a doctor, considered a Quack by some I'm sure, who knows what to do. The other doctors saw the same lab test results, but did not interpret them correctly. Even the endocrinologists were worthless. She is now slowly recovering, after years or neglect by the 'recognized' medical profession, who all followed 'recognized' medical protocol.

In your opinion I "have demonstrated a shear lack of critical thinking," yet I really do "enjoy living with my quackery." I recommend it.

post #23 of 60
I don't believe that people with the highest repute are the most correct, but consensus and sound scientific evidence goes much much further when making statements with certainty. There is NO proof that a balanced raw food diets are any better for you than a balanced cooked food diet. But more than that, there isn't even a smidgeon of evidence to suggest it. Citing debunked 'research' or archaic theories to support your diet just makes you look like a fool.
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
post #24 of 60
What's this about not eating raw vegetables?

I'm well aware that we can't break down cellulose, but what we don't break down passes through the body. We can break down other parts of the vegetables just fine... you know... the parts with the vitamins and nutrients we need? We don't need the cellulose, and having it pass through is just fine.

Don't we all eat salads here? Spliney, you don't eat salad? I thought all Americans ate salad...

I couldn't survive without salad. It's tough enough in Hong Kong where it's really hard to find a good salad, though.

And I love eating raw broccoli, cauliflower, carrots, celery (lots of cellulose there), even cabbage.

And the benefits of raw garlic are well known (what's this about toxicity?) Of course, we need to make sure we aren't offending anyone with our breath. LOL.

I am also aware that raw vegetables need to be thoroughly cleaned because of contaminants, and that even with cleaning, you might not be able to wash all the bad stuff away. That's my only deterrent from eating even more raw vegetables...
post #25 of 60
Oh... and I also LOVE sushi, and eat it about twice a month, sometimes more sometimes less.

I eat raw oysters a couple times a year, but never overdo it. I think the most I can eat at one sitting is about four medium-sized oysters. I usually just have two though.

And I also LOVE beef carpaccio and ESPECIALLY steak tartar, though I don't have much chance to eat it.

And nothing beats a steak at Ruth's Chris served extra rare... melt in the mouth. But that's kind of out of my price range...
post #26 of 60
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by hardeeharhar View Post


I don't believe that people with the highest repute are the most correct, but consensus and sound scientific evidence goes much much further when making statements with certainty. There is NO proof that a balanced raw food diets are any better for you than a balanced cooked food diet.


All true. Many time I must make up my mind when there is no sound scientific evidence supporting one of the alternatives. Often I just try it and play guinea pig. I'm surprised how often the experiment succeeds, and I begin to feel better. I find this is a good way to adjust natural hormone usage too. I change the level. If I don't improve I go back to the old level. If I begin to feel better, I continue for about 12 weeks, tell the doctor and have my levels checked. So far he has said to keep doing it.


Quote:

But more than that, there isn't even a smidgeon of evidence to suggest it. Citing debunked 'research' or archaic theories to support your diet just makes you look like a fool.


I don't mind looking like a fool if it works. But I'm also not convinced anything was debunked from what I read. I'll have to look into it more in the future, however, just to satisfy myself and to be able to answer questions more intelligently.

I see that Quackwatch debunks all opposition to fluoridating the public water supply. Nice. I wonder what those in the EU think about that. From what I hear, the EU does not even allow public fluoridation of water. Quackwatch also debunks opposition to using mercury amalgam dental fillings. Those writing act like these are not controversial issues, but well proven and safe practices. I don't believe it. If it makes me a fool, so be it. Quack, quack.

post #27 of 60
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post


And nothing beats a steak at Ruth's Chris served extra rare... melt in the mouth. But that's kind of out of my price range...


Tonton, you have good taste. I love rare steak. The short grilling kills any bacteria on the surface. Don't eat rare ground meat, since the bacteria are thoroughly mix in.

Regarding raw vegetables, the typical salad varieties are fine and we eat lots of salads here. I was speaking of those who try to eat all or most all raw food. Many vegetables should not be eaten raw, like potatoes. Even so, it is a trade off between the taste and texture of things like tomatoes, onions, garlic, broccoli and carrots, and the added nutrients released when these are cooked or steamed. Other vegetables are just better cooked or steamed, like all forms of beans and corn.

By the way, you might like Pinnacle Peaks Patio, outside Phoenix, Arizona, if it is still there. Twenty miles of dirt road and there it is, surrounded by twenty miles of cactus. If you wear a tie, they sneak up and cut it off, but give you an Arizona lariat, or what ever it is called, to go around your collar. They ask, how do you want it? All stakes are the same, and two pounds. You get a prize for eating it all. They have lots of doggy bags however.

post #28 of 60
Quote:
Originally Posted by snoopy View Post

I see that Quackwatch debunks all opposition to fluoridating the public water supply. Nice. I wonder what those in the EU think about that. From what I hear, the EU does not even allow public fluoridation of water. Quackwatch also debunks opposition to using mercury amalgam dental fillings. Those writing act like these are not controversial issues, but well proven and safe practices. I don't believe it. If it makes me a fool, so be it. Quack, quack.


