Wes,
> No, I don't want any cooked food my man! ;)
Of course, you are free to decide. Unfortunately, I can't do the
experiment myself, since I can eat cooked potatoes and carrots without
noticeable side-effects.
> The information wasn't the point - it was a graphic demonstration (kirlian
> photography) of raw/living food vs. cooked/dead food.
Okay, but they didn't explain HOW the photography was taken, i.e. what
the measured quantity was. Was it an electromagnetic radiation? Then,
what was the wavelength/bandwidth, etc?
Moreover, it is a mystery for no one that raw and cooked foods are
different in their physico-chemical nature. The Kurlian photography
showed one of the DIFFERENCES, but didn't prove there was something
wrong with the cooked cabbage. In particular, why would the radiations
at *that* precise wavelength be important, and are they useful for the
body? And if they are, couldn't the loss be compensated by some other
gains?
Note that I am not dismissing at all the importance of
bioelectricity. Chinese medicine is based on the theory of meridians,
Chi circulation, etc., which I hope will one day be explained in terms
of bioelectricity. Anyone practicing, say, Chi Kung, will acknowledge
that breathing, movement and the mind have some effect on the body's
electric circulation. The environment can also be important (presence of
magnetic fields, for instance). But now, what is the role of food? Do
you say you have to eat raw food because you THINK it is living, and
THINK you can absorb some subtle energy you can't prove the existence
of, and then you see a picture which proves nothing but satisfies you
because it comforts you in your belief? In short, is it your
imagination, or a real feeling?
Let me add that, in my opinion, food has some indirect effect. Some
foods are cooling, others are warming and tend to make your body too
Yang, which is a common problem. That's why people eating
cooked/salted/spiced can sometimes benefit from eating more fruits and
vegetables, and less meat. On the other hand, on raw food, fruit is
too cooling and you need to balance it with something else. In your
case, that's starch and eggs, in my case, that's meat.
> >Now, almost no one can eat 100 grams of raw, soaked rice.
>
> If you can't eat it raw, why eat it at all?
It was just an example to show that you were saying a tautology. I
agree that cooking is bad when it doesn't improve the nutritional
value of the food: no one will dispute that fact! Then, you say that
you shouldn't cook something that you can't eat raw. But the reason
why one would do it is to increase the range of your staples, thereby
increasing the variety of nutrients and helping to keep a correct
balance. Some people are able to keep balance on 100% raw; others are
not. That's why I find important to accept to include something
cooked, instead of trying and trying forever, be unbalanced, perhaps
even binge, feel guilty, etc.
> You mean you can't eat a raw cob of corn, a beet, some carrots, half a yam,
> etc.? Why not?! What's so hard about cutting or grating a yam and throwing
> it on a salad? And if you chew real well (like you're supposed to), all the
> food enzymes will be released and self-digest all that powerful starch!
Corn: one year ago, I ate on average 1 raw (sweet)corn on the cob for
3 months. Then, I found impossible to swallow more than 1/4 at a
time. Beets: never liked them; impossible to eat more than a mouthful,
without pleasure. Carrots: can eat about 2/week (that's less than 10
grams starch). Yams: the only kind I found palatable was Jewel yams
(dunno if I'll find them in France), but they made my digestion heavy
and my stools were yellowish afterwards. And I chew well.
--Jean-Louis Tu <[log in to unmask]>
|
