Hi Peter,

Thanks for welcoming me to the list.

Peter Brandt wrote:
> Wes, welcome to the list.  I find it interesting how you seem to thrive on
> a high raw, starch diet.  My stomach turns just at the thought but you have
> certainly initiated some interesting threads.  I have cut and pasted from
> some of your posts:

I wouldn't call it a "high starch" diet. I do include some raw starch in
my diet, but not in any inordinate amount. A day's example: about 3 oz.
dry weight oat groats (soaked), 3-4 carrots, half a yam or potato or
sweet potato, maybe some beet, maybe a cob of corn, etc... Nothing big
time. Just use what I feel I need.

Also - my stomach actually turns at the thought of eating raw
meat...especially "aged" meat...<shudder>.. ;) So, I guess we can look
at things from more than one angle here.

> What kind of hard-core data would you find acceptable?  There is not much
> evidence to support an all-raw diet yet you seem to be categorically
> rejecting the idea of small amounts of moderately cooked foods even as an
> occasional indiscretion.

For example - some hard-core data that would show me that the foods I'm
eating raw should be eaten cooked. I'm eating them all raw now, and feel
a lot better than when I ate them cooked (my diet was mostly raw + some
cooked - typically tubers and eggs for many months -- about 9 months of
about 85% raw, less raw/more cooked prior to this during
transition/adding raw to the diet). Of course, this is only my
experience, but still, it makes one think a bit about this. I know many
people cook their eggs...Is this a wise practice, for example? I used to
simmer mine at a less than boiling temperature, whole in shell - which I
suppose would be the best way to cook them. I've read there are certain
inhibitors with raw eggs, yet the bottom line is that I feel much better
eating them raw, and I haven't lost any weight, etc...So...in addition
to my understanding that for example: cooked fats are harmful -
biologically active "cis" fats are destructured and often rendered into
toxic "trans" fats -- research has shown raw fats to even be healthful,
whereas cooked fats are generally harmful in quite a few ways. Cooked
fats are potentially artery-damaging and fat-deposit forming, whereas
raw generally are not; cooking coagulates protein and renders it
approximately 50% less bioavailable (note: I assume the biological value
of proteins are found using raw proteins); cooking alters the colloidal
protein/mineral complex; many vitamins are lost or damaged - including
an estimated 50-80% of B vitamins; all enzymes are destroyed; cooking
typically creates carcinogens and mutagens in proteins and fats,
including chemicals known as heterocyclic aromatic amines, which have
been found to cause tumors in rats and mice; all this in addition to
completely changing the structure of the food as a whole... Of course,
there is more than one way to look at things. Cooking may have some
positive effects, such as neutralizing some inhibitors, making some
things supposedly more digestible, etc.. But from where I sit, I see
cooking as having more con's than pro's.

> This sounds very interesting. Please tell me everything you know about
> Loomis' and O'Brien's work and what they have published on enzymes.

I've only read a few articles & pieces by or relating to them. I don't
have more info on them. I wish I did. I have some articles and a tape by
Michael O'Brien for example. Also have some "in passing" info regarding
Loomis; have read that he's supposedly the "successor" to Dr. Howell and
his work. I don't know how to reach them for more info, but I know these
guys have some extensive raw foods and enzymes related research they
have been undertaking. O'Brien has been involved in this field since the
1960's, according to what I've read.

> >Show me irrefutable proof that cooked food is better than raw food. Show
> me irrefutable >proof that cooked food doesn't have more con's than pro's
> vs. its raw version.
>
> Rather than being mutually exclusive I think they both can have their place
> in a balanced diet.

Obviously if people here are eating cooked food, there must be something
to it - for them. But I'd like to see an objective pro/con deal with
cooked/raw. I've heard the "party line" about starch; but again, I have
no problem with it raw - just the opposite. I felt cooked starch did me
more bad than good. Spiked blood sugar for starters. Excess mucus for
another.

> You probably will feel more at home on JR's raw list.  I think most of the
> people on this list either eat some cooked foods or do not have strong,
> negative feelings about them.

You seem to infer that I have strong negative feelings about cooked
food. I wouldn't say that. I don't flaunt the "cooked food is poison"
rhetoric such as do our NFL buddies. ;) But again I speak only from MY
experience. Perhaps that's where I've erred, eh?

> As you seem to have read these references, maybe you could share with us
> some of the highlights.  I have only the edited version called "Enzyme
> Nutrition".  Howell does quote several animal studies in his book that show
> that various organs and glands get larger with age, however, he provides no
> evidence that lack of enzymes is the cause. In my mind Howell's greatest
> contributions have been showing the problems with enzyme inhibitors and
> pointing out the positive effects of enzyme supplementation.  Whether the
> concept of pre-digestion in what he calls "the food enzyme stomach" has any
> validity to it I am not sure. There has certainly been expressed many
> opinions lately to the contrary.

I don't know what you mean by "highlights". If you want a pile of
references, I can refer you to the National Enzyme Company. If you want
their address, I'll give it to you. They have Howell's works, much of it
unpublished. If it's references you want, they have it. And like I
mentioned, the Food Enzymes/Health Longevity book has 416 refs in the
back.

As for the food enzyme stomach/cardiac portion of the stomach, I can
verify its existence from my own experience, as I've related in other
posts.

I'll post a rarely seen article by Howell to the list soon, which some
may find interesting.

> Liza:
> >>Nobody is saying raw food is bad, Wes. It's just not the ONLY food that
> is healthy,
> >>for ALL people, ALL the time.
>
> Wes:
> >In my opinion it is.
>
> That is a big mouthful.  How have you assured yourself that your opinion is
> a true reflection of reality?

Not really. But I did mention that if one has problems digesting a
particular raw food, it can be a) blended or juiced, or b) not eaten at
all...We don't necessarily need to resort to cooking it...Other options
exist.

> > DR. HOWARD LOOMIS HAS REGULARLY REPEATED SOME OF DR. KOUCHAKOFF'S RESULTS
> IN HIS >CLINICAL WORK WITH HUNDREDS OF PATIENTS". (emphasis mine)
>
> How did he conduct these studies?  Were there any controls etc.?

I have no idea. I only have the "bottom line" so to speak. I have no
idea how Dr. Loomis went about finding this.

Later,

Wes