toxicity of cooked foods - was Raw Food Perspective

[Guest guest]

Comments below

On Thu, 28 Feb 2002 00:40:51 -0000 " justinbond " <justin_bond@...>

writes:

The only studies brought up in this thread are

the ones discussed in the beyondveg article, which refute the idea

that cooked food is toxic, and no refutation of those studies are

being offered.

Me: , I don't think the study is what you have portrayed it to be

and the author is perhaps a little more cautious in what he says than you

are letting on. So here is my take:

The author concludes that the toxicity of cooked food is overrated. He

says that up front.

He later has a section dealing with the *toxicity* of certain raw foods.

Most RAF/NT folks would have no problem here since they don't eat many of

the foods on the list. Interestingly enough, only one animal food appears

on the list, and that is eggs. And even then he warns not to overstate

the toxicity of eggs because you would have to eat twenty a day for

several weeks to face the egg white problem. So for all practical

purposes, since I'm not aware that any one eats eggs in that amount, even

eggs are non-toxic.

Later, and this is important, he has a section on the *toxicity* of

*cooked* foods. A section, when read closely, most RAF/NT folks would

agree. The author cautions against taking this out of context however and

suggesting therefore we should eat all raw foods. Okay, I'm not sure

anyone would disagree with that caution. I have repeatedly said that

while there are advocates of all raw foods, most RAF folks consider

someone who is at 85% a raw fooder.

But here is the point, and a conclusion the author makes within the body

of the article. The *toxicity* of cooked foods is overrated *especially*

in a diet that is 90% or even 75% raw. Hmmm...that would seem to be very

close to the 85% standard that I have mentioned several times. And

further, he is arguing that whatever toxicity there might be is

neutralized by the predominantly raw diet, which is why he states that

the benefits of going from predominately raw to 100% raw are negligible,

if any. I for one will cede him the point. I think it is line with what

some have been saying all along.

So it appears to me inaccurate to say the author simply point blank says

that cooked food is not toxic. He does so with many a qualification, some

of which I point out above.

And , if you are having great success doing what you are doing then

more power to you. The Weston Price Movement is a big tent, with room for

the followers of the Masai and the Eskimos *as well as* the followers of

other less raw food oriented groups.

And sometimes, and this is just a suggestion, you do need to distinguish

between those who are here to maintain health or improve it slightly,

with those who are here battling serious health issues, which is

generally how people move from a more cooked NT approach to a more raw NT

approach. You may not like it, you may think the Eskimos and the Masai

are irrelevant and extreme, you may want to pound the table for peer

reviewed studies (which we don't even have for Price), you might find raw

brain and intestines and organs gross to eat even though some of the

Indian groups did, but that to is part of this world we know as

Nourishing Traditions, and it is certainly worth exploring, at least for

some of us.

God bless,

Bianca

[Guest guest]

" The Weston Price Movement is a big tent, with room for

the followers of the Masai and the Eskimos *as well as* the followers

of other less raw food oriented groups...

Nourishing Traditions, and it is certainly worth exploring, at least

for some of us. "

I am not the moderator here however as I do completely agree with

both of the above statements and have found value in SOME of this

ongoing saga that is " to raf or no to raf too much " .

I must say that raf is certainly worth exploring as " bianca " states

however this entire thread and those related to it have far exceeded

the realm of " exploring " and I believe I can speak for at least a few

others on this forum when I say that it has moved long ago into the

realm of b e l a b o r i n g

and it is old. I recognize the ability to ignore threads however

when the name changes and I must read this incessant back biting and

snyde commentary it is a waste of time and effort. This is supposed

to be a place to come together share ideas and discuss NT and WAP not

such frequent and constant dissonance especially when it continues to

have little personal digs and snips. I certainly have voiced my

dissagreements with certain views at times and admittedly done it in

poor taste or less kind than I should have. And I fully support

everyone in doing that also but it does not have to be so overstated

as to be present in every single digest.

Please put this to bed and if you don't get what I'm saying please

don't attack me, just ignore this post and please leave the name of

the thread the same so it can be ignored by folks like me who are

tired of this old debate.

DMM

> Comments below

>

> On Thu, 28 Feb 2002 00:40:51 -0000 " justinbond " <justin_bond@h...>

> writes:

> The only studies brought up in this thread are

> the ones discussed in the beyondveg article, which refute the idea

> that cooked food is toxic, and no refutation of those studies are

> being offered.

>

>

>

>

> Me: , I don't think the study is what you have portrayed it

to be

> and the author is perhaps a little more cautious in what he says

than you

> are letting on. So here is my take:

>

> The author concludes that the toxicity of cooked food is overrated.

He

> says that up front.

>

> He later has a section dealing with the *toxicity* of certain raw

foods.

> Most RAF/NT folks would have no problem here since they don't eat

many of

> the foods on the list. Interestingly enough, only one animal food

appears

> on the list, and that is eggs. And even then he warns not to

overstate

> the toxicity of eggs because you would have to eat twenty a day for

> several weeks to face the egg white problem. So for all practical

> purposes, since I'm not aware that any one eats eggs in that

amount, even

> eggs are non-toxic.

>

> Later, and this is important, he has a section on the *toxicity* of

> *cooked* foods. A section, when read closely, most RAF/NT folks

would

> agree. The author cautions against taking this out of context

however and

> suggesting therefore we should eat all raw foods. Okay, I'm not sure

> anyone would disagree with that caution. I have repeatedly said that

> while there are advocates of all raw foods, most RAF folks consider

> someone who is at 85% a raw fooder.

>

> But here is the point, and a conclusion the author makes within the

body

> of the article. The *toxicity* of cooked foods is overrated

*especially*

> in a diet that is 90% or even 75% raw. Hmmm...that would seem to be

very

> close to the 85% standard that I have mentioned several times. And

> further, he is arguing that whatever toxicity there might be is

> neutralized by the predominantly raw diet, which is why he states

that

> the benefits of going from predominately raw to 100% raw are

negligible,

> if any. I for one will cede him the point. I think it is line with

what

> some have been saying all along.

>

> So it appears to me inaccurate to say the author simply point blank

says

> that cooked food is not toxic. He does so with many a

qualification, some

> of which I point out above.

>

> And , if you are having great success doing what you are

doing then

> more power to you. The Weston Price Movement is a big tent, with

room for

> the followers of the Masai and the Eskimos *as well as* the

followers of

> other less raw food oriented groups.

>

> And sometimes, and this is just a suggestion, you do need to

distinguish

> between those who are here to maintain health or improve it

slightly,

> with those who are here battling serious health issues, which is

> generally how people move from a more cooked NT approach to a more

raw NT

> approach. You may not like it, you may think the Eskimos and the

Masai

> are irrelevant and extreme, you may want to pound the table for peer

> reviewed studies (which we don't even have for Price), you might

find raw

> brain and intestines and organs gross to eat even though some of the

> Indian groups did, but that to is part of this world we know as

> C>

> God bless,

>

> Bianca

>