RAW-FOOD Archives

Raw Food Diet Support List

RAW-FOOD@LISTSERV.ICORS.ORG

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Liza May <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Raw Food Diet Support List <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Sun, 28 Mar 1999 10:55:44 -0500
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (54 lines)
Kirt,
>  Cooked vegans appear to last longer before they experience trouble.

Carol,
> I've heard this said many times, but -- and I know I've asked
> this before just recently -- do you think it's by virtue of the
> cooking itself, or do you think that the difference lies in the
> different food choices people make when they're eating raw foods
> as opposed to cooked ones?  I'd really like to hear more people's
> thoughts on this question.  I think it's an important one.

Liza,
Yes, you've now asked this question several times without a
response! :)

My guess is that a raw vegan has fewer choices, since the
diet is limited to things that taste okay, and are not
problematic, when raw. This would probably exclude things
like collards, kale, dandelion greens, nettles, mustard
greens, lots of other bitter-tasting green leafy vegetables.
And most likely members of the cruciferous family (broccoli,
brussel sprouts) if the person is shopping at a normal
grocery store where these vegetables will typically be
pretty bitter without cooking (dare I say it - low brix).
And they are not eating some of the tougher starchy tubers,
or squashes. And they're not eating legumes. Or grains.

(Whether or not any of the above-mentioned foods are
beneficial, or toxic, in either their raw or cooked forms is
another question, but in any case they are certainly not
_palatable_ when raw).

Furthermore, a raw-vegan diet requires more commitment or
discipline than a cooked-vegan diet because of this fact
that it is more limited, and is therefore psychologically
more difficult for most to adhere to long term (boring, and
presents social challenges).

I would guess that it's because the diet is less varied that
deficiences are more likely to develop. And probably some
strange eating _behaviors_ to make up for the nutritional
deficiences, and the psychological difficulties of the diet
(such as bulimic-type cheating, bingeing, lying to oneself
and others, etc.).

Anyway, that's my guess. I'm curious, why do you consider
this to be an important question?

Love Liza


--
[log in to unmask] (Liza May)

ATOM RSS1 RSS2