Day 52- FOOD FOR THOUGHT: Susun Weed on Breaking Down Cell Walls

[Bunny Berry]

I have watched this debate between Brigette Mars and Susun Weed several times during the past week, and this particular segment keeps coming back to me. I basically agree with Susun's assessment that what goes into our mouth's might be raw, but it eventually gets cooked by the body.

Susun's argument that chopping, juicing, and chewing is not breaking down the cell wall in order to get nutrition is an interesting one. And that we would need to eat 40-50 pounds a day of uncooked food (which then gets cooked by our stomach acids) in order to get enough nutrition from the food to be fully nourished. What say you? Talk amongst yourselves.

[Tonya Dahl]

Being on a raw food diet, we do not need to consume so much food as all the nutrients and enzymes are intact. I think the enzymes or key to digestion. Most people overeat cooked food because their bodies are looking and needing enzymes. I do agree with what Susan says about meat and cooking it for a long time, but that is another debate. I personally believe an ideal diet is a high raw 70-90% raw and very limited amounts of cooked grass fed pasture animals kosher killed and wild caught fish. No dairy, cheese, or grain products.

Here is an intersting article: http://www.shazzie.com/life/articles/raw_vegan_children.shtml

[Jennifer]

Sorry to be vain, but looking at them is enough to help me decide who I want to listen to. Wonder what their ages are?

[Bunny Berry]

What frustrates me about these kinds of debates is that there is actual research done on cooked food, but so little is done on uncooked food. So, one person has numbers and pictures and the other is talking about a plant's life force and vibrations.

If the mainstream is going to take raw food seriously, there has to be some science behind it.

[Bunny Berry]

Not to say that Susun Weed's handouts are scientific proof.

Bunny Berry said:

What frustrates me about these kinds of debates is that there is actual research done on cooked food, but so little is done on uncooked food. So, one person has numbers and pictures and the other is talking about a plant's life force and vibrations.

If the mainstream is going to take raw food seriously, there has to be some science behind it.

[Angie]

Some things that caught my attention: she said that freezing & dehydrating break down cell walls. What does she mean by saying that juicing doesn't break down cell walls? I don't see any stiff stuff in my juice - cell walls are the stiff fiber, right? She also doesn't think that food is raw if it's been acted on by bacteria or stomach acid, and she said that we're not really eating raw food. So her argument that we'd need 40-50 pounds of "raw" food only applies if we're not digesting it, since the stuff we eat doesn't stay raw? I didn't hear any good argument for NEEDING to cook our food; just an argument that raw foodists aren't actually eating raw food. Am I the only one who saw it this way?

[Nathalie Lussier]

Thanks for sharing this video Bunny. It's something that's really interesting, because my boyfriend comes from a Chinese background where they do cook soup for hours... They usually prepare soups every day, or every 2 days. Of course I believe that all of these cooking methods were developed as a means to survival.. and the idea of eating something in the winter that you grew yourself is great... but maybe we weren't meant to survive in cold climates? Birds migrate, and so do other animals. I know humans used to do the same too.

I'm from Canada, so maybe my thoughts on eating raw vs. cooked in the winter are a little biased. ;)

[Bob Hedges]

Both Susun and Brigette have some points but what Dory said is very true. She said, "but maybe the reality is that there is no one way." Raw food is the very best kind of food to eat BUT the raw food diet is not the best diet for many people because of their body chemistry. It is something that we can all move towards but to jump into 100% raw diet is very very hard on the body. If the liver is functioning at peak performance the digestive juices will be able to extract the minerals from the food we eat. If it is not, the food will not be digested completely. That is one of the reasons some raw foodists are not any healthier than a SAD eater - their body chemistry is lacking due to mineral deficiencies and years of abuse. The key to health is the ability of the body to extract the minerals from the food we eat and then to absorb those minerals. Through body chemistry analysis, one can easily tell the strength or weakness of their liver and other major organs. My new website, which is very incomplete, is www.Re-Mineralize.com. It talks about the importance of re-mineralization and body chemistry analysis. I was a 100% raw foodist but in the last year have added some cooked foods back into my diet for the minerals they contain. Raw for the sake of raw when you don't know your body chemistry can be an unwise choice. When the digestive system of a human is functioning properly, the hardness or softness of a cell wall or membrane is insignificant.

