Vegan Raw Food

[Mr Pearcore]

One acts defensive when one has something to defend.
Get off your high horse and calm down.

"I used to be a Vegan who only cared about the animals - however, my health issues are now catching up with me, and that gives you various dilemas, such as whether or not to take regular medication, (animal tested). I hate the thought that I am then perpetuating the whole animal-abuse cycle, and impacting on the environment."

and if you are being a raw foodist to help the environment as some have claimed to be the reason, then you would not drive etc, because if you thought instead of shooting then asking questions later, youd have realised that is pollution.

I am off for dinner now. Cheerio.

[foxytina_69]

first of all sweetie im not on a high horse nor was i not calm. i was asking u a few questions, i dont see how that isnt calm, and yet i dont know where you are getting the "one acts defensive" from because i wasnt trying to defend myself at all :\

second of all i see her quote, and yet i do not see where she stated she needed pills because she was vegan, nor do i see anything about vitamin tablets. she was simply questioning taking medication regularaly.

pfc never said she wanted to be a raw foodist for the environment, she said it was about her health, but that in doing so it DOES help the environment. considering we are in 2005, some people need to drive, there is nothing we can do to change that. one can do only as much as one can do, and no more than that.

have a nice dinner

[PinkFluffyCloud]

Excuse me!
I have been Vegetarian for about 17 years, Vegan for about 5 of them. Of course I don't need medication for my Veganism, but you can be an UNHEALTHY Vegan. I explained that I smoked and drank, and generally did not take care of myself, I was ONLY Vegan for the animal side of things, that is why I have certain health issues now. I am not seriously ill or anything, but just because I am now eating well and taking care of myself, the problems caused by my PAST behaviour cannot be erased.
Possibly, if I wasn't Vegan, I would now be in a worse state!

Mr. Pearcore, what a pity you have to be sarcastic! I do have a car which I use as little as possible. I am moving soon to somewhere I will have enough space to grow almost all my Organic food, thus eliminating a lot of my present worries. I will not need to go shopping, and I will live near to the local school, so my son can walk in each day. I intend to live very simply, which will make me feel better, anyway!

................And it sure felt like you were biting my head off, asking about Raw Foodism, then saying you didn't CARE who did it!! If you don't care about it, why ask????

[PinkFluffyCloud]

BTW, Mr. Pearcore, your attitude reminds me of people who are anti-Vegans, the way you mis-quote me. I NEVER said I needed medication FOR my Veganism, being Vegan was the only good aspect of my lifestyle before. But it is perfectly possible to be Vegan and eat too much chocolate, bread, sugar and fat, unfortunately. Luckily, I woke up to what I was doing!

You are the one who actually sounds defensive to me! I am always honest, I don't need to feel defensive - EXCEPT when people mis-quote me and twist my words. Why would anyone need to take medication FOR their Veganism?? What a very odd thing to say.

[foxytina_69]

i agree pfc. sometimes people feel threatened because of the thought that their own lifestyle may not be as good as they thought it was.

[PinkFluffyCloud]

Yes, and thanks for leaping to my defence!
I don't think I was ever being 'Holier-than-thou', because I am not even a successful Raw Foodist (yet!).

[1984]

Hey Eve, check out this article , I believe this is where I heard that story from.
http://www.living-foods.com/articles/whyswitch.html I believe it says that our bodies produce only a finite number of enzymes and eating cooked food draws from this supply and that aging is just simply running out of enzymes. Very interesting! I wonder if it's true.

[eve]

Thanks for that url, it makes interesting reading, and the FAQs are worth a read too. I don't know about

ageing is just simply running out of enzymes

as there are many changes that go on in our bodies over the years.

There gave no references for their statement that our bodies produce only a finite number of enzymes, and that they disappear as we eat cooked food. I'd also read that our brains have a finite number of cells that die off and cannot be replaced. Then later I read it was all in the synapses, and they don't die off.

Someone earlier used a phrase about being 'perfect' with raw foods. Well, I think it is beneficial to be satisfied with the amount of rawfoods we consume. I don't aim for perfection, and in fact 100 percent raw, would mean no marmite, homas, tahini, etc - even though they are ingested in very small quantities, plus the occasional warm drink. Though I've given up the soyaccino at the shopping mall, as I have better uses for the $3 a pop!

I ignore postings by Mr Pearcore these days, as he is too high and mighty for me.

Foxytine_69, I don't think I've ever posted to the 'what did u eat today thread' - but perhaps just out of interest since you ask, I'll start tomorrow!

