Raw Food - Any Merit?

[Red3]

One of my friends has recently become one of these raw food nuts (no pun intended), and is convinced that cooked food is killing us all prematurely, and certain things like gluten and starch (or some form of) are ruining our insides. I am extremely skeptical about all this but can't seem to find a good source of information to refute it. It seems plausible that fresh, raw food is better for us, but to what extent? Has there been any major studies regarding how much cooking reduces the vitamin/mineral content of food? And also, if raw food does contain more vitamins/minerals, how much of it can we actually process?

I don't want to dismiss the whole thing without at least looking into it. Some of the information *seems* convincing without anything to counter it, but it's usually accompanied by some serious new age crap which immediately puts me off. I don't want to ignore any possible benefits because of the beliefs of it's practitioners.

This site for ex. states that broccoli has as much calcium in it as whole milk; but even if that's true, can we use it all?

http://rawfoodtoday.blogspot.com/2008/02/raw-food-facts.html

[Eos of the Eons]

Some foods don't give their nutrients up as easily unless they are cooked.

It is known that starch gelatinization--a change of structure into a form that resembles gelatin--results from cooking at temperatures higher than 70°C (158°F), which improves digestibility [Holm et al. 1988, Lee et al. 1985]. Cooking also neutralizes the anti-amylases (in grains and seeds, and also some tubers).
http://www.beyondveg.com/tu-j-l/raw-cooked/raw-cooked-2a.shtml
The nominal amounts of other nutrition lost in the cooking process in not enough to worry about.
http://www.beyondveg.com/tu-j-l/raw-cooked/raw-cooked-2e.shtml

From Erdman et al. [1993], beta-carotene absorption can be as low as 1-2% from raw vegetables such as the carrot. Mild heating, such as steaming, appears to improve the extractability of beta-carotene from vegetables, and also its bioavailability.
http://www.beyondveg.com/tu-j-l/raw-cooked/raw-cooked-2f.shtml

Recommendations to preserve vitamins include: utilizing foods when fresh; using steaming in preference to boiling; and avoiding overly long cooking times.
For instance, we eat meat mostly for the protein, but native inuit ate raw meat to get the vitamin C that is lost in overcooking it. They could get away with this because they could freeze meat and prevent it from spoiling. Other natives dried their meat and mixed it with berries to keep vitamin C content high (unknowingly). Look up pemmican. However, we get lots of vitamin C from other sources now. Raw, unfresh foods will have nutrient losses other than that though, so dried foods are only good for certain periods.

Another argument is about enzymes in raw food. However, we digest and break down enzymes that are eaten, and we make all our own that we need with those building blocks.
http://www.beyondveg.com/tu-j-l/raw-cooked/raw-cooked-2b.shtml


Some of the information *seems* convincing without anything to counter it.
Would love to have you post the seeminly convincing parts for folks to look at and "digest" :D


Why we started cooking food:
http://www.beyondveg.com/tu-j-l/raw-cooked/raw-cooked-3a.shtml


The conclusion of this is that the cooking of some foods, by saving time and effort and extending the range of the diet, would have enhanced survival in a significant way, even in more supposedly "ideal" or tropical environments, but especially in areas where edible raw foods are scarce. That lack of ease in obtaining food occurs only in temperate zones and higher latitudes is not true is shown by the examples of the Australian Aborigines [O'Dea 1992], the Bushmen [Bicchieri 1972 and below] as well as many others [Bicchieri 1972], including the tropical rainforest Ache of Paraguay [Hawkes et al. [1982]. (Note that even in the case of the Ache hunter-gatherers of Paraguay, one of the few examples of a primitive people that have been extensively studied who subsisted in a dense rainforest habitat--the type of environment considered ideal by raw-fooders--significant amounts of their food were cooked; and fruits, a typical raw-foodist staple, were not as easily obtainable compared to other foods in their diet [Clastres 1972, see esp. p. 156; also Hawkes et al. 1982, and Hill et al. 1984].)

[Eos of the Eons]

Stronger Bones with Broccoli
When it comes to building strong bones, broccoli's got it all for less. One cup of cooked broccoli contains 74 mg of calcium, plus 123 mg of vitamin C, which significantly improves calcium's absorption; all this for a total of only 44 calories. To put this in perspective, an orange contains no calcium, 69 mg of vitamin C, and 60-about 50% more-calories. Dairy products, long touted as the most reliable source of calcium, contain no vitamin C, but do contain saturated fat. A glass of 2% milk contains 121 calories, and 42 of those calories come from fat.


http://www.whfoods.com/genpage.php?tname=foodspice&dbid=9

Also, in the other links I posted, the topic of mineral loss in cooked food comes up, and it is negligible. Minerals are different than vitamins even more in this respect. Cooking the broccoli therefore releases the calcium more readily from the plant's undigestible parts (cellulose) for us to be able to absorb it.

One cup of raw broccoli provides 41 milligrams of calcium along with 79 milligrams of vitamin C
http://www.superfoodsrx.com/superfoods/broccoli/its-all-better-with-broccoli.html


You gain calcium and vitamin C in cooked broccoli vs. raw. Interesting.

[Red3]

Brilliant, thanks. Those sites are exactly what I was looking for.

[Eos of the Eons]

You're welcome *grins* That site covers a lot, and then more!!

[Uncayimmy]

You've got two issues here as I see it. First, is cooking food killing us? Obviously not. Just look around. Second, can you get better nutrition by eating only raw foods? I doubt, but so what? Is it going to be significantly better? Doubtful.

I know that's not the science you want, but that's the overall approach I would take.

[Soapy Sam]

Flavour.
Sometimes better cooked, sometimes better raw.

This applies to vegetables. Eating raw meat is unwise.

[TheDaver]

Flavour.
Sometimes better cooked, sometimes better raw.

This applies to vegetables. Eating raw meat is unwise.
But fun. Try raw bacon sometime. :)

[casebro]

But fun. Try raw bacon sometime. :)

Like for flossing?

[BenBurch]

Another thing with raw food; You better scrub it all good. Remember all the E-coli and Salmonella that was in produce not that long ago? All dealt with by some light cooking. No need to stew the food to death.

[jasonpatterson]

Another thing with raw food; You better scrub it all good. Remember all the E-coli and Salmonella that was in produce not that long ago? All dealt with by some light cooking. No need to stew the food to death.

But those are just from commercial 'conventional' factory farms! True organic foods are healthy because they come from the earth!
{/sarcasm}

[Retrograde]

My theory is that the Raw Food Movement was started by people who didn't think veganism was extreme enough: "You don't eat any animal products? Well, not only do I not eat animals, I don't eat anything cooked. So there! Pfffft!"

Take a look at this cookbook (http://www.amazon.com/Raw-Charlie-Trotter/dp/1580088341/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1243818331&sr=8-4) (using the term loosely): beautiful pictures, but the recipes call for a lot of processing, plus some special miracle foods, along with discourses on how this is all more "natural". Cavemen didn't have Cuisinarts!

Some things are better raw, some are better cooked. Since we've been using fire to prepare foods probably long before H. sapiens sapiens showed up I find it hard to believe it's not natural for us.

[BenBurch]

Retrograde, I invite all those people to become "Breatharians." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inedia)

[shadron]

But fun. Try raw bacon sometime. :)

James Herriot, the English vet, has a short story about that. It's hilarious; he describes being faced with eating a slab of boiled bacon fat, considered a delicacy in central England farms 70 years ago, when calories were harder to come by than today. You can read it in Google Books by googling "The piccalilli saves my bacon".

