Jump to content

"Becoming Raw" by Brenda Davis


Recommended Posts

Brenda Davis RD, is one of the coauthors of "The American Dietetic Association Position Paper On Vegetarianism". She is a very science based registered dietitian, conservative in her professional views. She has written such excellent, fact based books as "Becoming Vegan" ( she and her children are vegans ) and the 2nd edition of "Becoming Vegetarian".

 

Raw food books are typically written by people without credentials or expertise, often contradict basic biochemistry and often seem like they are "made up".

 

I was interested to see a nutrition expert like Davis publish a book on raw food diets:

 

Becoming Raw

http://tinyurl.com/becomingraw

 

Has anyone read it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is also co-authored with Vesanto Melina, just like the other two books were. It looks very promising!

 

I have no intention of ever going raw again, so reading it is low on my list of priorities. However, just for fun I would love to know what the book says.

 

Like I wrote in my original post, most raw food books are written by uncredentialed, uneducated zealots who often make up their own "science"( for lack of a better word ).

 

Unless Davis & Melina depart wildly from the nutrition books they have written in the past, this book is likely to be fact based about what, if any benefits, a raw diet has to offer, what are the real issues with living on such a diet and what things truly have to be done to stay healthy on it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

The only thing that can match the "zealotry" and "anti-science" bias of some raw-foodists is the zealotry and anti-science bias of some anti-raw-foodists.

 

Raw foods can be great, and I certainly feel better when I include more salads, nuts, and seeds in my diet. There's no one answer here folks, if people do well on a raw diet, there's no need to hate on them. There are plenty of examples of healthy vegan athletes who are raw or mostly raw, Brendan Brazier comes to mind.

 

If it doesn't work for you, don't do it, but the venom is unnecessary. Live and let live.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only thing that can match the "zealotry" and "anti-science" bias of some raw-foodists is the zealotry and anti-science bias of some anti-raw-foodists.

 

I disagree. People who argue against raw foodism usually quote facts long established by medical science. I have a hard time calling people who talk facts, zealots.

 

 

Raw foods can be great, and I certainly feel better when I include more salads, nuts, and seeds in my diet.

 

More raw foods in a person's diet is one thing, living completely raw is something else.

 

There's no one answer here folks, if people do well on a raw diet, there's no need to hate on them.

 

Is criticizing a belief someone holds the same thing as hating a person?

Damdaman, since you are into raw foodism why don't you read Brenda Davis' book and post a review here for the rest of us?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only thing that can match the "zealotry" and "anti-science" bias of some raw-foodists is the zealotry and anti-science bias of some anti-raw-foodists.

 

I disagree. People who argue against raw foodism usually quote facts long established by medical science. I have a hard time calling people who talk facts, zealots.

 

And here is exactly where you go wrong. You are basically saying "if the science agrees with my opinion, it is a 'fact long established by medical science. if the science disagrees with my opinion, it is pseudo-science.'" You aren't even considering the very likely option that you may be wrong in this matter, and if "experts" that have "scientific credentials" that you approve of write a book that disagrees with your OPINION, they must have drank the kool-aid, so to speak.

 

The reality is that the scientific method is great not because it establishes irrefutable fact, but precisely because it DOESN'T. It is the realm of religion, devotion, and zealotry to claim that something is irrefutable fact. Science by it's very nature evolves, changes with new information, and can admit when it's wrong, and it is usually wrong. My partner (who has a masters degree in environmental science) likes to say "Science never proves anything, it can only disprove something."

 

There is a great article in the most recent Discover magazine about the "streetlight effect," where researchers tend to look for answers where the looking is good, rather than where the answer may be. I can't do the article justice, but there are a few notable quotes that illustrate my point. I do urge you to pick up the issue and turn to page 55. I think reading the article will do wonders to change your opinion on what constitutes "facts established by medical science."

 

In the meantime, here are some notable quotes from the article:

 

In 2005, Joan Ioannidis of the University of Ioannina in Greece examined the 45 most prominent studies published since 1990 in the top medical journals and found that about one-third of them were ultimately refuted. If one were to look at all medical studies, it would be more like two-thirds, he says. And for some kinds of leading-edge studies ... wrongness infects 90 percent or more.

 

We should fully expect scientific theories to frequently butt heads and to wind up being disproved sometimes as researchers grope their way toward the truth. That is the scientific process: Generate ideas, test them, discard the flimsy, repeat.

 

...

 

I have spent the past three years examining why expert pronouncements so often turn out to be exaggerated, misleading, or flat-out wrong. There are several good reasons why that happens, and one of them is that scientists are not as good at making trustworthy measurements as we give them credit for. It's not that they are mostly incompetents or cheats. Well, some of them are: In several confidential surveys spanning different fields, anywhere from 10 to 50 perfect of scientists have confessed to perpetrating or being aware of some sort of research misbehavior. And numerous studies have highlighted remarkably lax supervision of research assistants and technicians.

