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:
Thu, 19 Nov 1998 13:15:50 -0500
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (316 lines)
Wes:
> Are you hinting that cooking doesn't alter any amino acids, etc.? Wow, >I
> guess cooking temperatures are a lot less destructive than I thought.

Glad to see you're finally able to have a little wider view of things.
Finally.

> Maybe cooked eggs ARE a good idea.

Yes, now you're starting to understand that it's not as simple,
black-and-white, either/or, as you evidently would like VERY MUCH for it
to be. Biology is too vastly complex for simplistic theories like the
ones you wish so ardently for.

> Boy, you're pretty convincing.

Yes, Jean-Louis is in fact very convincing. I'm glad you've noticed.
Many people have been greatly influenced by his well-reasoned,
thoughtful, scientifically rigorous, reasonable approach. He has
definately done his homework, and has provided this list with many many
very useful pointers to sources of trustworthy information on the net
and elsewhere, as well as taking the time to give considerable thought
to summarize his own comprehensive searches for information on issues of
food and nutrition, generously sharing the conclusions he has been able
to draw from these.

You'd be wise to copy his behavior, as well as his attitude. Especially
if you are hoping to be a heath-care provider someday.

(By the way - you avoided my question about which school you're
attending. Which school is it? Certainly not Bastyr - they're pretty
good at training their students to think, and providing a breadth of
information there that would preclude the simplistic 'theories' like
those you have expressed here.)

>I
> could've sworn this was the "raw-food email list"! Perhaps I'm in the
> wrong place?!

Once again, refer to the description of the list that you got when you
signed on, which David posted, just for you, a couple of weeks ago. This
list is a forum for thoughtful consideration of the pros and cons of raw
foods. This list does not have an "agenda" to convert everyone,
regardless of their dietary needs, into a raw-food vegan. Had you
thought that that was the goal of this list? Ooops. Yeah, maybe you did
make a mistake, in that case.

> Heck, maybe ALL cooked foods are no problem to eat, eh?

Good logic. Don't forget that Jean-Louis is a mathematician.

>Since cooking
> doesn't alter amino acids and hardly destroys anything (according to >you
> so far)...


Is that what he said? Now, why would you try to distort what he had
said? Jean-Louis never said that cooking "hardly destroys anything."


> Are you saying that "protein loss" is the only factor involved here?


No, YOU are the one that singled out protein loss as the factor you were
addressing. Look at your own post.


> There are many other factors, even beyond our current understanding as
> to what cooked proteins do to the human body. It isn't as simple as
> amino acid loss/alteration, vitamin/mineral loss/alteration.


Precisely which other factors are you referring to? Spell them out, and
then it is possible to discuss whether or not cooking affects them, or
not. Vague general statements like the one above only appeal to people
who would rather not consider facts, but just "Wanna' Be Raw" for purely
sentimental reasons. And who want everybody else to want that too.


> I don't care if people cook and eat cooked egg whites.

You're contradicting yourself. Last time you said you believe everyone
should eat only raw foods. Everyone.

> In my own experience, RAW eggs feel a lot
> better to me than COOKED ones.

That is the only legitimate statement you've made in this post so far.
Wes, you can speak for yourself (although some of what you claim to be
aware of in your own body, like whether your own enzymes or the plant's
enzymes are digesting your food at a given moment, are highly
suspicious), but you cannot speak for anyone else. Your contention that
EVERYONE should eat raw, is wholly nonsensical.

>People don't know what they're doing when
> they eat cooked egg whites. They don't see the whole picture.

You, on the other hand, see the whole picture? hah!

> Most
> people don't know much, if anything, regarding raw vs. cooked food.

We are to infer that you are included in this group, or not?


>Most
> of these same people that eat cooked egg whites will also eat pizzas,
> use "weight gainer" powders, etc..

