Jump to content

flanders77

Members
  • Posts

    1,541
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by flanders77

  1. Offtopic: @Bigboy: I wish you were here to motivate me! I really have some issues with my elbows and have to choose the intensity and exercises very carefully. But be sure I keep on training!
  2. @medman: I just wanted to say that even when humans adapted to a "food" like milk and were able to digest itand survive on it does not make this food healthy. Coming back to the title of the discussion: a natural food (one that we adapted to) is not necessarily healthy. The parallels to anti-raw arguments is obvious (at least) to me. I am with you concerning the menopause-hypothesis... @Dr.Pink: Being able to store foods was certainly a big step. But before fire there were foods that could be stored, too, like nuts and dried fruit etc. Humans survived in non-tropical climates areas and during the ice-ages (were storing is needed because calories in the form of fresh fruit and vegetables were not as easy to get) because they were able to adapt and survive on almost anything. The question is if that makes almost anything a food natural to eat...
  3. @I'mYourMAn, Dr.Pink, Richard and others: Thank you for bringing this discussion to another level. For me, especially Richards post really hit the nail on the head. @Medman: Concerning the possibility of Europeans to digest milk the epidemiology suggests that they can digest lactose but still suffer from drinking milk. I refer i.e. to the diabetis and osteoporosis rates that are highest in those (european) countries with the highest milk consumption. IMO we have to keep in mind that a population may keep on existing (e.g. adults live long enough to become parents and raise kids) but especially the low life expectancy just a few thousand years ago suggests that we who live about two times longer really have to focus on foods that minimize the risk of the so called diseases of affluence. Just because european ancestors were able to survive on milk does not mean milk is a health food. And IMO the same argumentation is valid for cooked food. @Dr.Pink: Concerning what kind of choice raw food diet is: The energy argument concerning cooking really is a valid one concerning e.g. the problem of africans cutting the last trees in their country to get firewood. There still is (of course) the dilemma of the long distances raw fruit travel from tropical zones to e.g. european consumers. Any way we have to keep in mind that gardening and the production of fruit is able to produce a very high number of calories per acre (higher than most crops) and at the same time does not exhaust the soil but preserves it. Apart from the fact that raw veganism in many cases improved not only physical but also mental health, if you to think it through to the end raw veganism can play a key role in saving our planet.
  4. I made a new table. Right now my diet looks like this: I added fresh fruits and vegetables and reduced dates... Since oranges are out of season I do not eat them right now. As a social convention I eat a little bit of cooked food (rice, pasta, bread) with the big salad for dinner. I did not put it into the table because it a varying and very small amount amount. The overall calories are a little bit less than before but I maintained BW. I am pretty sure that it is not how much calories I put in but also where the calories com from. For me fresh is better dried.
  5. @Aaron: Maybe survived is the term that fits better especially when considering the low life expectancy of our ancestors... Humans are able to adapt to almost every condition and even survived (were able to reproduce) under very hostile conditions and climates.
  6. The comparison you made in the linked discussion was a bad one there is is not getting any better by linking it here...
  7. Without addressing my arguments you only make a general statement that serves no purpose but discrediting me. Since you obviously want to stop exchanging arguments and use your last contribution to discredit me it is a good idea to end the discussion at this point.
  8. I repeat myself here: I did not say they are biased against raw but believe that their (normal) diet is healthy. The fact that write ups seem neutral to you is irrelevant IMO. Sorry to say that but this statement is kind of revealing... IMO you really do not know what raw food lifestyle is all about. It really does not matter if the enzyme theorie is correct or false - raw food (a diet based on ripe fruit, vegetables, nuts, seeds and sprouts) is usually very digested easily and quickly. If the enzymes in raw food help digestion by predigesting the food until inactivated by the acidic environment or broken down by digestive enzymes really does not matter when looking at the raw food diet. Some information as a sideline: It takes the hydrochloric acid in the stomach about 30-60 minutes to soak into the food completely. The digestion however starts right in the mouth during mastication. If there are enzymes in that food there would be at least a short amount of time for them to help digestion. I do not say that the enzyme theorie is correct but saying that the low ph-level and the digestive enzymes "kill" all enzymes instantly after entering the stomach is a simplified and IMO wrong assumption.
  9. @beforewisdom: Although you are using a nice little comparison with VE and the girl you do not seem to get the point I want to bring across: I never said that every raw food theorie is valid. I tried to explain some points of criticism concerning the science many put so much faith in. And just for the record: I am a scientist (still working in the field of epidemiology) and think I know what I am talking about. I read lots of scientific literature concerning health and nutrition and also the stuff you would certainly call "non-scientific". So I am not exactly comparable to the girl in your comparison. I don't know what your backround and profession is and how healthy your diet and lifestyle is but that is something personal and not everybody wants to tell about these things in a public forum. If there are opposing views on a matter and both sides claim their view is correct who decides which side has the burden of proof? I just made a statement about the standard method in science to falsify H0 leaves H1 as the only hypothesis possible.
