Acne.org Products
Hi guys ,
Starting from this monday i'm attending university , that also means that i will live on my own during the week (in the weekends i go home).
So i'll be responsable to make/get my own food and these smoothies seem a very good way to easily get my daily vitamins,minerals,... because a student's life usually equals to eating a lot of junk food like pizza,fries,.. and i don't want that to happen right =)
So i read through this very nice thread and i wrote down some recipes that i will try out.But before i can do that i need a blender ofcourse =)
I don't want to bother you guys with this , but you have the experience and knownledge to advise me on this one.So what do you think about this blender:
Braun blender MX 2000
"A powerful blender with 5 different speed options and an impulse button.Removable blade-system.525W.Can chop ice."
Price : 50 euros = +-50$
Gimme a shout if it's ok !
I bought mine for around $30CAD which I believe is the cheapest you can get. It does the job pretty good.
Hi guys ,
Starting from this monday i'm attending university , that also means that i will live on my own during the week (in the weekends i go home).
So i'll be responsable to make/get my own food and these smoothies seem a very good way to easily get my daily vitamins,minerals,... because a student's life usually equals to eating a lot of junk food like pizza,fries,.. and i don't want that to happen right =)
So i read through this very nice thread and i wrote down some recipes that i will try out.But before i can do that i need a blender ofcourse =)
I don't want to bother you guys with this , but you have the experience and knownledge to advise me on this one.So what do you think about this blender:
Gimme a shout if it's ok !
Good for you for being so responsible for your health at such a young age! ...and especially when most around you will be eating nothing but junk! Don't let them get to you, by the way! They might make fun of you for it, but secretly, they're really admire you for it. Trust me on that one! Just laugh along with them. 🙂
Ok, for the smoothies, you're better off with a high powered blended like a Vita-Mix. A used one would be better than a brand new blender, if you can find one. However, that blender would probably work just fine for a good while - you might have to replace after a few months though. The blades will need to be sharpened. You never have to sharpen a Vita-Mix, because the blades spin sooo fast. 🙂 The main thing though is to just get something and get started. Good luck and best of luck in college!!!! 🙂
For many years the general public and some health practitioners have considered green vegetables to have value as "blood builders". This opinion was reinforced by the observation that animals which ate only leafy green plants had ample amounts of hemoglobin in their red blood cells.
Dark green plants can be considered "blood-building" foods. The vitamins and minerals are essential to the synthesis and function of the components of healthy blood. But perhaps the most interesting connection between green foods and blood is the similarity in the structures of the two colored pigments, heme and chlorophyll. The biological relationship between these two molecules, though studied for over 60 years, is still not completely clear. It does appear, however, that small amounts of the digestive products of chlorophyll may stimulate the synthesis of either heme or globin or both in animals and humans.
I bought mine for around $30CAD which I believe is the cheapest you can get. It does the job pretty good.
My pick seems to have the same features (and maybe a little more powerful 525W) and you say it does the job pretty good , that settles it . Monday i gonna get myself a blender .
Joining the club 😎
i am sooo happy i found this! I just made my first smoothie and because i didnt want to waste any food i made a small portion in case it was too unbareable to eat. i put a handful of kale, some raspberries, a banana, half a spoon full of organic peanutbutter and a cup of green tea. it was delicious!!!! am sorry i didnt make more.
i am sooo happy i found this! I just made my first smoothie and because i didnt want to waste any food i made a small portion in case it was too unbareable to eat. i put a handful of kale, some raspberries, a banana, half a spoon full of organic peanutbutter and a cup of green tea. it was delicious!!!! am sorry i didnt make more.
That's wonderful!!! I'm so glad your first smoothie turned out so well and has gotten you excited! May you make many more delicious smoothies! 🙂
judging by her dress 104. 😉
Her skin is very young looking, but based on her features, I'd say maybe 55? She's beautiful. African American women age so beautifully.
64 when the pic was taken
Her secret she says are raw greens
I would have never said 55 years old probably because of my question you knew she must be old but I don't think you would believe she's 55 if you met her on the street, because so many 50 years old or even 40 years old look way older than that like they have wrinkles, puffy face, tired eyes, loose jaw and mouth ...
