Jack Norris, vegan Registered Dietitian on Raw Diets

[beforewisdom]

Jack Norris is a confounder of Vegan Outreach and a vegan Registered Dietician who is interested in fitness, including lifting weights. He maintains

Vegan Health, a free, online vegan nutrition book.

 

This URL is to an article he wrote about raw food vegan diets

 

http://www.veganhealth.org/articles/cooking

 

History of Cooking and Thoughts on Raw Foodism

by Jack Norris, RD

 

 

Introduction

 

The vegan diet is often used as a health gimmick for preventing various diseases. I would prefer not to see this because:

 

* There is often not enough evidence for it (such as for preventing osteoporosis)

* It dilutes the message of compassion to animals

* It can create a complacency that keeps us from addressing real health concerns

 

And as I read more and more raw foodist propaganda in vegetarian circles, I have to wonder if even more dietary dogma helps the cause of animal advocacy.

 

Raw foodism is, after all, an ism. It's a belief system based on the idea that people should eat like our prehistoric ancestors (or other animals), with assumptions made about how our prehistoric ancestors actually ate, how healthy they were, how long they lived, and how relevant other animals' diets are to our own.

 

I Was a Twenty-Something Raw Foodist

 

From 1993 to 1995 I ate about 90% of my foods raw. I also read any and every book and article on raw foodism that I could get my hands on. The diet simply made sense. After all, humans are the only animals who cook their food. We'd have to be better off eating a more natural diet of raw foods...Wouldn't we?

 

On the raw foods diet, I lost significant weight. As a regular weightlifter, I noticed my strength decline considerably. I got frequent colds (some say this is the body "detoxifying"). I thought about how much I wanted to eat cooked food almost constantly.

 

One day, I finally had to admit that it wasn't working. So, I slowly weaned myself back onto cooked foods to curb my cravings while still eating "as much raw foods as I could." It became less all the time. By early 1997, I was still struggling to prevent myself from eating too much cooked food. One day I decided to eat as much cooked food as I wanted. I came to believe that the hunger signals and cravings for cooked food were more "true" than any theory of raw foodism or natural eating.

 

This experience turned me to science. Raw foodism made so much sense, how could it be wrong (for me)? It made me question how anything can really be known about nutrition, and I came to the conclusion that the scientific method was the only sure way.

 

Unfortunately, when it comes to nutrition, the scientific method is neither quick nor easy. Truths emerge very slowly only after many years of research. Still, some things are known. And as I read more and more scientific research, it became clear that many of the claims made by raw foodists are not in sync with the science of food, cooking, and the human body.

 

History of Cooked Foods

 

In September 2003, an article was published in the journal, Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology called Cooking as a Biological Trait. It was written by Richard Wrangham and NancyLou Conklin-Brittain from the Department of Anthropology at Harvard.

 

The main thing in this article that peaked my interest was their compilation of information about how long humans have been cooking foods. If you read many books promoting raw foodism, you would get the idea that humans have only cooked foods for a relatively short period. Wrangham and Conklin-Brittain cite much research to indicate that, in their words, "Cooking is therefore widely accepted back to at least 250,000 years ago." Some evidence points to 1.6 million years. They also argue that it takes only 5,000 years or less for the human body to adapt to different methods of eating. The implication is that humans have been cooking long enough to have adapted to a diet of cooked foods, and that in a normal state of nature there may be no turning back. This could explain why so many people who try raw foodism fail to thrive.

 

My point is not to say that people should not be raw foodists, but rather that the idea that cooking is a relatively new method of food preparation to which the human body has not had time to evolve is likely untrue.

 

Of course, people no longer live in a state of nature and it may be, and apparently is, possible for people to live a long time as raw foodists in the modern world by concentrating on eating raw foods that are relatively high in calories and/or by living a sedentary lifestyle compared to our hunter-gatherer ancestors.