[teamrose]

Going on a raw food diet, I know of the health benefits I received. I Googled Susan Weed, and also looked at all her youtube videos. Her thinking and reasoning did not make sense to me. I do believe she knows about healing herbs. I will stick to all the research done by places like Hippocrates, which have documented cased of healed people of every imaginable disease with a strictly raw food diet.

I've lost 60 pounds since January 2009 and totally gotten rid of arthritis on a raw food diet. By the way, if you cook your food before you eat it, and then your body cooks it again, you have doubly killed the goodness.

[Angie]

I don't feel nearly as great if I steam my veggies or eat non-raw versions of the exact same kinds of dried fruit. But that doesn't mean that everyone else would have the same reaction - I think I'm going with what someone said that maybe there's not just one way for everyone.

LadyJ said:

I enjoyed watching this! I agree with the comment above that looking at the two debaters was at least a little illuminating. I've never quite bought into the enzyme theory about raw foods, but haven't looked into it extensively either. I think that the bottom line is that as a raw foodist, you're not eating anything processed. Nothing comes from a package. There are no refined sugars. Of course it makes us feel great. A vegan who ate the identical foods, but cooked their fruits, nuts, and vegetables might feel and look just as great, though.

[Angie]

I agree - with both of these comments! I would love to see more science used in the raw world, and I didn't see anything particularly scientific about Susun's presentation. I can hold up a picture of a plant cell and say that juicing DOES break down the cell wall, but neither of us has given any scientific proof that our argument is correct. The Vita-mix company claims that their product is capable of breaking raw plant food down to the cellular level to unlock the nutrition. What does Susun have to say about that? I think I'm just irritated that she's saying we shouldn't eat raw food because it doesn't stay raw in our stomachs. It's a strange & confusing argument to me.

Bunny Berry said:

Not to say that Susun Weed's handouts are scientific proof.

Bunny Berry said:

What frustrates me about these kinds of debates is that there is actual research done on cooked food, but so little is done on uncooked food. So, one person has numbers and pictures and the other is talking about a plant's life force and vibrations.

If the mainstream is going to take raw food seriously, there has to be some science behind it.

[SillyGooseMama]

Well this may sound shallow, but what I kept thinking when I watched this was how much more healthy and youthful Brigette LOOKED. I don't know the age difference between the two women, but her skin and hair look so much more glossy and glow-y.

[Bunny Berry]

Okay, so Dr. Google led me to this article http://highered.mcgraw-hill.com/sites/dl/free/0072437316/120060/how... , which seems to be from a text book or a higher education handout from McGraw Hill. The article is discussing how a blade of grass knows which WAY to grow, but discusses how enzymes effect the rigidity of cell walls while the plant is growing.

According to this paper, "A growing cell first performs a little chemistry to make its wall slightly acidic. The acidity activates enzymes that attack the cell wall from the inside, rearranging cellulose cross-links until the wall loses its rigidity. The cell wall is now able to stretch. The cell then sucks in water, creating pressure. Like blowing up a long balloon, the now-stretchable cell elongates."

And also: "In newly made cells, the microtubule assemblies are already present, but are not organized. They simply lie about in random disarray. As the cell prepares to elongate by lessening the rigidity of its cell wall, the microtubule assemblies become organized into the orderly transverse arrays we call cortical microtubules."

SO! Perhaps this question of breaking down the cell wall completely depends on the plant, and whether we are meant to eat the plant at all. As a caveman, I'd eat the grass, and maybe feel sick. But I try a small tender dandelion green and feel nourished. I have to assume that all cell walls are not identical in rigidity and strength. And I will assume this until I'm able to dig further into it with Dr. Google or the local Dr. Library.