% What's MY percentage? %

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by outofthebox on January 6, 2008 at 6:14pm

Personally, I think percentages are dangerous for certain individuals, like myself - If I were you I'd aim for High Raw. It sets off addictive/obsessive eating disorders for me, and isn't good.

There's also several schools of thought about RAW. IT sounds so good to be 100% raw... unless you realize that certain foods are more nutrient-dense or digestible when cooked (in particular KALE, carrots, sweet potatoes, potatoes, and beans). These foods are good to have cooked, even if you eat the rest of your food raw. Yes you lose some enzymes if you eat lightly cooked kale. But if you eat cooked kale, you absorb certain macronutrients that you cannot absorb when it's raw because of oxalic acids and other compounds. It's all a matter of prspective.

Also, there are several beneficial foods - we call these live but not raw - that you will not be able to eat if you begin to truly obsess over percentages -misos, fermented drinks like kombucha, teas. All of these have been proven to be live and beneficial. But they're not raw. Getting caught up in the percentage game is a sure way to eliminate them.

And there are foods you're going to want to have - nuts come to mind - that are so caught up in controversy that you'll probably end up avoiding too. Which may mean you're not getting enough beneficial fats in your diet.

And then there's the dehydrated versus fresh and natural controversy. (I personally find it hard to believe that the same enzymes which we're warned not to let sit too long at room temp or in the fridge, in our juices for example, because they'll oxidate and die after too much exposure to air, survive the 12 hours+ that some raw recipes call for. I'd call these foods raw, but not live. Others would disagree with me)

That said, IMO the endless question of percentages USUALLY comes down to - how much of the actual ingredients are raw. You get to decide whether raw means live, viable, or whatever.

Another thing to consider is that when you get caught up in the percentage game, you may end up passing up opportunities for fellowship with family and friends for fear of ruining your perfect percentage. Fear, in itself, is too much of a risk for me - mental health has more to do with physical well being than even what we eat. You can eat 100% RAW, but angst and obsession will set free radicals running through you faster than a burrito! THAT has been scientifically proven. It's not worth it IMO to shred your alleles because of percentages.

Whew. Okay, now in answer to your question:

If you're eating a raw breakfast and lunch, and raw snacks, and are having a salad with your fully cooked dinner, chances are that your 'official' raw percentage hovers between 85-90 percent. That's pretty darn good IMO and nothing to blink at.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by EcoDea on January 7, 2008 at 9:54pm

High raw - loved that! Sounds great to me! :)

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Raw by Default on January 6, 2008 at 7:25pm

I try not to stress over the percentages too much. It's just a number. I say I'm 100% raw, and I try to follow that. If that gets knocked lower, it wasn't on purpose (for example, I try to eat "raw" nuts, but there are questions as to how raw some nuts actually are).

Even before going 100%, I didn't stress about the numbers too much. Why not say, "I'm mostly raw"? Most of the people you're going to be explaining yourself to aren't going to care whether you're 84 or 87 percent. "Mostly" is a good word. :)

Besides that, I don't think there is any right way of counting your percentages. Do what works for you. As long as you're being honest (and have a fairly good understanding of math), you should be able to come up with a number that works for you. If you want to use a number at all.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Ian on January 6, 2008 at 8:39pm

Many times, we use these gauges as a way to convey how far along the path we have come. For example, a person just starting out may aim for 50% raw - for every cooked meal they eat, they will have a salad beforehand, or some other formula of sorts.

For a 7 day week, eating 3 meals per day, this equates to about 21 meals per week. If 5 of these meals are cooked, you're looking at about 75% raw. If only 2 of these meals are cooked, then you are looking at about 90% raw.

It is more of an art, and not a science. If Rain Man cares to attempt a raw food lifestyle, and computes himself at 87.329% raw, this doesn't mean he's not as worthy as someone who's eaten only 2 cooked meals this week. Sometimes we tend to look at "numbers" as our value of ourselves with our goals. The "number" is simply part of the process, not a numerical value that will be added up to one's worthiness with raw food (unless this "worthiness" aids people on this path, of course)

Ian

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by yardsnacker on January 6, 2008 at 9:33pm