I do believe that she isn't blessed but just amazingly healthy
Okay, so I'm confused. Original poster suggests making enough equalling 4 cups a day, placing the rest in the fridge for the following day, though others suggest to consume it within 15 mins, due to vitamins etc being lost. While this is good in theory, I just don't have the time or convenience to make individual smoothies during the day.
Instead, I make enough totalling 4 cups each sitting (I'll consume all of this in one go, drinking slowly - chewing through it etc) doing this twice a day; morning and night. Thus a total of 8 cups for the whole day. Is this healthy or excessive? Keeping in mind, I do consume other fruit and feg also.
Each serving (4 cups) is usually a handful of combined berries (raspberries and blueberries), adding a whole kiwifruit OR pear and then one squeezed lemon OR quarter cantaloupe. Include approx 2 cups water and a large handful of baby spinach.
According to my recipe, is this cool to drink 8 cups a day total = approx 2 litres (4 cups twice a day) rather than regular intervals? Thanks in advance.
64 when the pic was taken
Her secret she says are raw greens
I would have never said 55 years old probably because of my question you knew she must be old but I don't think you would believe she's 55 if you met her on the street, because so many 50 years old or even 40 years old look way older than that like they have wrinkles, puffy face, tired eyes, loose jaw and mouth ...
I do believe that she isn't blessed but just amazingly healthy
Well, yeah, I figured she was probably much older than she actually looks and African American women age amazingly well. Her skin looks perfect, so I was just basing my guess on her features, which are beautiful too. When I'm in my 60s someday, I'd have no problem with looking 60 as long as my "skin" doesn't look 60. So anyway, I guess my point is that just because I thought this lady looks to be in her mid 50s doesn't in anyway mean I think she looks bad. She's gorgeous!! I believe that as long as one has beautiful, healthy looking skin, they'll be beautiful at any age. A lot of it does have to do with genes though too.... my grandmother spend LOTS of time in the sun when she was younger. She didn't eat raw foods very often, and she didn't have a single wrinkle (fine lines yes, but not wrinkles) on her face when she died at 89. She took pretty good care of herself though, exercised daily, moisturized daily, and to my knowledge, didn't eat a lot of sweets (which ages you quickly). I'm not saying I think it's all based on genes though... I DO think raw fruits and veggies will slow down the aging process!!
independent thinker- is the smoothie recipe on the first page the best to start off with or have you found something better since then?
Yes, that's still my top recipe, but since you're starting out, go easy on the greens at first... maybe just 1 handful to start out with. 🙂
According to my recipe, is this cool to drink 8 cups a day total = approx 2 litres (4 cups twice a day) rather than regular intervals? Thanks in advance.
Wow!! Drinking 8 cups of smoothie a day is great!! That's double what I drink everyday, and no, there is nothing wrong with that at all. Raw Family (www.rawfamily.com) drinks at least that amount everyday. I'd try to include more greens though - otherwise, you're really eating a lot of fruit without adequate greens to balance out the fruit. For every 2 cups of greens, include at least 1 large handful of greens. So, if you're consuming 8 cups a day, then you should also be having 4 large handfuls of greens. 🙂
Had a quick look at rawfamily.com, found this page http://www.rawfamily.com/faqs5.htm , talk about extremism... I mean God bless them for healing their ailments, but Christ, brushing your teeth with soap and not using actual shampoo because it's not "raw" almost seems like abuse...?
The funny thing about raw food diets that I fail to understand is where does the protein come from if you eat raw vegan on a long term basis? I could see a sustainable raw food diet with raw eggs and raw dairy, but on a raw vegan diet you'd have to eat a shitload of nuts and sprouted legumes (which aren't that healthy, lot of antinutrients/baddies in uncooked legumes) and it'd still be less then ideal protein compared to whey or egg white.
I remember reading a thing about how Gandhi tried raw food vegan diets many times but found himself having to go back to goat milk every time.
Oh and I thought this was funny:
"WHAT ABOUT WINE‚IS IT RAW?
Wine is raw, but it has lots of chemicals in it (over 100). "
So tell me a food that doesn't have a lot of chemicals in it? Chemicals make up our lives you fucktard!!! Haha sorry I'm just on a rant, raw vegans are very strange beings, though no where near as strange as the funny fruitarians 
Wine is raw, but it has lots of chemicals in it (over 100). "
So tell me a food that doesn't have a lot of chemicals in it? Chemicals make up our lives you fucktard!!!
