Liza:

> 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

It's a raw food for sure. Probably considered "live" as well. I'm sure
celery lasts longer than meat, if left to sit at room temperature. The
meat is dead and decays. However, unless cooked, it's raw.

> 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?

The point is that it's raw. Many foods are both raw AND live. Raw
grains, seeds, nuts, etc. are raw and live. I had some sprouted quinoa
today. Example of raw AND live. Cook the quinoa, and it's no longer raw
nor live. It's dead. Plain and simple. It's not rocket science here. A
raw beet is both raw and live, as it can sprout new life when planted.
Cooking will kill it. It's still considered live when blended as long as
it's eaten (drank) right away. Otherwise, the vital life force in it
deteriorates. Same happens with raw fruit/veggie juices. The colloidal
structure and other components begin to deteriorate in due time. Carrot
juice for example is considered fully "dead" within about 24 hours.

> The light is killed? I hadn't realized that light, too, is alive.

Light is the essence of life. All light comes from God. Even my dad, who
is a hunter, once explained to me how he witnessed the "light" go out of
the eyes of a deer he had killed. All living things contain light.

> 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.

It probably has been, even in spite your sarcasm.

> 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!

It does take everybody's. Most people lack sensitivity. I am very
sensitive. I've been on this path for quite some time, and I'm very much
in tune with my body. Cooked food is dead. Cooked food feels heavy in
the stomach. Cooked food remains in the stomach longer than raw food.
Raw food moves out of the stomach quickly. The enzymes are a big reason
for this. Food enzymes in raw foods do indeed execute a considerable
portion of digestion in the stomach. Eat a pizza and tell me how
energized you feel. Chances are you feel tired, not energized. Eat a
meal of fruit. Chances are you have great energy and are not tired.

> >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.

Here are some books you can look at for more on this subject: "A New
Science of Life" (Sheldrake, Rupert. J.P. Tarcher: Los Angeles, 1981);
"Space, Time, and Beyond" (Toben, Robert. New york: E.P. Dutton and Co.,
Inc: n.p., 1975); "The Secret Life of Plants" (no specific print info -
check library)

> > 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.

Thanks for your most delightful sarcasm. But yes, I can indeed feel what
happens in my body, as well as feel food moving through my intestines as
well. I'm not kidding, although you probably don't believe me. That's
fine with me.

> In any case, how are you able to tell whether it's the foods's own
> enzymes digesting your meals, or your own?

Pancreatic enzymes are released in the small intestine. Pepsin is
released in the fundic portion of the stomach. The raw foods I feel
digesting are in the upper/"main"/cardiac portion of the stomach, such
as what Dr. Howell and other researchers explain happens,
physiologically speaking, with raw food and food enzymes.

> > Cooked food demands
> > pancreatic enzymes.
>
> ALL food demands pancreatic enzymes.

True, but cooked food demands much more. Cooked food uses salivary
amylase and pancreatic enzymes. Raw food is first acted upon by the food
enzymes contained in the raw food. A substantial portion (estimated up
to 80%) of the raw food is digested via the food enzymes. The pancreas
picks up what's left. Depending on the pancreas to do the majority of
the work is akin to usurping one's energy. Enzymes are energy. Cooked
eaters overwork their pancreases and other organs due to the enzyme
deficient food.

> 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

I'm not sure if he's right about the finite amount of enzymes part of
his theory. But he's 100% right about food enzymes being biologically
active in the stomach. It's been repeatedly shown that food enzymes are
active for up to 1 hour after eating. Stomach acid temporarily
inactivates them. They are reactivated in the intestines. It's been
proven over & over again. They are not destroyed, as many believe. If
this was the case, then pepsin would be destroyed during protein
digestion.

Eat a meal of cooked vegetables one day. Eat the same meal raw the next.
Which one do you feel lighter after? The raw one.

> 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.

Get a copy of "Food Enzymes for Health & Longevity". There are 416
references in the back. More references available via the National
Enzyme Company (they have the rest of his materials - most were
unpublished).

> 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.

Prominent researchers such as Michael O'Brien and Howard Loomis are a
couple of examples that I know of that are carrying on with his work and
have expanded upon it.

> >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.

I don't see what the point would be. I do have lots I could cite, but
you seem to want proof, and yet more proof. It would be a total waste of
time for me.

> > 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?

Blend them up or juice them. Never feed her them cooked.

> How about a person who will not, under any circumstances, eat something
> that is not hot?

Spice it up with some raw chile pepper or other spices. :)

> How about a person who can't stand the taste of raw vegetables, except
> for the normal stuff in conventional salads?

Be creative. Make recipes. Add herbs/spices. Or get them detoxed and in
tune with their true biological needs and get them attuned to the taste
of delicious fresh, raw, organic veggies. I went through this same
process over a year ago.

> How about a boxer, who trains eight hours every day, and needs aboout
> 18,000 calories each day to keep his strength and weight?

A need for 18,000 calories a day would be a world record! The most I've
heard of was about 6,000 a day for a 400# weight lifter. This is
attainable raw - no need to cook anything. Eat lots of raw soaked
grains, nuts, seeds, dates, dried fruit, avocados, raw eggs, raw dairy
(including butter), etc.

> How about a person attempting to resolve a leaky gut, who is just coming
> off of a 40-day fast?

Cooked food certainly wouldn't do them any good. Give them high quality
probiotics; feed them raw fruit/veggie juices and blended raw foods.

> Nobody is saying raw food is bad, Wes. It's just not the ONLY food that
> is healthy, for ALL people, ALL the time.

In my opinion it is.

> 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.

Thanks for the "slap". But I'm looking to go higher. I'm not content
with mediocrity. Just so happens 100% raw is part of my path. PART OF,
but not the "be all, end all". It's part of the means to the ends.

> Since from what you say, you evidently have lots of energy and a happy
> attitude, you must be doing a few things right!

Wow! A compliment! Thanks!

Wes