Hi Paul,
>
>>I have found it _much_ more useful eating the good foods than caring
>>whether they are cooked or not. Remember, food quality counts!
>You may be in danger of becoming too fixed on the approach that has worked
>for you (blood typing), and assume it would work for everyone.
Fair comment, Paul. I am very aware of the "follow the guru with stars in
your eyes" approach that many follow. In fact, I tried it out for myself
for a year before I even suggested it to anyone - I did want some
verification. At the same time, feedback I get from the D'Adamo web site
indicates that there are great numbers of people for whom the blood-type
approach is the first time they have made improvement. And I'm not claiming
that it's perfect, there are niggling little things that don't seem to be
changing much: I think it means I've got more to learn.
>Good for you for finding something helpful, but as far as advising others
my thinking is
>to not put too much stock in any one theory - be it 100%-raw, RAF,
>blood-type, brix or whatever, but just try to encourage a person to figure
>out what works for themselves, if they are interested.
>
sounds good to me, consider them all
I was perhaps a bit hasty when I wrote the first para above: of course I
care what is cooked and not, and generally would say that if a food is good
eaten raw then I wouldn't normally cook it.
I recognise what you say about having reactions to foods whether cooked or
not: for me, for example, cooked tomatoes or lettuce is revolting. But I
need to extend the foods that are good to eat raw...
Lynton
|