Carol, good question!  I think its the latter.  I agree that cooking damages
food, however, I am not cooking foods I would normally eat raw (such as
tomatoes, fruit or salad veggies).  There are certain foods (such as
brocolli, cabbage, cauliflower) that I have a really hard time digesting
raw, but when cooked I do well with.  Also, grains and beans can't really be
eaten raw, but I think that I personally do better including them in my diet
in small amounts.  I want to also say that just because this works for me,
doesn't mean that I feel that a 100% raw diet is bad or foolhardy, I just
wish that some of the 100%ers would be a bit more understanding of some of
our choices to not go 100%.  I have FINALLY stopped having constant
diarrhea.....its been nice not to lunge towards the bathroom every 15
minutes, LOL!  :)  Peace, Jen aka Kashmir3
-----Original Message-----
From: Carol & David <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Wednesday, March 10, 1999 7:22 PM
Subject: Re: "fruitflys" in paradise


>hpi1 wrote:
>>
>> ...I have found that I do better on about 80% raw rather than 100%..
>> .....NOT due to "weakness and cravings" or "lack of willpower" but
>> because physically I did poorly on 100%.....not to say that others
>> will not do well on 100%, I just didn't......
>
>Do you think that it is by virtue of the cooking that some people do
>better with some cooked food, or is it because that cooked percentage
>is made up of things that they wouldn't eat raw, and so, things that
>were missing from their 100% raw diet?
>
>Carol
>
>