The EU states nothing explicitly about fluoridation... however where the member nations lack fluoridation of water they use fluoridated salts so practically nothing is different. The amount of mercury leaking from amalgam fillings is less than the amount you get from eating fish from almost any natural source... You seem to have a fear of chemicals, is there something you would like to ask a chemist (one of my several scientific hats)?
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
post #29 of 60
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by hardeeharhar View Post


The EU states nothing explicitly about fluoridation. . . The amount of mercury leaking from amalgam fillings is less than the amount you get from eating fish from almost any natural source. . .


Fluoridation and mercury amalgam dental fillings are just two controversial issues supposedly being debunked. The debunkers can give the impression that the opposition consists of uninformed folks who fear anything new or different. Not so. The opponents include a large number of very concerned scientists, many from prestigious universities around the world. So I am not impressed by your simple answers here. Google can yield detailed reasons for wanting to avoid such things, if anybody is interested. Regarding fluoridation, a quick look at Google turned up this page with some references:

http://www.fluoridation.com/abstract.htm

One in particular caught my eye. An EPA employee was pressured to write into the drinking water regulation a statement that the EPA considers it okay for children to have discolored teeth because it is only a cosmetic effect, and does not affect health. It seems the EPA was under political pressure to set its standard for fluoride higher. One thing lead to another, and EPA employees union ultimately organize to fight fluoridation completely, as more and more data on fluoridation became available. The article can be found here:

http://www.fluoridation.com/epa2.htm

A simple answer exists for many issues, including why cooked foods are just as healthy as raw foods, but when scientists dig deeper I've noticed it gets more complicated. Many times it takes years to discover the truth. What do we do until then? For myself, I act on incomplete knowledge to find the safest and most beneficial route.

Why should I expose myself to potential dangers, which may turn out to be real dangers when we know more? It does not hurt me or my children if there is no fluoride in Portland's drinking water. We visit a good dentist often enough to catch any problems early, which have been very few. Usually it's just cleaning the teeth.

Likewise, why should I deprive myself of most raw foods and many supplements and herbs that haven't been proven, yet, to be beneficial? It's just my personal preference to act this way, and so far no one has come up with a good enough reason for me to change.

BTW, my wife is an RN, and when we got married everything went by the book, like the Merck Manual. Since her episode with adrenal fatigue and low thyroid, however, she has turned against 'recognized' medicine, and is now open to whatever works best.

Another BTW, I would have no objection to fluoridated salt, if non-fluoridated salt is also available. That way there is freedom of choice. I don't want the government forcing just one approach onto everybody. You're a chemist. I understand it is relatively easy to remove chlorine from drinking water, but is very difficult to remove fluoride. Let me know if I'm mistaken.

post #30 of 60
This whole fluoridation thing is hilarious to me.

I grew up in a city that didn't have to add any fluoride because the water was already naturally fluoridated.

That's right.

In the >100,000 person population of my city there was NO increase in any disease people propose as possibly maybe being caused by flouridation... It just doesn't happen. Some overly hydrated kids had brownish teeth, but the rate of carries was far far lower than other nearby cities...

Chlorine isn't chloride as fluorine isn't fluoride. The antimicrobial 'chlorine' agent breaks down to volatile compounds thus allowing it to evaporate naturally from sitting water. Fluoride is a negatively charged atom which like chloride is all but impossible to evaporate...


Regardless, the government doesn't force you to drink city water -- it provides it as a service. Just like public transportation, you can choose not to use it...
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
post #31 of 60
well for a so-called scientist to dismiss all the evidence about fluoridation of the water supply and its devastating effects only proves that he has had far too much exposure to fluoridated water and a perfect example of why fluorinated water should be a capital crime.

As for this so called 'choice' to drink it - what a joke - as always its the people who are the least educated and least able to 'chose' (ie afford) an alternative and who are least able to afford the subsequent health care to pay for the problem who are fucked over by this criminal act, just like it is with the 'choice' of safe food vs chemical junk.

FFS, the Nazi's and communists hatched plans to fluorinate the water supplies of countries specifically because it turns the populace into mental mush.

Is there a link? Fluorinated water - mental mush. America - population. Hmmm.
post #32 of 60
What diseases?
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
post #33 of 60
Quote:
Independent scientific evidence repeatedly showing up over the past 50 years reveals that fluoride allegedly shortens our life span, promotes cancer and various mental disturbances, accelerates osteoporosis and broken hips in old folks, and makes us stupid, docile, and subservient, all in one package.

I dont care whether its specifically labelled as a disease or not.

Mental diseases...stupidity...docile...subservient...

Thats precisely why some people want us flouridated, thats precisely why the practise should be a crime.
post #34 of 60
Does it now?