[Travis]

How long did people live when they primarily ate raw food? How long do they now live when most things are cooked?

Another thing to consider is energy. Digestion consumes a lot of energy and digesting raw foods requires more energy. Even if you did get more nutrients from raw food (which you don't) it would be offset by the increased energy needs of your digestive tract. Factor in the risk factors for things like food poisoning and raw food is just, generally, not a good idea.

[Schwarzwald]

Another interesting thing is that a lot of these raw fooders seem to be dismissing the germ theory of disease.

There are actually a growing number of them who think that a healthy diet and natural hygiene will cure all diseases from purging 'toxins' to curing cancer and preventing aids. It really is a dangerous mentality when they will refuse any medical treatment.

[Doghouse Reilly]

I know the original post is inquiring about the science behind the claims that raw food diets are superior, but I don't think there is much science supporting those claims. So I will just report my own experience, for the interest of anecdote.

I eat a raw frugivore diet (for the past 6 years)...2500-3000 calories of fruit per day with a couple of heads of lettuce and some tomato and cucumber....about 5-8 percent fat by calories total, 3-5 percent protein, and the rest carbohydrate. No animal products or cooked foods. Fruit is very easy to digest. I don't eat any raw nuts, beans, grains, seeds, or roots.

I have no doubt that humans began cooking their food for survival and that part of our success as a species is due to our ability to adapt to new environments by expanding the food supply to include foods only edible, or more readily edible, through cooking.

That being said, I find the raw frugivore diet ideal for me. I feel more energetic, have more mental clarity, and have experienced improved athletic performance. My skin tone, eyesight, hearing, and reflexes have all improved tremendously. I believe this is due more to the foods I have eliminated than anything special about the foods I eat.

I have no idea if it will increase my lifespan. There are many factors that contribute to health and long life besides diet. But my bloodwork and body composition (cholesterol, bone mass/muscle mass, etc and all that) is excellent, partly due to the diet, I believe. B12, iron, calcium, etc all test normal.

The BeyondVeg site that Eos of the Eons posted has some good articles, and it debunks a lot of the bogus claims. But it's also attacking a lot of strawmen arguments against the viability of raw diets (i.e, very unbalanced raw diets, all fruit diets, supposed calorie paradoxes, etc.)

It seems clear to me that humans can live on just about any type of food. But it also seems clear to me that we are more frugivorous than most usually assume. I think a diet of predominantly fruits and vegetables, with some animal products thrown in if that floats your boat, would result in vastly improved health for most. Anecdotally, I know this is true for my family and friends.

I think the raw diet gets a bad rap because a lot of the people doing it approach it in a bizarre manner and eat things that are not suitable. Raw imitation cheeseburgers, lasagnas, sprouted beans, raw breads, etc, are, in my experience, a nightmare.

Edited to add: The "raw food movement" is something I don't associate myself with, as it is rife with pseudo science and "new age" claims. At the same time, I don't think it is reasonable to deny that we are very capable of surviving, and thriving, on raw food. If we were not, we would have become extinct long ago. It sounds like your friend is probably susceptible to some of the more extravagant "science" out there, which is irritating.

Personally, the benefits that I derive from this diet ensure that I never consider deviating from it.

[Red3]

My skin tone, eyesight, hearing, and reflexes have all improved tremendously. I believe this is due more to the foods I have eliminated than anything special about the foods I eat.

That seems logical. It's one of the points I put to my friend that perhaps the benefits of the raw diet are actually benefits from increased fruit and veg intake and less processed, fatty, sugary foods. Along with the fact that he's more than likely eating less food at every meal. I'm sure there are benefits in this respect from a raw food diet, but I just don't think the arguments against cooked food are all that good. I certainly don't after reading through that beyond veg site.

The thing that really gets me with the raw food movement is the "i'm enlightened and full of light" type of crap...It all seems to go hand in hand with the conspiracy theories; they all seem to have this us vs them mentality; that they're further evolved in some way and their way of life is the true way and everyone else is too brainwashed and controlled to realize it.

[BTMO]

Woody Harrelson is a raw food advocate.

He recently thumped a photographer (http://www.cnn.com/2009/SHOWBIZ/Movies/04/10/woody.harrelson.zombie/index.html)in an airport, thinking the photographer was a zombie...

[Cavemonster]

Woody Harrelson is a raw food advocate.

He recently thumped a photographer (http://www.cnn.com/2009/SHOWBIZ/Movies/04/10/woody.harrelson.zombie/index.html)in an airport, thinking the photographer was a zombie...

I know you posted for the humor of it, but you know that any connection between Harrelson's wackiness and any benefits or detriments of raw food can only be fallacious.

[BTMO]

True enough - but fads attract wacky people.

[wackyvorlon]

I know the original post is inquiring about the science behind the claims that raw food diets are superior, but I don't think there is much science supporting those claims. So I will just report my own experience, for the interest of anecdote.

I'm glad you find it beneficial, but it is, of course, important to remember that an anecdote is not data. Especially for things which are highly subjective, such as "mental clarity".

There is a thread that comes up in a great deal of quackery: Find something extremely common, that everyone either consumes or is exposed to, and then claim that it is horribly toxic.

[Cuddles]

gluten and starch (or some form of) are ruining our insides.

But how is that related to raw food? The whole point of cooking a lot of things is specifically to break down things like starch so that we can actually get something out of the foods that contain them. If starch is a problem, it's those advocating raw foods that have the problem, those of us who cook food can digest it just fine.

This site for ex. states that broccoli has as much calcium in it as whole milk; but even if that's true, can we use it all?

Again, this seems to be based on a rather severe misunderstanding of what cooking actually does. If raw broccoli has as much calcium as whole milk, so does cooked broccoli. Cooking can break down things like proteins and vitamins, but minerals aren't going to go anywhere. Also, you don't need to cook milk either.


To be honest, it's hard to address that site really. It's just a mishmash of misunderstandings, misrepresentations and lies. Although I admit I did find this one rather amusing:
The risk of death from an average vegetarian male is only 4%.
Who'd have thought vegetarians were a leading cause of death?

[Red3]

But how is that related to raw food? The whole point of cooking a lot of things is specifically to break down things like starch so that we can actually get something out of the foods that contain them. If starch is a problem, it's those advocating raw foods that have the problem, those of us who cook food can digest it just fine.

It's related because the raw fooders - or at least some of them - also cut out grains, pulses and various other things they deem "indigestible". But yeah, I agree, it is them with the problem. They don't want to cook it, and it's worse raw, so they say it's indigestible.It's ridiculous.



Again, this seems to be based on a rather severe misunderstanding of what cooking actually does. If raw broccoli has as much calcium as whole milk, so does cooked broccoli. Cooking can break down things like proteins and vitamins, but minerals aren't going to go anywhere. Also, you don't need to cook milk either.

Well that's what I thought anyway. My main point was if there was much of a difference between cooked and raw, which there doesn't seem to be. Try telling my friend that and he starts talking about light energy etc. and Kirlian photography Which really gets on my nerves. Actually I say friend, I don't even see much of him really since he's "turned raw", which is another point; it becomes impossible having a normal social life on this kind of diet.

To be honest, it's hard to address that site really. It's just a mishmash of misunderstandings, misrepresentations and lies. Although I admit I did find this one rather amusing:

Yeah, exactly, that's why I used it as an example for some of the claims surrounding raw food.

