RawforLife Blog

How Worried Should We Be About Zinc?

2010-12-04T01:42:00.000-08:00

How worried should we be about the terrorist threat?
How worried should we be about the MRSA 'super-bug'?
How worried should we be about swine flu?

Seen headlines like this? They're designed to promote fear where none existed, to persuade people that the risk of something awful happening is a million times higher than the actual risk - to sell newspapers, to justify war, to sell vaccines, etc.

We have mini-versions in the raw food world. It's a pity that when we embark on the most nutritious diet we have ever followed, as health-conscious people by definition, we are sitting ducks for those who would love to persuade us that we're not getting enough of this or that, and the only way we can get this or that is by buying expensive supplements (theirs, usually).

I'm not saying it's impossible for a raw vegan to be deficient in a certain nutrient. Some raw vegans do follow some pretty weird diets. Also, I have blogged extensively on B12, and do feel that, if we buy most of our food from supermarkets devoid of the bacteria on it when freshly picked, we could have a problem there.

But, in the vast majority of cases, I believe that raw vegans will be far, far less likely to be deficient in vitamins and minerals than the average person.

So, let's have a look at zinc - this year's favourite amongst certain 'experts' in the raw food world. A while ago it was magnesium, which the raw food 'experts' persuaded us we could be deficient in unless we bought their 'raw' chocolate (which, now most of us know,wasn't raw at all). Next year it'll be something else. In fact, minerals are great hunting ground for the scaremongers, as there are so many of them! So each year supplement manufacturers, supported by 'nutritional advisors', can pick from a long list to persuade those irritating raw vegans that they're just - not - getting - all - their - nutrients - oh no!! All those minerals to choose from for those who are a bit bored with eating raw vegan, and fancy a BLT, but their big egos impel them to make videos, or even write books, to justify their change in diet, with of course a finger-wagging warning to those who insist on continuing with that crazy diet of raw fruit, veg, nuts and seeds. Oh, and of course, a reminder that (some!) cavemen thousands of years ago ate meat. So we must too.

Sorry. Back to the subject in hand.

How worried should raw vegans be about zinc? VERY worried, if you believe those who are telling us that, if we don't eat animal foods, or don't take a supplement, we are very likely to be deficient, and that a diet of raw plant foods can't meet our zinc needs!

Well, let's see:

I've been raw now for four years , and raw vegan for the vast majority of that. (I've had a couple of brief forays into raw vegetarian within that time, but even then I was still mostly vegan.)

As I don't supplement, surely I should be showing some of the scary symptoms of zinc deficiency by now.

Acne - No
Amnesia - No
Apathy - No
Brittle nails - No
Depression - No
Diarrhoea - No
Eczema - No
Fatigue - No (everyone feels tired sometimes!)
Hair loss - No
High cholesterol - No
Irritability - only when I read silly articles about how worried we should be about zinc
Lethargy - yes, a bit right now, but it's been sub-zero in the UK for the last week
Loss of appetite - No
Loss of sense of taste - No
Night blindness - haven't a clue what it is, but, no, don't think I've got it.
Paranoia - No more than the average?
White spots on nails - No
Wound healing impairment - No

So, it doesn't look as if I'm suffering from zinc deficiency. How can that be?

OK. Let's look at the recommended daily allowances for zinc.

For a female 25-50, the US says 12 mg, Canada says 9 mg, and the UK says 7 mg.

So looks as if either no one actually knows, or at best they think they know but they all disagree with each other.

Let's take a mean of the three: that would be 9 mg.

But that 9 mg is set for the average person!

Here are some things that many people will have in their lifestyle that INHIBIT zinc absorption:

1. Excess iron. Diets that are high in meat are high in iron. Excess iron inhibits zinc absorption.
(Copper, iron, zinc all work together. An excess of one inhibits absorption of another.) Excess iron via supplementation can inhibit zinc absorption. (And of course excess zinc via supplementation can inhibit iron.)

2. Alcohol inhibits zinc absorption.

3. Tea and coffee inhibit zinc absorption.

4. Nicotine inhibits zinc absorption.

5. Anti-depressants inhibit zinc absorption.

6. High calcium intake (eg high dairy) inhibits zinc absorption.

I don't eat meat. I don't take iron supplements. I don't drink alcohol. I don't drink tea or coffee. I don't smoke. I don't take anti-depressants. I don't have dairy (and when I did, it was a tiny proportion of my diet).

So - could be some clues there as to why, on a raw vegan diet, I have no symptoms of zinc deficiency.

Surely, 95% of people in the UK, for which the RDA is set, will be ingesting at least one of the six above? Some will be doing all six! No wonder there are problems with zinc deficiency in the general population!

(By the way, it is true that phytates in unsprouted grains, seeds etc have been shown to inhibit zinc absorption, and whilst it's true that I eat unsprouted seeds, firstly they're very high in zinc in the first place, so in terms of net effect we should still be quids in, and, on the few occasions I do have grains, they're always sprouted. So - swings and roundabouts...)

In short, it's easy to explain why this raw vegan isn't suffering from zinc deficiency and, surely, logically, it would suggest that raw vegans following a healthy lifestyle could well be fine on significantly less than the recommended intake.

But, anyway, I decided to look at yesterday's food and tot up my zinc intake. I very rarely look at my nutrient intake, as it's a tedious bore, and, on the rare occasions I have, have never found any cause for concern, but, for this article, here's what I ate yesterday. In fact, I've probably missed some things out as I do love my food (no 'loss of appetite' here - in fact, I'm quite greedy) and probably ate more than this:

Two glasses green juice (spinach/apple/celery): 0.4 mg
Smoothie (5 bananas, 2 dates, blob of almond butter): 1.5 mg
Salad - avocado, tomatoes, dulse: 2 mg
Pumpkin seeds (1/4 cup -maybe more - I do love them!): 2.5 mg
2 mangoes: 0.6 mg
Large mixed salad: 1 mg
Then I sat by the fire and had a handful of hazelnuts (40g?): 1 mg

It came to...9 mg exactly! I didn't fix it - honest!

OK, so I've got the pumpkin seeds in there, which bumps it up a bit. But, if I hadn't eaten pumpkin seeds, I'd have probably eaten some other seeds/nuts/raw fat in their place, and would probably still have reached 7 mg. That happens to be the UK figure anyway, and, as I've explained earlier, even if we went for the mean of the US/UK/Canada at 9 mg, the things that I DON'T ingest, that inhibit zinc absorption, would suggest I'm very likely to be fine on 7mg anyway.

Men - yes, sure, they need more zinc, but they'd probably eat larger portions than I do.

Thousands are thriving on a lfrv diet (check out 30Bananas forum) with no symptoms of 'zinc deficiency'.

So, should you listen to what I say?

Am I a 'nutritionist'?

'Nutritionist' - in the UK anyone can call themselves a nutritionist. There are no regulations - yet. The only regulations apply to the term 'dietician'.

My son, who took advanced-level chemistry and biology, then spent three full-time years at university studying food and nutrition (including chemistry that would make most raw food 'experts'/'nutritional advisors' quail!), and is about to embark on two years' full-time dietetics training - he's quite good on nutrition! And, contrary, to what some raw fooders love to think, he doesn't advocate a diet of meat and ice cream, and is low dairy/ fish-and-vegetarian himself. (He checked out this article, BTW, and gave it the thumbs-up.)

If you're taking advice from a 'nutritionist' or 'nutritional advisor' check out their qualifications. I've known people who have taken a short internet course, then put letters after their names and convince people that they have 'degrees' in nutrition. I myself spent two years studying Natural Health (Natural Hygiene). It was an interesting course, but there were no exams and all the assignments I could do with the book in front of me. Although the course was beneficial to me, you may like to know that this course conferred me with letters after my name, and an 'Associate Degree'. It's all daft.

Am I an 'expert'?

I'm as 'expert' as many of those who have set up websites and are proclaiming themselves as 'experts' in raw food/nutrition. But there again I have actually been raw for four years. Most of them haven't.

But, really, just take this from someone who is simply a raw fooder and crying out for some common sense here.

Yes, it's likely to be the case that lots of people in the country are zinc-deficient.

Are YOU

ingesting large quantities of iron, via meat and/or iron supplements?
drinking alcohol?
drinking tea or coffee?
smoking?
taking anti-depressants?
taking excess calcium (eg the average diet - including dairy)

If the answer's yes, how about tackling some of these factors that inhibit zinc absorption before rushing to spend money on the latest 'natural' zinc supplement?

If the answer's no, please be assured that, if anyone's going to be zinc-deficient, it's not likely to be you.

Of course, there are some people who will claim that they were 'raw vegan', weren't doing any of those things, and still had 'symptoms'. Could I remind readers that there are many non-food factors that can affect our health and might result in various deficiencies?

There are also many unhealthful practices other than the above that many of those calling themselves 'raw vegan' indulge in. Some 'raw vegans' take herbal 'medicine' and other concoctions. These are toxic (if this statement shocks you, please see my article on this).

Some take poisons such as ayahuasca. One raw vegan admitted that during her two years of foruming on the raw vegan diet she'd been smoking marijuana. Others have been persuaded that practices such as 'gall bladder flushes', repeated colonics and eating clay are healthful!

If anyone knows anyone who has truly been raw vegan for at least a year, who simply eats fruit, vegetables, nuts and seeds in the quantities they desire, and who doesn't indulge in 'daftnesses' such as the above, and who has 'zinc deficiency', please let me know.

If you would like to read more of Raw-eating, Hovannessian

2010-09-25T05:19:00.001-07:00

I've decided to set up a separate blog for my serialisation of Raw-eating by Hovannessian.

I have, therefore, removed the two extracts on this blog and posted them there instead, and will be posting a third shortly.

Here's the new blog address:

http://raw-eatinghovannessian.blogspot.com/

(Please do stay subscribed to this one, for raw/general articles.)

The Essene Gospel of Peace Pt 2 (Diet/Health)

2010-07-14T01:40:00.000-07:00

Having given you a little background to the Essenes and the Essene Gospel of Peace in Part One here, I'll now tell you what EGOP actually says in connection with health, particularly diet.

In so doing, I will be omitting some important sections of the book that focus on the non-physical. If you find the material here interesting, please do buy the book.

I’ll take the instructions in page order and supply the actual words, followed by my own interpretations (which of course may or may not be correct), and comments.

Could I please ask you to read with an open mind? I'd guess most readers will find things in the instructions that are at variance with what they believe to be true. Although many of the instructions are in line with Natural Hygiene, some are definitely not. But I offer them to you so that, when you hear people talking about Essenes, and the Essene Gospel of Peace, you will know what the book actually says, as many people who claim to be Essenes or refer to the Essene Gospel of Peace are not living in line with its precepts. And the second group…well, that would include me.

The instructions come from a teacher that Szekeley's translation of EGOP records as being Jesus.

FASTING, PRAYER, CLEANSING

p14

Satan and his plagues may only be cast out by fasting and by prayer. Go by yourself and fast alone, and show your fasting to no man.’

(By ‘plagues’, EGOP at least partly means physical illness.) We are not to fast publicly. I know that it can seem to help to fast with others, but there are also disadvantages to telling others we are fasting. It can introduce an element of competition and when we tell others how long we are fasting/have fasted there might be an element of ego gratification creeping in. Some may not be able to resist telling others how difficult it is in an attempt to gain admiration or sympathy, and, in so doing, risk being derailed by this. Also, if we tell others we are fasting, we may be subject to their well-meaning attempts to stop us.

Seek the fresh air of the forest and of the fields, and there in the midst of them shall you find the angel of air. Put off your shoes and your clothing and suffer the angel of air to embrace all your body. Then breathe long and deeply, that the angel of air may be brought within you. I tell you truly, the angel of air shall cast out of your body all uncleannesses which defiled it without and within.

Easy to understand. We all know that taking deep breaths can help calm and detoxify. We all understand the importance of fresh air.

p15

…seek the angel of water. Put off your shoes and your clothing and suffer [allow] the angel of water to embrace all your body…the angel of water shall cast out of your body all uncleannesses which defiled it without and within. And all unclean and evil-smelling things shall flow out of you…

We are to wash ourselves, to clean ourselves outside and inside. Here is an indication that EGOP is instructing us to allow water to enter our body for purification.

p15/16

And he who cleanses himself without, but within remains unclean, is like to tombs that outwards are painted fair, but are within full of all manner of horrible uncleannesses and abominations….Seek, therefore, a large trailing gourd, having a stalk the length of a man; take out its inwards and fill it with water from the river which the sun has warmed. Hang it upon the branch of a tree, and kneel upon the ground before the angel of water, and suffer the end of the stalk of the trailing gourd to enter your hinder parts, that the water may flow through all your bowels.

So, no, this isn’t in line with Natural Hygiene thinking, as NH’ists think this sort of process, akin to colonics/enemas, is unnatural. But non NH’ists say that a colonic can serve as a kick start to the healing progress and note that Jesus here was talking to the ‘sick and maimed’.

p16

Afterwards rest kneeling on the ground before the angel of water and pray to the living God that he will forgive you all your past sins, and pray the angel of water that he will free your body from every uncleanness and disease.

Note that the process is to be accompanied by prayer.

Then let the water run out from your body, that it may carry away from within it all the unclean and evil-smelling things of Satan. And you shall see with your eyes and smell with your nose all the abominations and uncleannesses which abode in your body, tormenting you with all manners of pains.

This suggests that the process eliminates toxins etc that were causing pain.

I tell you truly, baptism with water frees you from all of these. Renew your baptizing with water on every day of your fast,

The ‘colonic’-type process is to be undertaken daily in conjunction with prayer and fasting. So the average person on a SAD diet booking a series of weekly/monthlycolonics, living their normal lives inbetween...not the same thing.

till the day when you see that the water which flows out of you is as pure as the river’s foam….And this holy baptizing by the angel of water is: Rebirth unto the new life. For your eyes shall henceforth see, and your ears shall hear. Sin no more, therefore, after your baptism…

The process is to be repeated until the water runs clean. This quite clearly defines baptism as an actual inward physical cleansing - nothing like baptism as normally understood nowadays. However, it does say that it results in a ‘new life’ and that we shall then ‘see’ and ‘hear’. As there is no indication that Jesus was talking to blind and deaf people only, I think it fair to assume that Jesus did not intend the words ‘see’ and ‘hear’ to be understood in the literal, but meant that physical cleansing would result in a spiritual ‘opening of the eyes’.

And if afterward there remain within you aught of your past sins and uncleannesses, seek the angel of sunlight. Put off your shoes and your clothing and suffer [allow] the angel of sunlight to embrace all your body…

Exposing our skin to sunlight is of course healthy, and good for Vitamin D. (Raw fooders generally find they burn less than cooked food-eaters, if at all, but that has to be the subject of another article!)

p17

The angels of air and of water and of sunlight are brethren. They were given to the Son of Man that they might serve him,…

Note that 'angels' are physical manifestations of God - the air, water, sunlight. The ‘Son of Man’ here is man, ie the term is not reserved for Jesus exclusively.

When the Earthly Mother’s angels enter into your bodies…then shall all evil smells depart in haste by your breath and by your skin, corrupt waters by your mouth and by your skin, by your hinder and your privy parts.

We know that bad breath, BO, smelly urine, smelly poos etc are indications of a toxic body. Even those who are ‘relatively’ healthy may experience one or all of these when fasting and the body is cleaning.

And when all sins and uncleannesses are gone from your body, your blood shall become as pure as our Earthly Mother’s blood and as the river’s foam…And your breath shall become as pure as the breath of odorous flowers; your flesh as pure as the flesh of fruits reddening upon the leaves of trees; the light of your eye as clear and bright as the brightness of the sun…

When we are clean, our blood will become pure, our breath will become sweet, our complexion shall improve, and our eyes will become bright.

p18

…no one can reach the Heavenly Father unless through the Earthly Mother.

In EGOP, the Mother is the earth - the physical. The Father is the spiritual. We cannot reach the spiritual without cleaning ourselves physically first.

p24

And many unclean and sick followed Jesus’ words and sought the banks of the murmuring streams…they fasted, and they gave their bodies to the angels of air, of water, and of sunshine…And all of them saw all evils, sins and uncleannesses depart in haste from them.

And the breath of some became as stinking as that which is loosed from the bowels, and some had an issue of spittle, and evil-smelling and unclean vomit rose from their inward parts. All these uncleannesses flowed by their mouths. In some, by the nose, in others by the eyes and ears. And many did have a noisome and abominable sweat come from all their body, over all their skin. And on many limbs great hot boils broke forth, from which came out uncleannesses with an evil smell, and urine flowed abundantly from their body; and in many their urine was all but dried up and became thick as the honey of bees; that of others was almost red or black, and as hard almost as the sand of rivers. And many belched stinking gases from their bowels, like the breath of devils. And their stench became so great that none could bear it.

These people were very ill. As they detoxified, they were sick, they salivated, they had poo-breath, they had skin eruptions. Mucus flowed from their noses. Pus came from their eyes. They sweated. They urinated frequently. There was blood in their urine. I’m not sure about the ‘sand’, but on googling did find something called 'urinary gravel'. And there were bad smells. Natural Hygienists will recognise many of these symptoms of detoxification. Of course, most people nowadays experiencing symptoms such as these would find them alarming and as something to be stopped at all costs. And ‘cost’ it would be, as modern medicine (and, Natural Hygienists believe, herbal as well as 'pharmaceutical' medicine), in its attempts to suppress the symptoms, would reverse the process of detoxification and true healing would not occur, with the patient becoming more ill with the burden of toxins from the drugs used to ‘treat’.

And the devils left their bowels in the shape of multitudinous worms

They were rid of intestinal worms.

p28

You have been gluttonous, winebibbers and gone a-whoring

No interpretation needed.

Your Heavenly Father loves you without end, for he also allows you to pay in seven days the debts of seven years…but pay honestly and persevere till the seventh day…

Seven (consecutive) days’ fasting for each seven years’ sin.

…the devils of Satan write all your evil deeds in a book, in the book of your body and your spirit’

Our bodies are a record of our sins.

p30

And they showed Jesus their feet in which the bones were twisted and knotted and said ‘Neither the angel of air, nor of water, nor of sunshine has assuaged our pains, notwithstanding that we baptized ourselves, and do fast and pray…’ And he pointed with his hand to where the running of the water and the sun’s heat had softened to clayey mud the earth by the edge of the water. ‘Sink your feet in the mire, that the embrace of the angel of earth may draw out from your bones all uncleanness and all disease…’

I have seen websites that recommend clay for healing, saying that minerals in it can help ailments, but, note, Jesus is not telling us to eat clay (see my article here).

p32

And Jesus milked an ewe…he put the milk upon the sand made hot by the sun…And the milk became hot by the strength of the sun…And lo, the vapor of the hot milk began to rise slowly into the air…And the sick man whom Satan tormented did breath within himself, deeply, the rising whitish vapor. ‘Straightway will Satan leave your body, since for three days he starves and finds no food within you.

The physical ‘plagues’ (worms, cancerous cells?) had not been ‘fed’ as the man had fasted for three days. The man was then asked to inhale the vapour of the hot milk.

He [Satan] will come out of you to satisfy his hunger by the hot steaming milk, for this food finds favour in his sight.’

Satan is attracted by the smell of hot milk. As a child I found the smell of heated milk repulsive.I had nightmares where my parents had died in a car crash and I could smell the smell of heated milk. I know - weird!!

Jesus…drew out from the sick man all the body of the monster which was almost as long as the man. When the abominable worm came out of the sick man’s throat, he recovered at once his breath, and then all his pains ceased.

When I read this, I did some googling on intestinal worms. I read reports of people in some parts of the world suffering from very large worms.

MEAT

p36

And the flesh of slain beasts in his body will become his own tomb. For I tell you truly, he who kills, kills himself, and whoso eats the flesh of slain beasts, eats of the body of death. For in his blood every drop of their blood turns to poison…in his breath their breath to stink; in his flesh their flesh to boils; in his bones their bones to chalk;

When we eat meat poisons form in our blood.
When we eat meat our breath stinks.
When we eat meat…our bones turn to chalk!! Here’s a modern-day description of osteoporosis - ‘your bones turn to chalk and break with the slightest trauma’. For decades it had been thought that osteoporosis (bone problems in middle age) were due to calcium deficiency. People (middle-aged women especially) were told to eat lots of dairy. But recent research has shown that high consumption of ‘protein’ foods, such as meat, creates an acidic environment, causing the body to leech calcium from the bones in order to maintain optimum pH balance, causing…osteoporosis!

p37 [continuation of the instruction not to eat meat]

…in his bowels their bowels to decay.

When we eat meat, our bowels will decay.

…in his eyes their eyes to scales…

I’m not sure what could be meant here. Perhaps that meat-eating accelerates blindness? Or perhaps what is being described is that yellow stuff that can collect at the corners of the eyes after a night’s sleep. I had this as a child (meat-eater), but haven’t had it as an adult (24/25 years no meat).

…in his ears their ears to waxy issue…

If we eat meat, wax will come from our ears. Well, I still get a little wax from my ears on a vegan diet. However, before raw, when I did eat fish, wax would collect internally, necessitating syringeing every couple of years or so. This hasn’t happened in three and a half years on a meat and fish-free raw food diet.

And their death will become his death.

I’ll leave you to speculate.

Then another said: ‘Moses, the greatest in Israel, suffered [allowed] our forefathers to eat the flesh of clean beasts, and forbade only the flesh of unclean beasts. Why, therefore, do you forbid us the flesh of all beasts? Which law comes from God? That of Moses, or your law? And Jesus continued ‘God commanded your forefathers: ‘Thou shalt not kill.’ But their heart was hardened and they killed. Then Moses desired that at least they should not kill men, and he suffered them to kill beasts’.

So EGOP tells us that the law that allowed men to kill some beasts came from Moses, rather than God.

VEGAN OR VEGETARIAN?

‘Obey, therefore, the words of God: ‘Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed…and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.

Note that ‘meat’ here is simply the word for ‘food’; this is also generally the way the word is used in the Bible. God has given us ‘plant food’ for meat. This is backed by Genesis 1:29 ‘And God said: ‘Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed, to you it shall be for food.’ ('Herb' is the name for any plant.) This scriptural mandate for a vegetarian diet was used by the Nazarene sect. Although in the Bible it talks of Jesus being from ‘Nazareth’, many scholars say that there was no such place as Nazareth and that Jesus was in fact a ‘Nazarene’.

Also the milk of everything that moveth and liveth upon earth shall be meat for you;

EGOP allows the drinking of animals’ milk. An abhorrent concept to many vegans. I simply present it to you.

But flesh, and the blood which quickens it, shall ye not eat.

Quite clear. Kosher meat-eating Jews believe that eating flesh is OK if the blood is drained from it. This quite clearly says ‘flesh, and the blood’.

HOW WE SHOULD EAT

p39

Therefore, eat not anything which fire, or frost, or water has destroyed. For burned, frozen and rotted foods will burn, freeze and rot your body also.

We will see later that Jesus instructed us not to cook our food at all. EGOP says also that we should not freeze our food, neither eat food that has rotted. We know that the Essenes did not touch 'fermented liquids', and here we see that they would not have eaten food that had 'rotted'. So it is unlikely that Essenes would have eaten what we nowadays refer to as 'fermented foods'.

p40

‘Master, where is the fire of life?’ asked some of them. ‘In you, in your blood, and in your bodies’. ‘And the fire of death?’ asked others. ‘It is the fire which blazes outside your body, which is hotter than your blood. With that fire of death you cook your foods in your homes and in your fields…Eat nothing, therefore, which a stronger fire than the fire of life has killed.’

This suggests we should be eating nothing that has been heated beyond body temperature, ie in round terms around 100 degrees F.

p40

Prepare and eat all fruits of trees, and all grasses of the fields, and all milk of beasts good for eating.

Just as ‘meat’ means ‘food’, rather than animal parts, ‘fruits’ probably means anything that comes from a tree, that is, fruit as we generally understand it, and nuts. This excerpt is saying that anything that comes from trees, ‘grasses’ (difficult to be sure what is meant here) and milk is ‘good’, although it does not say that these are the only things we are allowed to eat. Note the word ‘Prepare’. Later references suggest that this would not mean anything more than preparing food so that we can eat it, eg removal of inedible peel. ‘All milk of beasts good for eating’ implies that some milk of beasts isn’t good for eating.

Then crush your grain, and make thin wafers, as did your forefathers when they departed out of Egypt….

This is interesting. As EGOP describes the process by which we should make bread (‘cooked’ by the sun only) it is saying here that the bread the Israelites took with them when fleeing Egypt was not oven-cooked. EGOP defines cooking in the way raw fooders would generally understand it, as heating beyond a point somewhere between body heat and the heat of hot sun. Cooking bread in an oven is a sin, and the Israelites were fleeing a sinful Egypt.

We have always been taught that the bread they took with them was ‘unrisen’, perhaps because they had left in a hurry and there was no time for their bread to rise, and that, because of this, kosher Jews nowadays avoid yeast at Passover. What if the key thing was that the unsinful way to eat bread was simply not to cook it? Still, I guess billions of Jewish people can’t be wrong.

(In EGOP, Jesus describes the process of making bread, uncooked, from 100% wheat. See my article here on how to make Essene bread.) Essene bread is made from wheat only. Multi-ingredient raw breads calling themselves Essene breads are travesties, as later in EGOP we are told quite clearly that we should not mix lots of foods togethers.

So eat always from the table of God: the fruits of the trees, the grain and grasses of the field, the milk of beasts, and the honey of bees. For everything beyond these is of Satan, and leads by the way of sins and of diseases unto death.

As noted in the first part of the article, the Essenes kept bees for honey. Here, I would stress as I did in the first part that modern methods of obtaining honey and milk are very different from those of thousands of years ago. Note that it says that ‘everything beyond these’ is of Satan. As both ‘grain’ and ‘grasses’ are mentioned, it is possible that ‘grasses’ could include various leaves. ‘Trees’ could include bushes…who can be sure? What did the words that Szekeley translated mean thousands of years ago? I note that EGOP does not give the green light to sea vegetables, which is a bit of a prob for me, as I love them! But, there again, Natural Hygiene doesn't approve either...

And when you eat at her table, eat all things even [exactly, just] as they are found on the table of the Earthly Mother.

We are to eat things just as we find them. This suggests that we shouldn’t be blending, juicing, fracturing foods (eg removing oil) etc. However, this is slightly contradicted elsewhere. For example, when instructing us how to make bread, Jesus tells us to sprout wheat seeds, grind, flatten and dry them. As, if EGOP is the words of Jesus, He would not contradict Himself, then I must be misunderstanding in some way. (Sprouting is at least a process that we observe in nature.)

Cook not

Cook not!

…neither mix all things one with another, lest your bowels become as steaming bogs…(and on p42 ‘For I tell you truly, if you mix together all sorts of food in your body, then the peace of your body will cease, and endless war will rage in you.)

EGOP says no to abombo-combos! Natural Hygiene teaches that if we mix foods that take different times to digest, fermentation will occur as one food blocks the exit of another. It also teaches that different environments (in terms of alkalinity/acidity) are required for the digestion of different foods and that if we mix incompatible foods, putrefaction will occur.

And be not like the greedy servant, who always ate up, at the table of his lord, the portions of others. (And on p42 ‘And when you eat, never eat unto fullness….For Satan and his power tempt you always to eat more and more…So give heed to how much you have eaten when your body is sated, and always eat less by a third.)

We must not be greedy. However good the food, we must not stuff ourselves to the point at which we can’t take any more but must stop short of that. That of course takes much self-discipline.

p42

Be content with two or three sorts of food, which you will find always upon the table of our Earthly Mother…And desire not to devour all things that you see around you.

The earth will provide us with sufficient food, but we must be content with two or three ‘sorts’ of food. Of course, ‘sorts’ is wide open to interpretation! But EGOP does seem to be saying that we should be content with a simple diet.

Trouble not the work of the angels in your body by eating often….he who eats more than twice in the day does in him the work of Satan…Eat only when the sun is highest in the heavens and again when it is set.

Natural Hygiene does teach that we should give our digestions a rest between meals, and some Natural Hygienists do advocate ‘no breakfast’ (see my article on this here). Many raw fooders, eg Tonya Zavasta, advocate eating two meals a day only. They recommend eating in the morning and at lunchtime. EGOP teaches noon and sunset.

p42

Let the weight of your daily food be not less than a mina, but mark that it go not beyond two.

A mina is 50 shekels. A shekel is ½ oz, so we should eat at least 25 oz (about a pound a half) but not more than 50 oz (three pounds). A rough rule of thumb for a woman could be two pounds of food a day. 30BAD forum people - please don’t unsubscribe. I’m just telling you what the EGOP says. You’re all free to accept or reject it as is your wont.

And if you will that the angels of God rejoice in your body, and that Satan shun you afar, then sit but once in the day at the table of God.

The ideal is to eat once a day. And now I can hear people say ‘she’s encouraging anorexia!’. Please - don’t shoot the messenger! I eat several times a day myself.

p43

From the coming of the month of…

We should eat foods in season.

eat barley

EGOP recommends the eating of barley and wheat, so clearly includes grain in man’s diet.

eat wheat, the most perfect among all the seed-bearing herbs. And let your daily bread be made of wheat, that the LORD may take care of your bodies.

Many raw fooders will not eat wheat. I have written extensively on wheat in my article here. A reminder that we are talking about wheat that is raw and sprouted, not cooked, although it’s a fair point that wheat thousands of years ago would have been quite different to wheat of today.

From Tammuz, eat the sour grape, that your body may diminish and Satan may depart from it. In the month of Elul, gather the grape that the juice may serve you as drink. In the month of Marchesvan, gather the sweet grape, dried and sweetened by the angel of sun, that your bodies may increase…

Sour grape…this would appear to be referring to unripe grapes. Not only does this contradict Natural Hygiene,which teaches that unripe fruit should not be eaten, but it also contradicts Jeremiah 31: 29 in the Bible. EGOP could be saying that the eating of sour grapes will result in elimination of toxins, or it could simply be saying that some weight/fat loss is necessary at this time. In the next month, we are told to gather ripe grapes. In the month after that we are told to gather sun-dried grapes to build our bodies.

You should eat figs rich in juice in the months of Ab and Shebat, and what remain, let the angel of sun keep them for you; eat them with the meat of almonds in all the months when the trees bear no fruit.

We should eat ripe figs, then keep sun-dried figs to eat with almonds in the months when the trees bear no fruit. So this would appear to be allowing the eating of sun-dried fruit and nuts when there is no fruit on the trees.

And the herbs which come after rain, these eat in the month of Thebet, that your blood may be cleansed of all your sins.

The word 'herb', in EGOP and the Bible, means plants in general. We can't be sure which plant foods are being referred to here. There seems to be some recognition here that men are going to sin, but an opportunity for putting things right is presented to us. Earlier, intense methods of detoxification such as 'colonic-type' processes, with prayer and fasting, were described as cleansing processes for the very sick. Perhaps eating plant foods that 'come after rain' is cleansing for those whose transgressions are fewer..

And in the same month begin to eat also the milk of your beasts

So note that EGOP is not saying we should eat dairy all the year round. It is not saying we should keep animals perpetually pregnant. It is not saying that we should be taking milk in those months where, naturally, animals would be feeding their young.

Eat not unclean foods brought from far countries, but eat always that which your trees bear.

By ‘unclean’ EGOP (and the Bible) means ‘unhealthy’. I may be twisting words, but it doesn’t appear to me to be saying ‘don’t eat foods from far countries’, just don’t eat ‘unclean’ foods from far countries. I don't know - I could be doing some fancy footwork here to suit me! Perhaps it is telling us to eat what our trees bear because we can at least then know in what conditions the food has been grown. In modern times, if we eat food from afar, it is more difficult to be sure what has happened to it before it gets to us.

And he gives to all peoples of all kingdoms for food that which is best for each.

This is clearer. ‘Eat local’. (Which is not great news for those of us who, like me, love tropical fruit! Yes, I know the answer - move to a warm country.).

Eat not as the heathen do, who stuff themselves in haste…defiling their bodies with all manner of abominations.

We should eat slowly. We know that if we do our bodies will have time to signal satiety.

And when you eat, have above you the angel of air, and below you the angel of water.

I have never understood the second part of this instruction. Perhaps one of you can help.

Breathe long and deeply at all your meals, that the angel of air may bless your repasts.

For this to occur, again, we must eat slowly.

And chew well your food with your teeth, that it become water, and that the angel of water turn it into blood in your body.

We all know that the more we liquify our food when chewing, the better for our digestion. Chemicals in the saliva pre-digest food.

…his inwards [inside of the body] into an altar, if he does the commandments of God. Wherefore, put naught upon the altar of the Lord when your spirit is vexed, neither think upon any one with anger…for all that you eat in sorrow, or in anger, or without desire, becomes a poison in your body

We should not eat when we are unhappy, angry…we should only eat when we are happy and truly desire food.

And never sit at the table of God before he calls you by the angel of appetite.

We should never eat unless we really feel like eating. So EGOP would not agree with eating to get to ‘calorie targets’ if we really don't feel like any more food. Neither does it countenance eating 'because it's lunchtime', 'to be polite' etc, or for any of the many reasons we eat when we don't truly have appetite for the food.

On six days feed your body with the gifts of the Earthly Mother, but on the seventh day sanctify your body for your Heavenly Father. On the seventh day eat not any earthly food, but live only on the words of God…And let not food trouble the work of the angels in your body throughout the seventh day.

We should fast for one day every seven days. Note that EGOP says there is work to be done in our body on this fasting day. Natural Hygiene would say that this is vital ‘house-cleaning’ - elimination of toxins.

Wake not by night, neither sleep by day, lest the angels of God depart from you.

We should sleep at night only. We should not be waking in the night. We should not be sleeping in the day. This obviously rules out the Continental ‘siesta’, night shifts etc!

And take no delight in any drink, nor in any smoke from Satan, waking you by night and making you to sleep by day. For I tell you truly, all the drinks and smokes of Satan are abominations in the eyes of your God.

Smoking, coffee, alcohol - abominations then, as they are now.

46

And let not your bodies become either hotter or colder than as God's angels warm or cool them. And if you do the commandments of the Earthly Mother, then as oft as your body becomes too hot, will she send the angel of coolness to cool you, and as oft as your body becomes too cold, will she send you the angel of heat to warm you again.

Quite a challenge for those of us living in cooler climates.

*****

I leave you with this, from p48, the last page of The Essene Gospel of Peace:

Come to me, all that are weary and that suffer in strife and affliction! For my peace will strengthen and comfort you. For my peace is exceedingly full of joy. Wherefore do I always greet you after this manner: 'Peace be with you!' Do you always, therefore, so greet one another, that upon your body may descend the peace of your Earthly Mother, and upon your spirit the peace of your Heavenly Father. And then you will find peace also among yourselves, for the kingdom of God is within you. And now return to your Brothers with whom hitherto you were at war, and give your peace to them also. For happy are they that strive for peace, for they will find the peace of God. Go, and sin no more. And give to everyone your peace, even as I have given my peace unto you. For my peace is of God. Peace be with you.'

And he left them.

And his peace descended upon them; and in their heart the angel of love, in their head the wisdom of law, and in their hands the power of rebirth, they went forth among the Sons of Men, to bring the light of peace to those that warred in darkness.

And they parted, wishing one to another:

'PEACE BE WITH YOU'.

The Essene Gospel of Peace Pt 1 (Background)

2010-07-12T23:10:00.001-07:00

Many of you will have heard of The Essene Gospel of Peace and some of you will know it well. It's often used as a 'spiritual' source to support raw eating. You may have noticed that some raw food teachers are also 'Essene Ministers' and there are several 'Essene' websites.

I know some of you don't have much truck with 'religion' (and I can understand why), but I'm hoping that those of you who don't will still find the article of interest from the point of view of learning a little more about a slim little book that was was written either thousands of years ago, or ninety years ago (depending on one's point of view) that does, at least, contain some excellent instructions on healthy living -particularly diet.

For those of you who do know The Essene Gospel of Peace well, I hope you will add to Pt 2 of the article via Comments.

*****

Natural Hygiene - it didn't start with Herbert Shelton

Natural Hygiene is about the laws of healthy living that have been operable all the time human beings have been about, laws that apply to beings who have free will and choices. But, as we know, human beings have been rather prone to flouting those laws, to our downfall and premature destruction. And we've come up with all sorts of ways (eg medicine) to suppress the manifestations of our flouting of those laws, increasing our suffering in the long term.

The Essene Gospel of Peace, in common with Natural Hygiene, does not talk of 'medicines' or 'cures'; it simply instructs that purification and restoration of right living are what are necessary to rid the body of disease. Whether or not you feel that EGOP is authentic (see later) you will see that many of its instructions are in line with Natural Hygiene, and match relatively recent conclusions drawn about animal foods by scientists. For example, recent findings about the link between animal products and osteoporosis...you'll see in Pt 2 that Someone Else had already said that! Not everything in EGOP matches with NH, but I think you'll be interested to see the similarities.

Egop and me

I owe The Essene Gospel of Peace a debt; it was a major inspiration for my going raw. Although, the first time I read it, about five years ago, it went in one ear and out the other. That was because it came at a time when, after 25 years of not eating meat, I'd been misled (by 'Christian' writings) into eating (some) meat again, and I didn't want to hear anything that contradicted what I'd been told, as is so often the case when deep down we have doubts about what we are doing. And I definitely wasn't interested in its instruction 'Cook not.' Raw food? Bo-ring! Of course, that was then, and now is now, and when I did realise that I'd taken a wrong turn, EGOP was part of the mix that yanked me back onto the right path. I then read it again and felt great recognition, as in re-cognition, that is, I was learning something that I'd always known. Unlike many raw foodists, I've never had any problems staying raw, never had any yearnings for cooked food, and I credit EGOP with providing me with the strong underlying motivation for there never to be any question of returning to a cooked diet.

Who were the Essenes?

The Essenes are often described as a Jewish religious group living around two thousand years ago, before and after Christ. Although, as, according to historian Pliny, they 'had existed for thousands of generations', and 'Jewish' only applied to part of the original 'tribes of Israel', it may not be right to call them 'Jewish'.

They were united by their love of God, which of course included a love of honesty and morality. Some were celibate, some were married. They observed the Sabbath. They shared their money, property, food and clothing. They rejected the use of weapons and did not participate in commerce. Unlike other Jewish religious groups, they did not sacrifice animals.

They became known in modern times after the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls and have become particularly well known in the raw food world via the Essene Gospel of Peace, as it tells us not to cook our food.

Was Jesus an Essene? Relatively recent statements from the Pope have lent support to those who believe he was. See here.

Essene diet

'They lived only on vegetables that grew of their own accord, and wore only such clothing as could be procured from plants or trees.' (Josephus, 1st century historian) So they ate wild food only - they didn't cultivate. They would not have worn anything made from animals, eg no leather, wool, silk or cotton.

Philo, another historian, says the Essenes 'kept cows and bees'. They included a little dairy in their diets. Sources conflict as to the form of dairy. EGOP mentions 'milk'. Some say they ate yoghurt, or kefir, but others say they never touched fermented food. Edmund Szekeley: 'they were entirely vegetarian in their eating and never touched flesh foods nor fermented liquids.' They didn't drink alcohol.

So, the Essene diet was what most people nowadays would describe as 'lacto-vegetarian' - plant foods, dairy and honey. But, in case anyone thinks that I will be using the Essene diet to promote raw vegetarianism over raw veganism in 2010, I will point out that methods of obtaining milk and honey would have been very different then to methods used today.

Modern 'Essenes'

There are many people nowadays claiming to be 'Essene', but the vast majority are not remotely living in the way the Essenes used to. For example, I remember reading about an Essene gathering where the food served was cooked. Others certainly 'participate in commerce'! Sure, it's a tough call in 2010 to follow the lifestyles of thousands of years ago, but there are some aspects of Essene life described above that would be relatively easy to follow for someone who wishes to declare themselves 'Essene'.

Google Essenes and you'll find all sorts of 'Essene churches', which is interesting, because the Essenes didn't have 'churches'. 'Church' was a term that sprang up a few hundred years after Christ, when Paul launched 'Christianity'. Some of the sites do contain a wealth of precious information, and for that we must be grateful. However, be wary! When I was information-gathering on Essenes a few years ago I would find from time to time significant conflicts with Essene teaching and what was being said on the sites. I e-mailed a couple, asking for explanation, but received no answer.

Some sites offer 'Essene Ministerial Home Study Programs', or the like. Do bear in mind that anyone can take one of these home courses then put 'Essene Minister' on their raw cv and be 'authorised' to preside over weddings etc. I don't mean to be disparaging - I may well take the course myself one day, but one thing I'm pretty sure about is that it's all a far cry from what it took to be an Essene 'thousands of years ago'. 'After a total of three years' probation, newly joining members would take an oath that included the commitment to practise piety towards 'the Deity' and righteousness towards humanity, to maintain a pure lifestyle, to abstain from criminal and immoral activities, to transmit their rules uncorrupted and to preserve the books of the Essenes and the names of the Angels'. (Josephus)

The Essene Gospel of Peace

The Essene Gospel of Peace was brought to the 20th century world by Edmond Szekeley. Szekeley says that a Catholic priest led him into secret vaults at The Vatican, telling him there he would find the 'Source'. Szekeley then found the ancient manuscripts of the teachings of the Essenes and translated the writings.

The Catholic Church says The Essene Gospel of Peace is a fraud, that the manuscripts/secret vaults never existed. However, those who believe EGOP to be authentic point to its similarities to other writings that predate The Bible. Most shockingly for many Christians, it portrays Jesus as a vegetarian. EGOP also includes a beautiful passage on the nature of love - in EGOP attributed to Jesus, but in the Bible attributed to Paul.

Obviously, someone here is lying.

Did Szekely lie? If so, we have to wonder what his motivation for doing so would have been. Career ambitions? Money? He was adamant that EGOP should not be sold for more than a token price.

Did the Catholic Church lie? If so, we have to wonder what their motivation for doing so might have been. I will point out that, if anyone senior in the Catholic Church were to say that EGOP was authentic, this would obviously create a huge problem for the Catholic Church and in fact millions of Christians, as, if the Church decided that the words in EGOP attributed to Jesus were actually His words, all Christians would have to be directed to stop eating meat. Tricky.

