Consuming Enough Protein on a Raw Food Diet

[blabbate]

First off cup cake, my advise wasn't to you, secondly that advise was given to me by a Special forces survival expert, and thirdly, if you watch the research in the documentary i posted you'll see its blatantly true!

user redsoxjss has already listed you researchers who proved otherwise, not to mention Dr. Edward Howell. I tend to trust these guys more than a 'survival expert' who has done no reasearch in this field.

I don't see anything specific from redsoxjss on TEF. Also, Edward Howell was a quack and has been thoroughly debunked. The "food enzyme" theory is crap. If he's what you consider a trustworthy "researcher," then you're gonna have a bad time.
http://www.beyondveg.com/tu-j-l/raw-coo ... d-2b.shtml
http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRel ... ds/mp.html

One issue is that there's really not much research out there on cooked vs raw TEF. These touch on it:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ar ... 8409001262
http://www.pnas.org/content/108/48/19199.short

And this one deals with the thermogenic effect of processing in general:
http://www.foodandnutritionresearch.net ... /5144/5755

The TL;DR version is that processing, whether cooking or pounding or something else, increases energy availability of food.

[HIT Rob]

I am not yet a raw foodist but I am leaning heavily towards becoming one. I am an athlete when it comes to running, playing five sports competitively (basketball, baseball, soccer, golf and ultimate frisbee) as well as a weightlifter I am very into calisthenics. I like to train with weights three or four times a week for about an hour each session and do high intensity cardio a couple times a week and steady paced cardio (like running or swimming long distances) two or three times a week.

Eating the right amount of calories to support my body weight was relatively easy but if I become a raw foodist, I am concerned I will lose muscle mass. I am currently 6'0 and weigh 185 pounds (17 years old), I've put on around 15 pounds of lean muscle since I began working out a year and a half ago.

If I went on a raw food diet I would really be getting my protein from nuts and seeds as fruits and vegetables don't provide as much but you can only eat so much. They cost a lot and have twice as much fat (which is good fuel) as they do protein but I still can't imagine myself getting more than 35-50g of protein a day. Could I supplement with pea, rice or hemp protein? I don't know if those powders are actually considered raw anymore. Also do those have toxic chemicals in them? I want to detoxify my body as well. If anyone has any advice for me, the newbie, it would be greatly appreciated.

redsoxjss,

I share your interest in the raw food approach. Actually right now I consume what many refer to as a "high raw" approach to nutrition. It's roughly 75% raw vegan, 20% cooked vegan, and 5% "free" foods which I do my best to keep plant-based as well. Eating out is the biggest issue for me, although I live in Atlanta and we have a few great vegan restaurants and even a couple that cater to raw vegan dishes. Also, a couple times a year I will go on 100% raw spurts and never have any issues. My energy is always good and I certainly haven't atrophied. There is a gentleman named Danny Dalton who is featured in a documentary on raw vegan bodybuilders - in fact there is a 10:00 clip available on YouTube if you search "Danny Dalton raw vegan muscle". He is in his 50's, and is very lean and muscular. I began following him on Facebook and purchased his e-book, essentially he eats 1 sometimes 2 meals a day, totally raw, 1/3 greens, 1/3 other vegetables and fruit, and 1/3 nuts and seeds. He claims initially when you eat totally raw the body detoxifies and you lose a lot of weight and with it some muscle, but he said he was able to rebuild muscle and stay lean following a raw approach. There are some others profiled on the documentary as well and is worth looking into if you are interested in the totally raw approach. It can certainly be done if that's the route you want to go, just look to those who currently do it for guidance. Good luck to you!

Scott

Hi Scott,

Sorry i know this post was to Redsox, but i watched the video myself..

The individual Danny Daltan, indeed is in decent shape for a man of he's age, he doesn't overtraining which is also a good. (i know you mentioned this) but it disputes me when he talks about how over a 2 year period he lost a considerable amount of weight (including healthy weight) switching to a raw food diet, to the point were his family were becoming concerned for his well being, he states himself, he couldn't even look at himself in the mirror it got that ugly, a registered dietitian would called that an eating disorder.

He states that this was due to his body detoxifying, i would disagree with that, whether he realizes it or not, modern man's/homo sapiens digestive system has not evolved to have the capacity to digest huge quantities of raw foods, It shows this in the video i posted in early in this thread.
Now, he has rebuilt hes body, and looks like hes in good shape, i suspect his body has possibly began to adapt to this extreme change of lifestyle, but imo, the average trainee / person does not need to put the body through such an ordeal to become healthier.