[Retrograde]

Quote:
The risk of death from an average vegetarian male is only 4%.


Probably from being beaten with a sack of potatoes when you disagree with him.

"Informative" site: I didn't know my bones were made of silicon and magnesium that are somehow transmuted to calcium. And to think of all that time wasted by medieval alchemists trying to transmute metals when all this time it was going on in their own bodies!

I agree with Doghouse Reilly to some extent: I've rarely if ever heard vegetarians say they chose their diet because they like vegetables. The reasons usually seem to be cloaked in some self-righteous rhetoric about how vegetarianism is morally superior, or how they're saving the planet.

Back to raw foods: if we're going to emulate the way our ancestors ate, why stop with not cooking foods? Why not go all the way and include those worms in the apples, and the grubs and insects? And we need to throw away the blenders, juicers and dehydrators that seem to be called for in every raw food recipe I've seen: we should just use our molars like nature intended, right?

[Donning asbestos suit] I often think vegans and especially raw food vegans are somewhat elitist: they tend to be people who can afford NOT to eat certain foods - i.e., they have a choice. While you can find vegetarian and vegan dishes in almost all cuisines, historically they were a way of getting by on what you had available: meat was saved for special occasions. Since most Westerners can afford to pick and choose these days, some like to make a virtue of denying themselves something.

Now, who's for sashimi?

[Eos of the Eons]

I'm worried that these diets don't offer enough of the essential amino acids and other nutrients we need for our health, especially a diet that it is mostly fruit. I wonder about the deleterious effects to the body, and therefore also the mind.

[Travis]

I'm worried that these diets don't offer enough of the essential amino acids and other nutrients we need for our health, especially a diet that it is mostly fruit. I wonder about the deleterious effects to the body, and therefore also the mind.

Which leads to further delusions that they are on the right path.

[BTMO]

Raw food is good for some, but difficult for many to do - often its difficult to maintain your weight, and often it comes down to blood times. For example, O blood types find it hard to keep it going for long.


And this has been demonstrated scientifically.. where?

Skeptical website and all...

[Eos of the Eons]

http://www.webmd.com/diet/raw-food-diet?page=2

Researchers who studied the impact of a raw food diet found that participants had low cholesterol and triglycerides. They also had a vitamin B12 deficiency. This finding is consistent with another study of raw foodists in Finland. B12 is found naturally only in animal products. It is critical to nerve and red blood cell development. Deficiencies can lead to anemia and neurological impairment.


Severe vitamin B12 deficiency can cause neurological problems, such as confusion, dementia, depression, and memory loss.


http://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/health/dci/Diseases/prnanmia/prnanmia_signs.html


the elevated tHcy as well as the low HDL cholesterol concentrations in participants in this study could provide a mechanistic explanation of the higher mortality from coronary heart disease in vegans compared with ovo-lacto-vegetarians

http://jn.nutrition.org/cgi/content/full/135/10/2372


http://www.webmd.com/diet/raw-food-diet?page=3

The raw food diet also requires a lot of processing that can strip foods of their nutrients. Straining pulp from cashews to make cashew milk, for example, removes healthy fiber. Dehydrating and chopping can destroy valuable nutrients, too, as can exposure to air.


Children have died or gotten gravely ill when their parents put them on these diets.

http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=185948

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1028854/How-strict-vegan-diet-children-ill.html

[pgwenthold]

This reminds me of a bit I saw in one of my wife's vet trade magazines. There was a regular column by some "naturopathic vet" or some such thing, and the topic was "raw food diets for dogs." His position was that he was not opposed to raw food diets, provided they provided the proper nutrition, which might mean supplements.

When I was reading it, I couldn't get past the question of, "OK, so yeah, you can get away with a raw food diet if you work at it, but, why should you bother in the first place?"

Unfortunately, despite all his discussion, he failed to state the obvious: yeah, you can do a raw food diet, BUT there is no reason to.

[Doghouse Reilly]

I'm worried that these diets don't offer enough of the essential amino acids and other nutrients we need for our health, especially a diet that it is mostly fruit. I wonder about the deleterious effects to the body, and therefore also the mind.

The World Health Organization recommends a minimum daily protein intake of 5% of calories (many studies indicate that as low as 2.5% is safe). Any balanced plant based diet consisting of a variety of fruits and vegetables easily provides this amount.

Which amino acid or nutrient were you worried about in particular? When I plug in my daily food intake into various food logs, I come out more than adequate in all amino acids.

As I said, I have been tested and shown no signs of deficiency for any nutrient, including B12, after 6 years of a raw, fruit and vegetable based diet, and over a decade of a vegan diet.

As far as deleterious effects on the mind, of course any deficient diet can have that as a result. But I have seen more of this type of thing on junk food diets than on raw diets.

[Doghouse Reilly]

http://www.webmd.com/diet/raw-food-diet?page=2


http://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/health/dci/Diseases/prnanmia/prnanmia_signs.html




http://jn.nutrition.org/cgi/content/full/135/10/2372








Children have died or gotten gravely ill when their parents put them on these diets.

http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=185948

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1028854/How-strict-vegan-diet-children-ill.html


The problem is that most raw food diets, as practiced, are either very deficient in calories, or very high in fat. Most children being damaged on these types of diets were starving due to a lack of calories. Children will starve on any diet insufficient in calories, not just raw diets.

There is no indication that a diet consisting of adequate caloric intake of fruits and vegetables will result in malnutrition. Many creatures do so (including the anthropoid apes, our closest relatives). Of course, if one wishes, like the chimps, to include some (5% of calories or so) of animals or insects, one can do so. I haven't found it to be necessary.

For what it's worth, my posting record, while not prolific, goes back 6 years and indicates no mental defects or dysfunction. And I mentioned years ago that I was strictly following such a diet. I have family and friends following such diets also thriving, some of whom have raised children on the same principles (who are demonstrating normal, if not superior, physical and mental growth.)

I have yet to be shown how a 2000-3000 calorie diet of bananas, papaya, cherimoya, and other high calorie fruits, lettuce, tomato and celery, with some pumpkin seeds, walnuts, or avocado thrown in for good measure (I don't personally, because athletically I perform better the less fat I consume), could possibly be lacking in any known amino acid or nutrient, with the exception of B12. Insects or small amounts of animal food (meat or egg, no more than 5% by calorie) will take care of that, if one wishes. I haven't found it necessary and am testing normal for B12.


Edited to add: As for the cholesterol issue, I haven't tested low. I've tested on the very, very healthy end of normal. My life insurance company was VERY happy to insure me after they ran the required medical diagnostics.
The fact is, just as there are thousands of types of diets including meat, dairy, cooked foods, etc, there are numerous ways to follow raw diets. I know raw foodists eating 90% fat, raw foodists practicing calorie restriction, raw foodists eating only fruit, raw foodists guzzling olive oil, etc. Unless the study you posted accounts for this, and ensures that subjects are consuming an adequate caloric intake (it doesn't) then it's not too helpful. I can design raw or cooked diets that are deficient in many nutrients.

As for the value of anecdote, I am aware of the problems reporting my own experience. But as there are very, very few on this board eating this way, I believe it is worthwhile when someone brings up the subject, to report my own experience. And I can say that my health and athletic performance have drastically improved since following such a diet. I am a bodybuilder and runner and do not stick with diets that don't work.

