Tom:

> M: The ONLY healing is self-healing.

> R: This is a theological/philosophical question. One can argue that
> self-healing has inherent advantages that make it preferable in many
> cases. However, to claim it is the ONLY method is to be narrow-minded,
> and to deny reality. For example, I am critical of fruitarian diets, but I
> acknowledge reality and agree that a fruitarian diet, in the short run (only),
> may assist healing from some ailments (but it is dangerous for some
> other aliments). [That such a diet can be healing (in the short run) is
> not the question, the question is the long term problems of such a diet.]

> The point here is that there are many healing modalities, and they all have
> merits, and also negative points. For example, many rawists reject
supplements,
> yet the supplement manufacturers have reams of testimonial letters, saying
> how their product assisted healing. So, if you favor self-healing, go
> ahead and promote it. However, don't insult others by claiming that your
> way is the ONLY kind of healing.

I agree. But it would be more accurate to say tha self-healing is one
of the only healings without risks of side-effects. I think that NHers
and anti-vaccination advocates overemphasize the few weak points of
allopathic medicine. But in some cases, man is more clever than nature,
and the few undesirable effects are largely counterbalanced by the
benefits. The obvious example is surgery, but it is certainly not the
only one.

> Another complication: raw rhubarb, raw kidney beans are poisonous by
> any definition, and are more poisonous than any cooked food. If one
> argues that "cooked food is poison" simply means that some cooked
> foods, but not all, are poison, then by citing the example of rhubarb
> and kidney beans, one can say that "raw food is poison", using the same
> logic.

I would add that, from the classical instincto point of view, there
are no foods which are intrinsically poison. If a food tastes great,
were it an Amanita, it is not a poison, and if an apple tastes bad,
it is a (mild) poison. However, many vegetables never, or almost
never, taste great, so there are two possibilities:
 *eat them even if they don't taste great. But so, according to
instincto theory, your will absorb small quantities of "poison"
 *do not eat them: but you will head towards deficiencies.

That is just another example of imperfection of Nature: in order to get
the nutrients, you have to pay a toll. Of course, the benefit is
higher than the cost, but you still have to deal with natural toxins.

Maybe I'll try some steamed veggies some day, to see if my health
improves or not. But not in the immediate future (I want first to
lead my raw food diet as far as I can).

> Additionally, one must wonder about the mental effect of such slogans. If
> one believes them and repeats them often enough, one may develop (irrational)
> fear of cooked foods. As eating is a major part of life, it can infuse your
> eating - and your life - with fear. That is a slow but certain path to
> mental and emotional problems.  I would encourage rawists to ignore such
> bogus slogans.

And I would add that another fear I am slowly recovering from is that
of chemicals, pesticides, etc... But I have to admit now that eating
organic or not doesn't make any difference on my health (at least
in the short term). I still eat mostly (i.e. >50%) organic, but not
out of fear for my health.

> P.S. apply simple common sense: if cooked food really is toxic, then we
> would all have died long ago.

Not a very good argument. Caffeine and nicotine are toxic but not
deadly.

> - natural, wild animals will go to human created landfills, and eat their
> fill of cooked/processed/decaying food.

> Of course, landfills are not natural, but the animals that feed there are
> natural. This shows that animals are opportunists, not dogmatists. The
> animal at the landfill, following instinct, seizes the opportunity and
> eats the food - cooked/processed - that is available. No "raw is law"
> dogma for wild animals! If we must be so presumptuous as to claim that
> we understand nature's laws, then "opportunism is law" is much closer
> to the truth than the bogus "raw is law".

To put it another way:
 *Under NATURAL conditions, the only cooked foods an animal would eat
are those cooked by forest fires
 *Animals don't have dogmas

So, I definitely think that the correct attitude for someone who
wants to behave naturally would be to choose a 100% raw diet,
but eat cooked meals whenever necessary without being unhappy
or fearful.

> Additionally, an interesting scientific argument can be made (see the
> Paleodiet e-mail lists and archives on Internet for details) that we (and
> our prehistoric ancestors) have been using fire (for cooking foods) long
> enough that our genes have evolved to allow us to consume some cooked food.
> In other words, consumption of some cooked food may be natural, according to
> a powerful definition of natural: those foods you have evolved to eat. This
> point is controversial; some disagree. However, the serious debate on this
> point occurs at a scientific level that is far above the usual rawist dogma.

