Raw food diets: Pros and cons
I'll just say right up front that I have no desire to "convert" any raw food enthusiast away from their practice. Most raw foodies claim that they feel better on a raw food diet than they ever have before and far be it from me to argue with success.
However, there are claims that are often made in regards to raw food diets that I think lack scientific support. The one I see most often is that you benefit from enzymes that are destroyed by the cooking process. On the other hand, very few of these enzymes survive the extremely acidic environment of the stomach, so I'm not sure how big a deal this really is.
There's no doubt that cooking (exposure to heat and water) can reduce the vitamin and mineral content of foods. (See our Effects of Processing page for details.) Then again, exposure to light and air can also reduce vitamin content.
Some nutrients, notably lycopene, in tomatoes, are actually rendered more absorbable by cooking. Other nutrients, such as proteins and starches, are made more digestible through cooking.
In addition to the nutritional advantages of some cooked foods, there are also considerations of safety and convenience. Eating raw meat and eggs increases your risk of food-borne illness. And producing "cheese" and "mayonnaise" out of nuts and seaweed requires a fair amount of commitment and time.
Some have also noted that raw food diets tend to be shockingly high in fat because of extensive use of nuts and seeds to substitute for, well, everything. On the other hand, raw food diets are also notable for what's missing: all the processed junk food!
My take: You can certainly appreciate the benefits of raw foods (especially raw fruits and vegetables) as part of a diet that also includes cooked foods, which offer certain benefits of their own.
Your thoughts?
 older posts |
home | newer posts  |
| Six Tips for Safer Summer Picnics | | Nutrition Data Blog | | Nutrition facts for your favorite alcoholic beverages |
Posted by: Julie AD | Oct 5, 2009 2:58:03 PM
And here's a bit of debunking of Dr. Mercola:
http://chirotalk.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=belief&action=display&thread=151
Read the last entry on a brief list of Mercola's unsubstansiated "beliefs'-
Sheesh, the microwave and milk demonizing have been debunked everywhere already - the milk/mucus myth was blown out of the water, it's just a 12th century old wive's tale people!
And as for raw meat, even my vet doesn't want me to feed my cat raw food - because of parasites!
Remember to question the Quacks and charlatans for a change - they taught you to question science instead, just to sell you their books and so on!
Good health and low carbon FP sure - but in truth and moderation, not charlatanism, falsehood and compulsive extremism...
Peace
Posted by: Julie AD | Oct 5, 2009 2:44:10 PM
There is a huge amount of misinformation and placebo effect in the raw foodists' various manifesto's that goes stubbornly ignored or conveniently dismissed.
The "enzyme" claim has already been debunked many times elsewhere - raw foodists just ignore that, and quote each others' FALSE "enzyme" claims instead.
And "feeling better" does NOT necessarily equate to better health. get your blood tested by a physician to find out if you're actually better or not - otherwise, you may be reporting a placebo effect, or increased endorphins resulting from actual increased stress levels, caused by virtual starvation.
It's already been shown that vegans and such often risk early osteoporosis - even in their 20's and 30's - but they never mention this. I have one vegan friend who broke her hip at 35 - ridiculous!
My (eco, art) friendship circle includes dozens of vegan and raw food fetishists, who often border on eating disorder - they admit disorder occasionally, even on facebook! These people talk endlessly about their diet and its rumored superiority.
They are obsessed with every aspect of food coming and leaving their bodies, physical purity, and are often misinformed, but stubbornly resist questioning their information.
School yourself with real science, instead of flimsy New Age hokum by so many uncredentialed, unethical people selling you their worthless books, "miracle" supplements, etc. Don't be so gullible!
www.beyondvegetarianism.com is a very informative site, written by former veggies, vegans, raw foodists, fruitarians, etc.
Also google: Orthorexia_nervosa - the obsessive compulsion to eat purely. YES, it can kill you.
And please stop lecturing the rest of us - you underestimate our own knowledge and experience, and your raw/vegan lecturing is boring and RUDE.
Sorry if this sounds harsh, but I am tired of hearing about this "superior" lifestyle, when it's false! I was a veggie for 7 years. If you want to be veggie and be healthy, cool. But watch the gullible obsessive-compulsiveness and superiority complex. It's easy to cross the line and deny it.
Thanks.
Posted by: oh so curious | Sep 1, 2009 2:44:07 PM
i haven't read every posting, but from the many i've browsed, no one seems to mention the psychological effect of this diet. i believe that's an important aspect of health, but especially the "perception" of health; feeling a certain way does not just come from the body, but also the mind. So if i'm convinced i'm on a dietary regimen that supports the natural needs of my body, i'll most likely believe it first in my mind. the rest may follow in feeling, or it may just follow in theory.
i'm unsure, on top of being a general skeptic...but thanks for the posting a debate to be witnessed. i will definitely research further.
Posted by: raw meat eaters | Jun 30, 2009 1:36:10 AM
Dr. Mercola eats mostly raw food including RAW MEAT. And thinks it is the best way to eat. www.mercola.com
Go there and look it up.
Posted by: Renee | May 21, 2009 11:23:23 AM
Bob,
It is unfortunate that you don't see the bigger picture here: those obese Americans are very often getting too many "empty-calories." They are not getting the RIGHT nutrients. They are getting saturated fats and refined sugars in high amounts, which contributes to the obesity.
I work in a hospital and have yet to see a patient who eats a mostly raw diet be admitted. There are a lot of IBS patients and I will say again that these people are usually on SAD or Standard American Diets. *Not to mention that working in a hospital I am exposed to many illnesses each time I walk through the door but I have not gotten sick once.
Raw foodists are among the most informed about what they put into their bodies. This is what makes the difference; they're not eating just to be full, they are eating to their bodies the proper nutrition to sustain life.
It's not about the biggest caloric bang for the buck; one will still get hungry an hour after eating a Double Cheeseburger from McDonald's. When you feed your body from a nutritional perspective instead of an emotional or psychological perspective, you feel fuller for longer; therefore eat less calories in the long run.
Peace and love and I wish you the best on your nutritional journey! :)
Posted by: Kat | Apr 19, 2009 11:22:45 AM
This really is a fascinating debate, I've been trying a mostly (80%-ish)raw food diet, only for a few months, and I think I'm feeling better because I am not eating the junk food - I'm not sure if it's specifically because most of the food isn't cooked.
caroline:
"I have been told by my Traditional Chinese Medicine acupuncturist that I should not eat too many raw foods and that foods such as pineaples, papaya and bananas are not recommended as they cause too much moisture in the body."
I have been reading this book I got Barnes and Noble - Healing with whole foods - it talks about warming and cooling foods, along with excess in deficiency in different things, including moisture, or water. It's a lot about balance
I highly recommend (anyone) check it out. Its jam packed with a lot of information that's at least interesting to consider. I'm not a nutritionist or any sort of professional, just looking to lead a healthy and loving lifestyle.
Posted by: David Maggio, MPH | Apr 7, 2009 10:26:47 AM
Enzymes are proteins denatured by stomach acid and broken down by the same enzymes that break down any other protein we eat. The amino acids are used to build our own proteins. The enzymes we eat do not contribute any biological activity themselves.
If this were so, you would find studies that measure enzymes in the body among raw foodists and find higher amounts. You could also compare a week on a raw food diet with a preceding week on a normal American diet and see a difference in the amount of enzymes in the body. Is anyone aware of such studies?
PS> I am a raw foodist too, I just don't believe the pseudoscience behind it. I have a bachelors in biological science, a masters in public health, a nutrition thesis, and over ten years biomedical research experience.
