Reasons To Go Raw - VeggieBoards
Forum Jump: 
 187Likes
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
#1 Old 12-22-2015, 04:05 PM
Don't Eat Animals.
 
Vegan Dave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: USA
Posts: 1,291
Reasons To Go Raw

I was toying with this idea about a year ago. I got several books, and the concept seemed plausible, but I never grasped it. (I think I was too busy to actually focus on it).

Anyway, I'm wondering what would replace a hot bowl of oatmeal on a winter day? Or a quick cup of soup to warm the bones. I live up North, where it gets pretty cold.

I guess my main concerns are:

-- why is raw better than cooked?

-- what is the primary motivating factor in going raw?

The books I read cited "lost nutrients" in cooking, but is that the primary factor? I think a lot of cooked food is still nutritious, right?

I'm still on the fence, and trying to understand what's involved......so any info would be appreciated.

All animals should be respected & should have the ability to lead a natural & enjoyable life. This means not eating them, or abusing them in any way.
Vegan Dave is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
#2 Old 12-22-2015, 06:54 PM
Veggie Regular
 
odizzido's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 727
I looked into this quite some time ago. One of the better articles I found was this

http://www.beyondveg.com/tu-j-l/raw-...ooked-1a.shtml

There is a lot of material there, but there is also a table of contents which you can use to skip to the parts you find relevant
odizzido is offline  
#3 Old 12-23-2015, 06:19 PM
Newbie
 
Vincent Vegan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Location: Denver, Colorado
Posts: 13
I've been eating mostly raw this year. part of my reason is not having a kitchen at this time. I can only cook small things. My taste tells me that raw veggies seem to provide more living enzymes and subtle nutrient tastes. However, I will eventually get back to cooking warm soups from scratch.

I personally think that raw should be a large portion of vegan diet but I also think that cooking improves lots of foods. You might lose some nutrients but gain a benefit by making some foods more digestible through cooking. I suspect that a lot of raw food lovers get a huge natural sugar buzz from fruit juices and sweet foods like wheatgrass and carrot juice. Juicing can be good but it gets hyped by raw advocates. Keep in mind that chomping on raw apples can be better than drinking apple juice from the same apples because your body will absorb natural sugars too fast and some of that will convert to fat. But I'm not a big fruit fan for that same reason. I think that raw veggies are vastly superior to raw fruits unless you just need energy quickly.

I prefer rooty veggies and dark greens and sea veggies and odd colorful veggies and Lord knows I love things that need cooking like butternut squash. Raw veggies are a fantastic way to center your diet. I think raw is mostly the best way to go. But nobody can outdo my delicious warm soups.

Last edited by Vincent Vegan; 12-23-2015 at 06:23 PM. Reason: pesky rewording urges
Vincent Vegan is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
#4 Old 12-24-2015, 04:05 PM
Don't Eat Animals.
 
Vegan Dave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: USA
Posts: 1,291
Thanks for the replies!!

Maybe something to transition to in the new year!!

All animals should be respected & should have the ability to lead a natural & enjoyable life. This means not eating them, or abusing them in any way.
Vegan Dave is offline  
#5 Old 01-30-2016, 09:13 AM
Banned
 
spaveg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 96
Once you cook or process the food, the balance between the nutrients inside raw food is broken. In order to make best use of the nutrients (minerals, vitamins, etc.), they must be in the right quantities and in the right proportions, as they are in the raw food.
Also, once you cook the food, the enzymes die and they have an important role in digestion and absorption of nutrients. Also the Cis–trans isomerism of the molecules changes when cooking, and that means the body must invest a lot of energy to make use of the molecules because it has to convert them back to the right isomers. The same with dextrorotation and levorotation. Once your body will have no energy to convert the molecules to the right state, it will start building with the wrong molecules, and is how cancer appears: building un-natural cells, foreign from your body.

Last edited by spaveg; 01-30-2016 at 09:15 AM.
spaveg is offline  
#6 Old 01-30-2016, 09:56 AM
Super Moderator
 
silva's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 8,954
I've never had any desire to try it beyond having lots of mixed veggy salads
Look up Kiwibird and Penny79, and old member, posts. They're quite knowledgable and do very well
skinnieminnie likes this.
silva is offline  
#7 Old 01-30-2016, 10:46 AM
Super Moderator
 
no whey jose's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: West Sussex, UK
Posts: 2,671
Quote:
Originally Posted by spaveg View Post
Once you cook or process the food, the balance between the nutrients inside raw food is broken. In order to make best use of the nutrients (minerals, vitamins, etc.), they must be in the right quantities and in the right proportions, as they are in the raw food.
Also, once you cook the food, the enzymes die and they have an important role in digestion and absorption of nutrients. Also the Cis–trans isomerism of the molecules changes when cooking, and that means the body must invest a lot of energy to make use of the molecules because it has to convert them back to the right isomers. The same with dextrorotation and levorotation. Once your body will have no energy to convert the molecules to the right state, it will start building with the wrong molecules, and is how cancer appears: building un-natural cells, foreign from your body.
I am very sceptical. Got any sources or articles about this? My understanding was that cooking destroys certain nutrients but makes others more readily available, so it's best to eat a variety of both cooked and raw foods, but I am interested in learning
Shallot, Spudulika and SpookyKid like this.