Most of the Essene sites regard The Essene Gospel of Peace as authentic. However, one site had a diet page which was at odds with EGOP, and, as a rationale, the writer opined that EGOP was a 'fake' (Why? Because The Vatican had said so.) I'll leave you to figure out why the rest of the site was sprinkled with quotes from...The Essene Gospel of Peace.

Szekeley

I know people are always interested to know how long those in the business of promoting healthy eating lived, what they died of etc - and it's a reasonable question to ask. Szekeley died at 70 (don't know what of), which is really quite young for someone who had undertaken to spread the the principles of healthful living with particular regard to diet.

So, did Szekeley follow the dietary instructions in Essene Gospel of Peace? No he didn't. Uncorroborated sources say he was not a raw foodist himself. And it is recorded that he told his followers to eat between 10% and 35% of their diets as cooked food. Szekeley advised people to eat according to this 'food pyramid' - 30-50% raw fruits, 30-35% raw vegetables, 10-20% raw or cooked grains, cereals, and starches, 5-10% dried fruits, nuts, oily fruits, butter, honey and fats, and 10-35% cooked vegetables such as beans and pies'. Where did Szekeley get these ideas on diet from? Definitely not from The Essene Gospel of Peace. The Teacher's words in EGOP are quite unequivocal - they are 'Cook not'. They aren't followed by 'Of course, when I say 'cook not', I mean you can cook a bit'.

If, as Szekeley tells us, he believed the instructions in EGOP were the words of Jesus, why didn't he follow them, or tell his own followers to? Did he think 100% raw food would be too much for people? If so, was he right to mollycoddle them, to effectively tell them they didn't have to do as the EGOP instructs, that they'd be better off, that it would be 'easier' for them if they followed his diet instead? Did he forget the instructions he'd been entrusted with in a whirl of ego, fame, the feeling of being a 'guru' to others? Could he simply have been a victim of his own addictions to cooked food? In short, it would seem that, for whatever reason, Szekeley, having understood how he should live, just went his own sweet way, as 99.9% of people do to some extent (including the writer of this article), that is, we live falling short of how we know we should be living and we're felled prematurely by the 'spirit of disobedience'.

I do know some of you will be sceptical about EGOP, but let's not argue about that one, as my response would most likely be 'You could be right!'. None of us can be sure, but luckily in the parts of the world you and I live, we're all free to voice our opinions. I just hope that those who reject EGOP as the words of Jesus will nevertheless see it as an interesting little book on diet etc worth of consideration. My own position after much rumination over the years is that EGOP is not a fake. However, I'll also admit that I fail on its precepts in many ways, regularly and that my own diet is a long way from the way EGOP instructs us to eat (although it's closer than it was in my first year of raw). I hope that I can in some way make up for my failings (though I know I can't, really) by writing this article and helping, as Szekeley undoubtedly did, spread the Word.

*****

In Part 2 (What The Essene Gospel Of Peace Says), I will go through EGOP in page order, adding my comments. If you'd like the content D.Took-comment-free it can be bought for next to nothing on Amazon.

'Liver Flushes' and 'Mucoid Plaque'

2010-06-26T03:14:00.000-07:00

I still occasionally see people extolling the benefits of 'liver flushes'.

In the same family we have 'gallbladder flushes', 'intestinal cleanses', etc. The process of the 'flush' generally consists of a few days of juice diet followed by drinking a large quantity of oil and something acidic (eg lemon juice/vinegar). If vomiting hasn't occurred, the health-seeker will then pass, it is claimed, 'gallstones'. Although it is possible for people to do these things without commercial help, we see companies charging vast amounts for products/programmes built around these practices.

We also see people recommending the eating of 'bentonite clay', which, it is claimed, will free 'mucoid plaque' (and photo's of what is claimed to be 'mucoid plaque' are presented to horrify us all - yes, surely 'better out than in'!)

In this article, I'm going to draw together information from various sources that I hope will persuade anyone tempted to part with their money, or even simply to carry out such 'cleanses' themselves, that they are nothing more than 'snake oil' - quack remedies.

John MacDougall MD: 'Many people believe this alternative therapy really works, but the 'gallbladder flush' is a myth.'

Raw food leader Frederic Patenaude: 'I believe this is one of the biggest scams running in the alternative health movement.'

I will also freely admit that a 'liver flush' was certainly on my 'to do' list in my first year of raw, and know lots of intelligent, savvy people who have been persuaded to do them. It's only because I'm an insatiable internet researcher (OK, and perhaps a natural sceptic!) that I discovered that these 'flushes' were not quite what they purported to be, and I share the results of my findings, conclusions and suggestions with you here.

I also feel that, probably, most of the people recommending them (and selling them) do genuinely believe in them themselves, and have others' interests at heart.

I will explain how I do believe that people do experience feelings of well-being on the 'flushes', and how the days spent on them can indeed change people's lives for the better, BUT that these phenonema are either the result of deception OR due to good things associated with, or that lead from, the experience of the flushes. If that doesn't sound clear, and I realise it may not, please read on.

I'll be discussing most the 'flushes' which have the common element of a juice diet for a few days, followed by drinking a cup (at least - often much more) of olive oil and a cup of lemon juice (or anything acidic, eg vinegar) over a few hours. Variations include ingestion of magnesium sulphate, herbs etc. I'll comment more briefly on 'cleanses' that involve eating clay.

I'll include quotes from raw food leaders, and also evidence from medics (some overlap between the two groups).

'THE XXX FLUSH IS FANTASTIC - I EXPELLED HUNDREDS OF GALLSTONES!'

Those 'stones'...

Dr Douglas Graham (in Fresh Network 'Raw - Your Biggest Questions Answered'): 'The oils consumed are saponified by the body, meaning they turn into little beads that have a soap-like quality. True gallstones are made of either calcium or cholesterol, or a combination of the two. The 'stones' that are passed following a 'gallbladder flush' (sometimes called a 'liver flush') are no more than the oil consumed the previous day, saponified. If these 'stones' are left on the dashboard of a car in the sun, or any other warm spot, they will melt back into oil. The green and brown colouration in the stones is due to the presence of bile salts.'

Thomas Lodi, MD (also in FN book as above): 'When the stones that are passed after a 'gallbladder flush' are examined, they are not found to contain cholesterol, bile pigments, bile salts, calcium or any other constituents of gallstones, but rather residues from the oil ingested.'

(Note that Graham and Lodi differ on whether bile is present. I have heard people describe the 'stones' as very foul-smelling, and indeed bile is foul-smelling - bitter, sour, sulphurous.)

Frederic Patenaude: 'Here's what a pathologist has to say on the topic. The 'recipe' he's referring to is the gallbladder flush: 'Real gallstones are faceted polyhedra. What you'll get from the recipe are spheres. One of my correspondents describes a friend who saved the sphere and displayed them to his friends. Real gallstones hurt bad when they pass through the cystic and common bile ducts. Real gallstones sink in water. (As an autopsy pathologist, I'm very familiar with this.) The 'gallstones' you'll produce from this recipe will float, as the 'alternative thinkers' themselves point out. They claim that real gallstones float, too. Liars.' (Source: http://www.pathguy.com/)

Christian Sies (The Lancet, Apr 16, 2005): 'A 40-year-old patient with many 1-2mm gallstones underwent a 'liver cleansing' with apple and vegetable juice, followed by 600 ml of olive oil and 300 ml of lemon juice, taken over several hours. She painlessly passed semisolid green 'stones' with her stool. She brought them to her doctor, who examined them under a microscope and found no crystalline structures (as would be seen in an actual gallstone). Heating to 40 degree C for 10 minutes caused the 'stones' to melt. Analysis showed they contained no cholesterol, bilirubin, or calcium (like a real stone might have). Chemical analysis found the 'stones' were fat globules mostly from the olive oil. The investigators next made similar balls that looked like stones in their lab by mixing olive oil and lemon juice and then drying the mixture. Sometime later, the actual stones, which were made of cholesterol, were removed from the woman's gallbladder by a surgeon.'

Peter Moran, MB, BS, BSc (Med): 'The stones are merely bile-stained 'soaps' produced by partial saponification (soap formation) of the oil. A recent demonstration found that mixing equal volumes of oleic acid (the major component of olive oil) and lemon juice produced several semi-solid white balls after a small volume of potassium hydroxide solution was added. After air-drying at room temperature, these balls became quite solid and hard. When formed in the intestine, these objects absorb bile and become green. It has also been shown that red dye will appear in the interior of the 'stones' if consumed with the oil.'

Moran has also used ultrasound images showing the movement through the gallbladder of real gallstones to demonstrate that these 'stones' are not gallstones. He also points out that gallstones sink, and the 'stones' float. He adds: 'Supporters of the flushes claim that although some kinds of stones sink in water, cholesterol stones, being composed of lighter material, will float. That's not true. Cholesterol stones can display some buoyancy while in the gallbladder, but only by floating between the older, concentrated bile lying in the lowest part of the gallbladder and the fresher, less concentrated bile above.' (In other words - not in the toilet!).

So the 'gallstones' people have been so overjoyed to be 'free of' are simply spheres the body has created to deal with all the oil drunk!

EATING CLAY ('MUCOID PLAQUE')

As I've just shown that the evidence of 'cure' in 'liver flushes' is simply the result of ingesting the ingredients of the 'cleanse' itself, I'll show how similar applies with 'cleanses' involving the eating of clay.

The manufacturers claim that this frees the body of 'mucoid plaque'.

Is there such a thing as 'mucoid plaque'?

Dao Earl: 'No, and that has been proven by colonoscopy.
Dr Doug Graham: 'I have spoken to over a dozen surgeons that specialise in intestinal surgery..never once has any of them seen evidence of mucoid plaque.'
Frederic Patenaude: 'Practising physicians have dismissed the concept of mucoid plaque as a hoax. A pathologist at the University of Texas School of Medicine said that he has 'seen several thousand intestinal biopsies and never seen any 'mucoid plaque'.

But...the photo's...

What is it that comes out of people after these 'cleanses'?

Here's a forum contribution from someone who tried such a 'cleanse' (sorry - I have no name, so if you're reading, please let me know who you are!):

'I am currently on day four of the XXX herbs cleanse, and I have been producing stuff that looks like the 'mucoid plaque' described, for the past two days. I started this cleanse very hopeful and open minded. However, doubts have been creeping in, actually since the 'mucoid plaque' stuff has been coming out. This morning, about three hours ago, I mixed a sachet of the toxin absorber, which is basically psyllium husk and bentonite clay, in a little water and have let it sit. It is now exactly the consistency of the 'mucoid plaque' that I have been producing. This has convinced me it is a scam, to be honest. As far as I can see, the toxin absorber (bentonite clay) doesn't shift the plaque - it IS the plaque. It's right here, before my eyes, in this cup. I've decided not to continue with the cleanse. I'm feeling very bunged up and crampy today, and if I thought it was actual mucoid plaque shifting, I wouldn't mind, but I feel like I've just clogged myself up with clay.'

From raw food nutritionist Adam: 'I think the reason the photo's look convincing is because you take the average three-heavy-meals-a-day person whose elimination system moves pretty slowly. Get them to fast for a few days while taking the mucus-lookalike-producing sachets and then start eliminating what seems like tons of accumulated waste, whereas it's probably just last week's dinner plus the sachets. Fear sells. People don't always listen to those who 'make sense' because our whole financial system is based upon marketing (fake) 'solutions' for people's (fake) 'problems'.

Dr Doug Graham: '...if you eat clay, the clay must come back out of you. It combines with the mucus in your intestinal tract [by the way, he also says that the psyllium itself, as an irritant, would form mucus], forming a sludge. Wet clay is excellent for modelling, and readily takes on the shape of its container. Hence, when photo's are taken of the clay inside the intestines, it can appear to look like plaque. When it comes out of the body, it can look like old faecal matter. But it is no more than the clay you ate the day before. It seems people are very easily fooled. Almost, it seems, they want to be fooled.'

EDIT - I recently came across an excellent article on 'mucoid plaque', written in 2004, here.

SO WHY DO PEOPLE OFFER TESTIMONIALS TO 'LIVER FLUSHES', SAYING THAT THEY CHANGED THEIR LIVES?

(I'm returning to 'liver flushes' here, but some of the following would also apply to the 'eating clay' products.)

Because, in many cases, they did experience very pleasant feelings - physically and/or psychologically during the 'flush', and the days spent 'liver flushing' did change their lives, in a positive way, often hugely.

I'll suggest a few reasons why these things could occur:

Stimulant effect

When we ingest something toxic, there is a stimulant effect. The body goes on 'red alert', 'all systems go', marshalling all its resources to cope with, fight, eliminate the invader. That's why we feel stimulated initially (with 'pay-back' later...) when we ingest drugs such as tobacco, alcohol, coffee etc (and to some extent cooked food).

Oil is a fractionated substance that our bodies are fine with when it comes as part of nature's package, ie within whole foods, not so fine with when we have it alone, eg as a salad dressing, and VERY not fine with when we drink a whole cup (or more) of it! Fractionated, unnatural substances in large quantities are toxic, and our bodies will respond accordingly. The enormous energy that the body will muster as its systems rally to cope with all that oil will certainly feel stimulating and may even result in a euphoric 'high'. This can be very pleasurable, and will of course ensure that we make good associations with 'flushes' in memory. However, stimulant effects deceive.

Placebo effect

I know what it's like in the first year of raw. We're pretty much on a 'high' anyway, and feel tremendously excited trying out all sorts of things! We're going to feel quite enthusiastic about doing the 'flush', be thinking quite positively, and, when we act 'as if' we're feeling good...we often do feel good! Also, if we've just paid £100 for the privilege, we will want to feel we're feeling good, and persuade ourselves that we are!!

The 'stones'

If we believe the 'stones' are 'gallstones' we're going to be very elated when we see these things come out of our bottom! Closely related to the placebo effect.

Laxative effect

Natural Hygienist Herbert Shelton: 'As the excess of oil has a laxative effect, the victim of this form of charlatanry and humbuggery often receives temporary relief from abdominal distress. This relief convinces them, also, that their 'stones' have passed.'

Juice diet

The juice-only diet in the days preceding the drinking of oil will in itself have a very positive effect on wellbeing, giving the body a much-needed digestive rest and freeing up energy for detoxification. Just two days freed from the standard diet (or in fact the digestion of any solid food) is a treat for the body.

Introduction to raw food

Often people who try these 'flushes' may, through trying them and similar 'treatments', stumble upon raw food sites, which of course are the real life-changers! (I suppose if I thought that every person on a standard cooked diet having a 'liver flush' would then discover and follow the raw food diet, I'd be saying 'Viva liver 'flushes'', but I'd also hope that they would soon discover articles such as this, and realise that, while they may have been part of an interesting journey to raw food, it's time now to give them the boot!)

LONG TERM USE OF 'LIVER FLUSHES'

I doubt there's any long-term problem caused by doing these things once or twice. A raw food diet can enable the body to bounce back from the various indignities we've subjected it to in the fast.

But I am concerned for those who do them over and over again, who haven't realised that they are fake 'remedies', and have become addicted to the short-term feelings (as described above) of well-being experienced on them.

I remember someone who had done several 'flushes', asking, if the flushes are fake, why after repeated 'cleanses', do fewer 'stones' come out?

Here's a Natural Hygiene explanation of why that might be. When our bodies first encounter a toxin, they will, if reasonably vital, react quickly and dramatically to deal with it. The most vital bodies will vomit out the oil, but the less vital will saponify the oil into balls to expel it. However, as with any toxin, the more we have, the more our bodies will be 'worn down' into 'tolerating' increasingly frequent doses of it, but at great price to our long-term health. Therefore, the ability of the body to quarantine up the oil into little balls will reduce with each flush. This will be enervating to the system, not to mention increasing the amount of fat in our bodies as the body is less able to expel, thereby increasing the chances of our getting real gallstones!

Drinking oil is not a good thing to do. Peter Moran, quoted earlier, has also said in his explanation of why 'liver flushes' are fake, that it is possible that a large oily meal (eg the flush) could stimulate strong gallbladder contraction and that a real gallstone might be expelled amongst all the fake ones.

(This sort of thinking is allied to the idea that if a herbal concoction promotes vomiting, or diarrhoea, or weeing, it is 'cleansing'. Natural Hygiene says that the vomiting, diarrhoea, and/or weeing is simply due to the body's efforts to expel the toxic irritant concoction itself and not 'healing' in any way, and is traumatic and enervating for the body.)

Also, Peter Moran says that even if the ingredients of the 'flush' did stimulate contraction in this way, those who do actually have real gallstones often have impaired ability of the gallbladder to empty anyway. (I'm not sure what the solution is, but it would seem daft to ingest large quantities of fat - the reason for the problems in the first place - in a misguided attempt to 'kickstart' the gallbladder into action.) So, if you do have real gallstones, they're unlikely to come out in a 'flush', and, if you don't have them, as explained - what you're seeing the toilet bowl aren't gallstones.

HOW TO CLEANSE WITHOUT BUYING SO-CALLED 'FLUSHES/CLEANSES'

Just remove the cause of toxicity and your body will do what's necessary to clean up. All by itself.

Liver/gallbladder problems will be due to the standard cooked diet. Raw food teacher Natalia Rose: 'I never recommend using oils therapeutically - there are much better ways to cleanse the organs. The gallbladder cleanses as the whole system cleanses...If you know you have a liver or gall bladder problem [my italics] you know that's from too many cooked proteins and cooked fats - not just in the liver and gallbladder but throughout the body. So you'd want to take a Pritikin-type approach and not only cut out meats and dairy but also limit nuts, seeds, avocados and oils dramatically.'

Herbert Shelton: 'Gallstones, kidney stones, liver stones, pancreas stones, etc, result from perversion of metabolism. The real cure is to restore normal metabolism. Normal metabolism will dissolve the stones. The tendency of an excess of oil is to further impair metabolism. Such treatment does not do good, but may do considerable harm.'

THE TWO ELEMENTS OF 'LIVER FLUSHES' THAT DO TRANSFORM HEALTH, ALL BY THEMSELVES, ARE:

Fasting (no food at all), or (not as good as fasting, but quite good) a juice diet. And to cover myself, if fasting for more than 24 hours, seek advice of suitably-qualified professional etc etc!
Positive thinking

Please don't drink oil or eat clay.

Excellent video from Michael Klaper, MD

2010-06-12T03:41:00.000-07:00

Shortest post to date, but could be the most important one.

Here is the most persuasive video I've ever seen on why we shouldn't be eating animal foods ('health reasons'). Some of you may already be familiar with it, but I hadn't seen it before, so thought I should post it.

A medical doctor explains, in a very watchable, entertaining (and humorous!) way.

I realise many of you are vegetarian, or vegan, but please consider sending the video to people you love who aren't, and prevent them from suffering needlessly.

(PS Yes, it's not about 'raw' as such (he's not a raw foodist, but does at least explain why people should increase their raw percentage), and, yes, he promotes grains (which I'm aware some raw people think are the devil), BUT, for 99% of the population, who aren't, realistically, going to be going raw (at least not this week), this video could nevertheless enormously improve their health!)

Why Do We Eat Chili? Because We're Grown-Ups!

2010-05-31T07:07:00.000-07:00

In the UK, there's a reality TV programme called 'Come Dine With Me', where a group of strangers throw dinner parties for each other and then grade each other's efforts - you may have a syndicated version in your country. Although raw, I'll admit I find this programme a true 'guilty pleasure' (although I do wish someone could tell Dave Lamb, the presenter, that people who don't meat but do eat fish aren't 'vegetarians'!).

Anyhow, on a recent 'Come Dine With Me', one of the guests said how much he detested hot (as in spicy) food. In fact, he did make a Big Fuss about it and, as the programme is, after all, about cooked food, and spices are so prevalent in modern cooking, one does wonder why he agreed to take part in the programme. After an evening in which he left uneaten most of the food prepared for him, and asked how on earth his fellow guests could eat it, one guest answered with some exasperation and rolling of eyes 'because we're grown-ups!' Cue cheers from most of the TV audience, who would most likely have united with the other guests, who had identified him as 'the odd one out', and, because he didn't want to eat chili, was unsophisticated - not a 'grown-up'.

'Because we're grown-ups....!'

Chili is something that, like alcohol and nicotine, (and cooked food), we are averse to the first time in our lives we try it.

Natural Hygienist Mike Benton, writing in the original (Eighties) 'Life Sciences' course, on chili:

'The truth is that cayenne pepper, along with all other hot peppers, chilies, etc, contain harmful alkaloids...when hot peppers are eaten, the body is thrown into an emergency state in an attempt to eliminate the toxic oils and substances in the peppers...All hot peppers contain a poisonous alkaloid called piperidin and a harmful crystalline substance known as piperin. Hot peppers also have acrid resins and volatile oils which irritate the digestive and urinary tracts.'

Generally, when children encounter even a small amount of chili in food for the first time, they feel like their mouths and stomachs are on fire. They don't like it. That is because their bodies are still sufficiently pure and sensitive to detect and react to the harmful substances in chili.

However, with repeated doses (just as with cooked food, just as with any drug), their vibrant little bodies are ground down and literally 'beaten into submission', until... 'an adult who has abused his digestive system for a number of years on a conventional diet merely experiences that momentary burning warning which is the weakened body's signal to avoid the hot pepper.'

The burning sensation is there to tell us 'do not eat'. Clear enough to other mammals, who don't eat chili. But, being human beings, we are forever prey to that devil inside us who likes to pervert the natural, to harm ourselves, to deceive ourself and others, to (it hopes) our ultimate destruction, and it persuades us that it is 'grown-up' and sophisticated to enjoy food with chili.

But this is a lie. As it's not a sign of a developed, or strong, system that the 'tolerance' level for chili (and other toxic substances) is raised, but a sign of a weakened system that has lost the vitality to react.

Herbert Shelton in 'Toleration Means Loss of Vital Resistance' describes it thus:

'If you are not accustomed to using fiery condiments and you undertake to use red pepper, it causes the lips, mouth, tongue and throat to burn intensely. When swallowed, it produces discomfort to the stomach. There is later a feeling of discomfort in the intestine as the irritating pepper passes along. When, finally, it's expelled in the stools, the anus and rectum burn as much as did the mouth when the pepper was swallowed.

Persist in the use of the pepper and its irritating effect grows less and less until, finally, it produces no burning of the mouth and throat, no distress in the stomach and intestine, no burning of the rectum and anus. The membranes of the entire digestive tract become thickened and hardened in defense against the repeated irritation. The protective thickening impairs their other functions. The sense of taste is dulled, digestion is impaired. Doubtless something similar to this takes place in all the tissues of the body that are subjected to chronic irritation by alcohol, tobacco, caffeine, arsenic, opium, salt and other poisons and irritants in common use. They, too, must undergo changes to defend themselves.'

The more chili we eat, the more we abuse our digestive systems. Those with IBS symptoms generally find their symptoms worsen after eating spicy food. The gastric specialist, Franz J Ingelfinger MD, showed that hot and highly seasoned foods harm the stomach lining, adversely affecting our ability to absorb nutrients. (And the sensory nerves, which are affected by the burning sensation caused when eating chili, can become damaged and die on repeated exposure to the alkaloid capsaicin in chili.)

Chili is 'warming'/stimulating

Sure it is. This is because the capsaicin so irritates the body that the heart rate/circulation is increased as the body works hard in order to remove it from the system (perspiration will increase as well). The chili overall acts as a stimulant. Stimulants have the effect they do because the body senses something toxic and goes on 'red alert' (heightened response) and 'all systems go' (feeling of energy, a 'rush') to marshall all bodily resources to eliminate the toxic invader. Nora Lenz: 'These foods are eaten only for the abusive thrill reaction they force upon the body, reactions which are easily mistaken as 'energising' the body when in reality the body is losing its energy stores...'.

So-called 'healing' effects

If our body still retains any vestige of vitality, our noses will run when we eat chili. The hotter the meal, the more they will run. Some have been persuaded that in this way the chili is 'detoxing'. But the reason our noses run is that additional mucus is being produced by the body to protect delicate body tissues from the irritants.

Some extol chili's benefits as an 'antibiotic'. Rather than get into lengthy discussion here, I would say that, sure, if you believe that it's a good thing to take antibiotics with your meals, eat chili - I'm sure it will kill all sorts of things in the digestive tract.

We do see the occasional study that suggests chili may 'cure' this or that. One recently showed that chili 'attacks' cancer cells. However, not only was the Cancer Research UK organisation reserved with their comments ('This research does not suggest that eating vast quantities of chilli pepper will help prevent or treat cancer.'), but even if eating large quantities did reduce cancer cells, what price this for the harm it would be doing to our bodies in other ways? Drugs (and by that I mean anything toxic to our bodies) don't cure. They suppress one symptom whilst getting up to mischief elsewhere. The only way to remove illness (if it's not too late to) is to remove the cause of the illness.

So why do people eat chili?

They eat it because, like so many things, they've been seduced into eating it by the 'grown-ups', and, after initial resistance, have accustomed themselves to it, and, like other drugs, have come to enjoy it - some to the extent that their tastebuds have become perverted and, sadly, food without chili (ie the pure, the natural, the unadulterated) is seen as 'bland'.

Some eat it for the 'kick'. They have come to enjoy and long for that feeling of stimulation as described earlier - the feeling of the body 'under challenge' as they eat. But as with all cases of ingestion of toxic substances for titillation, for kicks, there will be 'payback' in the long term from the cumulative effect of abuse of the digestive systems.

Raw people who use chili are still 'in transition' from cooked food. Yes, even those who have been 100% raw for 20 years. I have chili occasionally - perhaps every 1-2 months at raw food restaurants, and in the occasional kale and avo salad, and this is evidence that I haven't yet totally rid myself of the addiction to the titillation, to the kick of toxic substances that characterised my old cooked diet. I don't beat myself up about this (see my last article 'Enjoy the Raw Food Diet'), as I'm 'on the journey' myself and not 'there' yet, but let's see our clinging to these substances as what it is, rather than trying to fool ourselves.

Chili and the Chainsaw Massacre

When we eat chili, we are inflicting violence on our bodies. If we do it repeatedly, that sensitivity - the signals that tell us good from bad - cease to operate effectively.

Think of those other substances that we instinctively disliked as children but are then persuaded by our role models that we should have them, eat them more and more frequently until there are no longer any (apparent) adverse effects, finding we can 'tolerate' larger and larger quantiies as time goes on. They're always substances that are toxic to us.

We've started to twig that that figure of manhood from days gone by - the man who can 'take his liquor' - is in fact a tragic figure, that the reason he can drink large quantities of alcohol without the body (in the immediate instance at least) exhibiting the effects is because the body has lost the vitality to react. As Robert Rust explains: 'The body has been forced to choose a slower road to death via toleration rather than a quick one by maintaining sensitivity.'

Most people, when they first see a fictional murder on TV or in a film, are upset, are affected. But, for many, repeated exposure anaesthetises until the violence has less and less effect, until a TV drama seems dull without it, and there is a search through the TV schedules for the titillation/shock element (in heavier doses) for 'entertainment'.

Is comparing chili with the Texas Chainsaw Massacre a bit OTT? Well, maybe, but this article isn't really about chili. It's about what 'grown-ups' do. When our devious minds (and the minds of others) persuade us, through their flattery, through their lies, that we should do something that is harmful to us, physically and/or psychologically, and we come to repeat that action until we get to the point where we can no longer detect the harm it is doing us, we will pay a price, with our bodies, with our spirits.

Chili because we're 'grown-ups'?

We can't be children again. But raw food can help us regain the innate knowledge we had as children, and still have, but has been hitherto hidden in a mass of confusion. We can start to see the 'grown-up' world as it really is - a world of deception.

And when we understand that, when we can see again, we can turn from the world of the 'grown-ups', and, armed with that precious gift of knowledge, can start on the journey towards truly growing up.

Enjoy The Raw Food Diet!

2010-05-03T05:09:00.000-07:00

I had such fun in my first year of raw! I ate all sorts of things as long as they were technically, theoretically...(at a pinch?) 'raw', and vegetarian/vegan. I watched various health problems melt away...I felt excited, exhilarated - on a raw 'high'!

I discovered Natural Hygiene. The simplicity, the logic, made absolute sense to me, and out went the dehydrated foods, the 'superfoods', the complex raw-food-pretending-to-be-cooked 'abombo-combo' dishes, making way for a love affair with fruit that has never abated!

At time of writing I've been raw for three and a half years. And '100%/close to' for all but the first few months. But...about eighteen months into my raw food journey, I had a period in which the list of 'non-optimal' foods that I felt I should prohibit myself from eating seemed to be growing daily with my reading, and, as well as feeling anxious about my food, I had fallen into the trap (that, ironically, so many cooked-food eaters are in) of having my life revolve around food, with every day full of dilemmas as to whether I should or shouldn't eat something, and what the consequences for my body would be.

Raw fooders by definition are people who hold themselves to very high standards, and we're generally enthusiastic 'all or nothing' types. The problem is that, if we push ourselves beyond the point we're ready to go to too quickly, placing too many restrictions on ourselves too soon, we can get to the point where we actually deserve the much misused term 'orthorexia' that cooked-food eaters love to apply to those following healthy diets, and in our constant worrying and ruminating can become poor advertisements for raw food.

There seems to be a downer/dilemma attached to just about everything that's a candidate for the raw fooder's gullet.

Have you ever denied yourself raw food you've desired because you've been worrying about one (or more...) of these?

AVOCADO 'I must only have half as Raw Food Teacher A says a whole one is too much.'
THE OTHER HALF OF THE AVOCADO 'Oh no - can't have it now. It's...oxidised!'
AVOCADO 'Maybe I shouldn't have it at all. People on the forum I like say it's 'clogging'.'

BANANA 'Mustn't eat it because my forum buddies say it's unripe unless covered with blotches/spots.'

BEETROOT 'Raw Food Teacher B says we shouldn't eat it as it's a high-sugar hybrid.'

CUT BAGGED SALAD. 'Hmm...would be so easy. But it's probably washed in chlorine.'

BRASSICAS 'Possible link with thyroid disorders?'

FRUIT 'Can only have x pieces a day as Raw Food Teacher C says any more is bad for us.'
FRUIT 'Can't buy that; it's not organic.'
FRUIT 'Can't buy those; they're not Fairtrade.'
FRUIT 'Can't buy those; they're not local.'
FRUIT 'Can't buy those; they're flown in.'
(CITRUS) FRUIT 'Can't have any more of those; could be bad for my teeth.'
(DRIED) FRUIT. (Ditto above.)

FLAX CRACKERS 'Shouldn't have dehydrated food.'

GARLIC 'Hmm...Debbie Took's article was quite persuasive and it said...no.'

HERBS 'Can't have those as toxic and, anyway, we shouldn't eat anything 'we can't make a meal of'.

JUICE 'Raw Food Teacher D says we shouldn't juice, as fibre and other nutrients are lost.'

LACUMA 'It's a powder, and powder isn't food.'

MUSHROOMS 'Shouldn't eat them as they're a fungus.'

NUTS 'Shouldn't eat them as Raw Food Teacher E says they're difficult to digest and not 'optimal'.

NUTS. They're dried...should only eat them from the tree in my garden when in season (er - me recently!)

NUT BUTTER 'Can't have that as it's not fresh, and it's processed.'

PUMPKIN SEEDS 'Can't have those as already had 10% fat today.'

OIL 'Can't have that as it's a fractionated food.'

OLIVES 'Can't have those as they've been salted.'

ONIONS 'Natural Hygiene says they're not food for us.'

RAWGOURMET FOOD 'Transition food' is only for beginners! 'Transition foods' are high in fat. 'Transition food' will drive you back to cooked food.' (Etc.)

ROMAINE LETTUCE 'I musn't eat it today, as I have to 'rotate my greens'.

ROOT VEG 'Perhaps shouldn't eat as once pulled from the ground the plant can't continue growing.'

SEA VEG 'Can't have that as I'm vegan and minute sea creatures get caught in the harvesting.'

SMOOTHIE 'Raw Food Teacher F says 90% of the nutrients are lost in blending.'

SPICES 'Can't have those - toxic stimulants.'

SPINACH 'Can't have too much as could be too much oxalic acid.'

SPROUTS 'Those following the diet I aspire to say they're 'pointless'.'

TOMATOES/PEPPERS 'They're 'nightshades'...'

SPROUTED WHEAT 'My forum buddies think grains are the devil.'

AAAAARRRRRGGGGGHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I'm not going to give my own views as to the validity of any of the statements above. Regular readers will know that I've planted a few of the 'downers' as above in my own articles. Suffice to say that some I agree with, and others I very much disagree with!

But, if this article has caught you at a point somewhere between the 'honeymoon' phase of the raw food diet and men in white coats knocking on the door, I do hope it will turn things around for you!

When I found myself, in that second summer, in a place where the raw food diet was making me feel anxious, I made some changes.

I stayed raw, but relaxed a little within the raw food diet. (I don't recommend that anyone relax into eating more cooked food - I've seen that happen with others too often to be convinced that it is anything other than the road back to ill health!)

When attending raw food potlucks, instead of taking fruit and leaves and eating nothing of others' offerings (feeling a little smug wearing my Natural Hygiene 'hat') I decided that I would instead partake of the various things on offer - cacao (toxic stimulant), fermented foods (that fizz - I'm sure we shouldn't be eating them!), nut/fruit pies (sure-fire recipe for 'football tummy'), dehydrated cookies, all sorts of weird concoctions.

When I went to California, as well as returning to our holiday home laden with piles of fruit and the most amazing romaine lettuces I'd ever tasted from farmers' markets, I partook of the rawgourmet cuisine out there with gusto! I tried packaged 'Leaf Cuisine' rawgourmet, visited well-known raw food restaurants, and ate dehydrated, salty food, because...I wanted to tick them off on my list of raw food restaurants 'experienced', wanted to take my husband, and because...they were fun! Places where raw food people gather have a buzz around them that always gives me a high, whatever the variant of raw food is on offer.

This relaxation within the raw food diet rejuvenated me. I've never looked back, and two years later am still very happily raw. If you can identify with any of this, whether you've been raw for months, years, decades, I hope my experience here can help. As I know of some people who didn't just spend a few weeks feeling anxious like I did, but have spent years feeling this way, and who, I believe, may well benefit from retracing steps a little before going forward again.

Let's remind ourselves of how far we've come.

Anyone who's following a Natural Hygiene-oriented raw food diet (which is how I describe mine) is light years from the standard cooked diet of the previous life.

Years of conditioning on a damaged, multi-ingredient cooked food diet dies hard. For most people, going raw is in itself such a huge step that restricting ourselves too soon within raw can backfire.

If eating 'less-than-optimal' raw food helps you enjoy your raw food diet more, go for it!

Oil, for example, is not an ideal food. Ideally we should be eating our salad without it. But a while ago, after visiting VitaOrganic in Wardour St, London W1, I developed a passion for huge crunchy brassica salads. I'd had such a lovely day in Soho and I had a psychological urge to recreate the meal I'd had there. I missed out the apple cider vinegar (for me that would be going too far!), but dressed my salad with cold-pressed sesame oil and lime juice, and...a little salt, which again, we should NOT be putting into our bodies - see my article on this!).

Sure, there's a valid and logical Natural Hygiene argument that says we should be able to eat foods without adornments and that these can pervert the tastebuds resulting in our being unable to enjoy food in its pure natural state. However....I cut myself some slack there and greatly enjoyed crunchy salads for several weeks. After a few servings, I cut out the salt! I'm not so enthusiastic about them now, but perhaps at that time my body was very much welcoming a particular nutrient abundant in red cabbage, cauliflower and broccoli!

Food is not the only thing that affects our health

So you went to a raw food picnic and had dehydrated cookies. But you spent three hours sitting in the fresh air, in the sun and interacting with other raw fooders! Sure, you could have stayed indoors mono-eating grapes. Which is better?

We can eat more avocado than someone else might consider 'optimal', go out for an hour and smile at everyone we meet, improving our mental well-being, not to mention that of others. Or we could spend that time furiously hammering the keyboard in a bid to convince someone on a raw food forum who happens to follow a raw food diet different from ours of the errors of their ways.

Raw food leaders are often more relaxed with their diets than their followers

I remember asking Dr Doug Graham ('80/10/10 Diet') whether he would be taking his own food to a party at SAF (London rawgourmet/vegan restaurant) recently. SAF food is just about as far from the high-fruit and leaves 811 diet that it is possible to get. He said no, that he would be having an '811 holiday' that day. Doug follows the policy that's it's the lifestyle you lead most of the time that is key to state of health.

I've seen 811 adherents on forums tell others firmly that herbs and spices such as basil, rosemary, cinnamon etc weren't '811'. In that case, someone should tell Doug that, as he enjoys them all.

(I'm using Doug as an example here only because he's the raw food leader I know the best. I also believe he has an integrity that certain other raw food leaders lack, and I've found he is upfront and honest about his (excellent) diet.)

Raw food leaders are fallible human beings

If a raw food leader has firmly told you that x or y is the way to go (or not go), that it is 'impossible' to be successfully long-term raw if you eat 'x', or 'impossible' to be successfully long-term raw if you don't eat 'x', please don't believe them! Because there are thousands (possibly hundreds of thousands) who are living contradictions of these diktats!

Also, however authoritatively your raw food leader talks, there will be other raw food leaders of equal intelligence, experience and love for their fellow-men and women that will feel differently.

And the raw food diet that your raw food leader promotes is just one variant of the raw food diet - the variant that they have come to prefer. I love a high-fruit diet myself but can see from the evidence of those thriving on other sorts of raw food diet that it is not the 'only way'.

Do we pay a price for eating 'less than optimal' foods?

For sure. Whenever we ingest a toxin (eg salt), or alter a food so that it is significantly different from the natural (eg dehydration) or mix lots of different foods that were never meant to be eaten together (eg foods from different parts of the world), we must surely pay a price. For me, it would not be logical to think otherwise.

But, if our overall vitality is high ('nerve-energy' in Natural Hygiene parlance) our bodies should be able to manage occasional transgressions. For example, if we eat salty poor food combinations at raw food restaurants, we may experience symptoms later. We may feel thirsty. We may get a tummy-ache. We may get gas. If we only partake of these foods occasionally I believe (OK, I'm hoping!) that there will be short-term eliminative symptoms only. If we ate these sorts of foods every day we could assume a greater and more long-term negative effect on our health. But occasional short-term symptoms from partaking infrequently should simply 'remarry' us to the sorts of raw foods we know we feel best on. We may find ourselves consuming a far higher proportion of fruit and leaves in the days to come than we would have done otherwise. When we are raw, I think we can trust our bodies to set up desires which will 'even things out.'

So...

if you really feel like papayas, but are denying yourself because they're not organic, because they'll have to ripen in the kitchen rather than under the sun, because they've been flown in...buy those delicious papayas - your body's crying out for them! If you feed your body what it desires rather than what your mind (or a raw food teacher, or those on a raw food forum) tell you you should or shouldn't, you'll feel all the better for it and be far better equipped to change the world/persuade supermarket managers to stock organic papayas etc!

If right now you have a desire for some raw food that you've prohibited because you do believe it's 'not ideal', consider having some! Have a whale of a time eating all sorts of raw foods you've denied yourself. My experience is that it will not 'open the floodgates' but in fact will more likely make you appreciate even more the sort of food you like to eat most of the time.

It can be hard on the ego (I do know!) to admit that perhaps we've pushed ourselves just a little further than we were ready to go. It may mean some loss of face on your favourite NH/811 raw food forum to say that, yes, you went to Euphoria RawRevolution yesterday, had 'sunburgers' and enjoyed them! But, actually, at the end of the day, other people worry less about your diet than you do, and so what if someone gives you a 'ticking off'!

If you are fine eating whole mono foods only, have been doing so for twenty years, then this article is not for you. However, for the remaining 99% of my readers...if you at any time find you're kicking against self-imposed shackles, I suggest retreat a little, regroup and make further 'improvements' (and, as discussed, that can be a subjective thing!) only when you wholeheartedly want to make them.

*****

I now follow a policy of eating whole, unprocessed foods in simple combinations most of the time.
But I reserve the right to eat virtually any plant food raw, in any quantity I fancy, as long as it's not been heat-damaged. On a close-to-100% raw food diet, that's as far as I want to go right now while I turn my attention to non-food aspects of my lifestyle, the improvement of which could improve my health far more than cutting down on pumpkin seeds could.

I do aim for 'purist' - it's a goal. It is a sin, however small we might like to persuade ourselves it is (and you can see in this article that I do my share of that!), to fall beneath the standards we know we can achieve and our bodies will manifest the consequences of our transgressions from what is perfect. But let's remember how far we've come, and continue to improve, but only at a rate that we feel happy with. Our 'inner selves'/'higher power'/the universe/God will give us a shove when we need to move on again, and when that happens we will be given the strength to find it easy to take a few more steps forward. We need to distinguish between that direction, direction we can trust, from the perplexing and sometimes destructive stuff our minds can get up to from listening to the opinions of other human beings.

It's this policy - of having a great time enjoying all sorts of raw foods, of (at least this point in my raw food journey) not placing too many restrictions on myself within raw, that has enabled me to stay raw now for three and a half years, without any cooked food cravings, without ever 'falling off the wagon'.

It's this policy that enables me to enjoy the raw food diet, and stay...rawforlife!

'I Know She Wrote An Article On.... (But Where?)'

2010-04-26T22:48:00.000-07:00

This might help!

Firstly, I've put a 'Search' facility on the blog - will certainly help me! Top right hand column.

Secondly, a list of past articles for your consideration. To go to the article, just go to relevant year, then month in the Archive box on the right column of the blog and select article from drop-down menu.

And can I just say, as I don't have time to re-read every one of my articles, that you might find the odd thing written in an old article that seems strange from what you know of me now! Do let me know if anyhing seems very out of place. But be comforted by the fact that if I've changed my mind radically about something, I will probably have edited the article!