Yeah, it's that us-and-them thing. We, the good guys, would never, ever,
EVER, ever, ever eat those bad evil nasty cooked egg whites, or pizza,
or gawd forbid, weight-gainer or weight-loser powders. Only stupid
people do any of those things. Or the bad guys.

I mean, everybody KNOWS that cool people don't eat pizza. Ever. (Unless
of course, you ASPIRE to be 100% raw - not 95 but 100 - and show remorse
for your pizza-eating sins, and are overriden with heavy guilt and
self-loathing and self-recrimination and a sense of failure, 'cause
you're B-A-A-D-D, and you swear to yourself and everyone else that
daggone it, your gonna do your darndest to become the pure 100% ist
someday). Then, you can still eat pizza and be cool.

But man - those guys that eat pizza and ENJOY it - oh wow. Uncoolness
Incarnate. Especially the ones that seem strong and healthy and happy.
They're the worst - the absolute worst. Man, are those guys DUMB or
what? At least if they didn't have so much fun, there'd be some hint of
hope for them, and their overall health.

> I'd like to see how you arrived at the conclusion that it's a good >idea
> for you to eat cooked eggs. Care to provide any details on this?

Did he say this? He's been more than generous in providing details for
everything he HAS said, so far. You are distorting his words, again. He
did NOT say he has arrived at the conclusion that it is a good idea to
eat cooked eggs. It is you that are making such generalistic statements.

> I think you missed the point: I was talking about BIOLOGICAL VALUE of
> proteins. Eggs have the highest biological value (outside of mother's
> milk).

What precisely do you mean by biological value? How are you defining
that term?

> I suggest that if you think cooked fats are
> beneficial, then eat all of the cooked nuts, pizzas, and whatever else
> you want.

I guess since you cannot have a discussion based on logic, (since your
arguments are entirely illogical, based on sentimentality instead), you
must continue to distort what Jean-Louis is saying. He did not make the
statement you're pretending that he made, above.

> Body weight and body fat
> percentage is only one small piece of the whole. The human body is a >lot
> more complex than that.

YOU are the one that used your own leanness to support your raw-egg
eating. YOU are the one that introduced body fat percentage as the guage
for health, not Jean-Louis. HE tried to respond logically to YOUR
statement Wes.

> And what's your point in statements such as the above? Are you a >cooked
> food/SAD proponent or a raw food proponent?

You don't get it. He is not a proponent of ANYTHING other than good
thinking about the issues involved. YOU are the one that needs some very
specific dietary team to be on, with totally simplistic black-and-white
rules about good and evil, what to always eat and what to never eat. You
are the one that's said that EVERYONE should eat 100% raw. Jean-Louis is
not trying to convert ANYONE to any sort of pre-described diet. YOU are.

Yet again, this list is not FOR or AGAINST any diet. It is a forum for
consideration of the complexities of human biochemistry as they pertain
to nutrition and health, with a particular focus on raw foods.

You just DO NOT GET IT. Reminds me of the two blondes that go out to fix
a fence, and the one says "hey some of these nails have the points on
the wrong end!" and the other says "Oh don't worry about it -- those are
for the other side of the fence." It is called "CLUELESS."

>Is this a Jekyll/Hyde type
> of deal? Do you only talk in favor of raw foods when it will be of
> benefit to you, such as say...in an argument with a SAD-eater? And
> likewise, you talk in favor of cooked foods when convenient...such as
> say, with a 100% raw food eater, such as myself? In other words, you
> choose either "Jekyll" or "Hyde" based on what's most convenient to >pump
> up the ego?


Yes, yes, Jean-Louis is the epitome of the swaggering, loud-mouthed,
egotistical braggart. Anyone who has been on the list for a while can
instantly tell that about Jean-Louis. That's the point of all his posts.
You are exceedingly astute and perceptive, when it comes to human
nature.

