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

[Guest guest]

He coulda has a urea cycle disorder. That would explain the natural

aversion to meat in addition to the dulled mind (from excess ammonia).

-Lana

On 5/17/07, <oz4caster@...> wrote:

>

> --- 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?

>

[Guest guest]

>

> He coulda has a urea cycle disorder. That would explain the natural

> aversion to meat in addition to the dulled mind (from excess ammonia).

>

Lana,

I wonder. His senses were hypersensitive at first after the years of

confinement in a dark, soundless environment, but he seemed especially

badly affected by even the smell of foods high in amines.

He had an aversion to any kind of food or drink. He would get very

ill from a few drops of anything people would sneak into his food or

convince him to try as an experiment.

It's such an amazing story. All he'd ever eaten was black bread and

water as long as he'd known--there'd be a new loaf and jug sitting

beside him when he awakened each...day?

Of course he had no concept whatsoever of time.

He was in quite good condition, healthy even, but for the deformity of

his legs and atrophy/weakness from never being in other than an

upright seated position on the hard floor for all those years. 24/7.

He even slept seated upright. Said he'd never had so much as a

headache in all those years locked away, yet in society he felt sick

frequently, mostly from the offensive smells.

I'm guessing he had fantastic genetics and his mother was very

healthy. I'm not sure what could account for it. When he showed up, at

17 y.o., he was 4'9 " . He didn't have rickets and he had good weight

on his body. His complexion, though not " florid " wasn't especially

pale nor at all sickly in appearance.

Because he was able to acquire language and communicate ideas, he must

have been exposed to language at some critical point, but nobody

knows. He knew nothing other than his confinement, wherein he never

saw the face of another human nor spoke. He was taught to write by

someone standing behind him at one point and his mind was such that he

could pick something like that up on a single try.

Possibly he was locked up at two or three years old, and later

" remembered " language as he was exposed to it.

It seems the coarse bread was as nourishing as we've been told in

WAPF literature.

[Guest guest]

> Or maybe it was COOKED meat that he was eating?

>

> ,

It was cooked meat. Starting with a couple drops of gravy mixed into

gruel, then building up to two or three muscle fibers. His nervous

system was excruciatingly sensitive at the beginning.

Whenever I read something like that which inadvertently supports the

old Ayurvedic texts, it intrigues me. I'm unwilling, however, to test

it to that extreme myself.

Though my mind has much improved since massively reducing amines,

which the yogis say are a dulling and heavy influence. It's been such

an improvement I'll never eat an amine-heavy diet again.

[Guest guest]

> >

> > 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?

> >

have you already made up your mind that I'm a fanatic, or are you

trying to figure out if I am a fanatic? Because I'm not. I'll eat

cooked food if it's offered to me, I guess. I don't eat cooked more

than a couple of times a month. Those still aren't hard and fast rules.

I'm trying to find what works here, as far as diet goes. It's not a

religion.

[Guest guest]

>

> 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:

>

You " doubt " ? That's an unfounded assertion.

Granted, my story about the feral blacksmith's assistant is too.

[Guest guest]

The word 'fanatic' didn't come to mind. I've basically given up because you are

simply not getting any of the points I've made.

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

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

>

> > >

> > > 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?

> > >

>

> have you already made up your mind that I'm a fanatic, or are you

> trying to figure out if I am a fanatic? Because I'm not. I'll eat

> cooked food if it's offered to me, I guess. I don't eat cooked more

> than a couple of times a month. Those still aren't hard and fast rules.

>

>

> I'm trying to find what works here, as far as diet goes. It's not a

> religion.

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

> You " doubt " ? That's an unfounded assertion.

>

> Granted, my story about the feral blacksmith's assistant is too.

Hi Mike,

Yes, I was feeling bold and made an assertion for a change. It's

founded on all the feral cases I've read. In not one did I see a

trend to feed the wild one the craved foods but instead to switch them

over to a standard diet. I simply said *I* doubt that was

indulged in his preferred foods at the time of his capture. It's also

unfounded but possible that his tastes may have adapted as he remained

in society.

It's interesting to me--though perhaps painfully obvious to anyone

else--that isolated feral children living in the wild on their own are

typically vegetarian, like , while those raised by wild (meat

eating) animals are meat eaters. Memmie Le Blanc was an exception,

but her pre-feral history is so mysterious.

tb

[Guest guest]

>

>

> The word 'fanatic' didn't come to mind. I've basically given up

because you are simply not getting any of the points I've made.

>

I get them. However, I feel your complete unwillingness to address

the issue of the buildup on the teeth of all the groups Dr. Price

studied indicates that you are playing a game. Play if you want. I

can play logic games too. Nobody takes you seriously when you do that.

[Guest guest]

I have no idea what you're talking about, and my replies were to posts that you

made, both before and after replies that I made. I'm not playing a game, but

quite obviously your reasoning process needs a bit of work.

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

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

>

> >

> >

> > The word 'fanatic' didn't come to mind. I've basically given up

> because you are simply not getting any of the points I've made.

> >

>

>

> I get them. However, I feel your complete unwillingness to address

> the issue of the buildup on the teeth of all the groups Dr. Price

> studied indicates that you are playing a game. Play if you want. I

> can play logic games too. Nobody takes you seriously when you do that.

>

>

[Guest guest]

>

>

> I have no idea what you're talking about, and my replies were to

posts that you made, both before and after replies that I made. I'm

not playing a game, but quite obviously your reasoning process needs a

bit of work.