 

Another point along the same lines is that there are theories in scientific circles that meat-eating was the key to the human brain becoming larger. There are also competing theories that cooking food is what allowed humans' brains to develop. By cooking food, we were able to make it more digestible (by breaking down plant fiber and muscle tissue) and therefore eat more calories with less digestive effort. This allowed our bodies to have more energy for developing our brain. It also allowed us to decrease the size of our digestive tract, diverting energy away from digestion and to brain development.

 

This article is not meant to be an exhaustive look at raw diets, but rather to report on this one study that I found interesting.

How Much Raw Food Should One Include In Their Diet To Be A Healthy Vegan?

 

Unfortunately, not much research has been conducted looking at the question of what proportion of raw foods will prevent the most disease or result in greater life expectancy. Additionally, there have been no studies on the disease rates of raw foodists. So, we must make the best guess about how much raw foods is best with the information we have available at this time.

 

Cooking has both negative and positive affects. Cooking, for long periods especially, can damage some vitamins. Boiling and steaming causes vitamins and minerals to seep out of the food. Chemicals thought to cause cancer are formed when food is burned or oils are heated above the point at which they smoke. Deep-frying foods causes trans fats to form, which increase cholesterol levels.

 

On the plus side, cooking can break down food components that would otherwise bind minerals and prevent their absorption. It can soften fiber which allows more food to be eaten. Cooking liberates some nutrients, such as beta-carotene and other antioxidants, for easier absorption. It denatures proteins, essentially flattening them out, which can aid in digestion. Cooking destabilizes toxic components of some foods, such as goiter-promoting properties of broccoli. It makes many foods, such as beans and many grains, edible.

 

While fiber is a good thing, and most Americans should eat more of it, some vegan diets can be too high in fiber. Fiber provides very little energy while filling you up. Vegans with high energy needs might benefit from having more cooked food in their diets, which will generally increase the calories they are able to consume. On the other hand, people who want to lose weight could help themselves by increasing the amount of high-fiber, raw foods in their diet.

 

Enzymes

 

Enzymes is a buzzword in raw foods circles. They are proteins that assist in chemical reactions and without them, you would die. Digestive enzymes aid in the breaking of molecular bonds. Although the body makes and secretes enzymes constantly, some people say that eating raw foods will extend lifespan because raw foods contain digestive enzymes which prevent the body from using up its own.

 

Plants do contain enzymes for breaking down unwanted matter in its cells. When the plant is crushed or chewed, these enzymes are released from the protective packages that normally contain them and they break down some of the plant material with which they come in contact. Cooking destroys these enzymes. But most of these enzymes are destroyed by the acid medium of the stomach. The net effect is that they do not digest much of the raw food you eat.

 

For more information on enzymes and raw foods, see Do "Food Enzymes" Significantly Enhance Digestive Efficiency and Longevity? of the article Is Cooked Food Poison? by Jean-Louis Tu.

 

Conclusion

 

In summary, fresh fruits and vegetables should be eaten regularly. I would suggest a few servings of raw foods a day. Above that, I would listen to your own body: If you feel like eating a higher proportion of your foods as raw, or all your foods raw, go for it! (But make sure you get a regular supply of vitamin B12, and I would also be particularly concerned about calcium. In fact, the nutritional issues to which vegans should pay attention are just as important on a raw foods vegan diet. See Staying A Healthy Vegan.)

 

If you only feel satisfied if you eat mostly cooked foods at each meal, then I suggest you do so -- without guilt.

 

Orthorexia

 

Orthorexia is a term coined by Steven Bratman, MD, to denote an eating disorder characterized by excessive focus on eating healthy foods. In rare cases, it can lead to severe malnutrition or even death. Here are two clips from an 20/20 story on Orthorexia.

Edited December 19, 2008 by beforewisdom

[Fallen_Horse]

Looks like a smart dude...

[DV]

Thanks for the link, BW! That was so brilliant, I had to add it to my signature.

[Im Your Man]

I Was a Twenty-Something Raw Foodist

 

From 1993 to 1995 I ate about 90% of my foods raw.

