December 28

Did We Adapt to Cooked Foods?

Filed under Raw Food Controversies, Raw Vegan Video Blog by Frederic Patenaude

OutrageousHealthHeader_Draft3.gif

In-this-Issue.jpg

– Frederic’s Update

–  Videos from Costa Rica

– Did We Adapt to Cooked Foods?

's-Update.jpg

Greetings from Costa Rica!

I’m spending several months here until May, when I’ll be starting a trip/tour around the world. I announced this in a previous post. If you’re interesting in having me come to your city to give a raw talk, check out this post.

Initially, I’m going to Europe, South Africa and Asia, but in 2011 I will come back around to North America for some events there.

Check out these videos I just recorded if you’re interesting in checking out some places in Costa Rica. Forgive me for my bad filming. It might make you a little dizzy!

Farmer’s Market in Costa Rica

Matapalo Beach

Uvita Waterfall

“Who Else Wants to Watch Professional DVDs and Become Confident in the Kitchen With the Most Amazing, Simple and Delicious Low Fat Raw Recipes Ever?”

Watch the preview YouTube Video to get a peak at what’s inside this DVD series. For more information on the Low Fat Raw Vegan DVD Series, click here. On the video, click “HQ” after it has started for better quality.



Feature-Article.jpg

Did We Adapt to Cooked Foods?

Recently, a book was published that seems to contradict a lot of the established raw food theory. The book is called “Catching Fire: How Cooking Made Us Human” by Richard Wrangham, who’s a British primatologist.

A few of my readers have asked me what I think of this book.

So I spent the time reading the 300 page book, initially with some skepticism. I expected another meat-eating scientist trying to rationalize their habits by some unsubstantiated arguments. Instead, I found the book “Catching Fire” to be quite fascinating, bringing light to a lot of controversies that raw-foodists will definitely find interesting.

It also destroys the foundation of many common raw-food myths (that I didn’t believe in anyway), but surprisingly, the basic conclusions of Mr. Wrangham’s research partially support the low-fat, fruit-based diet that I recommend.

Before I go into the details the theory presented in “Catching Fire”, let me review some of the current beliefs common in many books on the raw-food diets (including some of my own):

•    Humans are apes. Other apes we know eat a plant-based diet of fruits and vegetables. Chimpanzees and bonobos, which are the types of apes sharing the most DNA with humans, eat a fruit-based diet. Therefore, our natural diet should also be diet of fruits, vegetables, nuts and seeds.
•    Before the advent of cooking, humans lived essentially on fruits, vegetables, and perhaps some nuts and seeds and animal products (when they could find them).
•    There must have been a “golden period” of time, before cooking, when we lived for much longer than we do today (some claim 120 to 140 years is our natural lifespan). The advent of cooking and processed foods brought the “descent” of man, as far as our health is concerned.
•    Humans have not “adapted” to cooked foods. We ate cooked foods for survival purposes, but our bodies are still wearing down from the consumption of these foods. Because cooked food is toxic, the most natural diet would be a diet of 100% raw foods.
•    Humans are not carnivores. Meat has no place in the human diet.
•    Grains are not our natural foods. We have been eating grains for only a tiny fraction of our history on this planet. Our natural diet, the one we’re the most adapted to, is one of fruits, vegetables, nuts and seeds.
•    We should eat a raw food diet because of the enzymes and other essential nutrients that are destroyed in the cooking process.

As you may imagine, the book Catching Fire demolishes most of these claims. The book’s central claim is that cooking played a very key role in our evolution.

“I believe the transformative moment that gave rise to the genus Homo, one of the great transitions in the history of life, stemmed from the control of fire and the advent of cooked meals. Cooking increased the value of our food. It changed our bodies, our brains, our use of time, and our social lives. It made us into consumers of external energy and thereby created an organism with a new relationship to nature, dependent on fuel.

Now most raw-foodist will definitely deny these claims. After all, cooked food is “poison” and couldn’t possibly have played any role into making us into who we are (at least not in a positive way). Raw-foodists would disagree strongly with the statement that “cooking increases the value of our food.” Raw-foodists believe that cooking only destroys and cannot possibly “improve” anything. However, objectively speaking, Wrangham is correct about something.

The Quest for Calories

All over nature, it seems that the biggest challenge for all animals trying to stay alive is getting enough to eat. Modern humans, on the other hand, spend only a fraction of their day eating.

“Because the amount of time spent chewing is related to body size among primates, we can estimate how long humans would be obliged to spend chewing if we lived on the same kind of raw food that great apes do. Conservatively, it would be 42 percent of the day, or just over five hours of chewing in a twelve-hour period.”

The main thing that cooking does is it increases the overall caloric content of our diet, our at least it enabled us to obtain more calories in less time and with less energy.

it allowed us to eat many rich foods we wouldn’t have been able to eat in nature, such as roots and starches. This was certainly a key element in freeing our ancestors from having to search for foods and chew tough fruits with few calories all day long.

So according to Wrangham, the main appreciable thing that cooking does is simple: it increases the amount of energy we could obtain from our food. By that, of course, he means calories.

“Studies of digestibility show that we use cooked starch very efficiently. The percentage of cooked starch that has been digested by the time it reaches the end of the ileum is at least 95 percent in oats, wheat, potatoes, plantains, bananas, cornflakes, white bread, and the typical European or American diet (a mixture of starchy foods, dairy products, and meat). A few foods have lower digestibility: starch in home-cooked kidney beans and flaked barley has a digestibility of only around 84 percent. Comparable measurements of the digestibility of raw starch are much lower. Digestibility is 71 percent for wheat starch, 51 percent for potatoes, and a measly 48 percent for raw starch in plantains and cooking bananas.”

“We need to know what cooking does. Cooked food does many familiar things. It makes our food safer, creates rich and delicious tastes, and reduces spoilage. Heating can allow us to open, cut, or mash tough foods. But none of these advantages is as important as a little-appreciated aspect: cooking increases the amount of energy our bodies obtain from our food.

Of course, one might argue that raw-foods contain more “energy” and nutrients, but the fact is that Wrangham is correct in pointing out that it is easier to get calories from cooked foods than it was, at least for early humans, to get them from wild raw plants.

However, the author is obviously biased in favor of cooking, but I’m sure you have guessed it by now.