[foxytina_69]

[snivelingchild]

Why do so many people prefer vegetables to be cooked? I like every vegetable better raw (except, like beans, which I don't eat when eating raw). Personally, I think the most atrocious invention by man kind is cooked spinach, that green sloshy slush. Even carrots, a very delicious crunchy food, are eaten cooked, taking all the flavor and texture out. I don't understand it.

Am I the only one that thinks veggies taste better raw?

[Panda]

I Don't understand why either. The only vegies I eat cooked are potatos and pumpkin and occasioinally zuchini but I have been eating that raw lately its pretty yummy. I eat sweet corn raw to now. Everything just tastes sooo much better raw. I can't eat cooked broccoli anymore to mushy.

[MzNatural]

I prefer eating vegetables raw. Occasionally I eat them lightly steamed, sautéed, or sometimes baked. I am between 70-80% raw most days.

[Aurora]

I agree. Most vegetables are better raw. In fact I can't stand cooked carrots.

[phillip888]

Mr Pearcore appears to be a baiter (is he a pro or what?). Hey, this did turn out to be a good thread about the benefits of raw food though, well except for the insults and really lame stereotypical insinuation.

The enzyme thing is overemphasized in raw circles (especially raw fad opportunists). Your body produces enzymes until the day you die. They're not particularly complex, and raw food doesn't usually add/assist digestive enzymes to your existing ones in the way many people seem to imply. The enzymes in raw food are for the function of the plant. In fruit some enzymes convert carbs into simple glucose and fructose. In that respect they sure make digestion easier because it's easier to digest glucose than complex carbs (especially indigestible or toxic ones found in many unripe fruit), but they certainly are not relevant once that fruit is being broken down in your digestive system.


Oh, and straight edge seems to come up often in vegan discussion forums. Is that an attempt to group progressive groups or something? I'm mostly raw and take good care of my body, but I would never dismiss a nice magic brownie as an ethical wrong, nor would I consider abstinence healthy or ethically judge-able. Last time I checked straight edge was a reaction to consumerism and fascism, not just a form of veganism.

[phillip888]

i trust mother nature, and feel its right to reach for something created by earth and found in nature. after all, mother nature created humans. things that were meant for us to eat, shouldnt need to be altered in any way to eat them. thats just the way i feel

Well, there are some not-so-well paid tele-marketers gone PR/Lobbyists out there that know you're right, and that is very bad for their owners/employers. Seriously though, this thread is classic and follows the 'The Center For Consumer Freedom' disinformation methods to a tee (fear first, then labels and accusations, then retreat when it's time for facts to be brought to the table). It's unfortunately very effective. If you'd like to learn more take a peek at sourcewatch.org. They have a fair amount of information on the front and their tactics.

Oh, and raw food rocks. Ppppt...

[eve]

Thanks phillip888, interesting topics, though I've not finished reading them all.

[Wildflower]

Personally, I think the most atrocious invention by man kind is cooked spinach, that green sloshy slush.

No kidding! Whenever someone tells me they "don't like spinach" I say, "Well...have you had it fresh and uncooked? Like in a salad?"

I like everything raw. cooked tomatos don't bother me, but everything else is better raw. Yummy raw veggies!

[snivelingchild]

I know! I forced myself to eat some cooked carrots grandparents made especially for us and it was horrible. I felt so bad I still ate them all though.

I completely agree about the spinach. My boyfriend told me he hated spinach, now he eats FRESH organic spinach in MANY salads.

He also used to hate brocolli.

[Gorilla]

i'm a 'weird' person who doesn't like raw vegetables

i like raw carrots and salad stuff (e.g. lettuce, tomatoes etc.) but that's about it, everything else has to be steamed at least - and i HAVE tried to like them raw, honest!!!! most raw veg is too bitter and crunchy for my taste.

[Mystic]

Raw & Cooked: Capsicum (aka bell pepper), SPINACH tomato, cabbage, cabbage, carrots, mushrooms, spring onions, fresh herbs (basil, coriander etc...), snow peas, sugar-snap peas, green beans and cauliflower
Never Raw: Potatoes, pumpkin, sweet potatoes, eggplant, zucchini, broccoli, bok choy (and all Asian greens), corn, regular onion, parsnip (actually parsnip is inedible in any form), turnips, beetroot, swedes, celery (and the celery has to be hidden)
Strictly Raw: Lettuce, cucumbers, sprouts, fennel

[John]

I like raw broccoli but I have to force myself to eat it when it's cooked.