I guess they're talking about manufacturing chemicals ... our country found methanol in its own wine ... which is letal of course
Haha sorry I'm just on a rant, raw vegans are very strange beings, though no where near as strange as the funny fruitarians 🙂
I wouldn't rant much when observing healthy people ... I mean, raw diets would be too extreme for me; they wouldn't allow me to eat warm foods and would decrease the diversity of my diet by ruling our all the healthy cooked veggies (especially cruciferous) I can have and beans too which (in spite of antinutrients who are considered irrelevant by the World Health Organization in a varied diet) are positively correlated with less diseases incidence and better hematic profiles
And yet I don't feel in the position to rant about raw fooders as they're healthier than me
I think about Dr. Vivian Vetrano who has been a raw foodist for 60 years and at more than 80 is the picture of health and looks very young. She hasen't been suffering for a simple flu in 50 years and is still as active as possible
I believe that raw diets are better sustained in a warm tropical climate than the area we wandered to and made us need more cooked food to sustain the harsher environment
As for protein sprouted legume don't contain antinutrients because antinutrients remain active only to give the legume the time to sprout. When it is sprouted antinutrients are not active anymore and complex starches are turned into simple saccarides
Raw foodists consume less protein than others basing their protein need on the minumum nitrogen loss
Dr. Vetrano for example suggests to eat 4 ounces of nuts with would be almost 30 grams
A daily fruit intake may look like: 3 nectarines, 1 cherimoya, 4 persimmons which would be almost 20 grams
A juice made with 2 tomatoes, three stalks of celery, 6 leaves of lettuce and 2 carrots supply 4.5 grams of protein each 7 oz glass.
Even without resorting to sprouted foods raw foodists can secure around 50-60 grams of protein daily
Clearly if they're bigger they will naturally have bigger appetite and will eat more more easily
It may not seem much but Dr. Vetrano seems anything but undernourished or emaciated
The rationale seems to be that while we don't absorb the 100% of protein from cooked animal foods (and this is true, there's a percentage of fast) the bioavailability of protein from raw foods is better (which may be true according to certain researches)
As for protein quality I have showed before how it is not true that plant proteins are less complete than animal protein. The biological value is nonsense
The most logical way to deem a protein complete or incomplete is to observe whether the amount of essential amino acids, given an adequate caloric intake, would provide less of more of all the 8/9 essential amino acids. Plant protein do and therefore they're not less or more complete than animal proteins, with very few exception lacking in one or more amino acids
Protein complemeting is useless as our body as an endogenous amino acids pools (the reciclying cycle of amino acids) where essential amino acids can last more than 10 days (it depends on the amino acid) and proteins from greens completement anything anyway
I wouldn't rant much when observing healthy people ... I mean, raw diets would be too extreme for me; they wouldn't allow me to eat warm foods and would decrease the diversity of my diet by ruling our all the healthy cooked veggies (especially cruciferous) I can have and beans too which (in spite of antinutrients who are considered irrelevant by the World Health Organization in a varied diet) are positively correlated with less diseases incidence and better hematic profiles
And yet I don't feel in the position to rant about raw fooders as they're healthier than me
I think about Dr. Vivian Vetrano who has been a raw foodist for 60 years and at more than 80 is the picture of health and looks very young. She hasen't been suffering for a simple flu in 50 years and is still as active as possible
I believe that raw diets are better sustained in a warm tropical climate than the area we wandered to and made us need more cooked food to sustain the harsher environment
As for protein sprouted legume don't contain antinutrients because antinutrients remain active only to give the legume the time to sprout. When it is sprouted antinutrients are not active anymore and complex starches are turned into simple saccarides
Raw foodists consume less protein than others basing their protein need on the minumum nitrogen loss
Dr. Vetrano for example suggests to eat 4 ounces of nuts with would be almost 30 grams
A daily fruit intake may look like: 3 nectarines, 1 cherimoya, 4 persimmons which would be almost 20 grams
A juice made with 2 tomatoes, three stalks of celery, 6 leaves of lettuce and 2 carrots supply 4.5 grams of protein each 7 oz glass.