I tend to steer away from labels which connotate a false sense of self-validation. Yet in saying that I struggle with the scale as a tool, but often find myself wanting to step on it more than what I've committed to, which is once a month. Having someone place a percentage on raw foodism is just human nature, we want to fit in, we want to be the best and so we make little labels to pat ourselves on the back with as we go. Yet what is the point if you are using spices like chipotle, which adds maybe 1/10,000th of your total caloric intake over the month? Would that make me 99.009 percent raw? That would be ridiculous and have people staring at me like I was some sort of nut. So I laid down a little gentle path of raw foodism that didn't make me crazy. 1. Transitioning Raw: which can be whatever you want, just as long as that is the goal. Transitioning raw can even be studying about it. 2. 1/3rd raw, or one meal a day, and then of course 2/3rd raw and then 100 percent.
Does it stop there? No then you have 100 percent organic, and then 100 percent wild, and then breatharianism, etc. IT never ends. The question now ironed out of its wrinkles should be, when will I be my happiest in all areas of my life?
I suggest that the end goal is not supreme health but supreme service to others. That's the spiritual food which blows away any cacao rush, and I add, one that is but a lofty goal for myself....

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by outofthebox on January 7, 2008 at 10:57am

YES AN YES! Ian, you nailed it! I couldn't agree with your post more if I tried. Rawk on!

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by skizzy the wonder lizard on January 6, 2008 at 10:35pm

one thing i like about being raw is that you don't have to be 100%, nor are you really expected to be, in order to be considered raw. this is not something one finds in vegetarianism or veganism (and rightly so. i do get so annoyed with so-called vegetarians that eat meat "every once in a while." then you aren't vegetarian! but i digress).

i make vague estimations (i'ds say i'm 80% right now) but i don't stick to them too heavily and they're not really based on anything other than my guesses. i'm saying 80% right now cuz while all my meals have been mostly raw, i throw in some cooked components. like i'm sitting here eating sesame noodles--raw sauce, cooked noodles. i throw cheese on my salads. and sometimes i'll have an entire cooked meal.

i call myself raw when i know i'm making an effort to be so, regardless of the actual percentage.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by outofthebox on January 7, 2008 at 11:04am

Yeah, it cracks me up when someone says they're a pesco-vegetarian. Or whatever. I personally call our family flexitarian because my family eats meat about once a week (only in the winter) and dairy (cheese) and eggs a few times a week. For all intents and purposes in the summer we 'could' claim to be vegan.. but since we're not philisophically opposed to eating animal products, it doesn't seem honest. If you're committed to vegetarianism or veganism for philosophical purposes then it's fair to label yourself that. But otherwise flexitarian is a more accurate nomen.

Someone could consider themselves a mostly RAW eater and eat cooked food. But htere are those who are philisophically opposed to cooked food. To them it's a moral evil, just like eating meat would be. I think this is why people start to label themselves. And if that's true for someone, fine. But the rest of us need to cut ourselves some slack.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Raw by Default on January 7, 2008 at 2:12pm

"Flexitarian"... Interesting. That's what I am, I guess. I say I'm a vegan, but I'm not a card-carrying PETA member; I eat honey and I own leather shoes (*gasp!*).

It's a pretty open term, though... you'd still have to explain to everyone what it meant! But I still like it. :)

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by outofthebox on January 7, 2008 at 4:06pm

Yeah, it's still a newer term. But it's a great one. I mean people who can't live without their meat claim to be 'carnivores' -- even though they're omnivores... and then there are all those shades of vegetarian ovo-lacto-anyhow...

Flexitarian might take some explaining... but then again that's why it appeals to me. I hate being 'labeled' and having people assume they can tell everything they need to know about my personality, economic status, political views, and religion by my 'diet label'. And people do pigeonhole others by those labels. At least around here.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Rawbin on January 7, 2008 at 8:12pm

Thank you, everybody for the great information! I like the term Flexitarian. It really fits me. I think that everyday I will strive for 100% raw, so as to keep on track. Then if I have a little something not "on the menu" it's not such a bad thing. I'd like to keep going on the raw track, though. I feel really good now, so it sounds like a new way of life for me.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by rawmarissa on January 7, 2008 at 10:03pm

Interesting topic . . . when I first went raw, I was pretty obsessed with the percentages. Like, if I was 50% one day, I had to be 100% the next day to make my average. It wasn't about feeling better by eating more raw, it was about getting to a number. And I'm the same way with ANYTHING that has a number measurement on it - obsessive about the number on the scale and not how I look or feel . . .

What works for me is calling myself raw. Sometimes high raw if I'm feeling particularly sexy. But the point is that it's different for everyone, and I appreciate Debbie's post above about how percentages work for her.

Incedently, I remember reading (somewhere) that the most accurate way to calculate percentages is with calories consumed. If you had a raw breakfast that was 600 calories, a raw lunch that was 600 calories, and a cooked dinner that was 1200 calories, you'd actually have eaten 50% raw. But counting calories makes my head explode.

▶ Reply to This