Re: My two cents on the raw foods diet

[Guest guest]

> The topic of raw foods is very interesting to me.

> At various times in my life I've been on an all raw foods diet,

> I have friends who have been all raw, I've tried Aajonos'

> raw animal foods diet, I've done juice fasts, cleansing diets with

> all raw foods and herbs/psyllium/bentonite to detoxify

> and I've hung out (in the past) in the raw foods world.

Hi Sol:

Perhaps next you should consider eating food based on its nutritional

value rather than whether it is cooked or not. Francis Pottenger, Jr.

showed in his cat experiment that raw milk may not be nutritionally

better than pasteurized. Weston Price showed that " ...a highly

sweetened coffee and white bread, vegetable fat, pancakes made of

white flour and eaten with syrup and doughnuts fried in vegetable

fat " can be part of a nutritious diet for children.

The cooked or raw argument will never solve anything until it takes

into account the nutritional value of the food as determined by its

pedological origin. I think it's not what is in our food that kills

us, but what isn't.

Chi

[Guest guest]

I thought that the whole point of the Pottenger study was that cats thrive

on raw milk and died on pasturized milk. No?

-----Original Message-----

From: ynos@... [mailto:ynos@...]

Sent: Sunday, December 02, 2001 4:43 PM

Subject: Re: My two cents on the raw foods diet

Hi Sol:

Perhaps next you should consider eating food based on its nutritional

value rather than whether it is cooked or not. Francis Pottenger, Jr.

showed in his cat experiment that raw milk may not be nutritionally

better than pasteurized. Weston Price showed that " ...a highly

sweetened coffee and white bread, vegetable fat, pancakes made of

white flour and eaten with syrup and doughnuts fried in vegetable

fat " can be part of a nutritious diet for children.

The cooked or raw argument will never solve anything until it takes

into account the nutritional value of the food as determined by its

pedological origin. I think it's not what is in our food that kills

us, but what isn't.

Chi

[Guest guest]

> I thought that the whole point of the Pottenger study was that

> cats thrive on raw milk and died on pasturized milk.

> No?

Hi :

" No " is correct. The point of the Pottenger cat study was " ... to

determine the effects of heat-processed food on cats. "

Control groups of cats were kept on 100% raw diets while other groups

were put on diets of 2/3 cooked food.

Both meat and milk were used. When meat was the 2/3 cooked portion of

the diet, raw milk was the remaining 1/3 of the diet. Control cats

were kept on 2/3 raw meat with 1/3 raw milk. When milk was the 2/3

cooked portion, raw meat was the remaining 1/3 of the diet. There

were 3 different groups on cooked milk, one on pasteurized, one on

sweetened condensed milk and one on evaporated milk. A control group

of cats was kept on 2/3 raw milk and 1/3 raw meat. All cats in the

study received a vitamin supplement (cod liver oil).

Basically, the results were that cats on the 100% raw food diets were

healthy, generation after generation, while the cats on the various

2/3 cooked foods were certainly not. Describing the latter, Pottenger

said, " By the time the third deficient generation is born, the cats

are so physiologically bankrupt that none survive beyond the sith

month of life, thereby terminating the strain. "

Pottenger stated regarding his study, " While no attempt will be made

to correlate the changes in the animals studied with malformations

found in humans, the similarity is so obvious that parallel pictures

will suggest themselves. "

I wonder how many people who read the study take note of the

following quote from the " Pottenger's Cats " book, " In comparing the

experimental effects on cats of a diet including raw milk from fresh

feed cows and those of a diet including raw milk from dry feed cows,

we find that the cats fed raw milk from dry feed cows show similar

deficiencies as those fed pasteurized milk. "

If you want nutritious milk, apparently raw instead of pasteurized is

not the only factor to be considered.

Chi

[Guest guest]

Thank you, Chi, for the clarification.

The question that always comes up for me regarding Potenger's study is that

there must be millions of cats that have been fed Friskies or some other

processed food as their main or only diet that seem to survive if not thrive

generation after generation; a far cry from the sickly and deformed cats

seen after three generations in Potenger's study. I personally have met cats

fed this type of diet (and we're not talking high end foods here, just the

regular supermarket stuff) that are three, four or more generations of

indoor, non-mice catching cats that are alert, healthy, beautiful, and have

long life spans.

[Guest guest]

> Thank you, Chi, for the clarification. The question that

> always comes up for me regarding Potenger's study is that

> there must be millions of cats that have been fed Friskies

> or some other processed food as their main or only diet

> that seem to survive if not thrive generation after generation;

> a far cry from the sickly and deformed cats seen after three

> generations in Potenger's study. I personally have met cats

> fed this type of diet (and we're not talking high end foods here,

> just the regular supermarket stuff) that are three, four

> or more generations of indoor, non-mice catching cats

> that are alert, healthy, beautiful, and have long life spans.