[Kiva Dancer]

I like a mixture of raw and cooked. Nutritionally, there are some compounds that are best when cooked and some that are best in its raw state so I like to go for a mixture of each to get the full benefit.

[phillip888]

I just found something interesting about mucous plaque. It's the carrier of intrinsic factor (the compound used for absorption of protein based vitamins like B12). In poor or damaged digestive systems (like ones damaged by diet, or that are fed a poor diet) it builds up because it can't be absorbed in to the wall of the small intestine. When it reaches an excessive volume it becomes a matrix for holding composting food. This allows carcinogens to stay in your small intestine for extended periods of time, while blocking nutrients. It apparently builds up severely with the ingestion of processed foods and dairy milk. It can be mostly removed by roughage over a period of time, but impacted matter that has been protected by it is not removed easily.

Interesting stuff. Ah, I'd claim I'm not selling anything, but you know, I don't need to. After all I'm not being paid to be here.

[veganblue]

That's great Phillip! Would you be able to post the link to that information since I have been having difficulty finding anything on mucoid plaque, what it is made of etc. Any assistance would be very welcome.

[veganblue]

Vegetarians Have Healthy Bones Despite Low Bone Mass


Raw food veggies are thinner but healthier

Plant diet may not be bad for bones


29/03/2005 - People who eat no animal products and only raw plant-based foods may have healthier bones than previously thought, shows US research.

Researchers at Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis studied 18 strict raw food vegans, aged from 33 to 85, and found that although their bones were light in weight, they may be healthy.

The vegans, who had been on the diet for an average of 3.6 years, had lower body mass indices than a comparable group following a more typical western diet, including refined carbohydrates, animal products and cooked food.

They also had significantly lower bone mass in important skeletal regions such as the hip and lumbar spine, sites where low bone mass often means osteoporosis and fracture risk. But they did not have other biological markers that typically accompany osteoporosis, shows the study, published in the 28 March issue of the Archives of Internal Medicine (vol 165, pp 1-6).

"For example, it is clear from research that higher rates of bone turnover equate to higher risk of fracture," said lead author Dr Luigi Fontana. "But in these people, although their bone mass is low, their bone turnover rates are normal."

In other areas too, the raw food group appeared to be healthier than the conventional diet group. They had less inflammation, indicated by low levels of C-reactive protein, which is made by the liver as a response to inflammation in the body. They also had lower levels of IGF-1, one of the most important growth factors regulated by calorie and protein intake. High levels of IGF-1 have been linked to risk of breast cancer and prostate cancer.

And in spite of the fact that the raw food group did not drink milk or eat cheese, they had higher vitamin D levels than people on a typical, Western diet. Fontana attributed the vitamin D levels to sun exposure.

"These people are clever enough to expose themselves to sunlight to increase their concentrations of vitamin D," he said. "I thought vitamin D might be a problem for them, but it was not."

Fontana also measured levels of the hormone leptin, which seems to play an important role in the regulation of bone metabolism. In some transgenic mice, low leptin levels are related to high bone mass. But interestingly, the raw food dieters had both low levels of leptin and low bone mass.

In short, the people on the raw food diet are lighter with lower body fat. They have less bone, but they have normal markers of bone turnover, higher-than-normal vitamin D and very low levels of leptin and inflammatory markers.

Fontana added however that the team is not yet sure whether the vegans’ bones are healthy or not. Current clinical measurements would indicate that many in this group have osteoporosis or less severe bone loss called osteopenia. But with low levels of inflammation, normal bone turnover and high vitamin D, Fontana says the usual clinical parameters may not apply.

"For example, post-menopausal, frail women with osetoporosis have low bone mass and an increased risk of fracture," he said. "But they also have increased circulating levels of inflammatory molecules called cyotkines. That's a different biologic condition from what we are seeing in the raw food vegans."

"We think it's possible these people don't have increased risk of fracture but that their low bone mass is related to the fact that they are lighter because they take in fewer calories."

Further study is needed to prove that raw food vegans have light-but-healthy bones.

[veganblue]

More on vegans and bone density from the BBC

People who follow a raw food vegetarian diet are light in weight but healthy, according to US researchers.

It has been suggested that eating only plant-derived foods that have not been cooked or processed might make bones thinner and prone to fractures.

But a study in Archives of Internal Medicine found although bones were lighter on this diet, turnover rates were normal with no osteoporosis.

The lower bone mass is down to raw food eaters being slim, believe the authors.

More in the link above.

