Raw Food

[Mr. Scott]

I just saw Penn & Teller's "BS" first season on DVD and was interested to see that they bashed the raw food crowd. While I'm undecided on the subject, I'd like to share my recent experiences, and hope to hear from both sides on this to get a better understanding.

A few months ago my female companion met some raw food enthusiasts in a nearby city who took her to dinner at a raw food restaurant. She really loved the meal and, being an expert cook (in my opinion) started collecting recipes and making the most awesome concoctions. We really enjoy it! Good combinations of fresh ingredients and herbs and spices can yield incredibly delicious meals.

Sure, there are some nutty claims made by some high-profile advocates, but I can see logic to it without having to enter the woo zone.

The best logic for it is that our stomachs evolved before we cooked food. Sure, cooking makes the food easier to digest and at times more scrumptious, but is it valid to assume that if it tastes good it is good for us? Our stomachs also evolved before we learned how to concentrate fats and sugars, and as good as these taste, there's proof that they are really bad for you in the high doses many people consume them at. Not to mention carcinogens from charred meat. Our lungs also evolved before cigarettes, and as much pleasure smoking them gives some people, there's proof they're really bad for you.

So, I can see good logic in the raw food idea.

I had a friend who consumed anything he felt like eating, drinking, inhaling, or smoking in any amounts. If he got sick from it, he just went to a doctor to "get mended." He died recently at the age of 64 of multiple organ failure (esp. liver and kidneys), ultimately heart failure even though propped up by his second pacemaker. For what it's worth, he was a towering woo-woo and dismissed all my skeptical views. Somehow, we remained friends to the end.

I don't have a stake in it either way, except that the raw food I'm eating these days is delicious and the logic of it makes sense to me.

However, after a couple of days of eating only raw, I do get cravings for fatty stuff.

So, anyone know of any science that would support or refute basic claims that raw food is at worst not bad for you, and at best good for you? All opinions are welcome!

edit: capitalization, typos, removed redundancy

[hgc]

I'm not sure how you get complete protein combinations from just raw food, unless you're eating raw meat (which our pre-cooking ancestors certainly were doing). Is raw meat included in the diet? (Yes I know there are vegetarian sources of complete protein, but are they edible raw?)

Also, there are certain things that many would warn should not be eaten raw in too large quantities, such as spinach, because of the presense of chemicals that block the absorption of critical nutrients (but are converted with heat).

Me, I eat salad for lunch every day, but even that usually has chick peas and feta cheese -- both cooked products.

Please describe the contents of the diet. What are some of the recipes?

Is it also true that there is no need to follow a bowel movement with extensive clean-up?

[patnray]

There is no such thing as unhealthy food. There are, however, unhealthy diets. Too much of anything is bad. The single most important thing is to eat a varied and balanced diet with foods from all the food groups.

I have had delicious raw meals and delicious vegetarian meals. I've also had vegetarian dishes that were bland and unappetizing. It comes down to the skill of the chef. Whenever anyone tells me they despise a particular food I suggest that perhaps it's because they never had that item prepared well...

As for cooking being unhealthy, call me skeptical. Show me the data. Not, of course, speculation and anecdotes. Show me a published, peer reviewed study to back up that claim...

[Dogdoctor]

There is some concept among new agers where they think evolution predicts what is best for our bodies. The living conditions and diets that we evolved eating and living in have been greatly improved on. So much so that we live around 4 times longer than we used to on average. Evolution doesn't have a clue what is best for us. We evolved in smoke filled caves so maybe smoking is good for us? As far as I can tell any claims made by raw food enthusiasts are entirely unproven except perhaps that it can taste good.

[BlackCat]

Who cares what Penn & Teller think? If you like raw food, good for you. Personally, I prefer my food cooked, you see, less chance of food poisoning. But that's me, and I don't force my preferences on others.

The best logic for it is that our stomachs evolved before we cooked food. Sure, cooking makes the food easier to digest and at times more scrumptious, but is it valid to assume that if it tastes good it is good for us? Our stomachs also evolved before we learned how to concentrate fats and sugars, and as good as these taste, there's proof that they are really bad for you in high doses many people consume them at. Not to mention carcinogens from charred meat. Our lungs also evolved before cigarettes, and as much pleasure smoking gives some people, there's proof they're really bad for you.

Actually no, humans evolved with cooked food (most likely meats). Compared to other carnivores/omnivores, we have a lot fewer muscles in our heads. These missing muscles are needed by other animals for chewing raw meat. Cooking breaks down a lot of proteins and connective tissue, therefore we didn't need the muscles anymore. The loss of the muscle provided room for our brains to grow.

We evolved to like sugar because the things that naturally have sugar in them, fruits, have a lot of other benefits. Only recently have we separated sugar from nutrients. It's the same for fats. Fats were good for storing up energy for lean times. It didn't matter if you died of a heart attack at fifty, if you starved before you were able to reproduce.

Finally, charred bits on cooked meats do not cause cancer.

BlackCat

[Nick Bogaerts]

I'm not sure how you get complete protein combinations from just raw food, unless you're eating raw meat (which our pre-cooking ancestors certainly were doing). Is raw meat included in the diet?

Steak Tartare?

[Mr. Scott]

I'm not sure how you get complete protein combinations from just raw food, unless you're eating raw meat (which our pre-cooking ancestors certainly were doing). Is raw meat included in the diet? (Yes I know there are vegetarian sources of complete protein, but are they edible raw?)

I'm a fan of sushi, but the raw food diet is traditionally vegetarian.

Also, there are certain things that many would warn should not be eaten raw in too large quantities, such as spinach, because of the presense of chemicals that block the absorption of critical nutrients (but are converted with heat).

Good warning -- I got a huge batch of fresh spinach from a farmer today. I'll eat it with caution:relieved:

Please describe the contents of the diet. What are some of the recipes?

Will need to wait until the weekend and ask my friend to suggest a recipe I can put online.

Is it also true that there is no need to follow a bowel movement with extensive clean-up?

We haven't experienced the runs from it. We've so far experienced only desirable changes in bowel performance from raw food.

[Mr. Scott]

charred bits on cooked meats do not cause cancer.


Correct me if I'm wrong, but for a long time it had been claimed by some scientific studies that charring food created carcinogens.

However, I have a vague recollection of this being refuted recently.

[BlackCat]

Charring food does create carcinogens. However, there is no study that links eating charred food with cancer.

BlackCat

[Mr. Scott]

Charring food does create carcinogens. However, there is no study that links eating charred food with cancer.

Thanks, that clarifies my recollections.

[Lamuella]

a good friend of mine used to be a raw vegan, and through knowing her I got to know a few people in the raw scene. Some of them were the loveliest people you ever met. Some of them were total jerks, like a guy she knew who laughed his ass off when Dr Atkins died.

I think the problem I had with being raw was the scene rather than the diet. The aforementioned jerk was fairly charismatic and evangelical about being raw, and would harp on at people about "the poison you're pumping into your body". He pretty much established himself as a world authority on the raw vegan life. I tried not to talk to him much.

[Dogdoctor]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but for a long time it had been claimed by some scientific studies that charring food created carcinogens.

However, I have a vague recollection of this being refuted recently.
I am not sure about refuted but as far as I know cooking at high temperatures creates a number of carcinogens. People who eat lots of meat have a higher incidence of cancer than those who eat no meat. People who eat lots of meat usually consume meat cooked at high temperatures. There is some association. Raw meat on the other hand, unless it is radiation sterilized, can contain harmful bacterial infections that may shorten your life. A way to try to avoid that is to burn the outer portion of the meat then cut it away leaving a clean raw meat. Still unless you like the flavor of it , not a reason to try it.

[jon]

The BBC Food Programme did an episode on raw food - http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/factual/foodprogramme_20060430.shtml

Interesting listen, and they had a nice-sounding recipe for raw langoustines.

Again, I like to eat a fair bit of raw food - lots of fruit, salad, things like marinaded herring (does that count as raw?). Can't see why you'd want to *only* eat raw food, though, tbh. Would certainly want to see some good evidence before I gave up my grill ;)

Do you need to take supplements if you only eat raw food, or can you get everything you need from the diet?

