"Enzymes: Are they the key to raw foods?"

[beforewisdom]

The author of this article is a raw foodist who does not believe that raw foodism is healthy because plants have enzymes that people can use.

 

You can find the article at its original site here

http://www.fredericpatenaude.com/enzymes.html

 

 

I've received the following question from a reader :

 

"You say that raw foods are good for us but not because of the enzymes.. This is really something ... then why all this raw food movement is expanding throughout the western world? Many well known hygienists and raw foodists claim that enzymes are the exact reason of why raw food is superior to the cooked one. Can you please clarify this one? Do we really have any scientific information on whether the enzymes that the foods carry don't or do take a part in digestion?”

 

My Answer: That’s an interesting question. In most raw-food books you’ll read that food enzymes are “the lifeforce” of foods and that they’re the reason why we should eat a raw diet. That’s what I used to think when I gullibly believed everything that the raw-food gurus said. Now my understanding is that food enzymes are not important at all in the digestive process, and most of them are destroyed in the process of digestion anyway. If they are not destroyed, it is unlikely that they have any role to play in digestion.

 

You ask if I’ve got any scientific research to back it up. You should ask the question differently. Do raw-foodists have any scientific research to back up their enzyme theories? Very scant. Open up any physiology book and you’ll realize that all of those theories are pure conjectures. Everything that I just said about enzymes are recognized facts of physiology.

 

Here’s what one of my correspondents sent me, and this summarizes this issue a lot:

“It was SO good to read your snippet about enzymes as you have put out publicly exactly the conclusions I had come to! All this hype about enzymes being good for your health flies in the face of proven science on many counts:

 

1) Enzymes are biological catalysts and the definition of a catalyst is that it is something that alters/speeds up a reaction without being used up in the process. So, by definition, we cannot 'run out of enzymes'. Even if we could:

 

2) Enzymes are proteins and are made up of the same amino acids as other proteins needed in the body. Thus, if more are needed, more can easily be made from the same materials as other body parts! Our raw plant foods actually go to make up enzymes!

 

3) Enzymes are specific - they catalyze one reaction and one reaction only. That means that plant enzymes are there to deal with reactions connected with the plant's life and not to help humans digest food. Look at the speed at which fruit ripens then decays. It takes days, if not weeks! But human digestion of fruit takes only hours. How can the same enzyme suddenly do that? Simply, it can't. Also, enzymes being specific, human metabolic enzymes cannot logically be used as digestive enzymes. They are there only to catalyze the metabolic reaction.

 

In my opinion, the food enzyme theory and its wide following is one of the major things against more mainstream acceptance of raw foodism as a whole. It's blatantly wrong and gives those who insist on it a bad name. If the raw and natural food movement wishes to be gain wider credibility, it has to be more credible.” Elizabeth, UK

 

Let’s take the example of the banana. An unripe banana is loaded with various enzymes that are needed BY THE BANANA to transform its own starch into simple sugars. As the banana ripen, it becomes sweeter as complex substances (starch) are transformed into simpler ones (sugar). In the end, the enzymes are themselves disintegrated in the process. So when you eat the ripe bananas, there are few enzymes in it. But then, it is so easy to digest that the body will use fewer enzymes to digest it than if you ate a slice of bread, which contains mostly complex carbs. So in the end, you indeed “save up” your enzymes by eating the raw banana, but this has nothing to do with the enzymes in the bananas, which are not needed anyway.

 

Raw-foodists often say that avocados are easy to digest because they contain a lot of fat-digesting enzymes (called lipase). It this were true, the avocado would digest itself. It would not sit on the counter and ripen, but it would quickly digest itself down! In reality, when you eat a ripe avocado, your body has to use its own enzymes to digest it.

 

Nuts and seeds are easier to digest when they are soaked not because it supposedly “activates the enzymes” in the nuts. In fact, they are easier to digest simply because they are hydrated. A dried fruit is also easier to digest when it is soaked.