Any proof you care to offer?

Or are you just going to keep using that well copied verse?

Flouride is mildly toxic. You would have to injest quite a bit to suffer adverse effects...

If you really want to read up on the science behind fluoride uptake and loss, here:

http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?re...=11571&page=89

It is a book chapter page by page... Lots of technical jargon, well cited...
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
post #35 of 60
Quote:
Originally Posted by hardeeharhar View Post

Does it now?

Any proof you care to offer?

Or are you just going to keep using that well copied verse?

Flouride is mildly toxic. You would have to injest quite a bit to suffer adverse effects...

If you really want to read up on the science behind fluoride uptake and loss, here:

http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?re...=11571&page=89

It is a book chapter page by page... Lots of technical jargon, well cited...

I suspect you would ingest quite a bit if you'd been drinking the fluorinated water for 80 years from birth.

I guess the Nazi's just wanted to keep the polish kids teeth from decaying?

As you know, I love Science - but 'Science' in connection with pharmaceuticals, medicine and military use is ususally perverted beyond recognition. It isn't Science at all - it is PR bollocks masquerading as Science with the intent to make $$$

I'd trust my mothers 'old wives tales' over a pharma company.

You might think this silly - but why are many many deciding not to trust the pharmaceutical companies??? Its definately a growing problem and its IMO because we can see through the real intent of their PR 'Science' - and that intent is not to make us better, it is to get us to buy their drugs - and increasingly become addicted or dependant on their drugs.
post #36 of 60
Many are not trusting pharma companies because they are corporations; profit is the bottom line. I don't trust them. Hell, I think their business model and procedures for developing drugs are borderline inane, but that doesn't mean I don't trust the science they do (if they actually do any science)...

As you know marc, dosage is critical when talking about well anything consumed... you probably have drunk enough alcohol to kill yourself several times over by now, but remarkably you aren't dead... Fluorine is eliminated from adult humans in a few hours -- kidney impairment aside...

For the sake of full disclosure, while I think people tend to overblow the significance of these and other chemicals on their lives and don't properly consider the balance between our current state and the alternatives, I don't swallow my toothpaste, if I ever need a filling I will ask that it not be a mercury amalgam, and for whatever reason I am not naturally inclined to drinking tap water... Meh. In addition, I don't eat mammals so my intake of growth hormones is far lower than average.

In most cases fluorine in the water is completely safe, this much is scientifically proven. The effects of too much fluorine are being investigated and the jury is still out... Environment and genetics plays obviously a role in this and responses to all chemicals, whether percieved to come from natural sources or man made (there is no difference)...

My most pressing concern about the water supply is the growing number of detectable pharmaceuticals, especially hormone based ones, in the water supply... And this has nothing to do with the government and will blow up in our face more than the fluoride scare...
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
post #37 of 60
Quote:
Originally Posted by Guybrush Threepwood View Post

What's wrong with raw peanuts?

It's the cyanide content in peanuts which isn't good for your co-enzyme factors struggling to make sense of the peanut. Same thing with almonds. The sulphur compounds (sulfur? for States guys) in overcooked broccoli also poses a liver challenge. Nothing fatal, but not ideal if you're trying to reduce the amount of free-radicals in your body. That's one reason why raw foods (other than nuts) can be helpful - high in antioxidants (e.g. Vitamin C) which mop up the free radicals.
Quote:

My most pressing concern about the water supply is the growing number of detectable pharmaceuticals, especially hormone based ones, in the water supply... And this has nothing to do with the government and will blow up in our face more than the fluoride scare...

And the pharmaceutical companies will counter that some of the high hormone levels are due to women flushing their spent tampons in the toilet, causing a rise of oestrogen (estrogen for you States guys?) in the water. This 'oestrogenisation' in the water is also speculated to contribute to rising rates of male infertility.

PS - why are some of you guys behaving post-menopausal in the attitude of your posts?
post #38 of 60
Interesting...
"If I had played my career hitting singles like Pete (Rose), I'd wear a dress." - Mickey Mantle
Reply
"If I had played my career hitting singles like Pete (Rose), I'd wear a dress." - Mickey Mantle
Reply
post #39 of 60
Quote:
Originally Posted by Justin View Post

And the pharmaceutical companies will counter that some of the high hormone levels are due to women flushing their spent tampons in the toilet, causing a rise of oestrogen (estrogen for you States guys?) in the water. This 'oestrogenisation' in the water is also speculated to contribute to rising rates of male infertility.

Maybe, but I worked in a sewage treatment plant for a bit and the wastewater goes through some serious filtration: mechanical and chemical. I don't know how resilient estrogen hormones are in the presence of chlorine and/or bleach.
Cat: the other white meat
Reply
Cat: the other white meat
Reply
post #40 of 60
More resilient than bacteria...
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: AppleOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › Benefits of Eating Raw Food