[bluess]

One of the celebrity-favored raw foodies (can't remember his name) advises in his over-price cookbook that items exposed to heat under 180 degrees are still raw.

Since most raw foods upset my delicate tum, I prefer cooked.

[wybili]

One of the celebrity-favored raw foodies (can't remember his name) advises in his over-price cookbook that items exposed to heat under 180 degrees are still raw.

That's an odd definition. Poached foods are considered raw by his standard?

[bluess]

He takes sprouts and such like, presses them together and the exposes them to low heat, which isn't cooking. Yah, right.

His pictures are pretty funny - he has almost no muscle mass, but great skin tone. He looks like a particularly suntanned surfer skeleton dude.

[bluess]

Stopped being lazy, and looked him up. His name is Juliano, the restaurant and book are called 'Raw'.

Not to be confused with the wrestling guys.

[flume]

yeah, 180 degrees sounds higher than most raw foodists would accept.

[bluess]

I probably got the number wrong - I looked at the book when it first came out.

[kmortis]

I actually have Juliano's uncookbook. We've tried a few of the recipies out of it, like most of them. We generally leave this style of cuisine to the middle of summer, a) cause it requires no cooking and 2) it tends to be rather refreshing. I couldn't make a lifestyle out of it, as after about a week I start craving meat.

I think the disconnect here is seperating Juliano et al's woo-ish claims (detixification, meat putrification etc) and the diet. There's nothing wrong with the diet. It isn't the panacea that they'd like it to be.

Hmm...maybe it's time for a little Raw Cavier (read: seperated blackberries in balsamic vinegar).

[jon]

I'm bored, and found a nice quote from Juliano "Before there was fire, there was raw and we were here for billions of years on a raw diet so obviously it works (http://www.julianoalive.com/quotesheet.php)." Well, at least he's not saying we were created a few thousand years ago ;)

[hgc]

...
We haven't experienced the runs from it. We've so far experienced only desirable changes in bowel performance from raw food.Yeah, that's what I meant. There were a couple guys who wrote a raw food book on Howard Stern a few years ago. They claimed that they didn't have need of toilet paper. They also claimed that eating wheat raises estrogen levels, thereby causing male homosexuality. (Vague memory; don't hold me to it.)

[Mr. Scott]

There were a couple guys who wrote a raw food book on Howard Stern a few years ago. They claimed that they didn't have need of toilet paper..)

Toilet paper still necessary here, but we're not purists by any means.

They also claimed that eating wheat raises estrogen levels, thereby causing male homosexuality. (Vague memory; don't hold me to it.)

Juliano does strike one as effeminate. Regardless, I'd trade my body for his in a heartbeat.

Wait let's google -- ah, here's Juliano's web site (http://www.julianoalive.com/index.php). His food photos, the type a friend likes to call "gastoporn," make my heart race.

I'll be having a raw meal in a few hours and will write up the whole recipe for the forum.

[Kaylee]

Charring food does create carcinogens. However, there is no study that links eating charred food with cancer.

BlackCat

:confused:

After double checking that carcinogen means a cancer-causing substance or agent at www.dictionary.com (http://www.dictionary.com) , I entered "charred meats carcinogen cancer" in the google search engine.

Many web sites came up citing studies that charred meats does cause cancer, particularly prostate cancer.

But if you must have your barbecue consider washing it down with a beer -- per this web site drinking a beer cuts down on the risk ;) :

http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20050305/food.asp

[Mr. Scott]

humans evolved with cooked food (most likely meats). Compared to other carnivores/omnivores, we have a lot fewer muscles in our heads. These missing muscles are needed by other animals for chewing raw meat. Cooking breaks down a lot of proteins and connective tissue, therefore we didn't need the muscles anymore. The loss of the muscle provided room for our brains to grow.

Can you cite a scientific source?

I'm skeptical of that because the area of the head that chewing muscles occupy (outside the skull on the sides) does not seem to compete with the area the brain occupies (inside the skull and upwards).

[Mr. Scott]

Please describe the contents of the diet. What are some of the recipes?

As promised, here's what we ate last night:

Pre-dinner smoothie:
Juice from one young coconut
Frozen papaya
Pineapple

Salad Main Course:
Romaine Lettuce
Beats (chopped)
Collard Greens
Carrots (sliced)
Red Bell Pepper (sliced)
Jicama
Celery (chopped)

Salad Dressing (based on recipe in "Raw Food Real World" pp 97):
1-Avacado
1-Cup Orange Juice
1/4-Cup Lime Juice
1- Handful Cilantro
1-Tablespoon Chopped Shallt

Blend all but olive oil until smooth. With blender running slowly pour in olive oil until thick and creamy. Season to taste with pepper.

Seed Pate:
Raw pumpkin and sunflower seeds, onion, seasonings.

[rjh01]

Plenty of variety there which is good. Where is the protein?

[Mr. Scott]

Plenty of variety there which is good. Where is the protein?

The seeds? Possibly not enough, or enough of the right type. We will investigate.

[wybili]

The seeds? Possibly not enough, or enough of the right type. We will investigate.

According "On Food and Cooking" by Harold McGee, which everyone should read, protein from seeds and nuts tends to be deficient in lysine. (And just as a bit of trivia, he also notes that what we call a sunflower "seed" is actually a complete fruit.)

If you're worried about lysine deficiency, no sweat, eat some beans. Though you may want to cook those ..

[BlackCat]

After double checking that carcinogen means a cancer-causing substance or agent at www.dictionary.com (http://www.dictionary.com) , I entered "charred meats carcinogen cancer" in the google search engine.

Many web sites came up citing studies that charred meats does cause cancer, particularly prostate cancer.
I got it from this thread, which links to an article that disputes that. http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=54422

Can you cite a scientific source?

I'm skeptical of that because the area of the head that chewing muscles occupy (outside the skull on the sides) does not seem to compete with the area the brain occupies (inside the skull and upwards).
Sorry, I don't have any. It was on one of those shows on the National Geographic Channel (I think), that shows the progression of human evolution. The problem is, I've watched so many of these types of programs, I can't remember which one it was.

BlackCat

[Roboramma]

I remember a raw food guy proselytising when I was in India once. He was going around trying to convince everyone that eating raw was the only way.

Anyway, one of my roomates at the time took his advice and started eating raw. According to him, it was okay to eat rice if you cooked it with the sun. This was a long process, but given that there wasn't a cloud for 4 months (literally), and that I made raisins once in a day by dropping some grapes on the rooftop, it was quite effective. He cooked a lot of rice this way. I tried some of it, and it was quite nice, extremely slow cooked. Basically he would leave a pot with some rice and water out in the sun for maybe 6 hours and then he'd come back and the rice would be really plump, and the water gone.

Do other raw food advocates eat sun-cooked foods?

[Dogdoctor]

I got it from this thread, which links to an article that disputes that. http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=54422


BlackCat
Who was the author of that article? It appears to be just a news article and the opinion of the author. Concerning the idea that grilled veges don't cause cancer or that grilled meat don't cause cancer where are the studies showing that? The author says no links have been demonstrated between grilled food and cancer yet perhaps it is difficult to separate the effects of eating meat from the effects of grilling since there aren't many vegetarians who grill stuff and not many meat eaters who cook at low temperatures.
He mentions hetereocyclic aromatic amines but there are other carcinogens produced by grilling.

[Kaylee]

I just looked it up, it was written in a UK paper, the Daily Mail -- but no author's name was given.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/cancer/healthmyths.html?in_page_id=1898
Myth four: You can get cancer from barbecued food.
Truth: There's a persistent feeling these days that anything enjoyable must be bad for our health. So many things seem to be banned that we don't know where to turn, so when someone tells us that the burnt crust of barbecued food contains carcinogens, who are we to argue? But while it's true that the heterocyclic aromatic amines (HAAs) contained in the blackened edges of barbecue food are carcinogenic, there has been no evidence produced which links barbecued food to cancer. Perhaps this is because you would never eat enough charred food to cause the DNA damage that is central to cancer development. Also, you can reduce the carcinogens by 99 per cent by marinating the food before you grill it. It is thought this might be because typical marinade ingredients - tomatoes, olive oil, garlic and citrus juice - are high in cancer-fighting compounds. Interestingly, grilled vegetables have no cancer risk.