Last edited by no whey jose; 01-30-2016 at 10:50 AM.
no whey jose is offline  
#8 Old 01-31-2016, 06:05 AM
Banned
 
spaveg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by no whey jose View Post
I am very sceptical. Got any sources or articles about this? My understanding was that cooking destroys certain nutrients but makes others more readily available, so it's best to eat a variety of both cooked and raw foods, but I am interested in learning
Which nutrients are more readily available and are so important that we have to cook the food?
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?
Also the animals don't drink or eat any milk or milk products in adulthood and they are capable to live very well with it and to get their supplies of calcium and proteins. Miraculously, only the human beings seem to need dairy products for calcium and proteins! (according to a big number of scientists)

Don't expect any serious research on this topic, since the vast majority of research is made by laboratories paid by pharmaceutical companies, they don't want the people to be healthy because they want to keep selling drugs.

Most of the living cells are built with levorotation molecules (I remember reading it some 20 years ago, can't find sources now), and, by a strange coincidence, tumor cells grow in dextrorotation (https://books.google.es/books?id=OXZ...cancer&f=false).
It looks like cooking modifies the molecules from levorotation to dextrorotation. Again, don't expect any scientific laboratory to research such basic facts. I would rather start a kickstarter campaign to fund such a research than to wait for Hoffmann-La Roche to do it.
Same with cis-trans isomerism. Interesting enough, the isomerism of certain molecules changes at 37 degrees celsius, and when people/animals die of hyperthermia (fever), they die because the enzymes in their blood die first. Without our enzymes in our bodies we are dead. Isomerism and levorotation changes above 37 degrees.

During the eighteenth century the French Academy of Sciences stubbornly denied the evidence for the fall of meteorites, which seemed massively obvious to everybody else. Yet, the rocks were falling from the sky since billions of years before that, and they did not need any certificate from the French Academy of Sciences.

Same here, try raw food on yourself and you will see that, after eating raw food, you don't suddenly feel sleepy or tired and you don't need a siesta, like you need after eating cooked food. Is there any study on this basic fact of reality? Why raw foodists don't need siesta? Of course there are no studies like this, the scientific community has more important things to do! Like creating new drugs that alleviate symptoms of various affections and create other affections. So they can keep the(ir) economic wheel turning.

Don't wait a million years until the "scientific community" will bother to study the most basic, common sense facts. You can chose the best diet and benefit from it without their fancy certificates.

Last edited by spaveg; 01-31-2016 at 06:15 AM.
spaveg is offline  
#9 Old 01-31-2016, 06:20 AM
Banned
 
spaveg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 96
I've found an interesting study about raw food though:

It was found that after a person eats cooked food, his/her blood responds immediately by increasing the number of white blood cells. Since digestive leukocytosis was always observed after a meal, it was considered to be a normal physiological response to eating.
Back in 1930, the Swiss researchers at the institute of Chemical Chemistry made a remarkable discovery. They found that eating raw, unaltered food did not cause a reaction in the blood. http://www.healingdaily.com/detoxifi...et/enzymes.htm

Maybe this also has a connection with the need of siesta for the non-raw foodists, who knows. After all, if we have patience and wait for some 10,000 years, we might be lucky to see that investigated
spaveg is offline  
#10 Old 01-31-2016, 11:50 AM
Veggie Regular
 
Spudulika's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: UK
Posts: 1,099
Quote:
Originally Posted by spaveg View Post
Which nutrients are more readily available and are so important that we have to cook the food?
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?
No Whey didn't argue that humans definitely "need" cooked food, but that some nutrients are more available after the cooking process. It's not a controversial statement, there are plenty of findings to back it up.

Animals in nature don't have cooking, sanitation, houses or surgery - amongst a huge amount of other things that humans do have. As well as what we need, we get to choose what we "want" in our lives. Including those things that improve our lives compared to animals living in a state of nature.

I for example like living in a house, having access to TV, computers, books and public transport. I also like to cook. I guess I am an exception to other animals, because I'm human.

I'm not criticising raw diets, which can work (and there's evidence for that too). But appeals to nature just don't work as an argument against cooked food when all human cultures have learned to cook, create tools, heal themselves, build homes and found numerous other ways to improve on what nature initially provided them with.

Last edited by Spudulika; 01-31-2016 at 12:01 PM.
Spudulika is offline  
#11 Old 01-31-2016, 12:45 PM
Banned
 
spaveg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spudulika View Post
No Whey didn't argue that humans definitely "need" cooked food, but that some nutrients are more available after the cooking process. It's not a controversial statement, there are plenty of findings to back it up.
I agree with that but I'm very skeptical that it's worth eating such cooked food. Our bodies better absorb nutrients in the presence of other nutrients (e.g. you better absorb calcium in the presence of vitamin D). Such dependencies might be much more complex than what the scientific community bothered to investigate, so better leave the nutrients in their natural balance.
Also, our bodies perceive the cooked food as a heavy attack since after eating cooked food, the blood responds immediately by increasing the number of white blood cells.
Also you become sleepy after eating cooked food.
Putting all that into balance means that you better stay away from the cooked food.

