Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

List Mom/Everyone

Expand Messages
  • Samantha <DrPepperOkie@aol.com>
    I am going to be takeing a personal break from groups and the computer in general for about a week . If there is something really important or you really need
    Message 1 of 5 , Jan 24, 2003
      I am going to be takeing a personal break
      from groups and the computer in general
      for about a week .
      If there is something really important or
      you really need to contact me, Please do
      so at Samantha@...
      I will be going on Special Notices .

      Samantha Vaughn
    • carlo7
      Learn To Respect Your Limitations Herbert M Shelton Hygienic Review August 1973 Nutrition and reproduction are two of the leading functions of the body. When
      Message 2 of 5 , Jan 27, 2003
        Learn To Respect Your Limitations
        Herbert M Shelton
        Hygienic Review August 1973

        Nutrition and reproduction are two of the leading functions of the body.
        When they are abused the body and mind become perverted and it is no longer
        possible to evolve the potentials latent in the individual. Few people ever
        come into full possession of their biological legacies. They sell their
        birthright for a mess of pottage a few years of sensuality, trampling their
        potentialities by debaucheries. Food and drink, sex and gold (guts, gold and
        gonads) the unholy trinity, reduced them to mediocre beings, without strength
        of body and mind to achieve even a small part of their inherent potential.

        Excesses not only spoil love, they spoil digestion. The food "turns
        against" the glutton as certainly as love turns to the divorce court when
        excess has destroyed it. Life is made miserable by excess which always leads
        to disease. Diseases are palliated, but never remedied, for the reason that
        the cause is never removed.

        Our moralists and religionists hold that morality and health are poles
        apart. They are so accustomed to partitioning man and dealing with only one
        part of him that they are unable to grasp the fact that man is a unitary
        being. Despising food, health and digestion in their superior codes of
        ethics, overlooking the need for proper care of the body in producing and
        maintaining a normal man or woman, they concentrate their contemplation upon
        those "higher" attributes of man, ethics, morality, religion. The result is a
        world filled with diseased and undisciplined people, a world full of sick
        moralists and religionists. Normal people are self-controlled and poised;
        abnormal people are impulsive, unpoised and filled with bad mental and
        physical habits. Any system of ethics that neglects this fundamental fact is
        divorced from life, from man. It is unrealistic and unworkable. The monstrous
        incongruity existing between pretensions and confessions of the sick
        Christian and the consequences of his mental and physical habits should lead
        to a realization of the fact that neglect of the body leads to evil.

        Both the religious man and the free thinker will assert that this is an
        unkind providence. It is not; it is freedom. It is the ability of man to
        choose a life of self-control or a life of self-indulgence and take the
        consequences of either course of action, "Intellect," says Tilden, "does not
        thrive under prohibition. If man cannot thrive under freedom, he is unfit to
        live, and he becomes his own executioner. "

        Medical "science" coddles man and spends much of its time manufacturing
        alibis for those who persist in abusing their privileges of enjoying.
        Physicians revel in pathology, thinking to discover the cause of man's ills
        in the necropsy room. They refuse to look for it in life. To the dead they go
        in their search for the cause of the diseases of the living. In the living,
        they spend their time palliating symptoms and encouraging the patient in the
        very ways of life that are responsible for his ills. When the man dies, the
        physician makes out a death certificate, which, instead of saying: died of
        too much food or of alcohol, consoles the friends and relatives by saying
        that he died of heart disease. He is a liar and all of the mortality
        statistics based on lies of this kind are as false as the "medical science"
        that makes out such death certificates. The alleged cause of the sickness is
        given a fancy Greek or Latin name which removes the slightest suspicion that
        the sick person is in the least responsible for his illness, or that the dead
        man committed suicide executed himself and everybody is satisfied. That when
        sensuality is finished it brings death, is a truth that neither the patient,
        his friends nor his physician is willing to acknowledge. For do they not know
        that sensuality brings enjoyment, happiness, and that microbes and viruses
        cause man's diseases?

        Not until we evolve to the point where we recognize that truth is more
        important than lies, will we cease our practice of veiling the truth about
        everything and promoting comforting fallacies. The lies that "your eyes shall
        be opened and ye shall be as gods" and "ye shall not surely die," are
        pleasing to sensualists and ambitious seekers after wealth and power. Man
        rejects the teaching that "the truth shall make you free." The stupid but
        wily serpent that haunts their garden of delight subtly whispers into their
        all too willing ears: Give no heed to the advice of those who presume to
        know. Eat of the forbidden fruit, for by so doing you will become as gods.
        When "your time comes" you will die and not before. Perish the thought that
        you can commit suicide; that you can by any means shorten your predestined
        length of life. The, serpent is likely to be dressed in the guise of a
        physician, who will tell you that if you are sick he can cure you, that if
        you are well he can immunize you against sickness. He will probably be armed
        with a load of lying statistics that "prove" that if your ancestors were
        long-lived you will be, and there is nothing you can do to shorten your life;
        if your ancestors were short lived you will be, and there is nothing you can
        do to lengthen your life.

        Self-indulgence to the point of enervation is the greatest single cause of
        disease known to man. Enervation checks elimination, thus retaining the
        poisonous product of metabolism in the blood-toxemia. Premature death is the
        penalty for sensuality, and it came with law and order, with biology, before
        man had developed the biological sciences. Although priests and physicians
        are in the habit of annulling penalties with prayers, indulgences, panaceas,
        immunizers, cures and all kinds of mutilations of the body, this law is
        inexorable and immutable. Fool the people as they will with their plans of
        vicarious salvation, they have not yet found, nor will ever find a means of
        annulling a single law of life and enable man to dance without paying the
        fiddler.

        View the mortality statistics-see the great army of lives that are yearly
        snuffed out twenty to a hundred years prematurely-the causes of death are
        given as heart disease, apoplexy, uremia, acidosis, cancer, Bright's disease,
        diabetes, a short, unexpected pneumonia, or other symptom-complex-but all of
        these so-called diseases are but results of a subtle intoxication, the
        ripened fruit of the lotus flower of pleasure carried beyond limitations.
        Abuse of privileges brings as its punishment, discomfort, organic change and
        premature death.

        Enjoyment of biologically legitimate pleasures within nerve limitation,
        which means short of sufficient enervation to check elimination, is
        healthful; but when excess is practiced nerve energy is dissipated in excess
        of supply, and enervation is the result. Add to toxemia (auto-developed
        poisoning) the insidious poisoning of tobacco, nicotine, caffeine, alcohol,
        gastrointestinal putrescence (the result of wrong eating and overeating), and
        a vulnerable state of the body results which is progressive, explosive and
        dangerous. All heart stimulants enervate the heart. In nervous and emotional
        people the heart often becomes so irritable that a slight stimulation from
        toxin or an unusual emotion may result in spasm of the heart, causing death
        from "heart failure."