And in another article

http://www.newhousenews.com/archive/seeman052004.html (http://www.newhousenews.com/archive/seeman052004.html)
…
Of 40 studies of humans, about 70 percent have correlated increased cancer risk with high consumption of well-done meat cooked at high temperature.
…
In 1999, a National Cancer Institute study examined the eating habits of cancer patients. It concluded that eating a daily average of 10 grams of well-done or very well-done meat cooked at high temperatures increased the risk of colorectal cancer by 85 percent.
...


But in the same article:

The Hearth, Patio & Barbecue Association notes that scientists have not found a definite cause-and-effect relationship between barbecuing and human cancer, and that no government agency has recommended eliminating barbecuing.

{Shrug} I guess it's all a matter of whom people want to quote and which organizations they want to rely on for their info. Between the Daily Mail, the Hearth Patio & Barbecue Association and the National Cancer Institute -- I’m leaning towards the NCI. ;)

But I've not given up barbecues and grilled foods entirely -- I just cut back and eat more baked fish, chicken, meatloaf and roast beef than I use to.

edited for fixing up HTML

[The Painter]

as far as I know cooking at high temperatures creates a number of carcinogens.

So, does that make my (lights a cigarette) hot dog twice as bad for me? We are all going to die. We get to choose what’s going to kill us. That's the beauty of being human.

[ysabella]

Some raw foodists - not all - believe that raw foods contain friendly enzymes that help you digest them, and that populate your body with active, zesty little helpers. It isn't true; the enzymes are merely food that you digest easily with your own digestive enzymes.

Nothing wrong with enjoying raw foods, but a 100% raw diet is not practical. There is plenty of frank discussion about raw and vegan diets on Beyondveg.com (http://www.beyondveg.com/cat/frank-talk/index.shtml). That site is a really good read.

[Euromutt]

And in another article

http://www.newhousenews.com/archive/seeman052004.html (http://www.newhousenews.com/archive/seeman052004.html)I have to say that article failed to impress me, mainly because there's a lot of ambiguities in it.

Quoth the article:The potential health problems arise from two factors inherent to the barbecuing art: high heat and smoke.First--and I know this sounds pedantic but it's not--grilling and barbecuing are two different things. Grilling relies on high, direct heat, and though smoke is an almost inevitable by-product of the process, it is not required or even especially desirable. Barbecuing, by contrast, requires lower, indirect heat, often with a generous amount of smoke. Neither activity, if done properly, should generate both high heat and smoke; merely one of the two. If you et both, you're not practicing any "art"; you're bungling.
A 2001 National Cancer Institute study found levels of benzopyrene, also known as benzo(a)pyrene, to be significantly higher in foods cooked well-done on the barbecue [read: "grill" - €], particularly steaks, chicken with skin, and hamburger.Anyone who grills a steak beyond medium rare deserves everything he gets.
Chicken and pork should, of course, be well done, but frankly, chicken with skin is better for barbecuing than grilling anyway.

Re: the OP, I thought P&T's ragging on the raw foodists had more to do with their attitude that you're better off starving to death than eating GM crops, or anything else non-raw and non-organic, for that matter. It's pretty evident that Juliano's grip on reality is pretty tenuous. From the episode:Raw foods was [sic] here first, and we were doing fine. Cooked foods came along, now we're about to die.This only makes sense if you consider a life expectancy of less than thirty years to constitute "doing fine." And frankly, considering humans have been cooking food since the invention of fire, this means we have been "about to die" for millennia.[...] But a tortilla is made in a dingy, dirty factory, by some dude who hates his job, boss, life and you, and sends that hate into the food and you eat it and send it to the center of your core being.Actually, the vast majority of tortillas sold in stores and used in restaurants are made by machines. If you can find a hand-made tortilla, chances are it was prepared with love, pride or both. Like that matters, given that the notion of transmitting negative vibes via food is just too damn ridiculous to even merit serious consideration to begin with.

Okay, so modify my earlier statement: P&T were also ragging on Juliano & chums because of the sheer ludicrousness (ludicrosity?) of their arguments. The underlying claim is the usual one that only natural stuff is good for you, and only raw food is natural. The rejoinder to the former is "hemlock," and the rejoinder to the second is that I plainly see a VitaMix blender (http://www.vitamix.com/) sitting on Juliano's countertop, plus of course the items Penn pointed out (transportation, refrigeration, piped water, etc.).

There may be something to raw food, but if there is, Juliano and his pals have no clue what it is. I also hope they're not representative of what a raw food diet does to you; I never want to be that shallow, self-centered and stupid.

[Dogdoctor]

They should provide a definition of high heat. I think what they usually mean is temperatures of 400 degrees which you can have in a skillet. While the inside of a grilled or barbecued steak may not reach 400 the outside will. For some people discussing these things high heat is anything over boiling and maybe for raw food over 180? They need to provide a definition.

[Mr. Scott]

There may be something to raw food, but if there is, Juliano and his pals have no clue what it is..

Well, cooking destroys many nutrients. I think they know it and there's good science behind it. Also making the body work harder to extract nutrients might be contributing to the weight loss of raw diets.

I also hope they're not representative of what a raw food diet does to you; I never want to be that shallow, self-centered and stupid.

Evidence?

The idea that a raw food diet could biologically make one "shallow, self-centered and stupid" seems the height of woo. Juliano isn't stupid -- he's just bizarre and uneducated in natural sciences.

Originators of good ideas often tend to make exaggerated claims and have extreme personalities. I once attended a speech by Nobel Prize winner Linus Pauling. Although credited with some of the most important biochemical breakthroughs of the 20th Century, he was a big proponent of Vitamin C as a cure for colds and cancer (since thoroughly debunked) and in his speech he argued that consuming more zinc would reduce wars, crime, racism, fascism, right-wing politics, and global suffering. Fortunately taking these supplements gives you neither these nutty ideas nor the wacky side effects of the mind of the maverick.

(no, I don't think Juliano's accomplishments are comparable to Pauling's, in case you're thinking that)

[Mr. Scott]

My personal experience of mental effects of a raw diet:

Several years ago I tried an "eat the rainbow" diet of mostly raw fruits, vegetables, nuts, etc. Unexpectedly, my need for caffeine to stay alert disappeared. I only did this for a few months before cravings for big macs and sweets returned. Then the need for caffeine to fight drowsiness came back.

[ZirconBlue]

Well, cooking destroys many nutrients. I think they know it and there's good science behind it. Also making the body work harder to extract nutrients might be contributing to the weight loss of raw diets.

Yes, cooking can "destroy" nutrients; however, some nutrients (especially in plant matter) are not readily accessable to us, and are liberated by cooking.

[jon]

Well, cooking destroys many nutrients. I think they know it and there's good science behind it. Also making the body work harder to extract nutrients might be contributing to the weight loss of raw diets.


While cooking may destroy some nutrients, it can also make food more easily digestible (and there's some food that you really wouldn't want to eat raw). Also, almost all nutrients we need can be got from a 'normal' balanced diet (though this may be more difficult for ethical vegetarians/vegans) - so there doesn't seem to be any reason to adopt a very restrictive diet just to meet our nutritional requirements.

Lots of people don't need to lose weight and - especially if you're physically active - I'd imagine it could be hard to eat enough raw food to keep your body weight up (how many nuts can one eat...) I'm sure that switching to a very restrictive diet like this would let almost anyone lose weight (if they stuck to it, and I'd guess it's hard to stick to for many) but I'm also sure that lots of other similarly restrictive diets could do the same thing.

btw, what has Juliano achieved? His 'research' doesn't exactly seem reliable. I'm sure he's written some nice recipes - is that it?