[ponderingturtle]

This reminds me of a bit I saw in one of my wife's vet trade magazines. There was a regular column by some "naturopathic vet" or some such thing, and the topic was "raw food diets for dogs." His position was that he was not opposed to raw food diets, provided they provided the proper nutrition, which might mean supplements.


Preferably homeopathic supplements.

[Retrograde]

I'm trying to convince the new cat that a more raw food diet - largely consisting of the gophers that eat my vegetable plants - would be a good idea. He just yawns and goes back to his kitty krunchies.

Vegan, raw foods and similar diets can also be bad for some pets, since their bodies make different amino acids than ours do. We don't need a dietary source of taurine, but it's something cats depend on their natural foods (i.e., whole rodents) to supply.

When I was reading it, I couldn't get past the question of, "OK, so yeah, you can get away with a raw food diet if you work at it, but, why should you bother in the first place?"

You really, really hate to cook? You want everyone to see how righteous and special you are? You like raw vegetables? I do vegan meals more frequently these days, but don't have objections to meat: I just don't like eating it every day.

That's a whole 'nuther topic: why do people assume you're a vegetarian just because they see you eating a meatless meal? Do we have to slot ourselves into one category? (Yes, probably: we've evolved to classify)

[Doghouse Reilly]

I'm trying to convince the new cat that a more raw food diet - largely consisting of the gophers that eat my vegetable plants - would be a good idea. He just yawns and goes back to his kitty krunchies.

Vegan, raw foods and similar diets can also be bad for some pets, since their bodies make different amino acids than ours do. We don't need a dietary source of taurine, but it's something cats depend on their natural foods (i.e., whole rodents) to supply.



You really, really hate to cook? You want everyone to see how righteous and special you are? You like raw vegetables? I do vegan meals more frequently these days, but don't have objections to meat: I just don't like eating it every day.

That's a whole 'nuther topic: why do people assume you're a vegetarian just because they see you eating a meatless meal? Do we have to slot ourselves into one category? (Yes, probably: we've evolved to classify)

Vegan diets can be harmful for dogs and cats, but not raw diets. Heck, that's what they eat in the wild. I feed my dogs raw meat and eggs and they seem to love it.

As for the question of "why?" as I already stated, my health, vitality, and athletic performance have improved. I think it would be fine if I were eating cooked fruits and vegetables too, but I don't care for the taste of cooked fruits or cooked greens. It has nothing to do with wanting to feel righteous because I don't think there is some god looking down appreciating how I do or do not eat.

[Eos of the Eons]

Doghouse Reilly (http://forums.randi.org/member.php?u=1077)-I'm not trying to convince you that you're vitamin deficient, I'm just putting it to you that your diet is not for everyone and why. I would like to know what is the source of your vitamin B12 and other essential nutrients not found in fruits and vegetables in your diet though. If you're not lacking it, then you must be eating more than just fruits and vegetables. Iron is another nutrient I'm curious about in your diet in particular if you don't eat anything but fruits and vegetables. Do you eat a lot of spinach? Legumes are a good source of amino acids if you are already eating those.

Children in particular cannot get enough calcium, iron, amino acids, and vitamin D from just eating fruits and vegetables. They end up with bad teeth, bad bones, rickets, and being grossly underweight. An adult can take more of a beating for longer before they show signs of malnutrition.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1028854/How-strict-vegan-diet-children-ill.html

I eat red meat, but I still have to take iron supplements to keep my iron levels normal. I wouldn't tell others to do the same because I don't know how well they absorb iron. Too much iron causes problems too. I couldn't eat enough spinach every day to get the iron intake I need. I also would get sick on the amount of broccoli I'd have to eat to get enough calcium too. Then all those other varities of fruits and veggies I'd have to buy and eat all the time? I'd have to eat all day long, chewing constantly like a cow chews their cud, but I sure don't have time to do that!


If you have the time to restrict your diet and get all the nutrients you need, then kudos to you. I'm not going to knock ya, but it is really unnecessary IMO.

You can have a non-junk food diet and still eat healthy. I don't know anyone who has a "junk food diet" either though. You won't keel over dead sooner than a vegetarian if you have a hot dog now and then though. A vegetarian diet can still give you a heart attack, as I've posted from a previous link.

[casebro]

Hmm, My own experience, anecdotal, and thoughts brought up there by:

I get chest pains whenever I eat wheat. Three angioplasties at two year intervals before I quit gluten, none for four years since. Angina from hidden gluten too. But why can I eat Pizza, and drink beer with it? Beer has gluten too, from the barley. Hmm. I did some googleing/study. Seems cheeses have an enzyme. DPP IV. It is needed to break down the proline proteins that are the root of the gluten problem. DPP IV is made by many 'germs' and molds. I suspect that, like B vitamins made by single cell animals, we may need other germs to get enzymes too. Hmmm, it just occurs to me, I had my appendix removed as a child ( I was the child, not my appendix ;) ). Perhaps some 'cheese mold' growing in my appendix is a necessity?

Anyhow, my lipid panel is fantastic, TC 190, HDL 43, TG 139.
Compared to a hi-gluten diet, TC 260, HDL 29, TG 450. And I eat lots of saturated fats- home made sausage, chicken skin, cook in coconut oil. And butter, thickly applied at any excuse. The only lipid medication I take is a B vitamin, Niaspan.

So, I guess I can see that raw foods could be beneficial- enzymes AND germs.

But perhaps for only a small percentage of us? Which brings up a possible flaw to all the scientific studies done in vivo. Imagine a large drug study. If the drug cures 5% of participants, but harms 6% , the study will show the drug to be hazardous. See why I'm a believer in Pharmacogenetics? Lets find that 5%. And that 6% too.

[Eos of the Eons]

Uh, what role are you proposing that the appendix plays in digestion, especially of wheat?

[rwguinn]

The true merit in Raw foods is that you can cook them to YOUR taste, instead of someone elses...

[casebro]

Uh, what role are you proposing that the appendix plays in digestion, especially of wheat?

The latest theory of the appendix's utility is that it acts as an incubator for various organisms. "Probiotic starter cultures" perhaps? Since the DPP IV enzyme breaks down the proline proteins from gluten, and many germs make DPPIV, then the germs in the appendix might help digest gluten.

Lot's of germs make DPPIV, including cheese molds, staph, salmonella...

Fermented foods in general include cheese, yogurt, sauer kraut, wine, sourdough bread, traditional pickles... To often, modern food science precludes these natural fermentations. Not to mention other processing. Even simple filtering might remove beneficial by-products. To our possible detriment.

I've got to try an authentic Belgian Lambic beer, to see if the germs negate the gluten from the barley.

[Morrigan]

Perhaps you have a mild intolerance to gluten? I'm assuming bread and pasta have more gluten in them than beer or pizza dough. If so, that would explain why high-gluten food makes you sick, but not a beer.

[Eos of the Eons]

Cuz I've had my appendix out, and I have no problem with wheat products. No chest pains, no digestion problems. No problems at all, and I eat a LOT of wheat products (I love whole wheat crackers as a snack with things like salsa). I'm allergic to milk products though, and thus also have lacotose intolerance, so I never eat things like pizza. I eat a lot of meat and bean, or chicken burritos (no cheese).

If there were germs in the appendix, then wouldn't they still be in the intestines after the appendix is gone?

[casebro]

Perhaps you have a mild intolerance to gluten? I'm assuming bread and pasta have more gluten in them than beer or pizza dough. If so, that would explain why high-gluten food makes you sick, but not a beer.


