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/200...ood-facts.html

[Eos of the Eons]

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

Quote:

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-...ooked-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-...ooked-2e.shtml

Quote:

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-...ooked-2f.shtml

Quote:

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-...ooked-2b.shtml

Quote:

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"


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

Quote:

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]

Quote:

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?t...odspice&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.

Quote:

One cup of raw broccoli provides 41 milligrams of calcium along with 79 milligrams of vitamin C

http://www.superfoodsrx.com/superfoo...-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]

Originally Posted by Soapy Sam

Flavour.
Sometimes better cooked, sometimes better raw.

This applies to vegetables. Eating raw meat is unwise.

But fun. Try raw bacon sometime.

[casebro]

Originally Posted by TheDaver

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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 (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."

[shadron]

Originally Posted by TheDaver

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]

Quote:

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 in an airport, thinking the photographer was a zombie...

[Cavemonster]

Originally Posted by BTMO

Woody Harrelson is a raw food advocate.

He recently thumped a photographer 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]

Originally Posted by 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'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]

Originally Posted by Red3

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.

Quote:

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:

Quote:

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

Who'd have thought vegetarians were a leading cause of death?

[Red3]

Originally Posted by Cuddles

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.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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:

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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

[BTMO]

Originally Posted by happyhouse

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

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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

http://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/health/dci/...mia_signs.html

Quote:

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

Quote:

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/r...?ArtNum=185948

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/ar...ldren-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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by Eos of the Eons

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


http://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/health/dci/...mia_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/r...?ArtNum=185948

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/ar...ldren-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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

Quote:

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]

Originally Posted by 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.



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-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/ar...ldren-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]

Originally Posted by Eos of the Eons

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.