Posted by: Caroline | Mar 22, 2009 11:16:49 AM
I would like to thank Anita (nutritionist for over 30 years) for her comments "...proven guidelines for diet that can be applied to everyone are to eat a wide variety of minimally processed, seasonal, locally-sustainably-organically-grown, primarily plant-based foods prepared simply, eaten with profund respect for all who grew and prepared it and enjoyed in the company of family and friends".
Out of curiosity, I'm actually going to join a group this evening to learn about a raw food 4-week detox plan. Like many others on this blog, I have been told by my Traditional Chinese Medicine acupuncturist that I should not eat too many raw foods and that foods such as pineaples, papaya and bananas are not recommended as they cause too much moisture in the body. Dairy is also not recommended (and having cut out dairy out of my diet completely, I can attest to feeling much better for it). This contradicts people who say they feel great on a mainly raw food diet. I don't think there's a "one size fits all" diet but I certainly agree that increasing the content and variety of organic vegetables and fruits (raw or cooked) and greatly reducing, if not completely eliminating processed foods is the way to go.
Everyone is different and lives differently. Being open to trying new ways of eating and paying attention to what works best of our body and mind is so important.
I'm basically someone who is passionate about people taking responsibility for their wellbeing and respecting themselves enough to care about how they nourish themselves to achieve the best health they can.
Posted by: jane gudge | Feb 13, 2009 3:47:05 PM
please, should you speak to or visit a nutritionist make a valid assessment. They should practice what they preach. if they are unfit, overweight or do not look and act in a positive and healthy manner, why would you be looking to them for advice? it is your body, your mind, your spirit. YOURS! and therefore your responsibility, there is excellent help available but do not trust a qualification that is not demonstrated in daily living.
Posted by: jia | Jan 20, 2009 11:35:27 PM
It's the European tradition to always eat a salad with the meal. I've committed to doing this I (sometimes I substitute a raw fruit for a salad) have noted that my stomach is upset far less now and I sleep better. I think that by mixing raw vegetables with cooked grains, meats, etc you are probably able to borrow some of the enzymes that are present in the raw foods.
Posted by: Lis | Jan 19, 2009 10:51:16 AM
All you have to do is follow the single rule of nutrition. If you do not know PLEASE go see a nutitionist. The way we eat is different for every age group. I would hate to think some young person would read these suggestions and think they are O.K. and try them!!
Posted by: worleyhimself | Dec 18, 2008 5:36:48 PM
check out 80/10/10 diet its good stuff. it may seam a little gimmicky. That is just the way marketing is.
Posted by: worleyhimself | Dec 18, 2008 5:31:59 PM
thebestdayever.com, peter ragnar, mercola.com, david wolfe, gabriel cousins, mike adams from naturalnews.com. these are my top people.
Posted by: MJ | Nov 2, 2008 1:49:35 PM
Hi, me again...forgot a question. I have a number of recipe books for raw food but am looking for more in-depth information. There is certainly a lot out there, but many people here seem quite knowledgeable, so I put the question to you: what are your recommendations on books or websites that give really solid information?
Thank you!
Posted by: MJ | Nov 2, 2008 1:37:04 PM
I was very interested in the comments about Chinese medicine, and how in that tradition it would be inappropriate for certain constitutions to use a raw foods diet. I started eating mostly raw, and after two weeks had an appointment with my acupuncturist, who said my pulses were quite weak and I needed to make sure not to eat too much raw food (she didn't even know I was trying to go raw). Would it do the trick to drink hot water with a raw meal? Is the actual temperature the issue, or how broken down (or not) the food is? My acupuncturist really did not want me to eat raw, but admitted she did not know too much about it. I'd be interested to hear from any practitioners of Chinese medicine on this. I'd also be interested to know how you can "turn around" cold in the digestive system so that eating raw is not problematic.
Also - a nutritionist once told me that raw broccoli is actually quite toxic and should be cooked even a little. Has anyone else heard this?
Posted by: worleyhimself | Oct 29, 2008 9:28:09 PM
rawfood is awesome.
Yes, their are cons to a raw food diet. there are cons to everything which are usually self inflicted. there is a right way and a wrong way. whether you cook or not, eat meat or not, there is always a better way. unfortunetly, we live in a unconcious society where we do mostly everything wrong.
Posted by: afacteer | Oct 2, 2008 5:17:03 AM
leah is the one who commented on cancer. She is totally right
Posted by: afacteer | Oct 2, 2008 5:15:41 AM
the person who commented on cancer is right. We come into the earth, just like all the other animals and we are the only ones who change the way food is. raw food diets are THE healthiest everyone. really
a listener
Posted by: anita | Sep 23, 2008 9:14:53 PM
I find the extreme responses on both sides of this topic of great interest. As someone who has worked as a nutritionist for over 30 years I have seen many fads come and go regarding diet. In my experience there is no single, perfect diet for human beings. We evolved in different climates, eating different foods, different levels of physical exercise, different genetic predispositions..... If we look to our only long term documented systems of medicine/nutrition, i.e., Traditional Chinese and Ayurvedic medicine we find that diet advice is based on individual constitution and that advice changes as the individual's health and environment changes. To me it lacks wisdom to suggest that one diet can be optimal for all people. Indeed, to me the only rational, proven guidelines for diet that can be applied to everyone are to eat a wide variety of minimally processed, seasonal, locally-sustainably-organically-grown, primarily plant-based foods prepared simply, eaten with profund respect for all who grew and prepared it and enjoyed in the company of family and friends.
Posted by: Elle | Sep 6, 2008 7:21:57 PM
Hi there. I was vegan for many years and I tried a very strict raw food diet (just for a couple weeks or so). And, I used to fast several times a year. Most of my life, I've played around with different diets, feeling much better, and wondering why everyone doesn't eat the way I do. The fast, for example, was always a great thing for me. I have friends, though, that didn't feel so good when fasting. It turns out, that I have Celiac Disease. So, the fasting was a vacation from gluten. No wonder I felt better. Now, in addition to not being able to eat gluten, I'm now unable to eat nightshades, so no tomatoes, red or green peppers, eggplant, or potatoes (common for celiacs to become allergic or intolerant to new foods). My diet is pretty much back to being vegan now and it's almost all raw, not because I'm trying to be raw, but that's just how I end up eating. But, everyone is different. My diet is the way it is because it's right for me. I'm currently following the Simple Carbohydrate Diet, but with no meat, dairy, or eggs. The thing I eat that isn't vegan is fish, occasionally, and seafood. The diet is difficult to follow at first, but it's the only thing I can find that works for me. My diet mainly consists of fruit, vegetables, nuts, and seeds. Breakfast and lunch are usually always raw. Dinner usually consists of cooked veggies.
I don't believe that a strict raw food diet is better than just eating what is best for you. The argument that "in nature" we don't have ovens is silly, in my opinion. Wild animals that normally eat a diet of raw meat have been known to eat cooked meat in the aftermath of a forest fire. Animals, including humans, are opportunists. I hope that anyone imposing the raw food diet on themselves is doing so because it makes them feel better and not because they think that "in nature" animals eat only raw food. We are "in nature" right now, even in the middle of Manhattan. It's human nature to want to eat nice things. When it smells nice, we want to eat it. This is part of being human.
Info on the SD can be found here...
http://www.breakingtheviciouscycle.info/beginners_guide/beginners.htm
Posted by: A.krishna murthy | Aug 9, 2008 1:17:53 AM
I have gone through the blog from biginning to the end since I am raw food eater 80% for the past 8 years. Nature is cooking food thru SUN light. Man invented cooking on fire only for his convinence and to add taste. There are immense benefits of eating more raw foods. I could reduce my over weight from 95KG to 70KG. My hair started becoming black from grey. No serious health problems. Another importent factor. When U cook on fire U need to add salt for taste which is harmful to health. I am from south India where plenty of ground nuts, co-conuts, banana are available apart from pleny of fruits and veriety of vegitables are available. But eating raw food requires lot of will power since people around us are eating cooked, salted (junk) food. It is like swmming againest streem.
