3rd(last)Part of 2ndSection of Chris Wanjek Article Response

[Guest guest]

Hi everyone, again,

 

Here's the last part of my response to the Christopher

Wanjek article. The article in full is at:

 

www.livescience.com/humanbiology/060704_bad_raw_food.html

 

I'll highlight the articles statements more clearly below,

since it's all in plain text.

 

I hope everyone enjoyed reading my response, despite some

controversial points I might have made. There were a lot

of points brought up, but in general, our diets can be

simple and don't require much thinking after getting through

the transition stage which takes many years. Nature doesn't

make a frugivorous diet as one ideal ratio of foods to eat.

It's mostly this, some of that, a little of the other, if it

appeals when one is hungry and feels always good afterwards.

 

A frugivore of the human type eats, by weight, mostly fruit,

with smaller amounts of greens, vegetables, nuts, seeds,

tubers, mushrooms, and legumes, and even lesser amounts

of insects, grubs, and animal flesh and parts. After weaning,

humans obviously don't have to eat much of animal flesh/prod-

ucts, if any. Humans have limited abilites to digest concen-

trated foods, such as high-fats (olives, nuts, seeds, avocado,

animal products), high-proteins (nuts, seeds, animal flesh/

parts), and high-sugars (dates, dried fruit), so they need to

respect that and eat these foods in smaller, reasonable

quantitities, when/if they eat them. Nature is not moral or

ethical and a person can eat as they please, hopefully wisely.

 

Now for the remainder of the response. I'll enclose the

article passages in dots.

 

peacefully, Robert

 

..................................................................

" Amusingly, the raw diet pits one questionable food philosophy

against another, the macrobiotic diet. "

..................................................................

 

There are dozens of fad diets like the macrobiotic diet. Every

week, it seems, a new modern civilized diet comes out, and

they all lack in many various ways. The correct raw food diet

needs to be ascertained first, then the other diets can be

compared to it, for proper understanding to occur.

 

The macrobiotic diet is a grain-based diet. Grain is a very

unhealthy food for the human species. It is a diet fit for

graminovores. Various species of birds do well on it, since

they have the digestive hardware, such as a gizzard, that is

needed to break grass seeds (grain) down into usable nutrients.

 

Humans have a digestive system that is relatively and compara-

tively weak in secretions and actions due to its long-evolved

state of securing easily available nutrients from fruit that

has ripened. Ripened fruit is practically predigested food,

since the sugars are in simplest form, the fats have been

split

into fatty acids, and the proteins are unchained into amino

acids. The ripening process converts most of the cellulose

in the fruit into easily absorbed and assimilated sugars

(glucose and fructose, or fruit sugars).

 

The most important aspects about digestion are whether a

species can digest the food it eats, how easily it can do it,

and how free of noxious substances the food is.

 

..................................................................

" The macrobiotic diet emphasizes locally grown whole grains,

vegetables, seaweeds and soy products. "

..................................................................

 

Locally grown food is best, so long as it's of the right type

for the species. Seaweed is for sea creatures to play in,

hide in, and sometimes eat. Soy is artificial, cooked,

processed, denatured coagulated bean protein best fit for

lining/padding coffins. There's a nice industry that's

sprung up around it, capitalizing on the unnecessary and

improperly founded protein/b12 fears that unfortunately are

widespread in the non-SAD (Standard American Diet) groups.

 

Most vegetables are high in cellulose and starch. Humans

secrete no cellulase enzyme, and produce low quantities of

starch splitting enzymes (amylase, ptyalin), since they are

evolved to eat fruit which is very low in these complex

carbohydrates. The easiest-to-digest vegetables for the human

species are the juicy non-sweet vegetables, such as bell

peppers, cucumbers, tomatoes, celery, lettuces, and tender

greens.

 

..................................................................

" Cooking, based on seasons, is essential to bring out the

energy in the food. "

..................................................................

 

The macrobiotists may promote this, but only because they

are almost as misinformed as the SAD eaters. The civilized

world is full of wildly guessing and misdirected people when

it comes to promoting a sensible, natural, normal diet for the

human species.

 

What cooking does, of course, is break down complex chemicals,

such as cellulose, proteins, and fats, into more manageable

smaller particles for the human digestive system. Thus the

chemical energy in the food becomes more available to the

human species. The down side is that the cooking also destroys

or partly destroys the other nutrients in the food, which has

a negative impact on the long term eater of the cooked food.

All food processing harms food to varying extents.

 

Comparing the raw food diet on an equal basis to the

macrobiotic diet is disingenuous and deceiving. Certainly

many people who are eating raw foods are eating some very

questionable raw foods, but this does not mean raw food is

not best to eat. It only means that some people are eating

the wrong raw foods.

 

All animals in nature not only eat raw foods, but they eat

raw foods that are appropriate for their individual species.

Horses

eat grass. Rabbits eat clover and tender leaves. Birds eat

insects and seeds. Lions eat gazelles. Deer eat buds and

shoots. Bonobos eat fruit. Humans normally and naturally eat

fruit, too. Frugivores are able to digest small amounts of

other foods. The ability to eat more of alternate food can

be built up a bit through practice, but not too much before

the body begins to suffer and degrade from overwork and

inability (dis-ease).

 

..................................................................

" Like the raw food diet, adherents believe a macrobiotic

lifestyle can prevent and even cure cancer, and this was

promoted in the United States by Aveline Kushi, who died of

cancer. "

..................................................................

