Vegetarian Discussion: A RAW NEW YOU!

Report Abuse

Use this form to report abuse or request takedown.
The requests are usually processed within 48 hours.

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6   Next  (First | Last)

HEALTHY Www.mantra.com/jai Dr. Jai Maharaj
2006-01-03 14:15:14 EST
A RAW NEW YOU!

Forwarded message from http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SoFlaVegans

[ Subject: A RAW New You!
[ From: "Fidyl" <fidyl@yahoo.com>
[ Date: Fri, 30 Dec 2005

A RAW New You!

http://www.naturaw.com/a_raw_new_you.html

The raw food diet can be a powerful stepping stone and
tool in healing your body, mind, and soul! In many ways,
it represents a return to nature and simplicity. If you
are attracted to the concept of the raw food diet, it is
well worth an exploration to see what might be in store
for you! Some of the main reasons a raw diet is the buzz
today amongst movers and shakers and Hollywood
celebrities are the following:

Increased energy, awareness, and mental clarity and
focus.

Increased sense of peace and overall well being.

Increased sense of connection to nature and the life
force flowing through it.

The scientific reasons for these benefits are several.
Raw foods have more life force in them, which can be
measured through scientific measurement devices.
Consuming this life force adds to our own life force. Raw
foods have more vitamins and minerals than cooked foods.
The water in raw foods is more organized or structured,
similar to the water in our own cells. Therefore, the
body has less work to do in organizing or structuring the
water in raw foods before it is utilized and absorbed by
our own cells. Raw foods have more enzymes which makes it
easier for our body to digest and absorb raw foods. Also,
our bodies do not have to produce as many enzymes in
order to digest raw foods easing the work or strain on
the body in the digestive process. Raw foods have no
altered chemistry such as trans-fatty acids which are
known to cause chemical problems and imbalances in our
own bodies. Raw foods cause less of an immune response in
our own bodies due to less or no altered food chemistry.

If you are new to the raw lifestyle and/or are just
considering exploring it, following are some things to
keep in mind in order to make your journey enjoyable,
successful, and expansive:

1) Have fun! Keep in mind that no matter your reason,
motivation, or purpose in exploring the raw diet and
lifestyle, don't make it just a task! Keep the curiosity
going! Stay creative. Learn new recipies, go to seminars,
potlucks, and retreats, and associate with others who are
learning as well. Read interesting books on the subject.

2) Buy a juicer and learn how to juice on a regular
basis. Learn how to make green juices palatable to keep
your body balanced with greens. My favorite way is using
Granny Smith Apples. Also, buy a blender and learn about
raw soups, salad dressings, and smoothies. Pick up a food
processor and some raw recipie books and learn a new
recipie every week or every month. Visit a gourmet raw
food restaurant!

3) Stay easygoing and flexible around food and diet.
Don't become perfectionistic. Don't try to go 100% raw
overnight. Don't let it take up too much of your mental
time or energy! Read more about this at
http://www.naturaw.com/raw_food_diet.html

4) Learn about raw superfoods and supplements to remain
balanced on the raw food diet as you make your
transitions and to excel on the diet. Some things to
consider are Algaes (such as Spirulina, Blue Green,
Golden, PhytoPlankton), Sea vegetables, Honey bee
products (bee pollen, royal jelly, propolis, and honey),
92 mineral wheatgrass juice, maca, cacao, gojis,
mushrooms, herbs, wild foods, colloidal, ionic, and
angstrom minerals, etc.

5) Learn about and use essential oils.

6) Do some sort of exercise, sport, yoga, or
healing/strengthening program on a regular basis. Spend
time in nature.

7) Learn about breathwork and "rebirthing".

8) Learn and implement the practice of sun gazing:
http://www.naturaw.com/raw_food_resources.html

9) Bring prayer and gratitude to your food and diet.

10) Don't do all of the above at once! Start with one
thing first and let your journey progress naturally in
the way the seems easiest for you! If you are feeling
overwhelmed, step back and take a breather from the
learning and practicing process. Remember, this is a
journey. Rome was not built in a day!