 

But enzymes supplements work, you’ll say. Sure they work. The enzymes used are specific digestive enzymes. However, when you use them, you cripple a natural function. If you’re experiencing digestive problems and you find relief in using supplemental enzymes, you’re simply not addressing the cause of your problem. Over time, your digestion will become less and less efficient because you are using a natural “aid” like a crutch – you’ll end up with a weaker digestion.

 

Want to Use This Article In Your Website or E-Zine? You can, as long as you include this blurb with it: “Frederic Patenaude, is the author of the best-selling e-book "The Raw Secrets". He is currently giving away free access to his private library of over 100 exclusive articles along with a subscription to his newsletter Pure Health & Nutrition. Visit http://www.fredericpatenaude.com while charter subscriptions last.”

Edited September 8, 2008 by beforewisdom

[DV]

Thanks BW. It's good to hear of a well known raw foodist addressing this issue. I wish the raw food movement had focused more on the vitamin and mineral content of most raw vegetables vs. cooked, rather than the dubious enzyme theory. It would have made the argument for raw vegetables much more compelling.

[flanders77]

Thanks BW. It's good to hear of a well known raw foodist addressing this issue. I wish the raw food movement had focused more on the vitamin and mineral content of most raw vegetables vs. cooked, rather than the dubious enzyme theory. It would have made the argument for raw vegetables much more compelling.

I second that statement!

[beforewisdom]

Thanks BW. It's good to hear of a well known raw foodist addressing this issue. I wish the raw food movement had focused more on the vitamin and mineral content of most raw vegetables vs. cooked, rather than the dubious enzyme theory. It would have made the argument for raw vegetables much more compelling.

 

The "enzyme theory" ( I hate to dignify it with those words, but I can't find other words ) goes all of the way back to other non-science based food cult beliefs that came out of the natural health movement in the 19 th century ala Dr. Kellog, the 7th Day Adventists, etc. It is from the set of bogus beliefs as masturbation draining vital energy and the idea that most disease is caused by mucus and sundry crack pot things.

 

I got into veganism through raw foodism when I was 14. The books I picked up were by an aging "doctor" that came of age and was educated in that era.

 

It is sad that many people still believe and republish these things over 100 years later, especially when these beliefs had not basis in facts to start with.

[beforewisdom]

Thanks BW. It's good to hear of a well known raw foodist addressing this issue. I wish the raw food movement had focused more on the vitamin and mineral content of most raw vegetables vs. cooked, rather than the dubious enzyme theory. It would have made the argument for raw vegetables much more compelling.

 

As you probably have read yourself, I have seen articles here and there about that issue. Usually neither raw nor cooked produce comes out on top. Sometimes cooking makes a food more nutritious, sometimes leaving it raw does. Sometimes even with the same particular food one method will make one nutrient more available while reducing another and vice-versa.

 

There are people who got results from the Atkins diet despite its "science" being a product of Dr. Atkins' imagination as the "enzyme theory" is a product of the imagination for some raw food authors.

 

Most of those short term Atkin's benefits can be explained without the Atkins metaphysics. The Atkins diet got people off of junk ( refined carbs ), got them off of milk, made them eat 2 cups of broccoli a day( some of those people wouldn't even have eaten that many vegetables in a month ), and got them to simply eat fewer calories.

 

In my HUMBLE opinion the similar alternative explanations fit the accounts of raw foodists who feel better and lost weight.

 

They too reduced junk food and got off of more animal products. Most of the time a raw diet is a lower calorie diet which explains the weight loss. Most of the time a raw diet is a diet high in produce, which means people feel better because they are eating more vegetables where they ate less or no vegetables before.

 

Magic enzymes and other do it yourself metaphysical theories need not apply.

Edited April 10, 2008 by beforewisdom

[DV]

Very good points, BeforeWisdom.

