Wes,
> 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.
Oooookaaay ...... sooooo ...... is a piece of celery a live food? Or a
raw food? Or a dead food? This new criteria for "living" means you can
plant it in the ground and it grows, is that what you're saying? Well -
but then is it "living" only if the roots are attached? So then, I guess
if I eat chopped celery, it's not "living?" Very confusing. Like, for
instance take that blender beet smoothie you eat (PLEASE) - will this
grow into a new young beet smoothie, if I pour it into my garden? Or,
does blending make it not "live" anymore? According to your new
definition of living, at which point would you say that the food goes
through that transition of life into death, thereby losing all its
amazing properties?
> 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.
The light is killed? I hadn't realized that light, too, is alive.
Hmmmmm. I'll have to inform my biology teachers that they've been making
a really embarassing teaching blooper, and that "life" is in fact
defined very differently than what's being taught at universities around
the world.
> My energy has shot up enormously upon dropping all cooked food from my
> diet.
This is great, Wes. It's really great to find a diet that does that for
you.
>Cooked food sits in the stomach for a long time. Cooked food takes
> your energy.
Probably better to say that cooked food sits in YOUR stomach for a long
time, and takes YOUR energy. It doesn't take everybody's!
Liza had said:
> >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.
>
Wes replied:
> Your attitude is very negative. Sometimes we discern things with our
> intuition, if it is keen.
Hmmmm. I don't FEEL negative! Actually, this conversation is funny to
me. I may come across as negative about SOEF's, though, in the same way
I'd probably come across as negative about Tinker Bell and the Easter
Bunny. I can't say as I BELIEVE in Subtle Organizing Energy Fields (what
a mouthful), as pretty as they sound, so in that sense maybe I'm
negative.
> What he says regarding SOEF's has a ring of pure
> truth in it.
It's that ring I'm not hearin'. I kinda like to hear more of a loud
thud, when it comes to new "scientific" theories.
There used to be an enigmatic listmember named PET who'd come out of the
woodwork from time to time, on occassions like this. He (or she - never
quite knew what gender or species PET belonged to) was a total
curmudgeon, suspicious and sarcastic about everything, and most of the
time you had no idea what in the world s/he was talking about, except
that it was completely hilarious. PET, where are you now?
>You'll have to read more on what he says regarding SOEF's.
I've read more than enough, thank you. I'm busy trying to keep up with
reading about real stuff.
> He
> cites research for this.
No, he doesn't. Look again.
> I can feel raw foods digesting in my stomach.
You have extra-sensory stomach perception. I try to teach people
awareness of sensations in the various parts of the abdomen - but boy -
I wish you were here to teach me a few things.
In any case, how are you able to tell whether it's the foods's own
enzymes digesting your meals, or your own?
> Cooked food demands
> pancreatic enzymes.
ALL food demands pancreatic enzymes.
> Read Dr. Edward Howell's works, which demonstrate beyond any shadow of >a
> doubt that food enzymes absolutely *do* digest food in the stomach.
I did finally read Howell's "Enzyme Nutrition" last year, and I was not
at all impressed. He has a single theory - the one you're quoting (that
foods contain the enzymes to digest themselves, thereby not depleting
what he's decided is a finite amount of our own enzymes) -- and he
spends the entire book drawing conclusions on that hypothesis, as if it
had been already shown to be true. He never explains how or why he
arrives at his original (erroneous) conclusion. So, if you are at all
rigorous or science-minded, it makes it a little hard to get past the
very first page without questioning his credibility.
In my opinion, he was a creative thinker, and the whole question of
enzymes is interesting and probably worth lots of investigation. But he
didn;t do that. He never substantiates or supports the first claim, upon
which the entire book is based.
>This
> is physiological reality.
According to whom?
>Many studies have shown this to be true.
Can you site a few? I'd love to know about them if they exist, and
exactly what it is that they are showing.
> Show me irrefutable proof that cooked food is better than raw food. >
Okay.
How about an elderly woman, who's teeth and digestive capacity is so
impaired that she passes whole pieces of celery and other raw vegetables
through unchewed?
How about a person who will not, under any circumstances, eat something
that is not hot?
How about a person who can't stand the taste of raw vegetables, except
for the normal stuff in conventional salads?
How about a boxer, who trains eight hours every day, and needs aboout
18,000 calories each day to keep his strength and weight?
How about a person attempting to resolve a leaky gut, who is just coming
off of a 40-day fast?
These are examples of some real people, and I could give you many, many,
many, many more.
Nobody is saying raw food is bad, Wes. It's just not the ONLY food that
is healthy, for ALL people, ALL the time.
Liza said:
> >It's JUST food. Stuff to eat for fuel. No more meani
> ng to it than that.
Wes:
> Your message had a very negative tone. I'm not here to be a > cheerleader,
You may feel it's negative to take away all the mystique and magic and
hope and allure of viewing raw food as anything more than just good ole
food, but that is because you have too much of an emotional investment
in food.
If you believe in Santa Claus and I tell you he's just a man in a suit,
that's negative too.
But the fact is, "raw" food is just fuel - period. Any energy, or
cheerfulness, or vitality that you feel is because you have lots of
other things right in your life, such as getting enough sleep, a
purpose, people, fun physical activity, and love.
Since from what you say, you evidently have lots of energy and a happy
attitude, you must be doing a few things right!
Love, Liza
[log in to unmask] (Liza May)
|