Quote:
Animals in nature don't have cooking, sanitation, houses or surgery
Also they don't have obesity, diabetes, and they have way lower incidence of cancer. Their sanitation seems to be way better than the sanitation of many humans also.

Quote:
- amongst a huge amount of other things that humans do have. As well as what we need, we get to choose what we "want" in our lives. Including those things that improve our lives compared to animals living in a state of nature.

I for example like living in a house, having access to TV, computers, books and public transport. I also like to cook. I guess I am an exception to other animals, because I'm human.

I'm not criticising raw diets, which can work (and there's evidence for that too). But appeals to nature just don't work as an argument against cooked food when all human cultures have learned to cook, create tools, heal themselves, build homes and found numerous other ways to improve on what nature initially provided them with.
I completely agree that cooking food and eating meat and dairy products was extremely important for the human colonization of the earth. Humans had to eat such stuff in order to be able to live in colder areas: Europe, North America, North of Asia. And that encouraged them to become more organized and focused, since humans could not survive in the winter without good planning and preparation
So I'm very happy that the humans decided to cook and to eat meat, since that was necessary for the colonization of Europe, the place where I lived and still live.

2012 - Meat, Cooked Foods Needed for Early Human Brain - http://www.livescience.com/24875-meat-human-brain.html

But today the productivity is greatly increased and thanks to the international trade, you can have fresh fruit and vegetables all the year, for cheap or at least for a decent price. So there is no need to eat all that unhealthy cooked food anymore. And you can keep all the benefits of modern life in the same time, of course.

Keep the access to TV, computers, books and public transport. And stop eating cooked food if you care enough about your health. You will keep being an exception to other animals but without having to risk your health.

Last edited by spaveg; 01-31-2016 at 01:11 PM.
spaveg is offline  
#12 Old 01-31-2016, 01:13 PM
Super Moderator
 
no whey jose's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: West Sussex, UK
Posts: 2,671
I'm sorry, but I just don't see any compelling evidence to suggest that cooked food contributes to ill health. You seem to be making a lot of assumptions based on not a lot of empirical evidence. That said, I'm surely not knocking raw fruit and vegetables! There's no arguing against their place in a healthy diet. I just don't believe that cooked food is inherently unhealthy.
LedBoots, Shallot, TailFin and 7 others like this.
no whey jose is offline  
#13 Old 01-31-2016, 01:43 PM
Banned
 
spaveg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by no whey jose View Post
I'm sorry, but I just don't see any compelling evidence to suggest that cooked food contributes to ill health. You seem to be making a lot of assumptions based on not a lot of empirical evidence. That said, I'm surely not knocking raw fruit and vegetables! There's no arguing against their place in a healthy diet. I just don't believe that cooked food is inherently unhealthy.
The 'compelling evidence' that you are looking for has to be provided by the scientific community, not by me. They are the ones have a vast network of laboratories and workforce capable to come with the evidence, not me.
They refuse to do the most basic research about raw food. Remember the scientific community discovered the importance of the vegetable fiber after decades of denying the importance of vegetable fresh food. They only did such research when there a huge part of the population became vegetarian and chose to eat fresh food, so they finally did such research trying to restore their credibility. Until then, the scientific community had 'compelling evidence' that cooked food is way better than raw food, because cooking destroys the pathogens (bacteria) in the food.
So when it comes to eating healthy they have no credibility whatsoever as they proved it plentifully.
And sorry but I find it extremely naive to wait for the scientific community to tell the public what is healthy to eat, since their purpose is to sell drugs, so a healthy population means less economic benefits for them.

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.

If you want evidence, then you can compare how many pets eating cooked food develop various affections (like for example diabetes) comparing to the wild animals, like for example wolves.

Last edited by spaveg; 01-31-2016 at 01:56 PM.
spaveg is offline  
#14 Old 01-31-2016, 01:55 PM
Super Moderator
 
no whey jose's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: West Sussex, UK
Posts: 2,671
I don't believe that there's a massive conspiracy of scientists and medical professionals to suppress the benefits of fruits and vegetables. Quite to the contrary, all major health organizations recommend a diet rich in plant foods. I don't deny that medical research can be biased, but it's a bit much to suggest an all-encompassing campaign of deceit.