        The signs and symptoms of toxic saturation are variable in character.
        Seldom does a single overindulgence produce more than a passing discomfort,
        but habitual overindulgence-in eating, in sex, in enjoying, in work, etc.
        -slowly but surely builds up a toxic saturation which requires only the
        slightest added overtaxing of the nerve energy to result in a crisis. The
        three most common and socially accepted indoor sports are overeating, sexual
        overindulgence and drinking (alcoholic liquors). These are so widespread, so
        commonly practiced and so fully accepted that hardly any one questions these
        sports, no one recognizes that there is anything abnormal in such
        indulgences,

        Until we have learned that overindulgence overtaxes the nervous system,
        that, in the case of the sick man or woman, overeating, drinking, etc., place
        a heavy burden upon the organs of elimination, that the enervating effects of
        overindulgence of all kinds reduce the functioning powers of the excretory
        organs, we are in no position to understand how our pleasures build our
        diseases. It is a big job for the excretory organs of a vigorous and healthy
        person to get rid of his habitual excesses; it is a much more difficult task
        for the excretory organs of a sick person to accomplish, and they simply do
        not do it.

        If overwork, sexual excesses, habitual stimulation, emotional irritations,
        over bathing, over-sunning and a host of other enervating pastimes overtax
        the powers of the healthy and strong and, if persisted in, weaken and impair
        the most vigorous organism, how much more will they overtax the weak and
        impaired organism! If the digestive system, of the strong and robust has
        difficulty in disposing of the three heavy meals daily eaten by our people,
        how much greater difficulty must the digestive system of the weak and ailing
        have in disposing of the same amount of food! Yet, is it not common to advise
        the sick to eat more, rather than less, in a vain endeavor to build them up?
        With centuries of experience behind us we seem not to have learned that
        overeating does not produce strength and functioning power. It will not even
        maintain the strength already possessed. "Plenty of good nourishing food to
        keep up the strength" of the sick is an even greater fallacy than the same
        overeating to keep up the strength of the strong and vigorous. Basically it
        is the same fallacy in both instances, but in the weak and sick its effects
        are more immediate and pronounced.

        To save the people of this land from the inanities and insanities of
        scientific medicine, we need a Pentecostal outpouring of common sense. When
        the people demand education instead of immunization, removal of causes
        instead of cures, the medical profession will know that its day is drawing to
        a close. It will know that its age long dream of reaching therapeutic
        perfection is never to be realized and that the whole sorry muss of
        therapeutic monstrosities is headed for a well-deserved oblivion. When the
        people really understand what disease is and what its cause is, they will be
        in a position to save themselves, both from suffering and from the worse evil
        of the two-treatment, both medical and cultistic.

        Enervation, however produced, not only inhibits excretion, but it also
        checks secretion. The checking of digestive secretions lowers digestive
        power. The more enervated the individual, the less digestive power he
        possesses. Instead, in such a state of functional weakness, of reducing the
        daily food intake in keeping with the lowered digestive power that remains,
        it is customary to continue the habitual gluttony, even under the advice of
        practitioners of the various schools of so-called healing, or of increasing
        the amount of food eaten, in the hope that "plenty of good nourishing food"
        will increase the power to digest and utilize food. Not more digestive power
        but more food to digest, is the prescription when digestive function has been
        impaired by lowering of nerve energy.

        Cicero may have been speaking, either from personal experience or as a
        careful observer of the men around him, when he declared: "Better be a
        temperate old man than a lascivious youth"; when he declared temperance to be
        a "bridle of gold" that makes a man like unto a god, for, continuing, it
        "will transform a beast to a man" and "it will make a man into a god." The
        gods Cicero knew, especially those who sat on the throne of the Caesars, were
        intemperate beasts, made so by debauchery and conceit.

        The days of reckless indulgence, the days of excesses at the table, must
        become and remain memories that are no longer able to whet jaded appetites.
        Now there is nothing left for our Solomons save to write their proverbs and
        complain that all is vanity and vexation of spirit; there is nothing left for
        our Davids but to write their Psalms. The old man who has had his day and
        wasted it, now sits by his fireside and bemoans the fact that he is no longer
        young; no longer can he indulge his appetites and passions as though life has
        no limitations and vigor will last forever. His pleasures are now old
        memories and his regrets are his constant companions. The man who does not
        respect his limitations, but indulges excessively, becomes enervated, fails
        to eliminate, builds toxemia and develops all kinds of symptoms. Then he is
        in line to be humbugged by all kinds of cures.

        Every individual, whatever his age, has a certain amount of potential
        functioning power and when he has learned his limitations concerning food,
        pleasure, work, social life, etc., and has learned to respect his
        limitations, he will continue to live within his capacities and thus will go
        on living long after his carelessly living neighbors have been ushered into
        the henceforth by the surgeon or the hypodermic-armed physician.

        The surfeited are disintegrating and their numbers dwindle daily, were it
        not for the fact that their ranks are continually replenished from new
        converts to the merry chase after pleasure. When warned by friends and
        advisers, these young people, who are about to embark upon the "pace that
        kills" brush aside the advice and point out that others are doing the same
        with apparent impunity. The pace-setters are equally blind and deaf to
        counsel. They never tire of trying to convince others that they are "very
        moderate" compared with Jones or Smith. My grandfather smoked all his life,
        they assure us, and he died at the age of ninety. "Good food never hurt
        anybody; I am going to have my share of it. " "We live but once, we may as
        well enjoy life while we can. "

        It is not good food that is objected to; but excess. It is not enjoying
        life that we are cautioned against; but excesses. Let the people have good
        food and let them enjoy life; but if they want to go on enjoying it and not
        end up in a wheel chair, let them stay within their normal limitations. When
        they have enervated themselves by their excesses until they are suffering all
        the discomforts described in the best medical texts and are being serviced by
        specialists and having their organs removed, their pains palliated and their
        secretions substituted for by extracts from the glands of Armour and Co.'s
        bulls and goats, they will discover that there is not much pleasure left in
        life. They have come to the end PC their "enjoying life" long before they
        reach the end of life itself. What a travesty on real life! What a mockery of
        genuine enjoyment!

        They and their medical advisers never cautioned them against their
        excesses in the days when they were young and vigorous; rather, they told
        them that disease is due to germs and viruses and that they should go out and
        have a good time. "Eat anything you darn please," and "eat anything that
        agrees with you," they were told. Food combining is a senseless fad. Tobacco
        and alcohol, tea and coffee "in moderation" are harmless."

        Excessive eating builds plethora, nasal catarrh, inflammation and
        ulceration of mucous membranes. When these subjects develop a nose bleed it
        tends to continue bleeding until the excess of blood is expelled. Nicotine
        poisoning dulls sensibility. Taste, smell, sight, hearing are more or less
        impaired by indulgence in tobacco. The vasometer nervous system is affected
        by nicotine. The trophic or nutritional system is also impaired, the heart is
        overworked and the arteries are hardened. The victim of the nicotine habit
        either loses weight or becomes obese.

