Reasons To Go Raw - Page 5 - VeggieBoards
Forum Jump: 
 187Likes
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
#121 Old 02-08-2016, 09:40 AM
Veggie Regular
 
Shallot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: UK
Posts: 437
Quote:
Originally Posted by no whey jose View Post
Very hot. The burning is the best part. Sure it hurts, but at least you're feeling SOMETHING. Putting a scalding hot potato up your arse lets you know that you're ALIVE.
It's whole new world for carbo loading ...
Spudulika and no whey jose like this.
Shallot is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
#122 Old 02-08-2016, 09:51 AM
Veggie Regular
 
Spudulika's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: UK
Posts: 1,099
Quote:
Originally Posted by no whey jose View Post
Very hot. The burning is the best part. Sure it hurts, but at least you're feeling SOMETHING. Putting a scalding hot potato up your arse lets you know that you're ALIVE.
Hell Yeah!

>Off to watch Charlie Sheen while mentally subbing 'seven gram rocks' with 'seven pound spuds'<
Spudulika is offline  
#123 Old 02-08-2016, 09:51 AM
Banned
 
spaveg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by David3 View Post
Kaiser Permanente, one of the largest health insurance companies in the United States, has published its own Plant-Based Diet manual. It's completely vegan, and it recommends whole grains: http://www.kphealthyme.com/Healthy-E...ased-Diet.aspx
Whole grains are absolutely much better than white wheat flour (contained in bread, cakes, etc.), of course. Because it also contains fibers and many other elements from the skin of the grains (bran).

But most of the people do not supply their starch from whole grains.

And by eating raw, instead of cooking whole grains, your body will have a better capacity to heal and to defend itself. You should not believe me, because you can try that on yourself.
And that should be investigated thoroughly by the scientific community.

Quote:
I would like to see you removed from this forum, Spaveg. Not because you're asking probing questions, but because you are spreading unsubstantiated claims. Your misinformation is a danger to people who are trying to adopt a healthy diet. You are doing more harm than good.
I'm not the only one claiming that:
- fat is a source of energy
- raw vegetable fat is the best source of energy
- starch is broken in the intestine and enters into blood in the form of glucose + fructose.
- when the kidneys can't filter out all the excess glucose from the blood and that excess glucose remains in the blood, the body will try to store that extra glucose in the adipose tissue, in the form of fat and therefore they are getting weight.
- humans have a limited capacity to grow in weight
- when the human beings have too much glucose in their blood and the body reaches it's limits to grow in weight, the cells will refuse to accept glucose anymore and that's called insulin resistance.
- when the human beings have too much glucose in their blood and the body reaches it's limits to grow in weight, the extra amount of glucose will stay in the blood.
- when the extra amount of glucose remains in the blood, that's called diabetes.
- nutrients are more helpful for the human body when they come in their natural proportions

Instead of removing me and others like me, I think it would be in the benefit of all to engage such claims and to dismantle them, in case those claims are untrue. That would be really helpful for the readers of this forum. And to me and to others like me. If you won't do it, then another forum will do it, to your loss.

Probably it would be fairly easy to find enough people to support removing me, judging from where the "likes" are going in this thread.
But I think that would be highly incompatible to the concept of free speech and really damaging for the whole process of understanding how things work.

And many thanks to TailFin !

Last edited by spaveg; 02-08-2016 at 10:49 AM.
spaveg is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
#124 Old 02-08-2016, 10:38 AM
Banned
 
spaveg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spudulika View Post
There is no reason to believe that cooking food damages my health or my ability to heal.
Claiming that cooking food makes people ill when you have no proof, is a nutrition scare.

I'm not scared that I won't get enough nutrients from a raw food diet. There's simply nothing that makes me want to eat all raw. I enjoy having a mixture of cooked and raw food. I'm healthy on a mixture of cooked and raw food. There's nothing to show that eating all raw is worth my bothering with. If you like it, do it. I wouldn't like it.
In the video PandemicAcolyte linked in this post, the reporter (his name is Bananiac) says right in the beginning that many raw vegans reported reversing cancer.
This is the link to the post: https://www.veggieboards.com/forum/18...ml#post3899857

And it looks like vegans can't reverse cancer. Googling "vegan reverting cancer" I got links like these:
- The only thing that can make me forgive Robin Gibb of the Bee Gees for going over to the dark side (disco) in the late 1970s is the fact that he was a vegan—an “ardent vegan” no less, according to Wikipedia. - http://www.theveganrd.com/2012/05/wh...et-cancer.html
- vegans have lower rates of cancer than both meat-eaters and vegetarians - http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kathy-...b_2250052.html

While the info in the second link is encouraging, that's still far from reverting cancer.