2008

Jan 08
The Olive - 'One Of The Most Perfect Foods'
Feb 08
Drink Your Greens! (green juice)
F-reezing
Omega 3 - Not Just From Fish
Mar 08
Best Water On The Planet - Free!
How to Make Nut Milk
Are Some Foods 'Better For Us' Cooked?
April 08
Wheat Pt 1 (Raw, Sprouted Wheat)
Wheat Pt 2 (How To Make Essene Bread)
May 08
How Many Raw Foods Do We Need For a 'Balanced' Diet?
The Future Is....(ode to oranges)
June 08
24 Hour Water Fasting
Mono Eating
July 08
Where Do You Get Your...Calcium?
Raw Food And Hayfever
Eat Locust (Move Over Cacao) (carob)
Aug 08
Do Raw Fooders' Poos Smell Of Roses?
But People Have Always Cooked Food...
'Anti' Supplements? Why?
Oct 08
How Long Do Raw Fooders Live?
Blending - Pros and Cons
Nov 08
The Breakfast Trap
Yes, You Can Stay Raw This Winter.
Dec 08
One Thing You Didn't Know About Fruit
Where Do You Get Your...Protein?
Grey Hair - A Diet Connection

Jan 09
'Healthy Cooked Food' - A Contradiction In Terms
Feb 09
Fool For Fruit Pt 1 - The Fruit Warners
Fool for Fruit Pt 2 - Too Much Of A Good Thing?
Mar 09
Fool for Fruit Pt 3 - Should Fruit Eating Carry A Health Warning?
Juicing - Pros and Cons
April 09
Spinach And The Oxalic Acid Thing
Periods - They May Be Normal, But Are They Healthy?
May 09
Mellifluous Melons
Where Do You Get Your...Iron?
June 09
Why Did T C Fry Die 'So Young'?
Herbs - Yea Or Nay? Pt 1 Herbal Medicine
July 09
Herbs - Yea Or Nay? Pt 2 Flavourings, Fragrances
Aug 09
But I'm Hungry!
Sept 09
Salt - Pt 1
Salt - Pt 2
Oct 09
The 'Danger' Of Not Supplementing For Vitamin D
Nov 09
Are You A Nutter?
Nuts - Eat Fresh, Eat Raw
Dec 09
Teeth And The High Fruit Raw Food Diet
Jan 10
'Breast Cancer Cannot Be Prevented.' Discuss.
Feb 10
Garlic - The Less Popular View
Mar 10
Debbie Does B12 Pt 1
Apr 10
Debbie Does B12 Pt 2
I Know She Wrote An Article on... (But Where?)

Love, Debbie Took
http://www.rawforlife.co.uk/

Debbie Does B12 Pt 2 (Dilemmas)

2010-04-05T05:50:00.000-07:00

Whether to be vegetarian, or vegan... I've always been a vacillator, on the fence....Just prior to going raw I was vegan - indeed, I came across a raw food site for the first time 'by accident' when looking for vegan recipes. Then when I went raw I decided to be raw vegetarian, that is, include a little unpasteurised milk/cheese every few weeks or so. Then I had a period in which I just couldn't decide (although ate very little dairy), which culminated in my going for raw vegan, which is the diet I had followed 100% for fifteen months prior to these articles. I'd intended to continue being vegan as long as all seemed well. I hadn't taken any supplements, as, being Natural Hygiene-oriented, my policy had always been broadly anti-supplementation (see Aug 08 article for why), although, where B12 was concerned, I'd always admitted I wasn't sure, and that that could be the one exception.

In Pt 1 here I described how I'd had a couple of 'symptoms' that might have been nothing to do with B12, but, as they had occurred in a week when it was a hot topic (again!) on the 30Bananas forum, I had decided it was time I had my B12 tested.

The test included iron, calcium and folate/B9, and, to my relief (since I have written about the first two!) I was fine on these. But I wasn't fine on B12. It was lower than the lowest end of the normal range. A further test indicated that I was OK for 'intrinsic factor'. My B12 result was a great motivation to spend a little time going through the considerable amount of information I'd collected about B12 over the years, but had always baulked at the time needed to do so!

In Part 1 I discussed B12 in general - what it is, how much we need, where it can be found on various sorts of diet, 'absorption issues', and what can happen if we are deficient. And I decided I was not sufficiently brave (or foolhardy - depending on who you listen to) to write off all the potential perils of B12 deficiency as scaremongering and that I would be taking steps to raise my B12 level.

So what were my options?

1. Stay raw vegan, unsupplemented, and try to raise my B12 level within those parameters.

2. Stay raw vegan, but supplement for B12.

3. Switch to raw vegetarian.

The first part of the article was 'informational'. This part is more personal; it's mostly describing my dilemma between options 2 and 3, what I did, and what I then did.

THE OPTIONS

1. Stay raw vegan, unsupplemented

One way I could raise my B12 level without supplementation is to eat more of my food a) organic and b) unwashed. Here in the UK I grow quite a lot of food in the summer and we have a good fruit harvest in the early Autumn. So for a few months of the year I eat lots of food straight from the garden, mostly unwashed, with bacteria and no doubt minute insect matter clinging to it. But we're talking 50% of the year at most. For the rest of the year I have to rely on shop-bought food. I probably eat 60-70% of my food organic - the snag with loving tropical fruit like papayas and pineapples is that it is difficult to obtain organic locally - certainly in the winter. Also, the organic food I do buy is often washed. Even a water wash would destroy much of the matter on the plant foods that could manufacture B12 for me. (I did read that when fruit bats are brought into captivity and fed store-bought fruit they develop B12 deficiency. No source - can someone supply it?). But, nevertheless, I will be making an effort to increase my organic percentage and eat my food as far as possible in its natural state. (This is helped by the fact that a local organic retailer has just opened shop five minutes down the road from me!). I'll also be thinking about eating more fruit that can be eaten peel-intact, as I can't quite see how fruit such as bananas, melons etc could contribute to our B12, even if organic, as, because they are eaten without peel, they are effectively sterile.

Another possible way of righting my B12 level without supplementation would be to undertake a long-term fast, as Natural Hygiene literature includes case studies of B12 levels righting themselves through fasting, when the body, freed from the onslaught of food, can devote its energies to healing. The problem here is that, although I've undertaken several 24-hour fasts and two 3-day fasts, a longer fast would need supervision, and, right now, I'm not able to justify the time or expense to do that. (Some reading will say that if we really want to do something, we can always find the ways and means. What would I say to that? I would say that you are right.)

Fasting aside, I think it unlikely that I could raise my B12 level significantly just by eating a little more organic food while living in suburban Reading, UK. If I lived in a part of the world where I could live off the land all year round (with a source of drinking water not chemically treated - see Pt 1) I might feel more confident.

Option 2 - Stay raw vegan, but supplement for B12

B12 supplementation is most commonly found in tablet form. There are two types of supplemental B12: methylcobalamin and cyanocobalamin. The 'methyl' type is best, as the 'cyan' type has to be converted by the body into the active form, which is...methylcobalamin!

B12 tablets are best dissolved or at least chewed rather than crunched/swallowed, to increase the percentage absorbed. Some manufacturers call their tablets 'sublingual lozenges'. Having bought some of these on line, I can tell you that this is just a fancy name for....tablets Put them under your tongue and they do eventually dissolve, but it takes a while.

Dosage - I've found it very unsettling that different authorities - mainstream medical and alternative, and different manufacturers, recommend such radically different doses. I've seen 500 mcg a week recommended. I've seen 2000 mcg daily recommended! The tablets/lozenges are generally 1000-5000 mcg a go when the daily RNI is 1.5 mcg - the rationale for such huge doses as compared with the RNI is that only a fraction of what we ingest in supplemental form is absorbed and/or people who are low/deficient need a 'bump start', etc.

The tablets always contain a few things additional to the B12. That's necessary for it to be ingestible in tablet form. For example, they almost all (possibly all) contain magnesium stearate, which is used in the processing to prevent particles from sticking to machinery. Magnesium stearate has been shown in large doses to be toxic to the liver and cause skin damage. We have to ask ourselves if we want that in our body in 'small' doses.

If there are 'absorption issues' (explained in Pt 1), then B12 taken orally won't do much good, if any, as the B12 ingested won't be absorbed from the digestive system into the blood. In these cases, B12 injections could be the answer, as the B12 would then bypass the mechanism of absorption.

However, although these may be the only option for those with B12 deficiency and absorption issues, I'm a little concerned at the current fashion for having B12 shots, especially by those who have not had a low B12 reading, but are taking them simply for the 'rush of energy', the 'high' reported by athletes, opera singers about to go on stage, etc! Now to me this says 'stimulant', and stimulants work because the body is on 'red alert', 'all systems go', marshalling its energies to try to eliminate substances it doesn't want! This could be something in the shots apart from the B12, or it could be the size of the dose. In true cases of deficiency, where every effort has been made by other means to tackle the cause of the absorption problems, it could be that any negatives may be cancelled out, but surely those with a 'normal' B12 count, or even a low B12 count but with no evidence of absorption problems, shouldn't be taking shots?

Option 3 - Switch to raw vegetarian

Many of my arguments here are subjective, and I expect them not to have validity for some readers. For some (whether raw vegetarian or raw vegan), there is no dilemma. For me, there always has been, as, although I am convinced that we should not be murdering animals and feasting on their corpses, I have never been convinced that 'dairy' is always, in every circumstance, wrong.

I expect a few 'unsubscribes' after publication of this article, but hope that the majority of those who disagree with me here will not feel that from this point on nothing else I write can ever be of interest to them again.

Whilst on a vegan diet, I have always said that, if I moved to a Greek island, and lived next to someone who kept goats for milk, and was offered some feta cheese, made from the fresh unpasteurised milk of a happy goat milked by human hands (after she had met her kids' demands), I would switch to raw vegetarian at the drop of a hat. Re full breasts, the discomfort that can result, and 'relief', I have tried twice to write here about my own experiences when breastfeeding, but have deleted as...perhaps too much information!). Goats are not known for doing things they don't want to do, and, provided a goat is hand-milked, it can obviously easily signal its willingness or not to give its milk. The awkward bit came for me when I had to admit that, in Reading, UK, this scenario did not exist, and the raw goats' milk I was buying would be coming from goats attached to milking machines. Such a contraption would not only surely be uncomfortable for the goat, but would make it much less likely that a goat could signal its aquiescence, or otherwise!

One major motivation for my going raw was the Essene diet. This was raw vegetarian rather than vegan. However, in those days, the milk the Teacher referred to as being a good food for us would almost certainly have been collected via hand-milking. As it was described as food for man for just one month of the year, although it wasn't prohibited at other times, this would suggest that we should not be consuming anything like the amount of dairy the average person in the UK consumes. Also, in Essene times it would not have been consumed at the expense of the kids - it would have been surplus only (which perhaps explains the seasonal reference).

Some sources say that the Essenes had fermented dairy, eg yogurt, kefir; in fermented dairy the lactose that gives some digestive problems is pre-digested by the fermentation process (although, unfortunately, according to the Vegetarian Society B12 can be destroyed in fermentation!). Other sources conflict with this by stating that the Essenes never drank 'fermented liquids' (although this could be referring to alcohol). Incidentally, the Essene Gospel of Peace makes it clear that any milk drunk should be fresh, ie unpasteurised/raw - it describes an incident in which a serpent (the devil) was attracted by the smell of heated milk. I've always found this interesting as, when a child, I would not drink pasteurised cows' milk, detested the smell of heated milk (my Dad used to have it 'for his ulcer') and, weirdly, had nightmares about my parents dying in which I could smell heated milk.

Many of the raw fooders/Natural Hygienists that I admire, and that have influenced my thinking, were raw vegetarian rather than raw vegan. One of the most famous Natural Hygienists of last century - Herbert Shelton, and Doctors Norman W Walker ('Becoming Younger') and Ann Wigmore (founder of Hippocrates Institute), all included raw dairy of some sort in their diets, although never advocated the consumption of high amounts of pasteurised cows' milk. Of course that's not to say they couldn't have done better without dairy. That's something we can never know.

No other animal drinks milk after it's been weaned, and no other animal drinks the milk of another species. This is quite true, and an excellent argument for veganism that surely can't be disputed. Or can it? When the human being is described as simply one more species of animal, albeit a more 'developed' one, to justify anything, eg aggression, sexual behaviour, diet, it is just possible that we are falling into a trap, as the human being is unlike 'all other animals' in many respects. To list all of them would require a separate article, but here are a few: we laugh, we cry, we create (not just for reproduction or shelter), we wander all over the globe (we don't stay in one habitat or migrate along pre-determined lines), we symbolise...Whether by evolution, accident or design, the human being is different from 'all other animals' and I won't discount the possibility (and the irony) that big-headed, 'clever', 'powerful' man may actually be reliant, that is, dependent on animals! The 'Anastasia' books (Ringing Cedars Press), although fictional, suggest gently that animals may even want to serve man, and here 'serve' is used in the most positive and beautiful sense, in the way that we might serve our fellow-men. Could it be possible that when we then abuse their trust, their natural love for us, by eg killing them, factory-farming them, (or damaging their milk via pasteurisation) we pay a price, via their aggression, and via disease? (Edit - on a forum recently when I said that human beings are different from 'other animals' I was misunderstood - I am not saying we are 'superior'!! Animals live perfectly in accordance with nature. We often choose not to, and have to bear the responsibility for that.)

Although high consumption of pasteurised dairy is linked with illnesses such as asthma and breast cancer, these diseases are almost unknown in relatively healthy, long-lived communities such as the Abkhasians, Vilcabambans (John Robbins' 'Healthy at 100'), who consume a little, raw, dairy. The dairy consumed by such communities is often goats' which is closer in composition to human milk than cows'; it's more alkaline and, according to Dr Norman W Walker, less acid-forming.

One practical problem with raw milk is that it is quite difficult to obtain. It's sometimes available covertly at farmers' markets, or direct from farms, and a couple of suppliers sell it online. However, some (most?) farms are also sending the animals off to slaughter for meat. So it may be difficult to obtain raw milk without supporting those who are killing animals.

Raw cheese is more widely available. Two problems here (apart from links to the meat industry as above). Firstly, the cheese may not be so raw...I think regulations in the US still require the milk to be heated to 60C - unsure about the situation in UK. Whilst this is not as hot as pasteurisation (almost boiling point), it's way past the 'raw' cut-off point. Also, I believe that unpasteurised cheese has to be 'aged' for two months, which is why raw cheese is so often the stinky kind, making it a (particularly?) unnatural product for us, and of course is usually quite high in sodium chloride used in processing. This sort of cheese, whilst it may be labelled 'raw' or 'unpasteurised', is likely a long way from the fresh cheese consumed by the cultures previously mentioned.

I should at this point briefly mention eggs as a source of B12, as some raw food vegetarians do eat these and some (eg Frederic Patenaude) consume these whilst not consuming dairy. One ethical argument in favour is that hens will lay lots of unfertilised eggs (they do - we used to keep them) and that other creatures will surely eat them if we don't, but...I tend to go by the Natural Hygiene principle that something is food for us if we find it atractive, and raw eggs...just don't do it for me. Also, when hens are bred for egg-laying, what happens to the unwanted male chicks? So, for me, eggs aren't an option.

WHAT I DID

After a few days of 'crisis', taking everything into account, I decided that, at least in 2010, morally, the raw vegan diet trumped the raw vegetarian, and that I would stay raw vegan, but take a B12 supplement. I 'announced' this to 30Bananas, the raw food forum I frequented most. However, I do think that my decision might have been influenced by the fact that my ego rather enjoyed the 'public approval' I received. And it felt good that I could remain a member of 'the vegan club'. When I felt shaky, and felt conflict between principles of Natural Hygiene, my allegiance to Essene principles, and my supplement-taking, I buoyed myself up by reminding myself that there were other raw vegans who-did-not-generally-believe-in-supplements-with-the-exception-of-B12 - it always feels good to have a little 'support' from others for our decisions.

So, I took the supplement, twice a week, for several weeks.

And I....

hated it.

The 'Xylitol', the 'lemon flavor', the magnesium stearate and the rest of them...immaterial of whether the label proclaimed them to be 'of vegetable origin', I just don't want these isolated, unnatural substances in my body (which would also be likely to be the case for powders, potions, 'drops' etc).

Also, I bought the lowest-dosage 'lozenges' I could find - 1000 mcg. The label proudly proclaims I'm taking nearly seventeen thousand times my B12 RNI in one go. Doesn't quite match with my maths on a 1.5 mcg RNI, but seventeen thousand times, seven hundred times,whatever...I'm not reassured that, to date, 'no scientific evidence' has been found to show such doses are harmless. With increasing regularity nowadays we find scientific studies to show that various vitamin tablets people have been encouraged to take in high quantities ('mega' doses) in the past have not been improving their health, but the very opposite.

AND WHAT I'M DOING NOW

So I tried. I wrestled with the issues, I had plumped for vegan, but after a month, I knew there's no way I'm going to be swallowing these things for ever more. Every fibre of my being militates against it.

I'm neither happy with consuming the milk of goats attached to milking machines that may come from a farm rearing animals for meat. But neither am I happy with taking supplementation. But...neither am I happy with (very) 'low' B12. And, of the two options described above, although they're certainly 'a rock and a hard place', I'm 'less unhappy' with dairy than I am with supplementation.

*****

The next step? In two months' time I will retest for B12, to see whether a month of supplementation followed by two months of dairy, has made a difference to the level. If not, I'll investigate factors that might be affecting absorption (although my 'intrinsic factor' test result was OK).

Did I feel any 'better' after a month of B12 supplementation? No, I felt fine before, and still felt fine after. Did I feel any better after having some raw cheese? As with the supplementation, not a jot of difference. And have the 'symptoms' that I described at the beginning of Pt 1 abated? Well, I haven't had any more strange mental turns! But that was just one occurrence, so only the daft would say 'ah, B12 deficiency!' Waking with pins and needles? It's still happening. Perhaps I'd better ease off on the knitting.

(IMPORTANT! POSTSCRIPT)

After finding one place in the whole of the UK that produced mild raw goats' cheese, and after enjoying it for a few weeks, I decided to stop sticking my neck in the sand and enquire as to what happened to the male kids. I was assured that all their goats led happy lives (of course...) and that the male kids were...killed. One method apparently was to hit them hard against a rock. I am ashamed of myself for not having enquired earlier, and will stop buying the cheese. I'm very, very sorry, and it looks as if my foray (again) into dairy will now be ending. Which means unless I can find some source that doesn't involve killing (highly unlikely) I will be reverting to vegan again! And taking the b_____ supplement! It's the lesser of two evils.

Regular readers, who generally find me confident and resolute (well, most of the time?), will note that I have, to date, been unable to resolve the B12 situation satisfactorily.

And there we will have to leave it!

PPS 24.5.10 (Well, not quite leaving it there...)

As I've mentioned in the articles, I'd had a test for 'intrinsic factor' which indicated to me that I didn't have an absorption problem in that regard. However, I did still worry a little that, being an old hag who had followed a standard digestive-system-abusing diet for many years prior to raw, I might still have 'compromised' my digestion in some way, that is some other 'absorption issue'. HOWEVER...I've now had a follow-up blood test, three months after the reading of 159 that was below the lowest end of the 'acceptable' range. Having ingested B12 via dairy and supplementation, my B12 level has now risen to 220. This supports there not being any absorption issues with me - looks as if the low figure was simply due to not ingesting enough B12, and previous supplies from a diet several years previously had run down - simple as that.

I'll continue to have my blood tested annually. Like many other raw vegans who have been through similar (Dr Doug Graham, Tonya Zavasta etc) I'm hoping that supplementation is something I will only have to do occasionally, when the level dips below that at which I feel comfortable and/or I experience symptoms that could be, might be.... to do with B12...

Debbie Does B12 Pt 1 (Do I Care?)

2010-03-30T21:48:00.000-07:00

I've been asked so many times when I'd be writing about B12, but have always ducked out. Too difficult, too much info to go through...

But having my own B12 tested has rather forced the issue, so....it's a LONG ONE! But, B12...could it be anything else?

Part One contains the background to it all, basic info on B12, sources, symptoms etc. In Part Two (to come) I'll discuss the options available for raising B12.

Usual disclaimers - not a doctor, not a nutritionist.

MY B12 ADVENTURE - HOW IT STARTED

As Vitamin B12 is found in largest quantities in foods of animal origin, it must be one of the most frequently-occurring topic threads on vegan internet forums. At the time my 'adventure' started, there it was again, on the 30BaD forum. Well-known raw vegan Harley Johnson (aka durianrider) had taken B12 shots and, as usual in any B12 thread, there was lively discussion/debate about what some refer to as 'The B12 bogeyman'. B12 deficiency can result in some rather unpleasant things happening (and more on that later).

Now, in the week that thread was up, I'd woken up at night a couple of times with 'pins and needles' in my fingers. I'd also had a strange mental 'thing' where,for an hour or so, I'd had problems separating two strands of my life and had had a memory blank-out. Before we go on, I had not decided these were definitely 'symptoms of B12 deficiency'. I'd been launching a new business and had had hardly any sleep for two days - and I'd also developed a passion for knitting! Two simple explanations for the phenomena. But, sure, as these things also happened to be on the (very long) list of things that could (could) be due to B12 deficiency, and it was a hot topic on the forum that week, I decided it was about time to have my own B12 level checked. I don't think I'll ever know for sure what was actually causing these symptoms, but they certainly motivated me to go through all the B12 info I'd collected over the years and try to make sense of it, the results of which I hope will be of interest to you.

Prior to that, I had rather stuck my neck in the sand on the B12 thing. I am 'broadly anti-supplements' (note the first word), hadn't supplemented for B12, but hadn't been as confident in my position on this as with other nutrients.

For example, on the main website (http://www.rawforlife.co.uk/) I'd said this:

'With the possible/debatable exception of B12 in some cases, supplements...are generally unnecessary.'

And in my blog article August 08 entitled 'Anti-Supplements. Why?', I'd said this:

'Whether or not raw vegans need to take Vitamin B12 for example is a hugely-debated area. At present, I do not supplement for B12. There are many healthy long-term raw vegans who do not, and some symptoms that have been attributed to B12 deficiency may well be due to other factors, eg deficiencies of other vitamins/poor absorption. But - OK - I'll admit I'm not totally sure on the B12 thing, but I'd be far more likely to switch to a raw vegetarian diet than supplement.'

The only thing that I'd rap myself for here is the use of the words 'long-term', as, without quantification, that could mean anything, and I'll discuss that later.

So, I've always been pretty much 'on the fence' where B12 was concerned. I knew the raw vegan diet was no problem for protein, iron, calcium, various other nutrients, and that supplementation in general was unnecessary. But B12...wasn't sure.

MY B12 TEST RESULTS

(After three years of raw - one year 100% vegan and the other two years, taken as a whole, 95-99% vegan.)

There are different ways of testing for B12, and some say that the blood test (the most common way) isn't the most accurate. According to the Vegan Society, the blood test can give a falsely optimistic picture of the B12 level eg if algae is consumed, as B12 'analogues' can imitate true B12). However, as I don't eat algae, or another sea veg in any significant quantitiy, I felt the blood test a fair starting point at least. B9 (folate), iron and calcium were thrown in.

B9/folate Fine Way-hay!

Calcium Fine Way-hay! (And bone density test last year good as well)

Iron Fine Way-hay!

B12 Low. Below the lower boundary of the normal range.
Bother, bother, bother. A spanner in the works!

My level was 147. Normal range in the UK is 211-911. The lower boundary varies by country between 100 and 200. So, if I was Canadian, where the low end of the range is 150 I'd be hanging to the 'normal' cliff-edge with my fingernails.

So...

I had to ask myself...

Do I CARE about 'low'?

And, if I do care about 'low', should I increase my B12 by:

a) staying raw vegan unsupplemented and trying to increase my B12 by whatever means
or
b) staying raw vegan but supplementing for B12
or
c) switching from raw vegan to raw vegetarian (ie including some dairy - for me, animal-eating would never be an option and I'm not attracted to raw eggs).

More about a) b) and c) in Part 2. (I don't think there's a d), but if there is, I'm sure someone will let me know!

DO I CARE ABOUT HAVING 'LOW' B12?

Firstly, it is possible that there are shortcomings in the blood test. A Raw Food UK forum contributor (Jack) suggested that blood levels could be irrelevant, as this is simply where the B12 enters the body from the food before being transferred to the liver where 50-80% of B12 is stored. He felt that meat-eaters would have a glut of B12 in the blood because the liver is already full of it, and that to get a true reading of one's B12 level, the liver should be tested rather than the blood.

And I know there are other ways of testing B12 (eg urine). I know, I know....but, unlike some of my raw food buddies, I don't actually believe that doctors know nothing and, if the blood test is the standard measure of B12 level used by the medical profession, I'll go with there being some value in it.

There are plausible arguments in favour of not caring whether one is 'low' on a particular nutrient compared with the average population. I've used them myself. The average person ingests a host of nutrient-destroying substances (eg coffee, alcohol, nicotine etc) and the RDAs/RNIs are set deliberately high to take account of this.

And, sure, my B12 is bound to be low compared with the average, as I've eaten very few foods of animal origin for three years (none for the last fifteen months). But 'lower than average' - I'd be relaxed with that. 'Lower than the lowest of the normal range' - no, I'm not comfortable with that, and I'll explain why.

WHAT IS B12 AND WHY IS IT IMPORTANT?

Vitamin B12 is a water-soluble vitamin manufactured by microorganisms (bacteria). Another name for it is 'cobalamin', which comes from the presence of the mineral cobalt in the centre of its structure.

As with the other B vitamins, B12 helps build the material that makes up our genetic blueprint - our DNA. It's also important in the production of red blood cells, in maintaining a healthy nervous system, helps release energy from our food, is of great importance in the growth and development of children, and it's important for...about a million other things. For example, it acts with Vitamin B9 (folate) to synthesise methionine - one of the eight essential amino-acids. It also limits the build-up of a potentially damaging molecule called homocysteine (which can raise the risk of heart attack), allowing it to be converted to methionine. (Although it has to be said that high homocysteine is normally characteristic of a diet high in concentrated protein, ie meat rather than vegan diet.)

HOW MUCH DO WE NEED?

The UK RNI (Reference Nutrient Intake) for adults is 1.5 micrograms a day. This is tiny compared with RNIs for other nutrients - 1.5 millionths of a gram. The reason supplement manufacturers recommend such large doses - 1-2000 mcg once a week, or even a day, is that only a small proportion of the B12 we ingest is absorbed. Can we have too much? Consensus in the nutrition world is that high doses of B12 should be no problem, which of course (caveat emptor) only means there's no 'scientific evidence' to suggest otherwise. B12 is water-soluble, but excreted via the faeces rather than the urine.

We store B12 in the liver, so have reserve supplies that can last for sometime (how long? No one's sure, let alone able to say in individual cases.) We also recycle B12 in various ways, such as through recycling of bile. But we only recycle a percentage of that originally ingested, which means that if stores run down and are not replenished, our B12 level will gradually reduce over a period. And how long can we keep going on recycling B12? The $64K dollar question...again, the answer is: we can't know for sure.

WHERE CAN B12 BE FOUND?

In an omnivorous diet: It can be found in relatively large quantities in animal flesh and organs, because the animal has ingested it itself (perhaps via tiny creatures such as insects in its plant food and/or bacteria in its food or water which then manufacture B12 in its intestines, or via supplementation of animal feed, or even by eating poo (some animals do). It can also be obtained from the sources listed for cooked/raw vegetarian diet below, in cooked vegan diet below, and in raw vegan diet below.

In a cooked or raw vegetarian diet: It can be found in significant amounts in dairy and eggs. (USDA Nutrient Database records no figure for B12 in honey.) It can also be obtained from the sources listed for cooked vegan diet below, and in raw vegan diet below.

In a cooked vegan diet: B12 can be obtained from vegan processed foods that have had B12 added in the processing (sometimes known as 'fortified' foods), eg some grain products, spreads (eg sunflower/soya, and Marmite) burgers, soya milk etc. It can also be obtained from sources listed in raw vegan diet below.

In a raw vegan diet: Although some claim that we can simply manufacture B12 ourselves in our intestines from, effectively, nothing, most say that there needs to be something ingested, eg B12 or the bacteria that make it, for the B12 production, or recycling, to take place.

B12 can be obtained from bacteria in soil that has not been chemically treated (the chemicals kill the bacteria), insects (may be microscopically tiny) on plant food, and water that has not been chlorinated (bear in mind however brilliant your water cleaning system is, the water that went into it in the first place would have been chlorinated, ie bacteria killed).

I've said'on', rather than 'in' plant food. Some do claim that wherever other B vitamins are found, B12 will be as well, but that the amounts aren't detectable by measuring equipment and/or that when plant foods are prepared for laboratory analysis, acids and other substances are used that destroy the B12 (unlikely I'd have thought). Suffice to say that I haven't come across any scientific evidence that proves there is B12 in (as opposed to on) plant foods sufficient to meet our needs.

Usually in a raw vegan forum discussion thread on B12, someone will advocate sea vegetables, such as the algae spirulina, or nori. This is a controversial area. The snag could be that they contain compounds structurally similar to B12, known as B12 analogues, which may disrupt normal B12 metabolism by competing with true B12 for absorption. But others cite studies that show that true B12 is present as well and that the body can tell the difference between 'analogues' and true B12 and that there is no problem, pointing out that these 'analogues' can also be found in multivitamins, B12-fortified food and animal foods. My feeling is that unless sea veg is eaten straight from the sea, then surely B12 is going to be destroyed in the washing and processing (and, yes, even if it does come from 'pristine'(!) waters). For me, 'jury's out' on whether sea veg are a source of B12.

Some raw fooders believe that fermented products contain B12, or at least help promote a healthy flora internally conducive to making B12. Again, this is a controversial area. I haven't come across any proof that fermented foods contain B12. (The Vegetarian Society did report that studies showed B12 to be absent in substances such as shoyu, miso etc, which of course aren't raw anyway and very high in sodium chloride. ) Natural Hygienists believe we shouldn't be eating fermented (they would say 'rotting') food full stop and that if we follow the correct diet we shouldn't need any help with our 'intestinal flora' and that ingesting so-called 'healthy bacteria' will interfere with our own bodies' attempts to heal and be detrimental rather than beneficial.

B12 can also be produced in the lower part of the digestive system, but, unless we eat our own poo (which I don't feel 'drawn' to do) that's not much good to us, as it's 'on its way out' by then, ie past the stage where our bodies would absorb it.

And of course B12 will be found in breastmilk (as long as the mother has sufficient B12 herself).

So these are all possible sources of B12 on the raw vegan diet. I eat unwashed garden produce (often with tiny bits of soil - the crunchy bits (!) and quite likely various tiny creatures attached) for several months of the year, but this seems to have been insufficient to keep my B12 in the 'normal' range.

COULD IT BE....AN ABSORPTION ISSUE?

Even if we ingest lots of B12, or bacteria that make B12,will we be OK? Well, not necessarily.

What people on all sorts of diet have to bear in mind is that meat-eaters can be deficient in B12 too, and many are (about 40%!) Of course they're getting lots of B12 via the shortcut of eating animals that had a good supply because they ate/made their own. So why would meat-eaters have B12 problems?

Firstly, B12 can be destroyed by water, sunlight, the heat of cooking, alcohol, smoking, mercury, oestrogen in birth-control pills, and sleeping pills. And anything that upsets the balance of 'flora' in our digestive systems can negatively affect B12 absorption. Prescription antibiotics would be one example, but heavy consumption of garlic and strong spices (that have an 'antibiotic effect') could be detrimental to B12 absorption.

And what is the case with many people, on all sorts of diet, is that they are in fact ingesting sufficient B12, but their digestive systems (eg stomach, small intestine) are faulty, which means that the B12 they're ingesting is not being absorbed into the blood. This can happen in people who have followed a very poor diet in the past, who have had intestinal surgery, and in those who have generally had a history of digestive and/or bowel issues. What happens is that there is a lack of a molecule called intrinsic factor, which is needed to bind with B12 to enable it to be absorbed by the body. (By the way, 'intrinsic factor' was coined by Castle, who called B12 the 'extrinsic factor'.)

But lack of 'intrinsic factor' isn't the only thing that could negatively affect absorption of B12.

Natural Hygienist Dr Virginia Vetrano describes the process of absorption:

'The vitamin must first be separated from the materials to which it is bound before it can be combined with the intrinsic factor. In food, B12 compounds are largely protein or peptide-bound and these must be separated from the vitamin by digestive juices before B12 can be combined with the intrinsic factor.'

Now, I've recently edited the section I had written on low hydrochloric acid (HCl) in the digestive juices, because, following discussions with a nutritionist, it seems far more likely that it would be a high HCl level that's the issue, as if there is excess HCl produced in the stomach the environment in the lower intestines would be too acidic for optimum enzymatic activity sufficient to digest the peptides bound to the B12. (High HCl is most commonly found in those on poor diets, eg high in meat, alcohol, salt etc.)

Vetrano continues: 'The third stage of absorption is to transport the B12 into the cells of the gastrointestinal mucous membrane.' Some claim that damaged intestinal mucosa could inhibit absorption, that there are certain foods (eg salt, oils, isolated sugars, spices etc) that irritate the intestinal lining and cause it to secrete (extra) mucus to protect it, and that this mucus inhibits absorption of B12. Others (notably Natural Hygienist Susan Hazard writing in the Eighties) say that the mucus hardens, through inflammation as a result of condiment use. The theories seem plausible, although I haven't been able to find any scientific support for them.

The B12, if it's made it through the various minefields described above, is eventually absorbed at the far end of the small intestine - the terminal ileium.

I did have a further blood test. I don't know the details, but I was told I was OK for 'intrinsic factor'. I don't know what the state of my HCl is, nor my gastrointestinal mucus membrane (I eat very little salt, spices etc, or at least in the last couple of years). But I may well investigate these, particularly if my efforts to raise my B12 level by mouth (discussed in Pt 2) come to naught.

IS B12 MORE AN ISSUE FOR RAW VEGANS THAN THOSE ON OTHER SORTS OF DIET?

Raw food leaders disagree on this. For example, Dr Doug Graham ('80/10/10 Diet') says that rates of B12 deficiency are not higher amongst vegans or raw foodists than they are amongst meat eaters. But Gabriel Cousens MD (Tree of Life Center) says: 'There's 18 studies of vegans and live fooders, three on live eaters...in every single study, 18 out of 18 shows that, after about six years, about 80% of vegans or live fooders become B12 deficient. Please note that 39% of meat-eaters are B12 deficient. So the rate is about twice as much.' ('Live food' is virtually synonynous with 'raw'.)

I tend to go with Dr D on a lot of things, but Dr G's statement on B12 makes more sense to me. People can argue till the cows come home (vegan equivalent needed?) that there is some B12 on plant food, but the fact remains that in the vegan diet there is only a tiny fraction of the amount available in omnivorous or vegetarian (or even cooked-vegan-including-fortified-processed-foods) diets, and, as we only absorb a tiny fraction of that ingested, surely, unless vegans eat all their food with soil and insects clinging to it and drink water from a mountain stream, vegans need to look out for themselves where B12 is concerned.

Here's the brilliant (non-raw foodist but enthusiastic advocate of the vegan diet) Michael Klaper MD on B12:

'Vitamin B-12 is made by little microscopic plant cells called soil bacteria that live in the earth. And long ago when the earth was healthy and the soils were healthy, before we put all sorts of chemicals on them, The surface of the earth was covered with vitamin B-12, and there use to be lots of vitamin B-12 in our lives even if you were a pure vegetarian 300 years ago. You'd open up your cottage door and outside the back door would be a beautiful organic garden, and every carrot you pulled out of the ground would have little particles of vitamin B-12 sticking to it. When it came time to get your water, you'd take a bucket of water out of the stream, there would be vitamin B-12 in the stream water. There would be B-12 in the well water you brought out. There would be B-12 under your finger nails from working in the garden. There would be plenty of B-12 in your life and you needed so little of it, that it was not an issue.

We've become very isolated from the earth and we've lost our natural sources of B-12. Cows have B-12 in their muscles because they're eating grass all day and their pulling up clumps of dirt that have B-12 producing organisms clinging to the root of the grass. They eat the B-12 producing organisms who then produce the B-12, gets absorbed into their bloodstream and goes out into the muscles and is deposited into their muscles and livers. But that is bacterial B-12 in the cow's muscle. The cow did not make it, nor did the pig or chicken. It's true that you can go up to the cow, bash it's brains in, rip open it's abdomen and tear out it's liver and eat it to get your vitamin B-12. But I submit to you there is far less expensive and less violent ways to get your vitamin B-12.

(Dr Klaper then goes on to discuss B12-fortified vegan cooked foods, which is essentially supplementation.)

Everything in the garden is lovely...(well, yes it is, but...)

Please bear in mind that many raw vegans on forums insisting that B12 is no problem on a raw vegan diet 1) haven't been raw vegan for very long (so B12 levels from a previous diet may still be high) and/or 2) haven't a clue what their own B12 level is. I can understand the viewpoints of those who don't care, so haven't tested because they think the B12 thing is all scare-mongering and a fuss about nothing, but do bear in mind that their views are, in the vast majority of cases, opinions (and optimism?!) rather than conclusions based on experience.

SIGNS OF DEFICIENCY

Yes, B12 scare-mongering...is it, or isn't it?

Meat-eaters and supplement-manufacturers certainly try to scare vegans with all sorts of stories about where their diet will lead them if they don't eat corpses, buy the latest supervitamin/mineral powder etc. In most cases, I've found myself 'unbovvered' (UK joke), but, B12...hmm.

After levels of B12 in the blood drop, levels in the cells drop. It's at that stage that there is said to be a 'deficiency'. (As my tests didn't go beyond the blood, I don't know if I was simply 'low' or 'deficient'.) When there is B12 deficiency, levels of various compounds are disrupted. Fatigue is the most common problem, but, OK, are you ready? Here comes...that Really Scary List.

The Really Scary List

Breathing difficulties
Raised homocysteine increasing risk of heart attack
Numbness and pain in limbs/extremities
Irreversible damage to nerve cells, spinal chord and brain
Irreversible neurological damage, paralysis or death
In infants - permanently arrested brain and peripheral nerve development
Dementia

Yum yum, we all want some of those, don't we?

And...the doomsayers' piece de resistance...these symptoms may take up to 20-30 years to 'manifest' - aaaaaaaaaaarghhhhh!

So, if it's the case that the animal-food-eaters/medical profession are attempting to scare vegans into eating animal products (or supplementing for B12) then they've done their job rather well. The 'ah, but it can take 20-30 years for symptoms to show' has been particularly effective in the sport of Squashing the Raw Vegan. (The cynic will say, with good reason I feel, that ten years ago, the warning tended to be that it could take five years for symptoms to show, but faced with increasing numbers of healthy five-year unsupplemented vegans, those trying to discredit the diet simply upped the figure!). I'm not sure what the scientific evidence for the 20-30 years assertion is, or whether that it's that the deficiency is 'lurking' for the whole of the period, 'exploding' in a manifestation of dreadful symptoms, or whether it's simply that for eg 19 of the 20 years the vegan is in fact not deficient, and then in Year 20 s/he becomes deficient - for some reason.

But one reason the '20-30 years' thing is so effective in wiping the smile off the happy vegan is that there aren't enough raw unsupplemented vegans of 20-30 years' standing to form any sort of statistically significant pool to say 'look at us, we're doing fine!' Raw vegans who have had any cooked vegan B12-fortified food (eg spreads, soya milk etc) in that time won't do, as certainly if it's in the last few years, B12 could still be relatively high due to recycling. Raw vegans who've used non-food supplementation at any time in that period won't do either, as non-food supplementation, eg tablets, contain extremely high doses of B12. And raw vegans who call themselves vegan, or who people think of as vegan, but have in fact had a small amount of dairy in those years won't do either. I'd long cherished the idea that Dr Virginia Vetrano, thriving in her 80s, and a vociferous advocate of not supplementing for B12, had been vegan, but recently heard that, like many of the classic Natural Hygienists, she has included dairy in her diet.

In fact, if there is anyone who has been 100% raw (or virtually?) and 100% vegan and unsupplemented (in any form) for 20+ years and has had their B12 level tested recently and it's in the 'normal' range, I've never come across them, nor heard of them, nor have met anyone who has. I'm thinking they might be as rare as hens' teeth.

The only person I can think of who gets anywhere near that is Dr Doug Graham, who has been raw vegan unsupplemented for twelve years. I'm not sure whether he's had his B12 tested recently, but assume he's probably on top of it, as he did supplement twelve years ago when he'd had symptoms, the cessation of which on supplementation suggested to him that he had probably had a B12 deficiency.

Unfortunately, there are no lifetime (let alone 'generations') vegan communities/cultures to say that, even if we do eat all our food straight from the ground, unwashed, that B12 won't be an issue. It may well be that it isn't, but obviously it would be helpful if there were vegan cultures that could be an example for us all. But I haven't come across any. This of course doesn't diminish the vegan diet in any way. Just because it's 'normal' for cultures to eat animals, to damage their food, to drink alcohol, to inhale smoke, to kill members of other societies, etc, and that we haven't yet found a culture free of all those things, doesn't mean that a way of living that excludes those things isn't the right way to go. It's just that, where B12 is concerned, it would be useful to have a helpful prop in the argument for raw vegan unsupplemented, but...we don't (at least yet) have that.

As, over the years, whenever anyone has claimed that X or Y culture/community is (lifetime) vegan, on researching, I've always found a bit of dairy creeping in somewhere (or if not dairy, meat/fish)! Over and over again I've found that reportedly vegan cultures - on closer examination - have a little (just a little) dairy, usually in the form of goats' or sheeps' milk or cheese (unpasteurised, ie with all bacteria present, of course).

*****

So do I CARE about my 'low' B12? Yes I do.

That word 'irreversible' certainly chills the bones, doesn't it? And sure, again, when that word is used, it's not generally used in conjunction with any statistics that might back the claim. It could mean 'one in a million cases', and we all know that if that unfortunate person has been following a vegan diet, as opposed to an omnivorous diet, the newspapers will fall over themselves in their stampede to attribute the dreadful occurrence to the 'extreme' vegan diet whilst neatly overlooking the millions that are getting all sorts of horrible diseases and dying prematurely from the conventional cooked omnivorous diet!

But on the other hand, the magnitude, the severity of the symptoms (together with seeing a few too many posts from vegans complaining about tingling/pain in their extremities) has had me thinking that I'd hate to find myself in 20 years' time with something nasty and be saying 'Well, blow me down, seems they were right after all...', as I have lots left I want to do in the next 50+ years! Not sure if I want to take the risk.

Here's an account from someone who did appear to have classic B12 symptoms. Brother Nazariah (Essene Church of Christ): 'For seven years I followed a vegetarian diet. I then became a raw vegan and after five years lost the ability to walk. All of my extremities - hands, fingers and feet - were in such pain that I couldn't move. I had central nervous system problems and was B12 anaemic.' (He switched from raw vegan back to raw vegetarian (the Essene diet), attributing cessation of his symptoms to eggs.)