Posted by: Eugenia | Aug 4, 2008 8:02:20 PM
I’m always amazed at how quickly vicious this kind of discussion can get. I also find it amazing that it’s almost always the raw foodists who get nasty first. Although I’m a raw foodist myself (usually around 80% raw), I rarely like to identify one as myself, not because I’d be made fun of, but because other raw foodists seem to immediately assume that I share the same rabid zealotry for raw foodism that they wear like some bizarre badge of courage.
Given the number of diets out there now (Atkins, Weight Watchers, Zone, South Beach, Jenny Craig, Blood Type, macrobiotic, & so on & so forth), I’ve found most ‘mainstream’ Americans to consider the raw food diet just another way of eating. I’ve gotten some raised eyebrows, when I’ve explained it, & a lot of ‘Wow, I don’t think I could ever do that’ kind of comments. I’ve also gotten a lot of ‘No wonder you’re so healthy-looking!’ kind of comments. The eye-rolling generally comes from the kind or rigid-minded people who like to espouse how they will eat giant double-bacon cheeseburgers with extra cheese, while chain-smoking and drinking Diet Tab, while driving without a seatbelt, because NOBODY tells them what to do about ANYTHING – and maybe I’m lucky, but I encounter a lot more of the open-minded type, than those.
The reason that I’m not 100% raw is because, after being various degrees of raw for over 2 years, I can safely say that my body, for whatever reason, can’t do 100% raw. That’s not a short-coming on my end, that’s life. It works for me. And I strongly resent the way that many raw-foodists will tell me that, if I just worked at things a little harder, I could do 100% and be even healthier – it reminds me of people who eat poorly, & have poor health, but defend their choices by saying that Uncle Joe was a chain-smoking, bourbon swilling, steak-eating guy & lived to be 103 – neither case has a thing to do with me or my health.
Also, as an aside, there are raw foodists that do raw meats. They are on the fringe, but they do exist. I haven’t yet gotten a good answer on where chemically cooking foods (like a tartar) falls in the scheme of raw.
I think that the main reason that raw works so well is that it does cut out all the processed crap. A meal with some cooked food in it (say cooked fish & steamed artichoke), when prepared in the home, from organic ingredients, is bound to be far healthier than the processed, chemically laden crap that most people gorge on. Raw also provides a heck of a lot more fiber than most other diets do. And eating no nutritionally-bankrupt bread cuts down on the energy-spike-and-crash simple sugars. Not to mention all the added vitamins & minerals.
Having said all that, I’m not a scientist, and although I do avidly read health journals, both at a layman’s level, and (to some extent) at a professional’s level, I haven’t yet gone to school to get a nutrition degree, so I’m not going to profess to know exactly what is going on with enzymes & the rest. A chemist, I am not. I feel that a lot of the explanations I’ve heard on the raw-foodist side are a bit simplistic, & probably well-meaning, but misinformed. Yes, the stomach is a bit of a special area. As far as I understand, it doesn’t burn through the body because of the heavy mucus that separates the acid from the stomach tissue itself (uh-oh, mucus, that substance reviled by many a raw-foodist!). I don’t have a perfect understanding of how it works, but I do have enough of an understanding to realize when someone who’s well-meaning (but over-zealous) is blowing smoke up my butt with their explanation.
What I’d like, more than anything, is for some good, un-biased studies on raw eating to be done by accredited organizations. If I were a rich person, I’d fund some myself. I’d love to get more to the ‘truth’ about raw – who it works for, who it doesn’t, why it works, what proportion, is best. Until then, debate is great, but zealotry is ugly, no matter who spouts it.
Posted by: Oran | Jul 29, 2008 10:01:24 PM
I guess it has been said already, but my first impression is that the raw diet works because of all of the healthy whole foods eaten and the processed crap avoided -- not because it is ALL RAW. It reminds me of pills that indicate taking with a lot of water -- and then you look into it and realize that the benefits claimed by the pill are also achievable by drinking enough water.... So, avoid anything cooked, including pizza.
Posted by: Ian | Jul 19, 2008 1:50:11 AM
Dear Ashley,
While I, and others, can appreciate your passion for the raw food path, I would like to issue a piece of advice on your approach to responding to a licensed nutritionist about what seems to be (from your vantage point) a misguided blog post on her part.
I don't think Monica is being insincere with her post. Much of her skepticism is ranged from what her textbooks have taught her in her studies, which can go for all of us in whatever we study in college. As a 17 year old making your impassioned outcry in defense of raw food, you come across as, well .... just some 17 year old going off on a rant.
What I would caution in the future is to understand that much like the militant vegan who berates those interested in the lifestyle (but in a transition mode by eating meat/dairy), the "interested party" then gets turned off to the vegan lifestyle and doesn't go back, which in turn, does more harm to the vegan cause.
The same tactics really do not have a place in the raw food movement because of the flexibility in its application from person to person. Raw foodists NEED nutritionists on their side - they do not need to berate them for regurgitating the misinformation they were given in college. I can't even begin to tell you how many pro-enzyme nutritionists I saw in my 4 years of being on 75% raw food, that pushed the enzyme supplements, but not ONCE even mentioned that a 100% raw diet was a good idea. Like our misinformed doctors today, I take the last sentence as my own validation that I am on the right path, because if my current nutritionist states that 100% raw isn't healthy, this give me more of a reason to stay on it. Walking textbooks do little to impress their rigidity on me.
Ashley, please take my word seriously. The key is educating others about your truth, not bashing them for being ignorant to it. With more nutritionists who understand the Law of Adaptive Secretion of Enzymes, and more of them that understand the erroneous path that nutrition education took in the early 1900's, the more they may come around to assist our cause as we move forward. Colin T. Campbell is already on our side. I am looking for more brave pioneers to join the cause as well.
Posted by: Ian | Jul 19, 2008 1:35:08 AM
Sadly, Crystal, I cannot take credit for these theories, I just garner what I can from them.
Among the raw food "movement", there is also no consensus on what makes up a "raw foodist". Vegetarians and vegans - that's pretty cut & dry: no meat or no animal products, respectively.
But as an example among the raw food crowd, Dr. Brian Clement recommends all plant based food (ocassionally eating steamed grains) with very little fruit intake. Victoria Boutenko recommends all vegan, raw food, and nothing cooked. Dr. Norman Walker recommends a strict diet of juices and salads, with an infrequent nod to lightly steamed fish and swiss cheese. Dr. Edward Howell recommends that 75% of one's calories come from raw food, with the remaining portion to be from cooked food (he makes no mention of whether this should be vegan or not)
As such, if anyone believes there is one path among this crowd, or one way to approach the raw food path, I would have to state that they are sadly mistaken.
Another misconception is that cooked food has no nutritional value. This is not true. Vitamins, minerals, and nutrients are all present in many cooked foods (ie- deep fried foods will have less nutrients than sauteed foods, sauteed foods may have less nutrients than baked foods, and so forth). The difference is that your body has to perform more work to extract these nutrients.
The stories of your grandparents are similar to others I have heard. Although, one would have to define "good health" in order to avoid any vague discussions going futher. The "chemical" theory is an interesting one, and I have not seen too much research in this field.
Which is why I believe Edward Howell's "Enzyme Nutrition" is such a vital read (whether you are a raw foodist or not). Howell grew up before the pasteurization laws of the 1910's kicked in, and offer research into the medical literature before the chemical industry took a hold of our food supply in the 1940's.
