Raw versus Cooked: Which is More Natural?

[beforewisdom]

This quote is an extract of a nutrition newsletter Dr. Michael Greger M.D. of the HSUS used to publish. Dr. Michael Greger is a vegan medical doctor and animal rights activist who researches/writes regularly on nutrition issues.

 

From

http://www.drgreger.org/november2003.html

 

G. Raw versus Cooked: Which is More Natural?

 

"Raw foodist" lifestyle advocates tend to argue that cooking is unnatural. They often argue that since we evolved eating raw foods like the rest of the animal kingdom, we are better adapted to eat that way. In a landmark article just published in the journal of Comparative Biology and Physiology, however, two Harvard anthropologists argue just the opposite.[10}

 

First, they note that other than the new deliberate "raw foodists," there do not seem to be any current or historical populations, small groups or even individuals living for more than a few days without access to cooked foods. Then they take on the belief that cooking is a recent phenomenon for our species.

 

Mammalian species like ourselves can evolve adaptations in as few as 5000 years. Human beings have been cooking for at least 250,000 years, and maybe as long as 1.9 million years, long before we were even Homo sapiens. They argue that not only have humans adapted to eating cooked foods, they argue that human beings have adapted so much that eating cooked food now seems obligatory for optimum health. And indeed the medical literature backs them up.

 

The only study I know of 100% raw foodists followed for years was published in 1999.[11] It showed that a third of the raw foodists were suffering from Chronic Energy Deficiency. Many were just wasting away. Most of the women suffered menstrual irregularities and half of the women lost their menstrual periods altogether, which could lead to devastating osteoporosis. And this was in modern urban people with relatively low activity levels who had access to high-quality high-calorie produce from around the world year-round. How might our nontropical gatherer/hunter ancestors lived through a single winter without cooking, especially with their extreme energy expenditure?

 

There have been major changes in our digestive biology over the past few hundred thousand years, and the researchers argue that these changes may have been due to the availability of cooked foods. 100,000 years ago, for example, the size of our jaws and molar teeth started to shrink, perhaps as an adaptation to softer, easier-chewed cooked foods. They also posit that perhaps other differences between our digestive systems and those of the great apes may also have been because of our adaptation to cooked foods--our smaller gut volume, longer small intestine, smaller colon, and faster gut passage rate.

 

They conclude that while well-supported individuals in an urban environment with a relatively sedentary lifestyle may be able to thrive on a raw food diet, it is neither natural nor necessarily desirable for optimal health.

 

[Couture547]

Raw foods are much more natural becasue there in the natural un processed state. Cooked foods offer no benifits over raw foods at all. I don't get why people even ask the question becasue even if you don't want to go 100 percent raw the more raw foods the better.

[Richard]

G. Raw versus Cooked: Which is More Natural?

Human beings have been cooking for at least 250,000 years, and maybe as long as 1.9 million years, long before we were even Homo sapiens.

 

I'd be interested to find out why people think that's the case, and what tools were used to cook food before homo sapiens existed; and which foods were cooked. Also, I'd like to know of any other animals which cook food, besides humans, as that would support this theory in a way, and show that it is a naturally occuring behaviour

[Dr. Pink]

Cooking is only a tool really. It's natural amongst human beings. There may not be any other animal that performs this very action but there are animals that do similar. Like using sticks to weed out ants, smashing open coconuts and such. As for animals cooking food. Well if you've ever seen Ratatouille you know it's possible

 

I'm sure that somewhere out there though there are animals that cook certain foods. Maybe in the desert. They could easily use a rock and cook that way. Rocks in the desert sun make up natures stove.

[Richard]

Everything is cooked in the desert, har

[Dr. Pink]

Maybe human beings belong in the desert then. Since we have a nack for cooking

[Jason]

I really don't understand the hostility towards a raw diet here.

The anti-raws seem determined to prove it's unhealthy.

There is nothing wrong or unhealthy with a balanced, well planned raw diet.

Any type of diet can be made very unhealthy.

Don't blame the raw diet when people make poor food choices.

There are many "cooked" vegans who are very unhealthy.

Don't blame the cooked diet for this, it's bad food choices.

 

Posting an article like this isn't even a little helpful.

The only study I know of 100% raw foodists followed for years was published in 1999.[11] It showed that a third of the raw foodists were suffering from Chronic Energy Deficiency. Many were just wasting away. Most of the women suffered menstrual irregularities and half of the women lost their menstrual periods altogether, which could lead to devastating osteoporosis.

 

If you base your raw diet on green leafy veggies, with a wide variety of other veggies and fruits,

and some nuts and seeds you will be miles ahead of the vast majority of people.

 

And.

You don't need to be "raw" to have great health.

Just because it's cooked doesn't make it unhealthy.

Just because it's raw doesn't make it good for you.

I'll take 300 calories of steamed brocolli over 300 calories of extra virgin, cold pressed "raw" olive oil anyday.