In Part Two here I'll be describing how, having decided that I did care about my low B12 figure, I considered the various options available to me for increasing it. I'll discuss these options then let you know which one I (eventually) decided to take.

Garlic - The Less Popular View

2010-02-28T08:21:00.000-08:00

In my second year of raw food, I was excited to be contacted by a journalist who wanted to write an article about me for a women's magazine and possibly make a TV series too. He was very enthusiastic about raw, and we chatted about various things, finding lots of common ground, until...the subject of garlic came up. I happened to say that, after being raw for a while, I'd come to dislike the taste of garlic, and had found some information to suggest that perhaps garlic wasn't all it was cracked up to be, and could even be something health-conscious people should be avoiding.

He was shocked that I could suggest such a thing. He swore by garlic, and told me about the various ailments that garlic is said to be beneficial for. I did say it was a controversial area, but he appeared not to be able to entertain the concept of garlic being anything but a wonderfood. I didn't hear from him again much after that, and I often wonder if my doubts about garlic had raised some doubts in his mind about me!

On raw food forums, I've seen garlic lovers get a little upset at any criticism of garlic. It's dangerous territory, but...here I go! In my article on the hallowed garlic, I won't be providing 'balance' as in putting forth the pro's and cons. You can all find the pro's of garlic by simply googling 'garlic health food' and you'll find millions of words on what a wonderful thing it is for us. Rather, I'll try to provide (some) 'balance' to those millions by presenting you with some information/thoughts on garlic that you don't hear so often.

*****

When I was a child in the Sixties in the UK, garlic didn't enjoy the reputation it holds today. Most people disliked the odour, let alone the taste. But with books such as Elizabeth David's Mediterranean Cooking, package holidays in the Seventies, and the foodie-ism of the Eighties, garlic enjoyed a surge of popularity in cooking, and health writers began to extol the virtues of garlic as a health food.

The mainstream has a love affair with garlic. It can do no wrong. I used to love it myself until raw. Then, as so often happens when we go raw, we start to experience things differently, with our senses, intellectually...we talk, we read, we think, we meditate...and our old cherished beliefs are thrown up in the air and our eyes are opened to other possibilities.

Is garlic a natural food for us?

Garlic is not a food at all. Not many people would enjoy popping a clove of garlic into their mouths and having a good chew, or a bowl of cloves if they were hungry.

Garlic in breastmilk can give a baby colic. It is one of the things its pure body doesn't like. Garlic is one of those substances like stinky ('aged') cheese (mould), chili, alcohol etc that relatively healthy, vibrant, responsive small children with relatively unadulterated taste buds and desires, generally dislike. That should tell us something.

As children get older, they are conditioned into 'accepting' garlic in small amounts until, because they've come to associate it with pleasant situations, because older people they admire like it, and because it's been cunningly slipped into all sorts of foods (even crisps!), they learn to like it. In some households, garlic is in so many meals (I used to have a vegan cookbook that had garlic in just about every meal bar the desserts) that children get so used to the taste that they grow up to be adults who feel that meals taste bland without it. In this way, garlic perverts the tastebuds just as salt, chili and other substances do, resulting in our (sadly) rejecting food in its natural state.

After I'd been raw for a few months, I no longer liked the taste of alcohol. For someone who'd liked a drink or five for the past 30 years, that was quite incredible. But, alcohol came to taste like it had done when I'd first tried it as a child - not good. Same happened with garlic. Before raw, I was certainly a garlic-lover (someone once told me that he could find me quite attractive but would need a gas-mask I ate so much garlic). But, even just a few months into raw I was finding that the amounts of garlic that (some) raw food recipes recommended rendered the meal inedible for me - it tasted so unpleasant. I started halving, then quartering the amounts, and now use it in tiny amounts only if I'm making a raw dish for cooked-food people.

What happens when we eat garlic?

As everyone knows, our breath stinks of it. Breath the same day as eating garlic isn't too bad, as everyone can identify the smell as garlic. But the day after, although garlic-breath doesn't smell like garlic anymore, the garlic that had been ingested the previous day results in even worse breath that smells...disgusting. The sulphur?

We also exude garlic through our pores. That suggests to me the body is trying very hard to expel it. Also, I'd noticed way before going raw that garlic would always make me thirsty. That indicates to me that, like salt, the body is demanding water to try to neutralise the effects of something harmful, to flush it out. As Dr Doug Graham puts it so well, 'the solution to pollution is dilution'.

Does everyone love garlic?

Garlic has certainly been revered by many in the past. But some have gone against the flow...the Roman poet Horace wrote that garlic 'is more harmful than hemlock'. Ancient Hindu texts ('The Laws of Manu') forbade eating garlic as 'unclean' (unhealthful).

Tibetan monks don't eat garlic. Some yoga teachers and Buddhists believe that garlic interferes with meditation. Ancient Indians believed garlic would lure people away from spiritual endeavours.

Dr Robert C Beck, DSc, in research carried out in the 1980s (and, no, I don't have a source) found that it had a detrimental effect on brain function. And he recalls from his days as a pilot in the 50s a flight surgeon telling pilots not to touch garlic three days before a flight as it would double or triple their reaction time.

Some people do report 'brain fog' after eating garlic (and I'm one of them).

Garlic has antibiotic properties

Indeed it does, through the action of allicin. It's interesting that some garlic advocates, whilst shy of conventional antibiotics as prescribed by doctors, will see the 'antibiotic' properties of garlic as a plus, because it's a 'natural' antibiotic. Well, that's OK then...except that it isn't.

'Antibiotic' (Concise Oxford Dictionary): '(substance) capable of destroying or injuring living organisms, esp. bacteria.'

Bacteria are our clean-up agents. As everyone knows, bacteria are essential for our well-being. Now, just for the sake of argument, I'll go with the popular 'good and bad bacteria' theory (I don't actually agree with it, but...maybe an article on that in ten years' time?) I haven't read anything to suggest that that crushed garlic coursing through our digestive system actually knows the difference between the 'good guys' and the 'bad guys'. The number of times I've heard people confidently declare that garlic only kills the 'bad' bacteria - could someone show me the study that proves this?

If you are a gardener, and have grown garlic you may have noticed that your garlic will be untouched by bugs. Nothing eats it. Insects won't eat it because it will kill them. In fact, garlic grown amongst plants deters insects. Garlic is a pesticide.

Garlic has medicinal properties

Certainly does. Countless studies have shown that garlic has positive effects on certain symptoms in unhealthy people.

And, like all medicines, there have also been a host of reported adverse effects after ingesting garlic. They're in the same category as many on the list of 'side-effects', that patients are warned may occur, that you would find in the leaflet in a medicine bottle box. Sure, they haven't been proven (they've come from case reports), but this simply means that no studies have been financed to prove/disprove them. Here are some of them: oesophagal and abdominal pain, small intestinal obstruction, contact dermatitis, rhinitis, asthma, bleeding, myocardial infarction, urticaria, angioedema and ulcero/necrotic lesions (Journal of Herbal Pharmacotherapy 2001 Vol 1, no 1, pp63-83 - the author does cite sources).

The Natural Hygiene view of medicine is that medicine per se is toxic. It may indeed suppress certain symptoms, but at the same time it gets up to all sorts of other tricks in the body -the results of which are not so 'beneficial'. People are duped into thinking they've discovered a 'miracle cure' just because one symptom has vanished, but, sadly, the 'cure' is an illusion. There is always a price to pay for ingesting things that we really shouldn't be putting into our bodies, whether pharmaceutical or 'natural'. Short-term gain leads to longer-term pain; the suppression of one symptom will simply be swapped for more problems later on. But although many people know that, they so often still prefer the 'quick fix' cure than change their lifestyles.

Does the fact that garlic reduces cholesterol, 'balances blood sugar' (etc) mean healthy people should be eating it?

As you've probably guessed from the last section, the answer as I see it must be 'no'. As it wouldn't be logical for a healthy person to take medicine (even daily).

Does the fact that aspirin (may) 'reduce the risk of a heart attack' (in very unhealthy people with heart problems) mean that healthy people who are not at risk of heart attack, should take an aspirin each day? Maybe the very unhealthy person who will not change the lifestyle that led to heart problems in the first place would find the risk of gastrointestinal upsets and stomach bleeding from aspirin a reasonable trade-off. But this would not apply to the healthy person.

So, if someone with high blood pressure is taking a medicine (or even garlic?) to reduce high blood pressure and/or lower blood pressure, regardless of whether it is actually a good idea for that person to be taking that medication rather than addressing the root causes of the problem so that they don't have to take the medicine with its various side-effects, should a healthy raw fooder with no blood pressure problems be ingesting that medicine?

It would be daft, wouldn't it?

So, as garlic is clearly an antibiotic, and clearly a medicine, rather than a food, why are so many raw fooders still adding garlic to their food? I guess one answer could be 'I like the taste'. Sure, just as some of us used to like the taste of meat, sodium chloride, coffee, alcohol...

*****

A raw vegan (or raw vegetarian low-dairy) diet will reduce cholesterol and blood pressure, and Gabriel Cousens MD has showed us how the raw food diet can reduce and eradicate the need for Type II diabetes medication.

I know that most of the world won't be switching to raw any time soon, but does it really make sense for healthy raw fooders, or new raw fooders on the path to health, to mix medicine with their meals?

'Breast cancer cannot be prevented.' Discuss.

2010-01-31T02:35:00.000-08:00

Disclaimer:

Not a doctor, nor a scientist.

*****

A lady called Barbara Ehrenreich has just published a book on her experiences with breast cancer. It's called 'Smile or Die: How Positive Thinking Fooled America and the World.'

Ms Ehrenreich is angry about what she describes as the 'positive thinking' culture in US (and UK etc) surrounding breast cancer.

I've just read an article by Ms E. There's a picture of her and, indeed, she looks very grumpy.

Some quotes from the article:

'There was, I learned, an urgent medical reason to embrace cancer with a smile: a 'positive attitude' is supposedly essential to survival.'

Ms E's use of the word 'supposedly' indicates that she doesn't believe it. Which is interesting, as most of the medical profession believe that stress, depression and negative attitude will have negative physiological manifestations, ie affecting mental and physical health. Whether a positive attitude is 'essential' is I suppose debatable, as if physical causes of illness are removed a person may still heal, but surely conventional science would support the idea that positive attitude will at least increase the chances of healing occurring?

'Positive attitude' in itself of course could make a whole article, but I'll sidestep that one for now, as there is something else I want to focus on.

'No one among the bloggers and book writers seemed to share my outrage over the disease...'

Let's look at 'outrage' for a moment. My dictionary says 'forcible violation of rights'; 'deed of violence...offence or indignity.'

Ms E also says that breast cancer is an 'injustice'.

And she says:

'The notion of breast cancer 'prevention' should itself set off alarms, since there is no known means of prevention...'

So Ms E sees breast cancer as something that's been forced upon her, that it's unfair, and that it could not have been prevented. And she's angry that the people who've tried to help her are 'denying reality.'

*****

You won't be surprised to hear that I'll be disagreeing with Ms Ehrenreich and presenting information that suggests that breast cancer can certainly be prevented, and that if we get breast cancer, the cause is somewhere within an unnatural lifestyle.

Breast cancer is a sensitive subject. Many of us know people, sometimes very close to us, who have died of breast cancer. I started putting this article together with some trepidation - would there be a backlash from those who have suffered (directly or indirectly) from breast cancer telling me how ignorant and heartless I am? But then I thought...sod that. If this article results in just one woman making changes in her life that at least greatly reduce the chances of her becoming ill, and increase the chances of her seeing her great-grandchildren, it will be time well-spent.

In this article I'll be discussing links between certain lifestyle factors and breast cancer. Links found by Proper Scientists, Proper Doctors - not just us daffy raw foodists.

I haven't followed the article with a lengthy list of citations, because it's a blog, not a dissertation. But, if you google each topic, you will find lots of studies to back up what I'm saying. Some studies will say definite link. Others will say 'we're not sure'. And, sure, a link between A and B doesn't mean that A caused B. Posh way of saying that is 'correlation does not imply causality', ie if women doing certain things are more likely to get breast cancer, it could be that the sort of women doing those things are also more likely to be doing other things that are linked with breast cancer, that weren't examined by the researchers.

Those who, like Ms Ehrenreich, maintain that 'breast cancer cannot be prevented' are presumably not taking any of the links seriously until they're all proven and ratified by x number of replicated studies, and causal factors proven. Trouble is, they're going to have to wait a very long time for that, in which time the dairy industry, the alcohol industry, the artificial milk manufacturers etc are going to do their best to poke holes in the arguments of, and discredit the research of, those whose findings can help millions of women. Time in which women will continue to suffer needlessly and die prematurely from breast cancer.

*****

There is a common thread running through all the lifestyle factors linked with breast cancer, and that is:

Unnatural living.

Breast cancer doesn't appear to be a problem amongst animals, or at least not animals that aren't fed and watered by human beings.

There are cultures where breast cancer is unknown, or at least almost unknown. And there have been large areas of the world where it has been almost unknown throughout history - until relatively recently.

So why does the human female (and occasionally the male) get breast cancer? And why particularly the human being in modern 'Westernised' culture?

There are obviously things that we are doing that are giving us breast cancer. To date, we've been presented with quite a lot of 'clues' as to what these might be. They're all ways of living that are unnatural, not practised by any other animal in the world, and break nature's laws. It's my contention that when we break these there will be a price to be paid, of some sort.

*****

Dairy

Professor Jane Plant, PhD, CBE, explains in 'Your Life in Your Hands' why she believes that giving up milk is the key to beating breast cancer.

She'd noticed that the incidence of breast cancer in China was very low. (Or, at least it was at the time she was diagnosed; lifestyles in China have become much closer to the Western in recent years.) She'd found statistics that showed that 'only one in 10,000 women in China' died from breast cancer, compared with '1 in 12' in Britain!

However, research also showed that when Chinese people moved to the West, within one or two generations their breast cancer rates approached those of their host community. Their breast cancer rates also leapt when they moved to Hong Kong, and in fact the Chinese at that time described all Western food as 'Hong Kong food' because of its prevalence there. Most people in China couldn't afford 'Hong Kong food' and the slang name for breast cancer in rural China was 'Rich Woman's Disease'.

All this led Professor Plant to conclude that diet could be a key factor in breast cancer (and similarly with prostate cancer - the UK rate was 70 times higher than in rural China).

She did initially look at fat, and it was certainly true that a much higher percentage of calories in the Western diet than the Chinese diet came from fat. But Jane had been following a low-fat diet prior to her being diagnosed with breast cancer. But then, for her, the penny dropped. Most of the fat she had been having was dairy. However, the Chinese ate no, or at least virtually no, dairy. (Although, they are not generally vegan - where no dairy is eaten, meat and/or fish is.)

She immediately stopped eating all cheese, butter, milk and yogurt and 'within days,the lump started to shrink.' (And, for those who are thinking that perhaps it hadn't been cancer at all, Jane is a medical doctor and had been 'experienced at detecting cancerous lumps.') After six weeks of excluding all dairy, she couldn't find the lump at all.

More about Jane Plant and why she believes that dairy is a causal factor in breast cancer here.

(It's at this point that I hope there won't be anyone who won't bother reading the rest of the article, and simply ring their mother, friend, whoever to announce 'Just stop eating dairy! Your breast cancer will be gone!'. Because, firstly, dairy is not the only factor linked with breast cancer. And, secondly, there may well be factors that studies have not identified yet.)

But let's discuss dairy a little more before leaving it.

From T Colin Campbell, PhD ('The China Study'):

'In rural China, dietary fat intake (1983) was very different from the United States in two ways. First, fat was only 14.5% of caloric intake in China, compared with about 36% in the US. Second, the amount of fat in the diets of rural China depended almost entirely on the amount of animal-based food in the diet...Thus, the association between fat and breast cancer might really be telling us that as the consumption of animal-based foods goes up, so does breast cancer.' (p85)

And many studies have linked high consumption of fat (particularly saturated fat - found in meat and dairy products) with breast cancer.

Is drinking another animal's milk unnnatural? Staunch vegans will ask whether drinking the milk of other animals after human beings have been weaned from their mother's milk can ever be natural, and the argument does have a certain logic. I differ a little from the hard line in that I would be happy to drink a little milk from a goat who had fed her kid, had surplus, and appeared to be happy to be milked by human hands. (But, as that scenario doesn't exist where I live...I'm vegan.)

But let's examine the diet of the typical Western woman. She will consume far more dairy, in the form of milk, cheese and yogurt than even 'conventional' nutritionists will deem as being 'necessary'. She will consume so much dairy that, in order to meet her appetite for it, cows will live in misery, attached to milking machines, with their calves taken off to slaughter to meet the demand for flesh. I know many readers will not need the following illustration, but as 99% of us live blind (including me for most of my adult life) here it is: What if someone took the baby of a human mother away from her, murdered the baby ('humanely' of course), roasted the corpse then ate its flesh,, attached her to a milking machine for the rest of her milk-producing life, and drank the milk that had been intended for her baby? Modern dairy production and consumption isn't just unnatural; it's evil.

If we are to consume dairy, everything suggests that it should be in the very small amounts that the Chinese do, and we should endeavour to obtain milk from a source that does not also kill animals for meat.

Certainly the unnaturally high consumption of dairy in our society causes much illness - for example, asthma, heart disease, and, it is suggested - breast cancer. And some feel that pasteurisation (cooking) of milk exacerbates problems. Regular readers will know I do refer to the Essene Gospel of Peace from time, and it's interesting that 'milk' is referred to as a good food for man, but heated milk is the devil's favourite!

Alcohol

Drinking alcohol increases breast cancer risk. The more alcohol, the higher the risk. When you drink alcohol, you are taking poison, regardless of any (alleged) 'benefits', which are usually just the effect of mixing the poison with a few good things, eg red grapes. The net effects are bad.
Is drinking alcohol natural? We don't see animals glugging it down.

Not breastfeeding

Breastfeeding offers protection against breast cancer; the longer women breastfeed, the less likely they are to get breast cancer.

Breastfeeding is natural. The suppressing of a biological function, and in some cases even taking drugs to stop the flow of milk, is unnatural. 'Some women can't breastfeed'? In Britain and the US around 60% of women breastfeed their babies at birth. In Sweden and Norway, the figures are 95-98%. Perhaps Scandinavian women are made differently.

Birth control pills

Women on birth control pills have a higher risk of breast cancer (removed only after ten years off them). Is birth control natural? I'll just point out that it 'has been said' that sex is for reproduction and/or creation (not necessarily the same thing). Will be regarded as a quaint theory by many. (OK, I'll say here that I have myself used birth control a LOT, but have come to feel that we pay the price in various ways for preventing intercourse from resulting in creation.)

HRT

Hormone Replacement Therapy increases the risk of breast cancer.

Obesity, old age

Obese post-menopausal women are more likely to get breast cancer. I did read an article that said 'we do not know exactly why this is.' Surely common sense would say that it's simply because overweight older women are likely to have done lots of the various things associated with breast cancer, eg eaten more dairy, drunk more alcohol, etc. No great mystery there!

Deodorant/anti-perspirant use

Conflicting studies. But see Lisa's comment at the end of the article re toxins. Makes sense to me! And here of course, IF these cause, or a contributory cause of breast cancer, natural living would of course come to the rescue. One thing most people find on a raw plant food diet is that the need for deodorant lessens, if in fact it is needed at all.

Multivitamin use?

April 10 edit - 'A major study has revealed that women who take a daily multi-vitamin pill are nearly 20 per cent more likely to develop breast cancer. The shock finding has rattled Australia's $2.5 billion complementary health industry, which is urging consumers not to panic, News Ltd says. In a 10-year study of more than 35,000 women, researchers discovered those who regularly took a multi-vitamin pill increased the risk of developing a tumour by 19 per cent.
They said the result was concerning and needed investigation as many women use multi-vitamins in the belief they prevent chronic diseases such as cancer. A "biologically plausible" explanation is that taking vitamin and mineral supplements significantly increases the density of breast tissue, a strong risk factor for breast cancer. Folic acid, often present in a potent form in multi-vitamins, may also accelerate tumour growth. The study, conducted by Sweden's Karolinska Institute and published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, has been greeted with interest and caution by Australian experts. Women who took a multi-vitamin pill in the study had higher breast tissue density than those who took no vitamin supplements

(Please see my Aug 08 article on supplements.)

*****

So what about 'heredity'?

Yes, research says that if your mother/grandmother had breast cancer you're more likely to as well. But please don't see that as a death-knell! The reason for the increased incidence is most likely to do with the fact that lifestyle patterns are inherited. If our Mums loved to anaesthetise themselves with a G & T in the evening, we may well copy that behaviour into our adult lives. If our grandmothers saw cream cakes and ice cream as treats and gave them to us when we stayed with them, we may see those sorts of foods as 'nurturing', 'comfort' foods. Also, women are less likely to breastfeed if their mothers didn't (or at least didn't for very long). Cancer 'gene'? Even if that's the case, all that means is that you might have a slight tendency. But, with lifestle, you can change yourself into the sort of person who is far less likely than the average to get breast cancer, rather than more.

'If X causes breast cancer, why don't all women who do X get breast cancer?'

I'd suggest because the effect of one negative lifestyle factor may to some extent be balanced by scoring health points in other areas of life, that enable the body to detoxify sufficiently that which causes or contributes to cancer. Or, perhaps their body is indeed labouring under the onslaught of, eg, high saturated fat, but is manifesting this in some other sort of illness.

(Also, of course, a diet high in raw fruit and vegetables will be high in antioxidans and phytochemicals (carcinogen-detoxifying compounds) which will, research suggests, to some extent protect against cancer.)

'I know a woman who eats a hunk of Cheddar a day, loves her Scotch, is 94 and fit as a fiddle.'

As I say on my website, sometimes I wonder if these people are kept alive as a sort of divine IQ test for the rest of us. Do we model our lifestyle on the one (apparent) exception to the rule, or consider the millions that aren't?'

*****

Returning to Ms Ehrenreich, she maintains that breast cancer cannot be prevented.

So, according to Ms Ehrenreich, the woman who lives on bacon butties and cream cakes, likes a bottle of vodka or five, has her child on artificial milk from Day One, and is obese, and then gets breast cancer, can be sure that her lifestyle had absolutely nothing to do with it. She's just been plain unlucky. It's just something that's 'happened' to her, it's very unfair, and there's nothing she could have done to prevent it.

But, equally, if I don't qualify what I've said, I'll get furious comments of the sort 'I know a teetotal vegan who has breastfed her children till university and has breast cancer - you smug cow!' And I do know of women who have led lifestyles of the kind most would describe as 'healthy', and have breast cancer.

I have noticed that some people can get very upset if it is implied that they have done anything that might have caused their illness - if they are in any way to 'blame'. And I have seen much venom directed at those who have suggested that it is people's 'sins' to blame for their afflictions. But if we define 'sin' as any deviation from the perfect way we know we can live (the way our 'higher power', 'authentic selves', 'God', whatever... knows we can live), with regard to ourselves, our greed, our self-control, with regard to how we treat the creatures we share the world with, what's the problem in suggesting there may be a price to pay for our transgressions?

As to whether we are to 'blame' for our cancer, most of us have been conditioned since birth, by society, to live in various unnatural ways, but at various stage of our life we will receive knowledge - surely the degree to which we are culpable depends on the information at our disposal and what action we then take.

As a raw foodist, I certainly don't think I'm 'immune' to cancer. Quite a few aspects of my lifestyle are unnatural, and I may well pay the price for them. And, even though I don't drink or have dairy, if I detect a lump in my breast next week, and it's diagnosed as cancer, I'll still be maintaining that there will be something I could have done (or, more accurately,not done) to have prevented it.

*****

Ms Ehrenreich believes that breast cancer cannot be prevented and that those who think otherwise are 'denying reality'. Isn't it her that's 'denying reality'?

At present, very, very, likely reasons for breast cancer are staring us in the face. Science may not yet be able to prove everything to the nth statistically significant degree, but let's not wait around until they do! We may not have identified all the possible factors, we may not be understanding the how and why, but we have it in our power to avoid the unnatural lifestyle practices that very, very likely lead to cancer. It is surely only the complete ostrich who believes that 'breast cancer cannot be prevented.'

'The curse causeless shall not alight.' (Proverbs 26:2)

Teeth and the high-fruit raw food diet

2009-12-30T02:28:00.000-08:00

Time and time again we hear dire warnings of the perils of the high-fruit diet - usually from those selling supplements, powdered 'food' and cacao products (and who are usually on high raw rather than raw food diets anyway). I've debunked most of these in previous articles (see Archives Feb/Mar 2009 'Fool for Fruit' trilogy), but one topic I've held back on until now is teeth. Partly because I wanted to give myself a little longer on the high-fruit diet, just to see if any of these awful things we're told will happen - cavities, disappearing enamel etc - happen to me.

Well, they haven't. And, if they had done I would have run from the high-fruit diet very fast I can assure you!

So, let's start with a pic (taken today) of my own gnashers, after three years of raw, and the last eighteen months of them on a high-fruit diet. Sorry it's not bigger - I can't see how on my basic version of 'blogger' how to enlarge this cropped pic, but I'm sure some of you will be able to look more closely (IF you desire...!).

As I hope you can see, they're not perfect. I have a little gum recession, but my dentist and hygienist will testify that this occurred before raw. In fact, the reason for the recession above my front canines is that, when cooked, I used to suffer from hayfever and I'd found over the years that pressing my nail on my gum would stop me sneezing. Unfortunately, that had a bad effect on my gums over time but the upside is that, since raw - no hayfever! In my first couple of months of raw, I did notice a little recession on other teeth, but Jill (my dentist) suggested that this had been previously masked by swelling caused by inflammation (on my cooked diet). So when my diet improved, the swelling went down, exposing the recession. But from that point on my gum health improved - amazingly! When cooked, my gums would bleed almost daily - perhaps 200+ times a year? On raw, I think I've seen spots of blood three times in three years.

You'll see a little grey in the corners, from amalgam (mercury) fillings remaining from a childhood of sweet (candy) eating. The lower (visible) halves of my teeth are not completely opaque, but they've always been like that.

I've had no caps/crowns and my teeth are not bleached. The only dental work I've had done since going raw is the replacement of amalgam fillings (that my dentist said were 'raggedy')with white fillings.

I brush my teeth twice a day, morning and evening, brush additionally 30-60 minutes after eating any sticky food, such as dates, and floss each morning. At my check-up a few weeks ago, I was told I had a little plaque build-up on the inner surfaces of my top front teeth, where I've been remiss in brushing.

I follow a raw vegan, high-fruit, unsupplemented diet. 60-70% is fruit, 15-20% fat (eg nuts and seeds) and the rest vegetables including lots of greens. Key thing is that, since raw, my teeth, and gums, have improved, and there has been no deterioration on a high-fruit diet.

At the check-up I asked Jill the dentist, and the hygienist (also called Jill) these questions:

1. How would you describe the state of my teeth and gums now as compared with a few years ago? (Before raw.)

Both Jills said there had been a big improvement ('much better!').

2. How would you rate the state of my teeth and gums compared with that of the average 51-year-old?

Both Jills - 'good!'

So what's going on? According to some 'experts' who say the high-fruit diet is a recipe for disaster for teeth, I should have had cavities, erosion of enamel, 'transparent' teeth even! (Heard this one recently from someone influential in the raw food world talking of 'someone they knew' who had experienced this!)

It does seem to me that those warning that the high fruit diet is bad for teeth are basing these warnings on the most unscientific of evidence, on claims from 'someone I know' or 'I've heard that...' rather than considering that the vast majority of those on a high fruit diet are not having such problems. In fact, those with the longest experience and, to my mind, greatest knowledge of raw food nutrition, such as Dr Doug Graham, say that tooth problems should no more be a feature of the high-fruit diet than any other kind of raw food diet.

I certainly meet, at raw events, raw fooders (on all sorts of raw food diet) with grotty teeth. I suspect their teeth looked that way before raw, but don't like to ask... However, it's true that some on raw food diets (all sorts of raw food diet) do experience teeth problems after going raw. These are a minority, but it's clear that some raw fooders do have 'teeth issues' on raw.

In this article, I'm going to suggest reasons why some raw fooders do develop problems with their teeth, and what steps we can take to minimise the chances of these occurring and instead see our teeth improving on the raw food diet.

It's a collation/summary of material I've collected over the last three years, filtered by my unique bias, ie I prefer the high-fruit brand of raw food diet. But do bear in mind that those who put so much effort into giving raw fooders the heebie-jeebies about fruit have their own biases...

There are three sorts of raw food diet that will raise the chances of tooth problems occurring:

1. THE 'TRANSITION FOOD' (OR 'RAWGOURMET') DIET

This is often high in:

Processed sugar (eg agave syrup). There's lots of disagreement amongst dentists as to what causes cavities, but there is consensus on one thing: refined sugar consumption.

Dried fruit (eg mixed with nuts in crusts). Dried fruit sticks to the teeth.

Nuts and seeds. Regular readers will know I do like my nuts and seeds! However, rawgourmet food (burgers, cakes, crackers etc) is generally a little too high in these foods, which stick to our teeth and get wedged between them.

Apple cider vinegar. This is concentrated acid, just like any other vinegar, so will attack enamel.

In my first few months of raw, when I had lots of fun making 'rawgourmet' concoctions I found myself eating far more 'sticky' foods than I ever had when cooked. Although this period doesn't appear to have harmed my teeth, I think if I'd continued eating this sort of food regularly it might have done, and can imagine it would be quite likely to cause problems in those predisposed to tooth problems (as some believe 'genetic inheritance' has a role to play).

2. A HIGH-FRUIT 'GRAZING' DIET

Jill the hygienist is fine with my high-fruit diet, but warns that teeth will be happy with fruit as long as it's eaten as 'meals', that is in a relatively large quantity at one sitting, rather than nibbling constantly. Her words were, 'if you're going to eat fruit, eat the fruit bowl.' I think we know what she means, and her advice is right in line with that of high-fruit advocates who also generally advise eating fruit 'as a meal', and, most importantly, eating sufficient so that we don't need to eat again for a few hours, thereby giving our digestive systems and teeth a well-needed rest, giving them time to cope with the food, to do what they need to do to restore the physiological status quo and not beleaguer them with another onslaught too soon.

3. A HIGH-FRUIT DIET HIGH IN CITRUS FRUITS

Citrus fruit is great occasionally, and here's where 'instinctive eating' can help us decide just how much citrus is right and how much is too much. If we are very attracted to oranges, then we should eat them. I remember in Spring 2008 oranges tasted the most delicious fruit to me, and, as I can take them or leave them now, have concluded that, at that time, my body very much needed what oranges gave it. But unfortunately it's more often the case that a raw fooder eating lots of oranges isn't desiring them particularly, but eating them dutifully because someone else has told him 'they're good for us', or because he has a glut of oranges, or because they're cheap, or has been persuaded by someone that he should go on an 'orange juice diet' for cleansing.

Citrus is very hard on enamel and I have seen sufficient reports of those on high-citrus diets running into tooth problems to persuade me that high citrus is in general not the way to go. I remember using lemon juice daily in salads in my first few months of raw, and my teeth were sensitive and ached a little. I can't be sure that the one resulted in the other, as I have seen a plausible suggestion that when gum inflammation reduces, teeth can shift position a little and ache. However, I did reduce my consumption of lemon juice and the problems stopped.

THE RAW FOOD DIET THAT SHOULDN'T RESULT IN TEETH PROBLEMS

IS:

A diet of simple, whole, fresh foods. Lots of fruit fine (but not too much citrus). Vegetables, particularly high-alkaline veg such as celery and spinach for neutralising acids in the mouth. A small amount of nuts and/or seeds if desired. Food to be taken in two or three meals a day, and tooth care assiduous, as below.

TOOTH CARE

Do animals clean their teeth?

Well, not in the way we do, but animals have been observed using a variety of methods to keep their teeth clean. Mongooses use their sharp claws as toothpicks. Rabbits, horses and elephants chew tough grasses and leaves. Some animals have other tiny animals to clean their teeth for them. And recently Thai monkeys were observed using human hair to floss, and apparently teaching their young to do the same. So tooth care is certainly natural. Also, animals' teeth are often effectively 'flossed' by the action of tearing their food and/or chewing (which would also generate lots of alkalising saliva). Another reason to chew our food well, and to include in our diets crunchy whole foods such as apples, carrots and celery which will stimulate saliva production as well as help remove food particles.

Brushing

Toothbrush type? There's lots of debate on whether a small, large, soft, hard, manual or electric toothbrush is best. Personally, I don't trust electric toothbrushes, but I have no scientific basis for this, and my dentist and hygienist tell me they're the very best (but I'm still not going to use one - sorry Jills!). The most important thing is certainly, when brushing, not to miss bits, and (oh the number of times I've been told this, and do I listen?) to angle the brush so that it goes underneath the gums a little.

When to brush? Brushing should take place two or three times a day. I'd been brought up to be a good little girl in this respect (pity about the sweets...) and always did this, and was later surprised to meet people who only brushed once a day, with their teeth and gums bearing witness to that! Don't brush directly after a meal. Wait 30-60 minutes. Two reasons: firstly, the enamel is softer just after eating and therefore more vulnerable to damage. Secondly, it allows time for your saliva to neutralise acids. Brush enough, but don't brush too much. Brushing to extremes, eg brushing hard many times a day every day has been known to wear away enamel and cause gum recession.

Paste or not? I use a little toothpaste out of habit more than anything else, but see myself moving to using nothing in the future, as certainly on a natural hygiene diet I can't see any reason to use toothpaste. Some swear by baking soda. I'd never use it myself as I see it as unnatural and far too abrasive. 'Tooth soap' has a big fan base in the raw food world, although personally I find the taste unpleasant.

Flossing

Ever removed floss from between your teeth and smelt, well, the worse sort of poo-smell (OK, not a raw fooder's poo of course!)? That happens far less on the raw food than cooked food diet, but will occasionally if you've let stuff rot on your teeth. That smell is simply the 'poos' of the bacteria that have 'eaten' (decomposed) dead matter on your teeth. (Please don't be like a cooked omnivore friend of mine who was so disturbed by the smell that he never flossed his teeth again...!) Even if you don't eat dried fruit or nuts, fibres of fruit and vegetables can get trapped between teeth, as can their seeds. (I've heard it suggested that unnatural diet over hundreds (thousands?) of years has affected our jaw development, resulting in teeth too close together - evidenced by the growing numbers of children needing orthodontic treatment.) The by-products of the bacteria 'poo' is acidic, and this erodes enamel. Flossing can be done with string, tape, and the same effect can be achieved with toothpicks/brush picks.

Suggestion...

After eating nuts and seeds or anything I can feel has stuck to/inbetween my teeth, I use my tongue, saliva and fingers to remove bits from my teeth as far as I can. It's only since starting to put this article together that I've become conscious that I do this quite a lot, and I'm thinking it must be good! So, if you don't, consider getting into the habit.

Vitamin D supplementation?

Some think this is the answer. I don't supplement, and am wary of supplementation (see blog archives Aug 08 for why.) Lots of people will advocate that you do supplement, but here's a dissenting view, taken from my recent article on Vitamin D, here.

'Charlette R Gallagher ('Taking the fear out of eating') explains that the effect of too much D on bones is similar to that of too little and that calcium may be removed from bone and too much deposited in soft tissue, resulting in arthritis-like pain and kidney damage. This is confirmed by the American Dietetic Association: 'excess amounts of vitamin D can cause...reduced bone density.' Some people have found, in taking supplemental vitamin D, that their problems have worsened rather than improved. I remember reading an account by a well-known raw fooder in the UK who noted that the condition of her children's teeth worsened while supplementing for Vitamin D rather than improving.'

*****

It would be good if, next time on the raw food forums a 'high fruit diet is bad for teeth' thread pops up, or a new raw fooder posts with tooth concerns, this article could reassure. And I do think these 'I know someone who...' anecdotes need to be subjected to just a little more scrutiny before being used to alarm others, and, sadly, to dissuade raw fooders from eating all the fruit their bodies desire. Unless we know everything these unfortunate people ingested in the period in question, and have key information about other aspects of their health and lifestyle that could have contributed to their problems, even the most tentative conclusions cannot be drawn.

Provided we follow a diet in accordance with the principles of natural hygiene, we should not run into teeth problems - in fact the reverse should be true.

A happy and fruity New Year to you all!

Nuts - Eat Fresh, Eat Raw

2009-11-24T00:50:00.001-08:00

In the last post ('Are You A Nutter?') I explained that nuts are an excellent food for us, as long as they're:

FRESH

RAW and

NOT EATEN IN UNNATURAL QUANTITIES (ie in amounts greater than we'd eat if we had to shell them all ourselves - in-shell nuts obviously the ideal here.)

So, for example, our new raw fooder will make the 'mock turkey roast', the 'raw carrot cake', or whatever, with a cup of almonds here, a cup of brazils there, perhaps washed down with a glass of cashew milk, and very likely suffer from bowel-freeze, football tummy and considerable discomfort the next day.

Why?

Perhaps because... the almonds were stale, and some were rancid. If she'd tried a handful before eating, and chewed them well, she might have found that they didn't taste good. If she'd eaten them singly, she might have found the odd rancid one and been able to spit it out. But how could she tell either of these things by just pouring them out of the bag and chucking them into the food processor?.

And/or perhaps because...the brazils and cashews weren't raw at all - they were cooked. She'd used a raw food teacher's recipe and not realised that, outside the months around Christmas, raw brazils can't be purchased in the UK, and, contrary to what the nice man in Julian Graves had told her (and the packet did say 'raw cashews'), raw cashews can only be purchased online.

And because she'd eaten WAY too many nuts! As our ideal is to eat nuts fresh, raw, and in natural quantities, her recipe failed on all counts.

Our raw fooder is then convinced she 'can't digest' nuts, and shares her experiences with other anti-nutters on raw food forums, who of course all agree with her. But her problems with nuts aren't the fault of the nuts!

In this article I'm mainly going to tackle 'fresh and raw', as the last post pretty much covered quantities and digestion.

I do believe the ideal is to eat lots of nuts in the Autumn, fresh off the tree, and fewer (if any) nuts during the rest of the year. However, we are fortunate in the UK that people in warmer climes in Europe (and farther away) will share their nuts with us so that we can enjoy them at other times of the year if we choose to. As these nuts will not be as fresh as they could be, it's up to each one of us to make a decision as to whether we will consume them, and, if so, in what quantity.

And, as knowledge is power, I hope to impart a little information here that could assist readers in making that decision.

So let's start with a nut-eating 'league table':

1st place:
Nuts from the tree. So, in the UK and many similar climates, this means hazels/cobnuts and walnuts in the Autumn. (Almonds are not generally hardy here.)

2nd place:
Nuts grown locally, picked recently.

3rd place:
Nuts in shell that haven't been in storage for too long. The shell helps keep the nut fresh and protects it from contaminants.

4th place:
Shelled, dried nuts. Unfortunately it's not always possible to know how long they've been stored, so try to buy from somewhere with a frequent turnover. Store in airtight containers in the fridge, but bear in mind that, even storing them this way, Vitamin E can reduce by around 30%.

The $64K question...are shelled dried nuts raw? All shelled nuts on sale will have been dried to minimise chances of mould. Some will have been dried at temperatures to 150-160 F or higher, which is above the consensual 'raw' cut-off point (around 115 F). But, for raw fooders without nut trees or easy access to one, they may be all that can be obtained. Drying at a relatively high temperature may well have adversely affected enzymes and vitamins, which means the nuts will not contain these in precisely the quantities they were designed to give. Mineral content (the big plus for nuts) is unlikely to have changed.

One test of the 'rawness' (or 'aliveness') of a nut is if it sprouts. Sadly, most attempts to truly sprout dried nuts I have heard of have come to naught (an almond 'splitting' at one tip is not sprouting.) However, Helen Armfield of the Raw Food UK forum found a 'tiny tree growing in the corner of the compost bin' from organic Italian-grown almonds bought at Holland & Barrett. Consequently, I don't feel we can 'write off' shelled nuts altogether!

No place:
Shelled, cooked nuts.

In the UK, shelled nuts on sale in supermarkets, health food/wholefood shops/markets, that might even say 'raw' on the label, but are actually cooked are: brazils, cashews, macadamias and pecans. They have all been cooked (boiled, steamed, roasted etc) to facilitate shell removal. When you eat cooked nuts, not only are you eating fat heated to high temperatures, vitamins will have been significantly damaged or destroyed, and minerals will be less bioavailable.

(One thing I found strange in my early days as a raw fooder is how so many raw food teachers would fill their recipes with brazils and macadamias, which are very difficult to find raw in the UK, and, when this was queried, would chide others for being pedantic. One (no names - but s/he is no longer active in the raw food world...) went so far as to suggest that those who cared whether their nuts were raw or not had some sort of mental health problem, when she was quite happy to tell people why they shouldn't boil, steam, etc...

NUT BY NUT

Almonds

In the UK, our almonds have (so far) escaped pasteurisation. US almonds are generally pasteurised, although I understand it is possible to obtain them unpasteurised from some sources (US readers - if you know of any, please post a Comment to help your fellow nutters.)

Almonds can easily be bought in shell in the UK, but...I must confess I haven't cracked (sorry) the method of shelling them efficiently, so I normally buy mine shelled. Keep a note of which suppliers like to include rancid ones (these taste vile - you'll know.) and give them a wide berth in future. I had been buying from a local wholefoods market (Infinity brand), but quality hadn't been 100% consistent. Recently I've been buying from haverawcakeandeatit, have delved into the pack several times and haven't found a bad one yet. Very good almonds - far less dry and dusty than other brands.

To test the freshness of your almonds, chew them for a very long time. If they continue to taste milky, becoming sweeter, trust your tastebuds - that means they're good!

Brazils

Shelled brazils on sale in shops will have been boiled (or sometimes roasted) for several minutes for shell removal, which will certainly kill the nut and affect nutrients. Brazils are a good source of selenium, and although I'm not a biochemist, my understanding from my reading on this is that, whether or not the selenium is actually damaged, it will be changed by cooking and therefore rendered less bioavailable to us.