Even without resorting to sprouted foods raw foodists can secure around 50-60 grams of protein daily
Clearly if they're bigger they will naturally have bigger appetite and will eat more more easily
It may not seem much but Dr. Vetrano seems anything but undernourished or emaciated
The rationale seems to be that while we don't absorb the 100% of protein from cooked animal foods (and this is true, there's a percentage of fast) the bioavailability of protein from raw foods is better (which may be true according to certain researches)
As for protein quality I have showed before how it is not true that plant proteins are less complete than animal protein. The biological value is nonsense
The most logical way to deem a protein complete or incomplete is to observe whether the amount of essential amino acids, given an adequate caloric intake, would provide less of more of all the 8/9 essential amino acids. Plant protein do and therefore they're not less or more complete than animal proteins, with very few exception lacking in one or more amino acids
Protein complemeting is useless as our body as an endogenous amino acids pools (the reciclying cycle of amino acids) where essential amino acids can last more than 10 days (it depends on the amino acid) and proteins from greens completement anything anyway
1) Could you link me to studies showing that beans / legumes lend to less diseases despite the antinutrients? I'm not trying to start an argument because I think legumes are healthy and a missing part of the American diet, I just want it settled in my mind that the antinutrients are not a huge cause of concern like paleo-foodists would have you believe. I find it funny that a lot of diets are based strictly on theoretical evidence that barely has any place in the real world, like vegans saying meat "could" give you colon cancer so avoid it at all costs, when really it's the unhealthy meat eater that gets no fiber in his diet either and thus lets all his food ferment and rot and stays constipated most of his life that gets the colon cancer. etc etc etc.
2) In my mind, a real closely followed Eat2Live diet would be better then a raw food diet because for the most part, the raw food diet is based on outdated theories (the whole plant enzyme thing, when really the protein we eat is essential for our own enzyme activity and plant enyzmes for the most part get killed away in the stomach with a few exceptions). So I guess the main way a raw food diet could be healthier then what you eat is that a lot of raw foodists tend to eat extremely healthy foods like goji berries, wheatgrass juice, acai, acerola, spirulina and other "superfoods" in mass abundance, whereas it seems the real superfood of the Eat2Live diet is any leafy green (for good reason too, it's healthy and cheaper then wheatgrass :)) and the Eat2Live diet stresses more every day foods like greens, regular old fruits and vegetables and nuts while the pop side of raw food diets stress really exotic foods like the ones mentioned.
3) Yes, diets of mostly raw foods are probably best sustained in tropical envioronments, just like seasonally it's better to eat more fresh, watery foods in the summer while more heavy foods in the winter. But how many raw foodists eat according to the seasons?
4) I think I read somewhere that certain raw sprouted legumes will still have antinutrients. Either way, I've gotten headaches from eating home sprouted lentils before, and now if I eat sprouts it's either mung bean sprouts or broccoli sprouts...
5) Yes, raw foodists can get 50-60 grams a day but it doesn't come as easily, some plant proteins are complete but not significant (watermelon and brocolli both have all the amino's but not very much). It makes the whole equation worlds simpler if you add in a few eggs and thus get the best absorbed protein with the best amino profile to supplement an extra 10-20g of protein a day alongside the veggie foods, but a lot of vegans have unfounded views that all animal fat / protein, in any amount, is bad (this isn't true, it's the excess that hurts).
Basically what I'm trying to say is this: I feel a raw diet could be way healthier if some (small / moderate depending on lifestyle) animal product was added, either low-mercury fish like sardines or salmon for the omega-3's, omega-3 eggs, or raw grass fed milk/yogurt/kefir. Hell, even raw meat. The key is eating just enough to supplement extra protein / amino acids like taurine that meat is the sole source of into your diet. With proper precautions you can avoid most of the dangers associated with raw animal foods, and with proper knowledge you can know what to do if you do run into problems (the same problems, of course, that you can get from raw plant foods too).