  10. Maybe they don't care but in the back of their minds they believe that their diet is healthy. Therefor they are not objective IMO. Maybe you are right and there are some who really try to be objective - but there are too few of them. Take a look at the lobbies behind the studies and understand that even the heroic scientists you believe in have to pay their bills. Your conclusion is wrong. You connect two things that are independent from each other. I am talking about a basic problem modern science has. I already said before that more sound studies on raw food diets should be done (while knowing that there are limitations to nutritional studies) because they would hopefully help to eliminate prejudices. Butaway from a scientific point of view one would try to proof that there is no bias and if he/she fails, the opposite will be accepted as true... What Dan asked is important IMO: can you cite studies showing that raw theories (i.e. enzyme theorie) is not valid? Do you have scinetific evidence that cooked food is healthier than raw food. If you ask the raw foodists to prove their claims you should back up yours as well...
  11. We discussed this phenomenon a while ago. IMO it is as unlikely for a "cooked" scientist to find out something positive about a raw diet as it is for a SAD-scientist about a vegan diet. @dr. pink: I really do not want to belittle the difficulties you are facing right now but if you want to do something - don't let anything stop you from doing it. Or as Robert would say: TAMIH! (take action and make it happen)
  12. But those members who advocate a scientific approach always emphasize how important reliable information is. From that POV stickies for general questions (like is raw or cooked better?) or the way to go. Don't get me wrong when I say: This is exactly what I said in my previous posts in this dicussion. Maybe somewhere in a galaxy far far away... Sorry but this is so irrelevant. This "argument" reminds me of what omnis often say in "why-are-you-vegan-discussions": "If you want to be 100% vegan you have to stop driving, riding the bike, walking because you kill microbes with every move. And you have to stop buying product made by people who buy non-vegan products from the money you give them." The response is: if you decide not to change you behaviour at all just because you cannot be 100% at the end you will never change anything at all. It is always better to make the firsts steps in the right direction than remaining where you are. This statement I heard a hundred times from non-vegans, too.
  13. @DV and BW: I disagree on this. Stickies are very helpful. When a new member enters he/she can get an idea of what the stand of the discussion about an important topic is. If a member has to add something new to this I and every other member is open for discussion. A forum that has similar or even the same discussions over and over does not change but stands still. I do not think anyone would be offended if the different perspectives on raw food are presented in a sticky. I think that new members are interested in in having the opportunity of entering the discussion on a relatively high level. Again: I am not against discussion or debate. IMO the raw members of vbb&f are tired of exchanging arguments again and again. If you want to tell every new member who is interested in raw lifestyle that there is no science behind some raw food theories in your opinion - i am fine with that. But IMO a sticky can save you that time... I have no problem accepting that you need a scientific proof (if something like this would exist) for every dicision you make. Are you able to respect that others do not believe in the way science usually is performed as much as you do?
  14. As I said I will not get into the discussion (wether it is enzyme or raw food per se) again. I agree to you that it is important for new members to get well balanced information. I am not against discussion or members (did you read that my defence? , butaway this is a nice little piece of theory you outlined there! ) who question raw theories and request scientific proof. As I said before stickies would be very helpful for this and other subforums. New members can also use the search function (and should told to do so). Additionally there is the possibility to link to the discussions that already took place so that the same arguments are not exchanged again and again. Again: I am not against discussion or debate (as many of you know ) but against doing the exact same discussions over and over again. I am aware of the fact that there is little and not enough scientific evidence to back up or deny raw theories. IMO more sound studies should be done on raw food theories. Concerning the value of science: We already had a long and intense discussion about it, too, and IMO a link to that discussion will enable new members to get an idea of the different points of view that are part of this forum.
  15. Without getting into this useless discussion again I have to tell both sides: Please read side 1 and 2 of this topic. IMO the discussion does not serve any good purpose. Nobody will change his/her believe and all the arguments are exchanged too many times already.
  16. Welcome from me, too! I have a young family (girl of 3 y and boy of 8 month, too) and luckily my partner is vegetarian, too. I still hope she will wake up, too, as you did, but I am not preaching... Do not worry about Greece. We have at least three greece members here (oselifer, wolfy and health freak). I think it may be usefull be contact them and ask for advice. IMO right now you will have no problem to find lots of fruit and vegetables (all vegan ) right now in Greece.
  17. Welcome Kevin! Bruce Lee is a good goal!
×
×
  • Create New...