So brazils should be purchased in-shell. They're generally available October-January in the UK, ie around Christmas. However...I'm rather suspicious of the in-shell nuts currently being sold in supermarkets. They seem too 'yellow' in colour to be raw, don't taste as I remember brazil nuts tasting years ago and, after eating them at various points over the last few weeks, I've made an association with some rather yukky 'symptoms' following my eating of them, eg mild headaches, feeling 'sinusy' (mild deafness - build-up of pus in middle ear?), and not-nice poo (sorry!). They weren't organic (I currently have no local source of organic brazils), and I'm wondering if these in-shell brazils have in fact been cooked and/or 'treated' in some way. (Edit - I've 'tested' these yet again, and same symptoms - please avoid! Note to body - I'm sorry to have inflicted this on you, but I did it for my readers!) Perhaps someone can throw some light on this.

It is also possible that over a period of several days I overdid it on the selenium that brazil nuts are so high in; selenium is toxic in large quantities, and the quantities talked of in the articles I've found would certainly correspond to a 'handful' a day (esp. if you have large hands :-)). And the shells themselves contain toxins; most of the time when I crack brazils they don't emerge from their shells whole, and therefore it's quite possible to accidentally consume tiny pieces of shell with our broken nuts. So, if you are going to have brazils, best to stick to one or two a day, and, if, like me, you don't have the will-power to keep consumption that low, probably safest not to buy them at all.

Organic raw brazils can be purchased from http://www.keimling.eu/, although have to say that even these didn't taste like brazils-as-I-remember-them!

So jury's out on in-shell brazils...

(BTW if you are fortunate enough to be able to obtain some good, organic, truly raw, not-mucked-about-with brazils, try chewing them for a long time, and see if they taste of mushroom to you. My theory is that that's the selenium!)

Cashew

Technically not a nut, but the seed of the cashew apple, the raw cashew is encased in a tough shell that contains caustic, toxic substances. So that these are not consumed, the cashews are steamed and/or immersed in a hot oil bath so that the shells and toxins can be removed.

Truly raw cashews (hand-cracked by workers wearing gloves) can be purchased from online stores such as http://www.fresh-network.com/

Coconut

Try green coconuts (on sale at Tesco and ethnic shops/stalls in the summer) for their delicious water and soft flesh. IF you can get into them. I stick to enjoying them when someone else has gone to the hard work of opening them! Don't write off the less fashionable, brown-hairy, hard-fleshed, mature coconuts - they can be very good as well, although level of freshness is highly variable.

Hazelnuts/cobnuts/filberts

These grow easily in the UK and similar climates - we have a large cob-nut (filberts - a sort of hazelnut) tree in the garden. In-shell is of course best. If you don't have your own tree, find someone who does, and start your own for the future. Some supermarkets sell in-shell filberts in the Autumn and hazelnus around Christmastime.

Shelled...my research has suggested that these are likely to be raw (they are after all very easy to crack, so shouldn't need to be cooked for shell removal) and also that they may be dried at lower temperatures than other nuts. However, I've found (perhaps because they are dried at a lower temperature) that they do go off quickly. (I remember a US friend not knowing the phrase 'go off' - I'm talking 'go stale/rancid'.) So I don't tend to buy shelled hazelnuts very often, having my fill of in-shell ones in the Autumn.

Macadamias

Shelled macs in the UK are very much cooked, and often rancid. I say 'often', because I remember what shelled macs tasted like when I first went raw (and didn't realise they weren't raw) and compared that with the taste of some in-shell macs that I obtained from a tropical birdfeed shop and cracked with a heavy stone. Macs just cracked from the shell are creamy and quite different from the 'smoky' (heated fat?) taste of shelled macs. Even 'truly raw' macs (as available from keimling.eu) don't taste anything like as good as the freshly-cracked - the flavour of macs deteriorates very quickly once out of the shell. I see that funkyraw.com are now stocking raw macs, and could be worth trying but the price - £17 for 500g - would rule them out for me.

As far as macadamias go, I just accept the fact that, living here, I...just can't have 'em! I've heard raw fooders stamp their foots and say things like 'well, if I can't get raw x/y I'll still have the non-raw - I'm not going to deprive myself.' Which I've always found strange, as there are thousands of other delicious raw things we can eat!

Pecans

Pecans are soaked in hot, or nearly-boiling, water for shell removal. I have heard of people here selling products claimed to be made with raw pecans, but I'd love to know how they're shelling them in large quantities without heat treatment, as I've tried, and even getting the nut out in little pieces is an ordeal. US nutters - I know pecans are popular over there - do you have truly raw pecans?

Pistachios

As available in the UK, they come within my 'fourth place' category - dried - and my attempts to sprout them have been unsuccessful. Pity, as, being a Grecophile, I have many happy memories of pistachios...I have had the privilege of eating pistachios guaranteed as truly raw, via a friend who had imported from Nora Lenz in the US, and they were certainly very good.

Walnuts

Walnuts for in-shell sale are fumigated or heat-treated to kill insects in storage. So, as organic producers will not have fumigated, they may well have heat-treated...and I haven't managed to sprout any organic walnuts I've purchased.

Ideally, save your walnut-eating till the Autumn, and find a walnut tree. If you don't have one, put a card up at a Post Office/newsagent; someone in your vicinity may well have a walnut tree and appreciate you clearing their lawn. And, of course, plant a baby tree for harvest in a few years' time, as I have. My source of fresh, moist, delicious walnuts this Autumn - so fresh they've still had their black skins, and without a hint of the bitterness sometimes found in dried walnuts - has been a lady with a walnut tree selling them at a local 'car boot' sale!

To summarise, for UK nutters, and those in similar climates, it's best to go for:

Fresh in-shell hazelnuts September - December, from local trees, or shops.
Fresh in-shell walnuts October, from local trees.
In-shell brazils, possibly...if organic, and consumption limited to one or two a day.
Almonds from Europe (in-shell or shelled) from a reliable source.
Truly raw cashews from online stores.

If you're outside the UK, make us green by letting us know what truly raw nuts you are fortunate enough to be able to obtain. (And, if you know of a source of organic, in-shell brazils, where the nuts taste good, please let me know!)

Are You A Nutter?

2009-11-16T08:36:00.000-08:00

I am!

After weeks of feasting first on cob-nuts (like hazelnuts) from the garden, then on delicious locally-grown walnuts, and then reading in John Robbins' 'Healthy at 100' of the long-lived, healthy Abkhasians who include nuts at 'almost every meal', I thought it was about time I blogged about nuts, especially, as, for reasons I shall examine, nuts are a tad unfashionable in some raw food circles.

Some raw fooders say they can't eat them as they give rise to digestive problems. I do sympathise with that and will suggest reasons why these might be occurring. I do however take issue with those who claim that the reason they can't digest nuts is because their body is that much cleaner/digestion more efficient than that of the rest of us (always a goodie for 'raw oneupmanship') and that, consequently, nuts should not be eaten - by anyone. The last straw for me - the motivation for writing this article - was hearing someone recently describe nuts as 'dirty fuel'!

I love nuts, and they're an integral part of my raw food diet. They're a wonderful food for human beings, and I'm not the only one to think so. Regular readers will know I often refer to the writings of the Natural Hygienists, so let's kick off with some excerpts (paraphrased) from 'Nuts' by the 'father' of Natural Hygiene - Herbert Shelton (my comments bracketed):

'Botanically, nuts are fruits [so in this way are technically part of a 'fruitarian' diet], as they develop from pollinated flowers. Paleontologists tell us that primitive man was a nut eater. Nuts are rich in food values, delightfully-flavored and keep for extended periods so that man, as well as the squirrel, may store them for future use.

The nut tree, like the fruit tree, strikes its roots deep into the earth, where they take up the precious minerals...[so nut trees should not be affected by 'demineralisation' of soil, as that tends to apply to the topsoil only].

The nut is a veritable storehouse of minerals and high-grade protein, emulsified oil and health-imparting vitamins. Nuts are rich in minerals, particularly iron and lime [calcium]. In the chewing of nuts a fine emulsion is produced so that the nuts enter the stomach in a form adapted for prompt digestion.'

Dr Virginia Vetrano, writing in 'Errors in Hygiene?!!?' on nuts: 'they are packed full of bone-building minerals and proteins, and, like other fruits, are truly Nature's demonstration of love to humans.' She has observed that 'the addition of nuts to the all-fruit diet has often brought about a quick return of energy and strength, a happier disposition, faster wound healing and better growth of the hair and nails.'

The Teacher in The Essene Gospel of Peace - a wonderful litttle book of dietary instruction (and other things...) - instructed the Israelites to eat dried figs and 'the meat of almonds in all the months when the trees bear no fruits.'

IS IT NATURAL TO EAT NUTS?

As Shelton tells us, there is evidence to suggest that early man was a fruit and nut gatherer.

Man is unique in that, unlike every other creature on earth, he has been equipped with the brains and motor skills to be able to utilise all sorts of food sources. That's natural for man.

He watches the squirrel and observes that the hard capsules hanging from trees contain edible nuts. He sees that, after the squirrel has had its fill, there are hundreds of these capsules left on the ground (are in my garden anyway!), that 99% will return to the ground if uneaten, and 1% will grow into new trees. He is resourceful enough to see that here could be a food source for himself. He observes that the squirrel uses his sharp teeth to get into the capsules. So man either uses his own sharp teeth, or if these aren't up to the job, uses a stone, or invents implements to remove the nut from the shell. He also observes that the squirrel stores the nuts, and, after experimentation, finds that he can also store the nuts, provided they're kept dry. In this way, he can benefit from a tasty, concentrated-protein food source in the months ahead when there may be a relatively low amount of food (if any) growing. In this way, it benefits the man, who, through wanderlust (also natural to man) has migrated to climates cooler than those in which (we are told) he originated.

In this way, the gathering, storing and eating of nuts is entirely natural, for man. And the nuts taste good to him. They don't need to be seasoned. They don't need to be 'disguised' by mixing with other foods. It's natural for man to be attracted to, and to eat nuts.

NUT PR!

Oh the number of nut 'downers' I've seen on raw food forums. Let's take these one by one...

'Nuts are acidic'. Are they?

Well, yes, in general...a bit. They tend to be high in phosphorus so will leave an 'acid ash' when metabolised. Although some say the almond is alkalising, and Shelton believes the pistachio to be alkalising, but...controversial views, and consensus is that nut pH is neutral at best and probably slightly acidic. But that's no good reason to leave nuts out of the diet. After all, if most of the diet is alkalising, eg fruit, greens (many raw food teachers, for various reasons, recommend pairing nuts with greens) there really isn't going to be a problem, and the net effect of eating nuts in moderation, ie of obtaining all the nutrients they give us, is going to be good.

'Nuts are constipating.' Are they?

I have never been constipated (well, bar the occasional day, eg when travelling across the world) since going raw three years ago; I 'go' at least twice a day. So, as a regular nut eater, I have to conclude that nuts are not 'constipating'.

'Nuts are difficult to digest. Are they?'

Some people do have difficulties digesting nuts, it's true. But some of those people seem to assume that everyone does. The fact is, those of us who eat nuts regularly don't have problems digesting them. (Else we wouldn't be eating them, I can assure you.)

Some tips:

1. Don't eat nuts in the industrial, and unnatural, quantities required by some raw food recipes. My rule of thumb is not to eat more shelled nuts than we'd eat if we had to hand-crack them all ourself.

2. Nuts bought from shops will have been dried. Nuts are low on water in the first place, so when dried are very dry! That can cause discomfort when eating. It can help to soak dried nuts for a few hours to rehydrate them, so they're a little nearer to the state they were when they fell from the tree.

3. The longer we chew them (masticate!), the more hydrated they will be, the more ready for digestion they will be, and the less likely they are to sit in our stomachs like bricks.

4. Eat them slowly. This is where buying in-shell nuts scores - hand-cracking each nut and making sure we finish eating one nut before the next goes in (take your own advice please, Debbie) will slow us down a bit!

5. Don't eat nuts with fruit, and, ideally, don't eat fruit until at least a few hours after your nut-eating. This is because...fruit digests very quickly, and, sure, nuts take a little longer. If we eat fruit with or on top of nuts, the fruit will want to exit quickly, but its exit will be blocked by the nuts. While the fruit's hanging round, it will ferment...gas, football tummy, maybe pain...

(The classic raw food restaurant fruit & nut pie, where large quantities of nuts (sometimes not even soaked, and sometimes not even raw) are mixed with fruit, may well, as per 1, 2 and 5 above, cause 'digestive problems', and if we're not attending to our chewing and bolting our food because we're busy yakking with other raw fooders, 3 and 4 will apply as well and...we'll feel very uncomfortable a few hours later and maybe the next day too...but - it's really not the fault of the nuts per se!)

Some raw fooders claim that the reason their bodies have problems with nuts is because their digestive systems are particularly 'clean'/'responsive'.

Here's a different spin on that. It's a bit controversial, and I know some people are going to hate it, but it's interesting and I feel worth considering.

Virginia Vetrano: 'Nuts are digestible. Only those with impaired digestive systems have trouble with nuts.' (Oo-er!!)

This is the gist of it: to digest dense protein foods such as nuts, the stomach needs to produce hydrochloric acid (HCl). Now, in people with digestive problems, HCl may well be lacking, hence they will find nuts difficult to digest. Vetrano believes that Natural Hygienist T C Fry made this error. He had digestive troubles prior to embarking on a Hygienic diet, and, when he then encountered problems with nuts, blamed the nuts. He therefore ate no nuts, and, in Vetrano's opinion, his health would have been better if he'd included this extra protein in his diet to meet the extraordinary health challenges he faced from a past life of digestive abuse coupled with a very stressful lifestyle.

And therefore is it not possible that those raw fooders who are healthy but then remove nuts and seeds from their diet may then, on the rare occasions they do have them, encounter problems digesting nuts because they rarely eat them? The stomach generates enough HCl to meet the body's needs, and it may well be that, over time, if nuts are never eaten, it will produce less HCl, therefore reducing its ability to digest them efficiently. Just my tentative hypothesis.
But Vetrano's advice to health seekers having problems with nuts seems to support this. She recommends building up gradually, by having very small portions, eating nuts twice a day instead of all at once, and chewing so well 'that the mixture of nuts and saliva is almost as thin as water. That way you will be sure that lingual lipase, the fat-digesting enzyme secreted by the glands of the tongue, is extra plentiful.'

'Nuts encourage 'binge-eating'. Do they?

Most of us, even when raw for some time, eat for emotional reasons at times. We may feel stressed one day and our psyches pull us back to days when we 'comforted' ourselves by shovelling in a bag of (cooked) peanuts, cashews, whatever - fast - so we overeat on nuts, our minds overriding our bodies, ignoring the 'I've had sufficient' signals. This is where only eating in-shell nuts can help. Shelling nuts takes time and effort, and we're far less likely to overeat if we have to shell them ourselves.

Although, I would suggest that depriving ourselves of nuts (and fat in general) can actually lead to 'binge-eating'! I've found that eating all the raw fat I fancy (usually at least 15% of my diet by calories) means that I don't binge-eat on nuts. When last year I tried limiting my fat to less than 10% I had significant cravings that did lead to binge-eating on occasions. Some people I know do very well on 10% fat or less. Me, I'm happy and healthy on a little more.

'Most of the nuts sold in the UK are rancid. Are they?'

If they haven't just fallen from the tree, perhaps, technically, they could be classed as 'rancid', but only in the same way that any food that hasn't just been pulled up from the soil or picked from a tree isn't as fresh as it could be.

Rancidity is caused by hydrolysis (exposure to water) or oxidation (exposure to air). In-shell nuts are protected to some extent by their shells. Shelled nuts are dried before sale (see Pt 2 for more details on this) to reduce water content and are then specially packed to reduce oxygen (eg vacuum/nitrogen packing).

Now, cooked people can be duped into eating all sorts of things that aren't good, especially when they're highly seasoned and/or covered in sauce, but, when we've been raw for a while, and only eating whole raw foods, I am sure that we can trust our tastebuds and sense of smell to tell us when something shouldn't be eaten.

If ever in your life, cooked or raw, you've smelt oil that's been in the cupboard too long, you'll know 'rancid'! The only shelled nuts that I remember regularly detecting rancidity in were shelled macadamias at the start of my raw life (when I didn't realise they were actually cooked.) Nowadays I do occasionally find a rancid nut amongst various nuts that I eat, but - no problem - I just stop chewing and remove it from my mouth.

THE 'VERITABLE STOREHOUSE' OF NUTRIENTS!

Nuts are a concentrated source of protein. True, everything we eat contains amino-acids, from which our bodies build protein, but nuts are particularly high in the essential amino-acids.

They score highly on vitamins and minerals as well. Try inputting a few days' eating, without nuts and seeds (seeds are similar to nuts nutritionally), into a nutritional program such as Cron-o-Meter. Then repeat, adding 2-4 oz of nuts a day. Watch your Vitamin E, calcium, iron, zinc and selenium levels shoot up!

Just picking out three of my favourite nuts: almonds are particularly high in Vitamin E, calcium, copper, magnesium and zinc. Hazels are high in calcium. Walnuts are high in magnesium. All nuts are a good source of raw fats, and walnuts are particularly good for omega-3s, so are the raw vegan's very good friend!

SO, DO ENJOY NUTS - IN MODERATION, WITH CAVEATS.

The standard recommendation of Natural Hygienists and raw food teachers in general is to eat nuts in small quantities - how small varying by raw food dietary 'school of thought'. They do taste delicious, and I know that sometimes it's hard not to wolf them down. As well as buying in-shell, do eat fruit and vegetables in sufficient quantity so you're not tempted to 'fill up' with nuts.

For me, nuts are an integral part of my diet, but not a major part (that starring role goes to fruit). And, if 'instinctive eating' is operating correctly, we're not going to be drawn to eating nuts all the time (not even squirrels do that). But, sometimes minds overrule bodies...I remember raw food promoter Karen Knowler telling the tale of a truck driver who, on going raw, decided to eat 'nothing but nuts', and ended up with kidney problems. Karen on quantities: 'in nature they grow in shells and it takes a long time and a lot of manual effort to shell them one by one (which we would do naturally). I don't think it's a coincidence that nature is set up this way. It knows that these 'little treasures' are PACKED with nutrition and potential and we just don't need many to be healthy.' Beautifully put.

Nuts - delicious. Nuts - are digestible. Nuts - a good food for human beings. So, if you've been told that nuts aren't invited to the raw food party, please put that out the window, and crack open some hazelnuts, or some brazils? BUT do make sure they're raw.

And that I will be discussing in Pt 2.

The 'danger' of not supplementing for vitamin D

2009-10-20T04:28:00.000-07:00

DISCLAIMER: Not a doctor, not a dietician. Etc.
*****

Now the days are getting shorter, and greyer, do you in the UK and similar climates feel scared? Do you feel scared when you hear supplement manufacturers tell you it's essential to supplement for vitamin D in the UK, at least in the winter, else your health will suffer?

Dr Doug Graham ('80/10/10 Diet'): 'Whenever somebody's trying to scare us, the question is, 'Are they benefiting from it, and in what way? If they're selling us a product...we should ask how big is the danger, really?'

In the UK, the supplement sellers' trump card is that, no matter how much we good little health seekers get out in the sun in the summertime, we're stuffed in the winter because we have...the wrong kind of sun.

In this article I'm going to try to assess how big (or small) the danger is for vegans in the UK (from this point on please read for UK, 'UK and similar climates!') if they don't supplement for vitamin D in the winter.

HOW MUCH VITAMIN D DO WE NEED?

As usual, sources vary, and figures are usually ranges, but a ballpark figure is around 400 IU a day (on average) for an adult.

WHERE CAN WE GET IT?

People on all types of diet, that is, including cooked omnivorous, get the vast majority of their vitamin D from sunlight on the skin, not food. To give you an idea... John Cannell, Vitamin D Council: '10-15 minutes in noontime summer sun is enough and leads to the production of 10,000 IU of vitamin D'. (This compares with 300 IU from a portion of oily fish, 98 IU from a cup of (vitamin D-fortified) milk, and 20IU from an egg.)

To all intents and purposes, there's little difference between the vegetarian and vegan diet when it comes to vitamin D. Unless a vegetarian glugs down vast quantities of fortified milk (very little D in raw milk), which would bring its own attendant health problems, D food sources for the vegetarian are insignificant.

What did vegetarians/vegans in the UK do in the past, before supplements (or indeed fortified milk and other veg foods) were invented? We don't have much information on vegans (as we're a rare sort!), but I haven't found anything that suggests that UK vegetarians in history have, as a group, suffered from health problems - in fact, the reverse has tended to be the case. I wonder how they managed.

Some basics:

WHAT IS VITAMIN D?

Vitamin D is a fat-soluble vitamin which acts like a hormone, regulating the formation of bone and the absorption of calcium and phosphorus from the intestine. It's created during a chemical reaction that starts when the skin is exposed to the sun's 'ultraviolet B' (UVB) rays. Substances within sebum (a fatty substance on the skin's surface) then work with the sun exposure to synthesise vitamin D, or, to be more precise, D3. The D3 is then absorbed (we hope, see later) from the surface of the skin into the bloodstream.

Vitamin D3 (cholecalciferol) is the D made by mammals, ie including humans, via the process described above.
(Vitamin D2 (ergocalciferol) is the D derived from fungal and plant sources.)

And note that UVB rays enable us to make vitamin D, but UVA rays destroy vitamin D.

THE IMPORTANCE OF VITAMIN D

It's most important role is in increasing absorption of calcium, and reducing urinary calcium loss. However, as it's also a regulator, in certain circumstances, D will take calcium from the bones if it's needed in the blood.

If there's not enough vitamin D, calcium deficiency will lead to bone softening, and fractures may result. Bones may form abnormally ('rickets'). Also, current research suggests D is involved in growth of lymphocytes, part of the body's defence system.

SUNLIGHT - HOW CAN WE GET IT?

From the sun of course, and there's a lot of it about, even in the UK (some experts say that even on a cloudy summer day some vitamin D will form.)

Taking the summer sunshine, as no controversy there, most of us could get far more of it than we do.

Indoor living

It's my guess that many of those tapping away at their keyboards worrying about vitamin D and/or warning others to supplement for D have done so indoors with the sun shining outside. Although most of us enjoy being out in the sun once we're there, it can take self-discipline and effort to drag ourselves away from the computer. But so much better than popping a pill.

Remembering the massive amount of vitamin D that can be made by just 10-15 minutes in the sun, those working in offices, shops etc can get out at lunchtime, and spend any weekend time they do have working, or just lying in, the garden (or park if there's no garden.)

We should not wear sunscreen, as that blocks UVB rays. Caveat - if the sun is so strong that we feel uncomfortable in it we should, as an animal would do, seek a shady spot.

Clothes

Wear fewer. From March at least, whenever it's sunny, we should push up our sleeves, get the shorts out!

Pollution?

It doesn't seem to me that this is much of a concern (re vitamin D at least!) in the UK, but...it's a good opportunity to discuss 'rickets'. Rickets in children was common in the Victorian era and the first half of the 20th century, when industrialisation led to smog (eg from burning coal), which blocked out much of the sun's UVB rays. My parents have often told of the 'peasoupers' of the Fifties. Also, certainly earlier in the 20th century, children were often working in factories in daylight hours anyway (before the start of compulsory schooling) so what little UVB rays were around they weren't getting. As the deprivation of sunlight = less vitamin D = less calcium absorption, then drinking gallons of milk would of course increase calcium and 'cure' rickets (as it did) but the cause of the rickets was lack of sunshine.

Prior to Victorian times, my googling finds no evidence to suggest that rickets was widespread. The rickets came with unnatural lifestyle.

In modern times, studies carried out in Delhi have linked atmospheric pollution with the development of vitamin D deficiency.

But even the London air is relatively clean compared with that of the Fifties, and London isn't amongst the most polluted cities in the world (16 out of 20 of them are in China, and in some the air is dark with coal dust!).

IS THE WINTER SUN IN THE UK 'THE WRONG KIND OF SUN'?

This is where the supplement sellers say 'nerr -gotcha!' to those of us who have the misfortune not to live in California.

As, a scientific study has shown that, in countries above 42 degrees north latitude, the sunlight November through February is insufficient for vitamin D synthesis, and that, in far northern latitudes, it's insufficient for up to six months. Hard luck us. UK is at 54 north - not exactly 'far northern', but, yes, perhaps our 'insufficient' period might extend a little way either side of November through February.

One reader became annoyed with me when I called this a 'theory' and said it was a 'scientifically proven fact'. I wish I had a penny (OK - a pound) for every scientific study that claimed such-and-such, only to be contradicted by a study a year or so later, where things had been done in a slightly different way, and different conclusions drawn. And haven't we been told all sorts of things about nutrition about scientists over the last 50 years, many of which have turned out to be...wrong?

(EDIT Nov 09 - It's mid-November and, amidst some cold blustery days, we have had a fair bit of sunshine, and this morning's been glorious! I've been in the garden, happily weeding, dead-heading...bulbs are coming up already, some are even budding! But, according to the scientists, this sunshine won't nourish me. You know what? I Don't Believe It. )

But, OK, for now, as I know many of you do believe it, let's go with the 'wrong kind of sun' for, say, late October to early March?

SO CAN WE STORE VITAMIN D MADE BY SUMMER SUN? AND IF SO, FOR HOW LONG?

Yes, we can store the D. Sources conflict as to where. I've seen 'the liver' and 'in body fat'. Perhaps both are correct. Either way, the D can be stored and released into the bloodstream as needed.

However, supplement manufacturers tell us that the D we make in the summer will simply not last us the whole of the winter, and that at some point in the winter we are likely to be significantly 'deficient'.

But not everyone agrees.

Dr Colin Paterson (consultant physician, NHS health site): 'Most people in the UK get most of their vitamin D from exposure of the skin to sunlight. The average person has enough vitamin D stored in their body to last for two or three years.'

Oliver Gillie, former Sunday Times medical correspodnent, reviewing the literature on vitamin D: 'Active exposure of the skin to the sun by removing clothes and sunbathing is necessary to provide healthy levels of vitamin D that will provide a reserve for the autumn, winter and early spring (October to March or later) when the sun is not strong enough to induce synthesis of vitamin D. Vitamin D has a half-life in the body of about six weeks and so high levels must be achieved in summer to provide levels in the body which remain sufficient at the end of winter.'

So Gillie is saying that provided we get enough in the summer, it will last the winter. A 'half-life' is the time taken for something to fall to half its initial value. We could only establish how much D was left after, eg, twelve weeks if we knew the rate of decline after the six-week point, and, of course, exactly how much D we might be using from our stores in that period! Suffice to say that, sure, stores must be getting low by late winter.

But, just because stores are low at one time of the year, does that necessarily mean our bodies are going to have problems? Can a healthy body not 'make it through' until levels are topped up again in the spring? How necessary is it for us to have 'high' stores every single month of the year? At worst, perhaps our bones are a little lower in mineral density towards the end of the winter, but I don't notice them crumbling en masse around February.

Pale skin absorbs more vitamin D

Now here's some good news for the pasty-faced!

Dark skin absorbs less sunlight than pale skin. Although science says we all came out of Africa originally, scientists at the Oslo University say that the skin of those who moved to colder countries lightened over thousands of years to give an evolutionary advantage. In other words, the skin lightened as a response to the different climate. Meaning that...for those who get less sunlight, nature compensates by ensuring that they absorb more. Neat, that!

So, our bodies are so clever that the skins of those who have migrated to cooler climates lighten specifically so they can make that much more vitamin D from the little sunlight they do get in the summer. Who knows, perhaps that's to help them through the winter! But then, that would be suggesting that our bodies know what they're doing, and are perfectly capable of making necessary adjustments for different climates...

PROBLEMS BLAMED ON 'VITAMIN D DEFICIENCY'

Most people who take D supplements take it not because they have noticed any particular symptoms but because they have been persuaded by others that it's a good idea to take them.

But some raw vegans take supplements because they have had health issues and attribute these to D deficiency.

Now, it could be that symptoms are due to D deficiency, and the obvious answer is to get more sunshine. But some maintain that, despite getting lots more sunshine than the average, they are still experiencing symptoms of 'deficiency'

But it is possible that these symptoms could be down to something else entirely. Illness can be caused by a thousand lifestyle factors, including many unconnected with food or sunshine. Bone/teeth problems could be due to acid-forming elements in the diet (some on high-raw diets have alcohol, coffee etc), resulting in the body leeching calcium from the bones to maintain optimal pH, or...could be due to eating too much dried fruit combined with poor dental care.

But what if our raw vegan has a blood test and vitamin D is undeniably 'low'? Well, firstly of course it could well be 'low' if it's taken in late winter. But then surely the D of the population as a whole might be lower then than in mid-summer anyway, and, as explained earlier, I question whether this is necessarily a concern.

Secondly, it could be that the illness itself has depleted the vitamin D. I'm on shaky ground here, as I don't have a source, but have seen this suggested in the past. I've googled pretty exhaustively to find anything more than anecdotal corroboration, but if any of you can supply anything more on this let me know. It makes sense if we consider that the body, when healing itself, might draw on stores of various nutrients, and if D is one of those (as research indicates it has a role to play in the defence system), then it would not be surprising if a person who is ill finds, on testing, that they are indeed 'low' on D, but as a result rather than a cause of the illness. Bear with me on my musings?

But it could also be the case that, although his/her body has been doing its darndest to make plenty of vitamin D in the summer, various lifestyle practices could be combining to...destroy it!

HOW TO DESTROY THE VITAMIN D WE'VE MADE

Wash it off!

Thanks to Joseph Mercola MD for reporting results of research that shows that it takes up to 48 hours before the majority of the D formed on our skin when exposed to sunlight is absorbed, and that, according to Mercola, if in that 48 hours we shower or bathe with soap (or, we might presume, any sort of 'bodywash' that contains detergent), we'll wash away much of the D! As, the soap washes off the sebum, which is critical in vitamin D formation. It could be the modern preoccupation with daily showering that is responsible for low D levels. So, I'd suggest showering with water only, or just using soap/detergent on the bits of the body that, er, don't normally see sunlight anyway?

Get our sunshine through glass...

Whereas the UVB rays enable our bodies to make vitamin D, UVA rays break down the D we've just formed. Glass blocks UVB, so if we come out of the summer sun, then spend time in a room (or in a car) where the sun's shining through a window rather than directly on us, we're getting lots of UVA, but not UVB. Net effect - reduction of vitamin D. So best to make sure windows are all open wide, to get the sunlight directly onto our skin, or better still - get out there!

Modern humans do get up to all sorts of things that can deplete vitamin levels. We also have ways of preventing the D we have made from being absorbed. For example:

Obese people are less than half as able to utilise vitamin D made through the skin as lean persons. Consequently, the average raw vegan is much more able than the average to absorb vitamin D.

Alcohol - interferes with the conversion of vitamin D to its biologically active form.

WHAT YOU WON'T HEAR FROM THE SUPPLEMENT MANUFACTURERS

Dissenting points of view, basically, but I'm happy to provide them here!

(BTW as a side issue, there's a bit of a 'tricky' here for vegans anyway, in that the most effective form of vitamin D is D3 - that produced by mammals, eg us - and the least effective form is D2, derived from plants exposed to UVB. And 'least effective' is being rather kind, when one considers what some say about D2, eg Dr John Cannell: 'a vitamin D-like patent drug whose patent has expired. It does not normally occur in the human body and is probably a weak antagonist at the receptor site, meaning it may actually partially block vitamin D actions.' So the raw vegan who wants to supplement has to choose between D2 as described above, or D3, which is made from animal products, eg from lanolin - a skin secretion of sheep extracted in the processing of wool - so not vegan.)

Possible health problems from supplemental vitamin D:

Nutritionist Katherine Zeratsky, RD, LD: 'Vitamin D toxicity usually results from taking an excessive amount of vitamin D supplements...you may be at greater risk if you have health problems, such as liver or kidney conditions...the main consequence of vitamin D toxicity is a build-up of calcium in your blood, causing symptoms such as: nausea, poor appetite, constipation, weakness, confusion, heart rhythm abnormalities, kidney stones...'

Charlette R Gallagher ('Taking the fear out of eating') explains that the effect of too much D on bones is similar to that of too little and that calcium may be removed from bone and too much deposited in soft tissue, resulting in arthritis-like pain and kidney damage. This is confirmed by the American Dietetic Association: 'excess amounts of vitamin D can cause...reduced bone density.' Some people have found, in taking supplemental vitamin D, that their problems have worsened rather than improved. I remember reading an account by a well-known raw fooder in the UK who noted that the condition of her children's teeth worsened while supplementing for Vitamin D rather than improving.

I'll bet some reading are thinking, 'maybe, but I don't have liver/kidney problems, and all that only applies to excessive doses!' You trust your supplement manufacturer, and are confident that the dose you are taking is not excessive. But who's deciding here how much you need? Your clever body? Does the supplement manufacturer by some magical process know exactly how much D your body made in the summer, how much it's using each day, and, therefore, the optimal dose (in supplement form) for you?

But, for those who are nevertheless convinced that the D they are taking is 'just right'...

J C Waterhouse, PhD, lead author of a study of vitamin D and chronic disease, says: 'We have found that vitamin D supplementation, even at levels many consider desirable, interferes with recovery...' [in patients].

Professor Trevor G Marshall (School of Biological Sciences and Biotechnology, Murdoch University, Western Australia, Jan 2008): 'What we've shown is that all forms of vitamin D from outside the body are counterproductive to the body's own ability to regulate its own internal production.' Marshall showed that quite nominal doses of ingested vitamin D can suppress the proper operation of the immune system. He sums up by saying that 'The comprehensive studies are just not showing that supplementary vitamin D makes people healthier.'

HOW DO UK ANIMALS MANAGE?

The animal world is full of clues as to how to live healthfully. So, as looking at domesticated mammals (ingesting various unnatural substances in their feeds) would complicate things, let's consider wild mammals such as squirrels, deer, rabbits. They don't supplement (and neither do they eat oily fish or vitamin D-fortified milk). Sure, they'll get lots more sunlight each summer than we will (which gives us a clue as to lifestyle adjustments to be made). However, the supplement manufacturers like to make us feel that no matter how much sunshine we get in the UK summer our health is going to be compromised if we don't take D supplements in the winter. Yet these animals are doing just fine! (but note they don't sit behind windows, soap themselves down daily, drink alcohol or overeat either...)

SHOULD WE JUST SLEEP MORE IN THE WINTER?

As there is less sunlight in the winter (and, if the scientists are to be believed, in the UK and similar climates it's 'the wrong sort'), perhaps we should compensate by sleeping for far longer.

Essene Gospel of Peace: 'And God will send you each morning the angel of sunshine to wake you from your sleep...But when the sun is set and your Heavenly Father sends you his most precious angel, sleep, then take your rest, and be all the night with the angel of sleep...Wake not by night, neither sleep by day...'

Now, I've tended to disregard these instructions, as, after all, in the depths of the UK winter sunset is around 5 pm and sunrise around 7 am. Sleeping from 5 pm to 7 am would be a 'problem' for me, as firstly our modern lives are organised on the premise that it's 'normal' to be awake in the evenings and secondly I've persuaded myself that 14 hours sleep would be 'too much' for me (in fact many of you will have heard me show off about how few hours I do sleep).

But light finally started to dawn for me when I read that the Hunzas, one of the longest-living, healthiest cultures in the world, 'have no electric lighting, so in the long winters they sleep longer hours, thus conserving heir energy at a time when the sun's radiance is at its lowest ebb.' (John Robbins 'Healthy at 100').

Could it be that (as with so many things!) we have got it all wrong? With electric light keeping us awake when nature wants us to sleep? As there is less sunlight in the winter, and if even the amount we do get we can't make Vitamin D from, then the obvious thing would be to 'conserve energy', so that there are fewer demands on our bodies in the winter, meaning that we maximise energy stores to be able to eliminate any toxins that do come our way?

Yes, it certainly would be a tough call to go to our beds at sunset in winter, as we would no longer be able to take part in evening social engagements, and I certainly don't feel ready to 'go there' yet. But, this winter, on the nights I'm in, I'll be feeling less guilty at going to bed at 9, and, on waking in the morning (usually around 4.30 am!), will try closing my eyes again and getting a bit more sleep.

TO CONCLUDE

If you're dark-skinned, I can only suggest you research more thoroughly than I have, as there are indeed some question marks here for you.

However, as a paleface in the UK, I'm no longer scared by the supplement manufacturers. I've assessed the 'danger' for myself and certainly don't believe it's 'large', and feel that it probably doesn't exist at all.

I won't be taking a D supplement, but will do my best to protect my health by:

1. Spending more time in the garden - gardening, sunbathing, socialising, whatever.
2. Not wearing sunscreen. If the sun's that strong, I'll seek shade.
3. Endeavouring (this is a hard one for me!), when the sun's shining through the study window, to stop what I'm doing, and get out there! (Or at least open the window, very wide.)
4. Wearing fewer clothes in the summer. Jeans less, short skirts more.
5. Minimising the use of soap/detergent on my body.
6. Trying to sleep longer in the winter.

And you?

I'm sure it's not coincidence that at the time of writing this article I came across this quote from Buddha: 'Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense.'

SALT Pt 2 - Salt in the raw food diet (and what are those '84 minerals'?)

2009-09-17T00:21:00.000-07:00

In this the second part of the article, we'll be hearing from raw food experts who believe unrefined sea salt is the opposite of healthful, and I'll be looking at what's in the salt, specifically those '84 minerals' we hear so much about. I'll then be looking at the amount of salt in raw food recipes and comparing this with the salt in cooked vegan recipes, and showing how raw fooders may be at risk of developing a salt addiction where there was none before! I'll then give some suggestions for those who would like to reduce (or cut out altogether) their consumption of sodium chloride, however 'unrefined'.

WHAT ARE THE '84 MINERALS' IN UNREFINED SEA SALT?

Many people who buy unrefined sea salt do so because they are convinced that the '84 minerals' in the salt are good for them. I will be showing you what these minerals are, to help you decide how 'essential' they are, and will also suggest that those minerals that are essential can all be found easily in raw foods.

Table salt is 99% sodium chloride, as other minerals present in the natural salt are removed through processing.

Unrefined sea salt is 84% sodium chloride, and at least 95% sodium chloride by dry weight (see Pt 1), but, yes, those additional minerals are still there. Therefore it's fair to say, as some do, that the sodium chloride is (a little) less concentrated. It's also fair for sellers to say that unrefined sea salt is 'not just sodium chloride'. But it's still mostly sodium chloride.

Many people buy unrefined sea salt for these additional minerals, as, it's kind of comforting to know there are 84 minerals present in our salt, and, for some, helps justify the high price. So, after two years of using the salt, I thought it was about time I found out what these 84 minerals were.

The 84 minerals are those present in sea water. They include:

Sodium

This, as discussed in Pt 1, can easily be obtained from plant foods.

Chloride

The body uses chloride to make hydrochloric acid (HCl), which is the stomach acid used to break up fats and proteins. This is why you will hear people say (often salt sellers) that 'salt is essential for digestion'. Well, yes that's true, insofar as chloride, like sodium, is a salt, and, yes, chloride is essential for digestion. But the compound 'sodium chloride', as in unrefined sea salt, is not essential for digestion. Before human beings started collecting for or mining for the residue from evaporated sea water and adding it to their food, their digestions worked fine. Chloride is naturally present in many foods, particularly tomatoes, lettuce, kale, celery, beets, olives and sea vegetables.

Some people are indeed 'low' on HCl. However, in cooked-food eaters, this can be due to the stresses of a standard cooked diet (eg meat digestion puts great demands on HCl). And, if they are low on HCl and do not change their diets, there will of course be digestion problems. In the raw vegan however, 'low' HCl is likely due to the fact that the more easy-to-digest plant foods we eat, the less HCl the body makes, as a healthy body on a healthy diet will (Dr Doug Graham, '80/10/10 Diet') 'make just the amount of HCl we actually need'.

Chloride deficiency is rare, including amongst those who add little or no salt to their food. Nutritionist Adam Greer: 'Chloride requirements are in direct proportion to sodium intake. So, if you're consuming low sodium, then you're pretty certain to require lower chloride. If you're eating enough calories, you are likely to be consuming enough chloride.'

The only other minerals that unrefined sea salt contains in any significant amount are magnesium and potassium. Let's look at these:

Magnesium

One serving (0.9g) of unprocessed sea salt contains 3 mg of magnesium. However, a cup of spinach contains 24 mg, and a banana 32 mg.

Potassium

One serving of salt contains 1 mg of potassium. But a tomato contains 292 mg and a banana 422 mg.

So what are the other 80 minerals? Here they are:

hydrogen, oxygen, sulphur, calcium, bromine, helium, lithium, beryllium, boron, carbon, nitrogen, fluorine, neon, aluminium, silicon, phosphorus, argon, scandium, titanium, vanadium, molybdenum, ruthenium, rhodium, palladium, argentum (silver), cadmium, indium, stannum, antimony, tellurium, iodine, xenon, cesium, barium, anthanum, cerium, praseodymium, neodymium, samarium, europium, gadolinium, terbium, dyprosium, holmium, chromium, manganese, ferrum, cobalt, nickel, copper, zinc, gallium, germanium, arsenic, selenium, krypton, rubidium, strontium, yttrium, zirconium, niobium, erbium, thulium, ytterbium, lutetium, hafnium, tantalum, tungsten, rhenium, osmium, iridium, platinum, aurum (gold), mercury, thallium, lead, bismuth, thorium, uranium, plutonium.

Have a look through. The list includes some that we might not normally associate with health.

Although, the manufacturer of one brand of unrefined sea salt tells us that 'Everyone is exposed to low levels of these and other elements every day, far more than is present in sea salt.' I understand that in sea salt some of these elements are at such low levels that some chemists' equipment can't detect them, or that they are within 'safe limits'. As set by Codex Alimentarius. So that's OK then.

Interestingly, some people working in the field of health (and particularly those selling unrefined sea salt) claim that all of the 80 named above are (according to one salt seller) 'essential for health'. A perusal of health sites tells me that unrefined sea salt contains '84 known human cell-replenishing minerals', that the 84 are 'all essential for your health and well-being' and that all 84 are 'nutritional elements'.

As I had not been aware that minerals such as arsenic, lead and mercury were 'cell-replenishing' or 'essential for health and well-being' I checked several sources for corroboration, from nutrition sites to biochemistry textbooks, and found that scientists are pretty united in saying that around 20 of the 84 only are 'essential' for health. Isn't it funny how people can disagree? And that list of 20 includes, for example, zinc, copper, selenium...names we're familiar with - and all 20 can be found in plant foods - I checked that as well.