        So long as a man's nerve balance is on the positive side of the scale, he
        may boast that his habits are not injuring him, but the sickness and
        death-rate between the ages of thirty and forty-five indicate that his habits
        have drained him of energy to the danger point by this period of life. When
        men and women in the very prime of life are prostrated and die, as it is
        said, of acute disease, there must be a cause and this cause is not to be
        found in mere fortuitous causes. Lowered ability to live must be the answer.
        Persistent stimulation lowers the ability to live.

        Man builds his own grotesqueness nature never makes a clown of old age.
        Dotage and dribbling belong to diseases not to old age. The normal man's
        adjustments to ordinary changes in his environmental stresses are
        unconscious, as they should be. Consulting physicians and other types of
        disease-treaters who frighten you is a very bad and disease-building habit.
        To tell a sick man the cause of his trouble and educate him into the how of
        correcting it should dispel fear. The childish assertion that teaching people
        to eat carefully, live carefully and to care for the body prudently is
        disease-building or that it causes worry about the body is tantamount to a
        condemnation of education. Certainly we can teach the truth about life and
        living and about the body and its care without producing either bodily
        sickness or mental disturbance. We have taught children the dangers of guns
        without creating any trouble. Can we not teach them the injury that comes
        from other sources without creating mischief? Is there anything wrong with
        imparting proper knowledge on any subject to people?

        When all the people are well aware that they build their own disease and
        that they do their own recovering, there will be a demand for schools of
        health to supplant the present schools (hospitals) that devote much time to
        cultivating the sick habit.
      • carlo7
        Explaining The Apparent Actions of Drugs Dr Herbert M Shelton Hygienic Review Why is one substance poisonous and another not? Why do the actions of the body
        Message 3 of 5 , Feb 2, 2003
          Explaining The Apparent Actions of Drugs
          Dr Herbert M Shelton
          Hygienic Review

          Why is one substance poisonous and another not? Why do the actions of the
          body in relation to different substances differ so greatly? Why does not an
          apple occasion vomiting and bread occasion purging? Why does not a baked
          potato occasion profuse sweating and brown rice copious urination? Why are
          these substances, when taken into the stomach, treated so differently from
          the way in which a drug is treated? We know that normally they are digested
          and taken into the bloodstream and utilized in the replenishment of the
          tissues of the body. We class them as foods, because they may be used for
          tissue replenishment.

          Why are not drugs digested and used? Why does one drug occasion
          catharsis, another emesis, a third diuresis, etc? Why do some drugs, when
          applied to the skin, cause vesication, others rubification and others
          corrosion? Why is one drug, when swallowed, followed by stimulation and
          another by narcosis? Why do foods not occasion stimulation or narcosis? It
          is customary to say that vesication, diarrhea, diuresis, emesis, narcosis,
          etc., are actions of the drugs. This, however, is no different from saying
          that digestion is the action of foods. We know that emesis, diarrhea,
          diuresis, etc., are actions of the living organism, not of the drugs, just as
          digestion is a physiological process and is not done by foods.

          But the swallowing of different drugs is followed by different actions.
          Castor oil, for example, is commonly expelled by diarrhea, tartar emetic is
          commonly expelled by vomiting. Aloes and rhubarb occasion sweating. Why do
          different drugs occasion so many different actions? It is not to be thought
          that these drugs go through the organism seeking out, from choice, the
          different organs and tissues for which they have an affinity. They do not
          possess even this rudimentary type of intelligence that enables them to seek
          for and act only on certain structures.

          Let us try to answer our first question first. Certain substances, such
          as an apple or a nut, can be utilized by the body in the replenishment of
          tissue. These substances are foods. Certain substances cannot be utilized
          by the body in the production of tissue. These substances are not foods.
          The answer to our question seems to lie, then, in the usability and
          nonusability of a substance. A substance is not a poison if it is usable, it
          is a poison if it is not usable. We define food as any substance that can be
          transformed into living 'structure'. This is to say, food is any material
          that the cells of the body can take into and incorporate into their
          substances as integral parts of themselves. If it can be transformed into
          cell substance, it is food. Anything that cannot be transformed into cell
          substance is not food.

          This last statement leaves us with a whole world of matter, both. Organic
          and inorganic that is not food, at least, not for man. It leaves us with far
          more nonusable than usable materials in the universe. If a substance is not
          usable, it must be expelled. But substances that are nonusable are not
          merely nonusable; they are also chemical substances governed by all the laws
          of matter. They tend to unite with other chemical substances. They tend to
          unite with the elements of the cells. Such unions would be destructive of
          the cells. In plain English, the union of a drug with the substance of a
          cell would result in the death of the cell. This creates the urgent
          necessity to resist the union and to hurriedly expel the substance.

          Substances that tend to form chemical unions with the substances of the
          cells and thus destroy the life of the cell are incompatible with life.
          Toxicity may be defined as the degree of incompatibility between a drug and
          the cells of the body. Some substances are highly toxic, others are only
          slightly so. Two forms of incompatibility must be recognized: namely,
          chemical incompatibility with the structures of the body and physiological
          incompatibility with the functions of life.

          The actions that occur following the swallowing of a substance that is
          incompatible with life are very varied. They depend in part upon the
          character of the substance, but for the most part they vary with the tissues
          with which they come in contact. Each tissue acts in keeping with its own
          powers. A drug that is expelled before it reaches the kidneys will not
          occasion any kidney action. A drug that the kidneys excrete with great
          difficulty, may be expelled through the skin or through some other channel.
          It was the view of Dr. Trail that drugs are expelled through those channels
          and by those means that cause the least wear and tear on the system. This
          gives the body a certain power of selection in its work of expelling drugs.

          But there are drugs that are resisted at every point and that are expelled
          through a number of channels. It would seem that, as a matter of necessity,
          every tissue in the body must resist and expel, as far as it can, nonusable
          substances with which it comes in contact. But not every tissue is so
          constituted that it can expel drugs from the body. It can expel them only
          from itself. It can offer local resistance. It would seem to be correct to
          say that the tissue must offer resistance if the drug comes into contact with
          it. This seems to be the explanation of the alleged "side efects" that are
          so often mentioned today.

          But why is one drug an emetic, another a purgative, another a diuretic,
          another an expectorant, another a stimulant, another a nar cotic, etc.? Do
          these different apparent actions of different drugs represent actions of the
          drugs, as is taught and believed, or-are they different actions of the living
          organism in relation to different drugs? If so, why does the body behave
          differently in the presence of one poison from what it does in the presence
          of another?

          If we attempt to answer our last question first, it seems that there is no
          basic difference between the actions of the body in relation to one drug and
          its actions in relation to another. The differences are more apparent than
          real and are the results of the structural and functional differences of the
          organs and tissues involved in the actions. Basically, the action is one of
          resistance and expulsion and this is not radically different in any tissue.