So raw vegan food is way better than cooked whole food or any combination of whole cooked food and raw food. This is not a nutrition scare. This is plain reality and can be "peer reviewed" by anyone on themselves.

Having said that, I am glad that both you and me can eat whatever we want, because we are more lucky than some more of 80% of the people in the world who have to eat whatever they find available. While we gambol about our capricious culinary choices, many of them are starving. That probably makes us both look spoiled, cynical and disconnected from the reality. Not suggesting anything, I'm just saying.

Last edited by spaveg; 02-08-2016 at 10:40 AM.
spaveg is offline  
#125 Old 02-08-2016, 10:42 AM
Not such a Beginner ;)
 
LedBoots's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 8,394
Quote:
Originally Posted by spaveg View Post
I am extremely intrigued by this claim. I completely agree with Dr. Gregor about the calcium in the cow milk. But does he have peer-reviewed scientific studies to confirm his (and mine) claim?

I would be really tankful if you would post some links to such research, in case you can find them.
Try google. We have posted many links and videos here that you ignore, so I'm not wasting my time doing your work for you anymore.
LedBoots is offline  
#126 Old 02-08-2016, 10:49 AM
Not such a Beginner ;)
 
LedBoots's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 8,394
OK, here is one, can't resist:

"Clinical research shows that dairy products have little or no benefit for bones. A 2005 review published in Pediatrics showed that milk consumption does not improve bone integrity in children.2 In a more recent study, researchers tracked the diets, physical activity, and stress fracture incidences of adolescent girls for seven years, and concluded that dairy products and calcium do not prevent stress fractures in adolescent girls.3 Similarly, the Harvard Nurses’ Health Study, which followed more than 72,000 women for 18 years, showed no protective effect of increased milk consumption on fracture risk.1

It is possible to decrease the risk of osteoporosis by reducing sodium intake in the diet,4,5 increasing intake of fruits and vegetables,5,6 and ensuring adequate calcium intake from plant foods such as kale, broccoli, and other leafy green vegetables and beans. You can also use calcium-fortified products such as breakfast cereals and juices. Soy milk and fortified orange juice are two examples of products which provide about the same amount of calcium per serving as milk or other dairy products.7

Exercise is one of the most effective ways to increase bone density and decrease the risk of osteoporosis,8,9 and its benefits have been observed in studies of both children and adults.8,10-11

Individuals often drink milk in order to obtain vitamin D in their diets, unaware that they can receive vitamin D through other sources. Without vitamin D, only 10-15 percent of dietary calcium is absorbed.12"
http://www.pcrm.org/health/diets/veg...dairy-products
LedBoots is offline  
#127 Old 02-08-2016, 10:53 AM
Veggie Regular
 
no whey jose's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: West Sussex, UK
Posts: 2,671
Quote:
Originally Posted by spaveg View Post
In the video PandemicAcolyte linked in this post, the reporter (his name is Bananiac) says right in the beginning that many raw vegans reported reversing cancer.
This is so far from being proof, it's laughable. All this means is that some people claim to have reversed cancer through a raw diet-- in the same way that some people claim to have reversed cancer through prayer or crystals or aromatherapy. Claiming that something is true doesn't prove that it's true. Personally experiencing something (or believing that you've experienced something) doesn't prove that it's true, either, because we have the tendency to ascribe meaning to things which are coincidental or irrelevant.
no whey jose is offline  
#128 Old 02-08-2016, 11:02 AM
Banned
 
spaveg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by no whey jose View Post
Very hot. The burning is the best part. Sure it hurts, but at least you're feeling SOMETHING. Putting a scalding hot potato up your arse lets you know that you're ALIVE.
An American guy told me in year 2000 that a famous actor (Richard Gere) was putting a mouse in his arse (first in a balloon, then in the arse). As the mouse moves trying to escape, it generates "excitement" and makes some people feel like they are alive. Gere had some bad luck, because the balloon broke, and he had to call the doctors in order to remove the mouse.
I don't know if that really happened, but people must be awfully bored to try such things. Meanwhile I've found that the thing is called "gerbilling".
http://www.chicagoreader.com/chicago...nt?oid=9073674