I wouldn't rant much when observing healthy people ... I mean, raw diets would be too extreme for me; they wouldn't allow me to eat warm foods and would decrease the diversity of my diet by ruling our all the healthy cooked veggies (especially cruciferous) I can have and beans too which (in spite of antinutrients who are considered irrelevant by the World Health Organization in a varied diet) are positively correlated with less diseases incidence and better hematic profiles
And yet I don't feel in the position to rant about raw fooders as they're healthier than me
I think about Dr. Vivian Vetrano who has been a raw foodist for 60 years and at more than 80 is the picture of health and looks very young. She hasen't been suffering for a simple flu in 50 years and is still as active as possible
I believe that raw diets are better sustained in a warm tropical climate than the area we wandered to and made us need more cooked food to sustain the harsher environment
As for protein sprouted legume don't contain antinutrients because antinutrients remain active only to give the legume the time to sprout. When it is sprouted antinutrients are not active anymore and complex starches are turned into simple saccarides
Raw foodists consume less protein than others basing their protein need on the minumum nitrogen loss
Dr. Vetrano for example suggests to eat 4 ounces of nuts with would be almost 30 grams
A daily fruit intake may look like: 3 nectarines, 1 cherimoya, 4 persimmons which would be almost 20 grams
A juice made with 2 tomatoes, three stalks of celery, 6 leaves of lettuce and 2 carrots supply 4.5 grams of protein each 7 oz glass.
Even without resorting to sprouted foods raw foodists can secure around 50-60 grams of protein daily
Clearly if they're bigger they will naturally have bigger appetite and will eat more more easily
It may not seem much but Dr. Vetrano seems anything but undernourished or emaciated
The rationale seems to be that while we don't absorb the 100% of protein from cooked animal foods (and this is true, there's a percentage of fast) the bioavailability of protein from raw foods is better (which may be true according to certain researches)
As for protein quality I have showed before how it is not true that plant proteins are less complete than animal protein. The biological value is nonsense
The most logical way to deem a protein complete or incomplete is to observe whether the amount of essential amino acids, given an adequate caloric intake, would provide less of more of all the 8/9 essential amino acids. Plant protein do and therefore they're not less or more complete than animal proteins, with very few exception lacking in one or more amino acids
Protein complemeting is useless as our body as an endogenous amino acids pools (the reciclying cycle of amino acids) where essential amino acids can last more than 10 days (it depends on the amino acid) and proteins from greens completement anything anyway
1) Could you link me to studies showing that beans / legumes lend to less diseases despite the antinutrients? I'm not trying to start an argument because I think legumes are healthy and a missing part of the American diet, I just want it settled in my mind that the antinutrients are not a huge cause of concern like paleo-foodists would have you believe.
That's not an easy things to do because ... actually is the other way around
I mean there no studies showing that that antinutrients in beans have an relevant effect on mineral absorption when they're consumed as part of a varied diet
The only existing evidence is that they might decrease mineral absorption significantly when they are the staple of a diet lacking in nutrients from greens and fruits
That's usually the case of poor population. Right now many poor/starving populations are consuming grains as staples (rice and corn) but in the past for example the mountain communities would live on garbanzo and that is where mineral deficiencies were observed
So in a way there is nothing I can show you because no evidence ever came out that beans may reduce mineral absorption significantly when part of a normocaloric and varied diet
The proof in this instance is the lack of evidence not the evidence of the proof :think:
The American Dietetic Association has a position paper on antinutrients (including phytates and oxalates) claiming that althought there are evidences that on a modo-diet of foods containing anti-nutrients mineral absorption may be slightly compromised, there are no kind of evidences whatsoever that foods contaning antinutrients as servings in a varied diet containing other variety of foods may interfere with mineral absorption significantly or be of any danger
I will have to recover the paper from my HD ...
Not all paleo-foodists claim that the problem with beans is their "dangerous" antinutrient content
There are many paleo-foodists who avoid exaggerated headline claims that admit that the effect of antinutrients is you eat 1 or 2 cup of beans in a diet contaning greens, fruits, fish, meat and so on is negligeable at best
The others are just those who love to make exaggerated undemostrable claims and who extrapolate from completely different situations and circumstances
I find it funny that a lot of diets are based strictly on theoretical evidence that barely has any place in the real world, like vegans saying meat "could" give you colon cancer so avoid it at all costs, when really it's the unhealthy meat eater that gets no fiber in his diet either and thus lets all his food ferment and rot and stays constipated most of his life that gets the colon cancer. etc etc etc.