          In a work published in 1874 by the office of the Health Reformer,
          apparently from the of M. G. Kellogg, M.D., who says that he derived his
          views from Graham, Trall, Alcott, Shew and Tanner, the idea is presented that
          different organs excrete different drugs because the presence of the
          different substances is perceived by different nerves. He draws a parallel
          between the nerves of the organ-systems and the nerves of special sense.
          Just as the nerves of the eyes perceive objects and light and the nerves of
          the ears perceive sounds, those of the nose perceive odors, those Of the
          tongue perceive flavors, etc., so the different nerves of the organsystems
          perceive one drug and not another. The different ganglia perceiving a
          certain substance to be such that "it cannot be used to replenish any of the
          tissues of the body," causes activities to be instituted to secure the
          expulsion of the drug. He suggests that the different ganglia differ in
          their perceptions, just as do different parts of the brain, hence the action
          following the taking of a drug will be determined by the particular ganglion
          that perceives its presence.

          Assuming that there is a grain of truth in this idea, it does not seem to
          cover the whole of the phenomena that follow the taking of drugs. Although,
          he is probably right in saying that "all matter does not possess the same
          sensible properties; if it did, we would know of but one kind of matter," and
          he is probably correct in saying that it is through the "various senses" that
          we can recognize various nronerties of matter, 'there seems to be a necessity
          that the useless and harmful be recognized by all of the tissues and by all
          of the 'nerves. There would seem to be, as a matter of fact, a cellular
          recognition of the unsuitableness of drug substances.

          He but echoes the words of Trall when he says that "instead of medicines
          (drugs) having special affinities for certain organs and tissues of the body,
          the vital organism has a special dislike for drugs, and makes a special
          effort to eliminate them as rapidly as possible. "It is not amity, but
          antagonism that gives rise to those vital actions of defense, resistance,
          expulsion and repair that are mistaken for the actions of drugs. But he may
          have hit upon a vital element in the explanation of the different actions
          that follow the taking of drugs in his suggestion that, due to the fact that
          we recognize different substances through the media of different nerves, we
          act according to that recognition. For example, it would seem to be the part
          of organic wisdom to expel all drugs, when swallowed, either by vomiting or
          by diarrhea. Why should any of them be permitted to be absorbed into the
          bloodstream? Why send some of them to the. Kidneys, for instance, for
          excretion? Why excrete others by diaphoresis and others by expectoration;
          why excrete some through the liver?

          Can this be because the nerves of the intestinal tract do not adequately
          recognize the useless or injurious character of some substances? Do drugs
          slip past the sentinels of the prima via because they do not "appear" to the
          nerve end endings in the gastrointestinal canal to be of a specially hurtful
          nature? Must their injuriousness be perceived by other nerves and must they
          then be appropriately dealt with by other organs and sent out through other
          channels? Why, when a certain drug is taken, is it later expelled by the
          kidneys (diuretic)? Was its useless and hurtful character not perceived in
          the stomach and why was it not expelled by emesis or diarrhea? Perhaps the
          explanation lies in the suggestion of Kellogg.

          He is certainly wrong, however, when he says, after giving the actions
          that follow certain drugs, "if each of the medicines named above is given in
          proper doses, it will occasion the effects named, and no other." There is no
          known drug that occasions but one action on the part of the body in resisting
          and expelling it. Perhaps but one effect will be produced if it is all
          expelled by the primary effort at expulsion, as when vomiting may expel all
          of a drug that is swallowed. But if it is not all thus expelled, it may
          occasion a diarrhea or small amounts of it may be absorbed into the
          bloodstream and it may then be expelled by diuresis or by diaphoresis or by
          expectoration or by all three of these processes.

          The secretion of digestive juices upon the food eaten is controlled by the
          nervous system. We get one kind of juice or another kind of of juice
          depending on the character of the food eaten and this is appreciated and
          appropriate nerve and glandular action instituted, when the food comes into
          contact with the nerve endings (taste buds) in the tongue. The character of
          the saliva, as well as of the gastric juice, is thus determined. If we eat a
          potato we have the outpouring of one type of gastric juice; if we eat a
          beefsteak we have the outpouring of another type of digestive juice. If we
          swallow a marble there is no outpouring of digestive juice. If we take sugar
          there will be a copious outpouring of saliva, but it will contain no ptyalin.
          Control of action here lies in the nervous stem and its perceptions of the
          character of the food eaten.

          Suppose, instead of food, we swallow a teaspoon full of castor oil. This
          is a poisonous oil that must be expelled. Its presence and its character are
          recognized by the same nervous system that appreciates the differences
          between foods. There is again a copious outpouring of juice into the
          stomach, but it is not a digestivee. It is a watery mucus. The muscles of
          the stomach also act, but their action is somewhat different to what goes on
          in digestion. They hasten the mucus and oil to the pyloric orifice of the
          stomach and the valve opens and the mixture (oil and mucus) is expelled into
          the intestine, where, instead of being met with digestive juices, it is met
          with more mucus. Here, also, instead of the regular movements of peristalsis
          and antiperistalsis, there is only a hurried peristalsis, thus hurrying the
          mixture along towards the colon. When it reaches the ileocecal valve, this
          opens and the mixture is expelled into the colon, which, in turn, hastens it
          to the rectum, where it is expelled from the vital domain.

          What part did the oil play in all this activity? It did not perceive its
          own toxic character. It did not pour out mucus to dilute it and flush it
          along. It did not perform the muscular work of the stomach, small intestine
          and colon. It did not expel itself. Indeed, being lifeless, inert and as
          incapable of any action as a dry stick or clod of earth, it was passive in
          the hands of the forces of life. It no more acted in the stomach than it
          acted in being poured into a spoon and taken to the mouth for ingestion. It
          was as passive and actionless during the whole of its journey through the
          alvine canal as while resting in the bottle on the shelf.

          Living hands poured it from the bottle; living hands took it to the mouth;
          living organs of deglutition swallowed' it living nerves percieved its
          presence and its character; living glands poured out mucus upon it; living
          muscles propelled it through the digestive tract; living muscles expelled it
          from the rectum. The living organism was the actor from start to finish.
          The living organism alone possesses the instruments of action and the energy
          of action. It is specialized in myriads of ways for the performance of
          myriads of actions.

          Kellogg suggests that certain drugs are diuretics, this is to say, they
          are expelled through the kidneys, because "the properties of this class of
          poisons are not recognized by the nerve centers which preside over the
          stomach, hence vomiting does not occur." They are thus permitted to enter
          the bloodstream and circulate in the blood to all parts of the body. But
          their useless character is immediately recognized by other nerves and they
          are excreted through the kidneys. There is increased action, diuresis, to
          expel the poison Here, again, it is the living organism that does all the
          acting. Diuresis is as much an action of the living organism as is diarrhea.
          In diuresis the kidneys and bladder and the other parts of the urinary
          apparatus are the actors rather than the intestinal tract.