But...sure, scientists don't know all there is to know, and some in the health world obviously believe there are certain minerals outside the 20 that can benefit us. However, if many of the 84 elements in salt, although known to be 'present', are there in such minute quantities (parts per million) that some chemists' equipment can't even detect them, then surely there's a likelihood they've made their way, in these low concentrations, into our food anyway.

In short, my delving has uncovered no mineral present in unrefined sea salt that a) is essential and b) cannot be found just as easily, if not more easily in our food.

IS UNREFINED SEA SALT HEALTHFUL?

Here are two of the world's leading experts on raw food nutrition, who are in complete agreement. On this issue.

Brian Clements (Hippocrates Health Institute) says that salt (as in unrefined sea salt) should not be part of the raw food diet. 'Organic sodium is essential to the body's lymphatic fluids to be effective in cleaning the overall system. This sodium can be easily found in foods such as celery, celeriac, sea vegetables that have the sodium chloride washed off the surface, etc. Table salt, sea salt, crystal salt, celtic salt etc are all the same sodium chloride with the variation of other elements attached to it. Sodium chloride dehydrates the body and precipitates high blood pressure due to the arterial and organ contraction that occurs after consumption internally.' (Note I commented on the definition of 'organic' as used in this context in Pt 1.)

Dr Doug Graham says that sodium chloride is: 'an irritant and toxic to the body'.

And...you've heard them all before, but here they come - the dangers of salt (from around a million sources):

High blood pressure - Excess sodium means the body retains fluid, which increases the amount of fluid pumped by the heart and circulating in the bloodstream. The heart has to work harder, which puts the muscles under strain. Sodium chloride dehydrates, shrinking the arteries. Result - high blood pressure and, again, a heart under strain.

Stomach cancer - The National Cancer Research Institute at Kashiwa confirmed in 2004 that salt elevates - even doubles - the incidence of stomach cancer. (Japan has a relatively high rate of stomach cancer and it is suggested this is due to the large amounts of salted foods consumed there.)

Calcium-related problems, eg osteoporosis - The World Health Organisation in 'Vitamin and Mineral Requirements in Human Nutrition' tells us that the more sodium, the less calcium is absorbed. Also, salt has an acidic effect. The body, in order to maintain an optimal acid-alkaline balance, will counter acidity by leaching calcium (alkaline) from the bones.

Weight gain - Fluid retention from excess sodium is due to dehydration from the sodium pulling water out of the cells, and also because water is retained to neutralise salt's causticity. Fluid retention looks like a layer of fat, increases weight and makes us feel 'heavy'.

Yum yum. Pass the salt. Or rather...I'll 'pass' on the salt.

Isn't it crazy that we know that if we drink salt water instead of fresh, the consequences will be dire, and we know how to 'treat' salt water to remove the salt, that, at the same time, some craziness has resulted in our removing the salt from the water then ingesting it? So we're still ingesting a poison, albeit a slower-acting one!

So why, knowing all this, do many raw fooders add salt to their meals? Could be those '84 minerals' (discussed). Could be simply because they prefer the taste of food salted than unsalted.

WHY MIGHT FOOD TASTE 'BLAND' WITHOUT SALT?

Because, through a lifetime of unnatural living, we've developed a taste for salt.

Babies don't naturally desire salty foods (they go for sweet). A taste for salt is something we acquire through the practice of continually consuming salted food. This perverts our tastebuds until, sadly, we cannot appreciate the flavour of pure, natural food.

We've been told that salt 'brings out the flavour of the food.' In fact, it does the opposite. It masks the real flavour - the only flavour that is 'brought out' is that of salt. Those on high-raw diets who habitually add salt to their raw food will find it harder to resist the lure of highly-seasoned and/or spiced cooked food, as raw food without salt will seem lacking in flavour in comparison.

And salt is addictive. Raw nutrition expert Prof Rozi Graham explains: 'When salt is consumed, it hits the tastebuds with a tremendous sensory impact resulting in disturbance to the nervous system. This leads to a craving for repeated jolts of intense sensory satisfaction...condiments excite the tastebuds and trigger false appetite, leading to overeating beyond the body's physical needs.'

SALT IN RAW FOOD RECIPES

To those of you who enjoy making 'rawgourmet' food (as I do sometimes), have a look at some of the recipes in your favourite raw food recipe book. In particular, look at the recipes where there are various components to each dish (eg pizzas, lasagnes). You'll likely find in the ingredients lists half a teaspoon of salt here, half a teaspoon of salt there, plus perhaps some 'nama shoyu', or 'miso' for good measure. Then open one of your old cooked vegan (or even non-vegan) recipe books. You'll likely see, for an entire dish, a pinch of salt.

If you'd like to tot up the total sodium in your favourite raw food recipe, here are some figures:

(Sodium, mg)
Unrefined sea salt, 1/2 tsp, 660
Nama shoyu, 1 tbsp, 720
Miso, 1 tbsp, 680

Then compare it with the sodium intake figures in Part 1 of this article. Then do similar with a cooked recipe.

I compared one serving of a raw-vegan two-course meal of leaf wraps with dipping sauce, followed by lasagne, with as close as I could find for a cooked vegan equivalent - leaf wraps with non-dairy yoghurt, followed by a Mediterranean pie.

Cooked vegan meal: 178 mg sodium.
Raw vegan meal: 1265 mg sodium.

As you can see, the raw vegan meal contained over seven times the amount of sodium than the cooked vegan meal.

In the US, FDA food labelling regulations require a disclosure statement if food exceeds 480 mg of sodium per serving...

(Note - having said that not all the sodium in sodium chloride is assimilated, sodium intake via sodium chloride will be an over-estimate in both cases. However, I've compensated for that by measuring sodium for the salt and shoyu elements only, ie not including the sodium in the plant food ingredients. I also assumed only half the dipping sauce was consumed. So I feel the sodium figures are fair estimates.)

Sure, a complex two-course meal isn't daily fare for the average raw fooder, but if we do eat this sort of meal in the evening, perhaps at a raw food restaurant, we will find ourselves not only over the 'ideal' maximum (1200 mg) on that meal alone, but, if we've had additional sodium chloride earlier in the day, perhaps in the form of flax crackers, nut pate, etc, we will be over the 'acceptable' maximum. Too much of this type of 'raw food lifestyle' and a salt addiction could be created where there had been none before, and we could be on a diet that is, overall, less healthful than our former!

FOR THOSE WHO WOULD LIKE TO REDUCE THEIR SODIUM CHLORIDE INTAKE

A good first step for anyone who likes making raw food dishes, but finds the thought of cutting out all salt too much, is to at least halve the amount of salt in the recipe. And, if you are using nama shoyu or miso (neither are raw anyway), now could be a good time to stop. Doing those two things alone will make a big difference to your sodium chloride intake.

If you are missing the salty taste, refer to the high-sodium plant foods list. Include at least some of these foods in your raw food diet on a regular basis.

Sodium/potassium issues

If you do significantly reduce your salt intake (whether that's to 'a little' or 'nil') you will likely be amongst the majority of raw fooders who experience no problems at all. However, some do experience a strong craving for salt and/or physical symptoms.

I did. When last year I moved from what I now realise was a high-salt raw food diet to no salt at all 'overnight', I experienced occasional muscle cramps and saliva reduction. This didn't happen straight away, but after a couple of weeks or so. The saliva reduction was quite a problem, as it resulted in a very dry mouth, in spite of my being adequately hydrated, and it was disturbing my sleep. I've since learned that this was most likely due to my body's potassium/sodium electrolyte balance being temporarily thrown askew by the sudden, dramatic decrease in sodium (together with large quantities of potassium via fruit, eg bananas) before my body had made adjustments to the healthier intake. (This imbalance has been known to happen on long-term water fasts which is why any fasting practitioner worth his salt (ouch) will monitor fasters' blood pressure.)

What I did was reintroduce just a little salt into my diet (but nowhere near as much as before) and increase my consumption of sodium-rich plant foods. Interestingly, sea vegetables tasted wonderful to me - at that time. After a week or two, the dry mouth went, and sea vegetables tasted...so-so. My body had obviously made the adjustment to lower salt intake successfully, following a little 'softening' of the regime. Please don't misunderstand me - the re-introduction of a little salt was simply because 'cold turkey' had proved to be a bit more than I could take - the bottom line is that I am convinced that any salt is still too much. But, for me, and others I've spoken to, gradual weaning off rather than an abrupt stop seems to be the safest option. (Alternatively, or additionally, seek out plant foods high in sodium, as listed in Part 1 - cantaloupe melon, grated sweet potato...these sorts of foods should taste particularly good during weaning!)

Since I started working on this article, I've reduced my intake still further, and my target is to reduce it to nil eventually (or perhaps almost nil, as I do like to visit raw food restaurants occasionally!). I've reduced it in the 'transition food' recipes on http://www.rawforlife.co.uk/, and it's absent in others.

Hopefully I've provided useful information, or at least review, for all readers (except of course for those who know the names of the '84 minerals' by heart) and assisted those who are currently adding salt to their raw food dishes in deciding whether to cut it out completely, reduce it, or make no changes in level of salt consumption.

And I do hope that it will encourage those who make, or invent those delicious rawgourmet meals (tell them - send them this article) to at least reduce the amount of sodium chloride in their recipes. Even more.)

Salt with your sodium? As with everything, we are given a choice.

(with thanks to David Zane Mason for pic)

SALT Pt 1 - Sodium - a pinch (or ten) of salt with that?

2009-09-10T09:25:00.001-07:00

A Raw Food UK Forum survey reported that 60% of raw fooders add salt to their food, with 40% choosing not to. Should we ingest our sodium from plant foods alone, or add sodium chloride (however Celtic, Himalayan etc...) to our raw food? What are the 84 elements in unrefined sea salt? How healthy is your raw food diet?

When I went raw, I soon found that the sea salt I'd been buying from the supermarket was just not the ticket. 'De rigeur' at raw food workshops was unrefined sea salt - first grey, then fashionable pink, then back to grey. I was told it had health benefits - 'all those trace minerals'!

Then I began to notice that some people didn't add any salt to their raw food, and, confused by the claims made for the various (expensive) brands, decided to research salt, the results of which I now share with you.

In this two-part article, I'll be discussing whether sodium in plant foods is sufficient to meet our bodies' needs, whether it is healthful to supplement this with sodium from sodium chloride via unrefined sea salt, and, in Part 2, whether raw fooders are in danger of ingesting too much sodium chloride, however 'unrefined' or 'raw' it is. And, for those who would like to reduce their intake of sodium chloride, some suggestions as to how to do so.

You'll hear it said that 'salt is essential for health'. Those trying to sell sea salt to us will often say this. Well, yes it is, but only in the sense that 'mineral salts' (of various kinds) are essential for health. Sodium is just one of these salts. Sodium is essential for health. But sodium chloride isn't essential for health (more later).

In a physiological context, sodium is an electrolyte, along with potassium and other minerals. Electrolytes become ions in solution and acquire the capacity to conduct electricity. Sodium, working with potassium, maintains fluid balance in our bodies and is involved in nervous system function.

Sodium is contained in all plant foods to some degree. It is also 40% of the mineral compound sodium chloride (NaCl), which is salt from sea or lakes. Even 'rock salt' is still sea salt - from seas millions of years ago.

If raw fooders can obtain sodium from plant foods, why do some then add sodium chloride to their food? Generally, for one or all of the following reasons:

They doubt their sodium needs can be met by plant foods alone.
They believe unrefined sea salt to be healthful.
They like the taste and feel food can taste bland without it.

I'll be examining each of the above in the two parts of this article, but first let's discuss to what extent it's 'natural' to ingest sodium chloride.

Salt has indeed been added to food for thousands of years. But of course we've been killing each other, eating meat and...cooking our food for thousands of years. As raw fooders we should know the 'thousands of years' argument doesn't wash as a good reason for doing anything. And it looks as if we might have managed fine without sodium chloride before then, or at least ingested very little. As naturopathic doctor Tim Trader says: 'Anthropology has found no sodium-chloride deposits in early bones of human remains, though you can find it in most anyone of western civilization today.'

Is the adding of salt universal? There are many 'undeveloped' cultures who add either no, or virtually no, sodium chloride to their food, such as the Yanomamo Indians of South America. Not to mention thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, in the (mainly) Western 'raw food' culture.

Do animals add salt to their food? Some animals (mainly herbivores, it is claimed) have been observed going out of their way to lick salty mineral deposits exposed by harsh weather. As we know salt on roads melts ice, some could in fact be going for the water rather than the salt, due to their usual sources being frozen over, but it seems that this is not the case in all occurrences of this behaviour. But I've found no evidence to suggest 'salt-licking' is universal, even amongst herbivores. Also, we don't know whether they're going for sodium chloride rather than any other mineral salts in the deposit, and animals that do do this certainly don't do it every day.

Can our sodium needs be met by plant foods alone?

(Sources (official and unofficial) vary by country, so I've averaged out.)

'Acceptable maximum': 1600 mg (UK/US average consumption 4000 mg+ daily!)
'Ideal maximum': 1200 mg or less

As to what is a safe minimum, sources again vary. Several say 500 mg, some say lower. Raw food nutritionist Adam Greer recommends 350 mg as a safe minimum. DHSS 'Dietary Reference Values' (1991) reports some adults healthy on intakes as low as 69 mg, and when I asked on raw food forums for average daily sodium intakes, figures came in as low as 30 mg - and some of those individuals had high levels of physical activity. It appears many can be apparently healthy at relatively low levels of sodium, that is, without exhibiting signs of sodium deficiency. (Deficiency symptoms would include confusion, tiredness, nausea, muscle cramps, and a drop in blood pressure. However, note 'low' blood pressure is generally considered healthy - it's just a sudden drop that might cause concern.)

I do occasionally have sodium chloride (although I've cut down my consumption drastically since researching for this article). I totted up my own intake of sodium on a no-sodium-chloride day; my diet consisted of spinach/celery/apple juice, cantaloupe melon, papayas, pumpkin seeds, banana-date smoothie and lettuce/tomato/avocado wraps. Calories totalled 2100. At 360 mg of sodium I'd only just scraped past Adam's figure, although way higher than the intake of other healthy raw fooders I know. And at just 105 lbs, and feeling healthy, I'm happy with that intake. Heavier people eating eg 3000-calories' worth of food similar to mine would find themselves just above the more official 'safe minimum'. My hunch is that those 'safe minimum' figures are overestimates of what we actually need; it could be that even the minimums are influenced by the fact that so many people (including the scientists who set the figures) think it's fine (and even healthy) to ingest a little sodium chloride and that there are so few individuals for them to study who do not.

The fact that the many raw fooders who add no sodium chloride at all to their food are healthy, and exhibiting no signs of sodium deficiency suggests that there is no problem obtaining sufficient sodium from plant foods alone.

Some raw fooders, especially those on high-fruit diets, have wondered if on a relatively low sodium diet they can have 'too much potassium' (as potassium and sodium work together in the body and need to be present in certain proportions). Dr Doug Graham ('80/10/10 Diet') tells us that, although potassium excess is 'not impossible', cases of potassium overload amongst healthy raw fooders are unknown. The only group that does need to be careful is those who have kidney malfunction.

'Instinctive eating' theory (Schaeffer) suggests that we should be fine as long as we don't eat more of high-potassium foods than our bodies genuinely desire. IE theory says that if we are a little low on any nutrient our bodies will set up a search for foods rich in that nutrient, and those foods will consequently taste particularly good to us at those times. For example, I find spinach (a relatively high-sodium vegetable) tastes delicious some days, and ordinary on others. It could just be that some days my sodium needs a little topping up but other days my body has no need for it.

What if we really feel we need more sodium?

These plant foods are particularly good sources:

Sea vegetables (generally), 40g dry, 450 mg sodium
Coconut water, 1 cup, 252 mg
Honeydew melon, 1 medium, 205 mg
Celeriac, 1 cup, 156 mg
Swiss chard, 2 cups, 154 mg
Cantaloupe melon, 1 medium, 88 mg
Carrots, 2 medium, 84 mg
Sweet potato, 1 medium, 72 mg
Beet, 1 medium (2 in), 64 mg
Celery, 2 stalks, 64 mg
Beets, 1 medium, 64 mg
Kale, 2 cups, 58 mg
Spinach, 2 cups, 48 mg
(Source: USDA Nutrient Database)

(note that although tomatoes can taste 'salty', they are relatively low in sodium. The salty taste is likely to be due to high levels of glutamate and/or chloride.)

Is unrefined sea salt healthful?

Some Natural Hygienists writing in the 80s and earlier maintained that our bodies cannot utilise the sodium from sodium chloride. Well, researching this, it would seem that this is probably not the case; we can obtain sodium from sodium chloride. However, virtually all health experts agree that our bodies assimilate sodium much more easily from plant food than via sodium chloride, and I'll explain why they say that.

First let's be clear what 'unrefined' sea salt is. It's been drummed into the heads of many health seekers that table salt is the devil, but unrefined sea salt is OK and even good, and some of us (eg me in the past) have understood that that's because table salt is sodium chloride, as if unrefined sea salt isn't! My son educated me: 'Mum, it's still sodium chloride. It may be 'natural', but even if it's collected in little organic baskets by little organic people, it's still sodium chloride.'

Table salt is 99% sodium chloride, unprocessed sea salt is 84% sodium chloride - so, still mostly sodium chloride. And in fact, by dry weight, unprocessed sea salt is actually 95-99% sodium chloride; 'the only reason 'unprocessed' sea salts have a lower sodium content is because they still contain a lot of moisture.' (Frederic Patenaude)
Table salt is kiln-dried, whereas unrefined sea salt is sun and wind-dried.
Table salt is treated with chemicals such as bleach and anti-caking agents, and, sure, unrefined sea salt isn't - it's pretty much as it comes out of the sea.
Table salt has been stripped of virtually all the minerals additional to sodium and chloride. Sea salt still contains them. I'll tell you what they are in Part 2.

If you add a little salt (table or unrefined sea salt) to a glass of body-heat water you will find most of it dissolves. It's separating into sodium ions and chloride ions. But a little remains undissolved.

I've been discussing with people knowledgeable in chemistry what happens when sodium chloride enters our bodies. And, guess what - they don't all agree, and...they don't know for sure. One suggested that as our body fluids aren't pure water, it's possible that more of the sodium chloride could stay undissolved than when mixed with water. On the other hand, another suggested that, as electrolysis separates ions, electrical forces in our body might allow them to break down the sodium chloride more easily than when simply mixed with water. Consensus was that at least some of the sodium chloride will remain in the body as sodium chloride and we do know that bodies fail to break down at least some sodium chloride because it's found in bodily excretions. And bones. Our bodies can't do anything useful with sodium chloride that remains as sodium chloride - on the contrary, it gives them a problem.

Do our bodies find it easier to get sodium from unrefined sea salt than table salt? Yes. That's because table salt (and other processed sea salts sold simply as 'sea salt') has been heated to such a high temperature, with various chemicals added, that the resulting substance is unnatural, and therefore difficult for our bodies to cope with. Nutritionist Dr Ann Gittleman: 'refined salt is...treated with anti-caking agents which prevent salt absorbing water in salt cellars. Unfortunately, anti-caking agents perform the same process in the body, stopping the salt dissolving and combining with fluids in stomach and digestive system.'

But do our bodies find it easier to get sodium from unrefined sea salt than plant foods? Unequivocally no. Sodium from plant foods wins. It's more bioavailable, due to chelation (binding) to organic molecules. (Note that some raw fooders describe sodium from plant food as 'organic' sodium, as it is found within living plants. But, in chemical terms, sodium is inorganic, regardless of where it's found.)

If we obtain our sodium from plant food only, there is no risk of sodium chloride depositing in our bodies. Build-up of sodium chloride can lead to all sorts of problems. For example, those creaky joints that people put down to 'age'. Sodium chloride deposits will accumulate as we get older. Also, when salt can't be excreted, the deposits in the body cause the cells to contract and discharge fluid, resulting in dehydration and contraction of the arteries, causing high blood pressure.

So, taking these things into account, can unrefined sea salt be described as healthful? I can't see how. Although it's a source of sodium, the body finds it so much easier to get sodium from plant food. And, although the risk of build-up in the body of sodium chloride deposits from unrefined sea salt may be less than with table salt, there's still a risk.

PLEASE NOW TURN TO PART 2 of the article, in which we'll hear from raw food experts who believe unrefined sea salt is the opposite of healthful. I'll also be looking at what's in the salt, specifically those '84 minerals' we hear so much about. I'll then be looking at the amount of salt in raw food recipes and comparing this with cooked vegan recipes, and showing how raw fooders may be at risk of developing a salt addiction where there was none before! I'll then give some suggestions for those who would like to reduce (or cut out altogether) their consumption of salt, however 'unrefined'.

Staying at The Raw House, Thailand, with Darrick, Freelea, Harley et al

2009-09-03T03:10:00.000-07:00

I've just got back from staying in Thailand at the generous invitation of Darrick from 30Bananas forum. Had a totally brilliant time, getting to meet not only Darrick, but also Harley (aka 'durianrider'), Freelea, Georgia, Bhala, Malakai, Nick, Chris, Rich and Choi, not to mention sampling (well, gorging!) the most delicious fruit!

The easiest way of telling those of you who would like to know more about my stay is to point you in the direction of a diary thread I started on 30Bananas forum. Scattered throughout the thread are posts describing my stay, and towards the end of the thread I've uploaded nineteen wonderful pictures!

Here's the link. I think even if you're not a member of 30Bananas you'll be able to read the post and see the pics. NOTE - if that link doesn't work, try this:

http://arawconnection.ning.com/forum/topics/debbies-diary-now-with

So, back to reality now - dear old England cool, wet and windy as per normal, but I see we had some sun whilst we were away, as the sunflowers are ten feet tall!

Next RawforLife article about to roll off the press!

'But I'm hungry!'

2009-08-09T04:01:00.000-07:00

I've managed to escape from the UK summer ('variable'...) by making a last-minute booking for a fortnight on Koh Phangan, Thailand, to stay with some friends from the 30BaD forum. So, only time for one article this month.

It's a 'reprint' of an article I wrote for Fresh Network a while back. Many of you won't have seen it, and hope those who have will forgive me popping it in here. In September I will be back with an article that I have been working on for several months.

Note the first half applies more to those who still eat a little cooked food. The second half contains material relevant to 100% raw fooders as well.

*****

MONKEY TRAINING

He's there, on the shoulders of many of you who still eat a little cooked food. Some of you will feel he's not a problem, you rather like him, and are quite happy to have him around - he's a pet.

But he's a pest if ever there have been occasions when you've eaten cooked, but would have preferred not to. He scratches, he prods, he wants to play! Sometimes he sleeps for long periods, only to wake and cause havoc.

Here's the good news: that monkey can be trained. This short course in Monkey Behaviour will show you how to resist his prods until he becomes not only docile but may even become so bored with your lack of response that he packs his bags and leaves.

A physical prod is hard to ignore. The reason given for eating cooked food that seems to trump all others is: But I get hungry!' Stomach sensations persuade us that we 'must' eat - and now! And, if we're in a situation where it isn't 'easy' to eat raw, or if we're so 'ravenous' we tell ourselves raw just won't cut it, we eat...whatever's at hand.

We're conversant (ish) with the 98+ emotional/psychological reasons for eating when we're not hungry, but these stomach sensations are physically and are therefore, undeniably, signs of hunger. (Aren't they?) We dutifully make the super-large salad, or feast on fruit, but when two hours later our tummies are rumbling and we have an 'empty' feeling, surely we're right to complain that, 'I'm hungry - raw food just doesn't seem to satisfy me!'

We-ell...

There are two main stomach sensations that we associate with hunger.

These are:

Hunger Pangs
Empty Stomach

Hunger Pangs

That uncomfortable 'gnawing' in the stomach. Any reader who has not been 100% raw since birth will need no further description. We've been taught this is hunger - a natural consequence of not eating for a while. I'm going to suggest that this is...not the case.

Rather - the pangs are caused by cooked food eaten previously.

This isn't a new idea. I first came across it when my husband brought home a dusty litle book he'd found in a charity shop - 'Health Via Food' by William H Hay, MD, published 1934. Hay advises us to 'arrange the feeding habits so that no gnawing will ever again occur even when the stomach is entirely empty. Every gnawing feeling is evidence that the stomach contains a very uncomfortable amount of acid, the acid debris that follows the meal...". Hovannessian, in 'Raw Eating', published 1967, tells us these feelings are stimulated by '...poisons accumulated in the body.'

Sure, they're old books. But our modern-day doctors tell us that spicy and acidic foods often result in 'indigestion' - a term that covers a multitude of discomforts, with gnawing at the mild end of a continuum.

As for Hovannessian's 'poisons', raw fooders will need no educating there! Dr Doug Graham ('The 80/10/10 Diet'): 'If a perceived feeling of hunger is accompanied by feelings of faintness, stomach pangs, headaches or other discomforts, it is actually a sign of withdrawal from harmful substances.'

In other words, it's all part of the 'food crash' - a term used by modern-day health experts to describe symptoms of withdrawal from toxins. And, in the same way that a smoker may feel physically (as well as psychologically) uncomfortable whilst withdrawing from the last cigarette, and 'feel better' when he has the next, cooked food can also make us 'feel better' as the body puts on hold its detox activities in order to cope with the next onslaught.

It would be fair to assume that the more acidic and toxic the cooked food (and drink), the worse the gnawing later as it leaves our body. But, as many cooking processes can produce acrylamides that have been directly linked with cancer it's safest to work on the basis that all the time we continue to eat any cooked food, we are prey to some extent to those uncomfortable sensations that play havoc with our self-control and best intentions - 'I need pasta - a troughful - now!'

This is borne out by my own experience. Pre-raw, I'd feel gnawing most days. At 75% raw, I experienced it...frequently, although a little less. Since 100% raw (well, in fact, since 95%-ish) - no gnawing! Not once. Ever again. Even when water-fasting three days.

On 75% raw, the one cooked meal I was still clinging to was breakfast. For twenty years it had been, most days, toast (grains cooked then cooked again), processed fat spread, Marmite (for non-UK readers - salty cooked yeast extract with the appearance and consistency of tar) and coffee (strong, with powdered milk!). Of course, Hay, Hovannessian and Graham and anyone understanding toxins and addiction would have been able to explain to me why I would often feel unwell without my usual breakfast.

I thought it would be a tough call to give up that security blanket - the one thing that stood between me and a raw food diet. Bu when eventually I did - no problem! But that of course is because physical addictions only have a hold on us while we are withdrawing. If we then refuse to top up, (physical) addiction gone. Although, at the time, no one could have been more surprised than me to find that within a few days I was happily starting the day on fruit. Needless to say, the gnawing rapidly subsided from that point onwards.

Alkalising raw foods can help us resist the prods. I'll always remember my sceptical husband drinking his first green juice, then ringing from work to say that for the first time ever he hadn't felt the gnawing that would so often lead to his making a detour to the greasy spoon (truckers' diner) on the way in. This from a man who at one time would have hooted with derision at the suggestion that he'd be happy starting the day with 'spinach juice.'

If you've been felled by 'gnawings', next time they come, try reframing:

'This is an interesting sensation! It's good that my body is sufficiently vital and responsive to give me this clear message about the cooked food I've been eating. I appreciate the discomfort, will reduce the chances of its occurring again by eating raw today, and will try to remember what it feels like before it's history.'

Beat that monkey! (Figure of speech only).

Empty Stomach

We've been taught that this sensation, with or without sound effects, is hunger, and that therefore we should refill as soon as possible.

In fact, all it is is the stomach emptying. It may gurgle, as a basin does when it's emptying. It may rumble, growl...the medical term for this is borborygmus. Sita Chokhavatia, MD (Mount Sinai School of Medicine) explains that, rather than being a sign of hunger, it's our gastrointestinal system's housekeeping after the previous meal. It occurs when contractions move any remaining bits of food from your stomach. 'It's like squeezing and shaking a balloon filled with water and air.'

Once the stomach is empty, provided no gnawings are present due to previous cooked food eaten, physical sensations from the stomach should be minimal, if present at all, as the stomach is, after all, at rest.

Cooked-food conditioning leads us to incorrectly deduce that, if our stomachs feel empty shortly after eating a meal, then that particular meal can't have 'satisfied' us. In fact, it's more likely that it will have satisfied our bodies particularly well. Why? Because our stomachs have coped with it very easily.

So the next time you feel rumbling shortly after a raw meal, reframe:

'Oh good - my stomach's emptying already! It had no problems with that meal, and now that food, complete with every nutrient that it was designed to give me, is on the way to my small intestines, where my body will absorb the things it needs from it. Soon the emptying feeling will pass and my stomach will feel lovely and calm. My body will then be freed from that part of the digestive burden, releasing lots of energy!'

Congratulations. You've completed the short course in Monkey Behaviour. You've been introduced to the idea (or perhaps this is just revision for you) that it's past (inappropriate) attention that has resulted in those prods continuing to (negatively) affect you. You now not only have the strength (as knowledge is power) to ignore them but also to use them in a way that ensures they become increasingly ineffectual.

Right back at yer, monkey!

The great news is that the more raw we eat, and the more we learn how to undo the effects of a lifetime of cooked-food conditioning, the easier it all becomes.

As, when uncomfortable 'gnawings' due to cooked food are a thing of the past, and when we understand that the sensations arising from an emptying stomach aren't hunger and we no longer feel panicked into eating when we don't need to, or eating more than we need to (and in some cases eating food that we would prefer not to eat), we are greatly liberated. We can then tune into the true calls of our body and eat from true desire (and we can trust those calls, as long as the food desired is raw). We will enjoy the juicy watermelon, the crunchy sprouts, the sweet strawberries or the creamy hazelnuts, because they appeal to our senses of sight, smell and taste, and not because we 'have' to put something into our stomachs.

Hey!

Where's that monkey gone?

No, I Don't Eat Raw Meat Pt 2 - Animal Rights Guilt-Mongering

2009-07-20T03:34:00.000-07:00

This article is hard-hitting. It's not written for the majority of you, but for those eating meat, whether cooked or raw.

When we eat meat, we eat death.

Eating meat is eating death and suffering. We pick fruit - the tree continues to grow. And the seeds inside the picked fruit can grow, and, if we were living naturally, we would expel these seeds out of our bottoms into the earth, to create more life.

But when we use an animal's flesh for food, it can live no longer, nor can any part of it reproduce. It has no life in it; we eat its corpse.

Everyone who eats meat, whether they kill the animals themselves or have others do it for them, is directly responsible for terrible suffering.

Dr Jane Goodall (chimp researcher): 'Thousands of people who say they 'love' animals sit down once or twice a day to enjoy the flesh of creatures who have been utterly deprived of everything that could make their lives worth living and who have endured the awful suffering and the terror of the abattoirs.'

I won't go into the details of the living conditions some farm animals endure, as I suspect many meat-eaters reading this blog will be buying meat from suppliers who reassure that the animals have led 'happy lives'. So let's think about that...what's being proposed here is that it's OK to kill them way before the end of their natural lives and eat them. It's a bit like saying, 'oh, we're human being-lovers. Yes, we do eat humans (occasionally), but we're careful to look for humans that have been raised on organic food, been given lots of space to roam around in, and have led happy lives.'

And no matter how 'humanely' the animals have been raised, their killing is another matter. When they're no longer any good for producing eggs and milk, or, in the case of males, are no longer needed as studs, they're transported to the slaughterhouse, where their lives are ended - brutally and bloodily. It's been said that if slaughterhouses had walls no one would eat meat, and the occupation of 'slaughterhouse worker' has one of the highest turnover rates. Slaughterhouse workers routinely witness the strangling, beating, scalding and skinning of live, fully conscious animals.

If you are a meat-eater, imagine a scenario where you, or a parent perhaps, are transported to a slaughterhouse where you then suffer in the way the animals suffer. Even if you've told yourself that none of what I've just said is true (please see the film 'Earthlings') and you have some idea that it's just a 'stun-gun', and it's all 'painless' really, imagine yourself being transported, then killed 'humanely', to satisfy people who've told themselves they're caring people because they've thought carefully about different ways of killing. Use your powers of imagination. Empathise.

Some who eat meat do believe that it's important for us to understand how meat gets to our plates. And TV cook programmes have courted some controversy for showing this. But, have they? Have any of them showed slaughterhouses in action? Or animals' throats being slit before the 9 pm 'watershed'? But 'chickens strangled'? Yep, they reckon audiences will stomach that, as...no blood! And of course we're told the chickens have led happy lives... So that's OK then. A turning point for me came after a foray back into meat-eating, when I watched a programme that showed a chicken flapping its wings so furiously as it was being strangled, fighting so hard to hang on to life - it desperately wanted to live! But, no, it was killed to persuade some moron who lived on burgers ('I don't eat vegetables.') to switch to 'organically-fed' chickens.

So, if you've given up 'red meat', but think chicken's acceptable, imagine the smallest, most defenceless, innocent person you know being strangled. If you are feeling upset or annoyed at that suggestion, ask yourself why that is.

Did any UK readers see that programme in which the foul-mouthed TV chef showed off his 'survival' skills by shooting a stag? That stag was a beautiful creature - the epitome of health and strength (which I suppose is why it was deemed worthy of execution) - achieved by living a life for many years totally in accordance with nature. The chef shot this defenceless creature, burned its body with fire, and ate the flesh - committing that act of atrocity for just a few minutes of taste sensation, only to expel it from his bottom later (couple of days later, probably). What a clever fellow.

Ah, but of course he should have 'thanked' the stag. This is an idea that has really taken hold with the 'spiritual', 'compassionate' people recently, and even popped up in the film 'Avatar' with it's depiction of a people living (it claimed) in perfect harmony with nature. If we 'thank' the animal for 'giving up its life for us', it's all OK - we're good people. It's amazing what things we human beings will come up with to justify our worst acts. Those who think that 'thanking' makes it all better conveniently forget that we thank those who generously give (of their own volition) things to us. Stealing, murdering then 'thanking'?!?

Fish...for many years pre-raw I'd managed to persuade myself that eating fish wasn't so bad...and indeed perhaps their physiologies are such that they don't feel pain in the way other creatures do. Whatever, it seems reasonable to suggest that they might suffer greatly from the experience of what is essentially suffocation. Check out Joe Goldfarb's thought-provoking account of his enlightenment following the eating of a salmon.

Man has no natural instinct to eat flesh.

'Give a lion-cub a rabbit and an apple. He'll eat the rabbit and play with the apple. Give a small child a rabbit and an apple. He'll eat the apple and play with the rabbit.' (Harvey Diamond, 'Fit for Life'.)

At our most pure, when we are little children, we have no natural instinct to eat flesh. We eat flesh and come to like the taste of it through socialisation based on depravity.

My cat, as early as I can remember, would 'rattle' his teeth if he saw a bird through the window. There's no such reaction from a toddler when he sees a hen. But he will pick at your freshly-shelled peas or cut cucumber.

Carnivores, when hungry, will look for movement, rustlings, scratchings - they will instinctively be drawn to hunt, to pounce, to kill animal life. We have no such instincts.

Older readers will remember a time when it was normal for children to 'play out', unsupervised. What attracted us for food? The rustle of a mouse? A lamb in a field? Or blackberries, or perhaps the sight of ripe plums overhanging a wall?

Aesthetically, we are attracted to colourful, vibrant fruit and vegetables, not bloody dead animals.

Meat-eaters will do anything not to be reminded of what they're actually eating.

When I tell 'cooked' meat-eating people I'm a raw foodist, they'll often say 'you don't eat raw meat, do you?', with a grimace. That's because the thought of eating raw meat is repugnant to most people. That is, except a very small group of raw foodists who have pushed aside their natural revulsion, and made themselves eat it.

One of the reasons man cooks flesh is to try to disguise it. The realisation of what people are truly doing when they eat meat makes them feel uncomfortable. (There's a reason for that!).

When it's made into cuts and cooked, it doesn't look too much like an animal any more. True, we sometimes see pigs on spits. Many people do find those disturbing, but will shut out impulses of horror, anaesthetising themselves sufficiently to have a pork sandwich or whatever. They'll carve off the belly or haunch, but few will carve into the face (which might result in those inconvenient feelings of 'what on earth am I doing??' popping up and bothering them.)

The word 'meat', thousands of years ago, was often, if not always, used generically for 'food'. It's only relatively recently that it's become a euphemism for flesh. We'll call a lettuce a lettuce, a fruit a fruit, but I've noticed that meat-eaters can get very hot under the collar if we use the word for what is actually being eaten. Again, it's because they don't wish to be reminded of what they are doing. Imagine the parental 'outrage' if a primary school teacher used the word 'flesh' instead of the non-offensive 'meat' in a lesson on nutrition - forbid the thought!

TV programme-makers have been criticised for showing slaughtering of animals because, uh-oh, children might see. It would be upsetting for children to see animals murdered. But, it's because children have been shielded from the reality of knowing what's behind the 'meat' they've been persuaded is good for them, because they have been encouraged by their parents not to emphathise, not to develop compassion to other creatures, that most people do grow up as meat-eaters. As my friend John Coleman said recently '...one must ask what is human 'nature'? Are we not entitled to suggest that compassion for other species is part of our 'nature', that is, suppressed by cultural programming?'

Even when meat is eaten raw, it's generally eaten in a way that doesn't remind the eater too much of the animal. It's drained of blood. Animals aren't fussy about blood in their meat, but again, humans...don't like to see all that blood, bile and general mess...we must ask ourselves why. I suggest because it is unnatural for us to eat dead animals.

'Venison' (deer) will be thinly sliced, perhaps 'smoked'. A section of a cow's leg will be made into 'mince'. Liver may be finely sliced, perhaps adorned. Fruit-eaters will happily pluck a fruit from a tree, but a raw meat-eater generally won't pluck a liver from a corpse and bite into it. (Of course, there will be a few individuals in the world who will no doubt do this, but don't tell me it's 'natural'.)

Whether raw or cooked, cut into little 'cutlets', wrapped in plastic, sliced, minced...flesh will be dressed up in any way possible that helps people remain unconscious of the fact that they are eating an animal, who lived, breathed and experienced pain and suffering in just the way we do.

'Let's not think about that, darling, shall we?'

Human beings have free will...we can CHOOSE.

I'm going to start here with a premise borne from observation.

Human beings are not like 'all other animals'.

Animals have not been given free will. They just 'do' as they're made. For some reason (and I think the reasons have filled a billion or so books, so...won't go into those here), we're a different sort of creature from 'all other animals'.

Amongst the differences are: we can reflect, we can empathise, we can choose.

Not only in diet, but in a multiplicity of ways is there proof that humans can choose their behaviours. 'Animal instincts' are often used as an excuse - when we've behaved in a base way, when we've 'missed the mark', when we don't want to take responsibility for actions and want to persuade people that we 'didn't have a choice.'

I remember restaurant critic A A Gill mocking vegetarians once. He said that they don't smile much, as if they did, and looked in the mirror, they might see their canines, which would remind them that they are meat-eaters. Chortle, chortle. Regardless of the fact that one pointy tooth each side does not give us the faintest resemblance to meat-eating animals - derr - the very fact that we have a varied selection of teeth is evidence not that we should be eating meat, but that, sure, we can choose whether or not to. And that's the point!

We have been given teeth, and a digestive system, that can cope with all sorts of food - animal or plant - but note I use the word 'cope' and not 'thrive'. We have choices.

We are surrounded by examples in the animal world. Who knows - perhaps that's why they're there (with apologies to some vegans, who would see this as an unacceptably humancentric view of the world!). We see that some creatures, such as the horse, the stag, the ox, the gorilla, can be strong and healthy on plant foods, causing no suffering to other creatures. We see that other animals, such as the lion and tiger, are strong and healthy on animal foods, causing much suffering to the creatures they catch. So, here we have a conundrum. If we, as human beings, are in the fortunate position of being able to eat anything we like...

...which animals do we choose to copy?

Human beings have EMPATHY.

With free will comes responsibility. Why, because we've been given/evolved/whatever a number of gifts that appear to be unique to human beings.

We have awareness and empathy. We know the suffering that animals endure through our choices, whether we try to push that beneath our consciousness, and/or whether we try to disguise the horror of what we're doing (as described). The brain I've been given tells me that my cat has no empathy with the mouse he rips apart, alive, while it's screaming, but that, certainly as adults, adults who have developed consciousness, we most certainly would have doing similar.

We can feel the suffering of others. We can imagine. And, yet, most of us go right ahead and continue to inflict the most dreadful suffering.

We not only know the suffering we are inflicting through eating meat, but we have also been given brains and communication skills to accumulate knowledge sufficient to tell us that, whatever we think about the various health arguments, meat-eating is, at least, unnecessary.
And, as I mentioned in Part 1, the only society that is relevant to us is the one we are living in - it is pointless to dream up 'what if' scenarios that might or might not apply to others living in different places, but sure as hell don't apply to us.

Certainly, in this century, we have full awareness in a way that few had in former times.

Children copy the behaviours of whatever is looking after them. They are constrained in their choices to a great extent, and don't have full consciousness and empathy with other beings in the way an adult does. As we grow, we develop these human qualities, which enable us to make conscious, informed choices in ways that we couldn't as children. We also receive lots of new information that enables us to revise the maps of the world that our parents gave us.

99.9% of us are not facing situations in which we have a choice whether to die of starvation or kill an animal.

So, faced with all this awareness, the human quality of empathy, the information at our disposal, and the societies in which we have the good fortune to live...

what do we do?

Most people still go right ahead and kill animals! (Or have others kill them for them.) Why? For a few minutes of tastebud titillation.

When people eat meat, they push out of their minds feelings of compassion, of empathy, of emotion. These are human qualities, and, if allowed to rise to the surface, would...make meat-eating obviously... less enjoyable. The few who do kill animals themselves for meat are proud of the fact they do this. Although it's certainly true that they are not hypocritical in the way 99% of meat-eaters are, I ask how they can kill without 'pushing out of their minds', removing from their conscious minds, any identification with the creature, any compassion..Is the pushing out of their minds those human qualities something to be proud of?

Scientists believe that we all started out in warm climates where plenty of plant food grows, then moved outwards (were the Inuit forced to travel to and settle in lands where there was no, or little, plant food for them?) For people who are the ancestors of those who chose to travel to barren lands, and are living on a high-meat diet, they will be suppressing some of their humanity to enable them to do so without it bothering them. To some extent their choices are constrained - it is harder for them. But, interestingly, some who are not remotely in such a situation will refer to such as justification for their own flesh-eating.