Posted by: Crystal | Jul 18, 2008 11:48:26 AM
Truly interesting theories Ian, thank you for your insights, but my body does not respond well to raw foods - I must eat warm, organic, quality foods and I do know others that have experienced the same thing.
Something that is interesting though is considering the enzymes theories talked about in this blog is how come many past generations including my grandparents (I have talked to them about it before they passed away a few years ago) ate practically no raw food and lived into their 90s all the while experiencing quite good health. My grandparents grew all their own food and did not eat much of any raw food (only a small amount in the summer) because they had to can and preserve everything they grew to survive the long winters living in Minnesota as they did. One would think that their organs would have gotten weak and sick having to deal with not taking in any live enzymes when they were eating and putting all that burden on their bodies to produce their own.
What they did not eat was processed foods or foods with added chemicals - was mostly organic back then. I feel this is a key issue - most people that undertake a raw food diet are obviously stopping the eating of processed foods and additives which I feel are greatly contributing to the health issues we are facing today. This may have a lot to do with why people who go mostly to raw food experience greater health.
Posted by: Ian | Jul 18, 2008 8:15:17 AM
Hi Nancy. I find this debate quite interesting, and I am glad to see it taking place. I need to clarify some items here, because there seems to be a misconception about the tenets of the raw food philosophy.
Based on the Law of Adaptive Secretion of Enzymes and the theory of pre-digestion, the human body benefits from plant enzymes by preserving and saving its own. This process begins with mastication, continues in the cardiac portion of the stomach (where pre-digestion takes place), and continues in the acidic environment of the pyloric portion of the stomach.
There are two distinct parts of the human stomach and if the ingested food is raw and chewed thoroughly, pre-digestion by the food's own enzymes in the cardiac (upper) portion of the stomach will take place before moving on the pyloric (lower) section of the stomach.
If the food is cooked, it will simply sit in the cardiac stomach, do nothing since there are no enzymes for it to digest itself, and then pass into the rest of the body undigested.
Upon reaching the duodenum, the body takes an "inventory" of sorts to decided what enzymes the pancreas needs to secrete to digest the rest of the meal (ie- excess protease if the undigested meal was heavy in protein, excess amylase if the meal was heavy in carbs, and so on). If the meal was raw, the pancreas would have little work to do. If the meal wasn't raw, then the pancreas would have to secrete the proper amounts of enzymes to ensure thorough digestion.
This process had been alluded to in medical literature since 1907. It was confirmed in 1943 by Dr. Grossman when he established the Law of Adaptive Secretion of Enzymes, despite the prevailing theory from B.P. Babkin in 1904 that the human body's enzymes are unimportant and need not be preserved. Babkin's misguided theories seem to live on ...
Sometimes there can be some misinformation regarding the true philosophy of the raw food movement. The "pH of the stomach" argument is one I ear often from trained biologists; however, the cardiac stomach and pre-digestion is the premier function that supports a raw food diet: no peristalic waves are recorded in the cardiac stomach, and no hydrocloric acid are present, either.
Thanks for bringing this debate to life. I believe it is an important one for our continued survival in the 21st Century.
Ian
Posted by: George | Jul 17, 2008 4:46:30 PM
I had a hair analysis done and they told me not to eat raw but warm. They said for my body warm is better than raw or hot. I get most of my nutrition from Sunrider Herbal foods.I read a lot of articles from Kevin Gianni and he even goes to some cooked foods.
Posted by: Paul Eilers | Jul 16, 2008 3:11:49 PM
What about a raw food diet short term, say a few weeks?
Posted by: Praise White Jesus! | Jul 15, 2008 4:52:02 PM
"...there is no way we can make the assumption for certain that God did not provide Adam and Eve with fire to cook just because it doesn’t explicitly state it..."
Exactly, Marie! There's nowhere in the Bible that says Adam and Eve didn't throw some patties on their George Foreman while they were still in Eden. We shouldn't limit truth and understanding to only things that are written in the Bible. If it's not explicitly in the Bible, it happened and is A-Okay. UFO and unicorns, for example, are not mentioned in the Bible--should we then deny their existence?
Posted by: E.Wally | Jul 15, 2008 2:49:38 PM
It is so unfortunate that this blog as well as most blogs quickly resort to people of one exteme position or the other throwing verbal bricks at one another - maybe blogs just naturally atract them ?
This blog could go on forever and the one thing you can get out of this "discussion" [ if that's what it is ] - is that there are many diets that work for many people and a "raw" diet is among them.
I have been following a well known diet for over 10 years and it has done wonders for my health backed up by frequent medical tests - not just my opinion. I'm not mentioning which one it is because that would just result in comments telling me how inherently bad it is and it "didn't work for them" etc.,etc.,
E.Wally
Posted by: Marie | Jul 15, 2008 2:45:35 PM
THANK YOU PAM (the acupuncturist) for your insights.
Who ever decided that we were designed to eat raw foods? People like Frederic Patenaude or other raw foodists who are supposedly authorities? In my opinion and of it I am sure there is only one authority - He is God and I am speaking of the God whose son Jesus Christ died for our salvation (just to be clear). Sorry to offend those who don’t believe in God - I pray someday you will find him because he is so incredible. So with my belief - that would make the Bible the only source of truth - not man. God said in Genesis 1:29 “Then God said, “I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food. 30: And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air and all the creatures that move on the ground—everything that has the breath of life in it—I give every green plant for food.” And it was so.” I see no explicit detail here of cooked or raw and there is no way we can make the assumption for certain that God did not provide Adam and Eve with fire to cook just because it doesn’t explicitly state it - there are other things in the Bible that God does not give us full detail of or the ability to comprehend. Then there’s the idea that we need megadoses of nutrition - think about the fact that disease seems to appear mostly in people of over-consumption - even thin people can be over-consuming these days through supplements.
I am educated in nutrition since I am a Certified Nutritionist and I have also maintained a healthy body weight all my life. I started to eat an 80% raw food vegetarian diet 13 years ago that I learned about through Hallelujah Acres and I felt wonderful for quite a while (I exercised, ate no processed foods or junk and rarely cheated). After a couple of years I started to have problems. I was brain-washed with the idea that we were designed by God to eat only raw food and because of my belief in Him I held onto that with all my heart. So for the next 9 years I tried everything conceivable to make a raw food diet work - all raw, no nuts or fat, tons of greens, all fruit, no fruit, blended smoothies, supplements to help my digestion - hydrochloric acid, enzymes, L-glutamine - you name it and I tried it. All to no avail. My digestion and my reaction to fruits and vegetables continued to get worse. After a few years I started to loose muscle, have neck and back pain, headaches, lymphatic congestion, heavy legs, hormone problems, heart palpitations, heavy chest, black under my eyes, my face would look gaunt, high cholesterol (mine dropped from 233 to 109 when I quit eating fruits and vegetables, even though I was a vegan when it was at 233) and shortness of breath - I didn’t have all these symptoms at once, but a few at a time. But even looking back to the beginning I can now see I did have problems develop almost from the beginning of eating mostly raw. It started as emotional problems like not being able to tolerate stress as well and becoming more anti-social and pulling away from people. Then a while later the physical problems began. It takes a long time to break the body down - it doesn’t happen overnight, so beware if you have started eating a lot of raw food and ask yourself if you are seeing any of the symptoms I have described developing - know that it can take years for this to happen.
I am still trying to make sense of all of this and it has driven me back to the Bible verses I outlined above. If you read them carefully the interpretation I have begun to make of them is that the seed-bearing plants may actually be referring to grains as one of my Bibles actually does state, not vegetables - and that would mean whole grains of course and wild fruit (not the sweet fruits that man has hybrid) and definitely locally grown (not traveled from miles away to where you live). The green plants (most vegetables) where designed for the animals, which would make sense since they have such complex digestive systems with multiple stomachs and intestines 20 times their body length (humans are only about 12 times) and some will even bring up their food again (referred to as chewing their cud) to complete the breakdown of the green plants.