[Mr. Scott]

what has Juliano achieved? His 'research' doesn't exactly seem reliable. I'm sure he's written some nice recipes - is that it?

His achievements include public relations, establishing a successful restaurant, publishing cookbooks, and being famous. He got on P&T's BS, didn't he? ;) He and his followers provide evidence that a strict raw food diet won't kill you or make you ill. I see no evidence of their declining health. Do you?

But I really don't want to be in the position of defending Juliano. He's a nut-case, and it's straw-manning to suggest I feel the raw food idea lives or dies on the personality of Juliano. There are plenty of level-headed proponents, though monster alphas have their roles. Does his personality do more harm than good to his cause? Perhaps.

One could argue that the earth will feed more people if we use heat energy to free up nutrients from the more plentiful crops. That makes some sense. Perhaps we can look into genetic engineering to modify common food sources so they don't need cooking to supply the nutrients. That would be OK with me.

(I know -- not with Juliano)

But one of the contradictions of P&T's diatribe against food BS is that they praise one scientist for making food plentiful to help feed the starving masses, then proudly eat a bacon and eggs breakfast. Pigs and chickens eat the crops we grow, and it's often argued that it's a very inefficient use of food resources. Does anyone else see a little hypocrisy there?

PS: I'd rather talk about the food than Juliano, so I won't participate in the personality discussion any longer.

[Number Six]

I think that the diet fads or any other kinds of fads say more about how people like to do certain things or join certain groups rather than about the effects of the fads themselves. Why would it be that of amongst the many possible diets, one particular kind, such as all raw, or no meat, or whatever, would be healthiest?

Yes, it could be that Food X produces Chemical Y in the body causing Outcome Z, which is good (or bad), but that is the end result whereas people often start at the other end, picking their diet and then looking for reasons like that to support why it is best. And also, just because Food X is good for you, why would it be that all the foods that are good for you would come out of that one particular subclass of foods? It seems a priori unlikely to me. If a reason could be deomonstrated then fine, but it never is.

Also, the environment humans were in when they were evolving doesn't necessarily tell us what is healthiest for humans. We evolved in certain environments and in those environments some things were good and others weren't, and on balance overall we made it here today. Fine. So why does that mean those things that were around when we evolved are necessarily what we should be eating today? Some of the things that we eat today weren't around when we evolved. Some of those things may be good for us and others bad, but just because they didn't exist when we evolved doesn't say anything one way or the other. The effect something has on you is determined by the effect that it has on you, period.

It's fun to try various things and investigate various subcultures so long as they don't start trying to wiggle into "We're The One True Way." There are probably ways to eat all raw and still eat healthy and there may be other moral arguments you can make in favor of it, but the notion that it is inherently more healthy than not eating all raw not only hasn't been shown but it doesn't even pass my sniff test. And I'm not picking on all raw diets. That's just an example. The same could be said of any of 50 other diets out there.

[jon]

fair enough about Juliano - tbh it was just the amount of BS on Juliano's site, and the preachy tone, that annoyed me (not sure how good the PR would be, but I guess some people have been persuaded by him). Don't get p&t here, so can't say how fair or unfar it was.

Like Number Six, I've no problem with people choosing to just eat a raw diet. I also don't see any reason why this should be something everyone does, or that many people do, though.

edited to add - I mean, surely some steamed brocolli isn't going to shorten my life significantly ;)

[wybili]

Pigs and chickens eat the crops we grow, and it's often argued that it's a very inefficient use of food resources. Does anyone else see a little hypocrisy there?

But there's no shortage of food in the US, is there? Pigs and chickens mostly eat corn, if I'm not mistaken, and the US exports something like 40 million tons of corn per year.

[Mr. Scott]

...since I've been really enjoying raw food as a part (~40%) of my diet, I was taken aback by Penn & Teller's merciless slamming of the idea. Isn't propping up the silliest advocate of a movement a subtle form of straw-manning when there are many sensible ones? And P&T really only say that the raw food movement is silly. They provide no evidence, in fact don't even suggest, that it's unhealthy IIRC. Mentioning how lean they were would have come across as jealousy.

Great thread. Thanks everyone!

PS: I just had a Burger King dinner: Whopper Junior, Onion Rings, and Vanilla Shake. Tasted good, but my head is now throbbing and heart accelerating. Gotta lie down.:faint:

[Dogdoctor]

He and his followers provide evidence that a strict raw food diet won't kill you or make you ill. I see no evidence of their declining health. Do you?
This claim is similar to lots of woo woo. They just don't show you the sick dying and dead raw food faddists (they go off the diet and can no longer blame the diet for their problems). I bet you won't see many children raised on this diet. I eat lots of raw food because I like it and I don't go around making false health claims about it.

[jon]

...since I've been really enjoying raw food as a part (~40%) of my diet, I was taken aback by Penn & Teller's merciless slamming of the idea. Isn't propping up the silliest advocate of a movement a subtle form of straw-manning when there are many sensible ones? And P&T really only say that the raw food movement is silly. They provide no evidence, in fact don't even suggest, that it's unhealthy IIRC. Mentioning how lean they were would have come across as jealousy.

Great thread. Thanks everyone!

PS: I just had a Burger King dinner: Whopper Junior, Onion Rings, and Vanilla Shake. Tasted good, but my head is now throbbing and heart accelerating. Gotta lie down.:faint:

I'm sure no-one's suggesting that eating some raw food in your diet is a bad thing - most people would at least accept that eating some fresh fruit/veg is healthy :) I must eat almost 40% raw food myself, just through snacking on fruit, nuts etc...

The problem I have with the (relatively few) people I've met and heard who advocate a raw foods diet is that they often seem to over-emphasise the benefits of eating raw food and the disbenefits of eating cooked food. If you took some of Juliano's website literally, it would seem as if he's saying that eating raw brocolli gives life and eating steamed brocolli gives death :confused:

I'm aware I may be going for a straw man (and I do tend to remember things that p*** me off better) - so can you suggest some raw food advocates who aren't, as you put it before, nutcases?

Thanks,

Jon

PS: oddly, think it must have been a good year or two since I've had a McDonalds/Burger King burger.... After a couple of months of avoiding 'junk' food, I seem to have lost my taste for their burgers at least...

[Euromutt]

Well, cooking destroys many nutrients. I think they know it and there's good science behind it.So why don't they present that science, instead of making inane statements like the ones I've quoted?
Evidence?Spare me the Larsenisms. You've seen the P&T episode, so you know I didn't make up the quotes I cited in my previous post. You may also recognize the following exchange:CREWMEMBER: Critics say with genetically modified food we could end hunger, we could feed billions of people that we currently are not. How would you respond to that?

JULIANO: Uh, yeah, we could feed billions of people, but they might grow four eyes, y'know, you don't know, you can't play with nature! Anytime they ever did--

UNIDENTIFIED WOMAN: What kind of people would they be? What kind of people would we be creating? You know, you are what you eat."What kind of people would they be?" How about not dead ones for a start?
Is that enough evidence of shallowness, self-centeredness and stupidity for you?
The idea that a raw food diet could biologically make one "shallow, self-centered and stupid" seems the height of woo.Actually, I think it's been pipped to the post by the notion that you can cause detrimental effects to someone's health by transmitting hatred via a tortilla.

Of course the idea that a raw food diet is capable of instilling shallowness, self-centeredness and stupidity is indeed woo-ish, which is why I used the phrase "I [...] hope [Juliano cum suis] are not representative"; I don't actually buy that notion, but it's as valid (which is to say, not at all) as the claims put forth by Juliano & crew. Hey, if you can make people ill with hatred-infused tortillas, why shouldn't raw food have possible side-effects? (That's a rhetorical question, just to be clear.)

