Comprehending the Work of Paul Kouchakoff, Ph.D.; Fallacy of the RF Enzyme Argument (WAS: Rejuvenation with Raw Foods and Enzymes)

[Guest guest]

Greetings Bryan, Bob, and everyone,

 

Dr. Kouchakoff's research, if you read what HE wrote rather than all the

blather written for decades ABOUT what he wrote, really has nothing at all

to do directly with enzymes. He was studying the effects of tinkering with

the mix of raw/cooked foods, one food at a time, upon the body's white blood

cell response. (During the 1920s, if I recall correctly, the term " digestive

leukocytosis " was coined, I think by him, to describe a circumstance where

the body increased production of white blood cells apparently in direct

response to consumption of cooked foods. He measured this increase using

blood tests.)

 

He published two articles specifically on his experiments with one food at a

time (yep, that's it), one in 1930, as I recall, in English, and the other

in 1937, in French. Most of the people who act as if they know what

Kouchakoff said apparently have never read that second article.

 

If I were going to offer my own assessment of Kouchakoff's work, I'd share

something like the following:

 

1. Nothing definitive was accomplished, Kouchakoff's work needs to be

repeated and expanded upon before we draw any strong conclusions at all from

it. There's simply not enough work there, he didn't pursue it sufficiently,

and since that time no one has picked up the ball.

 

2. If I were going to draw one WEAK conclusion from Kouchakoff's work, it

would be this: that by introducing the raw form of a given food either prior

or in combination with (depending upon the food) the cooked form of the same

food, the body seems to be able to " notice " the raw form and use that

awareness to " know " what digestive processes to set in motion to digest the

cooked form. However, and this is a BIG however, that this involves

primarily the enzymes is conjecture. Yes, reasonable conjecture, but

conjecture nonetheless.

 

In other words, it MAY be that the body notices what enzymes are present

(and the mix of enzymes) in a given raw food and uses that awareness to

construct the " correct " enzymes and mix to further digest the corresponding

cooked food. This " makes sense " , in that white blood cells do indeed operate

on the principle of digestion (ripping things apart) and do indeed depend,

in large measure, upon the same enzymes as are commonly called " digestive

enzymes " in the study of human physiology. But just because this " makes

sense " does not make it so.

 

I would also point out, independent of Dr. Kouchakoff's work, that there

simply are not enough enzymes present in ANY food to self-digest (or

" predigest " ) that food substantially or entirely in the timeframe in which

the body accomplishes such digestion. The body ALWAYS either

 

a) makes all the enzymes used, or

b) makes a substantial portion of the enzymes used.

 

As I've written in the past, I do SO wish that RF teachers would stop

leading with and/or strongly emphasizing enzymes as a reason for eating raw

foods. They come off looking quite foolish to people with a strong science

background, they therefore alienate a group of people whose participation

could really strengthen the RF " movement " .

 

And honestly, speaking only for myself, even though I have some knowledge

about enzymes, I would never cite the presence of absence of enzymes as a

reason to eat or not to eat anything at all. I mean, who cares?? !!! I'd

MUCH prefer to talk about my quality of life, and I imagine most others

would, as well.

 

So let's just drop the enzyme conversation from our RF lexicon, for in

conversation it serves us not. I realize that for some, this means shifting

perspectives somewhat, even a lot. But honestly, we'll all be far more

effective -- and credible -- talking about something else.

 

And while I'm here, I'll just remind everyone that what we STOP eating as

RFs probably has more health-creating impact, particularly when we first

start out, than anything at all that we start eating. That's why fasting

works, after all!

 

Best to all,

Elchanan

_____

 

bryan_yamamoto

Tuesday, November 20, 2007 8:16 AM

rawfood

[Raw Food] Re: Rejuvenation with Raw Foods and Enzymes

 

 

Bob,

 

What I understand about Kouchakoff and his research concerning leukocytosis,

this is more the body's response to toxins in cooked foods rather than the

lack of enzymes in cooked foods. And as for long term health effects of

eating cooked foods, I would say that the toxin issue far outweighs any dead

enzyme issue.

 

What do you think?

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

" I'll just remind everyone that what we STOP eating as RFs probably

has more health-creating impact, particularly when we first start

out, than anything at all that we start eating. "

 

YES, Elchanan, I think you are exactly right. It is what we SUBTRACT

that matters the most. Most of our improvement comes from what we

STOP doing, not the obscure details and theories about what we

added. When you stop coating and plugging up your arteries, veins

and organs with cholesterol plaque and the coatings start to go away

(as they will), it's like your system can function properly again...

DUH.... for the slow I repeat again DUH !!!!