The only foods I have found that I can eat is similar to what Pam (the acupuncturist) describes and what I am seeing as the interpretation in one of my Bibles - still vegetarian, but warm, cooked whole grains (including whole-grain flat breads) and I can eat potatoes (which interestingly are actually more of a starch like a grain than a vegetable) and some carrot juice (not green juices, they bother me as well). The carrot juice (which is absent of the fiber that I cannot seem to breakdown) seems to help make up for the nutrient depletion in the soil that is happening today in our world. If I eat any and I mean any fruits or vegetables (not including potatoes) - my stools become loose and my digestion is blown and I start to get back the symptoms I described above from the lack of nutrition created by poor digestion. I can’t even eat much in the form of protein, be it from animal or plant - I get joint pains and other problems from any source of protein as well - but then I don’t see a lot of concentrated protein described in the Genesis diet either.
It is a difficult diet with all the variety around us and calls for a great deal of self-discipline. But I am sure it wasn’t easy for the Israelites to walk in the Desert for 40 years and primarily be given only a grain supplied by God to eat. I do not have all the answers and we do not live in that perfect world anymore, so we are always going to have issues while we are here - but I do know that If you believe in God and you are on that incredible journey with Him, we must come to the place where we look at what we are truly worshipping - God or food. Many people will think what I am saying is crazy but that’s OK - God has not called me to be conformed to this world or to the people in it. What I am interested in is any more insight from Pam on what has worked for her clients or from others who have experienced the same thing I have. Please respond. We do need to support each other and find real truth of which through my personal experience am convinced is not a raw food diet.
Posted by: dori | Jul 15, 2008 2:44:52 PM
There are several misconceptions in the article. Although it is true that an acid enviroment does render enzymes inactive, the stomach is a special enviroment, otherwise the hydrochloric acid would drill holes in everyone. The stomach has a special lining and several compartments that allow for predigestion and allow food's own enzymes to breakdown the structure. As Nancy aptly put it read Dr. Howell's book on enzyme for more detailed research. Second not all enzymes available in foods are pro digestion, for example nuts and seeds must be sprouted to neutralize their inhibitory enzymes, which prevent them from rotting before spring arrives, with it's moisture and warmth to plow them back into the good earth to reproduce. Third, it takes quite a lot of work to prepare a raw meal, it's not about eating salad and fruit only. So I'm sure most raw foodist, to which I aspire to become one day, know how to prepare their foods to be both pleasing and nutritious. It is also important to promote education and avoid arguments over nutritional value. Folks who want to eat only raw food must take steps in learning both how to prepare raw foods and understanding the food values behind all the various food groups available. It is worth taking a look at some of the sites with receipes, it's quite valuable to learn how to incorporate some of these receipes into the usual meal plan and slowly improve everyone's eating habits. So does anyone have good educational resources?
Posted by: btp2u | Jul 15, 2008 10:44:47 AM
I have lost over fifty pounds and lowered my cholesterol 23 points by eating raw veges, fruit, honey and raw fish(sashimi). I feel better than ever and my doctor is very happy with the results. Now before you get your diddies in a knot refuting these claims, this works for me and if it offends or sickens you to read this, don't read it.I do not post to be critised or critqued.
Posted by: pculbert | Jul 15, 2008 8:33:35 AM
First I'd like to remind everyone about the original source for all of this discussion - a BLOG! This was not "an article", not a study, and it was not referenced from a peer reviewed journal. Just a blog posting with a topic for discussion. There is no reason to take all of Monica Reinagel's credential's into question.
Second, all of this discussion assumes that there is one "right" diet for all humans. If only it were that simple... My take? Eat raw if it works for you. If you struggle with it than don't. There is no right or wrong, good or bad. If I could just get all of my clients to eat with some sort of "awareness" we would make huge strides towards health.
Posted by: Ashley | Jul 15, 2008 2:17:42 AM
Whoops! Forgot to add this bit of information in my loooong comment:
The only significant disadvantage in a correct raw food diet/lifestyle is:
The ridicule and taunting the raw foodist may receive from ignorant, unsupportive family members, friends and even strangers.
However, even this disadvantage should eventually disappear, as friends, family, and strangers find out you don't get sick (don't have medical bills!) or age as they do.
The "persecutors" would soon be at your feet, begging you to reveal your health secrets after they notice your fabulous results!
Posted by: Ashley | Jul 15, 2008 2:05:00 AM
I am saddened to read such nonsense written on what is supposed to be a credible, well-informed website about nutrition, by someone who is supposed to be an intelligent woman & a well qualified nutritionist. Monica Reinagel, what do your credentials, L.D.N, C.N.S. stand for? Did you even research A PROPER raw diet, before you even wrote the so-called disadvantages of raw diets in this article?
I'm yet a 17 year old child interested in nutrition and the raw vegan lifestyle, but I would not write such a poor article.
~~~~
Monica Reinagel wrote:
However, there are claims that are often made in regards to raw food diets that I think lack scientific support. The one I see most often is that you benefit from enzymes that are destroyed by the cooking process. On the other hand, very few of these enzymes survive the extremely acidic environment of the stomach, so I'm not sure how big a deal this really is.
~~~~
Lacking scientific support? Where have you been researching? Try www.fredericpatenaude.com and www.rawfoodsupport.com
Enzymes are destroyed between 100 and 118 F (or 38 and 48 C ) You say internal body temperature is 98.6 F (or 37 C) - not the temperature to destroy enzymes.
~~~~
Monica Reinagel wrote:
Then again, exposure to light and air can also reduce vitamin content.
Internal body temperature (98.6 F) is a temperature that can easily be reached in the environment, so it probably isn't temperature that activates these enzymes. So I'm wondering what activates these plant enzymes when we eat them?
~~~~
Light and Air damaging the nutritional content of raw food? Oh Please! C'mon! That damage is negligible compared to the MUTILATING PROCESSING of the convenient modern day "healthy" lifestyle, "balanced" diet cooked "foods".
What activates enzymes in our bodies? I have not studied this in depth yet (I'm not a raw vegan or nutritionist yet!) but I suppose there must be a chemical reaction in the body that activates enzymes. The body was designed for raw food, so I think it's almost automatic! Once enzymes enter the body, they go straight to work speeding up digestion. (There's my simple layman explanation for enzyme activation!)
~~~~
Monica Reinagel wrote:
Some nutrients, notably lycopene, in tomatoes, are actually rendered more absorbable by cooking. Other nutrients, such as proteins and starches, are made more digestible through cooking.
~~~~
I'll just repeat what another person said: raw foodies cook but don't OVERCOOK (heat food to temperatures at which enzymes die).
~~~~
Monica Reinagel wrote:
In addition to the nutritional advantages of some cooked foods, there are also considerations of safety and convenience. Eating raw meat and eggs increases your risk of food-borne illness. And producing "cheese" and "mayonnaise" out of nuts and seaweed requires a fair amount of commitment and time.
~~~~
Safety:
An ideal raw food diet (done PROPERLY) does not include raw animal flesh or raw animal products. (Did you research that before you wrote this?!)
Convenience:
Someone living an ideal raw food diet done properly, should have a goal of eating more simplistically. Simple combinations of fresh, organic, raw food are healthier (than complex gourmet raw dishes, or regular "food") CONVENIENT, fast and easy to prepare. Then again, if someone wants to make a complex raw dish, how can he or she compare convenience to HEALTH?
