Jędruś napisał(a):Obie teorie E. von Danikena i Prof. Richarda Wranghama są zbyt jednostronne. U tego pierwszego brak bezpośrednich dowodów na przybyszów z kosmosu, tak jakby nie dawał wiary w umiejętności techniczne naszych przodków.
U drugiego używanie ognia było znane kilku, jak nie kilkunastu gatunkom homonidów, a jedynie człowiek (H. sapiens) był w stanie założyć cywilizację, pewnie lepiej przypiekał na ogniu.
Howell to co innego, podaje literaturę z której jasno wynika że:
Żadna grupa etniczna nie żyje, ani nie żyła w 100% na termicznie obrabianej żywności
Niektóre grupy etniczne żyły i może jeszcze żyją w mniejszych, bardziej izolowanych miejscach praktycznie na 100% surowej żywności, chodzi tutaj o Eskimosów (Inuici, Lapończycy, Jakuci)
Wszystkie pozostałe gatunki zwierząt (za wyjątkiem osobników trzymanych na fermach itp.) są na dietach surowej żywności.
OK.
Dosyć sporo informacji na temat witarianizmu znajduje się tutaj:
http://www.beyondveg.com/tu-j-l/raw-coo ... toc1.shtmlNie przebrnąłem przez wszystko, nie mam tyle czasu , ale co powiesz na to (patrz wygrubienia
The food enzyme theory in a nutshell
Howell's theory of "food enzymes" as discussed in the above two books basically proposes the following:
* That the enzymes present in raw foods are of significant help in digesting the foods themselves once they are put into the human digestive system.
* That cooking destroys these "food enzymes," forcing the body to produce more of its own digestive enzymes than would otherwise be necessary to digest the food.
* That the body has a finite lifetime "enzyme potential" for manufacturing digestive enzymes, which is important for preserving health and longevity; and a portion of which is unrecoverably "used up" in producing otherwise unnecessary digestive enzymes each time cooked foods are eaten.
* That enzymes in raw food also carry the "life force," which can be transferred to the body, enhancing vitality and longevity; and that the body must use up some of its own "life force"/"enzyme potential" to compensate whenever cooked foods (that have no life force/live enzymes) are eaten.
In a nutshell, those are the primary elements of Howell's "food enzyme" theory. It is basically a hybrid two-part theory, part hypothetical science,
part mystical theory. The first three bullet points above put forward the physiological elements of the theory;
the fourth bullet proposes a mystical element that is, ultimately, unverifiable by experimental method, thus unscientific. In one sense, if the principle of Occam's Razor were to be employed, the fourth bullet could be pared away from the theory as entirely unnecessary, since it is essentially a redundant duplication (one restated in mystical terminology) of the physiology proposed in bullet point number three.
Reference sources for theory are outdated. Although both Howell books proposing the food-enzyme theory are dated, they are still among the most often-cited references in raw-food circles. In the 1946 book, for example,
most scientific references cited are from the 1920s and 1930s. (By the way, isn't it startling that three major raw-foodist references are more than 50 years old--leukocytosis, Pottenger's cats, and Howell's 1946 book?) As we proceed, we'll see several examples where Howell's claims are based on such outdated science (which is still harked back to by his proponents today) as to completely invalidate a claim by that very fact, let alone the logical problems which also riddle much of Howell's theory.
Napisane: 30 lis 2009, o 21:57