 

On the raw foods diet, I lost significant weight. As a regular weightlifter, I noticed my strength decline considerably. I got frequent colds (some say this is the body "detoxifying"). I thought about how much I wanted to eat cooked food almost constantly.

Ridiculous. Don't expect to see a junkie to be able to quit cocaine addiction if he keeps doing 10% of it. Besides, it's like if he was saying : "I'm a vegan, but only 90% vegan, I still eat some lean meat here and there, or some fish and eggs." Also he says "about 90%", it could mean 85%, 75%, or could be 50%, who knows ? Lots of people eat 50% raw, they're not raw foodists for that! Or: "I've been doing this raw food thing for years now, and I still have those health issues", etc... Like DurianRider says: "You ain't doing it right. You're cheating on the side and you're cheating on yourself. You can't boil water at 99 degrees Celcius, it has to be 100%, 100 degrees.(...) If you want something, go out and get it, don't make excuses..." (from the video

[New World Vegan]

Just as I retire from that Protein thread.......We're all back together again.

 

Only now we're in the Raw section, and I wonder why the anti-raw people are in here.

 

Looks like a smart dude...

From what I know about food, detoxifying etc, I'm even smarter than that dude.

 

1st - He lost me when he questioned detox.

 

 

IT'S DETOX!!!!

 

I lost NO weight. I had no more to lose(water retension, fat, toxins) after being a 50% raw vegan for 13 years. So I went 96% raw with no problems. This proves raw food is not the problem....you are.

 

2nd - If that 20/20 story on Orthorexia is the one I think it is, about Johnny, that was a hatchet job, and Stossel has been attacking healthy eating since the mid 90's with putting down organic. They were sued and 20/20 issued an apology.

 

20/20 attacked the raw food that Johnny was eating, when in actuality, he was on a raw diet to overcome his real problem - anerexia and Orthorexia.

 

Here's Johnny's reaction:

Here's a quote from Johnny on youtube: "I think you should quite judging someone you really know nothing about. The way I am eating has saved my life and helped me gain weight in my recovery process"

[DV]

Let's not confuse anti-raw with anti-bullshit.

[xjohanx]

Only now we're in the Raw section, and I wonder why the anti-raw people are in here.

 

Always the same stupid comment. Just like a person training for strength can comment on bodybuilders, a cyclist can write in my training journal, a person who isn't a politician can write in the politics thread. But most it's JUST LIKE YOU CAN WRITE IN THE REGULAR NUTRITION AND HEALT FORUM. If you guys want to be left alone then leave us alone. And honestly wouldn't it be better to start a own forum only for raw people so you don't have to take the hassle with stuff like science, facts and common sense. Rawfood have turned nutrition into an ism, a religion. I don't like this at all.

[ChaserHUN]

I Was a Twenty-Something Raw Foodist

 

From 1993 to 1995 I ate about 90% of my foods raw.

 

On the raw foods diet, I lost significant weight. As a regular weightlifter, I noticed my strength decline considerably. I got frequent colds (some say this is the body "detoxifying"). I thought about how much I wanted to eat cooked food almost constantly.

Ridiculous. Don't expect to see a junkie to be able to quit cocaine addiction if he keeps doing 10% of it. Besides, it's like if he was saying : "I'm a vegan, but only 90% vegan, I still eat some lean meat here and there, or some fish and eggs." Also he says "about 90%", it could mean 85%, 75%, or could be 50%, who knows ? Lots of people eat 50% raw, they're not raw foodists for that! Or: "I've been doing this raw food thing for years now, and I still have those health issues", etc... Like DurianRider says: "You ain't doing it right. You're cheating on the side and you're cheating on yourself. You can't boil water at 99 degrees Celcius, it has to be 100%, 100 degrees.(...) If you want something, go out and get it, don't make excuses..." (from the video

 

Yeah, that's true, and there area a lot of raw food diets, most of them work really badly

[Storietime]

Only now we're in the Raw section, and I wonder why the anti-raw people are in here.