 

That's at least 90% of it folks. Deep mystery solved. Your body is

full of permeable hoses that go on for miles transferring stuff back

and forth. When you make them impermeable with cholesterol placque,

you get disease. This is where MOST disease comes from and it is

self inflicted. Luckilly, if you stop plugging up your hoses, they

will usually clear themselves and most diseases will eventually go

away, assuming you haven't totally suffocated and killed this or that

organ.

 

Put ALL your focus on being STRICT about unplugging the tubes, Focus

on eating NO oils, zero cheese, zero eggs, zero processed foods, no

BB sized peices of meat in your deep fat fried egg roll. Be SERIOUS

about ZERO tolerence for what you have decided to stop eating.

 

Putting a pint of gas on the fire instead of 5 gallons, doesn't put

the fire out.

 

Folks who jabber away about enzymes, dehydration and other holy grail

nonsense, just sound stupid. Get over it, you are NOT scientists and

repeating " whisper down the lane " conculsions from 80 years ago is

silly, makes you sound like an idiot and perpetuates bad science. It

sounds as sensible as the Weston Price (raw diary & animal fat

required for health) people's conclusions, as the scientific basis is

about equal.

 

WHY is there such a need in RF to JUSTIFY how we eat?

 

This is what I have decided to do. I don't need to justify or

convince. I just need to consistently do it with no exceptions.

 

What do we actually know for a FACT? We know the China Study was

done recently by ACTUAL SCENTISTS. We know it was rigorous,

exhaustive, long term and used the biggest samples to date. We can

rely on those findings.

 

What was that conclusion? It was that people that eat a plant based

diet with a large variety of cooked and raw are the healthiest, most

long lived people. It is interesting to note that none of these

people own dehydrators, have ever eaten special salts, seaweed or

have ever seen a goji berry, etc.

 

I personally find a lot of RF teachers to be annoying, spending so

much time on justifications and theories that are just plain wrong,

undocumented, bad science. We don't need justifications, not even

valid, correct ones. I don't need someone making up stuff and

repeating stuff they heard about why I should eat this way. I

ALREADY made the decision to eat this way. We need guidance on how

to make eating plants, easy, fast and tasty NOT information on

special tools and techniques.

 

Eat plants, don't eat animal products, don't eat processed foods and

get outside in the sun, walk, smile, act lovingly and be happy.

That's it....... low stress, high love and plants for food. You

don't need to know anything else. Many of us sound like a bunch of

deluded hypocondriacs, trying to convince others to drink the cool

aid.

 

Turkey day with the family and friends was interesting. I brought my

food with me. Others were scrutinizing my plate and challenging me

on my " odd " behavior. I didn't take the bait, or use it as an

opportunity to evangelize or criticize what they were doing. I

simply said I eat differently from most people and make no

exceptions, therefore I need to bring my food with me. I did not

explain why I do it, or suggest what they should do, simply because I

don't care and am secure in what I am doing, without the approval of

others.

 

People asking questions generally are NOT interested in learning

anything, but simply in defending what they are doing vs what you are

doing. Engaging in right/wrong conversation with them on the food

subject is a waste of time. If they are actually interested, they

will track you down later, privately.

 

I was listening to Dr. Gupta on CNN the other day. He was doing a

series on food contamination. Disease causing microbes are found on

plants. Rinsing doesn't do much to reduce them. Veggie washes make

it worse. Soap and water are a little better. Clorox doesn't help

much. A healthy immune system usually deals with these microbes.

Cooking kills most of them. But we should eat a lot of uncooked as

well.

 

Something I'd be interested in is discussion of how do you seriously

remove most of the microbes from your raw produce? Most people

simply rinse and shake off their leaves before eating. Anyone that

has taken a food safety course knows that dehydrator temperature is

perfect for incubating and multiplying the microbes. Some people

(not many) use big ultrasonic washers, others ultraviolet light.

 

I would be happy to pay for some simple, fast method of seriously

knocking down the amount of microbes on my raw produce. Any ideas?

 

BTW - I just installed a great water purifier on my sink. WOW I got

a General Ecology Seagull 2 gal/minute unit. I can't believe the

flow rate, AWESOME. I now have one of the very best purifiers and it

delivers extremely pure water as fast as I can use it. No more

lugging around bottled water or filling the recycle bin with plastic

bottles. The sucker was expensive, so payback is quite a while away,

but the convienience is wonderful and the quality higher than bottled.

 

 

Elchanan said -

The body ALWAYS either

>

> a) makes all the enzymes used, or

> b) makes a substantial portion of the enzymes used.

>

> As I've written in the past, I do SO wish that RF teachers would

stop

> leading with and/or strongly emphasizing enzymes as a reason for

eating raw

> foods. They come off looking quite foolish to people with a strong

science

> background, they therefore alienate a group of people whose

participation

> could really strengthen the RF " movement " .