Hi :

Would cats fed the modern processed food as their main or only diet

be better off on a different diet? Myself I have seen a cat improve

when given a raw meat supplement along with standard processed cat

food. When given the choice between the beef and the cat food, the

raw beef was always eaten first. I have seen another cat raised for

its first year on nothing but organic raw meat, mainly fish. This cat

looked healthier than the average cat even though its parents would

have been on a processed cat food diet.

In the Pottenger Cat Study most of the cats died from infections of

the kidneys, lungs and bones. The PPNF book suggests that the study

be repeated using present day antibiotics to see the cats' ultimate

degenerative fate.

Chi

[Guest guest]

Undoubtedly a raw-meat organic diet would vastly improve any carnivore's

health, though I believe that cat's need some grass to eat as well. It's

just that the results of the cat experiment has always seemed overblown to

me, like something else must have gone on to get such extreme results in

just three generations. I'd rather see the test repeated without

antibiotics since they would skew the test even further via the destruction

of intestinal microflora etc. My guess as to why modern cats survive on

packaged very dead food is that vitamins and minerals are added, so the

malnutrition in the Pottenger study was avoided. This too could be factored

into a test. But then PETA and/or the SPCA would probably disallow a repeat

of the study.

Hi :

Would cats fed the modern processed food as their main or only diet

be better off on a different diet? Myself I have seen a cat improve

when given a raw meat supplement along with standard processed cat

food. When given the choice between the beef and the cat food, the

raw beef was always eaten first. I have seen another cat raised for

its first year on nothing but organic raw meat, mainly fish. This cat

looked healthier than the average cat even though its parents would

have been on a processed cat food diet.

In the Pottenger Cat Study most of the cats died from infections of

the kidneys, lungs and bones. The PPNF book suggests that the study

be repeated using present day antibiotics to see the cats' ultimate

degenerative fate.

Chi

[Guest guest]

Chi,

I wonder if the quote you used from Nutrition and Physical Degeneration is

in proper context.

Weston Price showed that " ...a highly

sweetened coffee and white bread, vegetable fat, pancakes made of

white flour and eaten with syrup and doughnuts fried in vegetable

fat " can be part of a nutritious diet for children.

I read this very sentence the other day over breakfast and I swear the point

was that this was the unhealthy diet that a group of school children

received at home. Price used these children in an experiment in which he

supplemented their diet with a lunch of rich broth, veggies and 2 glasses of

raw milk.

I will certainly double check and post my findings, possibly you can too.

Deanna

----- Original Message -----

From: <ynos@...>

< >

Sent: Sunday, December 02, 2001 7:43 PM

Subject: Re: My two cents on the raw foods diet

> The topic of raw foods is very interesting to me.

> At various times in my life I've been on an all raw foods diet,

> I have friends who have been all raw, I've tried Aajonos'

> raw animal foods diet, I've done juice fasts, cleansing diets with

> all raw foods and herbs/psyllium/bentonite to detoxify

> and I've hung out (in the past) in the raw foods world.

Hi Sol:

Perhaps next you should consider eating food based on its nutritional

value rather than whether it is cooked or not. Francis Pottenger, Jr.

showed in his cat experiment that raw milk may not be nutritionally

better than pasteurized. Weston Price showed that " ...a highly

sweetened coffee and white bread, vegetable fat, pancakes made of

white flour and eaten with syrup and doughnuts fried in vegetable

fat " can be part of a nutritious diet for children.

The cooked or raw argument will never solve anything until it takes

into account the nutritional value of the food as determined by its

pedological origin. I think it's not what is in our food that kills

us, but what isn't.

Chi

[Guest guest]

--- " Grossman, L.Ac., O.M.D., Ph.D. "

<acudoc@...> wrote:

> My guess as to why modern cats survive on

> packaged very dead food is that vitamins and

> minerals are added, so the malnutrition in the

Pottenger study was avoided.

>

>

>

In support of that, I'd like to point to an article

that discusses that:

http://www.beyondveg.com/tu-j-l/raw-cooked/raw-cooked-1h.shtml.

They suggest that lack of taurine, an essential amino

acid for cats, might be the culprit. Heat-processing

negatively affects taurine levels in cats. They

discuss a question " Was Pottenger's cooked diet

detrimental because it was " dead " or simply

deficient? "

Roman

__________________________________________________

[Guest guest]

Deanna,

I remember that the same way you do -- it was

unhealthy diet for children.

Roman

--- Deanna Buck <dbuck@...> wrote:

> Chi,

>

> I wonder if the quote you used from Nutrition and

> Physical Degeneration is

> in proper context.

>

> Weston Price showed that " ...a highly

> sweetened coffee and white bread, vegetable fat,

> pancakes made of

> white flour and eaten with syrup and doughnuts fried

> in vegetable

> fat " can be part of a nutritious diet for children.

>

> I read this very sentence the other day over

> breakfast and I swear the point

> was that this was the unhealthy diet that a group of

> school children

> received at home. Price used these children in an

> experiment in which he

> supplemented their diet with a lunch of rich broth,

> veggies and 2 glasses of

> raw milk.

