Monthly Archive for February, 2009

Raw Foodism: My Opinion

There is this trajectory I keep seeing.  People start out omniverous, but they begin having some issues with meat, so they become vegetarian.  After a while, they get used to that and start thinking about those poor chickens in their cages, or start reading a little too much about sustainability.  They decide to try to become vegan.  Eventually they succeed in getting their animal product consumption down to a minimum.

But then, all of the sudden, they have no more cooking challenges, and everyone around them is vegan, and they miss that radical exploratory feeling they used to get every time they baked a vegan cookie.  But their animal product consumption is down to zero, and where do you go from zero?

Answer: Raw Foodism.

They stop cooking and instantly all their old recipes are impossible to make, their friends all think they are a weirdo, and they are feeling that familiar lightheaded feeling from when they dropped red meat in the first place and became anemic.  Ah, memories.

I started down this road.  I’ve made raw cheesecake, raw hummous, raw tacos.  It was sort of fun.  I’ve felt the “raw food buzz” many people get when they do a couple  days of 100% raw food.

I’ve also read a bit about nutrition and cooking and the chemical reactions that happen when you cook stuff, and I’ve come to this conclusion:

Raw food is healthy, but not because it’s raw.

Raw foodists (rightly) rave about the wonderful changes in their lives that came when they went raw.  But what they often fail to recognize is that switching to raw foodism means several things:

  1. No longer eating cooked food
  2. Cutting way back or eliminating grains
  3. Eating way more fruits and vegetables
  4. Eliminating processed and refined foods, notably flour and sugar
  5. Thinking WAY more about your diet

Now, raw foodism seems to have some benefits.  I’m not arguing with that.  But we can attribute those benefits to any of these six changes.  Changes #2-#6 are, to differing extents, well accepted ways to improve your health.  Change #1 is extremely iffy.

Raw foodists point out that cooking breaks down some nutrients into less nutritious things.  But it also breaks down useless things into nutrients.  Raw carrots are probably less healthy than cooked carrots.  But deep fried original recipe falafel is probably just as nutritious (or more nutritious) than the dried spicy nut paste balls raw foodists eat.

Raw foodists often speculate that there are living enzymes in foods that are necessary for us to digest those foods, and that cooking kills the enzymes.  But the truth is, many enzymes simply don’t work in the pH of our digestive system.  And the human body creates many enzymes to aid digestion.

And let’s not forget the downsides to raw foodism:

  1. The weirder and more impossible your food practices seem to other people, the less likely they are to want to try them out in their own life.  In extreme cases you can actually push people away from wanting to try partial vegetarianism or veganism.
  2. You often have to buy extremely non-local, expensive, high-energy footprint food
  3. It can be pretty hard to get the nutrients you need.  It says something that even the most hardcore raw foodists rarely eat more than 80 or 90% raw.

In the end, I think raw foodism provides some valuable insights, and some tasty recipes.  Eating more fruits and veggies, eating them less cooked, eating less processed foods, these are all great practices.  But–and this is just one person’s opinion–I think avoiding cooked food as if it is some kind of poison is a little misguided.

hi

Erik on the beach posing on one foot with two blue balloons floating on a string behind him tied to his back

Musicians I have loved, part II

Listening to Fiona Apple is kind of funny today, after yesterday’s pronouncement about Ben Folds.  Because although for a lot of my life her music has only been a passing interest, my fondness for it only grows.

I remember first hearing Fiona Apple in Becky Enderle’s parent’s minivan in high school (was that Senior Prom?). Becky and my friend Tracy were really into it, and I remember asking who it was.  Some months later I had bought the album, and I was singing along to a song while hanging out with Tracy.  I don’t know how she knew it, but Tracy called me out, accusing me of listening to Fiona Apple only after finding out she and Becky liked her.

She was sort of right, and I was sort of embarrassed.  I think to some extent, I was interested in Tracy and Becky and that’s why I got interested in FA.  Yet to this day she is one of my favorite musicians.  I enjoy every one of her albums more than the last.  I love the way she speaks about her life and her music in interviews.  She’s both a role model and a fascination for me.

In my last relationship, this kind of copying was a source of contention.  I really admired the person I was with, and I would sometimes take on mannerisms of theirs, or appropriate their interests.  I think some of it was healthy (I developed an appreciation for Audre Lorde) and some of it was not.

The truth is, sometimes when you copy you’re finding something you’ve been waiting for, and a person just happened to come along and show it to you.  Other times it’s more dangerous.  You’re losing yourself and you’re copying others because you’re not able to see and love who you actually are.

I think I’m only now learning how to tell the difference, and that it matters.

It’s official

I never thought I would say this, but I don’t like Ben Folds’ music anymore.  His production work on Amanda Palmer’s album is OK, but I just don’t enjoy Super D or Way to Normal at all.

huh.

Love

I love that Amanda Palmer loves Ben Folds.

I love that David Letterman loves Amy Sedaris.

I love that Schatze loved Boo.

I love that Phoebe loves her parents.

I love that Jake loves Amir.

Keep Computing Welcoming

I am thinking today about the world of computing, where there are geek conferences that have ZERO women presenters out of dozens, where less than 5% of free software developers are women or people of color, where beautiful and talented hackers devote all their resources to technologies designed not to help people, but to make money for their parent company, and where women and people of color are doing incredible, fantastic work and still remaining totally invisible to the white male majority.

I’m thinking we should start a San Diego Conscious Computing Circle, where we get together and try to figure out how we can remake the computer nerd world so it…

  1. is open and welcoming to women, people of color, other underserved communities
  2. allows the invisible people already in computing to make themselves more visible (if they are so inclined) and makes it safe for them to do so.
  3. focuses on helping people, not just making money
  4. is responsible in terms of impact on peoples’ lives and the environment
  5. is healthy for geeks too, spiritually, physically, and so-on

Are there any other San Diego geeks who are interested?

Are there any other global geeks who have ideas?

Jason Kottke, that’s racist

I saw this quote on the subway in New York and was disgusted:

America was discovered accidentally by a great seaman who was looking for something else; when discovered it was not wanted; and most of the exploration for the next fifty years was done in the hope of getting through or around it. America was named after a man who discovered no part of the New World. History is like that, very chancy.

It was on an ad for Columbia University or something.  I had forgotten about it until Jason Kottke re-posted the quote, apparently he was inspired by it.

Given that lots of people are going to be seeing this quote today, I thought I would point a few things out, some basics of American history:

  1. When Columbus arrived in America, it was most definitely “wanted”.  At that time there were on the order of 50 million people living in America, and they “wanted” their home very dearly.
  2. America was not “discovered”.  It was “attacked” and “colonized” through a process of “imperialism”.
  3. Columbus was perhaps a great seafarer, but he was not a great man.  He was a mass murder, an ethnic “cleanser” responsible for the deaths of millions of people.  We have to be careful not to make analogies to the Holocaust lightly, but Columbus was responsible for the same order of magnitude of ethnically-driven murder and enslavement as Hitler was.

I understand that the point of the quote is to show how unpredictable the world is, and how we can act so silly in our ignorance of the future.  But seriously people, can we work a little bit on our ignorance of the past?