I might add that I've encountered more than a few people who, upon finding a diet which worked for them--or at least seemed to work for them--got thoroughly snotty about it. "This diet is perfect, it's the answer to al of humanity's ills, and if you can't get it work for you, it must just be because you don't want it enough" sort of thing;
Juliano isn't stupid -- he's just bizarre and uneducated in natural sciences.If Juliano is, by your estimation, "uneducated in natural sciences," how is he in a position to judge the validity of the science supposedly underlying a raw food diet?
Lack of education is only part of his problem, mind you; it's one thing to be ignorant, but quite another to fail to recuse yourself from subjects on which you are ignorant and instead make sh*t up.
Originators of good ideas often tend to make exaggerated claims and have extreme personalities. I once attended a speech by Nobel Prize winner Linus Pauling. Although credited with some of the most important biochemical breakthroughs of the 20th Century, he was a big proponent of Vitamin C as a cure for colds and cancer (since thoroughly debunked) and in his speech he argued that consuming more zinc would reduce wars, crime, racism, fascism, right-wing politics, and global suffering.Right; Pauling did some ground-breaking work, but he also had some ideas which were utterly ludicrous. By contrast, Juliano has some slick marketing skills, which are no good to anyone but himself, and if there's anything to what he's doing, he's clueless about it. So the parallel applies how, exactly?

[ARubberChickenWithAPulley]

since I've been really enjoying raw food as a part (~40%) of my diet, I was taken aback by Penn & Teller's merciless slamming of the idea. Isn't propping up the silliest advocate of a movement a subtle form of straw-manning when there are many sensible ones? And P&T really only say that the raw food movement is silly. They provide no evidence, in fact don't even suggest, that it's unhealthy IIRC. Mentioning how lean they were would have come across as jealousy.

You're right, they don't suggest that raw food is unhealthy. In the context of the show, they weren't taking issue with people who make a personal choice to eat raw food. They were taking issue with "raw fooders" who try to convince other people that any food that has been processed, mass-produced, altered in any way, or is otherwise "unnatural" should be shunned -- even if it means having people starve to death.

I'm going to make this next point with an attempt to avoid hijacking the thread, so excuse me if it is a little long (treading lightly here): P&T's purpose in interviewing that particular group of raw fooders was to illustrate that a lot of the loudest opponents of GE crops are people who have, quite frankly, very little knowledge of the rest of the world, live in affluence, and have the luxury of being able to choose what food to eat. I don't think P&T are opposed to legitimate scientists debating over GE crops. But they were showing that there are a lot of people, outside the scientific debate, who have a rediculous, knee-jerk reaction against anything "unnatural" and are trying to frighten people away from something that could help better mankind and save millions of lives.

Did they spend a lot of time on the nutty raw food folks (get it? "nutty" heh heh.)? Yeah. IMHO, I think some of that is just because they were entertaining to watch. But what I took from the show (and from P&T's attitude on other issues) was not that they were ragging on people who make a personal choice to eat raw food. They were ragging on neo-luddites who ignore the positive impacts and possibilites of technology, and ignorantly think that their lifestyle is best for everyone else.

If the sensible advocates of a raw food diet are simply people who share raw food recipes and encourage people to eat enough vegetables to stay healthy, then fine. I wouldn't really even consider that a movement, per se, any more than Martha Stewart's Living is a movement. But if the "raw food movement" is one that at its core is claiming that cooked, altered, processed food is inherently evil -- well, in my opinion, it is deserving of ridicule.

[Mr. Scott]

Pauling did some ground-breaking work, but he also had some ideas which were utterly ludicrous. By contrast, Juliano has some slick marketing skills, which are no good to anyone but himself, and if there's anything to what he's doing, he's clueless about it. So the parallel applies how, exactly?

To repeat: I'd rather talk about the food than Juliano, so I won't participate in the personality discussion any longer. It's a side issue to me, not a central issue. Have the last word.

[Mr. Scott]

They just don't show you the sick dying and dead raw food faddists

Anecdotes?

I'd love to hear about sick, dying and dead raw food faddists who's illness can be attributed to the diet. This is why I started the thread -- to learn, and that should have been clear in the OP.

Please elaborate!

[flume]

One issue is B12 deficiency among the raw vegans who won't take supplements.

[bluess]

What are B12 supplements made from?

[jon]

To repeat: I'd rather talk about the food than Juliano, so I won't participate in the personality discussion any longer. It's a side issue to me, not a central issue. Have the last word.

Again, I'd be interested to know any prominent figures/sources of research in the raw food movement who are more sensible. Picking on Juliano isn't straw-manning if the other 'leaders' of the movement are just as bad (they can't be...can they :eek: )

You say that you'd rather talk about the food - from a personal perspective, I don't need to lose weight, aren't under-nourished so far as I know, so is there any reason to think that (as many in the 'movement' would seem to argue) I should stop eating the cooked food I enjoy? And if the result of sometimes following a raw diet is craving 'junk' and binging on things like Burger King at other times, wouldn't you do better to just eat a well-balanced, cooked diet?

btw, can I watch the p&t episode online? - sounds funny :D

[wybili]

What are B12 supplements made from?

Sometimes yeast.

[atari24]

He and his followers provide evidence that a strict raw food diet won't kill you or make you ill. I see no evidence of their declining health. Do you?

I certainly see no evidence that they are any healthier than the general population.

I say eat what you want. Medical science is going to keep most of us alive past our natural lifespan whether we only eat leaves or we only eat the fat off steaks.

[Kaarjuus]

I certainly see no evidence that they are any healthier than the general population.

They certainly don't seem to be suffering from obesity.

I say eat what you want. Medical science is going to keep most of us alive past our natural lifespan whether we only eat leaves or we only eat the fat off steaks.

This, of course, is nonsense. There is a reason why cardiovascular diseases are the leading cause of death in the USA.

[atari24]

They certainly don't seem to be suffering from obesity.

There are plenty of non-raw-fooders who are not obese. Anyways, not being obese is not a sign that you are any healthier than anyone else.


This, of course, is nonsense. There is a reason why cardiovascular diseases are the leading cause of death in the USA.

So what? Car accidents are #2 for some age groups. Should we not drive cars? Are you going to force others to eat your way? If you live in a country where you have the luxury of deciding what to eat, then you can eat what you want as far as I'm concerned. You want to subsist of bacon wrapped fatback? Be my guest.

I'm not of the camp that says living a long time is very important.

[jon]

They certainly don't seem to be suffering from obesity.


I don't think anyone's denying that, if you can stick to a horribly restrictive diet that excludes a lot of the more calorific foods, obesity will not be a problem (though it looks like some of them may be underweight, which brings its own issues, and it may be hard to get other nutrients from a raw and vegan diet). Most people won't stick to extreme diets like Raw, though, and given that it's quite possible to maintain a healthy body weight without going to such extremes, this seems like the better option for most people...

As has been said already, you don't see the people who gave up the diet cause it made them ill, who 'lapsed' from the diet and ending up gaining lots of weight by binging, etc...

[Kaarjuus]

Anyways, not being obese is not a sign that you are any healthier than anyone else.

Well, since a significant percentage of that "anyone else" IS obese, and obesity causes a variety of serious health problems, I would say that is a pretty good sign.



So what? Car accidents are #2 for some age groups. Should we not drive cars? Are you going to force others to eat your way? If you live in a country where you have the luxury of deciding what to eat, then you can eat what you want as far as I'm concerned. You want to subsist of bacon wrapped fatback? Be my guest.

Of course I am not advocating forcing people to eat in a certain way, much less my way, since I am overweight. My aim was to point out the falsehood in your post that a person's diet does not affect their health and lifespan.

[Dogdoctor]

Anecdotes?

I'd love to hear about sick, dying and dead raw food faddists who's illness can be attributed to the diet. This is why I started the thread -- to learn, and that should have been clear in the OP.

Please elaborate!
It is a common way that woo woo promote their claims. While I have no data on raw food faddists I know they promote stupidity in the name of health. Without further information I assume there will be unhealthy food faddist of any stupidity promoting group since their beliefs are not based on facts. I don't have data neither do they. I lived for a couple years on a commune where I had close contact with all nature of food faddists including raw food faddists. I know from personal experience people do crazy things because they hold irrational beliefs about food. I was only pointing out that implying that there are no unhealthy raw food faddists is a logical mistake and a common method of promoting stupidity. People may have died form eating raw food yet the faddist will ignore it or cover it up or blame something else as the cause of death. Do you have any proof that people following the directions of the raw food faddist guru guy are healthy?