“Raw-foodists are dedicated to eating 100 percent of their diets raw, or as close to 100 percent as they can manage. There are only three studies of their body weight, and all find that people who eat raw tend to be thin. The most extensive is the Giessen Raw Food study, conducted by nutritionist Corinna Koebnick and her colleagues in Germany, which used questionnaires to study 513 raw-foodists who ate from 70 percent to 100 percent of their diet raw. They chose to eat raw to be healthy, to prevent illness, to have a long life, or to live naturally. Raw food included not only uncooked vegetables and occasional meat, but also cold-pressed oil and honey, and some items that were lightly heated such as dried fruits, dried meat, and dried fish. Body mass index (BMI), which measures weight in relation to the square of the height, was used as a measure of fatness. As the proportion of food eaten raw rose, BMI fell. The average weight loss when shifting from a cooked to a raw diet was 26.5 pounds (12 kilograms) for women and 21.8 pounds (9.9 kilograms) for men. Among those eating a purely raw diet (31 percent), the body weights of almost a third indicated chronic energy deficiency. The scientists’ conclusion was unambiguous: “a strict raw food diet cannot guarantee an adequate energy supply.” The amount of meat in the Giessen Raw Food diets was not recorded but many raw-foodists eat rather little meat. Could a low meat intake have contributed to their poor energy supply? It is possible. However, among people who eat cooked diets, there is no difference in body weight between vegetarians and meat eaters: when our food is cooked we get as many calories from a vegetarian diet as from a typical cooked diet.”

My comments on this last quote from the book is that it is certainly true that a typical raw food diet is deficient in energy. As I have mentioned every time, vegetables simply do not contain enough calories to sustain life, and raw fats such as avocados are difficult to eat in large quantities to maintain energy levels (especially considering that they are more difficult to digest than cooked starches). The traditional raw-food diet is a weight loss program. It’s not something that can be sustained over the long-term.

Some ridiculous comments are being made because the authors of the study have obviously little knowledge on how one could balance a raw-food diet and make it work. However, the raw-food diet they describe is very typical of what many raw-foodists eat, and the absolute opposite of what I recommend.

Wrangham goes on:

“The energy consequences of forgoing cooked food lead to a consistent reaction, illustrated by journalist Jodi Mardesich when she became a raw-foodist. “I’m hungry. These days, I’m almost always hungry,” she wrote. A typical day began at 7 A.M. when she cut and juiced two ounces of wheat grass. At 8:30 A.M. she had a bowl of “energy soup,” which she describes as a “room-temperature concoction made of sunflower greens, which are the tiny first shoots of a sunflower plant, and rejuvelac, a fermented wheat drink that tastes a lot like bad lemonade.” She added a couple of spoonfuls of blended papaya for interest. Lunch was a salad of sunflower greens, sprouted fenugreek seeds, sprouted broccoli seeds, fermented cabbage, and a loaf made of sprouted sunflower seeds, dehydrated seaweed, and some vegetables.

“Dinner was more sprouts, avocado chunks, pineapple, red onion, olive oil, raw vinegar, and sea salt. An hour later she was hungry again. In photographs she looks distinctly thin, but she was happy. She described herself as feeling energized, mentally sharper, and more serene. Nevertheless, after six months, during which she lost 18 pounds (8.2 kilograms), she could not resist slipping out for a pizza. Mardesich was not alone in finding a wholly raw diet a challenge. The Giessen Raw Food study found that 82 percent of long-term raw-foodists included some cooked food in their diets.

My comments:

The raw diet described above is typical of many people trying to eat raw. Unfortunately, this diet doesn’t work. It obviously is very low in calories (energy) while being high in fat. Unfortunately, that’s the way a lot of raw-foodists try to eat, and it just isn’t sustainable. That’s why I recommend to get sufficient calories from fruit, while keeping your overall diet low in fat.

“Anthropologist Elizabeth Marshall Thomas describes bushman women in Africa’s Kalahari Desert returning to camp at the end of their ordinary long day thoroughly exhausted, because for much of the day they have been squatting and digging and walking, and hefting large loads of food, wood, and children. Even in populations that cook, these natural activity levels are high enough to interfere with reproductive function. If we imagine the lives of our German raw-foodists made more difficult by a daily regime of foraging for food in the wild, their rate of energy expenditure would surely be substantially increased. As a result, many more than 50 percent of the women would be incapable of pregnancy. Then add that the subjects of the Giessen Raw Food study obtained their diets from supermarkets. Their foods were the typical products of modern farming—fruits, seeds, and vegetables all selected to be as delicious as possible. “Delicious” means high energy, because what people like are foods with low levels of indigestible fiber and high levels of soluble carbohydrates, such as sugars. Agricultural improvements have rendered fruits in a supermarket, such as apples, bananas, and strawberries, far higher in quality than their wild ancestors. In our laboratory at Harvard, nutritional biochemist NancyLou Conklin-Brittain finds that carrots contain as much sugar as the average wild fruit eaten by a chimpanzee in Kibale National Park in Uganda. But even carrots are better quality than a typical wild tropical fruit, because they have less fiber and fewer toxic compounds. If the German raw-foodists had been eating wild foods, their energy balance and reproductive performance would have been much lower than found by Koebnick’s team.”

My comments:

These points are interesting. Even under the best circumstances, where we get hybridized raw foods with lots of calories, most people have trouble getting enough raw food to eat so they’re not hungy all the time. Can you imagine what early humans would have done, with no access to bananas or hybridized high-calorie fruits, supermarket avocados, bottles of oils and packs of nuts? Especially when you consider the fact that early humans were much more active than we are, it makes the “struggle for raw calories” even more obvious.

Wrangham also points out some studies where various groups of people tried to live off wild raw-foods, and in every single case they did not manage to get enough calories to thrive.

“Raw-Foodist thrive only in rich modern environments where they depend on eating exceptionally high-quality foods. Animals do not have the same constraints: they flourish on wild raw foods. The suspicion prompted by the shortcomings of the Evo Diet is correct, and the implication is clear: there is something odd about us. We are not like other animals.”

Are We Just Like Chimpanzees?

The logic of nature is often easy to follow.

Once we realize that we are animals living among other animals, it’s easy to look at nature and try to see where we fit in the grand scheme of things. For example, we might look and try to find other animals similar to us.

Science tells us that humans are apes, related to some degree to chimpanzee by a common, earlier ancestor. We share more DNA with chimpanzees than with any animals on the planet. Looking at these creatures, we can see so many apparent similarities. In fact, I remember reading how many people in England were shocked when they first saw Chimpanzees in a zoo for the first time. Many people were disturbed by the sight of these animals, precisely because they look so similar to us, which was viewed as repulsive for people of that time, who believe that humans were unlike any other animal on the planet.