Anecdotal evidence is notoriously unreliable, and common sense is completely worthless when it comes to determining the truth. Common sense tells me that the earth is flat because I can clearly see the horizon. That said, my own experience hasn't been that I feel sleepy after eating cooked food. I sometimes feel sleepy after eating a very large, heavy meal. Is it possible that you're conflating cooked food with large, heavy meals?
no whey jose is offline  
#15 Old 01-31-2016, 04:18 PM
Out of the veg closet :)
 
TGreene's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Location: Western Pennsylvania
Posts: 41
This whole "raw" topic does kind of interest me. I know that some enzymes and nutrients and foods are better in raw form, and I've heard that other nutrients (I think I heard something about some of the nutrients in tomatoes, for example) are more readily absorbed/available when cooked. Also I'm sure alot of people advocate a raw diet simply because by going raw, you are eliminating a lot of "bad stuff" that accompanies cooking foods, such as fats when you fry things, and some of the carcinogens and things that arise when you grill or get a char on foods. I personally think that we should include both raw and cooked foods in our diets. And regardless of what the ratio is, it is still exponentially better than eating a Standard American Diet/omni diet.

Some documentaries that delve into the whole Raw Food movement: (and most can be found on Youtube, Amazon, or documentary sites)

Simply Raw: Reversing Diabetes in 30 Days

Fat Sick and Nearly Dead

Breakthrough

Raw For Life

The Raw Natural


I have seen a couple of these, and plan on watching them all. Hope you guys can check them out too!!
spaveg and no whey jose like this.
TGreene is offline  
#16 Old 01-31-2016, 04:25 PM
Super Moderator
 
no whey jose's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: West Sussex, UK
Posts: 2,671
Yep, @TGreene , that's my interpretation as well. Obviously, a raw diet would exclude all sorts of potentially troublesome foods like sweets, crisps, greasy pizza, ice cream, etc. while promoting a high intake of fruits and vegetables, so it's sure to be high in fibre and rich in nutrients.
TGreene likes this.
no whey jose is offline  
#17 Old 02-02-2016, 12:40 PM
Banned
 
spaveg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by no whey jose View Post
I don't believe that there's a massive conspiracy of scientists and medical professionals to suppress the benefits of fruits and vegetables. Quite to the contrary, all major health organizations recommend a diet rich in plant foods. I don't deny that medical research can be biased, but it's a bit much to suggest an all-encompassing campaign of deceit.
If you would be right then there should have been a lot of research already done, trying raw food on patients (humans or animals) suffering from all kind of affections: obesity, diabetes, cancer, etc.
Also they can try to compare how many subjects get obese if they are fed oversized meals of cooked food and compare that with subjects eating oversized meals of raw food (especially greens or at least not starch-based food).
And the amount of such scientific research is absolute zero or very close to that. We are talking about absolutely basic research here.
Conspiracy is not the right term in this case, they simply refuse to investigate.
You are conspiring when you make a plan to hide away the truth, not when you refuse to talk about it.
So, in the field of raw food, the scientific community has no credibility whatsoever.
Sure, you can refuse to see that reality, and you can suggest that the people who disagree with you are conspiracy theorists, but that's not going to change the facts.

Quote:
Common sense tells me that the earth is flat because I can clearly see the horizon.
Common sense tells me that I need to investigate in order to be able to say if the Earth is flat or not, and seeing the horizon is not enough in order to draw a conclusion. First I have to see if the Earth ends or not.
Using common sense is not the same thing as being superficial.

Quote:
Anecdotal evidence is notoriously unreliable, and common sense is completely worthless when it comes to determining the truth.
Common sense says that cows eating cow meat is cannibalizing, and that's unnatural, and most likely, not healthy at all. But some educated men thought otherwise. They can't believe in such 'anecdotal evidence' so they used their 'logic' (hey, cow meat contains the best source of proteins for cows, since the source has the same proteins the cows need to build their bodies!). The result was a disaster (mad cow disease) and in the end they also found a scientific explanation for it (prions). In this such cases, using common sense is really well worth.
Same with breeding between brother and sister - common sense says it's not a good idea, it's unnatural to do that. And that is confirmed by the scientific data, showing that such breeding reduces the genetic diversity.
So common sense is vital.

Not sure what you mean by 'anecdotal evidence'. The scientific community only admitted the importance of fresh food and fibers after a significant part of the population adopted diets including more such food. This is a reality, not a comical evidence.
Vegerarianism re-emerged during the Renaissance, becoming more widespread in the 19th and 20th centuries. In 1847, the first Vegetarian Society was founded in the United Kingdom. That's way before specialists admitted the importance of this diet.

Comparing domestic animals with wild animals is also not anecdotal evidence. Domestic animals do develop diabetes, while wild animals don't.
No animal needs milk after infancy, and common sense says that humans also don't need it. Sure, you can refrain yourself from using common sense and wait for the scientific community to give you the data you need. But that's like waiting for a wolf to go out and pick lettuce and serve it to a rabbit, every day, for an entire year - extremely impractical.

Quote:
That said, my own experience hasn't been that I feel sleepy after eating cooked food. I sometimes feel sleepy after eating a very large, heavy meal. Is it possible that you're conflating cooked food with large, heavy meals?
No. So I suggest you try heavy, large meals of raw vegan food - as large as you want. You will fill heavy for sure (but not as heavy as eating large meals of cooked food) but not sleepy in any case.

