Re: curious about feeling clean/better on raw food diet

[Guest guest]

I'm not personally interested in

> doing one, and I don't think there's any traditional diet precedence

> for them since as far as I know no traditional foods populations ate

> an entirely raw diet, or even a largely raw diet for the most part.

>

In fact you have not done your research. The Eskimos ate

predominantly raw, as did/do many traditional groups. Organ meats are

nearly always eaten raw or very lightly cooked. Dairy products are

nearly always consumed raw as well. The percentage of raw varied

widely among the groups Dr. Price studied, with the Eskimos and maybe

the Masai eating the most raw.

I'm just wondering if anyone has any

> experience with this themselves, or any thoughts...

I've eaten 85-100% raw for about 6.5 years. I don't notice a big

difference between, say, 95% raw and 100%. I do notice a difference

between 75%, for instance, and 95-100%. Everyone's experience is

different, in my opinion. However, I'd have to say I think that most

problems on the raw or nearly-100%-raw diet are due to digestion

problems that can be fixed using unrefined sea salt and fermented

foods. Food combining, consuming liquids before, not after, meals,

and eating no less than 3 hours before sleep, are also helpful for

some people. Some also have bad reactions to individual foods. Going

all raw isn't something that most people could do overnight, or even

in a few weeks.

Here's a listing of benefits I've gotten from this diet:

1. I don't sunburn anymore. I used to, but not now.

2. My skin doesn't swell or itch in response to mosquito bites

anymore, unless I go back to eating a lot of cooked food.

3. My stamina is greatly increased.

4. No more back problems, or knee problems, or tendonitis, or at

least greatly reduced in all three areas.

5. My hair turned back from graying to brown again.

6. Greatly reduced body odor.

7. I recover from injuries more quickly.

8. I look years younger than my age.

You can email me if you want to know more.

[Guest guest]

>

> I'm not personally interested in

> > doing one, and I don't think there's any traditional diet precedence

> > for them since as far as I know no traditional foods populations ate

> > an entirely raw diet, or even a largely raw diet for the most part.

> >

>

> In fact you have not done your research. The Eskimos ate

> predominantly raw, as did/do many traditional groups. Organ meats are

> nearly always eaten raw or very lightly cooked. Dairy products are

> nearly always consumed raw as well. The percentage of raw varied

> widely among the groups Dr. Price studied, with the Eskimos and maybe

> the Masai eating the most raw.

>

I think you misinterpreted my initial post, or I didn't explain it

very clearly. What I meant was that as far as I know there are no

traditional groups that ate an ENTIRELY raw diet, ie all of them

cooked at least some of their food. And the majority of the

traditional groups that Dr. Price studied didn't eat primarily raw

foods, either. They all ate SOME raw food, and of course certain

foods like dairy were always, or nearly always, eaten raw, but I don't

see how that sets a precedence for the " raw is always better " mentality.

>

> I'm just wondering if anyone has any

> > experience with this themselves, or any thoughts...

>

>

> I've eaten 85-100% raw for about 6.5 years. I don't notice a big

> difference between, say, 95% raw and 100%. I do notice a difference

> between 75%, for instance, and 95-100%. Everyone's experience is

> different, in my opinion. However, I'd have to say I think that most

> problems on the raw or nearly-100%-raw diet are due to digestion

> problems that can be fixed using unrefined sea salt and fermented

> foods. Food combining, consuming liquids before, not after, meals,

> and eating no less than 3 hours before sleep, are also helpful for

> some people. Some also have bad reactions to individual foods. Going

> all raw isn't something that most people could do overnight, or even

> in a few weeks.

>

> Here's a listing of benefits I've gotten from this diet:

>

> 1. I don't sunburn anymore. I used to, but not now.

> 2. My skin doesn't swell or itch in response to mosquito bites

> anymore, unless I go back to eating a lot of cooked food.

> 3. My stamina is greatly increased.

> 4. No more back problems, or knee problems, or tendonitis, or at

> least greatly reduced in all three areas.

> 5. My hair turned back from graying to brown again.

> 6. Greatly reduced body odor.

> 7. I recover from injuries more quickly.

> 8. I look years younger than my age.

I'm curious...what was your diet like before you went raw?