As I am an avid news consumer, I noticed that before the economic crisis, there was a significant amount of news about such bored people.
Examples:
2000 - A WOMAN whose ambition was to have 100 body piercings died soon after reaching her target when her body became "overwhelmed" by infection - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...piercings.html
2001 - Cultural institution pays artist to ejaculate seven times - Mexican performance artist Israel Mora's semen is on display in seven glass vials at the Banff Centre in Alberta. - http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/585124/posts

So yes, there are plenty of such people around. The scientific community has their own such people also.
spaveg is offline  
#129 Old 02-08-2016, 11:02 AM
Veggie Regular
 
Shallot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: UK
Posts: 437
Quote:
Originally Posted by spaveg View Post
In the video PandemicAcolyte linked in this post, the reporter (his name is Bananiac) says right in the beginning that many raw vegans reported reversing cancer.
This is the link to the post: https://www.veggieboards.com/forum/18...ml#post3899857

And it looks like vegans can't reverse cancer. Googling "vegan reverting cancer" I got links like these:
- The only thing that can make me forgive Robin Gibb of the Bee Gees for going over to the dark side (disco) in the late 1970s is the fact that he was a vegan—an “ardent vegan” no less, according to Wikipedia. - http://www.theveganrd.com/2012/05/wh...et-cancer.html
- vegans have lower rates of cancer than both meat-eaters and vegetarians - http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kathy-...b_2250052.html

While the info in the second link is encouraging, that's still far from reverting cancer.

So raw vegan food is way better than cooked whole food or any combination of whole cooked food and raw food. This is not a nutrition scare. This is plain reality and can be "peer reviewed" by anyone on themselves.

Having said that, I am glad that both you and me can eat whatever we want, because we are more lucky than some more of 80% of the people in the world who have to eat whatever they find available. While we gambol about our capricious culinary choices, many of them are starving. That probably makes us both look spoiled, cynical and disconnected from the reality. Not suggesting anything, I'm just saying.
For clarity peer reviewed is defined as : a process by which a scholarly work (such as a paper or a research proposal) is checked by a group of experts in the same field to make sure it meets the necessary standards before it is published or accepted.

Even if I were to say that I'm defining a peer review as 'trying to recreate the same results' I can't peer review the results that you have had with a raw diet because I am starting from a fundamentally different place (I am very thin and eat a vegetarian diet with lots and lots of carbs - so I'm not looking for the same results as you are from a diet). No one here can peer review the results you've had for precisely this reason.

There is no evidence in any of your posts (only anecdotes - nothing scientific) to suggest that a raw vegan diet is inherently more nutritious than a cooked vegan diet. However I do accept that many people find a raw diet beneficial and that it works for them. I'm glad you've found something you're so passionately enthused by and hope that you continue to reap the benefits of your new diet.
Shallot is offline  
#130 Old 02-08-2016, 11:03 AM
Veggie Regular
 
Shallot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: UK
Posts: 437
Quote:
Originally Posted by no whey jose View Post
This is so far from being proof, it's laughable. All this means is that some people claim to have reversed cancer through a raw diet-- in the same way that some people claim to have reversed cancer through prayer or crystals or aromatherapy. Claiming that something is true doesn't prove that it's true. Personally experiencing something (or believing that you've experienced something) doesn't prove that it's true, either, because we have the tendency to ascribe meaning to things which are coincidental or irrelevant.
Me ... I'm crystals all the way
no whey jose likes this.
Shallot is offline  
#131 Old 02-08-2016, 11:21 AM
Banned
 
spaveg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by LedBoots View Post
OK, here is one, can't resist:

"Clinical research shows that dairy products have little or no benefit for bones. A 2005 review published in Pediatrics showed that milk consumption does not improve bone integrity in children.2 In a more recent study, researchers tracked the diets, physical activity, and stress fracture incidences of adolescent girls for seven years, and concluded that dairy products and calcium do not prevent stress fractures in adolescent girls.3 Similarly, the Harvard Nurses’ Health Study, which followed more than 72,000 women for 18 years, showed no protective effect of increased milk consumption on fracture risk.1

It is possible to decrease the risk of osteoporosis by reducing sodium intake in the diet,4,5 increasing intake of fruits and vegetables,5,6 and ensuring adequate calcium intake from plant foods such as kale, broccoli, and other leafy green vegetables and beans. You can also use calcium-fortified products such as breakfast cereals and juices. Soy milk and fortified orange juice are two examples of products which provide about the same amount of calcium per serving as milk or other dairy products.7

Exercise is one of the most effective ways to increase bone density and decrease the risk of osteoporosis,8,9 and its benefits have been observed in studies of both children and adults.8,10-11

Individuals often drink milk in order to obtain vitamin D in their diets, unaware that they can receive vitamin D through other sources. Without vitamin D, only 10-15 percent of dietary calcium is absorbed.12"
http://www.pcrm.org/health/diets/veg...dairy-products
Thanks but that research says that you don't get more calcium if you drink milk.
I can't find the part that says or suggests that the milk is actually leaching calcium.
spaveg is offline  
#132 Old 02-08-2016, 12:27 PM
Banned
 
spaveg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by no whey jose View Post
This is so far from being proof, it's laughable. All this means is that some people claim to have reversed cancer through a raw diet-- in the same way that some people claim to have reversed cancer through prayer or crystals or aromatherapy. Claiming that something is true doesn't prove that it's true. Personally experiencing something (or believing that you've experienced something) doesn't prove that it's true, either, because we have the tendency to ascribe meaning to things which are coincidental or irrelevant.
Then why do you think Mr. Gregor doesn't dismiss that claim of the reporter? After all, he is a scientific man and when you are into science you have some standards.
He could have told to Bananiac exactly what you said.
spaveg is offline  
#133 Old 02-08-2016, 12:34 PM
Veggie Regular
 
no whey jose's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: West Sussex, UK
Posts: 2,671
Quote:
Originally Posted by spaveg View Post
Then why do you think Mr. Gregor doesn't dismiss that claim of the reporter? After all, he is a scientific man and when you are into science you have some standards.
He could have told to Bananiac exactly what you said.
He effectively dismisses the claim when he explains that there's no particular benefit to raw food versus cooked, and he explains the most likely reason why people feel healthier on a raw diet: it cuts out the junk food.
no whey jose is offline  
#134 Old 02-08-2016, 01:23 PM
Vegan since 1991
 
David3's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 3,659
Quote:
Originally Posted by spaveg View Post

I'm not the only one claiming that:
- fat is a source of energy
- raw vegetable fat is the best source of energy
- starch is broken in the intestine and enters into blood in the form of glucose + fructose.
- when the kidneys can't filter out all the excess glucose from the blood and that excess glucose remains in the blood, the body will try to store that extra glucose in the adipose tissue, in the form of fat and therefore they are getting weight.
- humans have a limited capacity to grow in weight
- when the human beings have too much glucose in their blood and the body reaches it's limits to grow in weight, the cells will refuse to accept glucose anymore and that's called insulin resistance.
- when the human beings have too much glucose in their blood and the body reaches it's limits to grow in weight, the extra amount of glucose will stay in the blood.
- when the extra amount of glucose remains in the blood, that's called diabetes.
- nutrients are more helpful for the human body when they come in their natural proportions


Spaveg,

About 3 days ago, you told a woman with type 2 diabetes that she should avoid eating lentils. Your post was irresponsible, and was removed. The American Diabetes Association specifically recommends eating beans (a class of food that includes lentils): http://www.diabetes.org/food-and-fit...uperfoods.html

That's the misinformation I'm talking about.

When you irresponsibly lump together "whole grains" and "processed grains", and discourage people from eating grains, that is also irresponsible.

No - you're not the only person making your claims. This doesn't remove the burden of proof from you. This proof, in order to be credible, should come from reputable organizations, or from peer-reviewed studies. These studies exist, and I have listed them for you. There may be more as well.