Exactly. Except that beer without cheese gives me chest pains.

So I am left with the premise that the enzyme in cheese helps me with the gluten problem, just like the DPP IV pills do.

[Prometheus]

Cuz I've had my appendix out, and I have no problem with wheat products. No chest pains, no digestion problems. No problems at all, and I eat a LOT of wheat products (I love whole wheat crackers as a snack with things like salsa). I'm allergic to milk products though, and thus also have lacotose intolerance, so I never eat things like pizza. I eat a lot of meat and bean, or chicken burritos (no cheese).

If there were germs in the appendix, then wouldn't they still be in the intestines after the appendix is gone?

The hypothesis I've heard (don't know if it's been proved or not) is that the appendix acts like a backup cache of beneficial germs which can re-populate the intestines quickly if they get cleared out by diarrhea or something.

ETA: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vermiform_appendix#Maintaining_gut_flora

[casebro]

Cuz I've had my appendix out, and I have no problem with wheat products. No chest pains, no digestion problems. No problems at all, and I eat a LOT of wheat products (I love whole wheat crackers as a snack with things like salsa). I'm allergic to milk products though, and thus also have lacotose intolerance, so I never eat things like pizza. I eat a lot of meat and bean, or chicken burritos (no cheese).

If there were germs in the appendix, then wouldn't they still be in the intestines after the appendix is gone?

Well, I'm guessing that my lack of a digestive enzyme is probable pancreas related. Three cases of chronic pancreatitis in the family, my brother's turned into pancreas cancer, fatally. One of the other sufferers also has gluten intolerance, maybe to the point of Celiacs. Though she still has her appendix, inspite of several bouts of appendicitis. ( just came to me as I typed this, Maybe there is a stronger link there? )

So, perhaps it is worse if both pancreas and appendix have insufficiencies?

Yes, you will have germs in your intestines after appendectomy. But intestines are not static, stuff flows in and out. So an appendix would act to maintain stability of culture down through the ages, like writing? ;)

[ponderingturtle]

Cuz I've had my appendix out, and I have no problem with wheat products. No chest pains, no digestion problems. No problems at all, and I eat a LOT of wheat products (I love whole wheat crackers as a snack with things like salsa). I'm allergic to milk products though, and thus also have lacotose intolerance, so I never eat things like pizza. I eat a lot of meat and bean, or chicken burritos (no cheese).


Lactose intolerance and milk allergy are two diffent things though. If you are lactose intolerant you lack that lactase enzyme to break down lactose. If you have a milk allergy you are allergic to proteans in milk.

You could conceivably be both, but they are different diagnosis's.

[Eos of the Eons]

Lactose intolerance and milk allergy are two diffent things though. If you are lactose intolerant you lack that lactase enzyme to break down lactose. If you have a milk allergy you are allergic to proteans in milk.

You could conceivably be both, but they are different diagnosis's.

Exactly, that is why I said precisely
I'm allergic to milk products though, and thus also have lacotose intolerance
Thus meaning I got lactose intolerance by no longer eating milk products regularly. If most people stop eating milk products, then there is a feedback system involving a "lac operon", and you stop producing lactase to break down lactose. I didn't want to go into that long winded an explanation, but I see now that I should have probably included it. My allergy was discovered via skin test for allergies, so I stoped eating milk products regularly. So, of course, I'm now lactose intolerant too.

[ponderingturtle]

Thus meaning I got lactose intolerance by no longer eating milk products regularly. If most people stop eating milk products, then there is a feedback system involving a "lac operon", and you stop producing lactase to break down lactose. I didn't want to go into that long winded an explanation, but I see now that I should have probably included it. My allergy was discovered via skin test for allergies, so I stoped eating milk products regularly. So, of course, I'm now lactose intolerant too.

I did not know that you could have the gene to be lactose tolerant and lose the tolerance.

[Eos of the Eons]

Pretty much everyone is born lactose tolerant. It would be unusual to be born lactose intolerant since infants must be able to break down milk sugar to survive the years they are usually breast fed. There are very few formulas available that are lactose-free. I'm not sure I've heard of any. It is normal for mammals to then become lactose intolerant as they get older. We are the only animals to ingest milk ingredients past the infancy stage.

You can google "lac operon" for more information.

[BTMO]

I understand (and could be wrong) that lactose tolerance in adults is actually a mutation - but it is a relatively recent one. It isn't widespread in all populations and many folks, especially Asians, aren't lactose tolerant when adults.

Which is why it is so damn hard to get ice cream in Hong Kong!

[Rolfe]

James Herriot, the English vet, has a short story about that. It's hilarious; he describes being faced with eating a slab of boiled bacon fat, considered a delicacy in central England farms 70 years ago, when calories were harder to come by than today. You can read it in Google Books by googling "The piccalilli saves my bacon".


Sorry, I'm late to this one, but puh-leaze!

"James Herriot", real name Alfred Wight, was Scottish. Which may be why he wasn't all that enamoured with English cooking.

Rolfe.

[BenBurch]

Sorry, I'm late to this one, but puh-leaze!

"James Herriot", real name Alfred Wight, was Scottish. Which may be why he wasn't all that enamoured with English cooking.

Rolfe.

And yet they adore Haggis. :rolleyes:

[Rolfe]

This reminds me of a bit I saw in one of my wife's vet trade magazines. There was a regular column by some "naturopathic vet" or some such thing, and the topic was "raw food diets for dogs." His position was that he was not opposed to raw food diets, provided they provided the proper nutrition, which might mean supplements.

When I was reading it, I couldn't get past the question of, "OK, so yeah, you can get away with a raw food diet if you work at it, but, why should you bother in the first place?"

Unfortunately, despite all his discussion, he failed to state the obvious: yeah, you can do a raw food diet, BUT there is no reason to.


You might want to get your wife to register on this forum (http://www.vetsurgeon.org/), then have a look at the thread on "Raw Diets for health". I really had no conception of the depth of woo plumbed by some of my colleagues until I read that lot. (The guy going on about "damp in the spleen" is a true comedian.)

Rolfe.

[ponderingturtle]

Pretty much everyone is born lactose tolerant. It would be unusual to be born lactose intolerant since infants must be able to break down milk sugar to survive the years they are usually breast fed. There are very few formulas available that are lactose-free. I'm not sure I've heard of any. It is normal for mammals to then become lactose intolerant as they get older. We are the only animals to ingest milk ingredients past the infancy stage.

You can google "lac operon" for more information.

The thing is that lactose tolerance is not from continued exposure to lactose though but from a mutation. It is one of the better examples to track for human evolution.

[Eos of the Eons]

The thing is that lactose tolerance is not from continued exposure to lactose though but from a mutation. It is one of the better examples to track for human evolution.


Hm. Some people don't become lactose intolerant from discontinuing their intake of lactose? I guess that would be a mutation. Something is stopping the feedback system. Do you have a cite for how much of the population this happens in and what kind of mutation this would be?

A large proportion of people do become lactose intolerant in spite of continued intake though. This is related to the lac operon shutting off permanently after a period of time, this might not be until a person is 5, 15, 30, 50, etc.

More likely though, if you stop eating milk products (usually for a period of around 2 weeks), the feedback system will shut off lactase production then. This is what usually happens when a child is weaned and no longer takes in milk products. We are weird now though, and usually continue eating milk products after infancy though, and the feedback system is not triggered, so most of us continue to make lactase past infancy due to this continuted intake of milk products.