[Guest guest]

Enzymes! Enzymes and some measure of vitamins are lost in the cooking

process. Most pop a chemical vitamin every day and mask the vitamin

loss, but our bodies don't manufacture cellulase. . . . I struggle to get

enough raw foods, as I have Raynaud's and tend to want warm food.

Desh

[Guest guest]

>

> I think you misinterpreted my initial post, or I didn't explain it

> very clearly. What I meant was that as far as I know there are no

> traditional groups that ate an ENTIRELY raw diet, ie all of them

> cooked at least some of their food. And the majority of the

> traditional groups that Dr. Price studied didn't eat primarily raw

> foods, either. They all ate SOME raw food, and of course certain

> foods like dairy were always, or nearly always, eaten raw, but I

don't

> see how that sets a precedence for the " raw is always better "

mentality.

>

>

Besides the fact that 95-100% raw has worked so well for me, Dr.

Pottenger's work is pretty persuasive, as well as the fact that Dr.

Price found cavities and crooked teeth in all but 2 groups. Wild

animals don't get cavities or crooked teeth. That's persuasive. Or

didn't you read Dr. Price's book?

> I'm curious...what was your diet like before you went raw?

>

>

>

>

I toyed with my diet for years before I went all/mostly raw. It's

not important how I arrived at this point. My story isn't very

different from anyone else's who has realized that the SAD is

suicide/homicide/genocide on your fork. I've tried vegetarianism,

veganism, low-fat, high-fat, low sugar, high-grain, steaming,

blenderizing, etc. I hope you find it entertaining.

mike

[Guest guest]

>

> Besides the fact that 95-100% raw has worked so well for me, Dr.

> Pottenger's work is pretty persuasive, as well as the fact that Dr.

> Price found cavities and crooked teeth in all but 2 groups. Wild

> animals don't get cavities or crooked teeth. That's persuasive. Or

> didn't you read Dr. Price's book?

>

Didn't Pottenger study cats? It's obvious why animals would do better

on a raw diet as they clearly aren't designed to eat cooked foods, but

I fail to see how that's a compelling argument for humans to eat only

raw foods. I did read N & PD although I don't recall that being a

requirement for being allowed to post on this group. Were the Eskimos

and Masai the two groups that didn't have cavities and crooked teeth?

And even if they were, you could use that to make an equally good

case for a diet composed almost entirely of animal products as the

healthiest diet.

> I toyed with my diet for years before I went all/mostly raw. It's

> not important how I arrived at this point. My story isn't very

> different from anyone else's who has realized that the SAD is

> suicide/homicide/genocide on your fork. I've tried vegetarianism,

> veganism, low-fat, high-fat, low sugar, high-grain, steaming,

> blenderizing, etc. I hope you find it entertaining.

>

> mike

>

I wasn't looking for entertainment, I was simply interested in what

changes you made in your diet coinciding with going all/largely raw.

I'd expect someone going from the SAD to a raw diet to see positive

changes, whereas I think it would be quite interesting if someone

eating a TF diet saw many positive changes by switching to a raw diet.

[Guest guest]

I want to know more..Dee

************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.

[Guest guest]

Which book are we talking about?Dee

************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.

[Guest guest]

> >

>

> Didn't Pottenger study cats? It's obvious why animals would do better

> on a raw diet as they clearly aren't designed to eat cooked foods, but

> I fail to see how that's a compelling argument for humans to eat only

> raw foods.

One of the main reasons to eat raw is the natural instinct of every

infant species to naturally reject cooked food. It usually takes

babies quite a while to accept a mouthful of cooked rice, peas, beans,

or any other cooked food. Young animals are the same. However, they

will eat raw food quite easily. Guy-Claude Burger tried an experiment

with one of his younger children a few days after she was born. He

offered her a tiny bit of raw fruit. She refused. Then he offered

her a tiny piece of raw tuna. She gulped it down. I've never seen

or heard of a baby gulping the first bite of any cooked food.

Guy-Claude Burger is well-known in the raw food world for his all-raw

diet that includes both animal foods, fruits, veggies, honey, etc.

I did read N & PD although I don't recall that being a

> requirement for being allowed to post on this group. Were the Eskimos

> and Masai the two groups that didn't have cavities and crooked teeth?

