Mike:

> The conclusion that some draw from the study is that cooked food is
> unnatural because of the leukocytosis. I think that is a strong
> possibility given that the effect is not seen with raw food.
>
> Just because eating 10% raw with your cooked can stop this effect is
> beside the point. The point for me is that the body is 'alarmed' by
> cooked food and not by raw. I agree that methods in the 20's/30's
> were probably not as good as today but are you suggesting that
>leukocytosis does not take place?

Given that
 1. Kouchakoff's results have not been replicated
 2. He finds that leukocytosis occurs with "cooked" (but cold) water

there is a strong possibility that leukocytosis does not take place.

But _suppose_ for one moment that it does, then for me, the fact that
eating
10% raw can stop this effect means that one should eat plenty of raw
foods
at each meal (e.g. a salad), and that meat should be cooked very rare
or
eaten raw.

> I agree again that there is speculation but someone who is trying to find
> the optimum diet, for whatever reason needs to make choices given the
> available information. Should I wait until some scientist decides to
> repeat the experiments or should I use the speculative conclusions to try
> to puzzle out what the hell we humans should be eating - ideally.

You can use whatever speculative conclusion you like, but remember
that,
especially in the domain of diet, there is much more speculation than
certainty floating around.

> People who eat a raw food diet always report 'crashing' if cooked food is
> eaten after an extended period of raw. This represents the true reaction
> of the body to that foodstuff as regular consumption can mask it's true
> effect.

It depends what you mean by "cooked food" (is that steamed vegetables
or
hamburgers & French fries?) and what you mean by "crashing" (is that
discomfort or becoming seriously ill?). Kirt and Tom say they feel
better
with some cooked food than on their former all-raw diet.