[Seaside]

veganblue, you ask a lot of good questions. I have recently become interested in the idea of a raw diet, and Harvey Diamond's books are what started my search for information. I know intuition isn't scientific, but when I think that humans, who are the only species which treats its food with heat, have so many serious health problems that are not shared by species who eat their foods raw, it makes sense. My degree is in geology, and my specialty is in palaeontology, and 50,000 years, or even 200,000 years, isn't really considered a long enough span of time for an organism to adapt its biological systems so radically. Anthropologists claim that human beings have been around for five million years or so, and for most of that time probably ate raw. Of course, the fact that most unhealthy people who eat cooked foods also eat animal products may cloud the issue as to what is the most natural way to eat.

What has interested me, especially in the area of bone loss, is the need for the body to maintain its blood pH. There is a very narrow range over which the pH of the blood is allowed to fluctuate before death will occur, and the body will rob calcium from the bones to keep the blood pH stable. This is the Catch-22 for consumers of dairy foods. Here in the USA we are told to drink plenty of milk to protect our bones, so why do we have one of the highest rates of osteopororsis in the world? All animal products and grains have an acid reaction in the body, so the calcium must be stolen from bones and teeth to protect the ph of the blood. All vegetables and most fruits have an alkaline reaction in the body, mostly due to their mineral content. If the mineral content is leached away by cooking, this would make these foods more acidic, thus requiring more mineral loss from the bones. Minerals from cooked foods may be more readily absorbed, but there won't be enough to counteract the lowering of blood pH. I think of nutrition as more than what vitamins and minerals are available in different foods. How hard the body has to work with what it is given is also an issue, and though it may be easier to absorb certain nutrients from cooked foods, dealing with foods whose natural structures are fundamentally altered, and completely eliminating the delicate enzymes that exist to aid digestion may ultimately cause more stress in the body than it alleviates. For humans, digestion of foods begins in the mouth, not the stomach, and even if the enzymes naturally occuring in the food are destroyed by the stomach, they may serve an important purpose before they get there.

[veganblue]

veganblue, you ask a lot of good questions. I have recently become interested in the idea of a raw diet, and Harvey Diamond's books are what started my search for information. I know intuition isn't scientific, but when I think that humans, who are the only species which treats its food with heat, have so many serious health problems that are not shared by species who eat their foods raw, it makes sense. My degree is in geology, and my specialty is in palaeontology, and 50,000 years, or even 200,000 years, isn't really considered a long enough span of time for an organism to adapt its biological systems so radically.

I have been reading journal articles that suggest that 50,000 years is sufficient and will post the sections if you are interested.

Seperating disease from cooked / raw diets could be very difficult in a historical analysis considering there are so many factors that contribute to disease.

What has interested me, especially in the area of bone loss, is the need for the body to maintain its blood pH. There is a very narrow range over which the pH of the blood is allowed to fluctuate before death will occur, and the body will rob calcium from the bones to keep the blood pH stable. This is the Catch-22 for consumers of dairy foods. Here in the USA we are told to drink plenty of milk to protect our bones, so why do we have one of the highest rates of osteopororsis in the world?

I am under the impression that while milk is high in Calcium, it's not a great source of calcium, especially after pasteurisation and that there are a lot of other factors involved in osteoporosis such as exercise and the increasing trend towards obesity.

All animal products and grains have an acid reaction in the body, so the calcium must be stolen from bones and teeth to protect the ph of the blood. All vegetables and most fruits have an alkaline reaction in the body, mostly due to their mineral content.

I am a little confused by what you are suggesting - the body produces acid in the stomach to provide a pH that makes the protease best able to catalyse the breakup of proteins into amino acids. An acid is a proton donor (hydrogen ion), when the amino acid chains are broken, the 'broken links' need H ions on the ends and the low pH of the stomach provides loads of H ions. This is why amino acids are called acids as when you join them it liberates a H ion - donates a proton which is the definition of an acid. I don't understand where you are thinking the mineral content comes into the equation.

If the mineral content is leached away by cooking, this would make these foods more acidic, thus requiring more mineral loss from the bones. Minerals from cooked foods may be more readily absorbed, but there won't be enough to counteract the lowering of blood pH.

Cooking by boiling in water *will* leach some nutrients into the water. Heating doesn't affect the mineral content, but it certainly does affect the shape of the enzymes which can denature. Vitamins are also susceptible to degredation, some more than others. Quick steaming or lightly stirfrying should retain most of the vitamins and liberate others also.