> And even if they were, you could use that to make an equally good

> case for a diet composed almost entirely of animal products as the

> healthiest diet.

>

>

The best teeth were found in the Peruvians and the Maori, who ate

large amounts of fish eggs/shellfish. The Eskimos and the Masai

actually did have a few cavities/crooked teeth. My point is that they

would not have if their diets were totally unprocessed. Why don't

wild animals ever get cavities or crooked teeth? Can you answer me

that?

I think that shellfish/fish eggs are the natural food of humans. We

are the aquatic apes. However, I think humans can be entirely without

these foods, and still have perfect teeth, as long as we don't cook or

process our food excessively, and use organ meats instead. The native

groups from Central Canada still had pretty good teeth. Not perfect,

but pretty good. It's all in the book.

mike

[Guest guest]

>

> One of the main reasons to eat raw is the natural instinct of every

> infant species to naturally reject cooked food.

In order for it to be a reason, I think that you actually need to flesh it out a

bit. I don't find that compelling at all. I'd think that you would need to show

some evidence that, if this were true (and I'm not sure that I believe it), that

whatever instincts that babies have, they are an indication of what healthy

behavior would be for an adult.

[Guest guest]

>

>

>

>

> >

> > One of the main reasons to eat raw is the natural instinct of every

> > infant species to naturally reject cooked food.

>

> In order for it to be a reason, I think that you actually need to

flesh it out a bit. I don't find that compelling at all. I'd think

that you would need to show some evidence that, if this were true (and

I'm not sure that I believe it), that whatever instincts that babies

have, they are an indication of what healthy behavior would be for an

adult.

>

>

I don't care what you believe. I'm a parent, and I've observed it,

and heard it from other parents. If you're not a parent, then I doubt

you know.

[Guest guest]

Ah - so the REASONING from baby instinct (something that you have observed in

ALL babies) to adult humans is something that you have observed. That's

downright miraculous.

-------------- Original message ----------------------

From: " michael grogan " <tropical@...>

>

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > >

> > > One of the main reasons to eat raw is the natural instinct of every

> > > infant species to naturally reject cooked food.

> >

> > In order for it to be a reason, I think that you actually need to

> flesh it out a bit. I don't find that compelling at all. I'd think

> that you would need to show some evidence that, if this were true (and

> I'm not sure that I believe it), that whatever instincts that babies

> have, they are an indication of what healthy behavior would be for an

> adult.

> >

> >

>

> I don't care what you believe. I'm a parent, and I've observed it,

> and heard it from other parents. If you're not a parent, then I doubt

> you know.

>

>

[Guest guest]

>

>

> > >

> >

> > Didn't Pottenger study cats? It's obvious why animals would do better

> > on a raw diet as they clearly aren't designed to eat cooked foods, but

> > I fail to see how that's a compelling argument for humans to eat only

> > raw foods.

>

>

> One of the main reasons to eat raw is the natural instinct of every

> infant species to naturally reject cooked food. It usually takes

> babies quite a while to accept a mouthful of cooked rice, peas, beans,

> or any other cooked food. Young animals are the same. However, they

> will eat raw food quite easily. Guy-Claude Burger tried an experiment

> with one of his younger children a few days after she was born. He

> offered her a tiny bit of raw fruit. She refused. Then he offered

> her a tiny piece of raw tuna. She gulped it down. I've never seen

> or heard of a baby gulping the first bite of any cooked food.

IIRC my DD's first food was cooked, and she readily accepted it. You

can't extrapolate animal results to humans--animals can't cook their

food, and logically they should prefer raw foods. But then, logically

they shouldn't eat desserts/human food people leave out, but they do.

I personally wouldn't put much stock in the " instinct " of a newborn

who eats any solids as their bodies are not designed to handle

anything other than breastmilk until they are several months old.

> The best teeth were found in the Peruvians and the Maori, who ate

> large amounts of fish eggs/shellfish. The Eskimos and the Masai

> actually did have a few cavities/crooked teeth. My point is that they

> would not have if their diets were totally unprocessed. Why don't

> wild animals ever get cavities or crooked teeth? Can you answer me

> that?

So there are NO wild animals ever found with cavities or crooked

teeth? You're saying wild animals never have deficient diets for any

reason? Who goes around studying these things, anyway?

