Comments on: Raw, not for everyone http://www.vegblog.org/archive/2004/06/14/raw-not-for-everyone/ Fri, 04 Jul 2008 21:20:03 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5.1 By: Gary http://www.vegblog.org/archive/2004/06/14/raw-not-for-everyone/#comment-1357 Gary Wed, 23 Jun 2004 16:05:14 +0000 http://new.vegblog.org/2004/06/14/raw-not-for-everyone/#comment-1357 It is quite interesting reading about the Restaurants available in California that the stars frequent for raw food. It would be great just to pick up your food like the stars It is quite interesting reading about the Restaurants available in California that the stars frequent for raw food. It would be great just to pick up your food like the stars

]]> By: Ryan http://www.vegblog.org/archive/2004/06/14/raw-not-for-everyone/#comment-1356 Ryan Tue, 15 Jun 2004 12:37:30 +0000 http://new.vegblog.org/2004/06/14/raw-not-for-everyone/#comment-1356 Levi -- The argument I've heard for eating raw is that cooking destroys beneficial enzymes. In certain cases, yes, the nutritional value of some foods decreases when cooked. On the flip side, though, certain foods release nutrients when cooked, so a 100% raw diet is most likely not "optimal." The way I view it is that eating raw is generally a good thing, but certainly not necessary for healthful living. I'm more interested in from a culinary standpoint, seeing what expert raw chefs can make. At the same time, it's kind of interesting to look from the outside-in at what's generally considered a fringe movement within the veg* community. If people want to eat primarily raw, fine by me... but obsessing over purity and minor details can only be detrimental in the long-term. Levi — The argument I’ve heard for eating raw is that cooking destroys beneficial enzymes. In certain cases, yes, the nutritional value of some foods decreases when cooked. On the flip side, though, certain foods release nutrients when cooked, so a 100% raw diet is most likely not “optimal.”

The way I view it is that eating raw is generally a good thing, but certainly not necessary for healthful living. I’m more interested in from a culinary standpoint, seeing what expert raw chefs can make. At the same time, it’s kind of interesting to look from the outside-in at what’s generally considered a fringe movement within the veg* community. If people want to eat primarily raw, fine by me… but obsessing over purity and minor details can only be detrimental in the long-term.

]]> By: muckdog http://www.vegblog.org/archive/2004/06/14/raw-not-for-everyone/#comment-1355 muckdog Mon, 14 Jun 2004 22:45:48 +0000 http://new.vegblog.org/2004/06/14/raw-not-for-everyone/#comment-1355 I can't get too energized by the move to eat only raw veggies, or only veggies that are in season, or any of the other fine-tuning of a healthy lifestyle. I can’t get too energized by the move to eat only raw veggies, or only veggies that are in season, or any of the other fine-tuning of a healthy lifestyle.

]]> By: Levi http://www.vegblog.org/archive/2004/06/14/raw-not-for-everyone/#comment-1354 Levi Mon, 14 Jun 2004 22:18:01 +0000 http://new.vegblog.org/2004/06/14/raw-not-for-everyone/#comment-1354 I don't know a whole lot about the raw food movement, but my take on it is this: raw foodists want to "get back to nature" by eating foods in as pure a form as possible, it seems, without the processing (cooking) in modern technology. But why animal foods are left out of this I'm not exactly sure. Why are there not two camps of raw foodists, one vegetarian and one not? After all, meat and fish was (and still is by some) eaten raw. It's not like they are exclusive of each other. I did read something that frightens me a bit about the potentially cultish nature of some raw foodists: <a href="http://www.chetday.com/billings.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.chetday.com/billings.html</a> But I gather that all groups have their fringe elements and that the raw food movement is no better or worse than other groups... I don’t know a whole lot about the raw food movement, but my take on it is this: raw foodists want to “get back to nature” by eating foods in as pure a form as possible, it seems, without the processing (cooking) in modern technology. But why animal foods are left out of this I’m not exactly sure. Why are there not two camps of raw foodists, one vegetarian and one not? After all, meat and fish was (and still is by some) eaten raw. It’s not like they are exclusive of each other.

I did read something that frightens me a bit about the potentially cultish nature of some raw foodists:

http://www.chetday.com/billings.html

But I gather that all groups have their fringe elements and that the raw food movement is no better or worse than other groups…

]]>