End of forwarded message from http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SoFlaVegans

Jai Maharaj
http://www.mantra.com/jai
Om Shanti

Hindu Holocaust Museum
http://www.mantra.com/holocaust

Hindu life, principles, spirituality and philosophy
http://www.hindu.org
http://www.hindunet.org

The truth about Islam and Muslims
http://www.flex.com/~jai/satyamevajayate

The terrorist mission of Jesus stated in the Christian bible:

"Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not so send
peace, but a sword.
"For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the
daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in
law.
"And a man's foes shall be they of his own household.
- Matthew 10:34-36.

o Not for commercial use. Solely to be fairly used for the educational
purposes of research and open discussion. The contents of this post may not
have been authored by, and do not necessarily represent the opinion of the
poster. The contents are protected by copyright law and the exemption for
fair use of copyrighted works.
o If you send private e-mail to me, it will likely not be read,
considered or answered if it does not contain your full legal name, current
e-mail and postal addresses, and live-voice telephone number.
o Posted for information and discussion. Views expressed by others are
not necessarily those of the poster who may or may not have read the article.

FAIR USE NOTICE: This article may contain copyrighted material the use of
which may or may not have been specifically authorized by the copyright
owner. This material is being made available in efforts to advance the
understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic,
democratic, scientific, social, and cultural, etc., issues. It is believed
that this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as
provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title
17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without
profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included
information for research, comment, discussion and educational purposes by
subscribing to USENET newsgroups or visiting web sites. For more information
go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml
If you wish to use copyrighted material from this article for purposes of
your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the
copyright owner.

Since newsgroup posts are being removed
by forgery by one or more net terrorists,
this post may be reposted several times.

Dutch
2006-01-03 16:56:51 EST

<*t@mantra.com HEALTHY www.mantra.com/jai (Dr. Jai Maharaj)> wrote
>A RAW NEW YOU!
>
> Forwarded message from http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SoFlaVegans
>
> [ Subject: A RAW New You!
> [ From: "Fidyl" <fidyl@yahoo.com>
> [ Date: Fri, 30 Dec 2005
>
> A RAW New You!
>
> http://www.naturaw.com/a_raw_new_you.html
>
> The raw food diet can be <!> another futile dead-end

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



Leif Erikson
2006-01-04 20:09:54 EST
Dr. Jai Maharaj wrote:
> A RAW NEW YOU!
>
> Forwarded message from http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SoFlaVegans
>
> [ Subject: A RAW New You!
> [ From: "Fidyl" <fidyl@yahoo.com>
> [ Date: Fri, 30 Dec 2005
>
> A RAW New You!
>
> http://www.naturaw.com/a_raw_new_you.html
>
> The raw food diet can be a powerful stepping stone and
> tool in healing your body, mind, and soul!

"Raw Foodism" is superstitious bullshit; it isn't founded on any
science at all.


Prehistoric Human
2006-01-05 04:59:18 EST
"Leif Erikson" <notgenx32@yahoo.com> wrote in message:
> "Raw Foodism" is superstitious bullshit; it isn't founded on any
> science at all.
================

Well, fortunately for you "modern" humans, we prehistoric humans somehow
managed to survive and evolve for millions of years on a 100% raw diet, up
until the widespread use of cooked food approx. 125,000 years ago, according
to the below reference. Not too bad for a diet which you say "is
superstitious bullshit" and "isn't founded on any science at all", methinks.
Back to my cave now.....

-The Prehistoric Human

ref:
http://www.beyondveg.com/nicholson-w/hb/hb-interview2c.shtml#fire,%20first%20control

Crux of the question: first control of fire vs. earliest widespread use. Now
of course, the crucial question for us isn't just when the earliest control
of fire was; it's at what date fire was being used consistently--and more
specifically for cooking, so that more-constant genetic selection pressures
would have been brought to bear. Given the evidence available at this time,
most of it would probably indicate that 125,000 years ago is the earliest
reasonable estimate for widespread control.... (etc.)



