Men's Journal interview with Dr Fuhrman

For those questions and discussions on the McDougall program that don’t seem to fit in any other forum.

Moderators: JeffN, f1jim, John McDougall, carolve, Heather McDougall

Re: Men's Journal interview with Dr Fuhrman

Postby FitKid » Tue Nov 13, 2012 5:41 pm

didi wrote:I eat lots of raw foods but cooked food too. Our closest primate raw food eating ancestors live in a very narrow region of the earth and when their habitat goes, so do they. Cooking releases more energy in starches which can be eaten raw but raw will not provide the brain with enough glucose and the body with enough energy. Cooked starches probably are what enabled our ancient human ancestors to grow bigger brains and live in other environments all over the world. The Hadza tribe women of east africa prize and seek out as husbands men who are good hunters and will bring home lots of honey. Yet, the bulk of their diet is from a tuber which the women gather. They eat it raw as they gather it but bring it back to camp to cook. It is a luxury, in our culture to eat raw food, much of which is imported from long distances. I understand that this country, because of government subsidies for certain crops does not even produce enough fruits and vegetables for the population to consume in healthful quantities. And in winter months we have to depend on frozen or canned food if we want vegetables that would be eaten raw when in season.

I am not knowledgeable about what enzymes from plants are supposed to do for humans. I do know that the enzymes we produce in our own bodies are part of our own metabolism and plant enzymes are produced for the use of plants. While I understand the need for vitamins, minerals and phytochemicals, I am not convinced that plant enzymes are necessary for humans. Aren't they destroyed during the process of digestion?

Didi


Good question Didi!

Firstly lets slay that myth, yes plant enzymes are designed for plants, your right. BUT so are the vitamins, minerals, phytochemicals and even the starches. So you see we do produce our own enzymes for digestion BUT this argument has nothing to do with if plant enzymes play a role in human health (also aside from digestion as they would have you believe). We do require exogenous sources of nutrients and I don't think mother nature got anything wrong. In fact that arrogant argument was used with phytochemicals for a long time too! Vitamins and minerals were considered all we needed for a long long time and we are still seeing the destructive aftermath of this.

There's lots that we are still learning and it's being revealed that enzymes are so important the body actually reabsorbs them, they circulate in the bloodstream and get returned to the pancreas.

Can enzymes survive the stomach? Yes they can. It's been proven, there is no doubt. How many, in what quantities, and what role do they play??? Well that's what some are trying to find out (with little funding and lots of it coming from their own pockets). Needless to say Gerson, Wigmore, Shelton definitely were onto something and helped lots and lots of people. This is not anecdotal mumbo jumbo as they would have you believe. The book "raw logic" provides the scientific basis for the avoidance of certain cooking and the consumption of many raw foods.

Although a lot of so called experts attempt to dismiss enzymes, they are 100% wrong, just point out both myrosinase and allliinase. Learn about them and challenge them, these are already well established in the published literature.

So called anti-nutrients may also play a role in human health too such as hemagglutinins and trypsin inhibitors. They may also help additional enzymes to survive the stomach.

To put it more simply, lots of "stuff" survives the stomach including proteins (we know about the negative ones that cause auto-immune disease) and as you'd probably know pieces of corn if you've ever consumed it and look at the contents of your stool.

I also think it's very ironic that Dr. Fuhrman says that having a faster metabolism actually ages you faster. This is the exact theory of Howell (Natural Hygienist) and that we also have a finite capacity to produce enzymes. Thus we age.

Enzyme theory goes back a long way and includes Pythagoras, Bicher-Benner, Buchner, the famous Virtanen and many others who were the most outstanding people of their day.

Raw food is powerful medicine.

I see that you do not live in an area that has fresh food, I am sorry to hear that. The evidence shows that fresh food is probably one of the most beneficial things we can do for ourselves. Eating from cans has been proven to be disastrous to human health, it also contains many toxins.

Humans have a remarkable capacity to inhabit even inhospitable places although we can survive it doesn't mean we are meant to be in these places, we have to adapt the environment to suit us. Also as long as we survive to our 30s and have a few children, that's all that has really mattered. Living longer wasn't really necessary (practically speaking). So Howell might not have got it all right but might have been on the right track, simply observations of native populations evidences a lot of what has been seemingly discredited. Research is now providing new insights and showing us that these Grand Healers of Old (many doctors and scientists who just wanted to help their patients) were onto something, perhaps not in the way they explained but they were right none the less. Orthomolecular medicine is an interesting area, that is medicine by nutrition (I don't agree with all in this area either as much of it has become "pharmaceuticalized"). Also there are major differences between food with vitamins and synthetic ones, to mistake the difference is a rookie error.