>

> I think that shellfish/fish eggs are the natural food of humans. We

> are the aquatic apes. However, I think humans can be entirely without

> these foods, and still have perfect teeth, as long as we don't cook or

> process our food excessively, and use organ meats instead. The native

> groups from Central Canada still had pretty good teeth. Not perfect,

> but pretty good. It's all in the book.

I see the underlying reason for our different philosphies...I don't

believe in evolution.

[Guest guest]

--- mike, " michael grogan " <tropical@...> wrote:

> The best teeth were found in the Peruvians and the Maori, who ate

> large amounts of fish eggs/shellfish. The Eskimos and the Masai

> actually did have a few cavities/crooked teeth. My point is that they

> would not have if their diets were totally unprocessed.

Mike,

I thought I remembered that the Peruvians that Price studied ate lots

of boiled potatoes? That wouldn't be a very raw diet.

I also wonder how many centenarians eat mostly raw diets?

[Guest guest]

> I thought I remembered that the Peruvians that Price studied ate lots

> of boiled potatoes? That wouldn't be a very raw diet.

That's not the point. They counteracted their cooked food with lots

of seaweeds and fish parts. Also, they had very rich soil to work

with, and good soil conservation and generally good farming

techniques. The health of the soil can vary tremendously, and

therefore the health of the plant.

>

> I also wonder how many centenarians eat mostly raw diets?

>

>

>

Quite a few. There have been numerous cases in the raw foods movement

of people who lived in good health into their late 80s, 90s, and

beyond, including Norman , Bragg, Ann Wigmore, and other

lesser-known ones. I don't think Ann was truly 100%, but she still

ate mostly-raw.

Many Chinese and Hindu yogis have eaten all-raw diets. A 100% raw

fruitarian diet is a common yogic practice in India. There is a poem

by a Chinese Immortal, Sun Bu-Er, which talks about eating all-raw.

Ever notice how wild animals don't eat cooked food? Ever notice how

they don't have cavities or dental problems? Put the two together,

genius.

[Guest guest]

You

> can't extrapolate animal results to humans--animals can't cook their

> food, and logically they should prefer raw foods. But then, logically

> they shouldn't eat desserts/human food people leave out, but they do.

If they are repeatedly exposed to them, sure.

I've also read of several cases of feral children who never came to

accept cooked food, even though it was offered to them regularly.

> So there are NO wild animals ever found with cavities or crooked

> teeth? You're saying wild animals never have deficient diets for any

> reason? Who goes around studying these things, anyway?

>

> >

I do, for one. I've had plenty of opportunity to study the skulls of

wild animals. I live in a very rural area, with thousands of acres of

woodland. Things die here. I'm also an amateur naturalist. I've

visited lots of museums, and enjoy looking at skulls.

[Guest guest]

>

>

> Ah - so the REASONING from baby instinct (something that you have

observed in ALL babies) to adult humans is something that you have

observed. That's downright miraculous.

>

>

>

As someone who has actually fed small infants, I think I have more

experience in the matter. Why don't you ask around?

[Guest guest]

--- Mike, " michael grogan " <tropical@...> wrote:

> Many Chinese and Hindu yogis have eaten all-raw diets. A 100% raw

> fruitarian diet is a common yogic practice in India. There is a

> poem by a Chinese Immortal, Sun Bu-Er, which talks about eating

> all-raw.

Yeah, and what was the name of that teenage yogi who disappeared for

many months recently and claimed that he ate NO FOOD while he was gone

and yet appeared to be in good health when he was found again?

Will miracles never cease?

Oh, and how about that Chinese guy who supposedly ate mainly goji

berries and lived over 200 years?

I do like goji berries mixed with peanuts

> Ever notice how wild animals don't eat cooked food? Ever notice how

> they don't have cavities or dental problems? Put the two together,

> genius.

Well, if you want to live like a wild animal, be my guest

Just as there are many paths to enlightenment,

there are many paths to good health and longevity.

There are plenty of healthy people who live long lives and eat a large

portion of their food cooked.

I prefer about a 50/50 mix of raw and cooked.

But I'm not too old to change

Maybe I should become a goji frutarian?

