Liza:

>I know this thing about "living" food is a popular slogan, but from a
>scientific standpoint this is really just plain nonsense. A raw carrot
>is no more "alive" than a raw piece of fish. It is not, in fact,
>"living" food. In fact, if we wanted to be really accurate, we'd be more
>correct to call it "dead food," since it is, in fact dead - although I
>don't see the point of using either of these terms at all for
>discussions about foodstuffs. I think the term "living" food has
>confused a lot of people (maybe deliberately so).

False. Plant a raw sunflower seed in the ground, water it, etc. and watch
it grow over the course of months into a big, beautiful su
nflower (I did
that this spring, and it worked). Next, take and roast a sunflower seed
and plant it, water it, etc. Nothing happens. Live food vs. dead food.
Fish is dead, unless you eat it alive. Fish is a RAW food, but not a LIVE
food.

>I'm not sure what you mean by "dark" - other than trying to couple
>"dead" with "dark" to achieve a more gloomy and negative feel.

Dark refers to kirlian photography revealing that live foods contain light,
(essentially captured sunlight). Cooked are dark - no light. It is "killed"
when it is cooked.

>> Raw food gives us energy, cooked takes energy to make some.
>
>This, of course, is pure conjecture. There is absolutely _nothing_ that
>shows this to be true, although there are some people who, like
>yourself, are very emotionally attached to this notion of rawness
>somehow giving energy. It sounds nice, wish it
were true.

I'm starting to wonder if this e-mail list should be called the
"cooked-food email list".

My energy has shot up enormously upon dropping all cooked food from my
diet. Cooked food sits in the stomach for a long time. Cooked food takes
your energy. Eat an all cooked meal. Next day, eat that same meal, but
raw. Now tell me with which one you feel lighter and with more energy
after.

>This "Subtle Organizing Energy Field" thing is Gabriel Cousen's idea,
>and it is a very nice, spiritual-metaphysical, totally unproveable
>"theory" (using the term loosely) that he uses to assign various cosmic
>energy levels to things and foods. This is not science at all.

Your attitude is very negative. Sometimes we discern things with our
intuition, if it is keen. What he says regarding SOEF's has a ring of pure
truth in it. You'll have to read more on what he says regarding SOEF's.
 He
cites research for this.

>Wes, the enzymes in the food are not what digest the food. Our body's
>enzymes digest the food. I think there is much discussion on this in the
>archives (if not, then maybe in the archives of the 'raw' list - in any
>case I've seen this thread come up before).

False. I can feel raw foods digesting in my stomach. Cooked food demands
pancreatic enzymes. I first experienced this phenomena back when I was
essentially 100% cooked, and started using some high quality food enzymes,
which helped a lot, but once 100% raw, it's even greater still. Others
whom I've talked with have experienced the same thing.

Read Dr. Edward Howell's works, which demonstrate beyond any shadow of a
doubt that food enzymes absolutely *do* digest food in the stomach. This
is physiological reality. Many studies have shown this to be true. Howell
is now dead, but other researcher
s such as Dr. Howard Loomis, Michael
O'Brien, and others have carried on with Howell's pioneer work in this
area. What you say is false, completely. Research has shown that food
enzymes can digest up to 80% or more of the food in the stomach, prior to
stomach acid activating and temporarily inactivating the food enzymes.

>Don't get me wromg - I'm not AGAINST raw food, sometimes, for some
>people. I just don't like seeing it described as something that it is
>not - a panacea for all ills - and I don't like seeing attributed to it

I didn't describe it as a panacea for all ills. There are many other
factors beyond diet. It's food, but it's superior to cooked.

Show me irrefutable proof that cooked food is better than raw food. Show
me irrefutable proof that cooked food doesn't have more con's than pro's
vs. its raw version.

>It's JUST food. Stuff to eat for fuel. No more meani
ng to it than that.

It's just food, but far better than cooked. I was about 85% raw for almost
9 months, switched to 100% raw - eating the same things - including what
I ate cooked, but in their raw form - and the difference is remarkable.

Your message had a very negative tone. I'm not here to be a cheerleader,
but I do have enthusiasm (that happens when you feel great and raw food
is a big reason for that).

Wes