~~~~
Monica Reinagel wrote:
Some have also noted that raw food diets tend to be shockingly high in fat because of extensive use of nuts and seeds to substitute for, well, everything. On the other hand, raw food diets are also notable for what's missing: all the processed junk food!
~~~~
Oookaay then! Even a great thing such as a raw food diet can be done improperly, and it is certainly an improper one you refer to being "shockingly high in fat". An ideal raw diet does not PRIMARILY consist of nuts, seeds and fatty foods (as you make it sound). Raw, organic, fresh fruits and vegetables come FIRST. Nuts, seeds, fatty, oily foods, are consumed sparingly. An ideal raw food diet is not a "one-size-fits-all" thing. It should be customised to each individual's lifestyle and needs. The ignorant comments in this paragraph are SHOCKING.
~~~~
Monica Reinagel wrote:
My take: You can certainly appreciate the benefits of raw foods (especially raw fruits and vegetables) as part of a diet that also includes cooked foods, which offer certain benefits of their own.
~~~~
Yes! That is correct! However, it is healthier to transition properly to a correct 100% raw diet/lifestyle. On the other hand, it's not for everyone, especially the uncommitted, uneducated, uncourageous, indisciplined person (a lower percentage is better if you're the uncommitted...type.) A lower percentage done properly, is better than a higher percentage done improperly.
Monica Reinagel, L.D.N., C.N.S., as a trained, certified nutritionist, writer in a medium or the media, and a fellow human being, you have the responsibility to write/give/recommend credible, sensible, well-researched, truthful information (when uncertain, express your uncertainty about the topic, instead of passing off your speculations as SOLID FACTS, or simply don't write about the topic until you have thoroughly researched it).
I'd like to thank everyone here who have made sensible comments to correct the misinformation in the article.
Posted by: Gilbert | Jul 14, 2008 8:57:07 PM
I can just imagine Adam and Eve sitting by a fire cokking their apples and banana, etc. There is nowhere in the Bible that say that Adam and Eve ever cooked their food. If we eat what God has created and not man we would all be alot healtier. Raw meat? Raw eggs? What in the hell are people thinking about? Beats me. Eat it from the garden or the tree and be happy, healty and wise. Gil
Posted by: John | Jul 14, 2008 6:26:12 PM
Thank you, S. Hengy, for that much-needed bit of common sense to this thread!
Posted by: S. Hengy | Jul 14, 2008 4:50:58 PM
Many, many books have been written about the raw food diet so this very short article does not hold a lot of weight with me. This is just someone's opinion and like another poster said, "there are no facts stated" so just push it aside with all the other opinions that don't mean didley squat. Just eat your fruits and veges and you will be right as rain. Period!
Posted by: Joanne | Jul 14, 2008 4:36:11 PM
I certainly do agree that fast food is the leading cause for obesity & that it seems to be a huge problem with this generation of parents...easy fix, less work, less $$ and also seems to go hand in hand with the lack of discipline...but thats another story....please tell, has anyone have anything to say about the "40 day miracle" ??? or the 42 day diet????
Posted by: John | Jul 14, 2008 3:11:50 PM
Bob,
I didn't quite understand your implication here:
"I find it comical that in a country where the biggest nutritional problem is obesity, that people worry about getting enough of the right nutrients to stay healthy. Most of us are getting too many nutrients-more than our bodies can handle."
Are you saying that "too many" nutrients are the cause of obesity? That obesity is a nutritional problem? Have you read this in some kind of pseudo-scientist leaflet?
Posted by: Allison | Jul 14, 2008 3:09:42 PM
Raw foods are healthy, and some cooked foods are healthy as well. But it's equally important to note what you REMOVE from your diet when you adopt a raw food diet. You are eliminating all sorts of chemicals and man-made substances that create and feed our diseases.
I'm positive that raw foods have a beneficial effect on our health, but I also believe that we can achieve amazing disease reversals if we ate cooked whole foods and never put another man-made substance in our mouths.
Posted by: R.Sonable | Jul 14, 2008 3:08:45 PM
I agree Bob! Poor people can't afford to be healthy, nor can they afford to be raw foodists. If we could simply remind people of the high-caloric/high-fat benefits of Super-Sized Meals at typical fast-food places, we wouldn't even need to have this conversation!
Posted by: Angie | Jul 14, 2008 3:08:18 PM
Bob - HAHA! The problem with obesity is too many CALORIES, though, not too many vitamins and minerals. I have to eat more calories when eating cooked foods to get the same nutrition as I get from my raw foods, and I end up gaining too much weight. As a member of an "economically disadvantaged population" I appreciate the $500 per month reduction in prescription costs that my chosen diet provides me. :)
Posted by: nik | Jul 14, 2008 2:39:23 PM
My goodness, an article without any facts. Edible Raw foods are good, period. Cooked foods are decent. Everyone knows somebody who is ill. Ask them what they ate in last 24hours, guarantee it'll shock you.
Lastly, I live in NY NY (Harlem) and poor people pay the price in medical bills from the almighty dollar menu. I live with that sadness everyday.
So buy Raw, eat Raw, and don't let the mumbo jumbo, scare you off. We are not crazy hippies, we just love to be healthy.
No colds in 3 years. NONE!
Thank You,
Raw Organic.
Nik
Posted by: ivette | Jul 14, 2008 2:26:44 PM
yes, subsisting & survival are the most basic needs. but to argue within a blog based on the best nutritional approaches, which there are many i am sure of not only just a single one, that worrying about nutritional values is comical seems a bit ridiculous. it's like suggesting to a 'middle-class' person that they don't have worry about retirement or insurance since there are so many people that can't pay their rent and/ or are homeless even!
Posted by: Bob | Jul 14, 2008 2:12:47 PM
Thanks Jackie, for your common-sense contribution to the blog. The "raw food" movement is like every other fad diet that has come down the pike. I find it comical that in a country where the biggest nutritional problem is obesity, that people worry about getting enough of the right nutrients to stay healthy. Most of us are getting too many nutrients-more than our bodies can handle. I can't help but notice how these diets completely exclude the economically disadvantaged population. Tell poor people to go on the raw diet, and they will tell you that a tomato costs more than a double cheeseburger from McDonald's dollar menu. Poor folks want the biggest caloric bang for their buck.
Posted by: ivette | Jul 14, 2008 2:02:49 PM
of course organic is better! is it over 30% better for you nutritionally, though? i'm asking this since i find that's the cost differential. as a single person, i still buy organic about 80% of the time because i find it taste better so i convince myself that i rather eat a third less. but it is an important consideration for people providing for families...
Posted by: Jackie | Jul 14, 2008 1:31:10 PM
If you want to live on raw foods you have to consider not just contaminants such as bacteria and molds, but also the naturally occurring toxins that can be found in many raw vegetables and grains. For an amusing and informative (if slightly polemical) take on this topic, read "Salad the Silent Killer" in Jeffrey Steingarten's The Man Who Ate Everything. If Steingarten irritates you (and he irritates a lot of people), you can get a lot of the same information in Harold McGee's On Food and Cooking: The Science and Lore of the Kitchen. Both of these authors point out that cooking not only enhances the nutritional value of some foods but also inactivates the natural toxins that either bind nutrients so that they are biologically unavailable, or just plain make us sick. Note that this advice holds true primarily for vegetables and grains; ripe fruit, which evolved to attract animals, is perfectly safe to eat raw, although sometimes, as in the case of tomatoes, cooking can enhance the bioavailability of its nutrients.
Posted by: Florina | Jul 14, 2008 1:11:54 PM
First of all: I don't KNOW if I'm right, but I know that based on a pretty darn good qualified guess, I BELIEVE I'm right!