I agree with you
That's what I meant when I said that they "extrapolate from completely different situations and circumstances" . Theoretical deductions that have no place in real life
It is true thought that there are compelling evidence that "massive" meat eating may result in greater risk of colon cancer, because the fact that we've a different gut from omnivorous animals is a truth and it has been showed clinically that because of decreased transit meat stays longer in the gut
That in turns expose the gut to the carcinogenic N-nitroso metabolites
JAMA 2005;293: 172-182 - Meat Consumption and the risk of colonrectal cancer
Carcinogenesis 2002;22(10):1653-9 - Red meat and colon cancer: dietary haem induced colonic cytotoxicity and epithelial hyperproliferation
Carcinogenesis 2002;22(1): 199-201 - Dose-dependent effect of dietary meat on endogenous colonic N-nitrosation
Anyway that doesn't mean that eating a chicken leg would result in colon cancer the next day
As Dr. Fuhrman says there are no evidences that an high nurtients density omnivorous diet is unhealthy per se and in spite of what vegans say it may sometimes be more ideal for certain people
In fact the group Veganoutreach, aware of this face, promotes vegan diets for ethical reason but not for health reason. Their rationale is: if I have a healthy ethical vegan diet and I had a teaspoon of meat would that make the diet very less healthy? NO, but it would make it very less vegan ethical
2) In my mind, a real closely followed Eat2Live diet would be better then a raw food diet because for the most part, the raw food diet is based on outdated theories (the whole plant enzyme thing, when really the protein we eat is essential for our own enzyme activity and plant enyzmes for the most part get killed away in the stomach with a few exceptions).
I don't like that kind of sci-fi theories and that's why I respect Dr. Vivian Vetrano so much even she's a rawfoodist and I'm not. She is uptodate and rigorous in her science being trained in applied physiology
She would never consider the enzyme argument as enzyme in foods are what activate the ripening process and the unripe fruit has more enzime until they will be utilized by the fruit to ripe itself.
Dr. Vetrano show convincing arguments for the raw food diet she endorses
Cooking really denaturate certain foods and their protein structure but as Dr. Fuhrman says "gentle forms of cooking allow the food to cook without altering its proteic structure or creating toxic compounds and if cooked in soup or pressure cooked the water soluble vitamins are retained in the water"
It is hovewer completely true that baking, roasting, grilling, frying make whatever food much less nutritious and change the protein structure creating toxic compounds like indoles, phenols, acrylamides and others
In this the "ignored" raw foodists are perfectly right
Raw food diet is HEALTHY per se but by forbidding healthy and gently cooked nutritious foods it decrease the diversity and variety of the diet and the nutrients density as well.
For example hard greens and cruciferous would not be allowed just to make an example
So I guess the main way a raw food diet could be healthier then what you eat is that a lot of raw foodists tend to eat extremely healthy foods like goji berries, wheatgrass juice, acai, acerola, spirulina and other "superfoods" in mass abundance, whereas it seems the real superfood of the Eat2Live diet is any leafy green (for good reason too, it's healthy and cheaper then wheatgrass :)) and the Eat2Live diet stresses more every day foods like greens, regular old fruits and vegetables and nuts while the pop side of raw food diets stress really exotic foods like the ones mentioned.
And indeed many of the succesful raw fooders live on the tropics or hawaii ... warm places anyway
3) Yes, diets of mostly raw foods are probably best sustained in tropical envioronments, just like seasonally it's better to eat more fresh, watery foods in the summer while more heavy foods in the winter. But how many raw foodists eat according to the seasons?4) I think I read somewhere that certain raw sprouted legumes will still have antinutrients. Either way, I've gotten headaches from eating home sprouted lentils before, and now if I eat sprouts it's either mung bean sprouts or broccoli sprouts...
it probably depends also on the level of sproutedness
If I remember right lentils should be sprouted for longer than mungs
5) Yes, raw foodists can get 50-60 grams a day but it doesn't come as easily, some plant proteins are complete but not significant (watermelon and brocolli both have all the amino's but not very much).
The right calculation to do is if given an adequate caloric intake of the examined food, it would be able to provide all the essential amino acids we need in a day. That would make the protein complete because the only way to call it incomplete is to consider the essential amino acid content inadequate; but judging it unadequate by comparing it to eggs protein is a useless and antiscientific approach
A complete protein is complete when it can sustain HUMANS essential amino acids needs
I will have to look at that but if I remember right broccoli can do that and they're therefore as complete as they get
It makes the whole equation worlds simpler if you add in a few eggs and thus get the best absorbed protein with the best amino profile to supplement an extra 10-20g of protein a day alongside the veggie foods, but a lot of vegans have unfounded views that all animal fat / protein, in any amount, is bad (this isn't true, it's the excess that hurts).