Last edited by spaveg; 02-02-2016 at 12:53 PM.
spaveg is offline  
#18 Old 02-02-2016, 01:48 PM
Banned
 
spaveg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 96
Question: in order to understand if the cooked food contributes to ill health or not, one must compare it to the raw food. This is common sense. And basic logic.
Because how can you know if a thing is better or worse than another if you don't actually compare them?

And then the question is, why do you think such comparative scientific research does not exist?

You don't believe that there is an all-encompassing campaign of deceit. And then, what can explain that? We are in the year 2016, there was plenty of time to do such research already. Bias? Denial? Prejudice? Greed? Anxiety? Coincidence?
spaveg is offline  
#19 Old 02-02-2016, 03:25 PM
Not such a Beginner ;)
 
LedBoots's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 8,396
Quote:
Originally Posted by spaveg View Post
Question: in order to understand if the cooked food contributes to ill health or not, one must compare it to the raw food. This is common sense. And basic logic.
Because how can you know if a thing is better or worse than another if you don't actually compare them?

And then the question is, why do you think such comparative scientific research does not exist?

You don't believe that there is an all-encompassing campaign of deceit. And then, what can explain that? We are in the year 2016, there was plenty of time to do such research already. Bias? Denial? Prejudice? Greed? Anxiety? Coincidence?
Eating only raw foods when other foods are readily available is probably not ever going to be a widespread, popular diet. If people were clamoring to only eat raw, more studies would have been done.
LedBoots is offline  
#20 Old 02-02-2016, 03:34 PM
Super Moderator
 
silva's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 8,954
But what if you got stranded on a desert island.....?
LedBoots likes this.
silva is offline  
#21 Old 02-03-2016, 07:20 AM
Banned
 
spaveg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by LedBoots View Post
Eating only raw foods when other foods are readily available is probably not ever going to be a widespread, popular diet. If people were clamoring to only eat raw, more studies would have been done.
Exactly. So the 'scientific community' is only studying the healthy diets when they have to restore their lost credibility. They are not in front, they just following the trends the public are creating. So waiting for them to deliver valuable data is really not a good idea.
If they would do Science, then they would investigate raw food anyways, because they have to understand how things work. But they are not doing Science, they are doing Business.
They are not interested to help the people in the general public to maintain themselves in good health.


I have another question for those who think there is no indication that cooked food contribute to ill health.

When I started my raw vegan diet in 2012, I had 103 kg. While eating cooked food, I could get down weight (by not eating 2-3 days or just drinking fruit juice) but after that, in a few days, I was getting that weight back. I was getting some 1-2 kilograms every day, up to the previous weight.
After starting my raw vegan diet, my weight was getting down way too slow, so every two or three weeks I was not eating for three days or so, and after those three days of fasting, I was not getting weight back by eating raw vegan meals. And I wasn't eating little - I was eating raw food meals as much as I wanted.
That's how I got to 67 kg in some three months.

Right now, if I would eat cooked food (potatoes, rice, lentil, chickpea, beans, cabbage, carrots, etc), I would get in weight some 1-2 kg every day, up to some 90 kg.
This is empirical data, that I could test on myself, way more important for me than any certificate from any research laboratory in the world.
And I am quite sure that any obese person can confirm that if they do what I did.

So the question is: if the cooked food is not contributing to ill health and it's not worse than the raw food, then why am I getting weight so fast and become obese by eating cooked food?

Last edited by spaveg; 02-03-2016 at 12:06 PM.
spaveg is offline  
#22 Old 02-03-2016, 07:28 AM
Banned
 
spaveg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by silva View Post
But what if you got stranded on a desert island.....?
Since the desert can't supply any vegetables or meat, I would go fishing I guess.
That in case I would find some materials on the island in order to make a boat and some fishing tools. But since there are no trees in the desert, I won't even be able to make a boat, so, most likely, I would die starving

I have a raw vegan diet because I want to do it but also because I have the opportunity to do it. If I have no choice, I eat cooked food and animal meat, in order to survive, and hope for better days.

Last edited by spaveg; 02-03-2016 at 07:35 AM.
spaveg is offline  
#23 Old 02-03-2016, 11:57 AM
Banned
 
spaveg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vegan Dave View Post
Anyway, I'm wondering what would replace a hot bowl of oatmeal on a winter day? Or a quick cup of soup to warm the bones. I live up North, where it gets pretty cold.
Most of the Western world is importing fresh fruits and vegetables from all over the world, so you can probably buy avocado all year.

- In my opinion, the best raw vegan energy source is Avocado. It contains vegetable, healthy fat. For humans, fat is the best source of energy. You can make all kind of combinations avocado: tomato, onion, cucumber, lettuce, etc.
- Second (or sharing the first place with avocado) is Tabbouleh (parsley+tomato+lemon+onion). In order to give you enough energy, you have to add avocado (best option), or, as Arabs do, some cereal food, like for example soaked wheat. Arabs put inside Tabbouleh a cereal food named Bulgur. Warning: Tabbouleh is insanely good.
- Third is Kollath Breakfast = soaked wheat flour (6-8 hours, just enough time to get soaked and not enough time to start to ferment) with grated apple + any other fruits and nuts you want + honeybee if you like. The base of the meal is soaked wheat and apples.

