http://www.living-foods.com/index.shtml

Raw foods are better than cooked foods? (Address above)
Rince can foods (fruits and vegies only) are OK?
I'm by myself, so how about a food saver, so I don't spend 3 hours a day in
the kitchen?

Richard

Richard Miller wrote:

> http://www.living-foods.com/index.shtml
>
> Raw foods are better than cooked foods? (Address above)

Not always. A lot of the claims by raw food faddists are wildly
exaggerated, misleading, or simply false. Here are a couple links to
help you sort through pseudo-science and myths spread by pro-raw faddists:

http://www.beyondveg.com/billings-t/...alism-1a.shtml
http://www.beyondveg.com/billings-t/...myths-1a.shtml

> Rince can foods (fruits and vegies only) are OK?

Some canned foods are more nutritious than fresh. I personally prefer
the texture of fresh vegetables, but that's an aesthetic rather than
nutritional consideration. Nutritionally, there is very little
difference despite the propaganda of the raw faddists. Their chief
objection to canned foods is that the processing involves cooking them.

http://www.kdhnews.com/taste_22603.html
http://tinyurl.com/2q95u
http://www.cannedfood.org/whatsnew/m...settsstudy.htm
etc.

> I'm by myself, so how about a food saver, so I don't spend 3 hours a day in
> the kitchen?

Try eating at salad bars for your occasional raw meals. You can continue
to eat cooked foods and remain very healthy.

"usual suspect" > wrote in message
...

> Not always. A lot of the claims by raw food faddists are wildly
> exaggerated, misleading, or simply false. Here are a couple links to
> help you sort through pseudo-science and myths spread by pro-raw faddists:
>
> http://www.beyondveg.com/billings-t/...alism-1a.shtml
> http://www.beyondveg.com/billings-t/...myths-1a.shtml
And here are some links refuting the propaganda on beyondveg...
http://ecologos.org/tb.htm

The most important thing to understand about raw food is that our
species, as did all others on this little mudball, evolved on totally raw
food, and that cooking is a rather recent cultural fad that has led directly
to the wide-spread consumption of unhealthy items that simply could not be
eaten, unless cooked: flesh, grains and grain products, tough vegetables,
dried beans/legumes, woody roots, ...
http://www.ecologos.org/harris.html
http://ecologos.org/denature.htm

Laurie

Larry wrote:
>>Not always. A lot of the claims by raw food faddists are wildly
>>exaggerated, misleading, or simply false. Here are a couple links to
>>help you sort through pseudo-science and myths spread by pro-raw faddists:
>>
>>http://www.beyondveg.com/billings-t/...alism-1a.shtml
>>http://www.beyondveg.com/billings-t/...myths-1a.shtml
>
> And here are some links refuting the propaganda on beyondveg...
> http://ecologos.org/tb.htm

That's not a refutation, it's just ad hominem attacks. Still no takers
(or is it givers?) to give you a lot of money so you can slack off and
write a book?

> The most important thing to understand about raw food is that our
> species, as did all others on this little mudball, evolved on totally raw
> food,

Where would we be if we hadn't started cooking our foods and adding
other foods beyond raw fruit? Your argument isn't evolutionary, it's
regressive. We're not knuckle-dragging quadripeds (well, you might be),
we're _Homo sapiens sapiens_.

> and that cooking is a rather recent cultural fad

Only a few millenia old. Yeah, it's a fad. It also helped us develop
cognitively (excepting yourself again, "naturally") to where we are now.

> that has led directly
> to the wide-spread consumption of unhealthy items that simply could not be
> eaten, unless cooked: flesh, grains and grain products, tough vegetables,
> dried beans/legumes, woody roots, ...

Fresh grains can be eaten raw. I guess a city slicker like you wouldn't
know that.

Evolutionary benefits of those foods you think are "bad":
http://tinyurl.com/i1ev

BTW, I thought you killfiled me.