 

Certain foods, diets and cults have been linked for years. It is sometimes very difficult to discuss food and science in the same discussion because of people's emotional/spiritual/cultural relationship with food. I see a lot of this with the raw foods movement and it is a shame because the message of health gets lost in the dogma.

 

It's the rare person, IMO, who will disagree that many (not all) raw foods retain more vitamins and minerals than cooked - and the cooking method makes a big difference. When "mainstream" health professionals suggest adding more raw foods to your diet, this is generally the reason why - as well the fact that cooking food usually adds salt and/or fat.

 

When some raw foodists speak of plant enzymes substituting for digestive enzymes, grains being toxic, cooked foods being toxic, etc. - the message of health is lost in the bad science and the raw foods movement starts to look a bit kooky. Now add that bit about "detoxing" the cooked foods out of your body and most of the audience is out of there.

 

A couple of years ago, I got interested in raw foods and started researching different books and websites. I had a very difficult time finding evidence to back up some of the claims and beliefs about raw and "living" foods. I've never found any evidence to convince me that a 100% raw foods diet is any healthier than a diet with cooked foods. I incorporate both types of foods in my diet, as I think is true of many people.

 

By the way, I have perfected the raw almond pie crust. And it's much healthier than a flour and fat crust. I had to add that.

[Couture547]

Very good points, BeforeWisdom.

 

Certain foods, diets and cults have been linked for years. It is sometimes very difficult to discuss food and science in the same discussion because of people's emotional/spiritual/cultural relationship with food. I see a lot of this with the raw foods movement and it is a shame because the message of health gets lost in the dogma.

 

It's the rare person, IMO, who will disagree that many (not all) raw foods retain more vitamins and minerals than cooked - and the cooking method makes a big difference. When "mainstream" health professionals suggest adding more raw foods to your diet, this is generally the reason why - as well the fact that cooking food usually adds salt and/or fat.

 

When some raw foodists speak of plant enzymes substituting for digestive enzymes, grains being toxic, cooked foods being toxic, etc. - the message of health is lost in the bad science and the raw foods movement starts to look a bit kooky. Now add that bit about "detoxing" the cooked foods out of your body and most of the audience is out of there.

 

A couple of years ago, I got interested in raw foods and started researching different books and websites. I had a very difficult time finding evidence to back up some of the claims and beliefs about raw and "living" foods. I've never found any evidence to convince me that a 100% raw foods diet is any healthier than a diet with cooked foods. I incorporate both types of foods in my diet, as I think is true of many people.

 

By the way, I have perfected the raw almond pie crust. And it's much healthier than a flour and fat crust. I had to add that.

 

Brian Clement the head of the hiprocrotese Institute(spelling) is a PHD in some health feild and has medical doctors and doctors test that prove thousands among thousands healing themselves of just about every disease with a raw food diet

[beforewisdom]

Brian Clement the head of the hiprocrotese Institute(spelling) is a PHD in some health feild and has medical doctors and doctors test that prove thousands among thousands healing themselves of just about every disease with a raw food diet

 

A PHD in "some health field" can mean he is very well versed in hospital management or health policy without knowing anything about medical science.

 

You may be right, but a lot of people aren't going to believe you until you can state what kind of doctors doing what kind of reasearch to how many people and until you can point to citations.

[Couture547]

Brian Clement the head of the hiprocrotese Institute(spelling) is a PHD in some health feild and has medical doctors and doctors test that prove thousands among thousands healing themselves of just about every disease with a raw food diet

 

A PHD in "some health field" can mean he is very well versed in hospital management or health policy without knowing anything about medical science.

 

You may be right, but a lot of people aren't going to believe you until you can state what kind of doctors doing what kind of reasearch to how many people and until you can point to citations.

 

I'm not sure what he is, but he and other working there are considered doctors, but that's not really what i care about it's about results. THere where thousands and thousands of people that went there along with the other Anne Wigmore institutions that were told they had very limited time to live and competely healed themselves of every thing they had