 

...

 

Patient recruitment is an enormous problem in many medical studies, and researchers often end up paying for the participation of students, poor people, drug abusers, the homeless, illegal immigrants, and others who may not adequately represent the population in terms of health or lifestyle.

 

...

 

Contrary to the proclamations of many scientists, unreliable medical study results do not disappear with large, randomized controlled trials, in which subjects are randomly assigned to a treatment or placebo group. Such trials are more reliable in some ways, but they do not necessary address the streetlight effect, and they are frequently refuted by other, similar trials.

 

The article ends on a rather amusing self-deprecating note that illustrates my point:

 

How are we supposed to cope with all this wrongness? Well, a good start would be to remain skeptical about the great majority of what you find in research journals and pretty much all of the fascinating, news-making findings you read about in the mainstream media, which tends to magnify the problems. (Except you can trust DISCOVER, naturally. And believe me, there is no way THIS article is wrong, either. After all, everything in it is backed by scientific studies.)

 

Maybe we should just keep in mind what that Einstein fellow - you know, the one who messed up that electron experiment - had to say on the subject: "If we know what we were doing, it wouldn't be called research, would it?"

 

So again, I simply say that the research that agrees with your opinion is the research you call "established medical fact," and the research that disagrees with your opinion (or the experts), are written off. That is zealotry, not science. Science knows that it can be wrong, and most of the time, it is proved wrong when new information comes to light.

 

Damdaman, since you are into raw foodism why don't you read Brenda Davis' book and post a review here for the rest of us?

 

I'm not "into raw foodism," that is what is called a straw-man argument. I eat mostly cooked foods. But I find it a little tiring watching the bullying that sometimes goes on in vegan circles lately. It also drives me nuts the misunderstanding of the scientific method and the claims that "the scientific facts are this" when that is not how science works. You have an opinion, and you pick and choose which science to believe based on that opinion.

 

I think a far better idea for advancing this topic beyond what it has devolved into over the past couple years would be for YOU to read the book with an open mind that there is no black-and-white answer here and see what the authors have to say for yourself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I still do high raw. I hate cooked veggies that is really the main reason. Plus I feel less weighed down after eating raw. Raw smoothies are the best by far for me.

 

Anyway I think that is what raw needs more.... which is credible experts admitting it's benefits and backing it up with good science.

 

I still eat cooked. Some things are just good cooked!

 

I realized there has been so much debate on many forums about what is the right way to eat... is this food good or bad...

 

The bottom line is fruits and veggies offer the most protection against illness. So when it comes to diet is not weather soy is good or bad for you or what else is, but the truth is how much nutrition are you actually getting in a day. What is really keeping your body protected against harmful foods, pollution and stress. So enjoy your food. Don't think too much about it and eat high and rich nutrient foods. Keep your self protected. That is my two cents. I think we all heard since we can all remember people telling us to eat more fruits and veggies. Yet we still remain confused thanks to book sales and media.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i was raw for about 6 months and i loved every minute of it. It makes you feel great and it really changes you on the inside too. my question is...

why WOULDNT some one want to go raw?

Well... why'd you give it up?

 

well i was high fat for most of that time and i was doing well, loosing weight, even though i was consuming alot of calories, no cravings and all the rest of it and then i tried the 811 (low fat high fruit) method and it just went wrong so i just went back to eating cooked because thats what i started craving. Im not good with will power you see. i am not around 75% raw, some days all raw.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
Damdan, your argument is weak and it sounds like you have an problems with someone else other than me. It isn't worth my time to draw out the details for you. Read the book or find something else positive to do. Have a good weekend.

 

It seems from what I'm reading you have problems with him. His argument was excellent. I'm not 100% raw but I have seen the benefits and now being mostly raw have more energy,strength, etc.

 

After he states his side all you have to say is your argument is weak and now say you don't have time? Maybe it's because you don't know how to refute the statement? Just a thought..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

There is a lot of good science showing the benefits of a vegetarian and/or vegan diet but nothing proving that raw is any better. In fact studies I have seen show little to no difference in the final nutritent content of food. On the other hand, it makes sense since as humans were evolving, we ate nothing but raw foods long before fire, and I can tell you no human was chasing down animals and eating them raw. So, that is off the table, LOL. Anyway, I have done lots of reading on raw and just can't see the benefit. It certainly impacts me psychologically too because I am never satisfied eating 100% raw, typically hungry most of the time and just can't seem to keep the calories high enough. I tend to do 4,000 - 6,000 calories a day depending on lifting phase.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...