Alexander wrote (Wed, 10 Apr 1996) on veg-raw:

So as I've read, Dr. Shelton believed that what most people commonly
interpret as hunger (stomach pangs) is not a sign of true physiological
hunger, but something else. Yet, as best I recall, he really didn't explain
what it IS (other than "gastric irritation"). So what is it? And why does
eating, in fact, relieve this unpleasant sensation?

Any opinions?

----------------------------------
Hi Alex,

For me the key words you use (and I agree with your language) are:

"relieve"  and "unpleasant sensation"

Now, I don't think nature(or God) either meant "hunger" to be unpleasant
or that it should thus require relief. And why should our bodily
requirements for nutrients always occur at a specific time that we
originally designated?

The language of the "cooked food" experience is that of the junkies. An
insatiable desire to quell a pang. Those who eat high amounts of damaged
"foods" are experiencing a war of attrition that they will always lose.
Never provided with undamaged goods their biochemistry is permanantly
hungry, yet the victim feels full. All he has done is sent his enzymes
and so on packing with a thick ear of cooked glop. They'll be back
later, and sooner. ;) We know better.

I remember when I drank coffee daily, my body clock would lock on
accurately to waking up at a given time for its fix. This is a pain in
the butt at the weekends when early rising for work is not required, or
when you stay up late and need to wake up later! It's like a meal time
to!

My experience with high raw food diet is much different. That unpleasant
feel of "hunger" has gone and is replaced by a not unpleasant desire for
food, the eating of which is not a feeling of relief, but of completion,
or unity. There is no sudden relief, just a new energy phaze.
This is all very subjective to be sure, but at an emotional level I
honestly do feel different. I can easily go without meals at all some
days when I have enough energy without consuming more than an apple or
two- even if I do lots of exercise. The body clock has sychronised to my
requirements and abandoned cultured dogma.

But what is so bad about this dogma? Would drug user language imply
an addictive agent? I reckon yes, and I think the substance is sodium,
as salt. A typical cooked diet has more than 20 times the sodium of a
raw diet. Sodium is called addictive by some orthodox nutrition
authorities. Knowing of no other addictive agent present (perhaps fat?)
and based on my experience, I agree. The fact that "giving up"(!) cooked
food and eating real health giving food is so hard should be an
indication of the power of this addiction. The result of the addiction
is of course ill health, degeneration and so on...

On the other hand I could just be a carbo addict instead! But the
cancer correlations are -ve for this form of nutrition, and not for any
other.

hugs,
John.