For your information: grains and cereals are really not the best food for humans. The plant is concentrating the best of it's defenses (poisons) into it's seeds: gluten, lectin.
Birds have a specialized metabolism adapted to process grains: they have a gizzard and also their stomach secretes a more powerful acid for breaking down the food than humans have.
http://www.sott.net/article/205172-T...at-Intolerance
http://www.sott.net/article/205205-O...-Human-Disease
http://www.krispin.com/lectin.html

Also starch is not the best human food at all. Plant cells membrane contain sugar (cellulose), while animal cell membrane contain proteins and lipids.

Many people say that the best food for humans is actually leaves and I agree with that. But in order to have energy, you need to add something more consistent.
That source of energy should be avocado or cold press oil, or if they are not available, then you will have to use cereals.
spaveg is offline  
#24 Old 02-03-2016, 12:15 PM
Super Moderator
 
no whey jose's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: West Sussex, UK
Posts: 2,671
There hasn't been a great deal of research on the benefits of raw food not because of a conspiracy on the part of scientists but because the raw movement hasn't been around for very long and there's not much of an incentive. Additionally, the experiments you suggest would involve some practical problems-- for instance, in order to study the difference between raw and cooked foods, participants would need to eat the same diets with cooking being the only variable. It wouldn't be at all helpful to compare a diet of raw fruits and vegetables to one which includes pizza, burritos, sweets. I'm not sure that it's possible to have that much control over others' food choices, but I think that a survey of raw foodists and an assessment of their health, while not necessarily conclusive, would be interesting and could possibly lead to new insights, and I agree that it's a topic that should receive some attention. I just don't believe that the lack of research is evidence of foul play, or that anecdotal evidence and testimonials can take the place of empirical evidence and experimentation.
LedBoots and PandemicAcolyte like this.

Last edited by no whey jose; 02-03-2016 at 01:34 PM. Reason: Nm, going for it
no whey jose is offline  
#25 Old 02-03-2016, 01:47 PM
Not such a Beginner ;)
 
LedBoots's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 8,396
Quote:
Originally Posted by spaveg View Post
Exactly. So the 'scientific community' is only studying the healthy diets when they have to restore their lost credibility. They are not in front, they just following the trends the public are creating. So waiting for them to deliver valuable data is really not a good idea.
If they would do Science, then they would investigate raw food anyways, because they have to understand how things work. But they are not doing Science, they are doing Business.
They are not interested to help the people in the general public to maintain themselves in good health.


I have another question for those who think there is no indication that cooked food contribute to ill health.

When I started my raw vegan diet in 2012, I had 103 kg. While eating cooked food, I could get down weight (by not eating 2-3 days or just drinking fruit juice) but after that, in a few days, I was getting that weight back. I was getting some 1-2 kilograms every day, up to the previous weight.
After starting my raw vegan diet, my weight was getting down way too slow, so every two or three weeks I was not eating for three days or so, and after those three days of fasting, I was not getting weight back by eating raw vegan meals. And I wasn't eating little - I was eating raw food meals as much as I wanted.
That's how I got to 67 kg in some three months.

Right now, if I would eat cooked food (potatoes, rice, lentil, chickpea, beans, cabbage, carrots, etc), I would get in weight some 1-2 kg every day, up to some 90 kg.
This is empirical data, that I could test on myself, way more important for me than any certificate from any research laboratory in the world.
And I am quite sure that any obese person can confirm that if they do what I did.

So the question is: if the cooked food is not contributing to ill health and it's not worse than the raw food, then why am I getting weight so fast and become obese by eating cooked food?
Because by starving and then binging for all those years, you have taught your body to hold onto calories for dear life because soon there will be no food for three days.

Edit:
Also, raw foods are less calorically dense as a rule, so you can fit fewer calories in your stomach eating raw.

Not trying to talk you out of raw eating, just pointing out that healthy veganism is not necessarily raw. My husband, son, and I have been vegan a decade, and we are all healthy and of normal weights.

Are you male or female, and how tall are you? That is a huge weight loss in three months time.

Last edited by LedBoots; 02-03-2016 at 02:01 PM.
LedBoots is offline  
#26 Old 02-04-2016, 02:11 AM
Super Moderator
 
no whey jose's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: West Sussex, UK
Posts: 2,671
Never mind, I take back everything I said.
no whey jose is offline  
#27 Old 02-04-2016, 02:39 AM
Plant/Fungi based.
 