Blood pH is buffered by carbonate ions but primarily can be adjusted by brething more - the carbonic acid (that is the dissolved form of carbondioxide) passes across the lungs as carbondioxide and increases the blood pH. If that is not sufficient, the liver has a large store of caronate ions that are released to mop up the excess hydrogen ions.

The primary mineral found in bones is Calcium, which is also important in muscle contractions - blood pH varies very little and certainly not hugely effected by the difference between a cooked or raw meal.

I would suggest that if you are really interested in the issue of pH in cooked and raw foods then an easy experiment would be to set up a variety of foods raw and cooked and make multiple samples of the pureed specimens. One group should be subjected to a heat source and the other not. I don't recommend boiling unless that is the method you are investigating. A universal pH indicator stick should give a clear result.

I think of nutrition as more than what vitamins and minerals are available in different foods. How hard the body has to work with what it is given is also an issue, and though it may be easier to absorb certain nutrients from cooked foods, dealing with foods whose natural structures are fundamentally altered, and completely eliminating the delicate enzymes that exist to aid digestion may ultimately cause more stress in the body than it alleviates. For humans, digestion of foods begins in the mouth, not the stomach, and even if the enzymes naturally occuring in the food are destroyed by the stomach, they may serve an important purpose before they get there.

When enzymes are heated they 'denature', which is to say they unfold. Enzymes work by having a particular shape that allows a specific substrate structure to either be joined or broken up. A denatured protein is still a string of aminoacids - the digestive system does not usually absorb enzymes per se - by animo acids and the cells form them into the amino sequences (proteins or enzymes) they require for metabolic processes.

Enzymes in food are there for the benefit of the food, not our digestion! Many of the enzymes that foods produce are toxic - some we are able to digest - others that will make us sick so we don't eat them. Think of soy for example; raw soy beans will make you sick, they contain the protein tripsin, and enzyme inhibitor and other active enzymes (primarily lipoxygenase) (these accelerate or stop the breakdown of the seed endosperm depending on the growth stage of the seed).

Mouth digestion is primarily the grinding of the food item to increase the surface area and mixing with mucosal secretions containing amalase - an enzyme that converts starches into maltose then glucose. In the stomach, amylase is digested but the glucose can pass across the stomach lining wall. Carbohydrate digestion continues in the small intestine when the pH is brought back up to around neutral. Since the body is programmed to produce the specific enzymes, it is unlikely that any in the food that persist to the stomach actually have a role in digestion other than to be digested.

I hope this has been of some assistance for you in understanding the roll of enyzmes in food compared to in the body, the role of pH in blood and in digestion and the change in mineral content in food after heating.

I advocate eating raw food for the vitamin content! I think tha raw food in your diet is very important. But I would not discourage anyone from eating cooked foods unless they were overcooked or contained loads of heated fats or trans fats. I certainly wouldn't tell anyone that heated foods were toxic sicne that would require a definition of toxic and a molecular hypothesis of why it was damaging or toxic.

Just don't eat raw soybeans! They are toxic!

[Seaside]

Posted by veganblue:

I have been reading journal articles that suggest that 50,000 years is sufficient and will post the sections if you are interested.

Yes, I would be, thanks.

Postd by veganblue

Just don't eat raw soybeans! They are toxic!

I know! I became vegan before meat and dairy substitute foods became popular, and I do not rely on soy. It is wonderful for people just starting out who miss their favorite foods, but soy isn't what it is cracked up to be, and it is difficult to digest even when highly processed.

[Seaside]

Posted by veganblue:

Enzymes in food are there for the benefit of the food, not our digestion!

This is true, but that doesn't mean our bodies have not adapted to using them! Organs are present in "food" animals for their own use, not ours, and yet thousands of generations of human beings have adapted to extracting nutrition from the livers, kidneys, and other organs of animals.

The Hermisenda sea slug is a good example of making use of substances that are intended for the animal to which they belong. This sea slug ingests the stinging cells of sea anemones and incorporates them into its own system for self defense. The stinging cells of a sea anemone are present for its own use, but that does not stop the Hermisenda from making use of them too.

Unlike many of the foods vegans make use of, fruits, which include many of the foods people think of as vegetables, like tomatoes, peppers, squash, etc. are designed by the plant expressly to be eaten by animals. The enzymes do enable digestion of the pulp, allowing the seed to pass through the system and be deposited with a ready supply of manure by the bowel movement of the animal, which aids in the propagation of new plants. The ultimate goal for the plant is to reproduce itself, and it does so with the aid of the animal "middleman". This also explains why seeds are so much more difficult to digest, because they are protected from digestion by a different set of enzymes. Soaking and sprouting remove these enzymes just as well as cooking does. In fact, people would get a lot less gas from their beans if the soaked them well before they cooked them!