          Kellogg may be correct when he says of the diuretic that it did not
          occasion vomiting "simply because they (the diuretic drugs) were not
          recognizable by the nerve centers which preside over the stomach." But there
          is reason to think that this may not be the whole explanation. Ipecac is
          classed as an emetic. In a dose of a certain size it occasions vomiting. In
          a much smaller dose it occasions diaphoresis and expectoration. It may be
          that in small doses the nerves of the stomach fail to recognize the poison;
          it may be that when sufficiently camouflaged with food or other substances,
          they fail to appreciate its character.

          This drug can be classed according to the faulty classifications that have
          been adopted by pharmacologists and physicians, as an emetic, an expectorant
          and a diaphoretic. Applied locally, it can be given other classifications.
          It is entitled to but one classification-it is poison. Its presence in the
          body is resented; it is expelled, not through one channel, but through
          several.

          Trall indicated that just as the special senses take cognizance of
          external elements in our environment, so the nerves of organic life take
          cognizance of things that find their way into the body. Kellogg followed
          this thought in his suggestion that different drugs occasion different
          actions due to the fact that their presence and character is detected by
          different nerves. Graham had previously indicated such explanation, calling
          the perceptive faculties of the nerves of organic life, organic instincts.

          Graham and Trall and later Kellogg took the position that, just as the
          brain sets in action the organs of voluntary motion and causes these to act,
          according to its recognition (through the special senses) of external
          objects, so the nerves of organic life (the organic instincts, to use
          Graham's term) set in motion the appropriate glandular and muscular activity
          in accordance with the character of the substances that are within-actions
          designed to use one type of substances and actions designed to expel another
          type. As every organ and tissue is under the control of the nervous system,
          there is nothing illogical in thinking that the nervous system is the
          controlling mechanism in determining the actions of the body in relation to
          not only foods but poisons. Thus it is that the presence of poisons in the
          body occasions unusual vital activities in the various organs of the body.
          We commonly, refer to such unusual betivities as disease; at other times we
          simply recognize them as symptoms of poisoning.

          Each organ is capable of a certain kind or kinds of activity, depending on
          its structure or structures. Each organ acts in relation to toxins in
          accordance with its functional capabilities, as determined by its structural
          adaptations. The number and varied assortments of actions of the human body
          are possible only because of its almost infinite structural complexity and
          the resulting functional capacities. Drugs are simple substances, lacking
          both structural specializations and functional abilities. They not only lack
          the instruments of action, but they are also lacking in the energy of action.
          We are correct, then, in saying that the body acts; the drugs are acted
          upon.
        • carlo7
          Cooking Destroys Food Herbert M Shelton Hygienic Review When vitamins were first announced, the physiologist, Percy G. Styles said the theory is a restatement
          Message 4 of 5 , Feb 2, 2003
            Cooking Destroys Food
            Herbert M Shelton
            Hygienic Review


            When vitamins were first announced, the physiologist, Percy G. Styles said
            the theory is a restatement of the views of Sylvester Graham ("Vitamin,"
            Scientific American Supplement, LXXH, June, 27, 1914, p. 402). The
            diet-reform movement initiated by Graham left a lasting impression upon
            America, an impression that is not confined to the calling of whole wheat
            flour and bread after him - Graham flour and Graham bread.

            He and his co-workers had placed great emphasis on the value of fruits,
            vegetables and whole grains, foods now called protective. He had done more;
            he had advocated the use of raw, that is, uncooked foods, because cooking
            rendered them less valuable foods. The "raw food movement" may rightly be
            said to have been started by him.

            These foods were not merely "protective" to Graham; they were nutritive;
            indeed they represented the best and highest form of nutritive material. Dr.
            Trall proclaimed all fruits and vegetables to be protective, by which he did
            not intend to detract from their nutritive qualities. But the world has been
            a long time in discovering what Graham knew -- namely, that cooking impairs
            or destroys the protective and nutritive values of foods.

            The "orthodox" medical world became so frightened over germs a few years
            after Graham's death that they insisted on thoroughly cooking everything to
            destroy germs, while their preoccupation with the caloric value of food
            caused them to deny any food value to fruits and green vegetables. As late
            as 1916 .high medical authority was denying the food value of fruit,
            declaring tomatoes were practically without value and that lettuce was
            valuable chiefly for the oil in the dressing used on it.No wonder, then, that
            Prof. Styles saw in the vitamin announcement a restatement of Graham's
            principles.

            As vitamin research continues the wisdom of Graham's program becomes more
            and more apparent. The same may be said about our increasing knowledge of
            the minerals in our diet, but here we desire to confine our discussion to
            vitamins.

            The destructive effect of heat upon vitamins was early discovered. Even
            such comparatively low temperatures as 145� F. as used in pasteurizing milk
            applied for only fifteen minutes destroys all the vitamin G in milk. The
            other vitamins in milk are also destroyed by this process.

            How much of the vitamin content of a particular food is destroyed in the
            cooking process depends: (1) upon the method of cooking employed, (2) the
            temperature to which the food is subjected,(3)how long_ the. Foodis cooked,
            and (4) how much the food is cut up before being placed on the stove for
            cooking. The same is true for the changes and losses of organic salts in the
            food.

            While we have long observed that foods lose their palatableness and
            undergo obvious changes upon being cut, sliced, shredded, ere., as a result
            of oxidation, only recently has it been shown that these measures, so popular
            with those who like their salads shredded and their peaches sliced, cause a
            loss and destruction of vitamins. These methods have never been in use at
            the Health School and very rarely do we permit violation of our rule against
            them.

            The result of some of the latest tests and experiments with cooking and
            shredding will help us to appreciate the value of natural foods in their
            natural state. In considering these findings the reader is urged to remember
            that of all foods in general use only two or three are easier to digest in
            the cooked than in the raw form and that practically all foods are more tasty
            raw than cooked.

            At a recent meeting of the American Chemical Society, Drs. Vernon H.
            Cheldeline and Alethea M. Woods of the University of Texas re ported the
            determination of the losses of six members of the vitamin B complex caused by
            cooking.

            Riboflavin, said to be one of the most important of all vitamins, and
            essential for the maintenance of the eyes and necessary to the utilization of
            oxygen, was said to be destroyed in appreciable amounts when meats and
            vegetables are crooked in the presence of light. The losses . Of this
            vitamin were said to be negligible when the foods were cooked in the dark or
            in a closed container.

            The loss of pantothemic acid in cooking was moderate to slight in
            vegetables, but was up to one-third in meats.

            Their observations of pyridoxin reveal a lack of -accuracy in the method
            of determining the amount of vitamins present. They say the loss of this
            vitamin was moderate for meats, much smaller for vegetables, with several
            samples even showing gains.

            Biotin is described as the most powerful of all vitamins. The loss of
            this vitamin was found to be very high for meat, even as high as 72 per cent.
            Its loss in vegetables was only "moderate to negligible."