[jon]

Well, since a significant percentage of that "anyone else" IS obese, and obesity causes a variety of serious health problems, I would say that is a pretty good sign.


It seems pretty obvious that if you eat such a restricted, and very probably low-calory, diet you are less likely to be obese (though such a restricted diet may cause other problems - e.g. lack of protein or b12 or calcium...). One can also maintain a healthy weight through eating a balanced 'normal' diet and doing regular exercise. In the absence of evidence in favour of a raw foods diet, I know which I prefer - grilled venison and steamed cabbage tonight, and man will I enjoy the taste of those carcinogens :D

[atari24]

Well, since a significant percentage of that "anyone else" IS obese, and obesity causes a variety of serious health problems, I would say that is a pretty good sign.

I would not consider that evidence for anything, though.




Of course I am not advocating forcing people to eat in a certain way, much less my way, since I am overweight. My aim was to point out the falsehood in your post that a person's diet does not affect their health and lifespan.

Look, I never meant that diet does not affect health. I'm saying that, nevermind. I'm converted. I'm going raw food.

[supercorgi]

I know from personal experience people do crazy things because they hold irrational beliefs about food.
Slight derail here. Hey Dogdoctor, what do you think of the BARF (Bones and Raw Food) diet for dogs? It seems to me that BARF feeders are following the same tack as the human raw foodists. I didn't think at lot of bones were good for dogs -- can't the splinter and become lodged in the intestines?

From one website (http://www.barfworld.com/):
"BARF is an acronym for Biologically Appropriate Raw Food and also stands for Bones And Raw Food. Other apt terms include evolutionary diet, natural diet and species appropriate diet. Every living animal requires a biologically appropriate diet. If you think about it, not one animal on earth is adapted by evolution to eat a cooked food diet. This means our BARF World diet is exactly what we should be feeding to our pets."

[tracer]

Raw food tastes good, provided that you cook it first.

[tracer]

Actually no, humans evolved with cooked food (most likely meats). Compared to other carnivores/omnivores, we have a lot fewer muscles in our heads. These missing muscles are needed by other animals for chewing raw meat. Cooking breaks down a lot of proteins and connective tissue, therefore we didn't need the muscles anymore.
These muscles are also needed by other animals for biting their adversaries.

If you have stone spears and can throw rocks really well, you don't need to bite your adversaries any more, and so your jaw muscles won't need to be as massive.

Even if the muscles (and the pointy teeth!) our very ancient ancestors had were used for chewing meat, these would have also been less necessary once stone cutting tools were developed. (Stone cutting tools have been found that are older than the oldest known stone spear heads.)

[Dogdoctor]

Slight derail here. Hey Dogdoctor, what do you think of the BARF (Bones and Raw Food) diet for dogs? It seems to me that BARF feeders are following the same tack as the human raw foodists. I didn't think at lot of bones were good for dogs -- can't the splinter and become lodged in the intestines?

From one website (http://www.barfworld.com/):
"BARF is an acronym for Biologically Appropriate Raw Food and also stands for Bones And Raw Food. Other apt terms include evolutionary diet, natural diet and species appropriate diet. Every living animal requires a biologically appropriate diet. If you think about it, not one animal on earth is adapted by evolution to eat a cooked food diet. This means our BARF World diet is exactly what we should be feeding to our pets."
If the best we do in taking care of ourselves or our pets is to duplicate our environment when we evolved then we would still be living in the stone age. We can do better than nature since nature is mindless and cares not how well we do. A well taken care of pet does far better than any similar wild animal. We do much better than our cave man ancestors. This goes for many aspects of life including diet.

[Euromutt]

To repeat: I'd rather talk about the food than Juliano, so I won't participate in the personality discussion any longer. It's a side issue to me, not a central issue. Have the last word.Fine with me. Let me make it clear, though, that my issue is not with your position on a raw food diet, but with your assertion that Penn & Teller were "mercilessly slamming the idea" (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1640180#post1640180) of raw food, and chiding them for doing so without evidence, whereas I would contend that they were specifically bashing Juliano & company, who, frankly, had it coming.

[flume]

We can do better than nature since nature is mindless and cares not how well we do. A well taken care of pet does far better than any similar wild animal. We do much better than our cave man ancestors. This goes for many aspects of life including diet.I don't think this is necessarily a correct conclusion. If a natural diet were not 'complete and balanced' then obviously there would be no wolves and dogs today. The commercial diets especially the cheaper ones are designed not for the optimal diet but for the diet using the least expensive materials. Is it doing better than nature to feed a high carb diet to an animal which evolved eating a diet alomst devoid of carbs?

[Number Six]

I don't think this is necessarily a correct conclusion. If a natural diet were not 'complete and balanced' then obviously there would be no wolves and dogs today. The commercial diets especially the cheaper ones are designed not for the optimal diet but for the diet using the least expensive materials. Is it doing better than nature to feed a high carb diet to an animal which evolved eating a diet alomst devoid of carbs?

Just because humans or animals evolved under certain conditions or diets doesn't mean those conditions or diets were optimal. If a diet is good enough for animals to survive and evolve it doesn't means that the diet is complete and balanced but rather just that it is good enough.

Whether the commercial diets are good or bad doesn't depend on whether they're commerical or cheap or expensive or anything else but rather depends on what effect the diet has on the animal.

Is it doing better than nature to feed a high carb diet to an animal which evolved eating a diet almost devoid of carbs? I don't know. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. The answer depends on what effect a high carb diet has on the body of the animal. The fact that the animal evolved eating a different diet isn't relevant.

Look at it this way: Humans live much longer today than they ever did in human history and yet the conditions they live in are much different than the conditions they evolved in.

[Dogdoctor]

I don't think this is necessarily a correct conclusion. If a natural diet were not 'complete and balanced' then obviously there would be no wolves and dogs today. The commercial diets especially the cheaper ones are designed not for the optimal diet but for the diet using the least expensive materials. Is it doing better than nature to feed a high carb diet to an animal which evolved eating a diet almost devoid of carbs?
Do you have any idea how many wolves die from malnutrition? There is certainly a lot more dieing from it than dogs eating even cheap poorly formulated dog food. Probably at least 10% of wolf pups die out of every litter due to malnutrition (read that as improperly balanced diet). There is nothing about nature that is nice or friendly or ideal. Are you saying that carbs are causing disease or shortening the life of dogs? There is no evidence of that.

[flume]

Just because humans or animals evolved under certain conditions or diets doesn't mean those conditions or diets were optimal. If a diet is good enough for animals to survive and evolve it doesn't means that the diet is complete and balanced but rather just that it is good enough.It may depend on how you use the phrase "complete and balanced". I am using it in the sense that the animal survives with reasonable health, enough to be able to continue to feed itself (hunt) and to reproduce and care for its young. It seems to me that a natural diet by definition must be able to do this. A commercial diet has to meet certain rules that suggest it can do this - something like 8 dogs must live on the diet for n number of months (a test which doesn't say anything about longevity) and must be able to reproduce successfully if the diet is for all life stages. I think the requirements are somewhat similar, if you ignore the fact that a dog eating the commercial diet is not required to successfully hunt and kill its prey. Whether the commercial diets are good or bad doesn't depend on whether they're commerical or cheap or expensive or anything else but rather depends on what effect the diet has on the animal.There is nothing to say that the commercial diet should attempt to be optimal. The materials used to make most commercial foods do not suggest that the manufacturers are trying for an optimal diet.

With animals like deer eating a wild diet of browse, there might be elements in the food which have been evolved by the plant to be hostile or which might have a negative effect, like tannins. Perhaps a commercial food eliminating certain plant toxins might be helathier. But for a carnivore eating animals, I don't think there are any toxins to be removed.

okay, thinking more about it, maybe I can think of an example where a natural diet is not balanced: in the winter when the prey animals are depleted of fat. I think this has been an issue for humans trying to live off of rabbit meat low in fat in the winter. Is this an issue for wolves?
(It wouldn't be an issue for dog diets.) OTOH, prey eating wild grasses may have higher levels of omega-3 fatty acids. Have these been provided in commercial diets at optimal levels?
(I am posting fast here before I have thought things through.)