 

Always the same stupid comment. Just like a person training for strength can comment on bodybuilders, a cyclist can write in my training journal, a person who isn't a politician can write in the politics thread. But most it's JUST LIKE YOU CAN WRITE IN THE REGULAR NUTRITION AND HEALT FORUM. If you guys want to be left alone then leave us alone. And honestly wouldn't it be better to start a own forum only for raw people so you don't have to take the hassle with stuff like science, facts and common sense. Rawfood have turned nutrition into an ism, a religion. I don't like this at all.

 

 

Hey, I know people like to take raw foods to extreme levels. Those are usually the views that get the most attention because theyre very invasive and controversial. I've been raw for about 5 months or so and its been working out great for me. I try to approach things very rationally and do things that make sense to me. I don't buy into the gimmicky stuff and dont approach ideas on blind faith alone. So to make blanket statements that all raw fooders all think alike and have the same ideas about it is somewhat oppressive and prejudice. People make those kinds of statements on veganism as well, we all should be senstitive to that. I appreciate coming in and sharing your views with us, but to just bash away at an idea with a closed mind is no way to expand yourself or help others. I thought raw foods was ridiculous at first too, it does seem like a pretty radical approach. Just because someone says something about a raw foods, doesn't make it true across the board.

 

And by the way, there are lots of studies done about eating a raw, fruit/vegetable-based, diet. Look at 80/10/10, The China Study, Grain Damage... there is lots of literature and video out there. Just go out there, find as much information as you can, and filter out anything that doesn't appeal to you. (For instance, I don't think going on a calorie restricting diet and drinking magical enzyme formulas is a fantastic idea, but it doesn't sway me away from all of raw foods.) If you don't think it works for you, then don't do it and find something that does. Let everyone else who is happy be happy.

 

But lets have respectable arguments! Once you know your enemy better, they may become your friend.

[xjohanx]

So to make blanket statements that all raw fooders all think alike and have the same ideas about it is somewhat oppressive and prejudice.

 

Yeah it would be a little prejudice, however I never made that statement so it's irrelevant to this discussion.

 

I appreciate coming in and sharing your views with us, but to just bash away at an idea with a closed mind is no way to expand yourself or help others.

 

My comment was made as a straight reply to the usual answers we get in the raw section "if you don't like raw foodism you shouldn't be here". I'm not close minded to anything when it comes to nutrition, science etc. The close-minded people are the ones telling everyone who doesn't have the same opinion as them to stay out of "their" forum.

 

And by the way, there are lots of studies done about eating a raw, fruit/vegetable-based, diet. Look at 80/10/10, The China Study, Grain Damage... there is lots of literature and video out there. Just go out there, find as much information as you can, and filter out anything that doesn't appeal to you.

 

You seem to pressume the worst of me. I study nutrition so I've read the china study, parts of grain damage and A LOT of stuff from vegsource by Dr Graham. And yes some studies are presented and I think they show that raw fruits, nuts/seeds and veggies should be part of everyones diet, but there is not proof for claiming that your diet should not consist of anything else.

 

If you don't think it works for you, then don't do it and find something that does. Let everyone else who is happy be happy.

 

I have found something that works perfect for me but raw foodists (who post in the not-raw nutrition section) say that this is suboptimal. It would probably be better if they practiced what you preach. And I have no reason to try taking someones happiness away so I'm not even sure what that comment was there for.

 

But lets have respectable arguments!

 

YES, LET'S! It would be awesome if the arguments could be based on SCIENCE and not be of the (typical) kind "you don't like raw foodism so you shouldn't comment in this section".

[xjohanx]

Is the China Study a worthwhile read?

 

Yes!

One a side not: One thing I really like about is that Campbell does not sell any diet products, multivitamins, health resort travels etc. It makes the book a little more "pure" or a word that's less cliché.

[Fallen_Horse]

Let's not confuse anti-raw with anti-bullshit.

+1

[Im Your Man]

Let's not confuse anti-raw with anti-bullshit.

+1

+1, since it means that raw foodism is not bullshit.