So raw-foodists look at what apes eat, and although you will find evidences of some meat-eating among them, even scientists admit that they essentially live on fruits and vegetables. Obviously, since we’re apes, our diet should be something along those lines. (not eating dairy, grains, refined foods)

We also know that there are profound differences between chimpanzees and us. How profound?

“Evolutionary benefits of adapting to cooked food are evident from comparing human digestive systems with those of chimpanzees and other apes. The main differences all involve humans having relatively small features. We have small mouths, weak jaws, small teeth, small stomachs, small colons, and small guts overall. In the past, the unusual size of these body parts has mostly been attributed to the evolutionary effects of our eating meat, but the design of the human digestive system is better explained as an adaptation to eating cooked food than it is to eating raw meat.

“Mick Jagger’s biggest yawn is nothing compared to a chimpanzee’s. Given that the mouth is the entry to the gut, humans have an astonishingly tiny opening for such a large species. All great apes have a prominent snout and a wide grin: chimpanzees can open their mouths twice as far as humans, as they regularly do when eating. If a playful chimpanzee ever kisses you, you will never forget this point. To find a primate with as relatively small an aperture as that of humans, you have to go to a diminutive species, such as a squirrel monkey, weighing less than 1.4 kilograms (3 pounds). In addition to having a small gape, our mouths have a relatively small volume—about the same size as chimpanzee mouths, even though we weigh some 50 percent more than they do. Zoologists often try to capture the essence of our species with such phrases as the naked, bipedal, or big-brained ape. They could equally well call us the small-mouthed ape.

(…) The difference in mouth size is even more obvious when we take the lips into account. The amount of food a chimpanzee can hold in its mouth far exceeds what humans can do because, in addition to their wide gape and big mouths, chimpanzees have enormous and very muscular lips. When eating juicy foods like fruits or meat, chimpanzees use their lips to hold a large wad of food in the outer part of their mouths and squeeze it hard against their teeth, which they may do repeatedly for many minutes before swallowing. The strong lips are probably an adaptation for eating fruits, because fruit bats have similarly large and muscular lips that they use in the same way to squeeze fruit wads against their teeth. Humans have relatively tiny lips, appropriate for a small amount of food in the mouth at one time.

(…) Human chewing teeth, or molars, also are small—the smallest of any primate species in relation to body size. Continuing farther into the body, our stomachs again are comparatively small. In humans the surface area of the stomach is less than one-third the size expected for a typical mammal of our body weight, and smaller than in 97 percent of other primates. The high caloric density of cooked food suggests that our stomachs can afford to be small. Great apes eat perhaps twice as much by weight per day as we do because their foods are packed with indigestible fiber (around 30 percent by weight, compared to 5 percent to 10 percent or less in human diets). Thanks to the high caloric density of cooked food, we have modest needs that are adequately served by our small stomachs.

(…) The human small intestine is only a little smaller than expected from the size of our bodies, reflecting that this organ is the main site of digestion and absorption, and humans have the same basal metabolic rate as other primates in relation to body weight. But the large intestine, or colon, is less than 60 percent of the mass that would be expected for a primate of our body weight. The colon is where our intestinal flora ferment plant fiber, producing fatty acids that are absorbed into the body and used for energy. That the colon is relatively small in humans means we cannot retain as much fiber as the great apes can and therefore cannot utilize plant fiber as effectively for food. But that matters little. The high caloric density of cooked food means that normally we do not need the large fermenting potential that apes rely on.

(…) The weight of our guts is estimated at about 60 percent of what is expected for a primate of our size: the human digestive system as a whole is much smaller than would be predicted on the basis of size relations in primates.

MY COMMENTS
:

Another change that is not mentioned is that humans produce several times the amount of starch-splitting enzymes (useful for digesting complex carbohydrates) than chimpanzees. It’s obvious that although we share a lot of similarities with these animals, we are VERY different. We would also expect our diet to be somewhat different.

Could Humans Live on a Chimpanzee Diet?

The idea is appealing: chimpanzees live on fruit, therefore we can also live on fruit.

However, we should ask ourselves: what kind of fruits do chimpanzees live on?

“Evolutionary adaptation to cooking might likewise explain why humans seem less prepared to tolerate toxins than do other apes. In my experience of sampling many wild foods eaten by primates, items eaten by chimpanzees in the wild taste better than foods eaten by monkeys. Even so, some of the fruits, seeds, and leaves that chimpanzees select taste so foul that I can barely swallow them. The tastes are strong and rich, excellent indicators of the presence of non-nutritional compounds, many of which are likely to be toxic to humans—but presumably much less so to chimpanzees. Consider the plum-size fruit of Warburgia ugandensis, a tree famous for its medicinal bark. Warburgia fruits contain a spicy compound reminiscent of a mustard oil. The hot taste renders even a single fruit impossibly unpleasant for humans to ingest. But chimpanzees can eat a pile of these fruits and then look eagerly for more. Many other fruits in the chimpanzee diet are almost equally unpleasant to the human palate. Astringency, the drying sensation produced by tannins and a few other compounds, is common in fruits eaten by chimpanzees.”

(…) Astringency is caused by the presence of tannins, which bind to proteins and cause them to precipitate. Our mouths are normally lubricated by mucoproteins in our saliva, but because a high density of tannins precipitates those proteins, it leaves our tongues and mouths dry: hence the “furry” sensation in our mouths after eating an unripe apple or drinking a tannin-rich wine. One has the same experience when tasting chimpanzee fruits such as Mimusops bagshawei or the widespread Pseudospondias microcarpa. Though chimpanzees can eat more than 1 kilogram (2.2 pounds) of such fruits during an hour or more of continuous chewing, we cannot.

(…) The shifts in food preference between chimpanzees and humans suggest that our species has a reduced physiological tolerance for foods high in toxins or tannins. Since cooking predictably destroys many toxins, we may have evolved a relatively sensitive palate.

My Comments: Since I’ve been coming to Costa Rica, I’ve had the chance to look at what monkeys eat in the wild. The monkeys in Costa Rica are not like great apes, but fruit constitutes most of the diet of some of these monkeys.

What always puzzled me is that whenever I saw the fruits these monkeys ate, and by accident some of it was dropped on the ground, it always looked far from edible to me. Whenever I tried to eat some of these fruits, I found them to be quite repulsive.