            Inositol, sometimes advertised as the "antigray hair vitamin," showed
            losses the reverse of that of biotin. Its losses were as high as 50 per cent
            in vegetables, particularly in legumes, but generally moderate in meats.
            Steamed meats showed only slight losses.

            Folic acid, which is the newest member of the B-complex, showed losses
            "very great for most foods." On the whole vitamins in meat are less stable
            than those in plant foods.

            One of the B-complex vitamins was given the name nicotinic acid; but
            people kept confusing it with nicotine in tobacco, so the name has been
            changed to niacin. This is the so-called "anti-pellagra vitamin."

            It is present in various meats, while chicken liver and beef liver are
            rich in it and are said to be the "best food sources of this vitamin." The
            reader will understand that niacin is stored in the liver as a reserve and
            that the chicken derived it from the plants, grains, and insects it ate while
            the cow derived it from grasses, weeds and grains. We too can derive all of
            the niacin our bodies require and a supply to store in our own livers as a
            reserve, from the plant foods we eat. We are not forced to get our vitamins
            second hand.

            After this brief digression, let us get back to our main theme. Dr. W. J.
            Dunn and P. Handler of Duke University, Durham, N. C. recently reported after
            completing a series of tests, that cooking destroys one-third to one-half
            even two thirds, of niacin in meats.

            The findings of Drs. Cheldelin and Woods are at variance with those of
            Drs. Dunn and Handler. Drs. Cheldelin and Woods say that they found losses
            of niacin to be generally slight as a result of cooking.

            There are several methods of cooking and different temperatures to which
            food are subjected in cooking and they may be cooked for varying periods.
            Differences in temperature, time and method may be responsible for the
            differences in their findings. For instance, B-vitamins are soluble in water
            and more of these should be lost in boiling than in baking.

            For some time it has been known that thiamin or B" the antineuritic member
            of the vitamin B family, is easily destroyed by heat.

            In this connection, also, the findings of Dr. Robert S. Harris, of the
            Massachusetts Institute of Technology are instructive. Studying the food
            served to its customers by a restaurant using "superior cooking and serving
            techniques," he found the average loss of vitamin C from vegetables was 45%
            and that of vitamin B, or thiamin, averaged 35% These large losses he
            attributed to destruction by heat and to the fact that the water in which the
            vegetables were cooked, and in which the vitamins are soluble, was discarded.
            An additional vitamin loss of about 15% occurred when the vegetables were
            held for long periods on the steam table before serving them. Only about
            one-fourth of the original vitamin content of the vegetables reached the
            consumer.

            Dr. Harris advised that restaurant eaters eat early (before the foods have
            been kept for long periods on the steam table) and concentrate on raw
            vegetables. Lie says that if they will eat earlier and eat more raw
            vegetables, they will be better fed. The doctor could have learned this fact
            from an old book written over one hundred years ago by Sylvester Graham if he
            would have taken the time to read it. It is gratifying to us of the Hygienic
            persuasion to notice that gradually the self-styled scientists are coming
            around to our views which they have long scoffed at and denounced and derided
            as faddism, quackery, etc.

            Recent reports state that two British scientific workers, Doctors Wokes
            and J. G. Organ, of King's Langley, England, have discovered that vitamin C
            is destroyed by ascorbic oxidose - ascorbic acid oxidose - which is said to
            be produced in large amounts when fresh fruits and vegetables are cut. The
            report tells us that "being set free, through cutting, the oxidose attacks
            vitamin C contained in these chopped up vegetables and fruits." Then it also
            reports that "in tomatoes, for example, the oxidose is present in the skin.
            If a tomato is sliced into large pieces much less oxidose is freed than if
            the pieces are small."

            The "report" as it comes to us through the newspaper is a bit confused or
            garbled. We interpret it to mean that oxidose, which we judge to be a plant
            enzyme, is present in certain parts of the fruits and vegetables and is
            released in the shredding and cutting processes and mixed with the general
            substance of the food. Coming in contact with vitamin C the oxidose causes
            it to unite with oxygen - the familiar process of oxidation - and, thus,
            destroys the vitamin C.

            The British investigators found that when lettuce is shredded it loses 80
            percent of its vitamin C in one minute. Using oranges, cabbages, and other
            fruits and vegetables in these experiments they found the same thing. They
            found that ripe tomatoes lost much less vitamin C than did the green ones on
            being chopped into small pieces. In all green leafy vegetables destruction
            of vitamin C was very marked. It was found that mincing of fruits and
            vegetables is harmful and that it deprives the body of vitamin C.

            Dr. Frederick F. Tisdall of Toronto, Canada recently reported astonishing
            losses of vitamin C from foods as a result of processing. His report was
            made before the American Institute of Nutrition.

            He says the mere act of grating either raw apples or raw potatoes causes a
            complete disappearance of vitamin C. The mere act of chewing these foods
            causes the destruction of half their vitamin C. "Thank God for the tomato and
            the orange!" He exclaimed. "They don't act in the same way."

            Other investigators reported comparable losses of other vitamins. For
            instance when Savoy cabbage is chopped it looses much of its ascorbic acid.
            Even the type of chopper makes a difference. One chopper destroyed thirty
            per cent of this vitamin in a few minutes, while a different type of machine
            destroyed sixty-five per cent.

            From these findings it is evident that foods lose, perhaps from oxidation,
            as well as from loss of juices, more than color and flavor when they are
            chopped, grated, ground or mashed in the preparation of salads and juices, or
            in being cut up for cooking purposes. Our refusal to grate salad ingredients
            here at the Health School is fully justified.

            These facts are expected to result in a complete re-examination of all of
            our vitamin-food standards. Heretofore these standards have been concerned
            only with the amount of vitamin in the food. They have taken no account of
            the actual amount of vitamin that reaches the body. The destruction of
            vitamins by processing and cooking, and by chewing, has been more or less
            ignored, especially in practice.

            There is nothing new in the discovery that cutting fruits and vegetables
            into small pieces and allowing the air to reach them, results in oxidation.
            That the foods undergo changes in color, flavor and odor is apparent to all.
            These changes are results of chemical changes in the foods and these changes
            result largely from oxidation.

            Fifteen years ago, when Dr. Shelton's Health School was founded, the rule
            was instituted that fruits and vegetables are not to be shredded, diced or
            cut into small pieces and this rule is rarely varied from. Fruits are served
            whole, even tomatoes are often served whole, or in large pieces. We have
            avoided oxidation of foods as much as possible.

            Much of the damages to food that result from cooking are due to oxidation
            - heat instead of oxidose being the catalytic agent - and we have at all
            times served most foods in their natural or uncooked state. Every real
            advance in knowledge of foods confirms the wisdom of our "return to nature"
            in diet.