Also you'll note that we should limit our cooking mainly to steaming and boiling. And yes tribes have survived calories but do not put all your faith into stories recounted of tribes that you were not witness to. There's a lot more that goes on than some anthropologist observes or takes notes on. Many "secrets" in these tribes are simply never taught to an outsider too.

In summary Fuhrman probably knows a lot better but I'd imagine does not want to push himself too far away from the mainstream. He even features chicken and low fat dairy in his advice and meats do feature on his charts despite his protestations on their dangers.

Hope this helps, you can start "googling" the names of people and info that I am really very quickly glossing over.
FitKid
 
Posts: 60
Joined: Sun Nov 04, 2012 3:30 pm

Re: Men's Journal interview with Dr Fuhrman

Postby f1jim » Tue Nov 13, 2012 6:23 pm

I have my doubts about the "enzyme" theories promoted by the raw food groups. The previous post makes it sound like established science. As far as I know it is anything but. I am not saying anything posted isn't true but I'm a stubborn old coot so show me.
Please provide some references to solid data establishing a benefit to consuming plant enzymes. Not theory, data. I googled your two enzymes, myrosinase and allliinase, and learned much about theoir use in plant defense yet nothing about how human consumption renders benefits. Please clarify with some detail.
I'm not trying to be argumentative but I need something more than "just wait and see." to get on board. I'm also waiting for the data on how canned products have been "disastrous" to human health.
f1jim
While adopting this diet and lifestyle program I have reversed my heart disease, high cholesterol, hypertension, and lost 54 lbs. You can follow my story at https://www.drmcdougall.com/james-brown/
User avatar
f1jim
 
Posts: 11349
Joined: Sun Feb 17, 2008 4:45 pm
Location: Pacifica, CA

Re: Men's Journal interview with Dr Fuhrman

Postby FitKid » Tue Nov 13, 2012 6:53 pm

May I place the onus back on you... go and find out.

I'm happy to go some length of the way to provide you with references on raw food and enzymes...

Firstly read the book "Raw Logic" by L. Murray (2000).

Then start looking into work by Prochaska and Piekutowski.

Here we go... (if you look at them and want more just ask).

Prochaska et. al. (1992) Rapid detection of inducers of enzymes that protect against carcinogens. Proceedings. National Academy of Sciences (USA) 89, 2394-2398

Prochaska et. al. (1994) ON the synergistic effects of enzymes in food with enzymes in the human body. Medical hypotheses 42, 355-362

Pisani P et. al Carrots, green vegetables and lung cancer. A case-controlled study. International Journal of Epidemiology 15, 463-468

Boobis A.R at al. Enzymatic Studies of the activation of Hetrocyclic Amines food mutagens in man.

Dixon, M. et al (1958) Enzymes. Longman.

Dragsted, L. O. Et al. (1993) Cancer protective factors in fruits and Vegetables. Pharmacology and toxicology 72, supp 1 116-135



Now I am happy to do a few more but needless to say medical doctors do not receive training in nutrition, they are not biochemists or cellular biologists.

Let me know how you go?

BTW I am not promoting any theory by popular raw foodists, I am my person.

I'll add more about can products later, but they did studies on those living on only can food back in the turn of the last century (British Military) and it was in my opinion terrible for the participants. They contain BPA and other toxins, I'll look it up and get back as i have to go to work now.

Also where were you looking on myrosinase and alliinase... proper literature I hope... I get you proper references on those too!
FitKid
 
Posts: 60
Joined: Sun Nov 04, 2012 3:30 pm

Re: Men's Journal interview with Dr Fuhrman

Postby f1jim » Tue Nov 13, 2012 7:15 pm

Admittedly, I am scanning rather quickly, but I am finding a lot of speculative work that leads to hope(and more research dollars) that perhaps there is something here to possibly do research on to discover if some of these compounds can deliver anti-cancerous effects on humans. Even the studies say much more work is necessary to document such properties. What I do see is possibilities down the road but nothing to show dramatic effects from certain enzymes. In fact not much is mentioned on the fragility of these compounds from cooking in the reports you gave. One wonders if they are destroyed in cooking. Could there be something here? It's possible but it's not certain science or even close to it yet.
I'm also still looking for all the human deaths and disease from canned food. I'll be standing by. Oh, I read several articles on the two enzymes you mentioned earlier and as I said, lot's of data on their use as a defensive tool for plants but your data is forthcoming so I will anxiously await it's arrival.
f1jim
While adopting this diet and lifestyle program I have reversed my heart disease, high cholesterol, hypertension, and lost 54 lbs. You can follow my story at https://www.drmcdougall.com/james-brown/
User avatar
f1jim
 