I don’t think that my taste buds have been corrupted by the foods I’ve eaten all my life. For a modern human, I have pretty natural taste buds. And I’m quite convinced that a baby human would not enjoy many of the fruits eaten by most monkeys, and would in fact refuse to eat them.

Even Raw-Foodists “Cook” Their Foods

“It makes sense that we like foods that have been softened by cooking, just as we like them chopped up in a blender, ground in a mill, or pounded in a mortar. The unnaturally, atypically soft foods that compose the human diet have given our species an energetic edge, sparing us much of the hard work of digestion. Fire does a job our bodies would otherwise have to do.”

This last quote by Wrangham made me look at the way raw-foodist eat their foods. In my opinion, even smart raw-foodists like 80-10-10 do the equivalent of “cooking” without using any heat. Let me explain:

  • We get more calories from our raw foods by making smoothies and other blended foods
  • We assimilate more from our greens by blending them into soups or even juicing them
  • We favor high-calorie fruits such as bananas, dates, mangoes and other tropical fruits, which have been bred to be high in sugar and low in fiber.
  • We make rich dressings by blending nuts, seeds and avocados
  • Some raw-foodist also ferment certain tough vegetables

Why do you think that blending is so popular in the raw-food world? Why do you think that green smoothies are such a craze? Why do you think vegetable juicing has so many fans? These are all techniques we use to get the most out of our raw foods! In other words, most people inherently understand that eating carrot sticks doesn’t work. They know that raw-foods are lower in calories, and therefore have discovered all kinds of ingenious ways to make them more digestible.

I do believe that this raw food diet CAN works when we use some of these tools. In my opinion, in would be almost impossible to live off wild foods. And I can bet you anything that anyone who eats a significant quantity of wild food in their diet gets the bulk of their calories from either cultivated fruits, cooked rice or grains, potatoes or avocados, or has access to an unnatural variety of dried “wild” foods shipped from all corners of the world.

It’s not that cooking food is one of the defining aspects of civilization. I believe that it’s the “processing” of foods that makes the difference. This includes: blending, cultivating, hybridizing, juicing, etc. Raw-foodists may just be a lot smarter by using methods that don’t create toxins that are harmful to the body when processing their raw foods.

We are civilized by nature. Even the modern raw-food diet is “unnatural”.

So my final comments on this topic are as follows:

  • There may never have been a “golden age” where humans lived in perfect health eating delicious fruits and vegetables. Most likely, we come from a line of animals that ate tough and astringent fruits similar to those modern apes eat. Over time, we started to cook more and more, and learned how to hybridize plants to get sweeter and better varieties. We evolved to prefer these foods over the wild foods we formely ate. Trying to go back to wild foods simply doesn’t work.
  • Cooking was probably a key element in human evolution, however it doesn’t mean we are forced to keep eating it today. Modern nutritional knowledge of calories, combined with cultivation of many varieties of sweet fruits, non-bitter vegetables and modern techniques such as blending allow us to eat a raw diet and get the best of both worlds (civilization and nature).
  • We come from such a long line of sick and diseased ancestors and parents living on the low-quality, toxic Standard American Diet that a low-toxin, high-nutrient raw-based diet is definitely the way the go.

I do not believe that the research presented in the book Catching Fire really goes against the low-fat, fruit-based raw diet. However, it does show you how unsustainable most other low-calorie, high-fat raw-diets are, and how many of their claims are not based in solid science.

IMPORTANT FINAL NOTE: I don’t intend to turn this discussion into a creation vs. evolution debate. I respect everyone’s beliefs but will not let the comment section turn into a heated fight between religion and science. That is not the point of this article. The discussion is about civilization vs. nature, so please keep that in mind before posting any comment.

50 Responses to “Did We Adapt to Cooked Foods?”

  1. Joy Houston says:

    Thank you for this insightful breakdown and review of this controversial book. Perhaps a social experiment is in order. Split a group of gorillas, leaving one with a Viking Range and a microwave, the other with a Vita-Mix and a dehydrator. When we come back a year later will group one be watching Jerry Springer and group two reading Great Expectations?

  2. Baran says:

    Thanks for posting this great article. Oddly I don’t like any of the blended foods like smoothies, blended salads or dips. But I do favour high calorie fruits. 🙂

  3. Swayze says:

    “room-temperature concoction made of sunflower greens, which are the tiny first shoots of a sunflower plant, and rejuvelac, a fermented wheat drink that tastes a lot like bad lemonade.”

    Honestly, that sounds disgusting. No wonder so many people are thumbing their noses at the mainstream raw food movement!

    “Raw-Foodist thrive only in rich modern environments where they depend on eating exceptionally high-quality foods.”

    This is why I have to laugh when people go raw because it’s “natural” and because they want to return to nature. If they want to spend their time foraging for food in the jungle, fine by me. I much prefer the comfort of home, with my comfy bed, engaging electronics, and as much high-quality fruit and veg as I can stomach. 😀

    “It’s not that cooking food is one of the defining aspects of civilization. I believe that it’s the “processing” of foods that makes the difference. This includes: blending, cultivating, hybridizing, juicing, etc. Raw-foodists may just be a lot smarter by using methods that don’t create toxins that are harmful to the body when processing their raw foods.”

    Excellent closer, Fred, and thanks so much for taking the time to read the book and post your thoughts!

  4. Amber says:

    Thank you so much for this Fred!
    I would love to be able to eat all raw, but the cost of buying the quantity of fruit I would require is too high at the moment. I have found that, by cooking a sweet potato each day, I can maintain energy much better than when I am trying to stick to high quality – smaller quantity eating habits. It’s an ideal that has not worked for me, unfortunately. I generally eat some massaged greens alongside as well so I am getting minerals and fresh nutrition.

    I appreciate that you read this book for us and broke it down and compared it to your resarch. I have found it to be valuable. I am a big fan of objectively looking at what’s happening.

  5. Lala72 says:

    Great article. Glad I just bought your winter recipe package. Having fun with it.

    Peace.

  6. Lucy says:

    Really interesting review and insight Fred, thanks very much! It’s certainly made me think/reevaluate some of my rather dogmatic raw-vegan views. Perhaps I’ll bring the steamer out of retirement every once and a while.
    Lots to think about.
    Thanks again!

  7. Lourdes says:

    As usual, your comments are rational, intelligent, and honest. I am delighted that you took the time to read this book and share it with us.

  8. Scott Covert says:

    Fred, you are in posession of that rarest of human characteristics – an open and hungry mind. The fact that you sell products and information about your passion, while still having the honesty to learn and share new things, makes you even more rare.