[veganblue]

Yes, I would be, thanks.

Review: ‘Cooking as a biological trait’
Richard Wrangham*, NancyLou Conklin-Brittain Department of Anthropology, Harvard University, Peabody Museum, 11 Divinity Avenue, Cambridge, MA 02138, USA Received 28 June 2002; received in revised form 16 January 2003; accepted 17 January 2003

Current evidence, however, does not support the notion of cooking as being too recent to have had evolutionary effects. The typical duration of a speciation event is considered to be 15 000–25 000 years, and mammalian species can evolve in as little as 5000 years (Gould, 2002). Human biology
is also known to be capable of rapid adaptation (e.g. to malaria, Durham, 1991) and specifically in response to a change in diet. Thus populations
with a high frequency of genes responsible for lactose absorption (LA) in adults are those with a history of dairying. Populations are estimated to
have adapted biologically to milk-drinking in 5000 years or less (i.e. LA genes increased from 5 to 70% of population, Aoki, 1991; Cavalli-Sforza et al., 1994). These points suggest that for cooking to have been practiced too recently to have had evolutionary effects, it must have been adopted
less than 5000 years ago.
Article continued...
Other evidence points to the control of fire by hominids even earlier, such as 400 000–600 000years ago in Vertesszolos, Hungary (Kretzoi and Dobosi, 1990), more than 1 million years ago in Swartkrans, South Africa (Brain, 1993), and 1.6 million years ago at Koobi Fora, Kenya (Rowlett, 2000) (see Straus, 1989). The oldest date suggested for the adoption of cooking is 1.9 million years ago (Wrangham et al., 1999), a time that marks the origin of the modern human body form (Homoergaster), a rise in dietary quality, and a shift
towards a human pattern of life-history (Leonard and Robertson, 1997; Aiello and Key, 2002; O’Connell et al., 2002). The hypothesis of such an early date for the adoption of cooking is inferred from biological evidence, and awaits archeological scrutiny (Brace, 2002). Thus the precise date when cooking was adopted is unknown. Nevertheless, cooking is clearly ancient compared to the time required for biological adaptation to occur.

... but soy isn't what it is cracked up to be, and it is difficult to digest even when highly processed.

Whaaat! You don't like soy!!! I think it's great stuff in the kitchen and immensely versatile. I would be interested in what comparisons were made in researching the digestibility of soy, if you could find the quote.

[veganblue]

This is true, but that doesn't mean our bodies have not adapted to using them! Organs are present in "food" animals for their own use, not ours, and yet thousands of generations of human beings have adapted to extracting nutrition from the livers, kidneys, and other organs of animals.

The material in animals is very similiar to the material we are made of - this is how we can utilise that material.

The Hermisenda sea slug is a good example of making use of substances that are intended for the animal to which they belong. This sea slug ingests the stinging cells of sea anemones and incorporates them into its own system for self defense. The stinging cells of a sea anemone are present for its own use, but that does not stop the Hermisenda from making use of them too.

That's a fascinating example! Thanks! I may see if I can research it and put it into my essay on 'Evolution by natural selection' that we have been set at Uni. It is an example of co-evolution, where one organism has evolved to take advantage of the products of another. Very specific in this case and seemingly essential to the survival of the sea slug but while it is analogous to using something specific from a seperate organism as in the use of enzymes, it doesn't transfer in the sense that the slug is taking in organs (the stinging cells which it cannot produce itself) while enzymes are found in the food - some of the same ones may also be produced by the consuming organism.

Unlike many of the foods vegans make use of, fruits, which include many of the foods people think of as vegetables, like tomatoes, peppers, squash, etc. are designed by the plant expressly to be eaten by animals. The enzymes do enable digestion of the pulp, allowing the seed to pass through the system and be deposited with a ready supply of manure by the bowel movement of the animal, which aids in the propagation of new plants. The ultimate goal for the plant is to reproduce itself, and it does so with the aid of the animal "middleman". This also explains why seeds are so much more difficult to digest, because they are protected from digestion by a different set of enzymes. Soaking and sprouting remove these enzymes just as well as cooking does. In fact, people would get a lot less gas from their beans if the soaked them well before they cooked them!