Leif Erikson
2006-01-05 10:38:25 EST
Prehistoric Human wrote:

> "Leif Erikson" <notgenx32@yahoo.com> wrote in message:
>
>>"Raw Foodism" is superstitious bullshit; it isn't founded on any
>>science at all.
>
> ================
>
> Well, fortunately for you "modern" humans, we prehistoric humans somehow
> managed to survive and evolve for millions of years on a 100% raw diet, up
> until the widespread use of cooked food approx. 125,000 years ago, according
> to the below reference. Not too bad for a diet which you say "is
> superstitious bullshit" and "isn't founded on any science at all", methinks.
> Back to my cave now.....

The mental cave of superstition.

Eat whatever you like. The fact is, anyone adhering to
a raw food diet today is adhering to an "ism". I'm
reminded of an answer given by the anthropologist
Margaret Mead during an interview a long time back.
Some counter-culture dummy, anticipating a favorable
answer to his leading question, asked her what she
thought of a macrobiotic diet. Completely surprising
the interviewer, Mead answered something like, "When
you eat macrobiotic, you aren't eating food, you're
eating an ideology. I prefer to eat food."

You eat all the helpings of your raw food ideology that
you want, pally. Just don't try kidding us that it's
anything other than an ideological expression.

Dave
2006-01-05 10:41:45 EST

Prehistoric Human wrote:
> "Leif Erikson" <notgenx32@yahoo.com> wrote in message:
> > "Raw Foodism" is superstitious bullshit; it isn't founded on any
> > science at all.
> ================
>
> Well, fortunately for you "modern" humans, we prehistoric humans somehow
> managed to survive and evolve for millions of years on a 100% raw diet, up
> until the widespread use of cooked food approx. 125,000 years ago, according
> to the below reference. Not too bad for a diet which you say "is
> superstitious bullshit" and "isn't founded on any science at all", methinks.
> Back to my cave now.....

Why assume that our dietary needs are the same as yours despite
the extra 125,000 years of evolution?
Does the fact that prehistoric humans survived on 100% raw food mean
you couldn't have handled cooked food?
>
> -The Prehistoric Human
>
> ref:
> http://www.beyondveg.com/nicholson-w/hb/hb-interview2c.shtml#fire,%20first%20control
>
> Crux of the question: first control of fire vs. earliest widespread use. Now
> of course, the crucial question for us isn't just when the earliest control
> of fire was; it's at what date fire was being used consistently--and more
> specifically for cooking, so that more-constant genetic selection pressures
> would have been brought to bear. Given the evidence available at this time,
> most of it would probably indicate that 125,000 years ago is the earliest
> reasonable estimate for widespread control.... (etc.)


Leif Erikson
2006-01-05 10:48:31 EST
Dave wrote:

> Prehistoric Human wrote:
>
>>"Leif Erikson" <notgenx32@yahoo.com> wrote in message:
>>
>>>"Raw Foodism" is superstitious bullshit; it isn't founded on any
>>>science at all.
>>
>>================
>>
>>Well, fortunately for you "modern" humans, we prehistoric humans somehow
>>managed to survive and evolve for millions of years on a 100% raw diet, up
>>until the widespread use of cooked food approx. 125,000 years ago, according
>>to the below reference. Not too bad for a diet which you say "is
>>superstitious bullshit" and "isn't founded on any science at all", methinks.
>>Back to my cave now.....
>
>
> Why assume that our dietary needs are the same as yours despite
> the extra 125,000 years of evolution?
> Does the fact that prehistoric humans survived on 100% raw food mean
> you couldn't have handled cooked food?

"Raw vegan extremist behavior patterns: the darker side
of rawism"

Introduction: rose-colored glasses vs. the
unpleasant realities.

Many of us are attracted to and/or get involved in
raw vegan diets because of the positive idealism and
optimistic (albeit simplistic) outlook that is a
part of the "party line." It can be disconcerting,
therefore, especially for those who are new to the
diet and filled with enthusiasm, to learn that raw
vegan diets are not cure-alls, are not perfect, and
so on. Even more disconcerting, though, is when one
learns that the behavior of certain raw diet gurus
is a betrayal of the positive moral qualities that
(in theory) underlie vegan diets in general; and
further, that the behavior of some diet gurus is a
massive betrayal of the trust people place in them,
as well.


http://www.beyondveg.com/billings-t/claims-cred/claims-cred-1e.shtml


Prehistoric Human
2006-01-07 06:59:27 EST
"Dave" <prplbn@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> Why assume that our dietary needs are the same as yours despite
> the extra 125,000 years of evolution?