    There are so many “raw enthusiasts” that are trapped into their dogmatic systems because they don’t want to contradict what they’ve been writing about and saying in seminars for years.

  9. Wow…such a gold mine of theory that corroborates what I suspected all along…I.E. Humans are not your typical ape…i.e. something I’d suspected from all my diet experimentation over the years (i.e. where I realized how dependant we are on concentrated forms of foods). I converted to a low fat raw food diet last March and can vouch for the fact that it seems to be sustainable (i.e. I haven’t been losing weight…in fact I’ve been able to put on a little weight…which I found difficult to do on a regular vegan diet)…i.e. but this suposedly “natural” raw food diet is anything but natural.

    When I went to europe last May for 3 weeks without a blender I found out how hard it is to do this diet without this appliance…What I found was that it was very difficult to eat the quantities needed for sufficient calories without first blending them. I found it hard to eat as many bananas as I ate when blending…I found that I just got so sick of the taste that couldn’t eat as many in one sitting…i.e. and it was difficult having to chew all those greens!…It’s hard to beat processed grains from a calorie density convenience/ubiquitous factor (i.e. baring the longer term side effects to one’s health etc.). Next time I go to europe I will try to bring a blender along…not an easy challenge!…i.e. because to bring my vitamix and a 20lb transformer to convert the voltage (i.e. 220 to 120) is just not very practical (not to mention the anticipated speed reduction expected when running on 50Hz verses 60Hz etc.)…i.e. which leaves me faced with having to buy a 600 euro european model to use for 3 weeks! …ouch…Wouldn’t it be nice if atraveller could “rent” a european model instead! Maybe I could limp along with a lower power blender that I buy there and give to good will at the end of the trip etc..

    Thanks for showcasing this book for us Fred…very useful information that corroborates such much of what I suspected….As humans, although we are genetically close to some of the native (i.e. earth) primates on this planet some of a more “new age” persuation might theorize that we probably evolved on another planet and migrated here…some folks think that Mars may have served as the initial staging planet for our species in this solar system etc.

    Once again thanks,
    Charles

  10. Kudos says:

    Excellent article Frederic, thank you very much!

  11. Thanks for the review of this book, Fred. In light of the conversation we had last week, I find it very timely. I work with many “fruit and fat phobic” raw food enthusiasts concerned about keeping weight on. I quite often recommend adding steamed sweet potatoes for calories and it works well. I do prefer blending my fruits and veggies so I can eat enough calories though. Good job of presenting valid points on both sides of the argument.

  12. That was a really interesting article Fred. I’m glad you also shared some of your insights, like the ones about eating the same fruit as monkeys in Costa Rica. Our fruits are definitely sweet and we eat them at a certain ripeness.

    I think it’s great to be constantly learning and constantly figuring out what works for us. I’ve been on both sides… as a newbie to raw food dogma and now as an educator. I like to emphasize that it’s not an all or nothing. That blending, and salad dressings are not how you’d eat in nature, but that they will feed you well. 🙂

  13. Quentin says:

    The beautiful thing bout this book and this questioning is people are awakening to their power and learning that who we are goes deeper than food temperature and nutritional dogmas. There are more choices than just the SAD eating and raw foods. Vital health can be created in a varied amount of ways. We are all unique.

  14. I love that last comment. I also commend you for having an open mind and “always learning.”

    Just because humans have bigger brains than other animals doesn’t mean we aren’t stupid as all get out. We’re in fact missing the full truth of 99% of what we think we know, regardless of the topic. But that’s the joy of living: discovery!

  15. Adalia says:

    Fantastic article! This reminds me of what a very intelligent woman I know once said. She blew away the whole idea of “seasonal eating” by remarking that our (my) ancestors in the north ate preserved, cooked, canned, etc. foods through winter because they had no access to fresh foods! She strongly doubts that our northern ancestors would turn down a fresh salad had one been available to them through the cold months. And that is the point – just because, in the past, due to circumstance/environment, one was FORCED to live a certain way, does not mean it was the best or ideal way to live!

    Thank you, Frederic, for making intelligent arguments with regards to this issue of cooked foods, raw foods, and optimum nutrition.

  16. Purple ann says:

    I have found that responding to my body’s instinctive desires whilst
    keeping in mind the requirement for the food I choose to be both
    delicious and nutritious
    I have achieved a diet that excites and delights me.
    The great thing is that others get to experience this way of eating
    at the health hub in Bedford uk so they discover the
    easy way to start the journey to optimum health and happiness.
    I am absolutely delighted that freds research concurs with
    my instincts.

  17. Patrina says:

    Thanks Frederic! I really appreciate the opportunity to read this review and agree with your comments! It’s good to know about other points of view irrespective of our position on anything, in my opinion. We do the best we can in a less than perfect world.

  18. sandrine says:

    I find strange that you interview anne osborne and don’t believe in fruitarianism, can you explain me why please frederic ?

  19. sandrine says:

    I mean eat only fruits without using tools.

  20. Frederic says:

    I appreciate all the comments! Thanks for your kind words.
    For the question about fruitarianism, I have no issues publishing my interview with Anne Osbourne because I believe she had some great things to share. I also believe that it’s possible to live as a fruitarian, if you get good quality fruit, but I don’t recommend. It’s not because I interview someone that I endorse everything they say. I do think Anne has a good message and I don’t think it came across as her promoting 100% fruit as the best thing for everybody. She was sharing her experience which I found fascinating.

  21. Thomas says:

    Mahalo Frederic:
    You’re outside the box ability to be open to all views is refreshing. Thank you for this discussion. My personal raw food teacher after years of refining her diet said that she “would rather be 100% healthy than 100% raw”. That comment and your great teaching has guided me to not just think through my diet but to feel it as well. And despite my awareness of my great physical health due to a mostly raw diet, remembering to be 100% compassionate opens the door to life’s deep riches, friendships.
    Thank you my friend and Happy New Year, Tom

  22. sandrine says:

    thank you for your response

  23. Val Archer says:

    Thanks for taking time to read this Frederic! Loved your final comments that with sweet fruits + blending, we get the best of both worlds (civilization and nature).

    It’s interesting “The Giessen Raw Food study found that 82 percent of long-term raw-foodists included some cooked food in their diets.” I bet it’s more likely 95%, that most raw fooders are like me and enjoy the 5% leeway. As a friend said to me when I asked him how his all-raw switch is going: “it’s wearing a little thin!”