I'll look for a credible article on this. Now wishing I'd kept my textbook that covered it!

[Eos of the Eons]

Ergh. Why is it so hard to find a layman's explanation for this topic!
http://www.bookrags.com/wiki/Lactose

Since lactose occurs mostly in milk, in most mammals the production of lactase gradually decreases with maturity. However, production never ceases completely; it is controlled by the presence of lactose in the diet, which in turn deactivates the repressor of the lac operon (http://www.bookrags.com/Lac_operon), allowing lactase to be synthesized. In other words, lactose induces the synthesis of the enzyme which breaks it down.[2] (http://www.bookrags.com/wiki/Lactose#cite_note-Cooper-1) (See also: gene expression (http://www.bookrags.com/Gene_expression).) Many people with ancestry in Europe (http://www.bookrags.com/Europe), the Middle East (http://www.bookrags.com/Middle_East), India (http://www.bookrags.com/India), or parts of East Africa (http://www.bookrags.com/East_Africa), maintain normal lactase production into adulthood. In many of these cultures mammals such as cattle (http://www.bookrags.com/Cattle), goats (http://www.bookrags.com/Goats), and sheep (http://www.bookrags.com/Sheep) are milked for food. Hence, it was in these regions that genes for lifelong lactase production first evolved (http://www.bookrags.com/Evolution).[3] (http://www.bookrags.com/wiki/Lactose#cite_note-NYT-2)
Drat, I can't find how many folks don't ever get their lactase production turned off no matter how long they go without eating milk products! I'm from European descent, and my ability to produce lactase turned off once I stopped eating milk products. Not that I should care, since I'm allergic to them and shouldn't be eating them anyways. I just get a double whammy if I do try to get away with it though (hives and stomach upset instead of just hives). I was basically taught that even in these populations that don't have the lactase production stop automatically in childhood, that it will stop permanently if they do stop eating milk products in adulthood because of the feedback system. It would be an odd case if someone could go weeks or months of not eating milk products to not become lactose intolerant.


More information on the "negative feedback" system for anyone who is curious:

The lac repressor is a protein that can bind loosely to virtually any segment of DNA. However, when it finds its target sequence on a DNA double helix, it changes the way it interacts with DNA, binds tightly, and turns off the expression of genes for metabolism of the sugar lactose.


http://www.umass.edu/molvis/bme3dv1/materials/explore.html

On the molecular level (think carbohydrates and proteins etc.) an important example of regulation is the lac-operon. It may have a funny name but the lac-operon serves a very vital purpose in regulating your digestive system every time you eat or drink a dairy product (which contain lactose). The lac-operon is a gene that codes for the making of lactase (an enzyme that breaks down lactose). Whenever you drink milk your digestive system is filled with lactose. The presence of the lactose “turns on” the lac-operon and causes it to make lactase. However, it is energy expensive. Therefore, the lac-operon only makes the lactase when it is needed (when you eat a dairy product). This is an example of gene regulation. QUOTE]
http://missbakersbiologyclass.com/blog/2008/05/06/themes-in-biology-regulation/



[quote] In the absence of lactose, the repressor protein encoded by the I gene binds to the lac operator and prevents transcription. Binding of lactose (and its relatives) to the repressor causes it to leave the operator.
http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultranet/BiologyPages/L/LacOperon.html

[casebro]

"Tolerance" of drugs is tha fact that on exposure, the liver makes more enzymes to destroy the drugs. Thereby, the patient needs more of the drug.

"Intolerance" would be that in response to the lack of a substance, the liver stops making that appropriate enzyme.

The most curious point is that the liver's stopping of lactase production is permanent. I guess that is the "lac operon" in action?

Probably because, once we are weaned to solid foods, the lacto-bacillus and aceto-bactors to breakdown sugars ought to come directly with our food. Cheese, sauer kraut, etc.

[ponderingturtle]

Hm. Some people don't become lactose intolerant from discontinuing their intake of lactose? I guess that would be a mutation. Something is stopping the feedback system. Do you have a cite for how much of the population this happens in and what kind of mutation this would be?


Well from wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lactose_intolerance)

It seems that there is both a mutation in the lactase gene common in Europeans, but that exposure to lactose also seems to be important to the continuing productions of lactase.

A large proportion of people do become lactose intolerant in spite of continued intake though. This is related to the lac operon shutting off permanently after a period of time, this might not be until a person is 5, 15, 30, 50, etc.

Likely they lack the mutation in allele in chromosome 2.

I'll look for a credible article on this. Now wishing I'd kept my textbook that covered it!
You should also look for information on the mutation to the lactase gene.

[ponderingturtle]

Drat, I can't find how many folks don't ever get their lactase production turned off no matter how long they go without eating milk products! I'm from European descent,

As it is a recessive gene and does not have total existance even in europe you might be lacking the two copies of the mutated lactase gene.

[pgwenthold]

As for the question of "why?" as I already stated, my health, vitality, and athletic performance have improved.

Why do you think your improvement in any of these has anything to do with the raw diet? As indicated, we know that a raw diet is not _healthier_ than a normal diet (although, with proper care, it can be made "as healthy.")

[dakotajudo]

You can google "lac operon" for more information.

Don't google "lac operon".

The lac operon is a simple bacterial gene that is used to teach the basics of transcriptional regulation. Eukaryotic genes are much more complex.

The lac operon is essentially a sensing system that regulates acute expression of the lac genes. In eukaryotes, you have additional levels of regulation, typically developmental.

In humans, competence to express lactase is both developmentally regulated (in that many adults are not competent to express lactase) and tissue specific (in that only some cells, such as intestinal epithelia, are capable of expressing lactase). These are independent of the actual transcription of the lactase gene.

The human lactase gene is abbreviated LCT.

I understand (and could be wrong) that lactose tolerance in adults is actually a mutation - but it is a relatively recent one. It isn't widespread in all populations and many folks, especially Asians, aren't lactose tolerant when adults.
The mutation may have occurred multiple times, in association with multiple sites of animal domestication. Of the top of my head, there are European, Middle-Eastern and African variants of the LP allele.

[ugot2bekidding]

I wonder about the deleterious effects to the body, and therefore also the mind.

That reminds me of a quote (don't remember who said it)..."Some people drink too much and see pink elephants, some people eat too little and see God"

[Eos of the Eons]

That reminds me of a quote (don't remember who said it)..."Some people drink too much and see pink elephants, some people eat too little and see God"

*grins*

And good information, thank you to everyone who posted!

[Jorghnassen]

Well, I just had tartare the other day. It was delicious, but it gave me a pretty bad case of the runs the next day. I think it'll be my last tartare... for a while (that stuff is just too tasty, gotta have some while I'm still young and healthy).

[Eos of the Eons]

Ugh, that stuff looks so gross! I've seen it made-raw egg, raw onions, and spices with the raw meat. But, I'm getting more and more curious about what the appeal is the older I get. I don't know where to get it around here. I don't know how to ensure the kind I get is safe to eat. I think I will have to try it some time, if ever presented with the opportunity again. I've eaten some pretty nasty stuff and gotten the runs and gut rot, so I think I can handle steak tartar if it is made right.

