RAW-FOOD Archives

Raw Food Diet Support List

RAW-FOOD@LISTSERV.ICORS.ORG

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Denis PEYRAT <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Sun, 30 Mar 1997 10:49:57 +0100 (GMT)
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (88 lines)
I would like to react to this article in my ever euphemistic tone. Clearly
the only fermented foods that raw fooders should allow themselves is
unassisted fermentation, exemples of which are fermented coconut drinks,
fermeneted palm oil, fermented fruits under the fruit trees, fermented comb
honey...Not at all the kind of stuff that we are hereunder brought to
consider as potentially edible.

>ON FERMENTED FOODS
>Alternate Title: On the Definition of Living Foods - Prelude

The term living food is a most unfortunate one. One which can lead to
useless misunderstnding on account of its elusiveness. Foe even if a "living
corpse" might be more dead than alive, a "corpse" initself and under all
circumstances is made up entirely of living materials, capable of giving life.
I perfectly understand the rationale behind disguising the rawness of the
"raw diet" with elegant periphrases such as "living food diet",  "biogenic
diet" or "instinctotherapy". Wigmore popularized the concept of "Living
Food" as a response to the negative feedback she probably received in the
beginning, and to be fair, because she probably thought the concept of "raw
food" did not include other categories of foods such as Artificially
Fermented Foods (AFF).

Personally, I use the terms raw fooder/crudivore whenever I can use them
without interference, in order not to use the terms "living food",
"instinctos" (the latter  one being a trademark anyway). And I use them
because they are easier and shorter for me to say. People like to refer to
us as "raw  fooder/crudivores "
. Just think about the Methodist society. That world "methodist" was a
reproach in the mouth of the XIXth c. american. SAme for the quakers and the
shakers at the onset of these great religious movements. Everybody called
these names through reproach. But the situation has changed now,  I guess as
a consequence of their success...

>Fermented raw foods, such as raw sauerkraut, pickles, seed "cheese", rejuvelac,
>sprout milk yogurt, and even raw miso, raw soy sauce, are important foods for
>many raw fooders.

No thank you. I've already had that sort of thing during  my (very short)
macrobiotic trip

>Note that only lacto-bacillus based FF are of interest; yeast based FF
(e.g., alcoholic drinks) are ruled out
>and are not relevant.

That looks to me like unjustified ostracism. Either you reject all or you
accept all.

Tom :
>  In a FF, the base food eventually dies; ultimately, the only living part is
>  the bacteria culture that is growing on the base food. It is thus reasonable
>  to ask: does a living bacteria culture on a dead/dying base qualify as a
>  "living food"?

I would have thought the answer to be rather obvious to a raw eater...

>My personal evaluation of fermented foods is that they can be useful in a raw/
>living foods diet, provided one uses them in modest quantities. Their primary
>advantage is that they allow one to eat certain raw vegetables, like cabbage,
>and avoid the painful flatulence that can otherwise occur.

The flatulence is no disgrace. It 's just a manifestation  of the relative
unedibility of cabbage and it's high toxic content (most notably goitrogenic
compounds ... )

> Additionally, they may be helpful to people with impaired digestion. Their
>biggest drawback is that they are acid-forming, and it is easy to overeat them, due to their taste.
>They also stimulate digestion, which is a plus for many people, and a minus for
>others. Also, they are some work to prepare.

>If one is not concerned with whether FF are living foods or not, then the most
>important factor in deciding whether to consume them, is how you react to them
>when you eat them. If the reaction is bad, avoid them, if it is good then there
>is no problem.  Here reaction refers to both the immediate effect and longer
>term effects, as well as side effects
>
Fermented cabbage should be reserved to populations where either cabbage is
a natioanl dish (Korea, Finland) or where it constitutes a staple for lack
of any other agricultural alterantives  (Bhutan); we have  so many other
things to eat that whatever quantity of cabbage we eat by instinct, we will
not have to bear the significant drawbacks following from the consumption of
cooked and/or fermented cabbage.

Likewise for fermented soja and co.

Cheers
Denis


ATOM RSS1 RSS2