[RawVgn]

There are thousands of people on raw diets, including myself, who swear by them and have never been healthier or felt better in their lives. I would never, under any circumstances short of starvation from lack of available fruits anf greens, go back to a standard vegan diet. And if we hadn't already beat this subject into the ground a hundred times, I can easily refute every point the original quote attempts to make. Raw philosophy is based on many convergent lines of reasoning, not just anthropology. And at the end of the day, for thousands or millions of us, our direct experiences confirm the theoretical considerations.

 

There is something absurd about people who have never been raw vegans criticising those of us who have been both raw and regular vegans. Without a doubt, my health is better now at 48 than at ANY point in my life including when I was standard vegan, and the improvements are a direct result of being raw including much greater pound-for-pound strength and maybe more strength absolutely.

 

The are many variations of raw veganism, and unfortunately most raw vegans probably eat way to much fat because of high nut and seed usage. Any high fat diet is bad, vegan or otherwise. There is an art to being raw, and very few people are willing to let go of food attachments and addictions to the extent necessary to be really successful at it.

 

And BTW Dr Graham, one of the most prominent raw vegan advocates, has a bachelors degree and extensive post-graduate training in nutrition, and has written several books dealing with nutrition issues. Raw veganism is very sound both theoretically and empirically based on thousands of practicioners.

[Balazs]

The main article is bullshit. I guy try to explain his faliure in doing something. Its simple. Not even logical. It is not true that cooking makes food easier to digest. It is only true when you want to eat something that is not for human eating in its natural form. For example, if you cook your apple it wont digest better. But if you cook your rice it will. But wait, would you eat rice raw? Walking in a ricefield and eating some rice because you are hungry? of course no, you would not even consider it as a food. Only farming, cooking, seasoning makes these foods eatable.

Another point that we have been cooking our food much longer than we think, not 10 000 years but more... It is enough to ask my grandma that they did not have fridges, and microwawe ovens, and gas-ovens and stuff, so even fifty years ago my grandparents eat much more raw food, because that was easy to get and cheap. And the agriculture is not older than 10 000 years old, see: The origins of Agriculture.

 

you can be unhealthy even as a raw foodist, you can do it wrong, you can do it good, its simple.

people like to explain things for themself and for others making it easyer to accept the faliures. Usually we only admit that raw food is what we supposed to eat when we forced to. Because we are sick or something then we turn to raw foods and let our body to heal itself. Raw foods are not magic foods it is another bullshit, foods not heal, our body does, simple by giving the food it is designed will allow it to heal us.

 

[ChaserHUN]

Yeah, and beside of fat, lot of raw fooders use lots of spices wich isn't good, and lot of raw fooders say to low your fruit intake or don't even eat fruit.

And this study is a bit stupid, I could write down my failures on cooked food

[xjohanx]

And at the end of the day, for thousands or millions of us, our direct experiences confirm the theoretical considerations.

 

Same goes for people on a whole food vegan diet.

 

There is something absurd about people who have never been raw vegans criticising those of us who have been both raw and regular vegans.

 

No, not when the raw people start talking about unscientific stuff like enzymetheories and saying that feeling bad is always detoxifying.

 

And BTW Dr Graham, one of the most prominent raw vegan advocates, has a bachelors degree and extensive post-graduate training in nutrition

 

How did he get the "Doctor" title? Don't you need a Ph.D for that?

 

It is not true that cooking makes food easier to digest. It is only true when you want to eat something that is not for human eating in its natural form. For example, if you cook your apple it wont digest better. But if you cook your rice it will. But wait, would you eat rice raw? Walking in a ricefield and eating some rice because you are hungry? of course no, you would not even consider it as a food.

 

This is at best philosophy (I would call it bullshit but I'm trying to be nice) but it's not science. I'm not sure how an apple reacts to cooking but I think it might help with digestion, however I prefer my apples raw. And no I wouldn't eat rice raw, SO WHAT? We learned how to use heat a long time ago. THIS IS THE PROBLEM WITH RAW FOODISM.