In my opinion, there are a quite a few things worth mentioning, that hasn't already been mentioned in either the post, the comments or the article at livescience.com
#1: Most rawfoodies will often "label themselves" as XX% raw. Though there may be a few extremists and some "raw food celebrities/gurus" who eat 100% raw, it is definately my impression that most raw foodies eat somewhere between 50-95% raw. It takes a lot of knowledge, experience and adjustment to eat 100% raw 100% of the time.
Most raw food coaches will (and should imo.) tell you that the most important thing is to "listen to your body" which becomes surprisingly easy after a short while on a raw diet.
#2: Raw foodies cook! They just don't "overcook". Foods are considered raw when not heated to more than 50°C (appx. 120°F).
You may not read or hear much about cooked foods in the raw food community in general, as most people don't really need help or coaching when it comes to cooked foods.
A popular foodpreparation method is dehydrating, which uses heat for up to the mentioned (50°C/120°F) temperatures. Dried and semidried foods are a big part of many rawfoodies' diet.
Also, rawfoodies will very often blend and grind things to break down nutrients for easier digestion. For many foods, blending or grinding do the same "trick" as cooking with same or similar results (i.e. the lycopene in tomatoes mentioned in the first post.)
#3: I've never read a post or article from a raw foodie that promotes the idea of eating raw meat!
Almost all raw foodies are vegans, some are vegetarians and few are carnivores. So whenever "raw meat" is mentioned in articles, comments or posts next to "raw diet", it's not really an issue. I don't thing I've met a rawfoodie who ate raw meat.
Like I so boldly stated earlier (#1) not many rawfoodies are 100% raw. Say you're a rawfoodie, and label yourself as 95% raw... then the last "unraw 5%" would often be cooked grains, raw or cooked processed dairyproducts or other animal products including cooked animals (meat) for some.
#4: Why organic foods are not mentioned at all in this debate, is a wonder to me. Rawfoodies will often go a out of their way to find the best quality of raw foods available.
Just the other day a 10 year long study of organic tomatoes vs. non-organic tomatoes was published, showing that it is true that organic ones are by far a better nutritional choice than non organic ones.
Not that it's a surprise to most people.
#5: Being a raw foodie is not a religion. It is a way of life and a diet choice.
#6: Truth is not a matter of opinion.
We are an evolving species and an evolving culture, so things some might consider "wrong" could easily be proven "right" some time down the road. Who knows... maybe some day we'll all eat raw or maybe nobody will.
Whichever it'll be, it shouldn't become a war of opinions, but a quest for health and happiness.
Meant in the best way possible.
/Florina
Posted by: Nancy P. | Jul 14, 2008 1:02:31 PM
Monica & Jasmin,
The enzymes in a plant are what cause it to ripen. And if you watch a banana on the counter you will see that it does indeed digest itself. The warm dark moist stomach and the fact that you have chewed up your food is what helps promote the continued breakdown before the acid level gets to a place where it inactivates the enzymes. Remember your saliva also is teeming with enzymes, particularly amylase which also helps break the plants down.
I agree with what Angie said: "Also, things like papaya & pineapple, when eaten raw, contain digestive enzymes like bromelain; not just the amylase, etc. I'm guessing that the reason I feel/function so much better on raw foods might be something to do with stressing out my already worn-down pancreas versus giving my body enzymes it can use."
Our stomach pH changes as we progress with digestion. The more acid it gets the more it activates the enzymes and the pepsin to break down proteins. After the food exits the stomach it goes into the small intestine and the pH gets more alkaline and the pancrease squirts in more enzymes and bile and continues the digestion of the fats, proteins, and carbs. As for the realizty of enzymes - It is well established about the papapya and pineapple being full of enzymes that help with digestion. I have taken them for years and have great success with them. Please read Dr. Howell's book on enzymes and be educated.
Nancy
Posted by: ivette | Jul 14, 2008 12:50:40 PM
i am truly grateful that this exchange is taking place. i have been considering incorporating a 'raw diet' as my main way to eat. i only know that the days when i eat mostly raw food, i sleep better, feel better & have a better digestion. but i do consume plenty of greens such as arugula, kale and other mixed wild greens. TO STEPHEN, MONICA, NANCY & STACIE: THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR POSTING SOURCES TO LOOK TOWARDS TO FOR SOME GUIDANCE!!!
Posted by: Joanne | Jul 14, 2008 12:50:31 PM
interesting...but what about the "40 day miracle" or the "42 day diet"???? I would love to hear your thoughts on this....;)
Posted by: Angie | Jul 14, 2008 12:41:56 PM
Frank - Interesting point.
I also thought of something else - I had a friend who has fibromyalgia, and she has no pain when she either takes a supplement of a variety of enzymes, OR eats all raw plant foods. She usually opts for the enzyme supplement, out of convenience.
I am definitely not one to say that a 100% raw food diet is the ONLY way, or the way that humans are "meant" to eat, but it does frustrate me when people say that we "can't" or "shouldn't" eat 100% raw. Grains & legumes can be sprouted & eaten raw, so that's not a valid argument against the raw choice, either.
Vitamin D is hard to come by in a vegan diet, so a 100% raw vegan diet might not work well for a person who doesn't have available sunshine for vitamin D production.
Posted by: Kofi Annan | Jul 14, 2008 12:38:31 PM
Yes, a raw food diet with food that comes from areas with prolong growing seasons is the best for all human since this is our original diet. Although when eating meat, some legumes, and starchy foods cooking it is the best way to aid digestion. When cooking it should be a trade off of losing nutrients to aiding digestion. However, humans have diversified a lot since our tropical food diet. Therefore we should take into consideration our latest ancestry and what kind of diet work best for them.
Posted by: Angie | Jul 14, 2008 12:12:20 PM
Thank you for posting this discussion! I have type 1 diabetes, and when I eat raw, I use about one-third the amount of insulin as when I eat even a "healthy" diet (whole grains, lots of fruits & veggies, no processed foods or sugar, etc.) that contains cooked foods.
I also want to know why you say that the enzymes don't make a difference. Oh - I just re-read, and I realize you said you're not sure how big a deal they are. I feel the biggest difference for me is the enzymes. Without them, I feel tired all the time. Also, things like papaya & pineapple, when eaten raw, contain digestive enzymes like bromelain; not just the amylase, etc. I'm guessing that the reason I feel/function so much better on raw foods might be something to do with stressing out my already worn-down pancreas versus giving my body enzymes it can use.
As for the idea that we have to cook some of our food to get the nutrients we need, it doesn't make sense to me. A one-inch slice of watermelon has the same amount of lycopene as about four tomatoes, right? So does that mean we need to cook our watermelon? I just eat watermelon AND tomatoes, and I don't depend on tomatoes for my lycopene.
As for the convenience thing, that can be true about spending time making gourmet raw food recipes.
Raw eggs & food poisoning, huh? Are you aware that free-range, organic eggs are not found to contain the salmonella; it's the eggs from chickens who are fed commercial feeds & confined in small spaces that are the culprits for food poisoning.
As for high fat, not everyone eats a ton of fat on a raw food diet. Raw fats are also superior to cooked ones, so even if eating more fat, a person can be extremely healthy. I've not yet seen any study that shows that raw foodists are at risk of heart disease or any other illness because of eating avocados and flax seeds. Soaking also gets rid of some of the fat - I soak sunflower seeds, and when I drain them, there is oil in the soak water, that gets poured off, so I know that I'm not getting as much fat in my diet as a nutrition label would tell me.
Posted by: Frank Johnson | Jul 14, 2008 12:08:47 PM
I'm not sure why we would want to east a 100% raw diet. our ancestors learned to use fire over one million years ago. They used fire to cook the many inedible foods in their environment. Cooking aids in the digestion of root vegetable foods, meats, fish, and grains. Cooking these foods allows us to poperly digest them and absorb maximum nutritional content and thereby increase our survival rate. Not to mention that cooked grains provide the greatest portion of the worlds food supply.
