12-04-2011, 07:28 PM
(12-04-2011, 06:55 PM)Tenet Nosce Wrote:(12-04-2011, 06:49 PM)Diana Wrote:(12-04-2011, 06:32 PM)Tenet Nosce Wrote: Now I understand that "raw" can supposedly mean up to 120 degrees or so... but c'mon isn't that just confusing? I don't think the average person thinks of that as "raw". Why not say "lightly cooked"?
I believe the idea is that over a certain temperature, you destroy the enzymes.
I see that. But the body also makes enzymes of its own... plus the process of cooking actually accomplishes much of what the enzymes do.
What I was trying to get at is I take a bit of a issue with the "raw food" movement being somewhat of a misnomer. What? By "raw" you mean "raw or lightly cooked"? To me that is similar to talking about "animal rights" when you really mean "bird and mammal rights". I am using "you" in the general sense.
I think there is always a problem with "labeling." I, for instance, don't aspire to be a "raw-fooder." I do, however, see the efficacy in bringing live food into my body for fuel (plant-based of course). I do eat cooked food as well. But I endeavor to eat "live" food everyday. It seems logical that it has life force. It seems logical that cooked food is "dead."