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.

Originally Posted by Mr. Scott

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]

Originally Posted by 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?

Steak Tartare?

[Mr. Scott]

Originally Posted by 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?)

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

Originally Posted by hgc

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

Originally Posted by hgc

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.

Originally Posted by hgc

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]

Originally Posted by BlackCat

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]

Originally Posted by BlackCat

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]

Originally Posted by Mr. Scott

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/...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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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." Well, at least he's not saying we were created a few thousand years ago

[hgc]

Originally Posted by Mr. Scott

...
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]

Originally Posted by hgc

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.

Originally Posted by hgc

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. 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]

Originally Posted by BlackCat

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

BlackCat

After double checking that carcinogen means a cancer-causing substance or agent at 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]

Originally Posted by BlackCat

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]

Originally Posted by hgc

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]

Originally Posted by rjh01

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]

Originally Posted by Mr. Scott

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]

Originally Posted by Shera

After double checking that carcinogen means a cancer-causing substance or agent at 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

Originally Posted by Mr. Scott

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]

Originally Posted by BlackCat

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/liv...n_page_id=1898

Quote:

Myth four

Quote:

: 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

Quote:

…
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:

Quote:

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]

Quote:

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. That site is a really good read.

[Euromutt]

Originally Posted by Shera

And in another article

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:

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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:

Quote:

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.

Quote:

[...] 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 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]

Originally Posted by Euromutt

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.

Originally Posted by Euromutt

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]

Originally Posted by Mr. Scott

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.