[Number Six]

A diet that an animal evolved on was good enough for the animal to survive and evolve. That doesn't mean it is best though. A commercial diet may be better or worse or equally as good.

The point I'm trying to make is that whether the diet is "natural" or "commercial" is irrelevant. What matters is what effect the diet has on the animal, period.

When people say that something is beneficial because it is natural they're using faulty reasoning. Nothing is beneficial merely because it's natural. Some natural things are beneficial because they contain Ingredient X, which has Effect Y. But that's a result of Ingredient X, not of it being natural. Then sometimes a non-natural ingredient is discovered that has an even better effect than Ingredient X.

Reality doesn't care whether something is "natural" or not.

[flume]

Do you have any idea how many wolves die from malnutrition? There is certainly a lot more dieing from it than dogs eating even cheap poorly formulated dog food. Probably at least 10% of wolf pups die out of every litter due to malnutrition (read that as improperly balanced diet). Can you define malnutrition in this context? Is it because the wolf or wolf pup gets inadequate food or unbalanced food? In what way is a prey animal an incomplete food source? I agree that an animal in the wild might not get enough food. This is different from that food inherently suboptimal.Are you saying that carbs are causing disease or shortening the life of dogs? There is no evidence of that.I don't know the answer to this question. I think there was some speculation about whether diabetes in cats could be related. Are you able to say that a high-carb diet for dogs is optimal compared to a natural low-carb diet?

[flume]

The point I'm trying to make is that whether the diet is "natural" or "commercial" is irrelevant. What matters is what effect the diet has on the animal, period.

When people say that something is beneficial because it is natural they're using faulty reasoning. Nothing is beneficial merely because it's natural. Okay. But there is nothing to say that a commercial diet is, or has been designed to be, optimal, or better than the wolves' natural diet. I don't think you can assume (as I thought Dogdoctor's post was saying) that we have been able to create a better diet than the natural diet. There is no reason I have seen so far to make that assumption.

[Number Six]

I don't know anything about commercial wolf diets but I assume that either someone has made a commercial wolf diet better than a natural wolf diet or else someone could if they wanted to or had a strong enough incentive to. Or, possibly nobody could make one now because they haven't figured out how. But surely a better wolf diet exists, if only in theory, than a natural wolf diet. Why would a natural wolf diet just happen to be the best possible of infinitely many potental wolf diets?

Also, we might have to define a "natural" wolf diet. Naturally, many wolves don't get what they need and they die of malnutrition. You basically said to that "That's an issue of them not getting the food, not of the diet itself." That whole point can get into semantics I guess. It's "natural" for some wolves to simply not get enough, so, is not getting enough a part of a natural wolf diet, or is natural wolf diet only apply to those wolves that do get enough?

I don't know. That's subjective. But even if you defined a natural wolf diet based on wolves that get enough, that wouldn't be optimal unless by some incredible miracle nature just happened to hit it perfectly. Just because wolves evolved eating certain foods doesn't mean those foods are the absolute best for them, rather it just means that the food was good enough to keep them going.

[Dogdoctor]

Can you define malnutrition in this context? Is it because the wolf or wolf pup gets inadequate food or unbalanced food? In what way is a prey animal an incomplete food source? I agree that an animal in the wild might not get enough food. This is different from that food inherently suboptimal.I don't know the answer to this question. I think there was some speculation about whether diabetes in cats could be related. Are you able to say that a high-carb diet for dogs is optimal compared to a natural low-carb diet?
Another 10% or so die from starvation. I wrote the definition = improperly balanced diet. Wolves have no way to chose a balanced diet. They are wild animals and not educated in nutrition. They have no clue what kind of nutrition is in the food they eat. It's nature at work. They eat the wrong things and die from it. What I am saying about current dog diets is that dogs do well on them. Optimal is still being figured out. Optimal is not eating the way they do in nature. As for wolf diets, if someone wanted to spend money figuring out a better wolf diet they could do so (there isn't a lot of money being spent on that)
eddited to add; Are you saying there is information that low carb is better than high carb?

[flume]

Another 10% or so die from starvation. I wrote the definition = improperly balanced diet. Wolves have no way to chose a balanced diet. They are wild animals and not educated in nutrition. They have no clue what kind of nutrition is in the food they eat. It's nature at work. They eat the wrong things and die from it. What I am saying about current dog diets is that dogs do well on them. Optimal is still being figured out. Optimal is not eating the way they do in nature(Let me add that I have been making the assumption that the starting point of the discussion was whether to feed dogs on a diet similar to a wolf's natural diet - and therefore we would be providing the elements of the diet so there would be no issue of seasonal scarcity etc. - we could provide the best of a wild wolf's diet at all times.)

Can you clarify or give references or examples of wolves eating unbalanced diets? What is an unbalanced diet for a wolf?

I am having trouble with the idea that wolves are unable to choose a balanced diet (assuming they are not in a period of natural scarcity of prey). Isn't a prey animal inherently balanced for the wolf? Again, how could the wolf species survive all those years, chasing prey for miles, reproducing etc, if they did not eat balanced diets? If education in nutrition were required for an animal to survive, obviously none of us would be here.

Dogs do well on (good quality) commercial diets. I assume they do equally well - nutritionally - on a diet of prey animals. I think it is reasonable to think they might do better on a low-carb diet reproducing the wolf's diet.Or at least this is not ruled out since we don't know the optimal diet.

(I don't feed my dog a raw diet BTW but I do feed a low-carb homemade diet which I don't necessarily feel is optimal but which seems as good to me as a commercial diet.)

[blutoski]

If the best we do in taking care of ourselves or our pets is to duplicate our environment when we evolved then we would still be living in the stone age. We can do better than nature since nature is mindless and cares not how well we do. A well taken care of pet does far better than any similar wild animal. We do much better than our cave man ancestors. This goes for many aspects of life including diet.

Also: we're still evolving in real-time, adapting to the diets we have available. Examples are: wisdom teeth are less abundant, and lactose tolerance in adults is common. These changes probably happened in the last 6,000 years.

[flume]

It is difficult anyway to determine the optimal amount. The current 'complete and balanced' recommendations are partly based on scattered studies some going back to the 40s. the recommendations for dietary maximums are in some cases extrapolated from other species like pigs. The manufacturers have to meet a minimum, but there is a large range between minimum and maximum into which the actual nutrient can fall. There is no current requirement to determine bioavailability of ingredients as far as I know. When the NRC came out with new recommendations in 2001(?) they reduced the calcium minimum recommendation for adult dogs by half. As far as I know, the AAFCO recommendations haven't changed (although poxxibly they did) Which one is correct?
If there have been few studies on wolf nutrition, what would be used to decide that the diet was unbalanced?

[Dogdoctor]

It is difficult anyway to determine the optimal amount. The current 'complete and balanced' recommendations are partly based on scattered studies some going back to the 40s. the recommendations for dietary maximums are in some cases extrapolated from other species like pigs. The manufacturers have to meet a minimum, but there is a large range between minimum and maximum into which the actual nutrient can fall. There is no current requirement to determine bioavailability of ingredients as far as I know. When the NRC came out with new recommendations in 2001(?) they reduced the calcium minimum recommendation for adult dogs by half. As far as I know, the AAFCO recommendations haven't changed (although poxxibly they did) Which one is correct?
If there have been few studies on wolf nutrition, what would be used to decide that the diet was unbalanced?
They have signs of malnutrtion. (Like rickets)

[Dogdoctor]

Rickets would be a common problem in carnivores since it is multifactorial and can result from deficiencies in calcium, vitamin D or phosphorus. When a wolves kill larger prey some of the pups may just eat the meat which is really poor nutrition especially for a growing pup. Hey but what do wolves know about nutrition?