PandemicAcolyte's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Mars
Posts: 384
I'll stick with my cooked starches and veggies. Along with my added raw fruits and veggies. There is no real reason to go raw unless you wish to. It can help you stay away from high sodium junk, and vegan ice creams, donuts, faux meats, etc. of other vegan things that aren't so healthy, but there is no reason to not include grains, legumes, starches, cooked veggies and fruits. I find it best to include many cooked and raw foods.
PandemicAcolyte is offline  
#28 Old 02-04-2016, 05:06 AM
Veggie Regular
 
Shallot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: UK
Posts: 437
Quote:
Originally Posted by spaveg View Post
Which nutrients are more readily available and are so important that we have to cook the food?
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?
Also the animals don't drink or eat any milk or milk products in adulthood and they are capable to live very well with it and to get their supplies of calcium and proteins. Miraculously, only the human beings seem to need dairy products for calcium and proteins! (according to a big number of scientists)

Don't expect any serious research on this topic, since the vast majority of research is made by laboratories paid by pharmaceutical companies, they don't want the people to be healthy because they want to keep selling drugs.

Most of the living cells are built with levorotation molecules (I remember reading it some 20 years ago, can't find sources now), and, by a strange coincidence, tumor cells grow in dextrorotation (https://books.google.es/books?id=OXZ...cancer&f=false).
It looks like cooking modifies the molecules from levorotation to dextrorotation. Again, don't expect any scientific laboratory to research such basic facts. I would rather start a kickstarter campaign to fund such a research than to wait for Hoffmann-La Roche to do it.
Same with cis-trans isomerism. Interesting enough, the isomerism of certain molecules changes at 37 degrees celsius, and when people/animals die of hyperthermia (fever), they die because the enzymes in their blood die first. Without our enzymes in our bodies we are dead. Isomerism and levorotation changes above 37 degrees.

During the eighteenth century the French Academy of Sciences stubbornly denied the evidence for the fall of meteorites, which seemed massively obvious to everybody else. Yet, the rocks were falling from the sky since billions of years before that, and they did not need any certificate from the French Academy of Sciences.

Same here, try raw food on yourself and you will see that, after eating raw food, you don't suddenly feel sleepy or tired and you don't need a siesta, like you need after eating cooked food. Is there any study on this basic fact of reality? Why raw foodists don't need siesta? Of course there are no studies like this, the scientific community has more important things to do! Like creating new drugs that alleviate symptoms of various affections and create other affections. So they can keep the(ir) economic wheel turning.

Don't wait a million years until the "scientific community" will bother to study the most basic, common sense facts. You can chose the best diet and benefit from it without their fancy certificates.
Not to rain on any parades or anything ... but there is a very good reason for cooking food. Cooking food (or processing it in some way) means that it is easier to digest. Sometimes it makes it possible to eat something that would otherwise be undigestible.

A few examples:

1. Nettles. Do NOT eat these raw. if you ate the nettle leaves raw you would sting the inside of your mouth. However if you blanche the nettles (discard the water or use it on your hair) you can use them instead of spinach. Inedible raw - yumtastic as soup ...

2. Drying food for long term storage means that sometimes we some unwanted side effects. See the humble kidney bean ... improperly cooked it will give you an upset stomach (and I think it can be pretty serious in children and the elderly) - however once cooked properly (must be soaked and boiled) it's a delicious protein rich food.

3. Spinach - super nutrious and delicious when raw? Yes and no - spinach contains oxalic acid which can interfere with calcium absorption. It's not dangerous raw but if you have brittle bones or suffer from any condition where this could be a problem then maybe cook it first.

4. Tomatoes - the great poster child for cooking. Crazily more of the nutrient lycopene is available in the cooked tomato. Of course you've sacrificed some Vit C ...

5. Kales & cabbages : A lot of people don't deal with these well when they're raw - they can increase your gaseous emissions or cause a stomach ache. Once again not dangerous but easier to digest once cooked.

I could go on. There are a lot of examples of foods that are different when cooked - not necessarily bad just different. Eating raw is no better or worse than eating cooked food. At the end of the day it's about finding a balance that works for you - and getting all of the nutrients that you need.
Shallot is offline  
#29 Old 02-04-2016, 05:41 AM
Banned
 
spaveg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by LedBoots View Post
Because by starving and then binging for all those years, you have taught your body to hold onto calories for dear life because soon there will be no food for three days.

Edit:
Also, raw foods are less calorically dense as a rule, so you can fit fewer calories in your stomach eating raw.
You need a certain amount of calories, so if you don't get enough from a single meal, you will eat more frequently than the non-raw vegans, and then you can get enough calories every day. So this is a non-argument.
And I am eating avocado every day, and it has more calories than potato and rice and lentil (160 vs 77 and 130 and 116). Once I start eating potatoes / rice / lentil, I get obese in no time. So if I am eating non-raw, I am getting obese by consuming more or less the same amount of calories.
I am not making any calories calculations, I am not limiting the number or the size of my meals, not even the timing - I am eating as much as I want, whenever I want, and I am not getting weight.
Obesity is not only about how many calories you are ingesting - it's also about the ability of your body to eliminate the surplus, instead of depositing the junk into fat.
And speaking about calories, I've found an interesting article just a few days ago:
Why the calorie is broken - “I’m kind of pissed at the scientific community for not coming up with something better." - http://arstechnica.com/science/2016/...rie-is-broken/

Quote:
Not trying to talk you out of raw eating, just pointing out that healthy veganism is not necessarily raw. My husband, son, and I have been vegan a decade, and we are all healthy and of normal weights.
The healthy vegan diet is raw since I get obese once I start eating cooked food.
Before eating raw, I also had some hemorrhoid troubles (my grandfather also had this problem), wasn't very bad but sometimes there was even a bit of bleeding. All gone now.