>

> And honestly, speaking only for myself, even though I have some

knowledge

> about enzymes, I would never cite the presence of absence of

enzymes as a

> reason to eat or not to eat anything at all. I mean, who

cares?? !!! I'd

> MUCH prefer to talk about my quality of life, and I imagine most

others

> would, as well.

>

> So let's just drop the enzyme conversation from our RF lexicon, for

in

> conversation it serves us not. I realize that for some, this means

shifting

> perspectives somewhat, even a lot. But honestly, we'll all be far

more

> effective -- and credible -- talking about something else.

>

> And while I'm here, I'll just remind everyone that what we STOP

eating as

> RFs probably has more health-creating impact, particularly when we

first

> start out, than anything at all that we start eating. That's why

fasting

> works, after all!

>

> Best to all,

> Elchanan

[Guest guest]

Elchanan wrote:

 

> 1. Nothing definitive was accomplished, Kouchakoff's work needs to be

repeated ...

A simple and inexpensive experiment. The ANHS, Hippocrates, et.

al. COULD have done some meaningful research, but they failed to do so,

preferring to propagandize than generate meaningful information.

 

2. ... awareness to " know " what digestive processes ...

Do you have any scientific evidence that humans have several

different " digestive processes " , from which to choose?

 

> ... that this involves primarily the enzymes is conjecture.

> Yes, reasonable conjecture, but conjecture nonetheless.

Why does white blood cell count involve " enzymes " ?

 

> ...that white blood cells do indeed operate

> on the principle of digestion (ripping things apart) ...

Are you claiming that WBC's digest human FOOD?

 

> ... upon the same enzymes as are commonly called " digestive enzymes "

in the study of human physiology.

Any evidence these are the SAME enzymes? This is science, please

present some to support your statements.

 

> But just because this " makes sense " does not make it so.

Where is the " sense " ?

 

> ... enzymes present in ANY food to self-digest (or

" predigest " ) that food ...

Where is the evidence that plant enzymes that support the plant's

anabolism ALSO support catabolism of the plant, itself?

 

> ... b) makes a substantial portion of the enzymes used.

WHAT makes up the remainder??

 

 

> ... looking quite foolish to people with a strong science

background, ...

Make that ANY science background.

 

> ... they therefore alienate a group of people whose

> participation could really strengthen the RF " movement " .

True, but meaningful information is not necessary in any group of

diet cultists (Macrochaotic, zero-carb, grapefruit, etc.) who associate

only because of the " feel good " qualities of being around a group of

people who agree on everything, no matter how absurd.

Insert the religion of your choice here: ______.

 

 

 

> ... what we STOP eating as RFs probably has more health-creating

impact, ...

Good point; this is the ONLY reason for the health increases

experienced by Macrochaotics.

 

bryan_yamamoto

 

> ... dead enzyme issue.

There is NO evidence that any enzymes were ever alive, can you

present some?

They are nothing but proteins, little folded strings of non-living

amino acids. Remarkable proteins, indeed, but not living chemicals.

The only test that I have ever thought of that differentiates the

living from non-living is that living entities:

 

1> eat,

2> excrete, and

3> reproduce.

 

HINT: enzymes meet none of these criteria.

 

Thus, bacteria are alive and viruses are not.

Animals and plants are, minerals are not.

 

 

Laurie

 

 

--

Scientifically-credible info on human diet:

http://ecologos.org/ttdd.html

news:alt.food.vegan.science

[Guest guest]

mstrong56 wrote:

 

> I personally find a lot of RF teachers to be annoying, spending so

much time on justifications and theories that are just plain wrong,

undocumented, bad science.

Worse, their lack of intellectual integrity convinces countless others that raw

fooders are crazy, uneducated, irrational zealots, and that prevents lots of

folks from seriously considering raw.

So, false concepts propagating mindlessly, and happily, throughout the raw

world is detrimental to the growth and survival of the " movement " , if there is

such a thing.

 

> We don't need justifications, not even valid, correct ones.

> I ALREADY made the decision to eat this way.

BUT, there were, no doubt, decades when you believed, as all of us 'brought up'

as animal-eaters believed, that THAT was the correct way; and at some point

" valid, correct " information came our way and we decided to experiment.

So, " valid, correct " information is, indeed useful and should be sought out for

purposes of self-preservation and self actualization.

The Truth will indeed set us free, as more mindless zealotry will bind us

deeper into nonsense and self-destructive behaviors.

I find it interesting that raw zealots (and other diet faddists) do not

understand how detrimental it is to spread false information. Especially since

incorrect beliefs about " food " are the cause of currently-popular degenerative

diseases " .

The entire global budget currently spent on unworkable " medical systems " could

be saved and invested in education IF people knew how to eat according to our

biochemistry.

Yep, " valid, correct " information is a powerful tool; embrace it.

 

Laurie

 

--

Scientifically-credible info on human diet:

http://ecologos.org/ttdd.html

news:alt.food.vegan.science