Are there any clues about what foods were cooked, and how? Did they
only cook meat? When did they start to use boiling water, etc?

> P.S. if protein really is toxic, we would have all been dead long ago.

I agree that protein is not toxic, but your argument is not very good
(see above).

> R: Some cooked foods are easier to digest than raw foods. The starch foods
> are prime examples of this: potatoes, rice. Heat degrades the crystalline
> structure of starch, making it more accessible to the enzyme action in
> your digestive system. Raw starch is hard to digest, but probably won't
> harm you unless you consume such foods in gross excess (difficult to do).
> Starch, whether cooked or raw, is not toxic. At least 70% of the world
> population has a diet based on starch - cooked starch, no less. If it
> were truly toxic, there would be a lot fewer people on this planet!

Just one question: what happens to the undigested raw starch? Is there
any possibility that it feeds colonic bacteria which create toxic
substances (just a speculation from me, I don't know enough about
biology).

Cooked starch is not toxic but has some inconvenients (high glycemic
index).

> Some foods contain anti-nutrient properties, toxins, and/or taste awful
> when raw, but are digestible/edible when cooked: large beans, esp. kidney
> beans. Other raw foods have negative side-effects, such as severe
> flatulence (e.g. raw cabbage, lentil sprouts). Cooking such foods is one
> way to reduce/avoid side effects (other ways to avoid side effects include
> using spices, and fermentation).

Remark: I like lentils much better in raw, sprouted form than in
cooked form, and have never had flatulences with sprouted lentils.

> M: Spices are toxic.

> R: Is everything toxic to the rawist? It is a shame that many rawists refuse
> to consider spices because of their ideology. Spices, used properly, can
> assist/strengthen weak digestion, and can help you to digest the heavy, cold,
> rough, high water content foods that we rawists often eat. Spices also have
> real medicinal properties and uses. Used improperly, spices can cause
problems:
> they can over-stimulate the digestion, and/or overheat the body. (If that
> happens to you, you will be the first to know.) If used in small amounts,
> properly (per your body condition), spices may be beneficial and assist
> healing. The problem is how to use them properly - for that you can refer
> to Ayurveda, Traditional Chinese Medicine, or other genuine holistic
> systems for guidance.

What do you think about claims that spices can irritate the digestive
system, cause stomach ailments, etc?

> * "This seems anti-vegetarian." It is not intended to be; I have been a
> vegetarian since 1970, and was a strict vegan for much of that time.
> The material here does challenge some of the claims that are a "scientific"
> basis for veganism/vegetarianism. However, the spiritual and ethical factors
> used as a basis for vegetarianism, are not addressed here. Some of these
> factors include: not wanting to kill for food, not wanting to harm other
> creatures unnecessarily, wanting your food to be offered to you with love,
> and so on. The spiritual and ethical factors, alone, provide a sufficient
> and satisfactory basis to be a vegetarian. So, you can reject some/all of
> the "scientific" basis, but still be a vegetarian. Also, if your motive for
> vegetarianism is spirituality or ethics, you will want an honest basis.

Do you think that vegetarism is not the best diet (for the *body*)?
Or that the "sacrifice" you make on your body's health is negligible
compared to the spiritual benefits?

>
> * "This won't help me achieve 100% raw." Why do you want to be 100% raw?
> Answer: probably, because you believe that it will make you very healthy. So,
> if good health is your objective, and you are logical, you will follow rawist
> dogma ONLY insofar as it supports good health. If 100% raw does not work for
> you in the long run, then you will change your diet. In short, your health is
> more important than dogma, more important than being 100% raw, more important
> than veganism!

Sure. However, I am still convinced that a healthy diet should
include a high % of raw food (let's say at least 50%), and that
the cooked part should be "intelligently" cooked. I was very
skeptical before, and only strong and enthusiastic arguments for
raw food helped me to be aware of the importance of eating raw.
Now, of course, one has to face reality. You did it the hard way,
but I hope your experience and that of others have helped to pave
the way for current and future raw-foodists.

> I hope some of the above was interesting to you.

Great post, as usual!

Best,

Jean-Louis
([log in to unmask])