 

It is enough to ask my grandma that they did not have fridges, and microwawe ovens, and gas-ovens and stuff, so even fifty years ago my grandparents eat much more raw food, because that was easy to get and cheap.

 

I don't know about your country but here the life span was shorter 50 years ago so I'm not sure if this proves anything.

 

Because we are sick or something then we turn to raw foods and let our body to heal itself. Raw foods are not magic foods it is another bullshit, foods not heal, our body does, simple by giving the food it is designed will allow it to heal us.

 

Cool! I've been sick once since I turned vegan, it was a stomach virus that was going around. Tell me and I'll PM you my diet since what I'm eating must be seriously close to what we are supposed to eat.

[ChaserHUN]

People always want to get scientific proves, we learned a lot of things in the world how to use/make etc. , is smoking good for you? no... because we learned how to use it it doesn't mean it's going to be good for you. Humans can't make vitamin C, we have to get it trough our food, and you can't get from cooked food, and vitamin C is very important, everyone knows that.

But everyone who thinks raw food diets are bullshit, read Grahams books, reading it and reading info about the 80/10/10 diet from the internet is not the same.

 

Balazs I have to disagree a bit. My grandparents always say that they had only to eat bread with animal fat on it, and sausage, yeah that's ok...but my grandfather is in bad health condition, because he still eats thos things.

 

I never blame sickness on detox, my mother was ill more than for a week, I got a bit from it too, because one day I felt very very tired and went sleep before 8PM, and I got bloaing for 2 days, but I slept a lot then, and I was good. In september when there were flue, lot of people got sick for a week, I got from it a bit, one day I had a clogged up nose, and felt tired, but nothing more. I think this is really good to, as before I got fever and were sick for a long time. So this is owrth it for me.

 

Humans can survive on lot of food, but to survive and be in a relly good health condition is not the same thing.

[ChaserHUN]

People always want to get scientific proves, we learned a lot of things in the world how to use/make etc. , is smoking good for you? no... because we learned how to use it it doesn't mean it's going to be good for you. Humans can't make vitamin C, we have to get it trough our food, and you can't get from cooked food, and vitamin C is very important, everyone knows that.

But everyone who thinks raw food diets are bullshit, read Grahams books, reading it and reading info about the 80/10/10 diet from the internet is not the same.

 

Balazs I have to disagree a bit. My grandparents always say that they had only to eat bread with animal fat on it, and sausage, yeah that's ok...but my grandfather is in bad health condition, because he still eats thos things.

 

I never blame sickness on detox, my mother was ill more than for a week, I got a bit from it too, because one day I felt very very tired and went sleep before 8PM, and I got bloaing for 2 days, but I slept a lot then, and I was good. In september when there were flue, lot of people got sick for a week, I got from it a bit, one day I had a clogged up nose, and felt tired, but nothing more. I think this is really good to, as before I got fever and were sick for a long time. So this is owrth it for me.

 

Humans can survive on lot of food, but to survive and be in a relly good health condition is not the same thing.

[xjohanx]

Humans can't make vitamin C, we have to get it trough our food, and you can't get from cooked food, and vitamin C is very important, everyone knows that.

 

DUDE YOU ARE SO WAY OFF I DON'T EVEN KNOW WHERE TO START!!! The Swedish population were suffering a lot from the disease scurvy and we cured it by eating cooked potatoes. You've been totally brainwashed. It's true that some vitamin C is lost when cooking but to say that you can't get it from cooked food is just A LIE. Besides getting the needed amount of vitamin C means eating maybe 5 fruits a day, not 100!

 

But everyone who thinks raw food diets are bullshit, read Grahams books, reading it and reading info about the 80/10/10 diet from the internet is not the same.

 

I think it's awesome that there's a guy who writes a lot about raw food but you guys should probably read something more. You critizise us for not reading Grahams books, have you read for instance Atkins books just to get some sort of thinking going instead of just blindly following ONE PERSON.

[Balazs]

oh, always the same conclusion.