[ponderingturtle]

Ugh, that stuff looks so gross! I've seen it made-raw egg, raw onions, and spices with the raw meat. But, I'm getting more and more curious about what the appeal is the older I get. I don't know where to get it around here. I don't know how to ensure the kind I get is safe to eat. I think I will have to try it some time, if ever presented with the opportunity again. I've eaten some pretty nasty stuff and gotten the runs and gut rot, so I think I can handle steak tartar if it is made right.

It is for people who do not want to cook their meatloaf.

[Retrograde]

eos of the eons, given the quality of beef in Alberta I'm sure you can find someplace in the Calgary area that has steak tartare. If not, it's not hard to make yourself: do NOT, though, start with ground beef. Use a good quality beef that you either mince yourself, or have a butcher grind specially for you.

I know a few places in the San Francisco area that still do steak tartare. None of them are otherwise raw food places. Funny, raw meat and seafood don't seem to fit into the "raw food" ethos, even though they're probably a lot closer to the Stone Age diet than wheat grass extract or soy patties or whatever's trendy right now.

[Jorghnassen]

Ugh, that stuff looks so gross! I've seen it made-raw egg, raw onions, and spices with the raw meat.

I've never had raw egg on steak tartare, I guess most French restaurants around here don't do that. A raw egg certainly would dampen my apetite. It may be ancient carnivore instincts, but raw red meat properly prepared is just too tempting. I've had raw meat a number of times, from tuna to emu to duck and of course, beef, whether in sushi (tuna), steak tartare or carpaccio form. Usually, there's no problem, but there are inherent risks I am willing to take sometimes... Technically, strawberries have probably given me the runs more often than raw meat. Maybe I should cook them more often too!

[NCPhysicist]

I've known people who are into the raw diets. Often, one of their major complaints about what most people eat (in the US, at least) is that it's all "processed". But there's a reason why we process things.

The processing that foods go through today make them safer to eat. In fact, in the UK (only place I could find data quickly) the incidence of stomach cancer has declined 50% over thepast 35 years. That's huge! Please note that this is actual incidences of cancer, not survivability rates. People are living to be older, which would usually mean that incidence rates of cancers should go up, but that's not what we see in this case.

[Eos of the Eons]

Mmmm. Now I'm hungry. Lots of good advice on how to eat raw meat here :bgrin: I am close to Calgary...

[Travis]

I've known people who are into the raw diets. Often, one of their major complaints about what most people eat (in the US, at least) is that it's all "processed". But there's a reason why we process things.

The processing that foods go through today make them safer to eat. In fact, in the UK (only place I could find data quickly) the incidence of stomach cancer has declined 50% over thepast 35 years. That's huge! Please note that this is actual incidences of cancer, not survivability rates. People are living to be older, which would usually mean that incidence rates of cancers should go up, but that's not what we see in this case.

Yes, it has been well established that the processing of our foods has been a major factor in extending human longevity. People who think processed foods are the "enemy" are kooks.

[Cuddles]

People who think processed foods are the "enemy" are kooks.

Not to be confused with cooks, who generally think processing food is a pretty good idea.

[Jorghnassen]

Yes, it has been well established that the processing of our foods has been a major factor in extending human longevity. People who think processed foods are the "enemy" are kooks.

Well, there's processing and there's processing. There's a huge difference between the meal you make from scratch and a pre-package/cooked/assembled/prepared meal. The pre-made stuff always has more filler/salt/fat/sugar/preservatives-of-no-nutritional-value.

[Retrograde]

I've known people who are into the raw diets. Often, one of their major complaints about what most people eat (in the US, at least) is that it's all "processed". But there's a reason why we process things.I've read a few raw food "cookbooks", and some of the recipes even sound interesting. However, they're mostly highly processed. Typical recipes from one raw food site (http://www.rawguru.com/) include instructions like "Process in the food processor until rice-like" and "Dehydrate at 105 degrees for 12-14 hours" and "Juice everything together", which sure sounds like processing to me. They may contain no evil additives (except for Celtic sea salt, which apparantly has some magic quality not present in cheaper NaCl), but there's a lot of prep work going in to making the end product and in many cases it bears little resemblence to the starting ingredients. But it's done in small kitchens rather than big industrial vats so it's better.

I think the raw foods attitude comes from the same mindset that causes so-called health foods stores to stock more tablets, potions and supplements than some pharmacies. If it sounds alternative it must be better for you.

Now excuse me while I go make some gazpacho: it's too hot to cook today.

[Kaylee]

I "Dehydrate at 105 degrees for 12-14 hours" and
Huh? I thought the whole point of raw foods was to eat raw foods! That sounds like cooking to me.

.... which sure sounds like processing to me.
I agree.

Now excuse me while I go make some gazpacho: it's too hot to cook today.
:)

[tesscaline]

I've never had raw egg on steak tartare, I guess most French restaurants around here don't do that. A raw egg certainly would dampen my apetite. It may be ancient carnivore instincts, but raw red meat properly prepared is just too tempting. I've had raw meat a number of times, from tuna to emu to duck and of course, beef, whether in sushi (tuna), steak tartare or carpaccio form. Usually, there's no problem, but there are inherent risks I am willing to take sometimes... Technically, strawberries have probably given me the runs more often than raw meat. Maybe I should cook them more often too!The raw egg is mixed into the minced meat of steak tartare and is generally not noticed by the person eating it... So... You probably ate raw egg without even realizing. In fact, I'd go so far as to blame it for the digestive upset you suffered the following day (raw egg has a much higher risk of salmonella contamination). Steak tartare also is sometimes served with a lightly poached or fried quail egg on top, but that's a different matter all together.

Real caesar dressing is also made with raw egg (most restaurants don't actually serve real caesar dressing anymore, due to concerns about salmonella contamination, either that or they use pasteurized "raw" egg instead of fresh out of the shell).

[Ambrosia]

Yes, it has been well established that the processing of our foods has been a major factor in extending human longevity. People who think processed foods are the "enemy" are kooks.

Not to be confused with cooks, who generally think processing food is a pretty good idea.

I guess that makes me a kooky cook then.

While I spend lots of time processing food and also spend time thinking up new ways of processing food - I do find lots of "processed food" abhorrent.

I've never really considered what I do to be processing food before aciually, it's a pretty accurate description of what I do tho :)


The processing I have an issue with is processing on large scales using industrial style methods where the "food" at the end contains a large amount of chemicals (colours/flavours/preservatives what have you) and next to no nutritional content. While it will taste good, almost definitely won't harm you, and will have some basic nutritional value, a lot of manufacturers care more about their bottom line than the quality of food they produce aside from meeting certain regulatory requirements.

Quite apart from the fact that a number of these chemicals like for example aspartame/MSG might yet turn out to be harmful, as I understand it the jury is out on a lot of them. I feel there is an art to cooking that is being destroyed by the convenience culture of much of the west.

Cooking your own fresh food is relatively cheap and is pretty simple to do, tastes better, and is usually better for you.

I do think that the "raw food" idea is taking things too far the other way though. Some processing of food is a good thing.

Oh and correctly prepared steak tartare should never give you the runs (or any other type of mild food poisoning) The problem with eating raw meat comes from bacterial contamination of the surface of the steak that is used, you are supposed to remove that surface, quickly prepare the interior of the steak in question using clean equipment and then serve it straight away. Classic steak tartare does indeed contain raw egg yolk as a binder.

I don't know about the US but here in the UK chickens are vaccinated against salmonella - despite this many places do not permit the use of raw eggs anywhere :( - in some cases even pasteurised egg is not allowed.