The eating of meat, however it is killed, must always to some extent be an unconscious act. How can it be otherwise?

It's interesting to see some of those pro meat-eating actually dismiss the strongest arguments of all against meat-eating as being 'emotional'! The more we refuse to let emotions affect our thinking, the more inhuman we become.

There are some who'll say, 'sure, eating meat may be wrong, but what about plants? They feel pain!'. This is one of the sillier arguments for continuing to eat animals, so I'll deal with it briefly. Studies have shown that plants may well 'react' to adverse circumstances, but our brains and senses can tell us they don't suffer in the way we know animals clearly do when de-beaked, strangled, hung upside down and throats slit. There are others who will point out that animals may have suffered in the production of plant foods - for example, bonemeal may be used in fertilizers. Well, sure, if so, those are issues we have to tackle as well - they're not a reason not to bother doing something that really is relatively easy for most of us to do - stop eating animals.

Slightly more plausible is the argument that says 'well, vegans are eating tiny insects on their unwashed organic lettuce'. Well, sure...and maybe that's not good (which is where fruit scores - relatively easy to avoid doing this) , but firstly it's not (generally) intentional, and secondly there are grounds for hoping that the physiology of an insect might mean that it doesn't experience pain in quite the way, or to the same degree, that we do. Of course we don't actually know, but...that's the point. Why use something that we can't be sure about, to justify the intentional killing of creatures that our intelligence tells us definitely suffer as we would if someone transported us away to be killed?

**********

The world's major religions/philosophies believe that in some way we will experience the consequences of our actions - perhaps in this life (for example, through physical suffering), in the next life, or via a combination of the two. For example, Buddhism teaches that all of our actions, including our choice of food, have karmic consequences and that by involving oneself in the cycle of inflicting injury, pain and death, one must in the future experience in equal measure the suffering caused. Millions of Hindus, Buddhists and Jains all over the world choose not to eat meat for moral reasons, as do millions following other religions. The Essene Gospel of Peace says that if we do eat meat 'their death shall be your death' (and, no, I'm not quite sure what is meant here, but it echoes Buddhist teachings.)

Even those who don't believe there's anything after death, and all that religious stuff is hogwash, why increase the chances of your suffering physically in this life through consuming the flesh of murdered animals (see Pt 1). And, even if you believe that is all 'vegetarian propaganda', why most definitely contribute towards the suffering of animals as described in this Part?

Finally, if I've come over holier-than-thou, believe me, I'm very far from that. I have myself eaten fish for many years prior to raw, and even went back to meat-eating for one year as an adult. If there is any anger (well, emotion at least!) in this article, it's as much directed to my own hypocrisy, the intellectualisations I've used to make myself better - the little stories I've told myself in the past to justify my actions, as well as to the society that taught and encouraged me to think (or, more accurately, 'not think') unconsciously. I've also contributed towards the killing of animals in other ways for poor reasons (if ever there are 'good reasons', apart from genuine self-defence). I hope that with this article I can in a small way take one step towards recompense for this.

I'm a slow learner. It's taken quite a lot for me to see, to really see. There are some who see from birth. But stopping eating meat is always a good choice, whether we make it at 19 or 90.

The best reasons for not killing animals then feasting on their flesh?

Because we don't have to.

Because we have a choice.

Because we are human beings.
_______________________________________________________

EVENTS

Sunday 26th July
Raw Food Picnic in the Park
(organised by Gina 'The Raw Greek' Panayi)
2 pm - 7 pm
FREE (take your own food, utensils etc.)
Kensington Gardens, London W. The picnic will take place between the Physical Energy Statue (in the middle of the park) and the round pond.
Please let ginapanayi@yahoo.co.uk know if you can come so that she can contact you if any changes (eg bad weather).

I'll be there, and looking forward to meeting any of you who can make it.

Saturday 1st August
80/10/10 Summer Gathering
(organised by Dr Doug Graham)
9 am - 5 pm
£25
Storrington Village Hall, 59 West St, Storrington, Sussex
More details under 'Events' at www.foodnsport .com

Can't make this one due to a clash, but have been to previous events, and would recommend it. Great opportunity to ask Doug all those questions you've been saving up, and for making raw friends.

No, I Don't Eat Raw Meat Pt 1 - 'Health Reasons'

2009-07-14T04:38:00.001-07:00

Although I haven't eaten meat for most of my adult life, I did go offtrack once, and have certainly had a lot of fish, so certainly can't claim a 'clean' history on flesh-eating (the 'About Me' on the http://www.rawforlife.co.uk/ site will give an indication).

But, a couple of months before going raw, it was as if the scales finally fell from my eyes. I started to become truly conscious of what I was eating in a way I never had before, and 'liking the taste' alone was no longer sufficient motivation to put something into my body. From that point on I knew that animal flesh would never be part of my diet again.

When I went raw, I found that most raw fooders felt the same way. But, then on one international forum I found a small group who were advocating meat-eating. I got into fisticuffs with a couple of members of the group, but, as the forum was officially 'omnivore' (the only raw forum I know that is), and not wanting to get involved in such discussions again, thought it would be easier, in future, simply to write an article and link to that if the subject ever came up. Also, I have no wish to get into 'personal' arguments with meat-eaters. After all, lots of my friends, and some of the people I am very close to, eat meat.

It's also occurred to me that some people coming to raw will ask about meat, because although in the past raw foodists tended to come to raw via veganism or vegetarianism, raw has become so high-profile in recent years that some are coming from cooked omnivorous diets, and may be thinking, 'well, if I ate meat cooked, why not eat it raw'?

In the two parts of this article, I'll be arguing against meat-eating per se, whether cooked or raw.

Some who eat meat say that because 'primitive man' ate it, we should do too. They've been persuaded by evidence from human remains that show that flesh foods, fruit and nuts were consumed by people long ago. However, I don't think they've found evidence that every primitive human consumed all these foods, just that each of the three groups was amongst the foods consumed. Just as these would be amongst the foods consumed by modern-day man.

We don't know for sure what happened thousands of years ago, or why it did. Explanations, theories, are almost always to some extent subjective. 'Evidence' to support one viewpoint invariably conflicts with 'evidence' to support another. Interpretations of 'scientific evidence' regarding diets of thousands of years ago are highly coloured by personal preferences, especially when interpreters are using them to justify meat-eating, or, for that matter, vegetarianism.

The 'thousands of years' thing has never washed for me as an argument for doing (or not doing) anything anyway. 'People often say that humans have always eaten animals, as if this is a justification for continuing the practice. According to this logic, we should not try to prevent people from murdering other people, since this has also been done since the earliest of times.' (Isaac Singer) The only way in which 'thousands of years' is useful for me is when I remember that for 'thousands of years' there have always been individuals, communities and even cultures, who have not gone with the prevailing mode of thought, who have objected to the mistreatment of other humans, and of animals, have not followed the herd, and who have, thankfully, spoken out.

To me, what some humans did or didn't eat in the past is pretty irrelevant anyway. I work on the basis that, as I came into he world in 1958, the only habitat that is relevant to me is the one I'm in now, in the UK, 21st century. The only digestive system relevant is the one I have now. The life I've been given, in which to learn whatever I can in the years I have, and try to make good choices, does happen to be in a country where I am free to eat anything I like.

I won't be dreaming up hypothetical situations such as 'What would I eat if I had to survive in the wild?' as this would be pointless, as right now I'm not having to do that, neither am I ever likely to have to (and if ever I was, I'd simply make choices in the situation I found myself in). I live in a society where my choices are not constrained, and, most wonderful of all, people in the hot lands from which I'm told my ancestors migrated from, will share their food with me. There may be environmental disadvantages to that, but if it makes it easier for me to eat raw vegan (and methane-producing cows have a few environmental disadvantages as well!) then I'm happy to eat a mango that's got here on a plane.

My society has developed to the point, where, thankfully, I'm not faced with the terrible choices that I'm told my ancestors might have been faced with to survive. And, because I am fortunate to have many choices, I have full responsibility for those I make.

So, why have I chosen not to eat animals?

Just saying I know it's wrong isn't very useful for those who are still wondering about the subject, and don't share that conviction. And it could be possible that the 'revelatory' experience I described at the beginning of the article could simply have come as the result of various experiences, observations and reflections throughout my life, combining to make my choosing not to eat meat finally make sense at every level.

In Part 1, I'll be looking at what are generally called the 'health reasons' for not eating meat. In Part 2, I'll be looking at what are variously called the 'moral', 'compassionate' or 'emotional' aspects of eating meat. As, I've noticed that many of those who eat meat tend to put those out of their mind and even deem them as less important than the health reasons. To me, they're by far the most important, and I'll be tackling them head-on.

But, 'health reasons' first.

Cancer

Certain pig-meats are linked with various cancers - generally stomach, pancreatic. Sure, the meats in question tend to be 'processed', eg ham, bacon. But some of my readers will still be eating those, so worth a mention.

Everyone will have seen the constant flow of media reports on the links between beef and various cancers - particularly bowel/colon (and this is not just fatty meat, but lean meat as well).
'It could be the carcinogens created when meat is cooked, or meat's highly available iron, or something else in meat,' speculates Walter Willett, Chair of Nutrition, Harvard School of Public Health.

So, if it's the cooking, sure, that lets raw meat off the hook, as it were... However, if it's iron, that would apply whether the meat was raw or cooked. In a 10-year study, scientists looked at a large group of men and women who were initially cancer-free. The male subjects who developed cancer showed higher iron stores than the men who remained cancer-free. Cancer risk was 40% greater in men with high levels of iron in their bodies. And...Guideline No 7 from the UK Cancer Prevention Research Trust: 'low blood iron helps protect you from cancer'.

John Robbins discusses meat and iron in his book 'Healthy at 100'. Paraphrasing the information in pp149-51, for many people one of the 'health' reasons they might give for eating meat is the iron in it.

The iron in meat is called 'heme iron', and the iron found in plant foods is 'nonheme' iron. 'Heme iron' is certainly more easily absorbed by our bodies than nonheme iron and some people have taken this to mean that, because of this, nonheme iron is in some way inferior to heme iron. But excess iron poses dangers to health. Antioxidants are deservedly recognised for their role in preventing cancer and other illness. But iron is the opposite of an antioxidant; it is a potent oxidant. Excess iron causes the production of free radicals hich can damage cells, leading to disease.

'For example, when sufficient quantities of heme iron are present, as is likely to happen when diets contain appreciable quantities of beef, cholesterol is oxidised into a form that is more readily absorbed by the arteries, leading to increased rates of heart disease. With nonheme iron - the kind found in plants - it's a totally different story. Your body absorbs only what it needs.'

Dr Thomas T Perls (Harvard expert on longevity): 'It's possible that higher iron levels, which may have been considered 'normal' only because they are common in males, actually speed the aging process.' According to Dr Perls, lower iron levels in adults (up to a point, of course) are an advantage and that 'it may turn out that adults, and perhaps even adolescents, are speeding up their aging clocks by maintaining iron levels that are now considered 'normal', but may in fact be excessive.'

'The beef industry has contributed to more American deaths than all the wars of this century, all natural disasters and all automobile accidents combined. If beef is your idea of 'real food for real people' you'd better live real close to a real good hospital.' (Neal D Barnard, MD, President, Physicians' Committee for Responsible Medicine.)

Chicken has been linked with colon cancer. The American Journal of Epidemiology reports that researchers examined the eating habits of 32,000 men and women over a six-year period and then monitored emerging cancer cases for the next six years. Among participants who generally avoided 'red meat', but who ate 'white meat' less than once a week, colon cancer risk was 55%higher than for those who avoided both kinds of meat, and those who had white meat at least once per week had more than three-fold higher colon cancer risk.

A google will reveal all sorts of scientific studies linking meat-eating to various cancers. I could fill this article with more, but it would get boring.

Other illnesses

I'll skip over heart disease, as most meat-eaters have been persuaded that this is to do with the fat in meat, problems exacerbated by the cooking of it, and raw meat-eaters will say that raw fat (for those who don't find the idea of eating that repulsive - see Pt 2) is fine.

But how about rheumatism, gout, osteoporosis, etc?

Animal flesh contains uric acid. Carnivorous animals secrete an enzyme - uricase - which breaks this down so it can be elimated. Humans don't generate this enzyme. Instead, we absorb the uric acid. As a result, calcium urate crystals form and concentrate in joints, feet and the lower back, leading to arthritis, gout, rheumatism, etc.

Meat in general results in acid by-products. It's high in phosphorus. Our bodies will do everything they can to maintain a slightly alkaline (7.4) internal environment. If we ingest lots of acid-making food the body will put this right by raiding its alkaline mineral reserves, for example, by leeching calcium from the bones, resulting in osteoporosis.

Now, raw meat-eaters have their own 'evidence' that runs counter to the 'evidence' above. They debunk what they call the 'myth' meat-eating increasing the chance of cancer (and other illnesses) and say that vegetarians are just trying to 'scare' people into not eating animals. Even when they do admit there is a link between meat-eating and some cancers, they maintain that this is more to do with the way meat is eaten nowadays rather than meat as such, and they believe all's fine if the meat eaten is raw, from an animal that was organically-fed etc.

Their arguments sound very convincing and scientific - scientists (some - there are plenty of vegetarian scientists) are as keen as other meat-eaters to come up with arguments that persuade them and others eating meat is a healthy thing to do. They'll tell you that people ate meat in the past and didn't die of cancer (how do they know?). They'll cite examples of people who eat high-meat diets and appear to be thriving (did you know it's likely that half of 50 year-olds already have a tumour but just don't know it? If you think that's tosh, please ask me for details of a credible report on autopsies done on younger male victims of accidental death that I think might persuade you otherwise). They'll also tell you that cultures known for following high-meat diets, such as the Inuit and Masai, are perfectly healthy. However, I have conflicting information that includes reports that Inuits suffer from one of the highest osteoporosis rates in the world, and that the Masai do in fact suffer from cardio-vascular disease, arthritis and osteoporosis (particularly the males).

But, at the end of the day, the arguments will rage, and who can be sure what facts aren't being 'massaged' to suit an argument? Those pro-meat will want very much to continue eating it and want others to do similar. Those anti-meat want very much to persuade people to stop killing animals. There are strong motivations behind each pitch.

All I ask, and hope, is that any readers here who at this point are still skeptical about the 'health reasons' for not eating meat, will read the rest of this article, and, particularly, Part 2, which contains arguments against meat-eating that are a little more troublesome.

Digestion

Essene Gospel of Peace: 'For in his blood every drop of their blood turns to poison; in his breath their breath to stink.'

Whatever studies are quoted, whatever science is used to debunk, it really is quite difficult to argue that eating meat is healthful when it is is surely unsuited to our digestion.

Meat is already decaying, decomposing flesh which, once inside us, continues to rot. A carnivore in the wild eats meat freshly-killed. The carnivore has acidic saliva which plays a significant role in pre-digestion. The carnivore's stomach secretes huge amounts of hydrochloric acid (much more than we are able to) to break down meat in the stomach quickly. The digestive tract of the carnivore is about three times the length of the body, and smooth. It's body is designed to dissolve food rapidly and pass it quickly out of the system to minimise putrefaction of the flesh.

We, on the other hand, rarely eat our meat freshly-killed (our natural abhorrence to sinking our teeth into a passing cow could have something to do with that). So, our meat, before we even eat it is decomposing, rotting. It's carcass. Most of the raw vegan foods I eat have life in them. I remember a detractor of the raw vegan diet making fun of the phrase 'life-force', so I'll explain it here in case anyone is unsure. A papaya will ripen off the tree (and this is not decomposing - it doesn't do that until it is over-ripe.) Put a carrot top in water and fronds will grow. Soak a wheatberry and it will sprout. Plant seeds from melons and mangoes and they will grow into plants. That's the life-force. But meat has no life in it - only death.

The flesh is already decomposing, and things get worse when we put it into our bodies.

As our saliva is alkalising, rather than acidic, we can't predigest meat in the way an animal can.

As we don't have fangs, and our teeth are set close together, bits of meat get stuck between them and rot, resulting in the worst 'poo-breath'. This isn't from a vegetarian or vegan site, but from a dental site: 'Most of the volatile sulphur compounds that cause bad breath are waste products created by anaerobic bacteria as they digest proteins. As we consume meat and fish, the bacteria feed on these and produce waste products. Two of these waste by-products are: cadaverine - the smell we associate with corpses, and putrescine - the compound responsible for much of the foul odour produced by decaying meat.' The worst breath I have ever smelt has been on meat-eaters. Although my breath may not always be sweet, since adopting a raw vegetarian, then raw vegan, diet, I have asked those close to me to tell me if they can ever detect that 'killer breath' on me. No reports yet.

Our stomachs secrete far less hydrochloric acid in terms of concentration and quantity than carnivores' stomachs, which means our bodies labour to digest meat, lots of energy is expended, and further putrefaction occurs while digestion is delayed.

Our digestive tracts are five to six times the length of our body, that is, proportionately much longer than an animal's. They're also corrugated as opposed to smooth. Our bodies are designed to retain food as long as possible, until all possible nutrients have been extracted; this is ideal for plant food, but is the worst possible condition for the digestion and processing of flesh. For, meat has no fibre. As it moves through our long digestive tracts far more slowly than plant foods, poisonous byproducts of bacteria (their poops, basically)are released. Meat rots further in our guts.

Meat-eaters don't generally wait for meat to be digested and evacuated before they eat the next meal. So more food piles in on top of the meat. Because the undigested meat is blocking the exit of the new food, even innocent plant food (eg fruit) will get up to tricks as it...waits. That food starts to rot (in that warm, moist environment!),resulting in fermentation, gas, big tum, bad smells...and a packing of undigested food, resulting in constipation.

I'm not saying vegetarians never get constipated, but the problem is far more common in meat-eaters, and, consequently, their poos (when they come...) can smell dreadful. Arthur M Baker ('Awakening Our Self Healing Body') says: 'After several years on a conventional low-fiber diet, the average adult carries about 10-20 pounds of fecal matter on the colon walls. In many cases, the distended abdomens of those who are overweight are not due solely to fat as they are to the accumulation of faeces over a period of years. Autopsies have revealed over 50 pounds of fecal material within some bodies.' Now, OK, Arthur's statement most certainly has been disputed - included more for gory fascination! However, even if 'impacted faeces' aren't in fact present in the colon, a googling of medical sites and the experience of many says that they can most certainly be 'impacted' in the rectum, and, wherever faeces are 'impacted'...it's not good.

I don't actually need any of the above to explain to me why a vegetarian diet is easier on the digestive system than an omnivorous one, and perhaps some readers will identify here. I remember as a child often passing hard poos, infrequently, sometimes painfully, as a result of a diet that included meat daily (usual in the Sixties). When I turned vegetarian as a young adult, constipation was a thing of the past. In fact, even in the years I ate vegetarian+fish, I only remember having a problem twice in 20 years - after giving birth, and on a Greek holiday once. So I'd grant our bodies appear to struggle less with fish. I've heard some meat-eaters talk of routinely 'going' only every few days! As on a raw vegan diet I go quickly and easily twice a day at least, I can't imagine feeling that uncomfortable.

If there's anyone reading who still believes that human beings should be eating animals, consider this (with thanks to the poster known as Carl Andrews on 30BaD):

'William C. Roberts MD has five decades of experience in the field of cardiology, written over 1300 scientific publications, a dozen cardiology textbooks, and has been editor in chief of the American Journal of Cardiology for a quarter of a century. He is arguably the most highly regarded cardiologist in the world today.

In his 2008 editorial "The Cause of Atherosclerosis", published in the peer reviewed journal Nutrition in Clinical Practice, Roberts reminds us that high cholesterol causes heart disease. What is the cause of high cholesterol? Saturated fat and animal products.

He says: Atherosclerosis is easily produced in nonhuman herbivores (eg, rabbits, monkeys) by feeding thema high cholesterol (eg, egg yolks) or high saturated fat (eg, animal fat) diet…Indeed, atherosclerosis is oneof the easiest diseases to produce experimentally, but the experimental animal must be an herbivore.It is not possible to produce atherosclerosis in a carnivore…"He elaborates in an earlier editorial:I t is virtually impossible, for example, to produce atherosclerosis in a dog even when 100 grams of cholesterol and 120 grams of butter fat are added to its meat ration. (This amount of cholesterol is approximately 200 times the average amount that human beings in the USA eat each day!). (The American Journal of Cardiology, 1990, vol. 66,896.)

He then utterly annihilates the human omnivore myth in a single sentence. here it is:***Because humans get atherosclerosis, and atherosclerosis is a disease only of herbivores, humans also must be herbivores.***'

'Essential nutrients'

It is not necessary to eat meat to obtain essential nutrients. I know most of my readers won't need educating on that one, but as I was surprised to hear one of my young relations recently come out with that old chestnut 'if you don't eat meat, where do you get your protein?', here's a link for anyone who hasn't noticed that the millions of vegetarians (including athletes, bodybuilders etc) are doing just fine!

Furthermore, there is no good reason for a raw vegetarian/vegan to have problems with calcium, or iron, or Vitamin D. Contact me if you'd like more information on this, and, if you don't want to take my word for it, I can put you in touch with a raw vegan nutritionist.

B12 is a much-debated area, with some believing it to be problematic for raw vegans rather than raw vegetarians (although many meat-eaters are deficient in B12). Suffice to say that some raw vegans supplement for B12, whilst others believe there is no need to. There is certainly no evidence to suggest that if you are a raw vegan and don't supplement it is only a matter of time (as one pro meat-eating site will tell you) before all sorts of awful things will happen to you for sure. The 'B12 thing' is a little more complex than that.

If the US stopped eating meat, it could feed the world.

Whilst people protest at the amount of grain used for biofuels, more than seven times as much is fed to farmed animals so that people can eat meat. A unit of land can produce far more grains and vegetables than meat, so using it for meat is wasteful. According to a Feb 2008 article by the USDA, it takes 7 lbs of corn to produce 1 lb of beef, and 2.6 lbs of corn to produce 1 lb of chicken. A reduction in meat-eating of just 10% would enable resources to be diverted to feed millions of people.

So, there are the 'health reasons' for not eating meat.

There may well be meat-eating persons out there sharpening their quills...However, the arguments above are but chicken-feed (possibly unfortunate turn of phrase) compared with the real arguments against eating animals. You know...those daffy, 'non-scientific', emotional ones...

I'll be discussing those in Part 2.

PS Here's a video where a medical doctor explain, graphically and entertainingly, exactly we should not be consuming animal products. Yes, it's an hour long, but if you're omnivore, please watch at least the first 15 minutes.

Here's a five-minute video that shows the inside of the colon of someone who eats meat and dairy and the difference when they do not.

Herbs - Yea or Nay? Pt 2 - Flavourings, fragrance

2009-07-06T08:51:00.001-07:00

HERBS FOR FLAVOURINGS

In Pt 1 I explained the Natural Hygiene view of herbal medicine and why I wouldn't use herbal medicine now, any more than I'd use conventional medicine.

However, NH doesn't just see herbal medicine as toxic. It sees herbs as toxic per se.

NH says herbs shouldn't be ingested at all. Not for healing. Not for teas. And...not in any other way either.

But, we find, amongst those who are known to be Natural Hygiene in philosophy, differing opinions on the use of herbs as flavourings. It appears that although the majority of classic Natural Hygiene writings veto herbs across the board, some who we might describe as Natural Hygiene-orientated, such as Dr Doug Graham ('80/10/10 Diet') and (the less famous) Debbie Took, do mix herbs with their food.

The 'could we make a meal out of it?' argument

Some NH'ists say that the test of whether something is a suitable food for human beings is whether we'd enjoy it in large quanties.

It's fair to say that I wouldn't enjoy eating a bowl of parsley, or basil, on its own. But then I wouldn't 'make a meal out of' celery either, which NH does say is a suitable food for us. I quite like the taste of celery in small quantities, but wouldn't relish more than a stick, or possibly, two. In fact, I find the taste changes from pleasant to unpleasant soon after that. I greatly enjoy a little chopped celery added to meals, as a flavouring, and in that respect I can find little difference between adding celery to meals and adding parsley.

And, much as I enjoy bell peppers, chopped and added to salads, I don't find the thought of a bowl of them attractive. I also use lemon and lime juice for flavouring, in small amounts, both of which are recommended as flavourings in Natural Hygiene texts.

So, it doesn't seem logical to me to say that herbs shouldn't be ingested because we 'can't make a meal out of them', as NH'ists are fine on using other substances that they would almost certainly not enjoy eating in large quantities.

What do animals do?

Sometimes nature can provide clues as to how to eat optimally, eg animals don't damage their food by cooking it, they eat simply, they don't blend 'abombo-combos', and they eat foods singly rather than mixed. And not only do they not mix their foods, they don't add 'flavourings' either. But then, there are many differences between humans and 'all other animals', and they're not all bad...those relevant to this discussion could include: we decorate, we combine, we create...

Also, animals do sometimes seek out certain plants to ingest in small amounts only. There are various theories as to why they do this, and I won't go into those here, as they're theories only, suffice to say simply that animals do occasionally ingest things that they don't eat in large quantities.

'If it tastes nasty that's nature's way of telling us we shouldn't eat it.'

Agree. However, the taste thing can be a bit subjective. Renowned Natural Hygienist Herbert Shelton said: 'almost without exception, herbs are bitter, strong and foul tasting.' I can't agree with that. I've just run outside and torn off a basil leaf. Being as fair as I can be, I wouldn't say it tastes good. But wouldn't say it tastes bad either. I'd say it tastes 'interesting but I wouldn't like a lot of it.' A little mixed in with a salad? Definitely. I'd say similar for dill - which imparted a delicious flavour to a melon-cucumber soup made recently.

I've just tried a sage leaf. Looks beautiful, smells good. Tastes...not good. So, I'm thinking that perhaps sage shouldn't be eaten, or at least my body says no. If we've been raw for a while, I think we can trust our bodies to tell us as to whether something is 'so good, eat tons!', 'OK - maybe eat a little', or 'no way!'.

Cilantro (coriander leaves) is an interesting one. I detest cilantro and will only tolerate it if it well-disguised in a mixture. Natural Hygiene tells me that that means cilantro is not fit for human consumption. However, other raw people I know love it, and will eat it in quantity. So, I feel the taste test can work well for individuals, that is, cilantro is not for my body, but may be fine and even good for other bodies! So I'm not sure that it makes sense for one raw fooder to make a judgement on what food is or isn't optimal for all raw fooders based solely on what their own taste buds tell them.

'Condiments pervert the tastebuds.'

Many Natural Hygienists see herbs as flavourings just the way they see 'condiments' in general, such as salt or chili - the arguments against using them being that if we add such strong flavourings to food the tastebuds will become so accustomed to their use that, sadly, our food will seem 'bland' and unattractive without them.

However, although I've certainly had to work hard to wean myself off salt (and not quite there yet!), and it's certainly the case that use of salt can make foods seem flavourless without it (when of course the 'flavour' is that of the salt itself, masking the true flavour), this isn't the case with herbs. I can enjoy a dish with herbs, and without. I don't recall anyone saying that they can only enjoy such-and-such dish with herbs, but have heard many say similar about salt (and chili).

Are herbs toxic?

I've discussed the toxicity of herbs when made into medicines, and, even in natural, 'undecocted' states, herbs will contain toxins to some degree. As to whether the level is going to give our bodies any problems is debatable. Certainly they will in some herbs. For example, pennyroyal, a mint I used to have in the garden has been used in the past as an abortifacent. And there are herbs that will play havoc with our own hormones.

NH says that because there are volatile oils and alkaloids in (all) herbs that can result in severe illness or even death in some cases if large amounts are consumed, they shouldn't be ingested at all (although note alkaloids are contained in many plant foods, such as tomatoes and bell peppers).

This discussion links to some extent with the 'could we make a meal out of it?' argument. I'm thinking my tastebuds would soon find the taste of anything more than a tiny amount of a herb sufficiently repellent to ensure that my body did not receive a dose likely to cause problems. Again, the 'aliesthenic taste change' mechanism can come to our rescue here. When we eat raw, (note - doesn't work for cooked food, doesn't work for cooked herbs (medicines!) we can rely on our bodies to tell us, by eliciting revulsion, when we've had enough for our bodies' requirements.

At this point, I'm guessing that some readers will be sighing with relief along the lines of 'yes, exactly! That's what I feel!'. Others will be rolling their eyes, smiling at the efforts of this fledgling NH'ist to construct seemingly-plausible arguments to persuade herself that it's fine to carry on eating things she just doesn't want to give up.

And they may be right. But, at present, I'm not convinced that they should be 'non grata' in my kitchen, and a few strips of basil on hunks of sliced tomato evokes such sweet memories for me that, for now, I'm using some herbs in small amounts for flavourings. What's for certain though is that, while I am using them, I'll thoroughly enjoy the flavours, and will not be beset by anxieties as to whether I should be using them or not, as it's certainly not going to help my body cope with any toxins in them by enervating myself getting all stressed when I eat them!

Dr Doug Graham, who certainly takes a Natural Hygiene stance in most things, makes an exception for herbs. At a recent workshop, he had us listing all the herbs we could possibly think of, as possibilities for flavourings for dressings, soups...amongst herbs he used himself were cilantro, mint and rosemary, recommending rosemary with cauliflower (tried this - not to my taste!), and mango with 'chocolate mint' (now that was good, although I'd needed to make a visit to the Herb Farm to buy that particular variety of mint - it 'sort of' tastes like chocolate - 'After Eights' perhaps (from a previous life!)).

HERBS FOR FRAGRANCE

Now, most importantly...herbs, or at least most herbs, smell wonderful! Now, isn't that the main thing that differentiates herbs (or what we in present day call herbs) from all other plants? Fragrance! So, as they're special for that, might that not be a clue as to how human beings are to benefit most from them?

The aromas of herbs can lift our spirits. Lavender is said to be calming. The smell of thyme and curry plant on a hot day gives me a feeling of well-being, perhaps because the smells evoke memories of happy days in Greece. I might have a bath with a little lavender or rosemary sprinkled in. And if anyone who knows me is reading this, please could I have a massage with aromatherapy for next birthday?

I'm sure that herbs can help our bodies heal themselves, in that pleasant fragrances can make us feel good, happy, relaxed, and thus free energy for our bodies to be able to carry out vital work. That's got to be good!

*****

So - I won't be making medicines out of nature's fragrant little gifts to us, as explained in Part 1. But I will be mixing in little bits of the unadulterated plants with my foods, for now..., revel in the beautiful fragrances, and appreciate their beauty (and hardiness - in most cases) in my garden.

(PS Do recommend a soup of blended (very) ripe mango with a few fennel fronds - courtesy of Dr Doug!)

Herbs - Yea Or Nay? Pt 1 - Herbal Medicine

2009-06-30T10:35:00.000-07:00

My garden's full of herbs. I love to crush them between my fingers to smell the gorgeous fragrances, revel in the wafts of thyme and rosemary in the air whenever the temperature exceeds 25 C (OK - not often here!), and one of my favourite places to go is the herb farm nearby - it calms me simply to wander round, even if I'm not buying anything. Sometimes I just visit to see if there's a herb I haven't 'got' yet, plant it anywhere, hope for the best, and...usually it thrives, as herbs are generally very forgiving.

I've had a love affair with herbs all my adult life. I went to the Greek island Spetses on the strength of John Fowles' descriptions in 'The Magus' of the wild herbs on the hills. (Interestingly, the Greek island tavernas usually use commercially-dried oregano when the fresh grows wild by the roadside!).

However, my relationship with herbs has changed a little since raw (as do many relationships!). It got distinctly wobbly at first, there was even a short separation, but after a tentative reuniting, and some thrashing out of issues, we reached 'agreement', and now the relationship is different. Just as good, but on a different footing.

I'll tell you how the 'wobbles' started:

Herbal Medicine

A few years ago I was considering studying for a BSc in Herbal Medicine, but got diverted by some 'raw food thing' :-) And, for some months, my passion for raw overlapped with my studies of herbal medicine.

Whilst taking care not to eat food that had been damaged by heat, to preserve nutrients so that everything present in the natural food would still be in correct proportions as it entered my body, there I was attending herbal medicine workshops, where I was being taught how to make 'decoctions', which basically meant boiling the herbs, then simmering for half an hour or so.

On the one hand, I was impressed by statements of the sort made by Anne McIntyre in 'Top Herbal Remedies', which described one of the benefits of using herbal as opposed to conventional medicine as 'using the whole plant'. Anne is critical of scientists who extract components from plants on the basis that they seem to play some beneficial role within the plant, then put them into 'medicines', devoid of the other substances that had surrounded them whilst in the plant, thus making a substance that is not 'the whole plant' and will be toxic to the body, resulting in all sorts of symptoms, described as 'side-effects'.

Well, that made lots of sense to me (and it still does), but, if that's true, I reasoned, then why did herbalists take a natural substance, boil and simmer it, destroying and/or damaging all sorts of things in it, some of which scientists know about, some of which scientists may well not know about, so that the result cannot in any shape or form be called 'the whole plant'?!

The effect of the cooking (based on what we know about the effects of cooking) would likely create toxic by-products, but, at best, would result in a damaged and unnatural substance. And people then put this into their bodies in a belief that it would 'cure'? I put this to the leaders of my workshops and got the impression that they were a bit 'thrown', that is, they weren't used to the question and, as they were on cooked-food diets themselves, had probably never questioned the logic of what they were doing to the plants.

Whether heated and/or processed (eg powdered), or made with 'extracts', many if not most herbal medicines will be far from 'natural' substances.

Little did I know then that I was a Natural Hygienist in the making long before I'd heard of the term Natural Hygiene. As, my puzzles over herbs as used by my teachers were right in line with the NH view of herbal medicine.

NH (and many 'alternative medicine' practitioners) sees acute dis-ease (symptoms) as the manifestation of the body's attempts to heal itself, by eliminating toxins via various orifices - for example, the nose (eg colds), mouth (eg colds, coughs, vomiting), rectum (eg diarrhoea), skin (eg rashes), etc. And, if the body is prevented from eliminating toxins, if symptoms (of healing) are suppressed, toxins will stay in the body, to accumulate and damage organs and tissues, resulting in chronic, severe (and sometimes irreversible) illness.

NH sees herbal medicines as toxic. And, if we introduce a toxic substance into our bodies, there may well be a cessation of symptoms. And that's why all medicines, including herbal medicines, are claimed to 'work', and that's why medicine has had such a hold on human beings for the last few thousand years.

NH explains that symptoms cease because the body's efforts to eliminate existing toxins (manifested in the disease being 'treated') are put on hold while it diverts its energies to cope with the new invader. There may, additionally or alternatively, be new symptoms - for example, vomiting, diarrhoea, fever, sweating, increased urination. Those who believe herbal medicines 'cure' call this 'purging', saying that the herb is causing the body to clean itself out. NH says this is simply the body's going to great, often dramatic, efforts, to try to expel the medicine itself.

Any 'cures' are a cessation of symptoms only, giving the illusion of a cure. If the herbal medicine squashes the body's efforts to eliminate, at some point a new set of symptoms will occur elsewhere as the body will seek another outlet for elimination (we know that many herbal preparations result in 'side-effects' just as conventional medicines do) and/or the accumulation of toxins that the body does not manage to eliminate will cause serious problems. The medicines do nothing to tackle the underlying causes of disease, the apparent 'cure', sadly, diverting people from addressing those causes. Human beings in pain are of course attracted to anything that will stop the pain. But all medicine is simply a 'quick-fix', bringing its own problems, setting the sufferer on a downward spiral. Short-term gain at the expense of long-term pain.

(Some of you may be familiar with the 1930 experiments of Kouchakoff in Switzerland, in which it was found that, after eating a cooked meal, white blood cells rushed (leukocytosis) toward the digestive tract, indicating that the body was fighting what it perceived as an unwelcome substance. This did not occur with raw food. Dr Kouchakoff conducted over 300 experiments and found that all the following resulted in leukocytosis: cooked food, pharmaceutical or recreational drugs, nutritional supplements, processed, refined foods, homogenised foods, chemical foods, and...medicinal herbs.)

NH'ist Herbert W Shelton says that, ironically, the herbs thought to have the greatest medicinal qualities will by definition be the most poisonous ones. He states: 'If an herbal substance does not occasion actions of expulsion and resistance when taken into the body or applied to it, it is not vested with any power to cure. If the body ejects the herb by vomiting, diarrhoea, diuresis, or diaphoresis, and this is accompanied by some pain and discomfort, then the herb is regarded as beneficial and it is used to 'work'. If the patient then recovers in spite of the herb taking, full credit for recovery is given to the poisonous plant, and the self-healing power of the body is completely ignored.'

I'd disagree with Shelton that only those herbs that result in dramatic effects are seen as medicinal. Many 'milder' concoctions are said to have medicinal properties.

Here's Natural Hygienist Mike Benton, writing in the Eighies about the effects of peppermint tea (which incidentally needs a fair amount of peppermint to deliver its 'effects', which is why mint teas are usually made with dried or powdered mint):

'Let's take a simple case where an herb appears to do some work. Peppermint, a rather mild herb by most standards, is sometimes used to 'cure' a headache by herbalists. Your head hurts, so you drink a cup of peppermint tea. Your head stops hurting. Did the peppermint work?

Yes and no. Most headaches are caused by swelling of the intracranial blood vessels around the scalp. These blood vessels swell because of toxic matter in the bloodstream and body, and they then press against sensitive nerves. When peppermint is taken, the body recognizes its oils as harmful, circulation is rapidly increased by the body and the heart speeds up. At this point, the body is attempting to eliminate the peppermint toxins as quickly as possible by increasing circulation so elimination can proceed.

The increase in circulation, due to the toxic nature of the peppermint oils, has an effect on the swollen blood vessels in the head. The vessels are dilated so that the circulation can proceed rapidly and the peppermint poison can be eliminated. As a side result, the headache disappears, temporarily.

So is the headache cured, and did the peppermint work? No, the body did all the work. It worked to eliminate a poison, and these efforts also masked the symptom of a toxic body - in this case, the headache.

The cause of the headache - toxicosis - was not removed by the peppermint. The conditions that brought on the toxicosis - poor diet and lifestyle habits - were not improved by the herb. The headache may have disappeared, but the underlying cause remains. This is the case with all herbs - symptoms are depressed by the eliminative actions of the body which are directed toward the herb.'

Natural Hygiene even has something to say about certain plants (whether or not classed as herbs in modern day language) used in their whole, natural form, unheated, topically, such as comfrey or plantain to 'seal' minor wounds. Again, it is that they 'work' only because of their toxicity. If a herb is applied to a cut, yes, it may well 'seal' and stop bleeding, but that is because the body is attempting to protect itself against the toxicity of the herb itself.

When all's said and done, it's worth remembering that, whether we agree with the Natural Hygiene view of herbal medicine or not, an all-raw diet will reduce the need for healing anyway, as it removes many (not all!) of the causes of ill-health from our lifestyles. For example, yes I found chamomile tea very soothing once when I had stomach pains. But, since raw - no stomach pains (OK - bar bad wind once when I ate a watermelon that was 'off'!) When on a cooked diet, I'd found inhaling peppermint suppressed headaches - I assume in the way that peppermint tea 'works' as described by Mike Benton above. But - you've guessed it - no headaches (more than for a few minutes) since raw! (I suspect cutting out tea, coffee and alcohol might have helped though). And, finally, yes, I was very excited once, when on a cooked diet, to find that binding a cut with plantain did stop bleeding very quickly, but have now found, in common with others on 100% raw high-fruit diets, that, at least for minor cuts, the bleeding stops much more quickly than it ever did when cooked! So, no actual need for (short-term) herbal 'remedies' anyway!

So, in line with Natural Hygiene, I do not now advocate the use of herbal medicine any more than I do conventional medicine, which puts me at odds with many in the 'alternative health' world.

I realise that an article that effectively debunks herbal medicine, which has been practised for 'thousands of years' (as has cooking of food, meat-eating, killing each other etc) may not be popular with those who swear by it, but all I can say here is that none of us can be sure we're on the right tracks, but what I've learned seems logical to me.

Herbs and the Essenes

I've often looked to Essene texts for guidance, and the NH line on herbs may conflict with the Essenes, as my sources say the Essenes believed there was 'a herb for every ailment'. However, I'll sidestep that one by saying that, despite hours spent googling this, I've not yet been able to establish exactly how the Essenes used herbs. OK - according to historian Josephus, they 'seeked out medicinal roots for healing'. But, regardless of anything present-day people who call themselves Essene may do, I haven't to date found any evidence to say that the Essenes of two thousand years ago made 'decoctions', that the people who followed the Teacher's advice in the Essene Gospel of Peace to 'cook not', cooked the plants they used for healing.

And it's worth bearing in mind that, thousands of years ago, the word 'herb' was used in a broader sense than today; it was used to describe vegetation in general, rather than one class of (generally aromatic) plants. So it's possible that when the Essenes used the word 'herb' they meant plant foods in general, and were talking about the nutrients in foods that we know can supply our bodies with nutrients that will help our bodies heal. Bu, if you do know of any hard evidence that the Essenes were making potions in the way a modern herbalist might...let me know.

In Part 2 I'll tackle herbs as food/flavourings, and will explain why I do in fact partake of a little sprinkling of oregano on a tomato and cucumber salad, and, how, even for Natural Hygienists who don't use herbal medicine, and choose not to use herbs with food, herbs can still enhance our lives!

Why Did T C Fry Die 'So Young'?

2009-06-02T05:47:00.000-07:00

For those of you who aren't acquainted with Natural Hygiene, it can be summed up in a few words: 'leave the body alone.'

Provided we live healthfully, we will remain healthy. When we don't live healthfully, there are consequences. All illness has a cause or causes. Natural Hygiene says that when illness occurs we should remove the causes of illness (unhealthful living), obtain sufficient rest and sleep to allow the body to muster sufficient energy to heal, and re-establish the conditions for health.

Natural Hygienists take a somewhat radical view of medicine. They do not put medicines (even herbal medicine) into the body, on the basis that medicine is toxic, only palliates symptoms, simply appearing to 'cure' by temporarily diverting the body from symptoms resulting from its attempt to clean itself of toxins.

Neither do they have 'treatments', as 'any alien substance introduced into the body interferes with body functions, thus destroying or pathologically modifying them.'