<my wife already thinks I'm a fruit cake>

[Guest guest]

>

> ³Ever notice how wild animals don't eat cooked food? Ever notice how

> they don't have cavities or dental problems? Put the two together,

> genius.²

>

> Ever notice how animals will not read fiction no matter how hard you try to

> convince them to? Ever notice how they don¹t have cavities or dental problems?

> Put the two together, genius.

>

>

[Guest guest]

>

>

>

>

>

>> >

>> >

>> > Ah - so the REASONING from baby instinct (something that you have

> observed in ALL babies) to adult humans is something that you have

> observed. That's downright miraculous.

>> >

>> >

>> >

>

> ³As someone who has actually fed small infants, I think I have more

> experience in the matter. Why don't you ask around? ³

>

> Maybe someone like might have the patience to explain to you by what

> degree you¹ve missed the point.

>

[Guest guest]

With all due respect: Anyone willing to feed a few day old baby any solids,

cooked or not needs to learn a lot more about the infant GI tract before

they start making dissertations on how to feed children. Raw human milk is

the only truly appropriate food for a baby that age, regardless of someone's

reputation or desire to use their own offspring as guinea pigs in badly

designed experiements.

Why didn't the baby eat the raw fruit? If raw is so superior, shouldn't the

baby have eaten the raw fruit? Did he offer her cooked fruit? How about

cooked tuna? Without cooked foods to compare too, there is no way to prove

preference between raw and cooked. This experiment proved that an infant

will eat raw solids if a parent tries to feed them, and may have proved a

preference to tuna from whatever fruit was attempted to be fed (but keep in

mind only bananas and avacados are considered appropriate for raw fruits

before 8 months of age - so it really depends on what fruit was offered).

Also, How do we know this infant wasn't just really hungry because for some

reason it's mother wasn't available for breastfeeding? You can stick pretty

much anything in an infants mouth and they'll suck on it, especially when

they're hungry. I don't buy the " If you're not a parent you don't

understand " argument: I've heard that same argument from mothers who feed

their children nothing but sugar and refined white flour because it is " all

they'll eat " .

A *much* better experiment would have been this: Pump breast milk.

Pasteurize one batch, leave the other raw. Put bottles in a bottle warmer

to get both bottles the same temperature. Offer both bottles to baby,

pasteurized first, to see if baby prefers raw milk to cooked milk. You

would also need more than one participant because one baby does not

represent all babies - maybe 100 babies would be a good number, but even

then, that's not that many babies.

-Lana

Guy-Claude Burger tried an experiment

> with one of his younger children a few days after she was born. He

> offered her a tiny bit of raw fruit. She refused. Then he offered

> her a tiny piece of raw tuna. She gulped it down. I've never seen

> or heard of a baby gulping the first bite of any cooked food.

>

> Guy-Claude Burger is well-known in the raw food world for his all-raw

> diet that includes both animal foods, fruits, veggies, honey, etc.

>

[Guest guest]

>

> I've also read of several cases of feral children who never came to

> accept cooked food, even though it was offered to them regularly.

Hi Mike,

I thought they eventually ate the cooked foods, since the caretakers

were, unfortunately, unwilling to feed them raw (meats especially) in

the effort to civilize them.

Which are the cases who never came to accept cooked food?

But my real question is this: I've read again and again that feral

children found salted food repugnant---what do you think about that?

[Guest guest]

> I thought they eventually ate the cooked foods, since the caretakers

> were, unfortunately, unwilling to feed them raw (meats especially) in

> the effort to civilize them.

>

> Which are the cases who never came to accept cooked food?

>

> But my real question is this: I've read again and again that feral

> children found salted food repugnant---what do you think about that?

>

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amala_and_Kamala

is the story of Kamala and Amala, who, according to the Wiki, never

accepted cooked food.

IIRC, there was a boy who never learned to speak, but became a

blacksmith's assistant. He never accepted cooked food. The other was

, the " Wild Boy of Hanover " who was sort of " adopted " by Queen

Caroline. Apparently, he was able to pronounce a few words, but would

never eat cooked food.

As far as salted food goes, I don't know. I do use unrefined salt,

and feel it helps my digestion tremendously when used in moderation.

The Swiss in NAPD imported sea salt to eat, so....conclude what you

will.