I hate being pedantic but when talking about domesticated foods you need to remember that great big tomatoes are an anomoly that hasbeen capitalised by human agriculture. The angiosperm plant carries it's seed in a fruiting body that in some cases developes into an attractant for dispersers - animals (this includes all multicellular organisms that are motile). The enzymes within the fruiting body are there to synchronously announce the development of the seed as being ready for dispersal, by 'ripening' the fruit. The enzymes start to breakdown the body of the fruit (compare a green tomato interior to a fully ripe one - the fleshy mass within turns to liquid to aid dispersal) and the sugars promote the attractivness of the reward. Plants set loads of seeds to enhance the chances of dispersal to good locations and the possibility of setting a new generation.

This is repeating what you have said and know but with a mildly different emphasis. Yes, plants attract dispersal agents with the promise of food, but the sucessful plant will offer the most attractive food, therefore any plant that has fruit that is best for the disperser, will be found in greater abundance than one that does not.
I am still making the distinction that the enzymes in plant fruits are there for the breakdown of the fruit before consumption, not during. Seeds that survive digestion are coated with a tough seed coat that in some cases requires digestion in order to germinate. Anything that has lost it's seed coat in 'transit' will not germinate - but that is where the enymes are; they don't have a role in preventing consumption or protecting the seed from digestion except sacrificially. If the animal gets a sore gut from eating the seed - it is less likely to eat that variety again, which indicates that that animal is not a good disperser for that plant.

Soaking is a very good idea when cooking beans, as you suggested, and in several changes of water since there are some metabolic byproducts released into the water that also can have... unpleasant results

[Seaside]

Posted by veganblue:

Whaaat! You don't like soy!!!

Oh no, I happen to love tempeh! But I cannot overdo soy foods, as soy contains thyroid hormone depressants, and low thyroid function runs in my family. And I don't think it is wise for men to overconsume soy, since it is full of plant based estrogens. They do make very effective natural estrogen supplements for women out of soy, and its probably not a good idea for men to get their own hormones unbalanced. I'm not against moderate use of soy, I just don't think that sticking to soy based imitations of your favorite animal products is the best use of soy. It has become a big, overmarketed item in the USA, and I am always suspicious of big money motivations for marketing new products. Of course, I realize that it is hard for some people in the transition to veganism to give up all those fun things to eat, and they have their place in most diets, but for me, only a little place!

(I can't find my references on the digestibility of soy protein. I couldn't squeeze my whole library onto the houseboat, so I think they may be in storage.)

[veganblue]

I cannot overdo soy foods, as soy contains thyroid hormone depressants, and low thyroid function runs in my family. And I don't think it is wise for men to overconsume soy, since it is full of plant based estrogens. They do make very effective natural estrogen supplements for women out of soy, and its probably not a good idea for men to get their own hormones unbalanced. I'm not against moderate use of soy, I just don't think that sticking to soy based imitations of your favorite animal products is the best use of soy. It has become a big, overmarketed item in the USA, and I am always suspicious of big money motivations for marketing new products. Of course, I realize that it is hard for some people in the transition to veganism to give up all those fun things to eat, and they have their place in most diets, but for me, only a little place!

(I can't find my references on the digestibility of soy protein. I couldn't squeeze my whole library onto the houseboat, so I think they may be in storage.)

I don't know about the oestrogen effect on men but am absolutely certain that I could find a plethora of information in journals about it but will have to search tonight after uni. I am primarily interested since I eat a large amount of soy products - but limited to tempeh, tofu, soy sauce, soy grits, soy milk, soy flour, lecithin, and tinned or green frozen soy beans.... er ok - so maybe it's not that limited...which is why I should be concerned. I am sure that boobs are nice on women but I really don't have any use for them. Apparently saw palmetto (herb extract) has testosterone analogies? Maybe I can used it to counteract the oestrogen?

I really don't care if big business gets onboard with promoting good foods - it they are producing alternatives to the meat fare then that has to be good for the animals! I don't *like* meat susbtitutes; freaks me out a bit and just fuels those odd nightmares where you think "Oh crap, what was that I just ate - it feels like meat..." erk yukko. Nevertheless I will still eat it around meat eaters wehn we go to places that have it to prove it's not a bad thing to eat.

Wow - you live on a houseboat - it sounds kinda exciting

[Seaside]

Posted by veganblue:

I am sure that boobs are nice on women but I really don't have any use for them.

I've never looked into plant based testosterone supplements. If you become truly concrened, it is best to have your levels tested before supplementing. I don't rely heavily on standard medicine, unless my bones are broken, but I would get tested for hormone balance. Although a little natural herbal supplementation probably wouldn't hurt.