Posts: 11349
Joined: Sun Feb 17, 2008 4:45 pm
Location: Pacifica, CA

Re: Men's Journal interview with Dr Fuhrman

Postby rydinearth » Tue Nov 13, 2012 7:22 pm

This is interesting. I was looking for a discussion on raw food. I wanted to see what Dr. McDougall's or Jeff Novick's response is to the raw food movement.
I have no doubt that eating raw food has a great many benefits, but I doubt I will ever adopt a completely raw food lifestyle, for several reasons.
One is the lack of year round availability of good quality organic produce in my area.
Also, many of the raw food recipes I've seen call for expensive and hard to find ingredients, and very long preparation times, involving dehydrators and complex and time consuming processes. It looks to me like it would be almost a full time job eating this way, unless you can either afford a private chef, or just want to do nothing but munch on raw veggies all day (which I don't).
The other thing is, I have doubts about the satiety and satisfaction of this way of eating. It might be great to do it for a week or so, but I don't know if I could stick with it. I've heard of a lot of raw fooders who were not satisfied with it for one reason or another, and left it for a more inclusive way of eating, such as the McDougall program.
As an alternative, it seems to me that one could eat a largely raw food diet, or even consume raw veggie juice or smoothies along with their other food, and thereby obtain most or all of the benefits from the raw food, while still consuming a partly cooked food diet.
It may be that, after a time with my current way of eating, my continuing research will convince me enough that I'll be ready to transition to raw or mostly raw food. But for now, there is something deeply satisfying to me about the flavors and aromas of cooked food, which I'm not willing to do without, not even for superhuman health, immunity and longevity.
Although I'm all for living in as healthy a way as possible, it isn't worth very much to me if it means making food selection and preparation a full time job, or giving up all the fundamental little joys I derive from food and eating. I'm happy with the results I've seen in myself and others, eating the way I do now; consistent and lasting weight loss, lowered blood pressure, reversal of long standing chronic degenerative diseases, better energy, improved mood, better sex life etc etc. If eating this way is "toxic", as raw fooders seem to believe, it's a peculiar form of toxicity.
As I've explored this way of eating (plant based), I've had to learn to filter a lot of the information that comes my way. As you travel this road, it seems that around every corner there are all these little "splinter groups", each with their own cherished dogmas about food and nutrition, each one believing that no matter how healthy you are eating now, you could still be healthier if only you ate their way instead; that no matter how much you've given up already, you could be healthier still if you only dispense with a few more things that bring you pleasure and joy in life. I've learned to take what I like and leave the rest. :-)
I think that if I hadn't applied some sort of filter up till now, I'd be crawling around in my front yard pulling up grass with my teeth and lapping water out of a stream.
I'm being deliberately facetious of course, but this is an interesting conversation, nonetheless.
Image
User avatar
rydinearth
 
Posts: 34
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2012 11:35 am
Location: Western NY State

Re: Men's Journal interview with Dr Fuhrman

Postby FitKid » Tue Nov 13, 2012 7:25 pm

f1jim wrote:Admittedly, I am scanning rather quickly, but I am finding a lot of speculative work that leads to hope(and more research dollars) that perhaps there is something here to possibly do research on to discover if some of these compounds can deliver anti-cancerous effects on humans. Even the studies say much more work is necessary to document such properties. What I do see is possibilities down the road but nothing to show dramatic effects from certain enzymes. In fact not much is mentioned on the fragility of these compounds from cooking in the reports you gave. One wonders if they are destroyed in cooking. Could there be something here? It's possible but it's not certain science or even close to it yet.
I'm also still looking for all the human deaths and disease from canned food. I'll be standing by.
f1jim


Haha there's more coming... but your logic is funny.

All those deaths from canned food. Did I say that. I said negative health consequence, yes. And BPA, I suppose your opinion is that BPA is great for us along with dioxins?