_________

Specific recommendations for a healthy diet include: eating more fruit, vegetables, legumes, nuts and grains; cutting down on salt, sugar and fats. It is also advisable to choose unsaturated fats, instead of saturated fats and towards the elimination of trans-fatty acids."
- United Nations' World Health Organization
http://www.who.int/topics/diet/en/

Last edited by David3; 02-08-2016 at 01:37 PM.
David3 is offline  
#135 Old 02-08-2016, 02:03 PM
Banned
 
spaveg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by no whey jose View Post
He effectively dismisses the claim when he explains that there's no particular benefit to raw food versus cooked, and he explains the most likely reason why people feel healthier on a raw diet: it cuts out the junk food.
He doesn't. Just as you did, he should have dismissed such claims of raw vegans reverting cancer. Those are extremely serious claims. He didn't say anything about the reliability of those claims, as a scientist is supposed to do. You are doing that, he should have done that too.
spaveg is offline  
#136 Old 02-08-2016, 02:59 PM
Banned
 
spaveg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by David3 View Post
Spaveg,

About 3 days ago, you told a woman with type 2 diabetes that she should avoid eating lentils. Your post was irresponsible, and was removed. The American Diabetes Association specifically recommends eating beans (a class of food that includes lentils): http://www.diabetes.org/food-and-fit...uperfoods.html

That's the misinformation I'm talking about.

When you irresponsibly lump together "whole grains" and "processed grains", and discourage people from eating grains, that is also irresponsible.

No - you're not the only person making your claims. This doesn't remove the burden of proof from you. This proof, in order to be credible, should come from reputable organizations, or from peer-reviewed studies. These studies exist, and I have listed them for you. There may be more as well.
And a study published in the July/August issue of the Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior by researchers from the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis says: "Young adults are not drinking enough milk." / A study published in 2006 in the Journal of Dairy Science by the National Dairy Council reports how milk builds strong bones, lowers blood pressure, contributes to weight loss and body fat reduction and protects against several kinds of cancer - http://www.livescience.com/9682-milk-myth-body.html

Also "Milk has long been recommended by doctors and nutritionists for boosting calcium intake and helping to keep bones strong" - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/heal...cientists.html

And we probably both agree that milk is not required for calcium and it's in fact damaging to the human body (LedBoots provided the evidence). I didn't need to wait for any scientific research to understand that because I relied on common sense and basic logic.

The plain reality is that the scientists, doctors and nutritionists can say a lot of stupid stuff. Based on scientific, peer-reviewed research. And they are actually doing that, many times.

Are the beans a better food comparing to chocolate, donuts, cakes, pizza, potatoes and bread? Sure, and by eating beans, people will get much better than eating the said junk food.
But are the beans actually a really good option? Not really. If you rely on raw vegetable fat as your energy source, there is no sugar to enter in your blood. And the vegetable salads will add less sugar in your blood than the starch in the whole grains, which are in fact, deposits of starch.

Your own common sense and basic logic can be way more useful than a lot of scientific, peer-reviewed research, which can sometimes (or many times?) actually be really damaging for you - see the above example with the milk.

I did post that "damaging" message in the thread about diabetes, indeed, and it was removed, and I wasn't looking to post it again, and I wasn't upset and I didn't see any conspiracy in that. I really understand the concern to keep reliable information in such a tread, no matter what "reliable information" means for the moderators. After all, it's their forum, not mine.
But I can't see why such things should not be discussed separately, in a thread like this.

Now I would like to review the ideas engaged in this thread:

spaveg, 2016-02-05 - Yet, the reality is that all the wild animals live without drinking milk or eating diary products. And then, humans can also live without diary products, since the human body and cells are not that different than of animals.
spaveg, 2016-01-31 - In such conditions, your own empirical observations (e.g. not getting sleepy after eating raw food) and common sense have infinitely more value than the scant scientific evidence on the topic.
no whey jose, 2016-01-31 - common sense is completely worthless when it comes to determining the truth.
2016-02-08: the research provided by LedBoots show that, indeed, we don't need milk for calcium

And then, I was right to rely on common sense and basic logic. In such situations, it's better to rely on them instead of waiting decades for scientific research. And it's better to believe in your common sense and basic logic than to listen to any forum member or forum moderator who suggest that you should wait (decades or centuries) for scientific research and that you should not believe in your own common sense and in basic logic.