>

> I will certainly double check and post my findings,

> possibly you can too.

> Deanna

>

> ----- Original Message -----

> From: <ynos@...>

> < >

> Sent: Sunday, December 02, 2001 7:43 PM

> Subject: Re: My two cents on the

> raw foods diet

>

>

>

> > The topic of raw foods is very interesting to me.

> > At various times in my life I've been on an all

> raw foods diet,

> > I have friends who have been all raw, I've tried

> Aajonos'

> > raw animal foods diet, I've done juice fasts,

> cleansing diets with

> > all raw foods and herbs/psyllium/bentonite to

> detoxify

> > and I've hung out (in the past) in the raw foods

> world.

>

> Hi Sol:

> Perhaps next you should consider eating food based

> on its nutritional

> value rather than whether it is cooked or not.

> Francis Pottenger, Jr.

> showed in his cat experiment that raw milk may not

> be nutritionally

> better than pasteurized. Weston Price showed that

> " ...a highly

> sweetened coffee and white bread, vegetable fat,

> pancakes made of

> white flour and eaten with syrup and doughnuts fried

> in vegetable

> fat " can be part of a nutritious diet for children.

> The cooked or raw argument will never solve anything

> until it takes

> into account the nutritional value of the food as

> determined by its

> pedological origin. I think it's not what is in our

> food that kills

> us, but what isn't.

> Chi

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

> Chi,

> I wonder if the quote you used from Nutrition and Physical

> Degeneration is in proper context.

>

> Weston Price showed that " ...a highly

> sweetened coffee and white bread, vegetable fat, pancakes made of

> white flour and eaten with syrup and doughnuts fried in vegetable

> fat " can be part of a nutritious diet for children.

> I read this very sentence the other day over breakfast and I

> swear the point was that this was the unhealthy diet that a group

> of school children received at home. Price used these children

> in an experiment in which he supplemented their diet with a

> lunch of rich broth, veggies and 2 glasses of raw milk.

Hi Deanna:

I choose my words carefully. I did not say that Weston Price said

that a highly sweetened coffee and white bread, vegetable fat,

pancakes made of white flour and eaten with syrup and doughnuts fried

in vegetable fat can be a nutritious part of a diet for children.

To me, it's important in this clinical experiment that the entire

diet of the children was not changed, nor was the home care of the

teeth. Only one meal a day was changed for the children. The result

of the one changed meal a day was that all their cavaties

remineralized over and the children also improved in both their

physical and mental health. You could say without this one meal a day

that the children were not on a nutritious diet and that with this

one meal a day the children were on a nutritious diet. The highly

sweetened coffee and white bread, vegetable fat, pancakes made of

white flour and eaten with syrup and doughnuts fried in vegetable fat

were part of both diets.

The results of this clinical study suggests to me that it is not what

is in our diets that kills us, but rather what isn't. The problem

with our food is lack of nutrition, not the presence of poison. Once

you get enough nutrition in your diet it probably doesn't matter what

else you eat.

The important factor included in this one meal was the nutritional

factor measured by Yoder's chemical test for antirachitic properties.

If someone else has a diet without this factor that causes cavaties

to remineralize over, I would be interested to know what the diet

consists of and what evidence there is to support the claim that it

causes cavaties to remineralize over. It is facinating to me that

there is no scientific follow-up to Price's work. It's as if we

really want to have cavaties to keep dentists employed.

Chi

[Guest guest]

> In support of that, I'd like to point to an article

> that discusses that:

> http://www.beyondveg.com/tu-j-l/raw-cooked/raw-cooked-1h.shtml.

> They suggest that lack of taurine, an essential amino

> acid for cats, might be the culprit. Heat-processing

> negatively affects taurine levels in cats. They

> discuss a question " Was Pottenger's cooked diet

> detrimental because it was " dead " or simply

> deficient? "

>

Hi Roman:

If taurine is the culprit then would you agree that cats fed a 2/3

cooked food diet with 1/3 raw food given a taurine supplement then

should be just as healthy as the cats fed the same food all raw?

Does taurine explain the poor weed growth in the pens of the cats fed

2/3 cooked milk compared with the weed growth in the pens of the cats

fed 2/3 raw milk?

To read the beyondveg critique of the Pottenger Cat Study without

reading the book on the study, " Pottenger's Cats " , would be a mistake

in my opinion. The cat study does not tell us what is wrong with

human nutrition, but it sure points the way for future scientific

investigation of what is wrong with human nutrition. Maybe one day we

will be interested in doing that.

Chi

[Guest guest]

> It's just that the results of the cat experiment has always

> seemed overblown to me, like something else must have gone on

> to get such extreme results in just three generations.

Hi:

The results of the cat experiment are reported in the

book, " Pottenger's Cats " . Have you read it?

From the introduction, " Since the Cat Study is unique, its findings

are frequently quoted and misquoted in order to justify the ideas of

others. " If you read the book you will be able to recognize the false

claims when they are made.

Chi