[Guest guest]

>

>

> ³en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amala_and_Kamala

>

> is the story of Kamala and Amala, who, according to the Wiki, never

> accepted cooked food.

>

> IIRC, there was a boy who never learned to speak, but became a

> blacksmith's assistant. He never accepted cooked food. The other was

> , the " Wild Boy of Hanover " who was sort of " adopted " by Queen

> Caroline. Apparently, he was able to pronounce a few words, but would

> never eat cooked food.

>

> As far as salted food goes, I don't know. I do use unrefined salt,

> and feel it helps my digestion tremendously when used in moderation.

> The Swiss in NAPD imported sea salt to eat, so....conclude what you

> will. ³

>

> But if your previous posts in their absolutism about what babies and feral

> children will eat (based on anectotal and limited examples) are to be taken as

> conclusive, then there should be no flexibility here, should there?

>

[Guest guest]

> en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amala_and_Kamala

>

> is the story of Kamala and Amala, who, according to the Wiki, never

> accepted cooked food.

Hi Mike,

Nah, Wiki only says they " rejected cooked food " not anything about

never. Have you read the diaries of their captor/caretaker, Rev.

Singh? Utterly fascinating. Such a sad story:

http://www.feralchildren.com/en/pager.php?df=singh

While the girls initially rejected raw fruit, they soon came to adore

cookies and sweets, which were rather pushed upon them and used for

behavioral conditioning.

They were crazed for raw meat at first and snatched raw meat and

carrion whenever the opportunity arose, though he says they never

killed any animal in or around the house. Here's a fine picture of

Kamala on some discarded chicken entrails...odd, I just noticed she's

eating using her hand:

http://www.feralchildren.com/image.php?if=kamalaeating

The family wouldn't feed her meat, though.

Well, here's the page talking about the food preferences and aversions:

http://www.feralchildren.com/en/pager.php?df=singh & pg=25

Anyway, they readily took raw milk and much preferred it to water.

Since they were in India and the right reverend had an appreciation

for its nourishing properties that's what they were fed until they

could be better socialized but they were eating cooked foods of all

kinds before long. It did take years before they would eat anything

salted, meat or no. They were captured 17 October 1920 and the first

mention of them eating cookies is 13 Dec 1920.

>

> IIRC, there was a boy who never learned to speak, but became a

> blacksmith's assistant. He never accepted cooked food.

I'm not familiar with that story but famous wild child, Victor, who

only learned two words, and the others I've read about all eventually

ate cooked food. They had to. It was part of their rehabilitation.

The other was

> , the " Wild Boy of Hanover " who was sort of " adopted " by Queen

> Caroline. Apparently, he was able to pronounce a few words, but would

> never eat cooked food.

Where does it say " never " ? lived for sixty years after being

taken in at age 13 and I doubt his caretakers kept him in acorns and

tree sap all that time without attempting to change his tastes to

bread and lentils. The other thing about is this:

http://www.feralchildren.com/en/showchild.php?ch=peter

" Although Wild was famous in his time and his case is well known

today, he was barely a feral child. He'd been living in the wild for

only around a year, having run away from home owing to the physical

abuse he suffered at the hands of his father. He was found and

returned home, but in the meantime his father had re-married, and this

time his stepmother threw him out. His inability to speak and other

characteristics could have led to the abuse. "

> As far as salted food goes, I don't know. I do use unrefined salt,

> and feel it helps my digestion tremendously when used in moderation.

> The Swiss in NAPD imported sea salt to eat, so....conclude what you

> will.

My conclusion is the children preferred whatever they were accustomed

to. Kaspar Hauser, who wasn't wild but confined, was repulsed by

anything but brown bread and water and found the smell of raw meat the

most repulsive of all. Curiously, as his tolerance and consumption of

meat increased, while his body gained needed strength, his mind grew

duller. So they say.

[Guest guest]

--- B, " downwardog7 " <illneverbecool@...> wrote:

> Kaspar Hauser, who wasn't wild but confined, was repulsed by

> anything but brown bread and water and found the smell of raw meat the

> most repulsive of all. Curiously, as his tolerance and consumption of

> meat increased, while his body gained needed strength, his mind grew

> duller. So they say.

Vegan propaganda !

Or maybe it was COOKED meat that he was eating?

<that MIGHT explain why my mind is getting duller>