Still, nobody tried to answer this basic question:
Quote:
Originally Posted by spaveg View Post
2016-01-31 - All the animals in the nature are not cooking food and they seem to be able to supply themselves with the nutrients they need. Why would the humans be the only exception?
Do I have to wait 250 years until the scientific community confirms that, actually, raw food is better and then someone like LedBoots will point me to such research?

Absorbing and making use of one nutrient requires many other nutrients.
Making use of calcium requires vitamin D, sunlight, but also magnesium it seems:
Your body needs a certain amount of magnesium in order to get the calcium to your bones - without magnesium, calcium cannot build strong bones. - https://www.veggieboards.com/forum/22...k-calcium.html

The reality shows that we always discover more and more inter-dependencies between nutrients, and then the old beliefs that "you need to eat X because it contains the nutrient Y" become irrelevant.

And then, if we need cooked food, then why the animals can get their all their nutrients from raw food (which contains the right balance of nutrients)? Why would humans be the only exception?

This is the most fundamental, basic question, and I invite you to answer to that question.

As for me, I've already found the answer, and just like in the calcium-milk issue, I'm not going to wait for decades or centuries until the scientific community will answer to that question. If you feel more comfortable to wait so much for that "reliable scientific data" to be delivered (by the people with certificates who are actually saying stupid and damaging things many times), I can only wish you good luck and a lot of patience, because you really need them!

Last edited by spaveg; 02-08-2016 at 04:21 PM.
spaveg is offline  
#137 Old 02-08-2016, 03:27 PM
Plant/Fungi based.
 
PandemicAcolyte's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Mars
Posts: 384
If you won't believe any form of research and dismiss it then why ask to see the research? If the only thing we have to debate with is anecdotal claims then all this is pointless. You ask to see studies and research then when people provide it you say science doesn't prove anything and we should rely on common sense. I can't take this. This is not debating I'm out.

Last edited by PandemicAcolyte; 02-08-2016 at 05:07 PM.
PandemicAcolyte is offline  
#138 Old 02-08-2016, 03:39 PM
Banned
 
spaveg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shallot View Post
For clarity peer reviewed is defined as : a process by which a scholarly work (such as a paper or a research proposal) is checked by a group of experts in the same field to make sure it meets the necessary standards before it is published or accepted.
And the scientists relying on such standards can be very wrong, as you can see the example with the calcium-milk in my post above.

Quote:
Even if I were to say that I'm defining a peer review as 'trying to recreate the same results' I can't peer review the results that you have had with a raw diet because I am starting from a fundamentally different place (I am very thin and eat a vegetarian diet with lots and lots of carbs - so I'm not looking for the same results as you are from a diet).
Excuse me, can I ask what kind of carbohydrates are you mainly consuming? Fruits or starch-based?
Can I recommend you to try raw vegetable fat as an energy source? Avocado or cold press sunflower oil. Or other types of cold press oil, like for example from pumpkin seeds (more expensive though).
Many raw foodists consider the raw vegetable fat to be the best source of energy by far. Some people consume coconut butter - I have never tried it though.
If you are underweight, you will get to the normal weight using a raw vegan diet containing enough fat.

Quote:
No one here can peer review the results you've had for precisely this reason.
Sorry but this is extreme. Of course that any obese person can peer-review my experiment. Also those suffering from hemorrhoids.

Quote:
There is no evidence in any of your posts (only anecdotes - nothing scientific) to suggest that a raw vegan diet is inherently more nutritious than a cooked vegan diet.
Scientific conclusions can and many times do contain a lot of errors. The fact that I could get down so much weight, that I got rid of hemorrhoids, that I can eat now as much as I want without getting weight, is anything but anecdotal evidence. And way more valuable than any scientific research.

Scientists can't be bothered to answer the most basic question: "Why would humans need to cook their food in order to be healthy when all the wild animals don't need to cook, and they are also way better than us?".
I really don't think it's a good idea to give them more credit than what they deserve.

