>>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.
>
Wes:
>Key word: "noticable". I doubt the cooked is doing you better than raw
>would.

Anyway, I can't eat raw potatoes, so no comparison is possible here.

>Anyone is capable of having balance with 100% raw if they do what it takes.
>Don't tell me we need cooked food for "balance". That's ridiculous.

?? I thought the following was an irrefutable proof: person A doesn't
like raw tubers and/or can't digest them. You say starch is essential
in a 100% raw food diet. Therefore, person A can't eat 100% raw.
[Liked that syllogism?]

>Your apparent dilemma: You need to variate your foods or do something
>differently. Your excuses are running thin. Are you trying to tell me that
>you would have no problem eating cooked corn frequently, but raw corn is
>bad news?

Not bad news, bad TASTE. Same thing for raw beets and regular
potatoes. For raw sweet potatoes: bad TASTE and/or bad DIGESTION
(stomach discomfort). Unlike you, I don't feel the need for
"excuses".

>If you eat cooked food, you may still have
>a hard time with raw foods, as cooked food is addictive.

Not for me. I can go to the restaurant and the next day come back to
totally raw without problem.

> Plant a raw sunflower seed in the ground, water it, etc. and watch
> it grow over the course of months into a big, beautiful sunflower (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.

Okay. So, we have:

Raw and dead foods: killed animals, picked fruits...

Raw and live foods: live shellfish, fertile eggs, fruit kernels,
grains, seeds, tubers, sperm of slaughtered animals...

Are live foods better than dead ones? I doubt so, otherwise we
wouldn't eat apples but only their seeds, we wouldn't eat avocadoes
but only their kernels, etc.

> I'm starting to wonder if this e-mail list should be called the
> "cooked-food email list".

I quote:

"This list is maintained for the following purposes: [...] To support
those who wish to live on a predominately raw foods based diet [...]"

Assuming it was a "predominantly" raw foods based diet, then some
cooking is not excluded here.


--Jean-Louis Tu <[log in to unmask]>