Sure, there are many advantages to easting raw fruits and vegetables, but it's difficult and unnecessary to gain full nutritional content from fruits and veggies alone, not to mention expensive.
A balanced diet that utilizes raw fruits, veggies, legumes, lean cuts of meat and mostly unprocessed foods is the basis of human nutrition and the "true" human diet. If you want to exclude meat from your diet, go right ahead, but don;t kid yourself into thinking that a natural human diet excludes meat. That is plainly ignorant, but I suppose people tell themselves all kinds of things to vindicate their lifestlye. :-)
Posted by: Jasmin | Jul 14, 2008 11:54:56 AM
Who on this list knows anything about The Nature of Evidence?
None apparently, as all that is here is anecdotal, the weakest of all.
There is no scientific evidence regarding enzymes on plants -- it requires 'faith'.
Posted by: Flavio | Jul 14, 2008 11:53:20 AM
I believe that every body got different needs.
But for me, I am living very well just having a simple and eco-friendly 100% Vegan diet with at least, 80% in raw food (sprouted seeds, etc). I feel very good in this way and my skin and everything is working better!
Posted by: Prema Qadir | Jul 14, 2008 11:47:57 AM
> Monica Reinagel wrote:
>
> The idea that "raw food give the body a big lead on digestion" suggests that the plants contain digestive enzymes, such as cellulase and amylase, which are inactive in the plant (otherwise, the plant would digest itself!) and then activated in the human stomach. Things that change an enzyme from an inactive to an active form include changes in temperature and pH. Internal body temperature (98.6 F) is a temperature that can easily be reached in the environment, so it probably isn't temperature that activates these enzymes. So I'm wondering what activates these plant enzymes when we eat them?
Greetings,
Monica hinted at a possible reason how raw food could give the body a lead on digestion, i.e. temperature and pH.
What about pH????
How does the bodies alkalinity (pH balance or acid-alkaline balance) contribute towards digestion?
Posted by: Leah | Jul 14, 2008 11:44:29 AM
Hi,
I have a friend who is a cancer survivor. Her stage 4 cancer was dramatically reversed when she started on raw diet. her diet was under doctor's supervision requiring special food that will address the cancer and give her balanced nutrients. She is now two years cancer free and looks very healthy.
whether we believe in creation or not, our body's design is to eat raw food. the ancient lifestyles depended mostly on raw food and lived long lives.
Posted by: Pam | Jul 14, 2008 11:39:09 AM
I am an acupuncturist and see alot of digestive disorders and obesity, especially in women. Aside from the psychoemotional and stress factors of these conditions, the digestive system, particularly the stomach is "cold" and weak. This is a "diagnosis" in Chinese medicine and part of the treatment is to NOT eat cold/raw food. Without exception this type of patient will have loose stool anytime they eat a meal that is largely cold and raw. When I instruct this type of patient to keep their diet largely warm, organic and locally grown and of course to avoid all processed foods, they do very well not only in losing weight to also in correcting digestive issues such as IBS. A raw food diet may be good for someone with alot of stomach heat (ulcers, acid reflux) but definately not for someone with stomach cold which is a very common condition.
Posted by: Stephen Parker | Jun 30, 2008 1:39:34 PM
With a few exceptions, most people that find fault with a raw diet are people that have not tried a raw diet for a reasonable trial period of about 3-6 months, and aquired a sufficient education from raw food health educators. There are people who have not had a successful experience on a raw diet but it is usually because they consumed a very high percentage of nuts and nuts products in an attempt to recreate that cooked food over-stuffed sensation this is unhealthy and can lead to major problems. This, when combined with the problem of not consuming a sufficient quantity of leafy greens (ideally 2 lbs/day according to the research of raw expert Victoria Boutenko). There can be unhealthy and detrimental eating habits on any kind of diet. The vast majority of people who stick with a raw diet feel terrific, are in great health, age more slowly, and have a surplus of energy. We welcome scientifc studies to prove what we're already experiencing, namely, a balanced well rounded raw diet is the ideal diet for humans.
Posted by: Monica Reinagel | Jun 29, 2008 9:05:48 AM
Nancy,
The idea that "raw food give the body a big lead on digestion" suggests that the plants contain digestive enzymes, such as cellulase and amylase, which are inactive in the plant (otherwise, the plant would digest itself!) and then activated in the human stomach. Things that change an enzyme from an inactive to an active form include changes in temperature and pH. Internal body temperature (98.6 F) is a temperature that can easily be reached in the environment, so it probably isn't temperature that activates these enzymes. So I'm wondering what activates these plant enzymes when we eat them?
Also, I haven't seen anything that quantifies the enzyme content of plants. Are there enough of these enzymes present to make a difference?
Again, I'm not saying that raw food diets aren't healthy--I'm just wondering how much of it really has to do with this enzyme thing.
Here's another point of view: http://www.livescience.com/health/060704_bad_raw_food.html
Posted by: Nancy Parlette | Jun 28, 2008 4:09:38 PM
What you must realize about enzymes is that they are not "destroyed" they are activated or inactivated depending on the acidity of the stomach. The first 45 minutes or so that we eat something the stomach uses the enzymes in the food we ate (if there are any) to beging the breakdown/digestion process. It takes about that long for the acid levels to get to the place where they then can break down proteins, etc. There are more pancreatic enzymes that are put out into the small intestine and continue the breakdown there. The idea is that the raw food gives the body a big lead on digestion so that we don't need to use as many of our own enzyme reserves for digesting. For a very excellent and thorough education on the value of food enzymes I recommend you read the book, "Enzymes, The Key to Health", by Dr. Howard Loomis who worked with the man who discovered Enzymes, Dr. Edward Howell. Dr. Howell also has an excellent book called, "Enzyme Nutrition". I hope that helps clarify the situation a little. I am studying to get my Masters Degree in Human Nutrition and enzymes have been an area of particular interest to me.
Posted by: Stacie | Jun 27, 2008 3:39:06 PM
One need only to read "The China Study" to realize that whole foods are the best and cooked and processed foods are what is making people sick and deficient in just about everything. Raw foodies claim that they feel better on a raw food diet than they ever have before because they actually do. We feel lighter, healthier, more sustained and do not feel deprived. It's the only lifestyle that I know of where you can eat as much or as little as you like and still be healthy. Can you say that about other diets? I don't think so.
Posted by: Sam | Jun 27, 2008 2:58:16 PM
"On the other hand, very few of these enzymes survive the extremely acidic environment of the stomach" - do you have a source for this? I don't eat raw, so I'm not immediately refusing this, but I'd love to see an article stating evidence for this. This seems to be the crux of your argument.
A "raw" diet, much like a vegan one (the two are usually related, though not always), seems to imply a general "awareness" about the food one is eating. While a raw diet by default cuts out a lot of junk food, it also makes the person following it more vested in the types of food they are eating, both caloric and vitamin/mineral content. This seems to be a positive in my mind because they will begin to choose more healthful foods in the future, regardless of the whether they stay raw or not. I find this in my own life for veganism, as it's easy to be an "junk-food vegan". But, through the process of going and being vegan, I started reading labels and information online (much like this blog!) to find out as much as I could about what food does to my body and what is essentially "good for me."
A couple other points: A "raw" diet probably has a lower carbon impact than a typical omnivore (especially American) diet, which is good. A high (or higher) fat diet is not necessarily bad depending on who you ask/read (see Atkins, Weil, or Gary Taubes).
I really enjoy your look into non-mainstream eating practices, though. Keep it up!
