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:
Jean-Louis Tu <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Raw Food Diet Support List <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Fri, 23 Oct 1998 13:40:02 +0200
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (89 lines)
Wes,

> Many raw foodists get very strong cravings for starches, and eat them cooked.
> Many don't realize that they
>  can, and should, be eaten raw. This is another
> reason which helps explain why people end up binging on sweet fruits - which
> itself has big time repercussions due to the sugars, etc.. And yes, this is
> a big reason why many of these (fruitarian) "raw gurus" are binging on
> cooked foods (starches) in secret, or binging on fruits. There is a bigger
> picture here, and I believe I've isolated it. The reason is NOT a "need"
> for cooked food, nor is it "cooked food addiction", in most cases.

I wouldn't call that a cooked food addiction (in the case the only
cooked foods they eat are starches), but a carbohydrate
addiction. Sweet fruits and cooked starches give a quick boost of
energy, but that lasts only a couple of hours, and then you feel
sleepy in the afternoon if you had a heavy meal.

> As far as I'm concerned, cooked starches are toxic until proven otherwise.
> I personally have had the experience of skin eruptions and sinus congestion
> correlating with cooked starch ingestion (such as boiled or baked tubers).

As you may know, some tubers contain some mild toxins (potatoes
contain solanine and chaconine, etc), independently of being cooked or
not. That might be an explanation. May I ask you which tubers caused
skin eruptions and sinus congestion? You say:

> This evening, I had a meal of all raw sunflower seeds, a sweet potato, beet,
> carrot, corn on cob, cabbage, and romaine lettuce. I feel simply phenominal.

i.e. most of the starch was from the sweet potato. Did you experience
skin eruptions after eating only 1 (ONE) cooked sweet potato??

Otherwise, I agree with you that starches give you energy, are more
warming than fruits, etc. But that applies to cooked starches as
well; and not everyone is ABLE to eat raw starch on a regular
basis. Some time ago, I used to eat celery roots or artichoke every
day; it lasted a few months, and then I had enough (impossible to
swallow them for several months). Even carrots: despite their high
sugar content, I can't eat more than once or twice a week these
days. So, what can you do about sweet fruit addiction? I see four
solutions:

 - Eat a lot of raw starch (but not everyone can do that).
 - Eat a lot of sprouts
 - Eat a lot of animal food (I personally eat RAF every evening)
 - Eat some cooked starches. Cook them gently, as little as
possible. Don't add salt, or any kind of taste-enhancer. Just eat them
plain (not mixed with anything else). Don't consider that as "binging
on starch", don't feel guilty, but consider that as a part of your
diet -perhaps an improvement compared to a high-fruit diet. I tried
that a few months ago, and my impression was that starches prepared
that way are NOT addictive. After one week, I found I had enough and
stopped cooking potatoes.

> Regarding calories in the diet: while I believe raw calories are obviously
> superior to cooked calories,

A calorie is a calorie. Once digested, one gram of glucose yields
4 calories, one gram of fat 9 calories, etc. With cooking,
digestibility can be improved (e.g. starch, or some tough and fibrous
vegetables...) or reduced, nutrient (vitamin, minerals) availability
can be improved or reduced. Another aspect is that cooked food eaters
often have the habit of eating "empty calories" (refined grains,
refined sugar; processed foods, which contain less vitamins than their
fresh counterparts unless supplemented). So, you can significantly
improve the nutrient value per calorie (compared to the SAD), without
eating totally raw.

> Why take chances with cooked food? A well executed 100% raw food
> diet can be, and is (in my opinion) superior to any diet containing
> cooked food.

You are almost saying a tautology [note: I am a mathematician]. I
agree that if you execute a 100% raw food diet better than you would
execute any cooked food diet, then the 100% raw food diet is
better. No one will contest that point :-) The problem is: CAN you
execute the 100% raw food diet well? CAN you eat your raw eggs and your
raw yams every day, for 80 years? I can't (but I eat raw meat and
fish). Are you able to have a balanced diet, or do you end up eating
always the same foods? If you can't, I don't think you should feel
guilty about that. You can't fight your own nature (your sense of
taste). If you can't "execute well" a 100% raw food diet, than better
"execute well" a 70% one, rather than try to attain a goal you never
reach, have deficiencies, binge, feel guilty, etc.


--Jean-Louis Tu <[log in to unmask]>

ATOM RSS1 RSS2