Quote:
However I do accept that many people find a raw diet beneficial and that it works for them. I'm glad you've found something you're so passionately enthused by and hope that you continue to reap the benefits of your new diet.
Thanks, and I hope to see you on the other side of the "cooking stream" one day!
spaveg is offline  
#139 Old 02-08-2016, 03:55 PM
Banned
 
spaveg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by PandemicAcolyte View Post
If u won't believe any form of research and dismiss it then why ask to see the research? If the only thing we have to debate with is anecdotal claims then all this is pointless. You ask to see studies and research then when people provide it you say science doesn't prove anything and we should rely on common sense. I can't take this. This is not debating I'm out.
I do not dismiss every research, how did you get to that conclusion? I am actually welcoming and embracing the research made on essential topics, like for the example the research about milk that LedBoots was pointing at. That's the kind of research we actually need. And I dare to say that such research should have been done with some 50 years before it was done.

I said that I expect the scientific community to try to do the most basic research and to answer the most basic questions. And if they are not doing it, then you are way better using your common sense than waiting for them to deliver - that's my point.

When they will bother to investigate the most important things, I will welcome such research.

Did the scientists, doctors and nutritionists made a huge mistake by recommending milk to the public for so many decades? They did!
Am I such a prick for pointing at that reality?
I really can't see why this topic should be a taboo, and there is no reason to be upset because someone actually dares to point at the errors made by the scientific community.
There is no reason to regard the people in the scientific community like gods and we are better if we know and accept that such errors exist. The more we know such things, the better for us.

Last edited by spaveg; 02-08-2016 at 04:13 PM.
spaveg is offline  
#140 Old 02-08-2016, 04:51 PM
Veggie Regular
 
no whey jose's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: West Sussex, UK
Posts: 2,671
You're embracing research which leads to the conclusions that you find favourable and dismissing everything else with comments like "science is wrong" and "my experience is more valuable than scientific research."

You repeatedly misuse words like "anecdotal" and "peer review" even after you've been corrected. You can't argue that your personal experience is "far from anecdotal evidence" when personal experiences are the definition of anecdotal evidence. You can't say that "any obese person" can "peer review" your claims because that doesn't make any sense. That's not what "peer review" means! It's exasperating.
no whey jose is offline  
#141 Old 02-08-2016, 05:27 PM
Super Moderator
 
silva's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 8,956
The issue with personal trials and trusting your "common sense" is that it's very, very subjective.
People swear by bone broth, raw meat, and coffee enemas for curing their ills, as well as low fat dairy for keeping off weight. That really is what you're doing.
As for other animals not cooking? They didn't invent the internet either. They also don't extract oils.
What's your take on the perfectly healthy, lean, fit whole food vegans out there? To listen to you they're all fat with hemorroids
silva is offline  
#142 Old 02-09-2016, 03:13 AM
Veggie Regular
 
Shallot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: UK
Posts: 437
Quote:
Originally Posted by spaveg View Post
And the scientists relying on such standards can be very wrong, as you can see the example with the calcium-milk in my post above.

Excuse me, can I ask what kind of carbohydrates are you mainly consuming? Fruits or starch-based?
Can I recommend you to try raw vegetable fat as an energy source? Avocado or cold press sunflower oil. Or other types of cold press oil, like for example from pumpkin seeds (more expensive though).
Many raw foodists consider the raw vegetable fat to be the best source of energy by far. Some people consume coconut butter - I have never tried it though.
If you are underweight, you will get to the normal weight using a raw vegan diet containing enough fat.

Sorry but this is extreme. Of course that any obese person can peer-review my experiment. Also those suffering from hemorrhoids.


Scientific conclusions can and many times do contain a lot of errors. The fact that I could get down so much weight, that I got rid of hemorrhoids, that I can eat now as much as I want without getting weight, is anything but anecdotal evidence. And way more valuable than any scientific research.

Scientists can't be bothered to answer the most basic question: "Why would humans need to cook their food in order to be healthy when all the wild animals don't need to cook, and they are also way better than us?".
I really don't think it's a good idea to give them more credit than what they deserve.