[flume]

Rickets would be a common problem in carnivores since it is multifactorial and can result from deficiencies in calcium, vitamin D or phosphorus. When a wolves kill larger prey some of the pups may just eat the meat which is really poor nutrition especially for a growing pup. Hey but what do wolves know about nutrition?That's interesting. Where would I need to look to find the source for the 10% rickets in wolf pups?
This is a deficiency in pups. Is there a similar calcium-related deficiency seen at that frequency in adult wolves, or is the deficiency limited to pups?

As far as the pups go, 10% with rickets suggests approximately 90% that don't develop rickets - their diet does supply adequate calcium and vitamin D etc. That is a high percent of pups who are offered the necessary ingredients, who eat them, and who are able to absorb them. For those pups, the natural diet seems to be working.
I would then wonder which pups are the ten percent who develop rickets. Are they noteworthy in any way - for instance, do they appear most often in large litters? If a litter contains a pup with rickets, is it more likely that only one of the pups develops rickets or that all the pups in the litter develop rickets? Is rickets associated with a high percent of a particular food source? Is there a difference in the food offered to the pups that develop rickets versus their littermates (e.g. maybe because they are smaller) or between pups in other litters?

Or OTOH hand is it a fairly even percent, spread over all wolf pups? If it is the latter, then for the wolf pup diet, I think you have made your point - in that case it would suggest to me that the natural diet is nutritionally marginal for some reason, either in the amount of nutrients or in the ability of the pups to eat or absorb them at that stage, etc.

[rjh01]

Animals die in the wild for many reasons. For example if a dog gets a minor injury, an owner would take it to a vet who might say 'Glad you brought the dog, if you had not it would either die or be disabled.' In the wild that dog would have had no chance. A dog that is past its physical peak would still have a few years left if it had an owner, yet in the wild a younger dog would eventually have come along and taken over its territory with fatal results.

A young wild dog gets told by its mother 'you are old enough to look after yourself now go away' will die if all the land around is owned by dogs that are physically fit.

None of this refers to diet, yet are all are good reasons for dogs to live longer in a home rather than in the wild. This point has been overlooked by previous posters.

[Dogdoctor]

That's interesting. Where would I need to look to find the source for the 10% rickets in wolf pups?
This is a deficiency in pups. Is there a similar calcium-related deficiency seen at that frequency in adult wolves, or is the deficiency limited to pups?

As far as the pups go, 10% with rickets suggests approximately 90% that don't develop rickets - their diet does supply adequate calcium and vitamin D etc. That is a high percent of pups who are offered the necessary ingredients, who eat them, and who are able to absorb them. For those pups, the natural diet seems to be working.
I would then wonder which pups are the ten percent who develop rickets. Are they noteworthy in any way - for instance, do they appear most often in large litters? If a litter contains a pup with rickets, is it more likely that only one of the pups develops rickets or that all the pups in the litter develop rickets? Is rickets associated with a high percent of a particular food source? Is there a difference in the food offered to the pups that develop rickets versus their littermates (e.g. maybe because they are smaller) or between pups in other litters?

Or OTOH hand is it a fairly even percent, spread over all wolf pups? If it is the latter, then for the wolf pup diet, I think you have made your point - in that case it would suggest to me that the natural diet is nutritionally marginal for some reason, either in the amount of nutrients or in the ability of the pups to eat or absorb them at that stage, etc.
You want me to go google up some links for you? The idea of natural diets being better is a common logical fallacy. You have a lot of questions which it seems likely have not been answered yet, but if they were would any possibility exist that natural diets were better? I am not sure of the exact percentage of wolves that die from malnutrition yet I am familiar that malnutrition is a common cause for deaths among wild animals and typically a relatively significant cause of death among young wild animals. The reason young animals are affected is that nutritional requirements for growth are much greater than for maintenance. Somehow people get this idea that nature is so great at providing for animals or humans but it isn't true. Nature is blind and brutal. Wolves are predators that remove a lot of malnutrition suffering animals from the herds and they themselves suffer from it also. Here is a link I googled up http://fwie.fw.vt.edu/WWW/esis/lists/e059001.htm which says about 25% die from malnutrition. Unfortunately for you there aren't a lot of scientific studies documenting all the things that interest you in this matter.

[Scott Haley]

I heard a mushroom expert on TV say that we can't digest raw mushrooms properly. He said that we don't get much nutrition from them unless they're either cooked or pickled. I've also heard that if a person were to eat a really large amount of raw mushrooms, much more than most people ever would, it could cause an intestinal blockage that might require surgery.

[flume]

You want me to go google up some links for you? ... Unfortunately for you there aren't a lot of scientific studies documenting all the things that interest you in this matter.Without documentation and detail your point about rickets is less convincing.

(However I think we may be talking about different things anyway, so no value in pursuing this argument.)

[The Painter]

Have you tried to eat raw rice or a rutabaga? Raw popcorn???? Forget about it. Some things you just have to cook.

[epepke]

Have you tried to eat raw rice or a rutabaga? Raw popcorn???? Forget about it. Some things you just have to cook.

Raw rice is already dried. Fresh rice is quite nice raw. So is fresh wheat and barley.

[Kaarjuus]

Raw rice is already dried. Fresh rice is quite nice raw. So is fresh wheat and barley.

I'm having some trouble envisioning this. You mean eating grains just as they are? Or do you mean grinding them into flour and mixing with some liquid?

[Archangel]

I'm having some trouble envisioning this. You mean eating grains just as they are? Or do you mean grinding them into flour and mixing with some liquid?

I'd assume he means eating them as they are but fresh from the plant, before they are dried and stored in plastic bags.

[epepke]

I'm having some trouble envisioning this. You mean eating grains just as they are? Or do you mean grinding them into flour and mixing with some liquid?

Picking them off the plant and putting them in your mouth.

I've only once been able to try rice straight out of the paddy. But I like to go on the public walking paths in the UK. These have been around for hundreds of years and are absolutely protected by law. But they go through people's property. Farmers, of course, just plant right over them. There's an organization called the Ramblers that works to keep them open. Some of them go right through wheat and barley fields, and I figure that if they're on a public path, I can help myself. It's quite nice. Barley tastes like barley, but wheat has that nice taste that comes out in wheat beer but not in bread. The grains are chewy but really quite tender.

[neil]

Even dried wheat can be chewed, but I found that it wrecked the fillings in my teath. Soaked in water for a few hours, it is a bit rubbery, but not damaging to fillings. Most experts consider the risk of illness from raw meat of all kinds is unexceptable. Neil

[epepke]

Even dried wheat can be chewed, but I found that it wrecked the fillings in my teath. Soaked in water for a few hours, it is a bit rubbery, but not damaging to fillings. Most experts consider the risk of illness from raw meat of all kinds is unexceptable. Neil

Cracked wheat is quite delicious when soaked for a half hour or so. It's the basis for tabouleh, and I have a bellyful of it at the moment.

I make wheat berry stuffing for turkeys on Thanksgiving, and I use hard winter wheat. I find it hard to imagine that this stuff could be chewed.

[Pup]

When we talk about eating wheat right off the plant, are we talking about wheat in the milk stage? Even on the plant, it can go from being just a green mush, to a recognizable wheat grain that's soft and milky inside, to a mature hard dry kernel. I've not tried it, but I'd guess it's pretty chewable in the milk stage, but unfortunately that only lasts a short while.

A botanical parallel that more people are familiar with would be corn picked at the "corn on the cob" stage compared to mature dry corn like you feed to horses.

[tom m.]

i love to eat raw meat!

[Mr. Scott]

i love to eat raw meat!

Many like meat ulta-rare, which means a slab of meat is grilled only long enough to discolor the outside. For all intents and purposes it is raw meat.

[David Swidler]

"How would you like your steak, sir? Medium or rare?"

"Still mooing."

[rjh01]

The only raw animal I am willing to eat is human.

[Jorghnassen]

i love to eat raw meat!

Who doesn't?

[pchams]

Unplug your refrigerator and see how much raw food will be in your diet.
Why does 'born-again' come to mind when reading about these fad diets.
I'll eat some raw food, and cook some.