Could you please provide me with DATA, solid data that the BPA present in canned food is good to humans? I am standing by.
FitKid
 
Posts: 60
Joined: Sun Nov 04, 2012 3:30 pm

Re: Men's Journal interview with Dr Fuhrman

Postby f1jim » Tue Nov 13, 2012 7:38 pm

It works the other way. We have data that BPA is present in certain canned goods but there is only speculative possibilities of damage to humans. It may very well be a problem. Like most things of concern when attention is focused on it changes are made. That's the way things work in almost every aspect of our lives.
As was alluded to in a previous post, we tend to look at human experience as a guide to future behavior. For example, we know from examining cultures world wide that the less animal products consumed the healthier the culture. Can we say that about raw food consumption? To a certain extent we can. We know that the more fruits and vegetables consumed the more good health we see. Can we make the jump to the more intact enzymes from raw food consumed the better the health? That's the data I want to see. Not speculative, in vitro studies asking for more studies to determine if an enzyme might be effective for human health.
When Dr. McDougall, Bernard, Campbell, make a claim for better health through dietary change it's backed up by solid science.
When someone makes a claim about enzymes I want the same thing.
Same with canned food. Not all canned foods have BPA. In fact fewer every day. That doesn't make canned food the problem it makes the use of certain compounds the problem. Change the compound, problem goes away. I'm open to your ideas but only to a point. That point is reasonableness.
f1jim
While adopting this diet and lifestyle program I have reversed my heart disease, high cholesterol, hypertension, and lost 54 lbs. You can follow my story at https://www.drmcdougall.com/james-brown/
User avatar
f1jim
 
Posts: 11349
Joined: Sun Feb 17, 2008 4:45 pm
Location: Pacifica, CA

Re: Men's Journal interview with Dr Fuhrman

Postby f1jim » Tue Nov 13, 2012 7:50 pm

I have a few articles you might also find revealing. They come from a source I call highly respected. Tell me your thoughts on them? Somehow I get the feeling I might already know.

http://www.beyondveg.com/tu-j-l/raw-coo ... d-1a.shtml

http://www.beyondveg.com/tu-j-l/raw-coo ... ml#enzymes

http://www.beyondveg.com/billings-t/spr ... eory.shtml

Enjoy.
f1jim
While adopting this diet and lifestyle program I have reversed my heart disease, high cholesterol, hypertension, and lost 54 lbs. You can follow my story at https://www.drmcdougall.com/james-brown/
User avatar
f1jim
 
Posts: 11349
Joined: Sun Feb 17, 2008 4:45 pm
Location: Pacifica, CA

Re: Men's Journal interview with Dr Fuhrman

Postby FitKid » Tue Nov 13, 2012 9:52 pm

f1jim wrote:It works the other way. We have data that BPA is present in certain canned goods but there is only speculative possibilities of damage to humans. It may very well be a problem. Like most things of concern when attention is focused on it changes are made. That's the way things work in almost every aspect of our lives.
As was alluded to in a previous post, we tend to look at human experience as a guide to future behavior. For example, we know from examining cultures world wide that the less animal products consumed the healthier the culture. Can we say that about raw food consumption? To a certain extent we can. We know that the more fruits and vegetables consumed the more good health we see. Can we make the jump to the more intact enzymes from raw food consumed the better the health? That's the data I want to see. Not speculative, in vitro studies asking for more studies to determine if an enzyme might be effective for human health.
When Dr. McDougall, Bernard, Campbell, make a claim for better health through dietary change it's backed up by solid science.
When someone makes a claim about enzymes I want the same thing.
Same with canned food. Not all canned foods have BPA. In fact fewer every day. That doesn't make canned food the problem it makes the use of certain compounds the problem. Change the compound, problem goes away. I'm open to your ideas but only to a point. That point is reasonableness.
f1jim


Firstly your "all the deaths from canned food" tone was that canned food is safe, I think it is not. I never said food or the contents (ie potateos) were the problem, it's the fact they are in cans, I specifically mentioned BPA before you commenced your comment "all the deaths from canned food". Happy to disagree with you here and reasonably so, see the links below...

http://www.ewg.org/reports/bisphenola
http://www.smh.com.au/lifestyle/diet-an ... 1oksm.html

The evidence leans heavily against you on BPA and whether or not it is associated with disastrous health consequences. There exists enough evidence to show that the "contamination" is widespread ("normal") around the world when it comes to canned food.

Could you please provide any experts or references that say BPA in canned food and it's prevalence is good for human health?

