11383Re: [fukuoka_farming] Self care to earth care
- Jan 11, 2011HIYA!
certain parts of the nutrition available to the body, without cooking which,
the body will not be able to assimilate those nutrients.
I realize that what I'm going to say is unconventional. There are people out
there who say that far and away, more nutrients are destroyed than are made
available thorugh cooking. Like, 1 to a 100 is a figure I've read. One such
guy who says this is named Doug Graham. One of those "raw food gurus". I
think he's got a lot of good stuff to say. He's got a great book called
80/10/10. Well worth a read, I'd say.
Food sources such as grains and most cereals are virtually inedible (in the
quantities we regularly take) without cooking. So are so many other commonly
used 'vegetables' (ex: potatoes).
One idea is that if it's only edible through cooking, then *don't eat it!*
The only natural diet suitable for this
body is the one this body was used to / built for over millions of years of
evolution as a specifically scavenging, gathering species.
That died did *not* include grains and potatoes, and most other things we
put into our mouths! As you say, agriculture is only about 10,000 years old.
Granted, fruits and vegetables are not as they were even 1,000 years ago,
but they're close enough ... maybe?!
uncooked food can only remain a supplement or can only be affordable as a
full-blown diet only for a few.
But ... if more people ... like *A LOT MORE* people were to eat more raw
foods, then prices would come down. I myself eat mostly raw food. When I
consider all the things that I *don't *spend money on, I see that I spend
about as much per month for food as others who eat all the conventional
From an environmental point of view, just consider all the things that go
into cooking food. All those natural resources to make pots and pans, and
ovens and stoves, and factories to make them, and vehicles to move them
around and ... on and on ad nauseum. Just from an environmental standpoint,
not cooking would have a huge impact on our environment. Of course, what
industries would replace that? I do suppose, honeslty, that it *could very
well* be no less destructive. Maybe I'm short sighted, and haven't thought
all this out very well. Also, could very well be.
> Dear all,[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > How true!
> > When we cook we destroy nutrients and denature enzymes.
> Destruction of nutrients is the price to pay for destroying the toxins
> in the food that agriculture (whether modern or not) produces. Cooking
> certain parts of the nutrition available to the body, without cooking
> the body will not be able to assimilate those nutrients.
> Food sources such as grains and most cereals are virtually inedible (in the
> quantities we regularly take) without cooking. So are so many other
> used 'vegetables' (ex: potatoes). The only natural diet suitable for this
> body is the one this body was used to / built for over millions of years of
> evolution as a specifically scavenging, gathering species. Agriculture is
> just a 10,000 year old recent 'trend' in the history of humanity. Before
> which, our diet was completely different and almost unchanged for over a
> million years. As a result, our bodies were shaped by this million year
> process and has been pretty much unchanged (except a few minor adaptations
> such as the ability to produce lactase to start consuming animal milk) in
> the years since agriculture and complex civilization.
> So given the circumstances we have found ourselves in (over population,
> shrinking fertility, shrinking forest cover, increasing Entropy(?), etc.,)
> uncooked food can only remain a supplement or can only be affordable as a
> full-blown diet only for a few. So if you can afford uncooked raw food,
> enjoy it while it lasts :)
> cooked food has its advantages too. We are all here because of cooked food,
> so let's not diss cooked food. Every coin has two sides.
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>