>

There are two main problems with cooking food.

1. The water-soluble nutrients tend to be lost.

2. The complex carbs in the food tend to be converted to simple

sugars. We all know what simple sugars do to your teeth.

[Guest guest]

Whether this is true in all cases, and how important it is in all cases is not

something I'm qualified to answer. However it has little to do with the posts

that I replied to, and it is this total discontinuity in your responses that I

am unable to respond to.

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

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

>

> >

> >

> > I have no idea what you're talking about, and my replies were to

> posts that you made, both before and after replies that I made. I'm

> not playing a game, but quite obviously your reasoning process needs a

> bit of work.

> >

>

>

> There are two main problems with cooking food.

>

> 1. The water-soluble nutrients tend to be lost.

>

> 2. The complex carbs in the food tend to be converted to simple

> sugars. We all know what simple sugars do to your teeth.

>

>

[Guest guest]

>

>

> Whether this is true in all cases, and how important it is in all

cases is not something I'm qualified to answer. However it has little

to do with the posts that I replied to, and it is this total

discontinuity in your responses that I am unable to respond to.

>

There is no real discontinuity if you've actually studied the subject

area. You should have a sound, well-thought-out answer to every point

I've made. Cooking is what's on trial here, not raw. Raw is what's

innocent until proven guilty, not the other way around.

[Guest guest]

ARGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGH

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

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

>

> >

> >

> > Whether this is true in all cases, and how important it is in all

> cases is not something I'm qualified to answer. However it has little

> to do with the posts that I replied to, and it is this total

> discontinuity in your responses that I am unable to respond to.

> >

>

>

> There is no real discontinuity if you've actually studied the subject

> area. You should have a sound, well-thought-out answer to every point

> I've made. Cooking is what's on trial here, not raw. Raw is what's

> innocent until proven guilty, not the other way around.

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

>

>

> ARGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGH

>

Have you read " nutrition and physical degeneration " or Pottenger's Cats?

If not, there's basically no hope of you understanding my points. If

you think I'm an idiot, go ahead and think it. However, I believe

there are a number of people here including B. and Chris

Masterjohn who would vouch for my ability to make excellent points

regarding nutrition.

[Guest guest]

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

> There are two main problems with cooking food.

> 1. The water-soluble nutrients tend to be lost.

> 2. The complex carbs in the food tend to be converted to simple

> sugars. We all know what simple sugars do to your teeth.

Mike,

When I think of raw food, I think of food that is freshly harvested

and processed no more than cutting it into bite sized pieces to eat.

This means killing an animal and eating it on the spot or harvesting

vegetables or fruits and eating them soon after harvest. Immediate

refrigeration after harvesting might allow these foods to be kept in

nearly raw state for longer times, maybe for days or even a week. But

leaving food out in warm temperatures for more than a few hours after

harvesting will allow fermentation to take place - in which case the

food would no longer be in its raw state. It would then be processed

by bacteria. The longer is is left out, the more processed it

becomes. Obviously, some foods will ferment faster than others.

Freezing the food may also change it so that it is no longer raw.

Likewise with freeze drying or even sun drying. I would consider

these foods minimally processed, but not necessarily raw any more.

Foods processed in these ways may not have the same effect on

consumption as the original raw food.

If the food is run through a juicer, I don't consider it raw any more.

I would call it minimally processed, but also consider it potentially

altered from it's raw state - more so that can be accomplished by

chewing. Potentially, some complex molecules could be denatured by

the strong mechanical forces during the juicing.

If the food is soaked for at least a few hours or fermented, I don't

consider it raw any more. This is substantially more processed than

juicing. The soaking and fermenting will chemically change the

originally raw constituents in ways that may not be possible in our

digestive system. Some nutrients may be increased while others are

decreased and this is also true for some anti-nutrients.

And of course, heating food more than about 120 degrees F will cause

changes to the food so that it is no longer raw. Some nutrients may

be lost, but also some anti-nutrients may be reduced by cooking, and

some constituents, mainly starches, may be made more digestible.

On the positive side, consuming raw foods may provide more nutrients

and enzymes than cooking the same food, but it also increases the risk

of consuming parasites or other pathogens that would be destroyed by

cooking. I suspect that this risk of getting sick, and in some cases

evening dying, may be what led to the popularity of cooking in the

first place.

So, to me there are pluses and minuses in consuming BOTH raw and

processed foods. I'd suggest using your GUT FEELING to tell you how

much of each is best for you, as well as which foods are best.

<pun intended>

[Guest guest]

>

>

>

>

>

>> >

>> >

>> > ARGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGH

>> >

>

> ³Have you read " nutrition and physical degeneration " or Pottenger's Cats?

>

> If not, there's basically no hope of you understanding my points. If

> you think I'm an idiot, go ahead and think it. However, I believe

> there are a number of people here including B. and Chris

> Masterjohn who would vouch for my ability to make excellent points

> regarding nutrition. ³

At no time have you responded, even to the slightest degree to any of my

points. To the degree that it is beyond fanaticism or stuipidy, but absolute

blindness. Yes ­ I¹ve read much of NAPD. Yes, I understand what you¹re

saying. However I don¹t think that ranting and raving will convince anyone

of anything. It all comes down to science eventually, and this list often

becomes scary enough to make me question my decision to eat the way that I

do, given that such a large proportion of people who do it, and defend it,

are absolutely brainless.

Ban me from this list if you want, but I am so sick of this shit.