The Natural Hygienist who said this was T C Fry, responsible for a huge resurgence of interest in NH from the Eighties onwards, and at least partly responsible for my own interest. I thank him for my being able to study a treasury of instruction materials he put together some 30 years ago, featuring articles from various eminent Natural Hygienists, including the 'father' of Natural Hygiene - at least from the last century onwards - Herbert Shelton.

T C Fry stressed that Natural Hygiene was not just about diet. Amongst the other essential factors of life he lists in Part 1 of the 'Life Sciences' instruction materials are: emotional equilibrium, rest and sleep.

TC's message was clear. Keep the laws of Natural Hygiene and a long, healthy life will be ours.

Then he died.

Aged 69.

In very poor health.

TC's death was a crushing blow to the movement, leaving many followers (as in so many things people do have a tendency to follow the man rather than the message...) disappointed, disillusioned, and confused. It also left Natural Hygiene a soft target for those who had always opposed its basic dietary precepts - a diet high in fruit (with vegetables, nuts and seeds) and free of supplementation.

All Natural Hygiene students come across this at some point in their research and...it's a bit of a 'spanner in the works'. We're reading material that we know makes sense, we see TC's the author of some of it, but...hmm...what happened there?

In an attempt to reconcile this myself, and to help the many who I've seen enquire about this over the years, I've been collecting data about 'TC' , or 'Terry' to his friends. (EDIT April 11 - Some people think that TC' actually stood for 'Thunder Cloud' named after his Cherokee Indian grandmother. However, I am very grateful to Vian, TC's daughter, for informing me that 'TC' came from his father's initials - 'Tony Carnell Fry', although TC's great-grandmother was indeed half Cherokee Indian.)

After reading Dr Virginia Vetrano's book 'Errors in Hygiene?!!?', I decided to summarise here what I've found out from various sources. Much of the information here is extracted from, or a paraphrase of, material in Dr Vetrano's book, but I've also included information from Chet Day's article 'Life and Times of T C Fry', Dr Doug Graham (author of '80/10/10 Diet') - many thanks to these three - and other published and internet sources, together with my own commentary.

Hopefully, this article will make things a little clearer to those who have wondered, and also provide information to supply to those who like to ignore the hundreds of thousands of people who have transformed their health with Natural Hygiene and are thriving in old age, instead swooping on the slightly-earlier-than-average death of one man, drawing conclusions on the basis of little data, and using them as ammunition to discredit an entire movement.

I do realise that there may be some reading who knew TC, so, if anything is factually incorrect, or you think I've drawn incorrect conclusions and/or made unfair inferences, just let me know privately, and I'll consider editing. (Edit! I've altered the article a little since original publication following information/comments from people who knew TC - thank you!)

TC 'BEFORE'

TC came to Natural Hygiene at the age of 45.

He was: overweight, had gastric problems, a heart condition, may have had a lung condition (an X-ray at autopsy showed a previous collapse of a lung) and had very poor teeth (gum disease, multiple abscesses and bone degeneration).

Reports conflict as to whether he had been a smoker (autopsy showed lymph nodes containing carbon and scar tissue - common in those who have smoked at one time).

There are also isolated reports of his having been stabbed whilst working as a detective in New York and injured fighting in WWII. However, as he would have been only 15 when the war finished this seems unlikely.

Whatever the case, it's fair to say, that, health-wise, he was...in a state. Dr Doug describes him as 'at death's doorstep' and says of TC 'At the age of 45, with his health failing terribly due to an intensively abusive lifestyle characterized by its excessiveness, he turned his life around. The doctors had already told him that he didn't have much longer to live. A change in diet coupled with attention to many of the other necessities of healthful living gave Terry another twenty-five years.'

When we consider this, it does put TC's relatively early death into a new light. His very poor health led him to Natural Hygiene, and the effect of NH on his health was so dramatic that it provided the impetus to devote the rest of his life to promoting its principles.

However..., I'm going to suggest (and I'm not the only one to) that he could nevertheless have lived for longer, and suffered less, if he had been paying a bit more attention to those 'other necessities of healthful living', as will be explained.

THE NATURAL HYGIENE YEARS

Further damage to T C Fry's body

TC had a somewhat 'colourful' private and business life. Dr Vetrano's book describes many examples of this, but one notable is that of a business row with a former lover which resulted in her shooting him in the back of the head at close range.

This not only had an obvious immediate effect on his health, but took a long-term toll, in that he experienced black-outs for some time. Shortly after he was told it was safe to drive again, he had a serious car crash that crushed his chest, broke many ribs, and damaged his lungs. Peter Gregonis describes how TC (or as Gregonis describes him, 'Tough Cookie') discharged himself from hospital immediately and that 'for 14 days TC refused food in order to give his body a chance to concentrate all of its energy upon the healing process. The healing process took less than a month; it would have taken twice as long under hospital care.' However, I'd comment that the fact that TC was back working so quickly after such a serious accident may also, unfortunately, have given rise to a false sense of 'indestructibility' that could have adversely influenced his lifestyle in later years.

Poor diet previous to NH had resulted in damage to the teeth. TC did not have repair work done and over the years he was subjected to much pain and fever due to bacterial toxins from abcesses. This would have been enervating and would have resulted in much toxicity in the body (septicaemia).

So, we have a man who was already in a bad state healthwise before discovering Natural Hygiene then receive a bullet in the back of the head, followed by chest and lung injuries, and septicaemia. Any body would have had its work cut out attempting to heal itself from such a huge amount of abuse and damage.

Was TC following Natural Hygiene principles of healthful living?

Let's look at whether TC implemented the diet, and had the emotional equilibrium, rest and sleep necessary for his health to improve.

Firstly, we have to assume that at least initially he must have been following the Natural Hygienic lifestyle sufficiently to result in amazing improvements, as nothing else could account for his zeal and devotion in spreading the Natural Hygiene message.

But, ironically, in spreading the message, his lifestyle became one in which certain areas of healthful living were neglected.

Diet?

Not many of us, whether all-raw or not, are perfect in our eating, and I understand the feelings of those who feel that its unfair to criticise TC for deviations from the ideal. However, as TC's death has been used by some to discredit the Natural Hygiene and the 'fruitarian' diet (however that is defined), and even to sell supplements, what he actually ate, and the way he ate, is of great relevance.

Early in his Natural Hygiene years, accounts suggest TC was fairly strict about his eating. And it sounds as if most of the time TC's diet was 'Natural Hygiene'. But the areas in which it was not are worth noting.

Chet Day and others cite reports saying that TC would frequently eat nothing in the day then 'binge-eat' in the evening, often continuing to eat late into the night, on very large meals that mixed all sorts of fruits, vegetables and nuts. An acquaintance of Day's said that 'the next day he [TC] would have gastric distress and blame it on the nuts.'

Natural Hygiene warns us to be careful not to combine foods that are 'digestively incompatible', and eating vast amounts late at night, especially if stressed, (and, as will be explained, TC was - a lot of the time), is a ticket for indigestion. Dr Herbert Shelton: 'The almost universal practice of overeating, of eating at all hours of the day and night, of eating improper food, and of eating wrongly-combined foods...is amongst the causes of chronic gastritis.'

This pattern of eating would surely have exacerbated rather than improved the pre-existing gastric problems TC had at the start of his Natural Hygiene career.

The typical Natural Hygiene diet is high on fruit (sweet and non-sweet) and vegetables, with a small amount of nuts and seeds. Did TC always follow a Natural Hygiene diet? No. For example, there were...transgressions. TC's diet included at times 'shop-bought coleslaw inundated with vinegar and mayonnaise', 'desserts such as ice cream', pie, cake, macaroni, cheese and canned food. It should be noted that TC switched from the standard American diet to 100% NH/raw overnight, rather than in gentle steps. That's a tough call, and his subsequent occasional slips will be understood by those on all sorts of raw food diets. Also, he had not come to NH via a cooked vegan diet, so, as a close friend comments, 'it is understandable that when he relapsed, he went back to what he knew.' However, sadly, his departures from the NH diet included exactly the sorts of foods that would exacerbate 'heart problems' (present when he embarked on NH) and may well have reversed to some extent the spectacular gains in health he had made when first discovering NH.

And it must be said that TC didn't actually teach or follow the traditional Natural Hygiene diet. TC advocated a diet of all, or almost all, sweet fruit, and had decided that nuts were not a part of a healthy diet, contrary to the teachings of his mentor Herbert Shelton (see article here).

Emotional equilibrium?

Constant financial problems meant that TC was under considerable stress; there were frequent run-ins with the IRS. Several times all his business possessions were confiscated. Health writer Ric Lambert: 'Terry...was under unrelenting stress and never got out of one legal battle or confrontation before he was engaged in a new one...'

Rest?

As has been explained, when TC came to Natural Hygiene, his health was in a very poor state. And the head injuries from the bullet, and the chest and lung injuries from the car crash after that necessitated an extended period of rest to allow the body to heal.

Unfortunately, TC was a workaholic who would not rest. All accounts suggest TC was working harder than ever following these traumas to the body rather than resting. So, sadly, whilst spreading the word about Natural Hygiene and improving the health of others, his own health deteriorated rather than improved.

Sleep?

Dr Vetrano records that TC slept very little, often getting up in the middle of the night to work. He would rise at 4 am feeling 'groggy' , and go for a run to wake himself up, that is, in Vetrano's view, 'he used exercise as a stimulant'. Of course the combination of chronic gastroenteritis with eating large amounts of food at night is not conducive to sleep. In short, TC Fry could not have obtained the recuperative sleep necessary for a body damaged by abuse pre-Natural Hygiene and further damaged by events post-Natural Hygiene to heal, let alone support a stressful lifestyle. He must have been seriously enervated.

THE DECLINE...

Perhaps if, on discovering Natural Hygiene, TC had just lived quietly, following its principles, his body would have had a chance not just to recover a little, but to truly heal from the first 45 years of unhealthy living followed by the additional traumas to his body. Perhaps if he had been able to retire and live a simple life, he would still be with us now.

However, the health improvements he had experienced when first embarking on Natural Hygiene drove him very,very hard to communicate its principles to others. Unhelpful eating patterns, stress, lack of rest and sleep would have constantly depleted his energy, meaning that his body not only had none left to attempt to heal pre-existing conditions and the further injuries, but would of course struggle to eliminate any more toxins that came his way. I'm going to hazard a guess that the unhealthful foods TC is reported to have eaten at times would most likely have been turned to at times when he was most busy and/or stressed, and the problem there is that processed sugary foods deplete the body of vital B vitamins it needs for a healthy nervous system, and needs so very much when we are stressed.

At various times in the few years before his death TC appeared short of breath. Dr Vetrano says he had 'chronic lung problems' for at least five years before his death. Natural Hygienist Dr Ralph Cinque reported that TC had swollen ankles (oedema), with the suggestion that these could have been due to TC's pre-existing heart condition. And TC continued to suffer from digestive problems. Dr Vetrano reports he suffered from 'bloating and flatulence with practically every meal.'

THE YEAR PRECEDING TC'S DEATH

In the spring of 96, six months before his death, TC was so weak and sick that he could barely walk, and had difficulty breathing. His legs were swollen and he was pale. He frequently had a low-grade fever. According to Dr Ralph Cinque, he was too weak and emaciated to fast.

Natural Hygiene says that what TC should have done at this stage was to remove the conditions for ill-health, rest to allow the body to heal, and re-establish conditions for good health.

TC's 'mission' (and, most likely, financial considerations) persuaded him that he could not stop work, save for a short break at a retreat, which, despite the owner's requests for the sake of his health, he would not extend as he was determined to complete Herbert Shelton's dream of setting up a Natural Hygiene college. Natural Hygiene would also say that at this time, more than ever, a diet of raw fruit, vegetables, nuts and seeds would be essential. However, in this period, TC was eating cooked food.

So, at a time when he needed to follow the principles of Natural Hygiene most, he did not.

Neither did he seek conventional medical treatment, which at this point in his life some would argue might have been justified from a 'crisis management' point of view.

He instead resorted to 'ozone therapy', an unnatural treatment which is in complete opposition to the principles of Natural Hygiene. He told Dr Vetrano that he felt 'very ill' after having ozone treatments, and that he had been 'talked into' having them.

We can all imagine how, if we are feeling weak, in pain, unable to breathe properly, scared...how we might consider anything anyone suggests might help. But it's such a pity that the more ill TC became through not following the principles of Natural Hygiene, the more he lost confidence and the more he departed from them - truly a vicious circle.

TC had 17 ozone treatments in the year before his death, and Dr Vetrano is convinced the 'debilitating' treatments hastened the progression of pre-existing degenerative conditions and resulted in much damage to his lungs from the free radicals generated by the ozone. Much of her book is devoted to explaining in detail why she feels that the exhausted T C might still have recovered were it not for these treatments. She describes them as the 'coup de grace that killed him.'

EVENTS AT DEATH

Shortly before death, TC had oedema, 'moderate to severe' atherosclerosis, emphysema, lesions in his lungs and difficulties breathing, bronchitis, pneumonia, gastritis, gingivitis, and no teeth.

The cause of death, as recorded on the death certificate, was 'Pulmonary embolus probably caused by deep venous thrombosis.' Vetrano is firmly of the opinion that the thrombus was actually in the lungs, and, again, believes the ozone treatments to be the underlying cause of this. She also blames the treatments for damage found to the heart at autopsy.

TC also had anaemia due to B12 deficiency. Now, there are differing views here as to what contribution this made to TC's demise and why the deficiency. Contrary to the hospital records 'cause of death' as reported by Dr Vetrano, and contrary to Vetrano's own views of the cause of death, Joel Fuhrmann MD believes B12 deficiency to have been the cause and that the deficiency was due to the fact that he did not supplement his diet with B12. (My problem with this is that we are told that TC did on occasions eat processed foods containing eggs and dairy, which would have contained B12.)

Dr Vetrano disagrees that raw vegans need supplementation (and, as noted, TC wasn't quite raw vegan anyway) and believes that the deficiency was due to TC's gastroenteritis. She takes the controversial view that we can obtain B12 for our (very) small needs from foods with B vitamins generally (the amount of B12 present so small that it cannot be measured) and also that B12 can be formed by bacteria in the small intestine (see Dr Gina Shaw's article here on this.) However, she says that TC's chronic gastritis would have prevented him from secreting sufficient 'intrinsic factor' to absorb it.

I will also mention Dr Vetrano's views on TC's diet, as this forms a significant part of the last section of her book, and it's only right to give space to her views here, as her book yielded so much material for this article.

Dr V believes that TC's problems were partly due to the lack of 'concentrated proteins' (nuts and seeds) in his diet. She believes that TC, due to his weakened constitution and stressful lifestyle, needed more protein than the average, and that a diet of fruit only did not supply the level of protein he needed for his body to carry out its functions, particularly repair. Consequently, Dr Vetrano believes TC was malnourished, and that this would have contributed to all his health problems. TC, as we have seen, had problems digesting nuts; it's Dr Vetrano's view that people who believe they cannot digest nuts can build up by eating them in small quantities, properly combined, for example, with leaves.

Whatever the cause of death as recorded on the death certificate, it can be seen that, whether one agrees with Dr Vetrano's views on diet or not, there was a multiplicity of underlying causes of death, firmly linked to TC's lifestyle.

DID T C FRY DIE AT 69 BECAUSE HE WAS FOLLOWING A NATURAL HYGIENE LIFESTYLE?

NO. HE DIED AT 69 BECAUSE OF A COMBINATION OF DAMAGE TO HIS BODY PRE AND POST DISCOVERING NATURAL HYGIENE AND NOT FOLLOWING A NATURAL HYGIENE LIFESTYLE.

Although it's a shame that TC isn't still spreading the Natural Hygiene message in his 80s, as did/do other well-known Natural Hygienists such as Herbert Shelton, Virginia Vetrano and Keki R Sidhwa, TC's life, and death, are an example of the laws of Natural Hygiene in action - a vindication of Natural Hygiene.

It could be argued that his life was a sacrifice - a splendid example of what happens when we ignore key factors necessary for health.

TC spread the teachings of Shelton and others, and directly and indirectly improved the health of so many. He was mentor to Dr Doug Graham and, I'm sure, many Natural Hygienists. And, for whatever part TC played in motivating Doug in his career, I am grateful.

Dr Doug: 'his intensity got the better of him. He simply worked himself to death in an effort to spread the health message to as many people as possible.'

Dr Vetrano: 'Unfortunately, people in great places, who do great things, seem to be the very first ones who are taken first, simply because they are programmed so strongly to achieve their goals that they forget 'self', and even the principles they espouse.'

WHAT CAN WE LEARN?

The story of T C Fry reminds us just how important it is to attend to the non-diet factors that can affect our health. Those educating others in health (and, really, that includes all of you reading, unless you never talk to others about your lifestyle) have a responsibility to practise what we preach. We must work hard (as it were...) to reduce stress, and get sufficient rest and sleep. And, by that, I mean 'lying outside in the sun for 30 minutes doing nothing' should be on our 'to-do' lists - that's as much part of our jobs just as surely as finishing that article or preparing that demo!

And, if we do neglect certain factors necessary for optimum health, we should come clean on these. In that way, we can still make a great and positive difference to the world, and as long as we have made it clear in which ways we do not live healthfully, if we do then become ill, the risk of disappointment and confusion to those who have listened to our pronouncements will be minimised (BTW, just so you know, I spend far too long tapping away in this room, pig out sometimes on unwise combinations of food, then experience gastric 'disturbances', and often abuse my stomach by binge-eating vast quantities of banana-date smoothie until it hurts. But am trying to improve.)

If we live a healthy lifestyle most of the time, but fail sometimes, for example, by eating unhealthy foods, and lapse on non-diet factors necessary for health, we must be aware that there will likely be some sort of price to be paid. It's a mistake to think of ourselves as supermen/women just because we eat raw, run marathons, whatever, who can't possibly get ill no matter what we do, particularly if our bodies are a little weaker than average due to abuse in a 'previous life' of unhealthful living.

No matter how much we try to control various aspects of our lives, there will always be toxic elements in it beyond our control - for example, in the air we breathe! If we ensure that we score highly on non-diet health factors, such as sufficient sunshine, fresh air, rest and sleep, we should be able to maintain sufficient energy to eliminate these toxins as they come along without any serious symptoms. But if we are so driven in one aspect of our lives (for example - our careers, however world-serving they are) that we ignore those factors, and particularly if we become stressed, our energy will be so reduced that we may succumb to illness - however good our diets.

TC's life, and early death, is a vital chapter in the history of Natural Hygiene, and a salutary lesson to us all. If a little-known Natural Hygienist had lived as TC had, and died in the way TC did, we wouldn't have heard about it. I'm so grateful to TC for the work promoting Natural Hygiene that he did do in his short life. I've seen photo's of him - an intense-looking 'life of the party' sort of man with bushy eyebrows - I wish I'd met him! I'm also grateful that he was such a larger-than-life and high-profile character that we have the story of his life to remind us that no matter how brilliantly we communicate the principles of healthful living to others, we have to implement them in our own life if a) we want a long and healthy life and b) we wish to become a beacon of health.

We may not start a health school, or write a best-seller, but let's increase the chances of our being a living testimony to our lifestyle at 100 rather than checking out at 69 and giving our detractors a field day.

Where do you get your...iron?

2009-05-20T21:53:00.000-07:00

Iron is an essential component of haemoglobin (Hb). Hb is the substance that makes our blood red, and transports oxygen to all parts of the body. Two-thirds of the body's iron is contained in the Hb, with the remainder stored in the liver, spleen and bone-marrow.

Insufficient Hb, resulting in insufficient oxygen supply to the body, and generally known as anaemia, can cause all sorts of problems, but the most well-known manifestations of deficiency are tiredness, breathlessness and headaches.

HOW MUCH IRON DO WE NEED?

The RNI (Reference Nutrient Intake) for adults is 8.7 mg daily average. For menstruating women it's set at 14.8 mg. But...bear in mind that figure is set with the average woman (on a standard cooked diet) in mind. It will not apply to the majority of all-raw women, who generally bleed far less than the average (see my article on menstruation here).

Can iron be stored?

Yes, which means that we don't need to concern ourselves with iron intake within any one day - it's the intake over a period of days, or weeks, or months, that counts.

Can we have too much iron?

Yes. High levels of iron in the blood have been linked with cancer and heart attacks. And high doses of iron supplements have been linked with constipation, vomiting and diarrhoea, and can be fatal.

RAW VEGAN SOURCES OF IRON

The following raw vegan food groups tend to be particularly high in iron: seeds, nuts, dried fruit, dark green leaves.

Here are just a few examples of foods high in iron, and I've been realistic on serving sizes. For example, you will often hear people say that parsley is high in iron. Well, yes it is, per 100g. But parsley is so light in weight that you'd have to eat five packs for it to make it onto the list below.

Pumpkin seeds, 1/2 cup, 10 mg iron
Dried apricots/peaches, 100g, 6 mg
Cashews, 1/2 cup, 5 mg
Pine kernels, 1/2 cup, 4 mg
Sunflower seeds, 1/2 cup, 4 mg
Almonds, 1/2 cup, 3 mg
Spinach, 100g, 3 mg
Sea veg (generally), 100g, 2-3 mg
Kale, 100g, 2 mg
Walnuts, 1/2 cup, 2 mg
Sprouted lentils, 1/2 cup, 2 mg
(Source: USDA Nutrient Database)

Raw fooders who eat at least some of the foods on this list regularly should have no problem in making the RNI of 8 grams, as most of the other foods eaten in a week will also be contributing to iron requirements.

High fruit diets

Fresh fruits highest in iron are berries (eg raspberries, blackberries) at 1 mg per 100g. Fruits such as bananas, mangoes, papayas and tomatoes contain on average 0.3 mg per fruit. But I know people who eat a lot of bananas! 10 bananas would give 3 mg of iron, and therefore be a significant source of iron. I have a passion for persimmons (0.6 mg) and could easily eat several. Five persimmons would yield 3 mg of iron.

So those who follow high-fruit diets, who have fruit in quantity, as 'meals', should have no problems obtaining all the iron they need, even if they eat very little of the foods in the 'high iron' list.

And, as Vitamin C helps iron absorption, high-fruit diets win all round (and, incidentally, the fact that raw fooders in general eat more Vitamin C counterbalances the claim from some that iron from animal foods is more easily absorbed than that from vegan sources).

(note - dried fruits are often said to be good for iron. Any dried food will 'appear' to score highly on nutrients, but that's simply because the water's been removed and therefore there will be more fruits per 100g, therefore more nutrients per 100g. As 'more nutrients' here is somewhat of an illusion, and dried fruit can bring its own problems, eg teeth problems, best to stick to fresh wherever possible.)

Iron antinutrients

I did start off with quite a long list of substances that some believe interfere with iron absorption. But there are so many contradictory studies that, in most cases, it wouldn't be fair to point the finger.

So, I'll stick with the 'perennials', about which there is no disagreement. They are:

Tea (including herbal tea - it's the tannins...)
Coffee

(especially when drunk with meals)

ARE 'ALL (100%)-RAW FOODERS' LIKELY TO SUFFER FROM IRON DEFICIENCY?
I believe not, for the following reasons:

Foods typically eaten by a raw fooder over a week will contain several on the 'high-iron' list, with many other contributing foods. And those on high-fruit diets eating fewer of those foods will be eating fruit in such large quantities that iron requirements should be met easily. (I analysed my own high-fruit diet using Cronometer, and I'd exceeded the daily iron RNI.)

The raw fooder's diet will be high in Vitamin C, found in fresh fruit and vegetables, maximising the chances of iron ingested being absorbed.

Women of child-bearing age eating raw will generally bleed far less (and thus lose less iron) than women on standard cooked diets.

(Raw fooders may well have lower Hb counts than meat-eaters, but...see below.)

ARE 'HIGH RAW FOODERS' LIKELY TO SUFFER FROM IRON DEFICIENCY?

I'd suggest not likely, but there would be more reason for a high raw fooder than an all-raw fooder to be low on iron. The good news is that high raw fooders concerned about iron have lots of opportunies to improve their diets so that more iron is ingested and/or absorbed.

But, first, let's look at 'low on iron' more closely.

A common scenario: the happy little raw fooder, feeling hale and hearty, has a 'routine' blood test and is told they are 'low on iron'. The mouth turns down...and of course stress isn't good for health!

Iron can be measured in various ways, but the most common is the Hb count (haemoglobin concentration). In broad terms, 14 gm/dl of blood ('dl' = decilitre = 1/10 litre = 100 ml) is said to be 'average', less than 12 gm/dl is said to be 'low', and below 10 gm/dl 'anaemic'. However, I'd suggest that if iron is just a little lower than the average and there are no symptoms of deficiency, then there is probably nothing to be concerned about. Bear in mind that studies as to what is an optimum iron level will have been carried out on the population in general, which of course includes meat-eaters. Iron may well be higher in meat-eaters, but that doesn't necessarily equal good. What's 'normal' is not necessarily healthy.

For the 20 years preceding raw, I followed a cooked meat-less diet. As a blood donor several times I was told I couldn't donate due to 'low iron'. However, in all those years I had more energy and was healthier than most people I knew, and had no iron deficiency symptoms. Those who do feel 'tired'...this could be due to so many things. People who are neglecting their health in various ways, eg through overwork, not enough sleep, not enough fresh air, negative thinking...can easily feel tired. As raw fooders are more knowledgeable about nutrition than the average, it's tempting to look for the answer to problems in what we're eating, but we should also remember that as raw fooders our very good diets are the least likely to be responsible.

And some studies are suggesting that 'low' blood iron may not be such a bad thing...Cancer Prevention Research Trust UK: 'low blood iron helps protect you from cancer as well as from bacterial infections.' 'The greater the iron concentration in a person's blood, the greater risk of developing cancer', says epidemiologist Richard Stevens of the Pacific Northwest Laboratory in Richmond, Wash, US.

Here's a little more on iron and whether 'normal' is healthy, from my article on health reasons for not eating meat:

John Robbins discusses meat and iron in his book 'Healthy at 100'. Paraphrasing the information in pp149-51, for many people one of the 'health' reasons they might give for eating meat is the iron in it. The iron in meat is called 'heme iron', and the iron found in plant foods is 'nonheme' iron. 'Heme iron' is certainly more easily absorbed by our bodies than nonheme iron and some people have taken this to mean that, because of this, nonheme iron is in some way inferior to heme iron. But excess iron poses dangers to health. Antioxidants are deservedly recognised for their role in preventing cancer and other illness. But iron is the opposite of an antioxidant; it is a potent oxidant. Excess iron causes the production of free radicals hich can damage cells, leading to disease.

'For example, when sufficient quantities of heme iron are present, as is likely to happen when diets contain appreciable quantities of beef, cholesterol is oxidised into a form that is more readily absorbed by the arteries, leading to increased rates of heart disease. With nonheme iron - the kind found in plants - it's a totally different story. Your body absorbs only what it needs.'

Dr Thomas T Perls (Harvard expert on longevity): 'It's possible that higher iron levels, which may have been considered 'normal' only because they are common in males, actually speed the aging process.' According to Dr Perls, lower iron levels in adults (up to a point, of course) are an advantage and that 'it may turn out that adults, and perhaps even adolescents, are speeding up their aging clocks by maintaining iron levels that are now considered 'normal', but may in fact be excessive.'

However, in the cases where Hb is very low and there are symptoms indicative of too little iron, there are several ways in which iron intake and/or absorption can be increased:

1. Increase consumption of foods particularly high in iron, as per chart above.
2. Increase consumption of fruit (sweet and non-sweet) to increase Vitamin C, which helps iron absorption.
3. Decrease consumption of tea and coffee.
4. For women - increase percentage of raw food, as all-raw women generally have lighter periods, meaning less iron lost, therefore less needs to be ingested.

And...get more sleep (sometimes more easily said than done!).

Dr Ron Cridland, MD, believes that deep sleep is crucial for iron. Dr C , in his lecture 'Energy: The Key to Health.' says that he would test people and find that they were low in iron/anaemic, but that they had normal levels of ferritin. He explained that ferretin is essentially the iron stored in the bones and that during Level 4 sleep (the stage before REM), ferretin is involved in distributing stored iron through the blood. So, with adequate levels of deep sleep his patients would recover without changing their diet or taking a supplement. (Thanks to Nick Sirpo for this.)

Should a supplement be taken?

There are many reasons for looking to food rather than supplementation to increase iron.

Natural Hygienist Dr Virginia Vetrano warns against synthetic iron: '...iron supplements have an irritating effect upon the gastrointestinal mucosa. Anything that affects the mucosa disturbs, interferes with, and impairs normal absorption and selection of natural nutrients.'

Cancer Prevention Research Trust UK Guideline 7: 'Avoid iron tablets and food with added iron.' (Did you know that iron added to food is often simply in the form of iron filings? I'm told that if cereal is put in a plastic bag, mushed up and shaken and a magnet run over it, the iron filings in the cereal will stick to the magnet.)

The taking of mineral supplements, whether synthetic or 'natural', where the mineral is ingested in isolated form rather than in correct proportions with the other minerals and vitamins present in foods, runs the risk of creating all sorts of imbalances. For example, calcium and zinc supplements have been shown to decrease iron absorption. Iron supplements themselves have in high doses been shown to decrease zinc absorption. But, when we eat a whole raw food, we can be sure that the iron in that food is there in just the right amount to work with the other minerals and vitamins in that food.

I found this from Mike Benton, a Natural Hygienist writing in the Eighties, that explains it beautifully: 'The mineral iron that is present in a cherry, for example, is readily absorbed and used by the body because the other necessary elements for the absorption of iron co-exist in the cherry or food itself. For instance, ascorbic acid aids the absorption of iron in the body by helping to convert ferric to ferrous iron. The cherry has the needed ascorbic acid present with the ferric iron compounds. If you swalled a pill that had the iron extracted from the cherry but not the accompanying ascorbic acid, then your body would simply not have the needed co-existing elements to use the iron.'

I'd suggest high-raw people concerned about iron explore every avenue possible in which iron can be increased via food rather than resorting to supplements, the use of which at least in some cases has been shown to be harmful rather than beneficial, and, at least, is controversial. For more on supplements, see my article here.

It was sad to hear someone accusing a nutrition expert recently of preferring to see her in ill-health than have her take a supplement, when he had in fact given her all the steps necessary to increase her iron naturally - steps that would have benefited her health in countless ways had she been willing to implement them.

*****
Postscript Feb '10 - at the time of writing this article I didn't actually know my own iron level. However, I had it checked recently and, although I don't have the exact figure, was told by the doc that it's 'normal' (!).
________________________________________________________

Mellifluous Melons

2009-05-04T06:03:00.000-07:00

Mellifluous: 'sweet; as if with honey'.

I've a passion for melons right now, and the shops are beginning to stock some deliciously juicy, and, most importantly, ripe ones!

As well as tasting amazing, melons are one of the most healthy fuel sources in that they are simple carbohydrates, that is, they digest quickly and easily, and contains lots of nutrients. For example, the USDA Nutrient Database tells us that a cantaloupe melon scores highly on: Vitamin C (three times RDA), Vitamin A (120% of RDA) and potassium (92% of RDA). It does well on: magnesium (22% ofRDA), Vitamin B1 (16%), Vitamin B3 (26%) and Vitamin B6 (20%). It contains small amounts (5-10% of RDA) of calcium, iron, zinc, Vitamins B2 and B5, and Vitamin E, and also includes 18 amino-acids from which our bodies make protein, and essential fatty acids in trace amounts. (And the 'cantaloupe' and pale-fleshed type melons are also the only fruits I can think of that are relatively high in sodium which make them a good source of sodium for those who prefer not to add salt to their food.)

And that's just cantaloupe! Melon nutritional profiles will vary, for example watermelon is particularly high in lycopene.

Anne Osborne, author of 'Fruitarianism, The Path to Paradise' has spent three periods in her life eating nothing but melon for months! Although her melon diets did include different sorts of melon, she did find that even when she ate one type alone for a while she would 'each day experience a myriad of new taste sensations.' Although conventional nutritionists would issue all sorts of dire warnings about such a diet, Anne says 'During my time on melons, my health and energy levels were always excellent and my weight remained at a stable 112 pounds.' And, on day 47 of a melon diet Anne came first in a walkathon out of 4000 people!

I had (just) a day 'mono-eating' melon exclusively recently. My energy level was high all day (from 4.30 am when I rose, to going to bed after an evening's salsa dancing), my tummy felt wonderfully calm, and it was dead flat throughout.)

Melons are best eaten alone. Of course, they are so delicious that who would dream of detracting from their delicate and beautiful flavour by combining them with other foods? (Well, OK, for those who would, 'food combining' principles for optimal digestion back me up here - melon is so quick to digest that if you mix it with, or eat it shortly after, food that is harder to digest than the melon (which is virtually any food, including most fruit), its exit will be blocked, meaning it will have to hang around, and it will ferment...and...blow-up! So, if you don't want the six months' pregnant look and some pain, eat me-lon a-lone.

But, melons..can get a bit confusing sometimes with all the different types, and it's so disappointing to come home and find you've got a dud one - one that's so unripe we hurt our hands trying to get a spoon into it it's that hard, and find the outer half of it so lacking in sweetness it might as well be a cucumber, or a squash. Melons, officially, do not ripen off the plant - they're non-climacteric. Some people do maintain that they improve after a few days, but this is basically softening due to decomposition rather than ripening, and they're unlikely to become any sweeter. A truly ripe melon is one that is sweet and flavoursome, where all the flesh is soft and edible, that is, none needs to be left in the rind hard and inedible. I think that optimal state comes a matter of hours before it starts to ferment; it is in fact rare to find a melon at that sublime stage of perfection, but when that time comes....oh...wow!

We have three options available to us if we've bought an unripe melon. We could...eat the whole thing because it cost a fortune. Snag - our bodies don't welcome unripe fruit and it will be a somewhat frustrating experience. We could...throw it away. Snag - money wasted. Or we could...(best option) take it back to the shop (or market) and complain. The more of us who do that the more it increases the chance of the shop stocking ripe melons in future. And if it's a chain, follow it up with an e-mail to the fruit buyer at the shop's head office.

In this article, I'll be sorting through the different types of melon, or at least those available in the UK. They come from all over the world - Southern Europe, Africa, Americas - basically any part of the world that can be sure of at least a few months of hot weather each year can grow melons. And, as melons won't ripen once picked, I'll offer tests for ripeness that should (at least for any of you 'so-so' about melons due to mediocre experiences of the past) raise your melon-eating to another level!

There are three main groups of melon:

Orange-flesh (eg cantaloupe, charentaise)

Pale-flesh (eg galia, honeydew, piel de sapo)

Watermelon (in a class of its own!)

ORANGE-FLESH

Orange-flesh melons all fall within the 'canteloupe' type. What they have in common is that (generally) they are relatively small, round, and have orange flesh. The aroma is 'perfumed' (the cantaloupe type have historically been referred to as 'muskmelons'), they taste beautifully sweet, and the discriminating palate (ie my readers) will detect beta-carotene.

Sometimes they'll be called 'cantaloupe' ('rockmelon' in Australia) and sometimes Charentais (the flavours are similar). In my experience, cantaloupe usually have rough, 'netted' skin, but can be ribbed/striped or plain. Charentais are always ribbed and have either netted, or relatively smooth skin. 'Cantaloupe types' are often pale grey-green, but sometimes cream or yellow-brown.

Thanks to Anne Osborne for this quote from Saint-Amant, writing in the 17th century about Charentais melons: 'This melon is...better than strawberries and cream, better than the Holy pear of Tours or the sweet green fig. Even the Muscat grape I love is bitterness and muck compared to this divine melon. O sweet grassy snake, crawling on a green bed. It is Apollo's masterpiece. The brothels of Rouen will be free of the pox...tobacco smokers will have white teeth...I will forget my love's flavours before I forget you - O fleur de tous les fruits! O ravisant MELON!'

(I think he liked them.)

Ripeness test: the skin may be tinted orange (though I've had many ripe ones where this hasn't been the case). The 'cantaloupe' type melons are ripe when they give a little (just a little) at one end and a sweet aroma emanates from the base. Stores will often label them 'ripe' before this stage, but they're not. They may taste pleasant, but will be so much softer and sweeter when ripe.

Fruitarian Anne Osbourne says that 'big-bottomed melons' tend to be riper (and please see Comments at the foot of the article for other tests of ripeness.)

Be wary of an 'all-over' softness (rather than just at the base) as, especially if accompanied with lack of aroma or an aroma that isn't sweet, as this is usually an indication that the melon has simply been on the shelf for a while, that is, it has started to rot. Any type of melon that is past its best can result in discomfort via gas and 'blow-up', and even pain....(I've been here.)

PALE-FLESH

Galia

The Galia has yellow/green rough skin and looks a little like a 'canteloupe type' from the outside, although generally bigger. The flesh is pale green with a flavour somewhere between a cantaloupe and a honeydew.

Ripeness test: The skin will be more yellow than green, and the base fragrant.

Honeydew

In the UK, the melon that most of us from childhood have tended to associate most with 'melon'. Bright yellow smooth skin. Pale yellow/green flesh. Rugby ball (American football) shape. If the petrol station has any melons, they'll be Honeydews! And I'm wondering if that's why I've detected just a wee bit of snobbery in raw food circles about the Honeydew. I must admit I've tended to pass over it a bit in recent years in favour of the more unusual types, but I've recently rediscovered Honeydews and feel very apologetic to them for having ignored them for so long, as a good Honeydew always has been, and still is...exquisite!

Ripeness test: in general, I've found supermarkets are better at buying ripe Honeydews than ripe cantaloupes and around 75% of those I've bought have been good. Unlike cantaloupes, sniffing is not generally helpful - the ripe honeydews I've had have had no smell from the outside. Some feel that if a faint knock/rattle can be heard on shaking the melon that indicates loose seeds and therefore ripeness, but I can't say I've found this to be a reliable indicator myself. Someone did say to me recently that a slight 'give' at the base, as for orange-fleshed melons, can be an indicator of ripeness, but I think that, with the Honeydew, in general you just have to take your chances...!

Piel de Sapo

Same shape as the Honeydew, but with a skin of various mid/dark green hues (Piel de Sapo translates as 'toad skin'). Pale yellow/green flesh. I remember the first time I had a Piel de Sapo, and felt I had never in my life tasted anything so delicious. So I went back to the supermarket and bought two more. I then learned that the first one I'd had had been at the peak of ripeness. The subsequent two weren't.

Ripeness test: look for patches of yellow on the skin.

WATERMELON

I've found the best watermelons to have vivid red flesh and black seeds. We've had anaemic pale pink virtually seedless ones at times, and they've been flavourless and unripe (I did have one with yellow flesh at Raw Spirit Festival, Sedona, US, and it tasted good!).

Most watermelons on sale in the UK are relatively small, round 'mini' watermelons. But I did buy a huge oval-shaped one at a farmers' market in San Diego, US, and I've only found one watermelon in the UK that has come anywhere near it for flavour. That was one bought one week in winter at Waitrose. But before you all in the south of the UK go rushing out, I'm afraid that the next week the watermelons were all very average again. Watermelons - bit of a lottery here.

Beware of watermelons that have been mucked about with. I've heard that seedless watermelons are the product of crossing a 'female tetrapoid' plant (itself the product of genetic manipulation) with 'diploid pollen'. Also, plant geneticists (I do have more information on this if required) are developing low-sugar, high-lycopene watermelons. This is because fruit gets a bad press with diabetics (for a positive assessment of fruit re diabetes see here) but lycopene has been identified as a (prostate) 'cancer fighter'. One 'food technologist' has noticed that 'People like to eat red watermelon. They associate a pale-pink colour with unripe melon.' (Um, yes...) And, yes, they're busy developing a 'commercially acceptable, low-sugar, high-pigment watermelon.' One geneticist is reported as saying that people can use artificial sweeteners if they wish to 'full duplicate the taste found in regular watermelon.' Well, whoopy-doos! Doesn't it make you crying?

Watermelon has been the subject of various research studies extolling its various health benefits (eg 'like Viagra', lowers blood pressure etc). I am sure all of these things are true, just as I believe they would be true for all sorts of other fruits that haven't yet been given the benefit of a research grant.

There are various tests of ripeness. The watermelon should be very heavy, and, when tapped, emit a hollow sound. Problem with that of course is that if all the watermelons on the shelf are at the same degree of ripeness, they'll all feel the same and sound the same, and I haven't had much success with that method. Some say that the larger and yellower the yellow patch at the base of the watermelon is, the riper it is. The tip that's worked for me recently (thanks to 'Dream' of the 30BananasaDay forum) is to scratch the peel. If it comes off quite easily, the melon is ripe. (If it comes off very easily it might be a bit mealy and past its best - and definitely don't buy if it 'gives' all over - watermelons should be firm. ).You'll know for certain when you put the knife in. If it falls apart easily, the flesh is vibrant red and firm, you've got a beauty. The ripest watermelons can be bashed and literally pulled apart with hands - so I'm told - we don't get them like that in the UK!

GROWING YOUR OWN?

If you live somewhere with long hot summers, where melons are grown, no problem - just buy some seeds of the melons that are known to be suited to your particular climate. I understand that seeds saved from melons you've bought just aren't the ticket, as they're hybridized and won't grow 'true to type'. But, when you buy seeds, ask if they're 'open pollinated heirloom', varieties, as the seeds from melons you grow from those can be used the following year.

As to whether melons can be grown in the UK and similar cool climates. Well, they can, sometimes, possibly...definitely by experts in greenhouses, and sometimes by non-experts in greenhouses. But it does seem that at least three months of hot weather is needed. As we do very occasionally have summers like that in the UK, I'll be ordering some melon seeds and will have a go.

***

I hope I've inspired you to go off your local supermarket, organic co-op, farmers market, and ...load up with melons. And forget a 'slice' of melon, or even half. Make a MEAL of melon today!

_________________________________________________________

EVENT

(I'm attending this one - would be great to see you there!)

80/10/10 Spring Gathering '09 and Simply Delicious Culinary Skills Workshop

Saturday 9th May 2009, 9 am - 7 pm

Learn the secrets to making beautiful, delicious, raw, high-fruit meals. Discover how to entertain your loved ones with gourmet 811 dishes. This 'hands-on' seminar with Dr Doug Graham will change the way you eat your dinner meal forever.

£100 includes fruit lunch and 'exotic' dinner.

Trinity Methodist Church, Thakeham Rd, Storrington, Sussex RH20 3NG.

Contact http://www.foodnsport.com/ for more information.