 

As I explained far above, cancer is not curable and doesn't

need to be cured. Cancer is created by consistently and

repetitively following poor lifestyle habits, predominantly

poor eating habits. The macrobiotic diet runs against the

grain of sensible biological living for the human species,

and it can be expected to lead to cancer and hosts of other

diseases in the human organism. Pardon the pun.

 

Cancer cells flourish in a slightly acidic environment with

low oxygen and poor circulation, and thrive on undigested and

refined sugars. Grain, meat, and heat/process based diets all

foster long-term elevated levels of excessive acidic waste in

the circulation of the human body, especially in the lymph

and interstitial fluids. Oxygen exchange between red blood

cells and the rest of the body's cells is very sensitive to

higher than normal ph levels (over-acidity). Cells slowly

become oxygen starved. Circulation is then reduced, with cells

dying and scarring/hardening of tissues resulting. Affected

cells in adjoining areas transmute themselves into types of

cells that can live in low oxygen, poor circulation

environments. These are called cancer cells.

 

A species that follows its normal and natural diet is evolved

to efficiently digest, absorb, and assimilate its food, with

no danger of hurting itself. That is the process of life

itself. Life is the process of the nutrition of cells, organs,

and bodies with their consequent functioning. When all runs

well, as evolved behaviours are followed, the organism

remains at ease. Only when the species follows a dietary

regimen that runs counter to its evolved state, does the

species begin to run into problems and experience dis-ease

(not at ease). Cancer is one of the thousands of ways a

badly encumbered organism can break down when a food wrench

is constantly thrown into its intricate and infinitely fine,

complex workings. Disease only means dis-ease, or not at ease.

 

...................................................................

" The macrobiotic people got it right, though. While cooking

can destroy vitamin C, it helps with the absorption of

carotenoids such as beta-carotene and other nutrients. "

...................................................................

 

Our natural diet has all the necessary ingredients in it that

will sustain us beautifully our entire lives, just as blades

of grass contain all the necessary ingredients to sustain a

horse for its entire life. We can digest fruit. A horse can

digest grass. It's important to eat what one can digest that

is in accord with one's evolutionary and biological heritage.

 

..................................................................

" This is why the macrobiotic diet and most nutritionists

recommend a mix of some raw products with cooked food. "

..................................................................

 

If cooking is required to break down certain nutrients in a

food so that we can digest them, then that is a sign the food

is not a food for us to be eating. Our natural foods require

no cooking or processing of any kind, other than chewing and

mastication, and swallowing the pulp. Cooking is processing.

 

In their statement, the macrobiotists are merely admitting that

their macrobiotic diet is wanting. I.e., the diet, in order to

be healthy, requires raw food. Raw food is required by every

creature on earth in order for it to be vitally healthy and

vibrant, fully. Raw food does not require cooked food in order

to be digestible or made healthy. Life on earth would not

exist if that were so. The dinosaurs, lions, deer, fish,

and ants had/have no pots and pans.

 

If cooked food needs raw food to digest it better, it's

only a testimony to the improperness of cooked food.

 

..................................................................

" The macrobiotic diet is one of the healthiest around,

actually, despite the strange philosophical baggage that

accompanies it. And Americans would be far healthier lot

if we d to it to some degree. "

..................................................................

 

This says little for the state of affairs in the civilized

human world and in America. Americans, in general, may be a

lot healthier on the macro diet, but only because they are so

far from sensible eating habits in so many ways, that anything,

even eating rock, could be argued as better.

 

Nonetheless, its true that strange philosophical baggage comes

with the diet. The natural, normal diet for a species does not

come with a philosophy degree. Nature determined it through

evolution, not a school or a human intellect.

 

To call the macrobiotic diet a healthy human diet is to call

fortified fractionated tree bark a healthy diet for cows.

 

To compare the raw food diet to macrobiotics is to compare

fresh, live foods to stale cakes on the shelf.

 

..................................................................

" Similarly, we should welcome the take-home message of the raw

food diet: Eating fresh vegetables, sprouts, nuts and seeds

is good for you. But lighten up and light up the stove. "

..................................................................

 

Yes, if that is the least we can hope for. Hopefully the stove

is used for home heating only. Of course, a tiny bit of cooked

food not going to kill anyone or make them unhealthy. It's

long term bad habits that lead to problematic disease.

Generally, small indulgences lead to more indulgences,

so indulger beware.

 

There is a lot to consider when sorting out the raw food

issue. There's a simple solution for an interested,

careful-minded, sense-oriented individual, but it's the

opposite case for a civilization of nearly 7 billion.

 

In summary, the human species is a frugivore evolved in the

tropics. Its natural food is predominantly raw fruit, with

additions of vegetables, nuts, seeds, and other foods to

lesser degrees. Periodic geological events that moved the

human species out of their tropical home have given rise to

the emergency-reacting, confused, civilized human cultures we

see today, where everything is believed to be a possible food,

and nothing can be known about a correct diet, at least

nothing significant, to follow the famous quote.

 

Hopefully my writings above have brought some broader

understanding to the raw food issue that civilized humanity

faces. Our natural and normal food supply is not a small

subject anymore. A myopic view and comparison of the fad

diets prevalent amongst our masses will only lead health

searchers further in to the depths of the confusion that

steadily mounts. Raw food is natural, normal, and vital to

our species continuing long term existence on the planet.

Most of the arguments the article made were either irrelevant,

misleading, or adding to the confusion. The article made some

good points, but they were lost in the muddle of the discussion.

 

Robert Rust