I must point out, i am not against having some raw foods in one's diet, its perfectly healthy, but there are also plenty of perfectly good healthy nutritious food's, raw foodist's are missing out on simply because those food's need to be cooked. I fear there's more to it than just cooking food for the raw foodist, many off them talk about being "at one with nature" or "more spiritual", i have no issues with this, whatever makes them happy, they're doing me no harm, but i wont mistake what their saying as real information.

[HIT Rob]

First off cup cake, my advise wasn't to you, secondly that advise was given to me by a Special forces survival expert, and thirdly, if you watch the research in the documentary i posted you'll see its blatantly true![/quote]
user redsoxjss has already listed you researchers who proved otherwise, not to mention Dr. Edward Howell. I tend to trust these guys more than a 'survival expert' who has done no reasearch in this field.[/quote]


Ah, so you can use more than one or two words to make your point, how nice...

As i mentioned to Redsox, there is good and bad research, but there are some theories that have more merit than others, there is evidence that suggest's we have been cooking for as long as 1.8 millions of years, we evolved as hunter gatherers, we developed to have smaller stomach's and largers relative to our size, as opposed to large raw plant feeding animals that have large stomachs (more than one in some cases, which is required for the consumption of large quantities of raw plant foods).

We evolved as a species where food was not always so readily available as it is today, so for the best chance of survival, it would only be logical to preserve energy and not recklessly squander it. Cooking food was and is one way to preserve energy (which is why what a well schooled and experienced survival expert told me is relevant here), it only stands to reason.
This has been ingrained into our geno over millions of years, and as the documentary i posted clearly show's, modern man / homo sapiens have not evolved the capacity to digest huge quantities of raw plant foods.

[Kon]

I'm curious how these studies measure the foods after being cooked. Ultimately it doesn't matter if a food has more of something available if what is available can't be used appropriately by the body. In other words.. It only matters how our bodies react to what we consume, and the only way to find that out is to try it yourself. This is why I'm eating more raw stuff so that I can get first hand experience and actually feel what my body says about it..

[blabbate]

I'm curious how these studies measure the foods after being cooked. Ultimately it doesn't matter if a food has more of something available if what is available can't be used appropriately by the body. In other words.. It only matters how our bodies react to what we consume, and the only way to find that out is to try it yourself. This is why I'm eating more raw stuff so that I can get first hand experience and actually feel what my body says about it..

How they measure the caloric content of the food itself or how they measure the thermogenic effect of the food on our bodies? Because they're different methodologies. For the latter, I believe they often use VO2 measurement, which is fairly precise if controlled properly.

For the former, they can use the Atwater method to estimate the energy available to humans or just toss it in a bomb calorimeter to get total energy.

[HIT Rob]

I'm curious how these studies measure the foods after being cooked. Ultimately it doesn't matter if a food has more of something available if what is available can't be used appropriately by the body. In other words.. It only matters how our bodies react to what we consume, and the only way to find that out is to try it yourself. This is why I'm eating more raw stuff so that I can get first hand experience and actually feel what my body says about it..

Hi Kon,

I think its fair to say, that if are bodies did not use what was/is made available to us, then we would never have made it as a species...

Self experimentation is good Kon, i see you still keep some cooked quinoa in your diet, and why not, this is a very nutritious "superfood". I love it, I also consume raw foods, ie lots of fruit, nuts and seeds etc, but my body doesn't tolerate raw vegetables or salads, they run straight through me, i avoid salads, but lightly steam my veg (both fresh and frozen), my body handles veggies better that way. I also prefer to soak and cook dried beans and lentils, i cook my whole grains, wild rice, sweet potatoes, oatmeal etc, all good foods:)

[Kon]

Hi Kon,

I think its fair to say, that if are bodies did not use what was/is made available to us, then we would never have made it as a species...

Self experimentation is good Kon, i see you still keep some cooked quinoa in your diet, and why not, this is a very nutritious "superfood". I love it, I also consume raw foods, ie lots of fruit, nuts and seeds etc, but my body doesn't tolerate raw vegetables or salads, they run straight through me, i avoid salads, but lightly steam my veg (both fresh and frozen), my body handles veggies better that way. I also prefer to soak and cook dried beans and lentils, i cook my whole grains, wild rice, sweet potatoes, oatmeal etc, all good foods:)

Yea, the quinoa seems to help my skin for some weird reason. In the past I've noticed that my body doesn't tolerate legumes that well. Lately I've been exploring fermenting foods to create probiotic-rich foods such as sauerkraut. I'm going to see whether having more probiotics will help in the lining of my intestines and digest things better, etc..

[yepes]

First off cup cake, my advise wasn't to you, secondly that advise was given to me by a Special forces survival expert, and thirdly, if you watch the research in the documentary i posted you'll see its blatantly true!

user redsoxjss has already listed you researchers who proved otherwise, not to mention Dr. Edward Howell. I tend to trust these guys more than a 'survival expert' who has done no reasearch in this field.