Quote:
Are you male or female, and how tall are you? That is a huge weight loss in three months time.
I'm a male, 1.68 meters. Quite a small man for 103 kg
Until I was 25 years old I had 60 kg
My weight steadily increased till 30 years up to 75 kg and exploded after 33 years.
I suspect that for most of the people, maintaining a decent weight is easier when at young age. Things become slightly complicated especially after 35 years old.
I just measured my weight today, I am at 67 kg at this moment.

Anyways, I want to say it again that you can't keep a raw diet without a healthy and positive state of mind and nobody can. Once you have too much stress, you must eat junk otherwise you feel like you are going insane. I've always wanted to have this diet, but I could not do it until 2012, because of too much stress.

And the state of mind is way more important than any diet, anyways. Most of the oldest living people did not have a raw vegan diet, and they lived longer than the raw vegans.

Having a sense of purpose may add years to your life, regardless of what the purpose is, research suggests (University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester in New York., 2014)
http://www.bbc.com/news/health-27393057

Motivation is the most important choice, because it's the motivation that creates the right state of mind, and the motivation can get you into things that create stress or takes you out of them.

Last edited by spaveg; 02-04-2016 at 06:22 AM.
spaveg is offline  
#30 Old 02-04-2016, 06:43 AM
Banned
 
spaveg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shallot View Post
Not to rain on any parades or anything ... but there is a very good reason for cooking food. Cooking food (or processing it in some way) means that it is easier to digest. Sometimes it makes it possible to eat something that would otherwise be undigestible.

A few examples:

1. Nettles. Do NOT eat these raw. if you ate the nettle leaves raw you would sting the inside of your mouth. However if you blanche the nettles (discard the water or use it on your hair) you can use them instead of spinach. Inedible raw - yumtastic as soup ...

2. Drying food for long term storage means that sometimes we some unwanted side effects. See the humble kidney bean ... improperly cooked it will give you an upset stomach (and I think it can be pretty serious in children and the elderly) - however once cooked properly (must be soaked and boiled) it's a delicious protein rich food.

3. Spinach - super nutrious and delicious when raw? Yes and no - spinach contains oxalic acid which can interfere with calcium absorption. It's not dangerous raw but if you have brittle bones or suffer from any condition where this could be a problem then maybe cook it first.

4. Tomatoes - the great poster child for cooking. Crazily more of the nutrient lycopene is available in the cooked tomato. Of course you've sacrificed some Vit C ...

5. Kales & cabbages : A lot of people don't deal with these well when they're raw - they can increase your gaseous emissions or cause a stomach ache. Once again not dangerous but easier to digest once cooked.
1. I've only ate nettles a few times when I was 11 or 12 years old. Nothing to be worried about.
2. I am not eating any dried food. I am eating only fresh food, and once in a while, I am eating almonds and red lentil once every year (1-2 kg) - red lentil is getting soaked in 30 min so you can eat it raw. Also eating groundnuts whenever I feel like, say once every month. None of those are dried.
3. I am not eating spinach although I should. I should probably eat much more leaves, but I'm probably too lazy at the moment to do that. Anyways, I have no problem eating spinach if I want so, I can add leaves in my avocado meals without any trouble.
4. By cooking the tomato you sacrifice much more than Vitamin C. Better leave it raw. Having more lycopene doesn't mean you can actually make use of it. Your body needs a lot of things to work in order to make use of the nutrients.
5. Not eating cabbage, maybe twice per year I am eating some cauliflower and broccoli, but I don't really need them.

Quote:
I could go on.
Yes, like potatoes, lentil, chickpea, wheat, rice, and all kind of starch deposits.
You can do yourself a favor and stop eating them since they are choking your blood with sugar, and, most of the time, such junk ends into fat deposits and the people get weight and obese.

Quote:
There are a lot of examples of foods that are different when cooked - not necessarily bad just different. Eating raw is no better or worse than eating cooked food.
And your statement is based on what? Once I am eating cooked food, I am getting obese in a few weeks. Also the hemorrhoid troubles will surface again.
If you can convince any obese person to try going raw vegan, you can confirm my experience.
So what you said is certainly not true, sorry.

Quote:
At the end of the day it's about finding a balance that works for you - and getting all of the nutrients that you need.
The balance you need is to reduce stress and have a right state of mind then you can eat 100% raw food without trouble.
As long as you have un-necessary stress, "the right balance" for you is to add some junk food in your diet, because your body will ask for it. People frequently eat chocolate when they have too much stress. Many also eat too much or too little when having to much stress.
Getting the nutrients you need is not enough. You need to get them in the right proportions and combinations, i.e. in their natural state. This way your body can better make use of them and without risks to get ill.

Last edited by spaveg; 02-04-2016 at 07:08 AM.
spaveg 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