As far as raw food goes, your links in the other post talk about Howell's theory of Life Force, something I never endorsed it, in fact I specially stated that he wasn't right but on the right track, meaning that enzymes may indeed play a role in human health. I also mentioned that enzymes were of such importance that the body reabsorbs and recycles it's own (previously this was dismissed). Phytochemicals were also thoroughly dismissed and look where we are now. Also I haven't provided you with any of the other links as yet... although I like the enthusiasm you display against what I am writing about... rather than say they may play a role, you seem quick to jump against it altogether. We see cases where in many cancer subjects raw foods do provide superior benefits to cooked (as I said links are forth coming).

Further I checked on the first page that talks about cooking reactions and specially Maillard Chemistry and it was somewhat dismissive in tone. Further where are the references to the assertions that the articles make?

CANCER CAUSING AGENTS FROM COOKING: Protein-Crossing linking and the forming of Acrilymides, HCAs, AGEs, PCAH during the cooking process are toxic and are recommended by ALL experts to be kept out of the human diet or to the very minimum. These occur during cooking except for steaming and boiling methods. The science here is solid.

Do you care to disagree? If so please provide credible reference.

I am not against starches, in fact the opposite I am totally for them! As we require macro-nutrients to survive, although I have very strong doubts that a diet of cooked potateos for any entire life span would prove sufficient for optimal health. I think that's a reasonable assertion, do you?

Here are some more references as I cautioned you about, I don't think your position holds, let me know if you think it does?

Fontana L et. al. (2006) Long-term low protein, low-calorie and endurance exercise modulate metabolic factors associated with cancer risk. Am J Clin Nut.
Done with Raw Vegan Participants.

Nenoene M.T. (1998) Uncooked, lactobacilli-rich vegan food and rheumatoid arthritis. Br J Rheum. 37
Done with Raw Vegan Participants.

World Cancer Research Fund. American Institute of Cancer Research. (2007) Food, Nutrition, Physical Activity and the Prevention of Cancer.
Showed Superior Benefits to Raw Vegetables.

Steinmerz. KA et al. (1991) Vegetables, fruits and cancer prevention, a review. J Am Diet Assoc.

Tang L et. al. (2008) Consumption of raw cruciferous vegetables is inversely associated with bladder cancer. Cancer Epi. Biomarkers Prev.

Garcia et. al. (2008) Long term strict raw food diet associated with favorable plasma beta carotene and low plasma lycopene concentration in Germans. Br j Nutrition. 99 1293-300

Ferracane et. al (2008) Effects of different cooking methods on antioxidant profile, antioxidant capacity and physical characteristic of artichoke.
Random example.

Myrosinase and Alliinase:
Tapiero H et al (2004) Organosulfur compounds form alliaceae in the prevention of human pathologies. Biomed. Pharmacother. 58:183-93

Song Et. al (2001) The influence of heating on the anticancer properties of garlic. J Nutrition 131:1054S57S

Vakkejo F (2002) Glucosinolates and Vitamin C content in edible parts of broccoli after domestic cooking. Eur Food Res Techn. 215:310-16

Ali M Et. Al (1999) Effect of raw vs boiled aqueous extract of garlic and onion on platelet aggregation. Prostaglandins Leukot. Essen Fat Acid. 60:43-47

Shapiro TA et Al (2001) chemoprotective clucosinolates and isothiocyanantes of broccoli sprouts: metabolism and extretion in humans. Cancer Epidem Biomarkers Prev. 10:501-08

Fahey JW (1997) Broccoli Sprouts: An exceptionally rich source of inducers of enzymes that protect against chemcial carcinogens. Proc natl Acad Scie USA 94:10267-72

I've got about geez probably 1000 references... (sorry tired of typing)

Now I am very happy for you to ask Prof. T. Colin Campbell or others about what I have written here and ask them about the science I writing about here. Feel free to show my posts too and ask if it is reasonable.

In fact I'd go so far as to say you should check as you may not be giving the best advice here.
FitKid
 
Posts: 60
Joined: Sun Nov 04, 2012 3:30 pm

Re: Men's Journal interview with Dr Fuhrman

Postby Waingapu » Tue Nov 13, 2012 10:20 pm

FitKid wrote:In fact I'd go so far as to say you should check as you may not be giving the best advice here.


Perhaps you could include the definitive study that shows that people who eat raw food almost exclusively, live longer than those who cook significant portions of their food.

Also, you might include a study that shows they get less colds, flu, etc. while they are alive.
Waingapu
 

Re: Men's Journal interview with Dr Fuhrman

Postby FitKid » Tue Nov 13, 2012 10:38 pm

Waingapu wrote:
FitKid wrote:In fact I'd go so far as to say you should check as you may not be giving the best advice here.


