The 'danger' of not supplementing for vitamin D

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'?)

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?

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

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!'

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

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'

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.