            Vitamins are very delicate and unstable things and are lost and destroyed
            in many ways. Foods that are cooked and held over to the next meal lose some
            or all of their remaining vitamins. Dried foods have lost much of their
            vitamins in the drying process. Canned foods that are cooked and stored in
            the ware houses lose their vitamins. Canned foods and dried foods have very
            little or no protective power.

            To compensate for the lack of vitamins in our conventional cooked and over
            cooked diet, we are offered vitamin concentrates and synthetic vitamins.
            These things are of little or no value, � are expensive and fail to
            compensate for all of the food losses caused by cooking.

            How much better and simpler would be the - use of raw foods! Better
            nourishment for less money and costing less time and effort in preparation
            may be had from raw foods.If you do not want to completely abandon cooked
            foods, if you still desire a baked potato or steamed spinach, make up your
            diet of at least three-fourths uncooked foods.
          • Peter Gardiner
            Carlo7, Just been out to fling my juicer into the rubbish! PG ... From: carlo7 [mailto:carlo7@pacbell.net] Sent: 02 February 2003 22:54 To:
            Message 5 of 5 , Feb 3, 2003
              Carlo7,

              Just been out to fling my juicer into the rubbish!

              PG

              -----Original Message-----
              From: carlo7 [mailto:carlo7@...]
              Sent: 02 February 2003 22:54
              To: rawfood@yahoogroups.com
              Subject: [Raw Food] Cooking Desroys Food - Herbert M Shelton

              Cooking Destroys Food
              Herbert M Shelton
              Hygienic Review


              When vitamins were first announced, the physiologist, Percy G. Styles
              said
              the theory is a restatement of the views of Sylvester Graham ("Vitamin,"

              Scientific American Supplement, LXXH, June, 27, 1914, p. 402). The
              diet-reform movement initiated by Graham left a lasting impression upon
              America, an impression that is not confined to the calling of whole
              wheat
              flour and bread after him - Graham flour and Graham bread.

              He and his co-workers had placed great emphasis on the value of
              fruits,
              vegetables and whole grains, foods now called protective. He had done
              more;
              he had advocated the use of raw, that is, uncooked foods, because
              cooking
              rendered them less valuable foods. The "raw food movement" may rightly
              be
              said to have been started by him.

              These foods were not merely "protective" to Graham; they were
              nutritive;
              indeed they represented the best and highest form of nutritive material.
              Dr.
              Trall proclaimed all fruits and vegetables to be protective, by which he
              did
              not intend to detract from their nutritive qualities. But the world has
              been
              a long time in discovering what Graham knew -- namely, that cooking
              impairs
              or destroys the protective and nutritive values of foods.

              The "orthodox" medical world became so frightened over germs a few
              years
              after Graham's death that they insisted on thoroughly cooking everything
              to
              destroy germs, while their preoccupation with the caloric value of food
              caused them to deny any food value to fruits and green vegetables. As
              late
              as 1916 .high medical authority was denying the food value of fruit,
              declaring tomatoes were practically without value and that lettuce was
              valuable chiefly for the oil in the dressing used on it.No wonder, then,
              that
              Prof. Styles saw in the vitamin announcement a restatement of Graham's
              principles.

              As vitamin research continues the wisdom of Graham's program becomes
              more
              and more apparent. The same may be said about our increasing knowledge
              of
              the minerals in our diet, but here we desire to confine our discussion
              to
              vitamins.

              The destructive effect of heat upon vitamins was early discovered.
              Even
              such comparatively low temperatures as 145° F. as used in pasteurizing
              milk
              applied for only fifteen minutes destroys all the vitamin G in milk.
              The
              other vitamins in milk are also destroyed by this process.

              How much of the vitamin content of a particular food is destroyed in
              the
              cooking process depends: (1) upon the method of cooking employed, (2)
              the
              temperature to which the food is subjected,(3)how long_ the. Foodis
              cooked,
              and (4) how much the food is cut up before being placed on the stove for

              cooking. The same is true for the changes and losses of organic salts
              in the
              food.

              While we have long observed that foods lose their palatableness and
              undergo obvious changes upon being cut, sliced, shredded, ere., as a
              result
              of oxidation, only recently has it been shown that these measures, so
              popular
              with those who like their salads shredded and their peaches sliced,
              cause a
              loss and destruction of vitamins. These methods have never been in use
              at
              the Health School and very rarely do we permit violation of our rule
              against
              them.

              The result of some of the latest tests and experiments with cooking
              and
              shredding will help us to appreciate the value of natural foods in their

              natural state. In considering these findings the reader is urged to
              remember
              that of all foods in general use only two or three are easier to digest
              in
              the cooked than in the raw form and that practically all foods are more
              tasty
              raw than cooked.

              At a recent meeting of the American Chemical Society, Drs. Vernon H.

              Cheldeline and Alethea M. Woods of the University of Texas re ported the

              determination of the losses of six members of the vitamin B complex
              caused by
              cooking.

              Riboflavin, said to be one of the most important of all vitamins, and

              essential for the maintenance of the eyes and necessary to the
              utilization of
              oxygen, was said to be destroyed in appreciable amounts when meats and
              vegetables are crooked in the presence of light. The losses . Of this
              vitamin were said to be negligible when the foods were cooked in the
              dark or
              in a closed container.

              The loss of pantothemic acid in cooking was moderate to slight in
              vegetables, but was up to one-third in meats.

              Their observations of pyridoxin reveal a lack of -accuracy in the
              method
              of determining the amount of vitamins present. They say the loss of
              this
              vitamin was moderate for meats, much smaller for vegetables, with
              several
              samples even showing gains.

              Biotin is described as the most powerful of all vitamins. The loss
              of
              this vitamin was found to be very high for meat, even as high as 72 per
              cent.
              Its loss in vegetables was only "moderate to negligible."

              Inositol, sometimes advertised as the "antigray hair vitamin," showed

              losses the reverse of that of biotin. Its losses were as high as 50 per
              cent
              in vegetables, particularly in legumes, but generally moderate in meats.

              Steamed meats showed only slight losses.

              Folic acid, which is the newest member of the B-complex, showed
              losses
              "very great for most foods." On the whole vitamins in meat are less
              stable
              than those in plant foods.

              One of the B-complex vitamins was given the name nicotinic acid; but
              people kept confusing it with nicotine in tobacco, so the name has been
              changed to niacin. This is the so-called "anti-pellagra vitamin."

              It is present in various meats, while chicken liver and beef liver
              are
              rich in it and are said to be the "best food sources of this vitamin."
              The
              reader will understand that niacin is stored in the liver as a reserve
              and
              that the chicken derived it from the plants, grains, and insects it ate
              while
              the cow derived it from grasses, weeds and grains. We too can derive
              all of
              the niacin our bodies require and a supply to store in our own livers as
              a
              reserve, from the plant foods we eat. We are not forced to get our
              vitamins
              second hand.

