Raw Vegan Life

[MysticSang'ha]

Okay, no prob. I'm just perplexed why'd you only want to eat raw if you do think a combination could work just as well.


There is a difference between eating cooked foods and eating processed foods. I can buy organic vegetables and cook them myself at home. I agree with you that a huge problem with American diets is that they are completely based upon prepackaged or restaurant food. People don't seem to know how to cook for themselves anymore.

A crazy goal of ours is to stock our cabinets and fridge/freezer with food items that have no bar code. Mostly because of the fillers, irradiated, pesticide-laden GMO franken-foods forced on us by mega companies etc. But another is our way of keeping our foods local and heritage-based.

 

[Hawkeye112200]

Unfortunately, sloppy science prevails in the raw-food movement. Rawfood advocates mistakenly conclude that since eating processed and cooked carbohydrates is harmful for us, all cooked foods are harmful.

Never said this in bold, so please don't retort with projections.

If it were true that enriched products are nutrient deficient, then a lot of established food science would be false and producers would hardly waste money fortifying such foods with nutrients. [Edit to correct this statement which was confusedly worded.]

This is wrong. The lobbying power by diary and meat industries is unmatched. The benefit of fortified food, snacks, milks etc is simply a marketing ploy. While I am sure there are limited benefits to it. The source for those added vitamins and nutrients is usually substandard and only has to meet the bleak requirements of the FDA to be accepted. A little research shows that most of the vitamins and nutrients that are added later are not easily or readily digested by humans.
We should also wonder why are we eating or drinking things that need to be fortified? Especially if there is natural alternatives. You see "for me" which is key here, each person will be different, I would like to try and get my nutrients and vitamins from natural sources before I even consider chemically made vitamins and nutrients. Doesn't that make at least a little sense? I mean why would I trust DOW Chemical company to give me high grade vitamins?

It is simply not true that enriched foods are nutrient deficient. Some are less healthy, such as bleached, enriched wheat flour than whole wheat flour mostly because of the removal of wheat germ and fiber, but even bleached flour is a far cry from "nutrient deficient."

I never said they are absent, I said what they offer is often time not digestible or able to be absorbed. Or, if they are absorbed, often times can be low grade chemicals. Again, why take chemicals when it is available naturally? Again, each individuals choice.

Of course not, because that would mean that the naturally occurring Vitamin D in milk had been removed.

There is no mandate that U.S. milk producers must enhance milk with Vitamin D.

Every bottle of soy milk, and even many regular milks, and many other foods are fortified. Why? This is due to most times the milk being so highly pasteurized that it strips nutrients. Thus, we rely on DOW Chem, or other chemical companies to supply (usually) cheap less than effective nutrients because the natural ones have been stripped away.

I never said the nutrients aren't present in unnatural foods, I am saying if we stop and ask why does what we are eating need to be fortified, it might make sense to try a natural source instead. Just a personal choice for me.

 

[Hawkeye112200]

Okay, no prob. I'm just perplexed why'd you only want to eat raw if you do think a combination could work just as well.


There is a difference between eating cooked foods and eating processed foods. I can buy organic vegetables and cook them myself at home. I agree with you that a huge problem with American diets is that they are completely based upon prepackaged or restaurant food. People don't seem to know how to cook for themselves anymore.

Hi, as mentioned before. Part of what drives my choice is to test the benefits claimed by those that have been doing it longer. I may again eat fish or cook sweet potatoes, etc... However, for the mean time I am enjoying what I eat, make and share with friends and family. I am not on a crusade or anything.

So if down the road I get sick, or feel lacking, I will adjust what I eat. I think the point is, that if going raw is painful for an individual, don't do it. If however, a person feels great doing it, than so be it. We have to listen to our bodies for the most part, unless it is telling us to devour that bag of Doritos

 

[HerDotness]

Originally Posted by HerDotness
Unfortunately, sloppy science prevails in the raw-food movement. Rawfood advocates mistakenly conclude that since eating processed and cooked carbohydrates is harmful for us, all cooked foods are harmful.

Never said this in bold, so please don't retort with projections.

Nor did I indicate in any way that you had said that.

It was an example used by the source I quoted to demonstrate a common raw foodist claim that is based upon sloppy science.

Read more carefully, please.

"Nutrient deficient" does not mean "completely lacking nutrients." It also does not suggest that more-processed foods are necessarily more deficient than less-processed ones. There are too many factors involved to state confidently and unequivocally that raw or less processed foods are nutritionally superior.

I agree that I was unclear in saying that even bleached flour is a far cry from "nutrient deficient" which could be taken as signifying that nutrient deficient means nutritionally worthless altogether.