    I give detailed guidance on the 95% way here:

    http://www.greensmoothie.com/eat/

    together with an adapted version of the Ann Wigmore chart so readers can see the multiple raw sources of proteins, carbohydrates + fat.

    I found that grains mostly fell away as I reached for more and more fresh fruits + vegetables. I mention on that page: “Dr Doug Graham points out that you can fill a barrel with fresh fruits + vegetables, take out any five, and you’ll enjoy roughly your 80/10/10 ratio.” That’s 80% ore more carbohydrates, 10% or less protein, 10% or less fat.

    A lightweight travel companion is to carry a baby food processor with you, rather than a blender. It weighs almost nothing (mine’s 2 lbs) and gets the job done of blending your greens with fruit, so you feel full.

  24. Pamela says:

    Hi,
    Let me start by saying I think you do a really good job! Books like the one in question are interesting but they mostly lay out ideas and truths that are not at black and white as thye portray them to be.
    It was probably a good idea for our ancestors to cook some things. Life must have been tough and the constant need to find enough food is what their life was about – no going to the store when the fridge is empty and no credit cards to pay for it if it’s a long time til your next paycheck. Nothing about their daily life resembled the way we live today in regards to housing, clothing expenditure of energy.
    I don’t expend nearly the amount of energy that people did even 100 years ago so I don’t need the calories they did and I don’t need to work to find ways of shortening my eating time pr day as may have been the case when cooked foods came along. I’m about 90 % raw. I’ve lost 50 pounds in seven months (which I really needed to do and had struggled all my adult life over. I’m now 50 years old). I’m full of energy, always satisfied and no longer have the desire to snack between meals. The person I am and the life I lead in cold Norway finds raw food to be not only perfect but a life saving gift.

  25. Marisa says:

    The research on Ardi contradicts many of Wrangham’s conclusions-sweeter fruits are the key compared to our chimpanzee relatives. Look it up and you will see that this million’s of years old ancestor had many of our modern traits including smaller mouth and smaller guts and different gut ratios-but no evidence of cooking. Sorry, but cooked starches do have negative consequences such as excessive exposure to acrylamides and other maillard reaction products that Wrangham does not address properly. Eating them does not contribute to good health at all compared to a proper raw diet.

  26. Marisa says:

    A proper raw diet need not include any processing, if enough sweet fruit is eaten.

  27. Frederic says:

    Marisa: You must be referring to this:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ardi

    It seems not yet proven that Ardi evolved into modern humans. The question is not: “what did early pre-humans hominid eat?” but rather, “what did early *humans* eat”?

  28. Ollivier says:

    You would definitely need to consider Instincto raw food paradigm. It answers most of your questions. The "catching fire…" book seems to contain very interesting facts, but obviously lack the experience to objectively judge a raw food diet. Ideologically rejecting animal and fat food and, avoiding the instinct experience for a few month (at least to be able to judge) is definitely a biased view driving to most of the contradiction you finely explain. thanks anyway for these explanations I m open to further exchanges. Bertrand Ollivier

    COMMENTS: I have known many instinctos and I read all the Instincto books in the original French. I think the entire concept is flawed because they consider instinct alone to be a good judge for everything, when it is not. I don’t reject animal foods "ideologically", I reject them for health reasons. Plenty of research is there to back it up (see China Study at the very least). Same for my arguments against a high-fat diet. Instinctos have raised Instinct as the ultimate standard, and ignore the rest of science. They don’t mind eating 10 avocados a day or 2 pounds of raw meat, as long as their "instinct" gives them the go. All instinctos I have met, including those who wrote popular books, have come down with serious illnesses like cancer that I attribute to their overeating of protein, fat, and other foods like honey (some of them ate a pound a day!).

  29. Anthony says:

    I am thin, thinner than most North Americans, yet average compared to most men my age in India. I have more energy and think clearer than ever on a raw 80/10/10 diet. Chimps eat fruit. They don’t eat meat as a regular part of their diet. They have not created a meat based industry that pollutes the environment and wastes racecourses far more than it contributes to the health of society. I agree that cooking was part of our evolutionary process. We are not done evolving yet! I choose to eat raw as part of my effort to keep the planet healthy. I eat green and clean because I believe it keeps the planet cleaner and greener. Eating meat may offer more calories, and I would probably eat it still if I was responsible for hunting and killing it. The only hunting I do these days is for wild foraged greens. Eating meat instead of eating raw is far healthier for me (based upon my personal health issues) and healthier for the planet (according to Al Gore.) Thanks Fred for bringing your passion for Raw and Health to me. I do appreciate your views and enjoy your books too.

    COMMENTS: You must mean eating raw instead of eating meat is healthier?

  30. Filip says:

    Dear Fred,
    your article shows in an excellent way how weak “a scientist’s logics” can be. With a grace, you “let him speak” and still assert your opinion. My opinion too 😉
    After some time of raw food coaching, i have to say most of my clients have much less calories than would be ideal. And they lose energy, taste for life, overalkalize their bodies, whatever… Fruits are the only sustainable tangible way how to shift our bodies towards the optimum… (of course we can get energy from the air and water, become breatharians, but that works for few in the world only).
    Fred i’d like to create a joint summer event with you in the Czech Republic (July / August). Can we arrange something? 😉
    Good Luck to all rawfoodists in the quest for calories!

  31. Linda Prettyman says:

    I am reminded of Dr. Barbara Moore who, through the 50′, walked all over the continents of the world eating nothing but the grasses and greens at the sides of the roads on the trips. Her walks often continued on for monthe at a time at an average speed of 6 miles an hour, walking an average of 16-18 hours a day. She needed little more than 4-6 hours of sleep a night, and never ran out of energy. I kid you not! She was followed all over the world by the medias of their day. Her intent was to show that a vegatarian diet provided sufficient energy for the human dietary. What meat eater, or high-cooked food eater has ever been known to do such a thing? She walked across the U.S. from San Francisco to New York, in 46 days. She was hoping to do it in 45 days.

    COMMENTS: I seriously doubt that anyone can live on grass and greens and walk 16 hours a day. For every story like that there’s the legend and then the reality. When put to the test there’s no a single "breatharian" than can live without food and escape the physiological laws that all humans are bound to. That being said, the Wikipedia entry for Barbara Moore states that she lived on honey, juice, fruits and nuts — which are all high calorie foods: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbara_Moore_(vegetarian)  — Of course I believe that the vegetarian diet provides sufficient energy.

