-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: I asked Larry whether it was ok to send out this correspondence and
      he said that it was.

Michael
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Forwarded message:

On Sun, 11 Feb 1996, Michael Clingman wrote:

> Larry,

> Please email me a more in depth discussion of this.

> This was sort of an unexpected post.  The implication seems to be that
> there is little benefit to a raw foods diet, or if there is a benefit it
> is due to something other than enzyme activity, or perhaps that
> scientific studies have been inadequate.

Dear Michael,

I am sorry for the tone of that message.  Raw foods are valuable, I was
just referring to enzymes and their alleged digestability benefits.
Research needs to be done in this area.

> My personal experience is that a largely raw foods diet has been very
> beneficial.  What makes it hard to do though is the almost total lack of
> scientific studies.  Many studies on diet and
> nutrition are based on cooked food diets or people on cooked foods diets
> and the results may not apply to raw foodists.

Yes, Michael, that is true, studies need to be done.  When I was working
on my dissertation I had come upon some material that had to do with the
glycemic effect of foods.  I think there was some discussion in
several of the journal articles about raw food and cooked.  It was at the
medical school here at UNM.  I had to go through thousands of journal
articles during that year.
Some day I need to go back and look these up.

> Also I was wondering about your interest in this subject.  Have you
> personally tried a raw foods diet?  If so, what were the effects?  Did
> you decide to stay on it or leave and for what reasons?  Or is it a part
> of a scientific interest in diet and nutrition?

Yes, I try to eat as much raw food as possible.  However, I think some
cooked food is also beneficial.  For example, a recent study showed that
men whom consume lots of tomato products have lower rates of prostate
cancer than those who don't.  Cooked tomatoes were more effective than
raw.  Because cooking released some type of anti-oxidant.
I think raw food is usually more nutritious than cooked.

> Your post was about enzymes in sprouts.  But the same logic would apply
> to raw fruits and vegetables.  What is your opinion on this?

Yes, it would.  Carlton Fredricks claimed that in one of his books that
was written in the 1970s, I need to find it again and read it and then
share it with you.

> At last year's Natural Hygiene Society annual convention T. Colin
>Campbell, who did the extensive China Study of nutrition in China, was
>the keynote speaker.  His summary of their findings was that the more fruits
>and vegetables in the diet the healther the people were,  and the more of the
> food that was raw, the healthier they were.

Yes, I agree 100% with him, I used some of his studies in my
dissertation.  My dissertation was on vegetarians.
Dr. Campbell is great, I belong to his organization "Physicians Committee
for Responsible Medicine".

Again, Michael, I hope my letter was not a 'flame' type when I posted
it.  I should have toned it down.  I do believe in raw food.  Right now,
Michael, I think 50% raw and 50% cooked is ideal, because when I worked
at the health food store (paid my way through undergraduate school with
that job), I heard many health lectures, and they used to say that.  I
think Betty Lee Morales said that also.  I heard Dr. Ann Wigmore once
also.  She of course was for all raw food.

Thanks for your letter, Michael, please keep in contact.  Sincerely Yours,

Larry Semark

PS.  I enjoy the raw food mailing list.