While I appreciate your comment veganessentials, I am not quite sure what you are getting at. I never said raw foodists are disease-proof. No-one would make that statement.
You'd actually be surprised - we had some raw folks here once who actually had the audacity to make claims along the lines of "a raw diet makes you disease-proof, and will reverse the symptoms of any/all diseases, including HIV"
I'm simply stating that, just as a non-raw diet doesn't guarantee sub-optimal health (I can go outside any day and find lots of ominvores who eat terribly and are still in great health), and I can also find raw foodists who will still be capable of coming down with many of the same health issues that cooked foodists of any diet can develop. Just trying to keep things factual from both sides, because you can be healthy on just about any diet, and you can be terribly ill on any diet. I've just seen too many people here over the years that have made some outlandish claims about raw being the ONLY way to optimal health, I just like to clear the air that it doesn't offer any guarantees, and while some may thrive on it, some might find it is not the diet best suited for them
However, there is plenty of empirical evidence that proves eating a low-fat high-carb vegan diet reduces the risk of developing many diseases to a much greater degree than a cooked vegan diet.
I wish it were true for all, but a low fat/high carb vegan diet only makes me gain fat quickly, feel sluggish and bloated, and feel worse overall. Done it cooked, done it while 80% raw, neither one as a high carb diet felt good for me at any point. Some people, myself included, do MUCH better on moderate to high protein, moderate fat, and moderate carbs, not allowing any one macronutrient to be excessively higher than another. 17 years of trial-and-error have taught me one thing - there's so much variance from person to person in how we may respond to the same diet, I'm always reluctant to promote any specific type of vegan diet or macronutrient ratio as being best for everyone, as it just isn't the case. Would be nice, though, if there was a set way we could all achieve optimal health and fitness on a single diet plan!
So, yes, it is proven fact that having a cooked food diet would automatically condemn one to a life of sub-optimal health and disease in relation to an 811 raw food diet.
Not going to get too much into this, but I've never seen the actual science behind those sort of statements, primarly just a lot of guru gibberish from authors who are out to sell you a book and use anecdotal evidence over hard data. There just isn't anything conclusive to show that a cooked food diet means that you will live a less healthy life than one all-raw. If that were the case, people like Jack LaLanne wouldn't have been eating partially cooked/partially raw diets and performing amazing feats well into his 80s. Nor would there be bodybuilders like Bill Pearl who have physiques better than men half their age who can still lift heavy heading into their golden years. To make something conclusive and without discussion as far as fact, it would have to be overwhelmingly evident that people were all getting sick and dying sooner on a cooked diet than a raw one, but we've all heard of normal folks living into their 100s on cooked diets, and I've heard about people dying younger than expected or coming down with grave illnesses on raw diets. That's the reason why I say that no general diet based on quality foods
(not processed garbage) guarantees a person to sub-optimal health, and it still is possible to have a diet that's "flawless" and still be unhealthy.
I can PM you many different sources on various aspects of how an 811 raw food diet has been scientifically proven to be healthier. It is a wide-ranging topic, so let me know specifically which aspects you are interested in. 811 is about science, history, and nature. An easy intro to the diet is the book the ‘80-10-10 diet’ by Dr. Douglas Graham.
Thanks, but no thanks (not meaning to be rude, but honestly, no thank you). Dr. Graham has been a topic of discussion here many times regarding the fact that he's not a physician (he is a chiropractor), is not a licensed nutritionist, and it has been difficult to really find out much about his actual instruction regarding nutriton from decades ago. There seems to be as much in the way of natural mysticism as there is fact-based approach in much of what I've heard about his writings, though I admit, I've gone primarily on what science-based nutrition writers have said as I don't have any desire to read about 80/10/10 as it's a plan that I would not follow. I do appreciate the offer to steer toward info, but having already experimented with a mostly raw diet and the lack of "feeling better" for doing so, I've learned that some things just aren't for me, particularly anything that is high in carbohydrates and low in fat and protein.
I certainly do wish anyone who goes with a raw or 80/10/10 approach the best and that they can thrive on it, I just know that it is not for everyone based on my own experimentations. That's why I'm often seen chiming in regarding the diet as there have been no shortage of people here over the years who made some pretty outlandish claims, got extremely upset when people wanted evidence and they couldn't provide it - things often went south in a hurry with hurt feelings and people getting mad over a simple difference of opinion on what the "best" diet was. Again, more power to those who choose a raw path and do well with it, I just prefer to not see blanket statements that infer it's always
superior and offers guaranteed benefits over cooked food diets that may not actually be true.