OK, lets consider this general type of raw diet then, kind of like a modern
day version of the prehistoric raw human diet, employing some more modern
food sources:

-Wide variety of fresh, raw fruits and vegetables
-Variety of raw nuts and seeds
-Sprouted whole grains, sprouted legumes/pulses
-Raw milk cheeses, raw eggs, raw fish
-Freshly made raw vegetable/fruit juices
-Cold-pressed vegetable oils (with a good balance of omega 3 and 6 EFAs)

Now I will certainly agree that there is some risk in eating some of the
animal products raw, and that it's safer to eat them cooked. (Yet many
people eat them raw regardless, including some brave souls who eat lots of
raw meat, even, as did the prehistoric humans.) But this isn't about the
safety of raw food diets in connection with the possibility of picking up an
infection. This is about if "Raw Foodism is superstitious bullshit; it isn't
founded on any science at all", as Mr. Leif Erikson stated, and it's also
about the issue that you raised, questioning what you perceive to be my
assumption that the dietary needs of modern humans is the same as that of
the humans of 125,000 years ago, despite the extra 125,000 years of
evolution.

So in connection with that last point, do you think that the raw diet I
outlined above would be nutritionally inadequate for modern humans, and
would (eventually) lead to nutritional deficiencies and illness? If so, I
assume that cooking some of the foods would prevent this, then?

> Does the fact that prehistoric humans survived on 100% raw food mean
> you couldn't have handled cooked food?

Who knows, there may well be an adaptation period involved. But this isn't
about how healthy cooked food is, it's about if Raw Foodism is
superstitious bullshit; not founded on any science at all, and also if a raw
diet (like the one I outlined above, for instance) can be healthy for modern
humans, as the "prehistoric version" was long ago, which the prehistoric
humans evolved on for millions of years. (The prehistoric version of course
had no grains, legumes/pulses, dairy, juices or cold-pressed oils, but
likely a fair amount of raw meat instead.)

-The Prehistoric Human



Dave
2006-01-08 06:38:57 EST

Prehistoric Human wrote:
> "Dave" <prplbn@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > Why assume that our dietary needs are the same as yours despite
> > the extra 125,000 years of evolution?
>
> OK, lets consider this general type of raw diet then, kind of like a modern
> day version of the prehistoric raw human diet, employing some more modern
> food sources:
>
> -Wide variety of fresh, raw fruits and vegetables
> -Variety of raw nuts and seeds
> -Sprouted whole grains, sprouted legumes/pulses
> -Raw milk cheeses, raw eggs, raw fish
> -Freshly made raw vegetable/fruit juices
> -Cold-pressed vegetable oils (with a good balance of omega 3 and 6 EFAs)
>
> Now I will certainly agree that there is some risk in eating some of the
> animal products raw, and that it's safer to eat them cooked. (Yet many
> people eat them raw regardless, including some brave souls who eat lots of
> raw meat, even, as did the prehistoric humans.) But this isn't about the
> safety of raw food diets in connection with the possibility of picking up an
> infection. This is about if "Raw Foodism is superstitious bullshit; it isn't
> founded on any science at all", as Mr. Leif Erikson stated,

Now I'm not arguing that cooked foods are essential to our health and
as
far as I know Leif isn't either. When he describes "Raw Foodism" as
superstitious bullshit he isn't attacking a theory that claims cooking
is
unnecessary. He is attacking a theory that claims cooking is dangerous.


> and it's also
> about the issue that you raised, questioning what you perceive to be my
> assumption that the dietary needs of modern humans is the same as that of
> the humans of 125,000 years ago, despite the extra 125,000 years of
> evolution.

It now appears that I misunderstood where you were coming from.

> So in connection with that last point, do you think that the raw diet I
> outlined above would be nutritionally inadequate for modern humans, and
> would (eventually) lead to nutritional deficiencies and illness? If so, I
> assume that cooking some of the foods would prevent this, then?