  32. Linda Prettyman says:

    Incidentally, she was also in her 50’s in the 50’s when she was doing these journeys

  33. Malu says:

    Thank You Frederic! Wonderfull article and I love your comments! 🙂

  34. Marisa says:

    No, the question is what is the optimal human diet? Many humans eat any old junk and possibly did so for eons, especially in times of environmental stress, but that doesn’t make it optimal.

    COMMENTS: Yes I agree this is the right question!

  35. Ossi Kakko says:

    Ho!

    Fred, this is excellent article! I’m extremely happy to share the focus with a tiny detail about relation between sylvilization and nature. The point is our definition as horticulturalist-gatherer. The deeper I’ve gone with the research on “wild” foods the less wild the “wilds” seem to be. Wide angle of WILD fruit and berries are actually extremely sweet and if ever hybridized – that’s happened in far out of the horizon of our timeline… even in the boreal old growth forests the berries are sweet wherever the (soil) fertility is high and there’s enough light… and no clearcut history… Time scale for the managment is far more ancient tradition than symptoms which are known as civilization – defined with the war system of original tall blonde fire-apes from volcanic Iceland and their descendants in european mainland and fertile crescent, who eventually have been breeding all around the globe – seen as the ever continuing fight between matriarchal and patriarchal systems in form of greed, violence, rape and humiliation. To be more accurate than that, we’re talking about sylvilization – no matter has it ever before existed or not. Jubilantly dynamic new year for all 🙂

  36. Ollivier says:

    Wanted dynamic single 25-45 years old, for associated agreement to share:
    – Self sufficiency activities to create and already existing (including spirulina)
    -Folk Traditional music band playing (and dancing)
    -in an extended familial/tribal,100percent raw instincto diet lifestyle
    To prepare post industrial era in south France remote mountain, natural preserved area
    As a mid term target, starting with a woofing situation that can evolve if matching
    tribunature@no-log.org

  37. Ollivier says:

    The way you present instinctos is a stereotype which doesn t fits with reality.
    To judge how the concept is flawed you need to experiment otherwise you remain into your paradigm. I have experimented cooked, vegetarian, vegan, raw vegetarian, instincto, for long enough few years each, now 8 years for instinctos.
    What you states doesn t fits with my reality.
    Instinct works given that you give enough time to abandonne mental and cultural schemes.
    Eating 10 avocados thanks to the instinct i m sure is very rare, almost impossible, same for honey.
    So far all raw food vegetarians i ve met showed unsatisfaction , lack of energy and weekness to setle in a diet.
    I eat very few meat, but i have some, mainly insect, spirulina (i grow it, it s a bacteria not a plant).
    I used to be 70 kg for 1,84 m when i was 20 and making lots of sport and eating cooked food. Now i m 38 69 kg, raw instincto, and full energy.

  38. Steve says:

    Fred,

    Thanks so much for the freedom from dogmatism about raw diet.

    I am ideologically attracted to the raw food diet. I have tried for three years to find a way to make it work. I have read every book, including yours. I too find lower fat keeps the energy moving.

    However, I have concluded I am not able to sustain a raw food diet at present, most simply because I do not do well on a predominantly fruit diet. I have tried every configuration. I have wanted it to work. But, not every human is the same, in terms of body type, emotional disposition, and dietary needs.

    Without the use of predominantly fruit in the diet, calories will be coming largely from fat, and without question that does not work for me.
    Since adding cooked food back into my diet, while still including fresh green juices and green smoothies, I feel better and stronger than I have in three years. I have friends who seem to do well on the raw diet, but to paraphrase what another reader stated, better to be healthy than committed to an idea that raw is superior. It may or may not be. What works for you may be very different than what works for Doug Graham, or anyone else. And to find what works for you takes – a lot of work! And not merely committing your body to a regime outlined by someone else.
    With much appreciation,
    Steve

  39. Dave Meeks says:

    Fred:

    First, a compliment: I think you’re the most balanced and objective of the raw food gurus. The hardest part of my raw food journey has been the experience of well-being versus the unhappy, lack-of-life’s-joy dogma of the “garden-variety” raw foodist. You don’t judge, and that speaks volumes to me.

    Back to the subject…Don’t chimps and bonobos sometimes eat insects? And what if the issue is not what we eat, but rather that we focus on what we eat, and think it to death, rather than just listening to the body? “Aye, there’s the rub…”…and yet we have to clean out the channels after years of SAD abuse,in order to know how to listen to the body. How about challenging fears, stretching comfort zones, and let the body/appetite sort itself out?

    Thanks.

  40. Linda Prettyman says:

    Concerning the remarks made to my earlier post – I made no reference to her claim to a lengthy time on breatharianism, nor any reference to what she ate when not on those walks before the time of breatharianism; as she lived to the age of 73, in 1977, and was killed at that time by a car hitting her as she was on another U.S. coast to coast walk, she continued her pursuit of progress until the time of her death. I have the reference to her use of herbs by the wayside from another Dr. who followed her course many decades ago; if he was not altogether exact, yet I have repeatedly seen the newspaper reporters make up stuff as they go, tho having been given exact details, BECAUSE IT MADE MORE SENSE AND SOUNDED BETTER TO THEM. The reference in the Wiki is from a newspaper excerpt. Also, I’ve seen a picture of her beginning her trip to New York stepping off the courthouse steps in San Francisco with a banana and a glass of celery juice in her hand. Nevertheless, I’m confident of the honesty of my references – that she leaned on copious amounts of the roadside herbs.
    She also strongly urged that noone else try what she did, as she had spent some 20 years retraining herself to that level of efficiency.
    The Wiki input you referred is extremely sketchy. If you’re interested in finding what really happened, perhaps you can find some of the old media coverage that substantiate that she made that trip in 46 days in that amount of time – In which case, I can’t imagine who – female, 55-57 yrs. old, non-stop – could have done such a thing without having arterial, lymphatic, and venal systems, with powerful oxygon efficiency of the entire organism, in the most pristine condition. My own (limited) experience with the juice from greens is that they are the most powerful (mental, physical, and spiritual) source of energy available.
    Anyway, I didn’t intend to make a deal of it – Just thought to mention a path that hadn’t been introduced in the article. Of course, if you don’t believe that which has been demonstrated as true, you will certainly never go there.