Yeah
Dr Furhman promotes (except to vegans) the kind of diet you're talking about and "making the equation worlds simpler" too
Ideally the same person should have different beliefs according to which side of him/her is replying
Like "the nutritionally aware side of me will tell you that eating some animal products has never been show to be unhealthy per se" but "the ethical side of me will tell you that is better to never eat animal products" ...
something like this ... it would be very honest and humble at the same time ... and easier to respect
Basically what I'm trying to say is this: I feel a raw diet could be way healthier if some (small / moderate depending on lifestyle) animal product was added, either low-mercury fish like sardines or salmon for the omega-3's, omega-3 eggs, or raw grass fed milk/yogurt/kefir. Hell, even raw meat. The key is eating just enough to supplement extra protein / amino acids like taurine that meat is the sole source of into your diet. With proper precautions you can avoid most of the dangers associated with raw animal foods, and with proper knowledge you can know what to do if you do run into problems (the same problems, of course, that you can get from raw plant foods too).
That's like Dr. Bass diet (remember the three generational of raw foodists article I posted? Three Generations of Raw Veganism)
It is a very sound and healthy diet and supplement those areas that could result in a "raw vegan failure to thrive" without sacrificing high nutrients density and greens, nuts and fruits intake
The only thing I can't stand about Dr. Bass is that he test his theories on rats/mices and then apply them to humans ... only that rats and humans are as similar as sardines and ostriches
But you gotta admit that Bass's experiments are really interesting nonetheless, like his fruiarian rat diet experiment where they ended up going carnivorous and eating eachother Interesting along the same lines as Pottenger's cats - it's not hand-in-hand related to human relevence but it can provide us with our own insights that we can apply to humans and see whether or not it will be good. For example, such disasterous results from a fruitarian diet can suggest to us that it may in probability not the best idea for rats, though it's just a suggestion and not a fact.
But you gotta admit that Bass's experiments are really interesting nonetheless, like his fruiarian rat diet experiment where they ended up going carnivorous and eating eachother 🙂 Interesting along the same lines as Pottenger's cats - it's not hand-in-hand related to human relevence but it can provide us with our own insights that we can apply to humans and see whether or not it will be good. For example, such disasterous results from a fruitarian diet can suggest to us that it may in probability not the best idea for rats, though it's just a suggestion and not a fact.
Less logic than Pottenger's cats though
Since we have no special way to handle cooked food compared to other animals the effect of cooked food in animals is similar to the effect those foods will have on humans
As for rats they do way worse than humans on a fruitarian diet because their amino acids and vitamins need is completely different from us. Small rats grow ten time faster than our babies.
It was thought in the past that the best diet is the one that make a baby grow in weight very fast, nowdays it is a well documented fact that the faster babies grow the higher their incidence of cancer is/will be
Rats have a thick fur which requires more sulphur containing amino acids to be maintained while the more sulphur amino acids human consume the more they switch their calcium balance into negative
Rats seem to metabolize urea as if it was needed to them, humans are intoxicated by excessive uric acid
In truth we're very different animals ... why not sutudying the effect on diet to extrapolate on humans on caterpillars or butterflies ... at this point :wall:
Yeah... I don't believe in an all raw diet at all. I think one should include lots of raw fruits and veggies though but as for eating legumes and beans raw? eeew... I think some thing are meant to be eaten cooked. Also, I don't tolerate raw veggies very well - I need mine to at least be lightly steamed.
64 when the pic was taken
Her secret she says are raw greens
I would have never said 55 years old probably because of my question you knew she must be old but I don't think you would believe she's 55 if you met her on the street, because so many 50 years old or even 40 years old look way older than that like they have wrinkles, puffy face, tired eyes, loose jaw and mouth ...
I do believe that she isn't blessed but just amazingly healthy
If she had youthful hair and dressed stylish she could pass for thirty something.
64 when the pic was taken
Her secret she says are raw greens
I would have never said 55 years old probably because of my question you knew she must be old but I don't think you would believe she's 55 if you met her on the street, because so many 50 years old or even 40 years old look way older than that like they have wrinkles, puffy face, tired eyes, loose jaw and mouth ...
I do believe that she isn't blessed but just amazingly healthy
If she had youthful hair and dressed stylish she could pass for thirty something.
That's exactly what I thought !
She look like a a girl from 1960 on her thirthies ...