My concern in marketing is when they decide "Hey, there is a growing market for products that are animal free! Let's find the cheapest item we can and start adding all kinds of stuff to it to make it palatable and sell it as fast as we can" without researching whether it is good for people or not. So far people seem to do well on soy products, which is good for the vegan movement. If people got sick off them, but were unable to give them up, it wouldn't look so good to be a vegan to all those non-vegans who seem to be waiting for us all to just wither up and blow away!

Wow - you live on a houseboat - it sounds kinda exciting

It hasn't been that long, and I'm still getting used to it. It's very different from living on dry land, that's for sure!

[veganblue]

My concern in marketing is when they decide "Hey, there is a growing market for products that are animal free! Let's find the cheapest item we can and start adding all kinds of stuff to it to make it palatable and sell it as fast as we can" without researching whether it is good for people or not. So far people seem to do well on soy products, which is good for the vegan movement. If people got sick off them, but were unable to give them up, it wouldn't look so good to be a vegan to all those non-vegans who seem to be waiting for us all to just wither up and blow away!

My rule of thumb is the more it is processed, (or cooked) the less likely it is going to be good for you.

I don't like precooked food in packets but prefer my flour, dry pasta, soymilk, tempeh and spice mixes to not be in the cupboard 'in the raw form' so to speak. Convenience food takes on a new meaning when you consider that having to grind flour from grain is very inconvenient if you want pasta in 20 minutes

[Seaside]

Posted by veganblue:

My rule of thumb is the more it is processed, (or cooked) the less likely it is going to be good for you.

An excellent rule of thumb!

[eve]

On frederic patenaude's website there's plenty of guidance on rawfoods. Recently he had recipes for Green Smoothies, which proved popular with his readers. Today, in his newsletter there's a link to the green smoothies info:
http://www.fredericpatenaude.com/green_smoothies.html

[Seaside]

Thank you, Eve!

When I became vegan I didn't care so much about my health, but I think it needs a little improving now, and I have read promising things about raw foods.

[eve]

The latest issue of the Pure Health & Nutrition E-Zine, Frédéric Patenaude is out. Whether you are a vegetarian, a vegan, a raw foodist, or just someone interested in finding out more about diet and nutrition, you will find lots of food for thought and practical advice. http://www.fredericpatenaude.com/purehealth/041705.html

To subscribe to this e-zine, go to: http://www.fredericpatenaude.com/newsletter.html

[Roxy]

Thanks for that Eve. Loads of information there!

[vegetous]

I hear there is a restaurant in New York called Raw, where they only serve raw food. That's interesting.

[eve]

Couldn't find the previous vegan raw posts through the 'Search', but this is such a good website, so here it is: http://www.eatraw.com/

[eve]

Here's another http://www.rawfoodchef.com/

[adam antichrist]

I saw on this and another thread something about the toxicity of raw potato. I haven't got it in me to read all ten pages here
If it has already been posted, sorry, but can someone restate what it is about spuds that is toic when raw? Cheers.

[cedarblue]

I saw on this and another thread something about the toxicity of raw potato. I haven't got it in me to read all ten pages here
If it has already been posted, sorry, but can someone restate what it is about spuds that is toic when raw? Cheers.

this one confuses me too adam! i thought spuds were toxiv when raw but im sure i have a juicing book that says regular & sweet pots can be juiced??

*makes mental note to investigate issue*

[eve]

I've only read that raw potatoes are toxic when green - so don't even cook them!

[adam antichrist]

Yeah I knew that one... but if green ones can be toxic when cooked perhaps they can be toxic when raw if green or otherwise?

Speaking of toxic raw food, I was learning about Java Ash trees today, which occur in the tropical rainforests of Northern Australia. These produce a large apricot like fruit which when eaten produce....

Cyanide!

My favourite of all non-heavy metal toxins.

They contain an enzyme which reacts with a glycocyano molecule (I think this is what it is... the notes aren't yet available) forming hydrogen cyanide (HCN), the same gas used at Auswitz. However, similar toxins exist in cassava which can be made safe to eat if prepared properly, inducing the formation of HCN which is released, and when complete the food is safe.

Talk about living food!

[eve]

In the upcoming issue of Vegan Forum there are some interesting articles on raw food. Should be out by end of August.

[adam antichrist]

In the upcoming issue of Vegan Forum there are some interesting articles on raw food. Should be out by end of August.

Is that a Freudian slip Eve? I"m guessing you meant Vegan Voice...