Look - here's the point. One more time. The point is RATIONAL THINKING
about all the factors. Rational Thinking. Consideration of ALL the
factors. NOT one-sided support of ANY particular diet regime - whether
it be SAD, raw, vegan, ayurvedic, Mediterranean, vegetarian, hygienic,
Awajonistic, macrobiotic, Villacambian, calorie restrictionist,
f-f-f-rrr-ru-t-ttarian (aaaaaagghhh!!), blood-typearian, paleolithic,
Zonian, French, Jenny Craigistic, pedophilian, what-have-you.

Get it yet?

> And yay for these people who are lean and eat pizzas and ice cream. I
> also used to eat pizzas, ice cream and all kinds of other junk, was >lean
> (I weigh only about 5 pounds less now as 100% raw as opposed to when I
> ate SAD and 100% cooked).

Water weight. Add some salt to your raw food, your weight will be five
pounds up within a day.

>Lean doesn't equate to true health.

You're the one who brought it up.

>A very
> lean guy who used to be a school teacher of mine recently died at age >55
> of a heart attack.

He may very well have been healthy, too, right up to his death. I don't
think you understand about health, and death, yet. Hopefully that comes
later in your studies at -- what school is it?

> I guess the only way to make statements on this list is to provide
> "PROOF" for everything.

Well, if you're going to make dumb statements, proof is required. If you
make a weency bit smarter statements, no proof is required.

>I figured people on here would be bright >enough
> to realize that cooked fats are harmful.

No, this is a very dumb list. There is an unusually large proportion of
stupid people on this list, for some reason.

> I guess I was wrong in giving
> the benefit of the doubt.

Yes, I guess you were. That's surprising, too, considering your
considerable perceptive acumen.

> I guess people on this list might even want "proof" that the SAD is
> bad!!!

Actually, yes. I would like that, if it's not too much trouble. Exactly
which aspects of that diet are you referring to? Since the term SAD is
so widely inclusive, I'd like to know precisely what you mean when you
speak of that diet.


>Heck, if people aren't convinced that cooked meat, cooked fats,
> etc. are unhealthy and toxic, then why not go all the way and question
> the fact that the SAD is toxic and unhealthy?

I, in fact, do question that "fact."  And I would like to hear your
favorite definition of SAD.

> Again, am I on the right email list?

I'm not sure. What do you think? Are you on the right list? What do you
think this list is about?

> And: What if you felt your body could "tolerate well" the >aforementioned
> heavily salted foods, bakery products, etc.? Many people find they can
> "tolerate well" these things, and on a daily basis. So, if you felt no
> problem with it, would this be your "proof" that these things are
> healthy to eat?

Since health is determined by many other factors besides food, his
health could, in fact, be quite excellent, eating only these things. I
see people all the time that have subsisted for years - decades -
lifetimes - on chocolate bars, potato chips, pepsi, and an occassional
hamburger "for the protein" (with lettuce and tomato added since
everybody knows you're supposed to eat vegetables). And these people are
often - and I'm using the word often not sometimes - strong, healthy
from every way one might ascertain this aspect, cheerful, and
fun-loving. How do you explain that?

> Many people find they can tolerate cigarettes, alcohol, McDonald's,
> etc.. Does this mean that these things are the best things to put into
> the human organism?

NOW you are asking an intelligent question. Now you are on the right
track.

> Alcoholics find they can tolerate a LOT of alcohol...

Not as intelligent a question, since there is a lot of evidence showing
pretty clerly what goes on in the body with alcohol. Physiological and
emotional addiction is much easier to decipher with alcohol and
nicotine, than with the "MacDonald's" you mentioned above.

> Road kill doesn't appeal to me. When I see a dead animal laying on the
> road, I certainly don't get excited about it and desire to imbibe in
> that putrefying flesh.

You might if you were hungry.

> But to each his/her own.

Aha! You haven't said this before.

> What's the theory behind this practice? What benefit does one >supposedly
> derive from this?

Hello. Rational, logical, rigorous thinking.

Get it?


Love, Liza

[log in to unmask] (Liza May)

ATOM RSS1 RSS2