Dariusz :
>On Tue, 5 Aug 1997, Nieft / Secola wrote:

>> I just don't see why the potential for big reactions to supposedly unpure
>> stuff should get worse and worse instead of better and better in the
>> longterm.

>Given the idea in the post you're responding to holds, I don't see why you
>or anyone would be concerned with these strong responses or reactions to
>cooked foods.  The strong reactions are indications of your body's
>superior ability to handle and deal with substances in cooked foods.  They
>are not necessarily a bad thing (though the signs - pimples or irregular
>BM - may be unpleasant) if the person's original intention was to have a
>"clean/pure" body to begin with.  IMO, the person will have then reached
>his goal, and, if anything, these would be the signs confirming the latter.

Yes, thats the way I see it: the more tuned-up the body is the better it
responds to threats.
Consider a baby being introduced to cooked: all sorts of problems (colic,
stuffy/runny nose,...) (not that I'm an expert, but I guess I've been
there).  This is the reaction of a pristine being to cooked.
Of course, I am assuming a breast-fed baby for some time, with a sharp
switch to non-breast non-raw.
And with the variety of individuals and foods, there will be a variety of
responses, some more aggressive than others.

Anyway, in response to some other responders to the ideas I expressed:
(1) its just a theory at present
(2) I am prepared to look at any other explanations, and adopt those that
make sense.
(3) it was to explain some examples recently posted, actually some people
said they wanted to know why things happened the way they do.
(4) the theory does support actual events (does it not?) rather than some
idealistic of how things should be.

What we need is more facts, eg from these 'complete instinctos' : what does
happen when they eat cooked?  And to be fair, say an isolated meal thats
completely cooked: (we don't want any food enzymes to make it too easy for
the body to process the cooked).  Lets say a typical well balanced,
nutritional meal that they normally eat, but cook it all. (definition:
"cooked" = all enzymes are destroyed).
The best qualification for this type of data is that the subjects be
typically 100Raw. (to avoid those who are conditioned to processing cooked
foods).

Incidentally, I tried some lightly steamed broccoli last night, with the
rest of my raw meal.  Mostly cos I don't like the taste of raw broccoli, and
I thought I would test the idea that cooking some foods make them more
digestable.  The taste of the cooked was not desirable to me (it used to be
my favourite food), tho I could eat far more than if it was raw.  I don't
expect much of a reaction tho cos it was a small part of a meal loaded with
enzymes.
I suppose the extent of reaction would also be in relation to the food.