Thanks, and I hope to see you on the other side of the "cooking stream" one day!
1. Of course scientists can be wrong - that's why their results have to be peer reviewed and new evidence (!) can over turn previous science (Anecdotes based on just your experience are insufficient as science)
2. Mostly wheat for carbs (love bread - it's fantastic). Of course I eat fats as well - a raw vegan diet is not suitable for me due to my IBS issues. This my personal experience (and proven over many years of eating like this - I'm 39) so you will just have to accept that I am right (and that I trump all science in this particular case). In fact I'm pretty sure that everyone who follows my diet will have exactly the same experience as me ... ;-) you should try it. :-P
3. Of course some other obese persons may be able to achieve similar results but it is not a peer review. No matter how many times you say it is - it still isn't.
4. You have just described what anecdotal evidence is - your personal experience. You are a perfect example of anecdotal evidence.
5. Wild animals have fundamentally different digestive systems - please check these basic facts before you compare humans to either ruminants, obligate carnivores or whatever else you are trying to emulate. Animals are not better than us. They are different and more vulnerable and as such deserve special consideration. However we should not try to model ourselves on them - it would not be helpful for us.

It must be very frustrating for you to have what you feel is an answer to so many problems but not have the sort of evidence that converts everyone else. Personal experience is immensely powerful and can blind us to what is actually going on. My personal experience is that a vegetarian diet (with a very limited diary intake) helps me manage a range of health issues (this won't be exciting to the rest of you but my iron levels are down - I am psyched!). I'm pretty sure that other people with the same conditions would experience and improvement as well - but there is no science to back up my claims. So I try to be careful in how I word my advice. I don't use lots of absolutes, I couch it in terms of my journey and what I have found personally effective - even if other people were to experience the same effects it still would not be science. Sadly there's no money in advising people to eat differently - so I suspect the pharma industry won't be throwing themselves at this research. That being said the university of Surrey was featured in the BBC series 'trust me I'm a doctor' where they delved into some aspects of eating (not veg*n).
no whey jose likes this.
Shallot is offline  
#143 Old 02-09-2016, 06:42 AM
Veggie Regular
 
TailFin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: East Coast, USA
Posts: 498
Spaveg, do I have to repeat my tirade on the scientific method?

It's funny how people that don't understand the basics of science claim that scientists can be wrong and act as if it's unconscionable. Scientists are always reviewing their work and others' work to falsify it, to try to solidify our understanding of a topic. Scientists work hard to provide evidence to support their hypotheses, many times finding out that what they hypothesized was incorrect. Yes. Scientists can be, and frankly are, wrong many times. Absolutely.

At least scientists admit when they are wrong, unlike many others.

When a scientist is wrong, it somehow makes people believe that science and scientists are wishy-washy. It causes them to distrust science. They believe that all the work was for naught, that all the work must be thrown away. But, all the work will be used to support another hypothesis. The result wasn't for naught. Science isn't weak. When people start to believe that science is weak or indecisive, it's obvious they have zero understanding of how science works.

I wish uninformed folk believed in science as much as they believed in religion. Or their own diet.
TailFin is offline  
#144 Old 02-09-2016, 06:53 AM
Veggie Regular
 
TailFin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: East Coast, USA
Posts: 498
Quote:
Originally Posted by no whey jose View Post
You're embracing research which leads to the conclusions that you find favourable and dismissing everything else with comments like "science is wrong" and "my experience is more valuable than scientific research."

You repeatedly misuse words like "anecdotal" and "peer review" even after you've been corrected. You can't argue that your personal experience is "far from anecdotal evidence" when personal experiences are the definition of anecdotal evidence. You can't say that "any obese person" can "peer review" your claims because that doesn't make any sense. That's not what "peer review" means! It's exasperating.
It is exasperating! I feel like we're just adding fuel to the fire...

Dale Carnegie once said something to the effect that you can't win an argument; nine times out of ten the contestants will leave being more firmly convinced that they were correct.

Seems like that's what's happening here. Can I make a motion to close this thread?

ETA: any further discussions could take place in private messages, if any user so desires?
TailFin is offline  
#145 Old 02-09-2016, 07:08 AM
Veggie Regular
 
odizzido's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 727
I haven't read 99% of this thread....all I want to say is that eating raw lentils is not the greatest idea spaveg. If you care you can look up why.
no whey jose likes this.
odizzido is offline  
Closed Thread

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the VeggieBoards forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
If you do not want to register, fill this field only and the name will be used as user name for your post.
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:

Log-in


Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off