  41. Ossi Kakko says:

    … story of Barbara Moore sounds interesting. For apx. 5 years ago I lived for few months mainly by drinking daily 3 dl of mixed various wild grass & herb juice ((in small shots all along the day)) and supplementing that with a daily handful of stinging nettle’s seeds((eaten by slowly chewing until completely dissolved in saliva, apx. 30-40 mins at time)) – I did eat smaller amounts of other things too, but the nutritional backbone was based in green juice and seeds of nettle… That time was during farm life with high physical activity. Stinging nettle and reedmace shoots do have caloric input comparable to potato even though they are “leafy” vegetables… and also stalks (tiges in french) of wild angelica taste sweet … I think living on the roadside wilds for 30-50 days is quite possible with a juicer, but more extended periods would likely become too difficult to sustain ((without the universe of other food items)) …

  42. […] patenaude posted possibly the most interesting article about the raw food movement i’ve ever read. this guy even contradicts some of the things he […]

  43. Nicole Troclet says:

    Blackberries are lovely and sweet a lot of the time and we have wild apple and pear trees on the hills around here that are quite edible even though the climate been oceanic it rains a lot. I am in the middle of reading a yet unpublished book that was sent to me a few days ago written by a couple of fruitarians arguing that fruit eating, increasing the size of the brain, is what contributed to this particular branch of apes becoming humans, increasing the length of childhood, which making babies heavy to carry made mothers go on the ground so they could forage for food at the same time for lengthy periods until baby could walk and babies not being able to fend for themselves needed more caring from the mother so creating a stronger bond. There would have possibly been various other named environmental issues which would have contributed too The authors also think that, since they have started eating cooked food, meat etc.., humans have sort of developped two brains instead of one with an overpowering left half which is into righthandedness, numbers, speech and is stopping the creative spiritual right half from functionning, and eating fruit helps enormously re-establishing the balance between the two halves with more unity. And much more… The sequence in the argumentation really holds itself. I am sure you will read the book when it is published.

  44. Ossi Kakko says:

    Nicole, is it something else than this: http://www.leftinthedark.org.uk/book ?

  45. yogaranka says:

    Hi Amber,

    How do you massage your greens? With salt? How about oils? I’m just curious. Thanks.

  46. Linda Prettyman says:

    Hello Ossi – I appreciated your input to my comment concerning Barbara Moore. I also more appreciated your story of trying out the wares of the woods. I had put in a counter-remark to Fred’s remark to my comment, his having introduced the subject of breatharianism, but it was deleted. I could see he didn’t want to look in that direction – still I was surprised to find my defense for my introduction had been deleted. Oh well. Last night I inadvertantly ran across some old notes I had taken on her experience, and was reminded of some things I had forgotten. Also, I found more information (internet) on her life that awed me – some things I had forgotten, and some I didn’t know. I found out she had died at the age of 73 in 1977 due to being hit by a car while she was doing another coast to coast walk in the United States – almost 20 years after the time I referred to in Fred’s comments. The woman was absolutely phenomenal. Went from a standard American vegetarian diet to breatharianism in 20 years. I have been following the breatharian claims for decades, never having sufficient evidence to make a conclusive decision as to it’s validity. But now I know that, at least for some (if not many – if they really chose to do so), breathatianism is a possibility. But she did say that it didn’t work at the lower altitudes as it did in the high mountains, as she regularly spent several months a year in Switzerland. But it takes years of focused commitment. I don’t believe it’s for me to go there; but now that I know it’s for real, I believe it would be irrational of me to not keep it at the top of the standard to which I advance. Obviously we have been endowed with an alimentary canal for the sole purpose of digestion; but I now see we are not to be so ceaselessly focused on eating as we have been taught. And brainwashed. We could go for extended periods of time without eating – in fine condition – if we were in condition.

    Did you eat the greens of the nettles also? I’ve heard of others who have. How do the seeds taste? I’ve never heard of reedmace, but will see if I can track it down.

    I hope I didn’t ramble on too much for you. I tried to tone it down. 🙂
    Sincerely – Linda

  47. Anil says:

    Excellent precis of the book, and really interesting interpretation of the evidence.
    The insight that although we are animals we are animals of a distinct kind – the kind that has always DONE things with the natural state – is an important one.
    “The Blended Banana” may be our true, invented heritage. Doug Graham says no one was born with a cooker attached to their body. True, in a mundane literal sense; but we are all born with very large, vivid, active brains. A metaphorical blender may very well be bouncing up and down, alongside our grass skirts.

  48. i really loved this article frederic, so much so i posted about it on my blog. and frankly it’s kind of a relief… i felt guilty every time i would eat cooked food and was constantly hungry when eating only raw.

    this makes a lot more sense to me. now i still eat low-fat and lots of fruits and veggies with one meal of healthy cooked food a day. so far so good.

    thanks for being so honest with us and with yourself.

  49. Richard Smith says:

    Fred, I just want to thank you for writing the article about your thoughts upon reading the book “Catching Fire.” Surprisingly, I came across that book on Amazon a couple months back, before you posted this article and decided to borrow it from my local library shortly thereafter. Coincidently, I recall reading many of the same quotes that you cited and the words holding a resonant truth for the live food community that I hoped would soon be heard by all. Fortunately, you took it upon yourself to share that truth that I and presumbably many others may have come to and/or will come to, especially with the help of your article. It’s so amazing how ideas manifest, particularly on a collective level, because I swear I came to the exact same conclusion about how raw foodist pricipally prepare food-i.e. blending, juicing, dehydrating, etc.-is essentially just that same as how the majority of modern human society prepares food, i.e. cooking, it’s simply a different process, but it’s “processing” all the same. Amazing I tell you!

    Anyhow, continue to do what you do and share information, no matter how antagonistic it may seem on the surface, because as you just proved in your article, there is much that a live foodist can glean from a book “seemingly” advocating cooking. Hopefully, you get a chance to read these words and if not, someone else on the this forum will and should that happen, I encourage you to read another “controversial” book that should be read by those adhering to a raw/live and/or plant-based diet and that is “THE VEGETARIAN MYTH” BY LIERRE KEITH. I have had the pleasue to read the book and despite some of the negative reviews it has received fromt the veg community, I recognize that is offers the same redeeming potential as “Catching Fire.”

    Peace and Good Health

  50. Carol says:

    Hi Frederick…I love your site, your fabulous insight and extensive knowledge about raw fooding.

    I’m a little strapped for money right now…but fully intend on buying the Starter Kit, even though I’ve been mostly raw for a couple of months, I do feel the more information the better.

    Thanks a trillion,
    Carol Saunders

Comments are closed for this post.