I don't see anything specific from redsoxjss on TEF. Also, Edward Howell was a quack and has been thoroughly debunked. The "food enzyme" theory is crap. If he's what you consider a trustworthy "researcher," then you're gonna have a bad time.
http://www.beyondveg.com/tu-j-l/raw-coo ... d-2b.shtml
http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRel ... ds/mp.html

One issue is that there's really not much research out there on cooked vs raw TEF. These touch on it:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ar ... 8409001262
http://www.pnas.org/content/108/48/19199.short

And this one deals with the thermogenic effect of processing in general:
http://www.foodandnutritionresearch.net ... /5144/5755

The TL;DR version is that processing, whether cooking or pounding or something else, increases energy availability of food.

I didn't mention TEF at all. I'm going to read these links. As for me, I experience a much easier digestion when I eat raw food compared to cooked food specially with veggies. How would you explain that?
on a quick look I haven't read anything that proves the papers cited in Howell's book are incorrect.
Howell's book has a few interesting studies cited about animals on raw and cooked diets, organs measurments and other stuff which is worth reading.
I assume you had already read the book when you've run into these links on internet. I'm familiar with the concept of limited enzymes availability principle being outdated by now, we should not forget Howell's most famous books was written something like 40-45 years ago and his research began probably more than 70 years ago if I recall correctly, this however does not take anything away from his studies as the crucial point of his book was not about how we should supplement these enzymes (although there's mention about supplements reasearch) but rather a cooked vs raw food diet research.

[yepes]

they run straight through me

what does that mean? did you try to eat raw veggies before the cooked meal you eat with them (quinoa, rice, etc)? ever tried a whole week on just raw veggies and fruit?

[yepes]

my body doesn't tolerate legumes that well.

me neither, they are very heavy on the stomach.

[blabbate]

I didn't mention TEF at all.

The thermic effect of food is a measure of the amount of energy above baseline required to digest and store food. You said that it was "blatantly false" that cooked food requires "a considerable less amount of energy" to digest. So even if you didn't mention TEF explicitly, you commented on a claim about TEF.

I'm going to read these links. As for me, I experience a much easier digestion when I eat raw food compared to cooked food specially with veggies. How would you explain that?

I don't see a need to explain it if you're somehow using it to support the argument that cooked food does not require less energy to digest. Ease of digestion and energy used in digestion aren't necessarily in direct proportion. I'm not even sure if they correlate at all.

I also don't particularly care about tiny amounts of anecdotal evidence. Your single data point is meaningless by itself. Your individual biology could be ideal for raw food digestion due to variations in enzymes, intestinal fauna, eating habits, chewing habits, etc. Or, you might just be falling prey to confirmation bias. Or illusory correlation.

[yepes]

it doesn't take a genious to understand that I wasn't talking about TEF (thanks for the lesson but I know what it is) in the first place when I said that statement was false, as there's no mention about TEF in the original post I quoted there's no way to know if the survival expert was referring TEF in his advice.

have you read Howell's book?

[blabbate]

it doesn't take a genious to understand that I wasn't talking about TEF (thanks for the lesson but I know what it is) in the first place when I said that statement was false, as there's no mention about TEF in the original post I quoted there's no way to know if the survival expert was referring TEF in his advice.

What, exactly, were you talking about when you made that statement, then? The entirely of the text you quoted is, "as when food is cooked, the body uses a considerable less amount of energy digesting it." That's pretty obviously a claim about the effect of cooking on the energy required for digestion.

have you read Howell's book?

Ha! God, no. I've read enough of his research to know that his "food enzyme" claims are bonkers and baseless. Why on earth would I read one of his books? My time is limited, and the amount of useful, valid information out there is vast. I'm not going to waste my time reading junk science. I don't read books on homeopathy either, and I don't think I'm missing out.

[yepes]

What, exactly, were you talking about when you made that statement, then?

leukocytosis and enzyme consumption.

have you read Howell's book?

no.

cheers I've stopped readig there.

[blabbate]

What, exactly, were you talking about when you made that statement, then?

leukocytosis and enzyme consumption.

Based on food enzyme theory? That enzyme consumption reduces the amount of work the human body must perform to digest food? That's a claim about TEF, and it isn't borne out in the literature.

The leukocytosis claims of raw food theorists are specious as well, largely based on pre-1970s research (like Kouchakoff's) that hasn't held up to scrutiny and further testing.

have you read Howell's book?

no.

cheers I've stopped readig there.

I feel like you stopped "readig" for comprehension quite a few years ago if you take Howell seriously.