 

eat cooked food if you want, i dont care

 

chaser, only the rich could afford to eat meat every day. There were no meat industries, my grandparents ate what they had..., or look into history books, fruit was always the cheapest food(in season, of course local, and in warm climate)

 

bye the way, i am not a raw foodist, they eat honey and powders and even meat or eggs, i am RAW VEGAN.

[Storietime]

Humans can't make vitamin C, we have to get it trough our food, and you can't get from cooked food, and vitamin C is very important, everyone knows that.

 

DUDE YOU ARE SO WAY OFF I DON'T EVEN KNOW WHERE TO START!!! The Swedish population were suffering a lot from the disease scurvy and we cured it by eating cooked potatoes. You've been totally brainwashed. It's true that some vitamin C is lost when cooking but to say that you can't get it from cooked food is just A LIE. Besides getting the needed amount of vitamin C means eating maybe 5 fruits a day, not 100!

 

But everyone who thinks raw food diets are bullshit, read Grahams books, reading it and reading info about the 80/10/10 diet from the internet is not the same.

 

I think it's awesome that there's a guy who writes a lot about raw food but you guys should probably read something more. You critizise us for not reading Grahams books, have you read for instance Atkins books just to get some sort of thinking going instead of just blindly following ONE PERSON.

 

 

I know when I'm eating all my fruit for the day, the thought of getting enough vitamin C doesn't even cross my mind, haha. People who eat cooked foods can get enough of all of their vitamins and minerals. It's obvious that people can live long, happy lives eating a diet of cooked (and some raw) foods, pretty much all of my family and friends do it. I would advocate eating more (or all)raw fruits and vegetables for a variety of reasons... not to get enough vitamin C, or any other micronutrient for that matter.

 

As for Doug Graham... I listen to him because it just seems to make a lot of sense to me. He doesn't try to boast any fancy nutritional product and approaches things in a very logical way. I think this is why a lot of people cite his books. But there are lots of different raw food sources out there, some more ridiculous than others.

 

I dont see why anyone would suggest the reading of Dr. Atkins on a vegan forum. A diet telling people to eat large amounts of animal protein in order to lose weight (not maintain health) would never be a good read for any vegan. There are other readings worth my time. (Besides, it's been debunked by lots of official health organizations)

 

This thread's article basically showed a story of a guy who half-assed eating raw, failed, and used some meaningless theories to try and back up his hankering for cooked foods. Not to mention throwing in a bit about orthorexia, which was completely out of place (plus that 20/20 documentary was completely nuts, it was just a jab a raw foods and veganism, not even an exploration of orthorexia). However, I do agreee with how he said to listen to your own body and consume whatever amount of fruits/veggies you feel is right and not to feel bad if your eating cooked foods.

[ChaserHUN]

Maybe you can loose weight on the Atkins diet, but I don't think it's going to be healthy for a long time, in the 80/10/10 diet Graham writes about how you danger your health with the Atkins diet. But in the 811 book, theres not only research based on Grahams work, there researches from others too, and Graham write lot of other books what is goodto read, including The China Study

[xjohanx]

Well so he reccomends other books...does that mean you read them or just remember the titles?

Try to expand the reading you do to more books than what one dude tells you to read, you seem to be in desperate need for more nutritional knowledge.

 

meaningless theories

 

Oh you mean the scientific reports he reffered to?

[New World Vegan]

Wow. This is another sad day for me. This doesn't fit in with a healthy lifestyle. A vegan board is the last place I thought I'd leave from too much abuse and frustration.

 

I'm surprised that raw foodism is such a "hot" topic, filled with the usual politics and emotions that people have towards veganism(veganism is an ism too). Any area has extremes and exagerations. I never went there. I just pointed out the flaws in that article(Yes, that's all the anti-BS people are doing, except not so nicely....and puting words in my mouth.)

 

All I did was question why you're here. You said to dispute the BS. BUT....you talked of general BS not on this particular thread. Not all us raw people are the same person.

 

It's OK for anti-BS people to keep us rational about raw food, as long as you do the same.