Kirt:
>>Having long been "troubled" by the relative unattractiveness of both
>>domesticated and (esp) wild vegetables, I am seriously wondering if
>>cooked veggies may have been (are?) useful in the human diet. Three
>>things have stirred my particular stew on the matter: Christian's post
>>about the snail-eating kid who would eat cooked veggies above all else
>>at times, ideas in Pt.2 of Ward's H&B interview, and the overboard NFL
>>line that "cooked foods are poison" (supported by Bob Avery
>>apparently). What bothers me is that I pretty much agree, though I
>>would come in as "cooked food is not as useful as raw food" but it
>>still shouldn't be a sacred cow, so to speak. Do I really believe in
>>such simplicity? Granted it is attractively simple, but still.(BTW,
>>I'm mostly talking here about the infamous leafy greens we are all
>>supposed to be scarfing down, not so much tubers or fruit-
>>vegetables...)

Peter:
>Excellent points. Many raw food advocates would agree with you that
>steamed greens are not poisons and are a good additions to a mainly raw
>diet.

Kirt:
Let's hear from some of them! (Kirt says whistling electronically because
he can not do so by placing two fingers strategically on his teeth and
blowing...)

Peter:
>When it comes to steamed vegetables. I do not think that Mallaird=EDs
>molecules is a major issue, as cooked fats & proteins are the main
>culprits when it comes to denatured, cooked molecules. I have a friend
>who gets clear & strong taste stops when cooked foods are eaten one of
>the time.

I was hoping you wouldn't say that! ;) Cooked _foods_? Not just veggies,
but AF, tubers, grains, everything?

>Kirt:
>>In simpler terms, is there a value in, say, broccoli that would be
>>useful to me, but that I don't get because raw broccoli is
>>unattractive for the most part (the stalks maybe, but the tops never).
>>Would steamed broccoli be better than no broccoli (which is about how
>>much I've eaten this last year)?
>
>Since many raw food eaters tend to not eat enough green vegetables
>maybe eating some of them steamed will help them (re)connect more
>easily to these foods. If the taste and stop signals work well with
>steamed vegetables it could be a strong indication that they are indeed
>optimal to eat.

Yes yes! Have any veg-rawers returned to simply cooked veggies and found
their health improved?

>Kirt:
>>Whether one's diet should be based on the instinctive stop or not at
>>every meal is arguable, but one must respect that there are very
>>clear stops for RAF, and be able to explain them away somehow
>>(especially if they are not willing to try them personally) if RAF is
>>"bad for us".
>
>A powerful argument which I have yet to see a vegan response to.

Dont' hold your breath, eh? Heard an interesting story from a long-time raw
fellow who, before including RAF in his diet, consumed huge amounts of
broccoli with pleasure. But after including RAF, the broccoli pretty much
lost its appeal.

Can you tell that I really want the "answer" to the veggie conundrum to be
a RAF and fruit diet more than one that includes steamed veggies? :) Why
should it matter to me, I wonder? Just to keep the all raw ideal alive? I
need a brainstem enema :)

>Kirt:
>>Whatever else our technology has wrought us (in terms of cooking,
>>increased animal food %'s, etc.) we seem to have become even more
>>omnivorous. Guy-Clad and others have argued that the exact %'s of our
>>original diet should be quantifiable as is commonly done with other
>>species, and, while this sounds fine in principle (like much of
>>antihero argument)
>
>What is the antihero argument?

Sorry! _anthropology_ or _anthro_ (I think) not antihero... What _would_
the "antihero" argument be if it wasn't a typo? :) Perhaps something along
the lines of The Last American Hero (a Shwartzeneger movie that flopped by
I kinda liked actually)?

Cheers,
Kirt