              After this brief digression, let us get back to our main theme. Dr.
              W. J.
              Dunn and P. Handler of Duke University, Durham, N. C. recently reported
              after
              completing a series of tests, that cooking destroys one-third to
              one-half
              even two thirds, of niacin in meats.

              The findings of Drs. Cheldelin and Woods are at variance with those
              of
              Drs. Dunn and Handler. Drs. Cheldelin and Woods say that they found
              losses
              of niacin to be generally slight as a result of cooking.

              There are several methods of cooking and different temperatures to
              which
              food are subjected in cooking and they may be cooked for varying
              periods.
              Differences in temperature, time and method may be responsible for the
              differences in their findings. For instance, B-vitamins are soluble in
              water
              and more of these should be lost in boiling than in baking.

              For some time it has been known that thiamin or B" the antineuritic
              member
              of the vitamin B family, is easily destroyed by heat.

              In this connection, also, the findings of Dr. Robert S. Harris, of
              the
              Massachusetts Institute of Technology are instructive. Studying the
              food
              served to its customers by a restaurant using "superior cooking and
              serving
              techniques," he found the average loss of vitamin C from vegetables was
              45%
              and that of vitamin B, or thiamin, averaged 35% These large losses he
              attributed to destruction by heat and to the fact that the water in
              which the
              vegetables were cooked, and in which the vitamins are soluble, was
              discarded.
              An additional vitamin loss of about 15% occurred when the vegetables
              were
              held for long periods on the steam table before serving them. Only
              about
              one-fourth of the original vitamin content of the vegetables reached the

              consumer.

              Dr. Harris advised that restaurant eaters eat early (before the foods
              have
              been kept for long periods on the steam table) and concentrate on raw
              vegetables. Lie says that if they will eat earlier and eat more raw
              vegetables, they will be better fed. The doctor could have learned this
              fact
              from an old book written over one hundred years ago by Sylvester Graham
              if he
              would have taken the time to read it. It is gratifying to us of the
              Hygienic
              persuasion to notice that gradually the self-styled scientists are
              coming
              around to our views which they have long scoffed at and denounced and
              derided
              as faddism, quackery, etc.

              Recent reports state that two British scientific workers, Doctors
              Wokes
              and J. G. Organ, of King's Langley, England, have discovered that
              vitamin C
              is destroyed by ascorbic oxidose - ascorbic acid oxidose - which is said
              to
              be produced in large amounts when fresh fruits and vegetables are cut.
              The
              report tells us that "being set free, through cutting, the oxidose
              attacks
              vitamin C contained in these chopped up vegetables and fruits." Then it
              also
              reports that "in tomatoes, for example, the oxidose is present in the
              skin.
              If a tomato is sliced into large pieces much less oxidose is freed than
              if
              the pieces are small."

              The "report" as it comes to us through the newspaper is a bit
              confused or
              garbled. We interpret it to mean that oxidose, which we judge to be a
              plant
              enzyme, is present in certain parts of the fruits and vegetables and is
              released in the shredding and cutting processes and mixed with the
              general
              substance of the food. Coming in contact with vitamin C the oxidose
              causes
              it to unite with oxygen - the familiar process of oxidation - and, thus,

              destroys the vitamin C.

              The British investigators found that when lettuce is shredded it
              loses 80
              percent of its vitamin C in one minute. Using oranges, cabbages, and
              other
              fruits and vegetables in these experiments they found the same thing.
              They
              found that ripe tomatoes lost much less vitamin C than did the green
              ones on
              being chopped into small pieces. In all green leafy vegetables
              destruction
              of vitamin C was very marked. It was found that mincing of fruits and
              vegetables is harmful and that it deprives the body of vitamin C.

              Dr. Frederick F. Tisdall of Toronto, Canada recently reported
              astonishing
              losses of vitamin C from foods as a result of processing. His report
              was
              made before the American Institute of Nutrition.

              He says the mere act of grating either raw apples or raw potatoes
              causes a
              complete disappearance of vitamin C. The mere act of chewing these foods

              causes the destruction of half their vitamin C. "Thank God for the
              tomato and
              the orange!" He exclaimed. "They don't act in the same way."

              Other investigators reported comparable losses of other vitamins.
              For
              instance when Savoy cabbage is chopped it looses much of its ascorbic
              acid.
              Even the type of chopper makes a difference. One chopper destroyed
              thirty
              per cent of this vitamin in a few minutes, while a different type of
              machine
              destroyed sixty-five per cent.

              From these findings it is evident that foods lose, perhaps from
              oxidation,
              as well as from loss of juices, more than color and flavor when they are

              chopped, grated, ground or mashed in the preparation of salads and
              juices, or
              in being cut up for cooking purposes. Our refusal to grate salad
              ingredients
              here at the Health School is fully justified.

              These facts are expected to result in a complete re-examination of
              all of
              our vitamin-food standards. Heretofore these standards have been
              concerned
              only with the amount of vitamin in the food. They have taken no account
              of
              the actual amount of vitamin that reaches the body. The destruction of
              vitamins by processing and cooking, and by chewing, has been more or
              less
              ignored, especially in practice.

              There is nothing new in the discovery that cutting fruits and
              vegetables
              into small pieces and allowing the air to reach them, results in
              oxidation.
              That the foods undergo changes in color, flavor and odor is apparent to
              all.
              These changes are results of chemical changes in the foods and these
              changes
              result largely from oxidation.

              Fifteen years ago, when Dr. Shelton's Health School was founded, the
              rule
              was instituted that fruits and vegetables are not to be shredded, diced
              or
              cut into small pieces and this rule is rarely varied from. Fruits are
              served
              whole, even tomatoes are often served whole, or in large pieces. We
              have
              avoided oxidation of foods as much as possible.

              Much of the damages to food that result from cooking are due to
              oxidation
              - heat instead of oxidose being the catalytic agent - and we have at all

              times served most foods in their natural or uncooked state. Every real
              advance in knowledge of foods confirms the wisdom of our "return to
              nature"
              in diet.

              Vitamins are very delicate and unstable things and are lost and
              destroyed
              in many ways. Foods that are cooked and held over to the next meal lose
              some
              or all of their remaining vitamins. Dried foods have lost much of their

              vitamins in the drying process. Canned foods that are cooked and stored
              in
              the ware houses lose their vitamins. Canned foods and dried foods have
              very
              little or no protective power.

              To compensate for the lack of vitamins in our conventional cooked and
              over
              cooked diet, we are offered vitamin concentrates and synthetic vitamins.

              These things are of little or no value, • are expensive and fail to
              compensate for all of the food losses caused by cooking.

              How much better and simpler would be the - use of raw foods! Better
              nourishment for less money and costing less time and effort in
              preparation
              may be had from raw foods.If you do not want to completely abandon
              cooked
              foods, if you still desire a baked potato or steamed spinach, make up
              your
              diet of at least three-fourths uncooked foods.



              To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
              rawfood-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



              Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
              http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.