There are a great many traditional dishes and sauces made using raw eggs as a base e.g mayonnaise, hollondaise, bernaise, baverse omlettes, soft boiled eggs. Disappearing from the menu entirely because of a perceived health risk which isn't really there.

One of my favourite pasta dishes is ravioli that has fresh egg yolks whole inside each one (along with some other filling), cooked just long enough, and made with the pasta just thin enough so that the yolks are still liquid inside, but hot, once the pasta is cooked through.

[Ambrosia]

Now excuse me while I go make some gazpacho: it's too hot to cook today.

Yum - sounds fabulous.

Might I also recommend Escabache. There's a great recipe for a Red Mullet Escabache here...

(or there would be if I could "do" links)

[timesonline . co . uk /tol/life_and_style/food_and_drink/heston_blumenthal/article612086.ece]

Escabache is Spanish for pickled - the above is close to the recipe I use and is a similar marinade to gazpacho.

I'm also a big fan of fruit soups for hot summer days, take your chosen fruit, anything citrus works realy well, poach half of it gently in a bain marie (a bowl sitting on top of a pan of gently steaming water) with *just* enough sugar to make it sweet enough for your taste, then liquidise along with the uncooked fruit - you can add stuff like cloves, juniper berries, various herbs and what have you along with the fruit that gets poached to add extra background flavour as required. Makes excellent base for fruit cocktails as well...

[Cuddles]

Huh? I thought the whole point of raw foods was to eat raw foods! That sounds like cooking to me.

I'd assume they mean 105 Fahrenheit, so only just over body temperature. Presumably it needs to be temperature controlled because that's more natural than sunlight.:)

I've never really considered what I do to be processing food before aciually, it's a pretty accurate description of what I do tho :)

That's exactly the problem. Anything you do to food, even something as small as peeling a banana or cutting something with a knife, is processing. Complaining about processed food is as stupid as complaining about chemicals in food. The problem comes when people equate processing and chemicals with excessive, unnecessary processing and chemicals that reduce the nutritional value of the food.

For example, sausages. You start out with a pig and then process the hell out of it to get a tasty, meaty tube. That's the kind of processing that really isn't a bad thing (unless you're vegetarian). On the other hand, some sausage makers add in a large amount of sawdust and cardboard and then shrink-wrap the whole thing in clingfilm. That's not good processing. It's not the fact of the processing that's the problem, it's the particular processing that happens in each specific example that may or may not be considered a bad thing.

Quite apart from the fact that a number of these chemicals like for example aspartame/MSG might yet turn out to be harmful, as I understand it the jury is out on a lot of them.

No, the jury is not out. They're not harmful. The anti-aspartame and MSG people are as honest as the anti-vaccination people. They can of course be bad for some people, just as many other foods can. That no more makes them harmful than the existence of peanut allergies makes peanuts harmful.

I feel there is an art to cooking that is being destroyed by the convenience culture of much of the west.

Cooking your own fresh food is relatively cheap and is pretty simple to do, tastes better, and is usually better for you.

It would be tricky to argue with that. What I find particularly silly is that ready-meals often have nothing in their favour at all. As long as you're cooking for more than one or two people, it usually turns out cheaper, faster and generally more healthy to cook yourself.

[ugot2bekidding]

Technically, strawberries have probably given me the runs more often than raw meat. Maybe I should cook them more often too!

I heard that strawberries are one of those fruits you should definitely buy organic. Apparently, pesticides are absorbed through their skins so you can't wash them off. I think I heard the same about peaches.

[casebro]

I don't know how much processing is too much, but Grammy didn't need gaur gum in her apple pie.

So much 'stuff' is added or done to commercial food to make it better production wise. Or make for a longer shelf life. Or make it not crumble. Or change color. Petty improvements, that don't make the food better for the eater.

Ice cream used to be cream and sugar.

Hot dogs were meat.

Tortillas were corn.

Now we get a generous portion of thickeners, stabilizers, modified who knows what. All diluting the expected ingredients.

I can sure understand the concept of pure foodists.

[Eos of the Eons]

I heard that strawberries are one of those fruits you should definitely buy organic. Apparently, pesticides are absorbed through their skins so you can't wash them off. I think I heard the same about peaches.
There are "organic" pesticides that aren't even tested for safety or what effects they can have since they are "organic", but they are chemicals just the same and can have detrimental effects even to the food that people try to use them on. One apple farmer got his apples burned by some organic pesticide, wasted a whole crop. Some plants make their own pesticides. Basically, it shouldn't matter what pesticide you ingest as long as they don't harm you or the food they are used on. I think most pesticides you'd have to drink gallons of before they make you sick, whereas others are more poisonous.

Some strawberries give me hives, whereas others do not. I'm not sure if it a certain pesticide or what that causes me to react. If you have sensitivities or a damaged liver, then you might want to research it more. Otherwise small amountd of pesticides (either man or plant made) shouldn't be something to go out of your way to worry about.

Just be wary of people selling you on "you have to get organic or you will be poisoned" nonsense. It's marketing, and not a real warning.

[Science v. Magic]

I heard that strawberries are one of those fruits you should definitely buy organic. Apparently, pesticides are absorbed through their skins so you can't wash them off. I think I heard the same about peaches.

This is true of all fruits and vegetables. The quick rinse most people consider to be "washing" doesn't do more than remove loose dirt.

[Morrigan]

I don't know about the US but here in the UK chickens are vaccinated against salmonella
Aren't vaccines made against viruses? How do you vaccinate against a bacteria?

[Ambrosia]

Aren't vaccines made against viruses? How do you vaccinate against a bacteria?

I'm a chef not a biologist, I have no idea, though I know you can.

some useful reading on poultry vaccines here ... (PDF file)

[ruma . org . uk/guidelines/vaccines/long/poultry%20vaccine%20long.pdf]

I was wrong above - all eggs sold in the UK bearing the Lion mark are from flocks vaccinated against salmonella. (85% of total eggs sold) so it's not mandatory by law - only for producers that get a Lion standard mark - which is the vast majority.

The 'Lion Quality' mark on the shell of eggs is a guarantee that the eggs were produced to higher standards than required by UK or EU law. All Lion Quality-marked eggs have complete traceability, a 'Best Before' date on the shell and compulsory vaccination of the laying flock against salmonella

[bbc . co . uk/food/food_matters/chicken.shtml]

some recent studies estimate 1 egg in 1000 from the total eggs sold in the UK contain salmonella.

and *still* rather than enforcing the use of Lion mark eggs - lots of establishments for reasons of "due dilligence" so I am told will only permit the use of pasteurised eggs :(

Homemade mayo is sooooooooooo much better than the shop bought rubbish

[Inquisitive Raven]

Aren't vaccines made against viruses? How do you vaccinate against a bacteria?

The original vaccine (cowpox or vaccinia against smallpox) was made against a virus, but some of the earliest other vaccines were made against bacteria, notably cholera (in chickens) and anthrax as developed by Louis Pasteur (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_Pasteur#Immunology_and_vaccination).

More recently the Hib vaccine immunizes against Hemophilus influenzae which, despite the name, is a bacterium. It was first isolated during a flu pandemic and thought to be its cause before the actual flu virus was identified in the 1930s (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Influenza#History).

[CORed]

I'm pretty sure the risk of death for all of us is 100%. At least, if there are any immortal people around, they're keeping a really low profile. Any statements about risk of death without a time restriction are pretty much meaningless.