I can see no reason why the raw food diet you outline should not
provide adequate nutrition. Having said that you might be
interested in the following article:
http://www.geocities.com/beforewisdom/Veg/archive/drgregorRawFoodism.html

> > Does the fact that prehistoric humans survived on 100% raw food mean
> > you couldn't have handled cooked food?
>
> Who knows, there may well be an adaptation period involved. But this isn't
> about how healthy cooked food is, it's about if Raw Foodism is
> superstitious bullshit; not founded on any science at all, and also if a raw
> diet (like the one I outlined above, for instance) can be healthy for modern
> humans, as the "prehistoric version" was long ago, which the prehistoric
> humans evolved on for millions of years. (The prehistoric version of course
> had no grains, legumes/pulses, dairy, juices or cold-pressed oils, but
> likely a fair amount of raw meat instead.)
>
> -The Prehistoric Human


Prehistoric Human
2006-01-11 08:05:22 EST
"Dave" <prplbn@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> Now I'm not arguing that cooked foods are essential to our health and
> as
> far as I know Leif isn't either. When he describes "Raw Foodism" as
> superstitious bullshit he isn't attacking a theory that claims cooking
> is
> unnecessary. He is attacking a theory that claims cooking is dangerous.
======================
Well I don't know-if someone is healthy and feels well on, and prefers to
live on the 100% raw "prehistoric human" omnivorous diet I mentioned
earlier, but also doesn't necessarily believe that cooked food is dangerous,
does that then mean that that raw diet is not "superstitious bullshit" which
"isn't founded on any science at all"? I guess only Leif can answer that
one...

Nevertheless, after I pointed out earlier that prehistoric humans lived and
evolved for millions of years on a raw diet, Leif stated "The fact is,
anyone adhering to a raw food diet today is adhering to an "ism". He then
went on to mention the macrobiotic diet, which of course contains a lot of
cooked food, which he also seems to consider to be an "ism"/ ideology. Then
he stated "You eat all the helpings of your raw food ideology that you want,
pally. Just don't try kidding us that it's anything other than an
ideological expression."

It seems that his issue is with dietary systems that restrict the modern
omnivorous diet in some way. But of course unlike diets such as macrobiotic
and vegan, the raw prehistoric human diet I'm talking about (which uses
animal products) has a long history of success at being the diet that humans
lived and evolved on for millions of years. So if someone goes on that diet
and feels healthy (perhaps even better?) on it and suffers no malnutrition,
and maybe feels no need or desire for cooked food and so doesn't wish to
bother with all the extra preparation that goes along with that, how can
that be considered merely an "ideological expression"?

> I can see no reason why the raw food diet you outline should not
> provide adequate nutrition. Having said that you might be
> interested in the following article:
> http://www.geocities.com/beforewisdom/Veg/archive/drgregorRawFoodism.html

Interesting article. I did notice , though, that in the 1999 study
discussed, where there were health problems with many of the raw foodists,
that they were vegan raw foodists (I saw that on another website which
discussed that same study). My argument doesn't apply to the vegan raw diet
of course, since humans didn't evolve on that. The article also says that
"Human beings have been cooking for at least 250,000 years, and maybe as
long as 1.9 million years". That's at odds with that article I posted
earlier from beyondveg.com which states:

"Another good reason it may be safer to base adaptation to fire and cooking
on the figure of 125,000 years ago is that more and more evidence is
indicating modern humans today are descended from a group of ancestors who
were living in Africa 100,000-200,000 years ago, who then spread out across
the globe to replace other human groups. If true, this would probably mean
the fire sites in Europe and China are those of separate human groups who
did not leave descendants that survived to the present." (The China site
seems to indicate fire was used up to 1.5 million years ago).

The article you posted does bring up the point though, that "human beings
have adapted so much that eating cooked food now seems obligatory for
optimum health." The important word here is "seems". Does that translate
into "is obligatory for optimum health"? I haven't come across any studies
about that, in connection with a raw omnivorous diet like I'm talking about.
Not yet anyway...

-The Prehistoric Human


Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6   Next  (First | Last)


2020 - UsenetArchives.com | Contact Us | Privacy | Stats | Site Search
Become our Patron