Perhaps you could include the definitive study that shows that people who eat raw food almost exclusively, live longer than those who cook significant portions of their food.

Also, you might include a study that shows they get less colds, flu, etc. while they are alive.


Buddy,
I am not going to engage with you. Suggest you stay out of this one.
FitKid
 
Posts: 60
Joined: Sun Nov 04, 2012 3:30 pm

Re: Men's Journal interview with Dr Fuhrman

Postby Waingapu » Tue Nov 13, 2012 10:53 pm

FitKid wrote:
Waingapu wrote:
FitKid wrote:In fact I'd go so far as to say you should check as you may not be giving the best advice here.


Perhaps you could include the definitive study that shows that people who eat raw food almost exclusively, live longer than those who cook significant portions of their food.

Also, you might include a study that shows they get less colds, flu, etc. while they are alive.


Buddy,
I am not going to engage with you. Suggest you stay out of this one.


What, ALL those studies and not one good one that confirms your over all theme?

Well then, if not longevity or health, what would be your criteria to show/prove the benefit of going mostly raw?

"Suggest you stay out of this one"... Sounds like yet another of your "I know best" statements...
Waingapu
 

Re: Men's Journal interview with Dr Fuhrman

Postby FitKid » Tue Nov 13, 2012 10:55 pm

Waingapu wrote:
What, ALL those studies and not one good one that confirms your over all theme?

Well then, if not longevity or health, what would be your criteria to show/prove the benefit of going mostly raw?

"Suggest you stay out of this one"... Sounds like yet another of your "I know best" statements...


They all do. Look, read and learn. Email Prof. Campbell, he'll set you straight too.
FitKid
 
Posts: 60
Joined: Sun Nov 04, 2012 3:30 pm

Re: Men's Journal interview with Dr Fuhrman

Postby f1jim » Tue Nov 13, 2012 11:00 pm

Wow, I need to prove BPA is beneficial? Hmmm. I didn't post here saying there were disastrous health consequences to canned foods. You did. Therefore the burden of proof is not on me it's on you to prove it has done so. I may agree mostly, that BPA is not something I prefer to consume but has it had disastrous consequences? You must prove that. I am free to accept or reject any such claim and place it along the spectrum of valid-----------to worthless. In the meantime the process goes on toward removing it from many canning facilities.

You said:
" Protein-Crossing linking and the forming of Acrilymides, HCAs, AGEs, PCAH during the cooking process are toxic and are recommended by ALL experts to be kept out of the human diet or to the very minimum. These occur during cooking except for steaming and boiling methods. The science here is solid.

Do you care to disagree? If so please provide credible reference."

Again, you make a claim then put the burden of proof on me to disprove it. The person making the claim has the entire burden of proof. You conveniently sidestepped the arguments I put forth and continued making more unsubstantiated claims. I encourage everyone to pursue your links and determine if your claims are substantiated. Certainly the number of studies you quote is high. It's good that these studies are in the system but do they prove your point? I'm not convinced because I'm looking for something a bit different in terms of outcome than you are. All cultures have a history in regard to chronic disease. Many seem to have excellent health and longevity and manage to do that on a diet heavy on cooked foods. That tells me something. Perhaps that means we won't ever agree till I see something a bit more substantial in convincing me to convert to more raw. Perhaps reading the clearly charismatic writing in "Raw Logic." Till then the data on cooked vs raw is pretty even as I see it. Good things happen when you consume both foods but not enough to convince me cooked food is dangerous or toxic. Nor do your articles. But then, maybe I am just pigheaded. If so many of you will be quick to let me know!
By the way, I happen to know that Dr. Campbell eats a diet high in cooked foods. I guess he hasn't studied the literature.

f1jim
While adopting this diet and lifestyle program I have reversed my heart disease, high cholesterol, hypertension, and lost 54 lbs. You can follow my story at https://www.drmcdougall.com/james-brown/
User avatar
f1jim
 
Posts: 11349
Joined: Sun Feb 17, 2008 4:45 pm
Location: Pacifica, CA

Re: Men's Journal interview with Dr Fuhrman

Postby Waingapu » Tue Nov 13, 2012 11:12 pm

Raw food......Building 7, I'm seeing a pattern here

If only I were more intelligent, perhaps then it would all be clear.
Waingapu
 

PreviousNext

Return to The Lounge

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 19 guests



Welcome!

Sign up to receive our regular articles, recipes, and news about upcoming events.