"Kirt Nieft" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> Bruce:
> > Provide some evidence. I have many sources that say the
> > nuts mentioned will sprout. Shelled peanuts, macadamias,
> > cashews, and hazelnuts will not.
>
> If you want to believe the pistashios or Brazil nuts you
> are eating are "truly raw" go ahead. I have no reason to
> research them for you. I don't think it matters that much.

I didn't ask you to research them for me. I asked to know
your method for determining that truly raw nuts are almost
impossible to obtain "without much effort". I can purchase
un-shelled "raw" pistachios (and the usual roasted salted
variety) within 2 miles of my house. Also "raw" almonds,
brazils, pecans, and walnuts. In or out of the shell.

> > I get stops with raw and cooked food. I think most other
> > people do too... We can explain changes in our
> > appetite with more complex theories.
>
> It's hardly worth having a debate about because there
> nothing much but theories and no "proof".

No proof of what? That our taste and appetite change
for reasons other than eating raw or cooked foods?

> The experience of myself and other people provides abundant
> counter-examples plenty to that theory. ...why I don't
> post much, and try to keep it simple. ;)

Saying raw food has more stop than heated food does not
fit the available facts. I have less stop for eating raw
eggs than fried or hard-boiled. Not many could over-eat
ground beef or spare ribs either. Lean meat has no stop,
either way. It causes protein toxicity and an insatiable
appetite even among primitive eskimos. Do we not have a
few exceptions and qualifications there?

> > you have > > not explained the phenomena to any degree.
>
> I don't have an explanation. I am only saying that truly raw nuts are
> harder to eat--they stop faster and more vividly. The same is true for
> honey, fish, meat, bone marrow, etc.

You have made a generality. My experience contradicts it.
Perhaps for you and a few other people, "truly raw" food
always has more stop. I stop faster with cooked meat and
eggs than raw. I stop faster with heated honey than from
unheated or comb honey. But who cares if a food has more
stop or less? Maybe less is better sometimes.

> > If you mean to
> > imply that cooked food has less nutritional value or causes
> > health problems (including obesity), you've failed to make
> > your case.
>
> I didn't mean to imply anything but what I said. You'll
> have to debate the above with someone else I guess.

Thanks for clarifying. But who cares if food has more or
less stop? Every person reacts uniquely to the same food.
And less stop might allow us to gain more health.

> > The apparent inference did not sit well. Perhaps
> > you mention it for other reasons than to create insecurity?
>
> Insecurity? I mentioned that raw nuts have a more pronounced stop.
> That's it. Nothing about the evils of cooked food, obesity, nutritional
> value, etc.

Saying most "raw" nuts are not "truly raw" seems like
Fear, Uncertainty & Doubt to me. Correct me if wrong,
but wouldn't "truly raw" nuts sprout while nuts heated
above, say, 118-122F would not sprout? Easy enough for
us to check, right?

> > Neither I nor 99.99999% of the world's population follow
> > Instincto.
>
> Me neither. So what?

The theory that raw food has more of a stop comes from
the Instincto/Anopsology belief system. It mainly seems
to apply to plant-based foods that have natural toxins
(nuts, seeds, vegetables). If we pre-digest nuts, this
stop might vanish along with the toxins. This explains
the facts without reference to raw-ness.

> > ...The amount of food required to get a stop is a SIGN.
> > Nothing more. One can interpret it however they want. You
> > can say cooked food has less nutritional value, so it does
> > not satisfy as quickly. ...I can say that cooking destroys
> > toxins in raw foods (esp plant-based ones). I can say that
> > destroying toxins lets us eat more while the toxins in raw
> > food force us to eat less.
>
> Read my posts over again. I mentioned that raw nuts stop harder.
> Nothing more. Eat what you want. Please.

I see things in a wider context than any one person's
messages or ideas. I understand you didn't ascribe any
value to the experience of a stop. But the distinction
implies a value relationship, does it not? Otherwise,
as I said, who cares about less stop? If cooked food
is NOT categorically fattening or disease-causing, we
don't have to worry about getting a stop.

Regards,
Bruce