[Couture547]

Just becasue humans have been cooking for a long time doesn't mean it's the thing to do. Alot of people come from very harsh climates so eatting raw foods isn't realistic, but now days if your living in a country like the US you have access to every thing.

[Marcina]

I believe some food is best raw, and some is best cooked. It all depends on your digestion I suppose. I can't eat raw broccoli without bloating and farting for example.

I love raw food, I think it gives me more energy. If I put a bunch of stuff in a raw green smoothie, it's easier to digest!

[Katabatic]

Both!

[xveganjoshx]

The anti-raws seem determined to prove it's unhealthy.

WHO are you talking about bro? Me and Zack haven't EVEN gotten to posting yet.

[tuc]

Who cares what is natural? Using Internet isn't natural. Pushing metal plates up and down isn't natural. Eating protein powder isn't natural. Driving a car/plane/bus/train isn't natural. Wearing clothes isn't natural.

 

I think what matters is what is healthy and what is not. Raw food is very healthy if you know what you are doing.

 

So is eating raw & cooked food both.

 

That's it.

[Richard]

Yeah, I find it interesting to explore what humans used to do thousands of years ago, but that shouldn't have an impact on what we choose to do today. What's natural is different from what is ethical, practical or in this case, healthy. It's still fun to think about.

[beforewisdom]

I really don't understand the hostility towards a raw diet here..

 

Dr. Greger is an MD, he is educated, he does a lot of research. His newsletter is discussing some raw concepts from a professional perspective. The article isn't getting personal about anyone.

 

I have seen some people be rude about it in general, but the conversation is about exchanging ideas as to the facts, not trading ego blows. At least it isn't for me.

 

Read what Greger has to say and think about it if you are interested. If you don't agree you don't agree. It happens every day. No big deal.

Edited April 25, 2008 by beforewisdom

[beforewisdom]

G. Raw versus Cooked: Which is More Natural?

Human beings have been cooking for at least 250,000 years, and maybe as long as 1.9 million years, long before we were even Homo sapiens.

 

I'd be interested to find out why people think that's the case, and what tools were used to cook food before homo sapiens existed; and which foods were cooked.

 

The URL to his newsletter has references. They may trail back to those issues.

[elbowsfromabove]

Both!Because at times raw can be really expensive.Sometimes i just don't feel full when i eat raw,and i feel burnt out.When I eat cooked I feel stronger than i do when i eat raw.Plus eating raw causes me get really skinny.

[DV]

I believe any diet, even an omni diet, can be very healthy. It's all about getting the best nutrients in the best ratios. Period.

 

No one is anti-raw on this forum. We ALL eat raw foods! However, some of us feel defensive when we are told that our cooked foods and grains are poison/toxic/etc. In the past, this defensiveness has led to some of us going on the offensive. I hope we are past that point as a group.

 

I believe that BeforeWisdom started this thread to open discussion, not to be antagonistic. My contribution to this thread would be the idea that in humans' past most of us ate some type of animal products - scavenged, hunted or fished. You could say that our GI tracts adapted over thousands of years to accommodate cooked meat as well as grains, etc. Looking to the past is interesting but I'm not sure it will give us many answers for today.

 

Regardless of which "diet" you follow, there are basic nutritional human needs and there are many ways to obtain them - raw, vegan or omni.

[andesuma]

Eating cooked food(processed) is like driving a car.

Eating raw food is like riding a bicycle.

 

Either can be as "natural" as your definition of "natural" is...

It's all about what works best for you, in your environment....

since regional eating is important.

[Im Your Man]

Eating cooked food(processed) is like driving a car.

Eating raw food is like riding a bicycle.

 

Either can be as "natural" as your definition of "natural" is...

It's all about what works best for you, in your environment....

since regional eating is important.

 

Could you precise what you mean by this metaphor?

I agree that a car pollutes more than a bike, and takes non-renewable energy from Earth, but it goes faster. I don't think you meant cooked food could make us run faster than raw food.

[andesuma]

Eating cooked food(processed) is like driving a car.

Eating raw food is like riding a bicycle.

 

Either can be as "natural" as your definition of "natural" is...

It's all about what works best for you, in your environment....

since regional eating is important.

 

Could you precise what you mean by this metaphor?

I agree that a car pollutes more than a bike, and takes non-renewable energy from Earth, but it goes faster. I don't think you meant cooked food could make us run faster than raw food.

 

 

I was leaving it open to personal interpretation ;P

Just like the term "natural", really is different for everyone.

 

But I suppose...I was more or less meaning the functionality of it all.

Think of a world where everyone road bikes.. and no one drove.

Think of the community that would be built, the humility that would unfold.

Not saying these things cannot happen with cooked foods, but when

I say cooked foods, I mean convenience processed foods; not whole foods.

 

I could right a novel on my opinion on this, and what the metaphor

means, but I won't..

It's open to interpretation, to me.. the raw food & bicycle analogy makes

sense... once you learn, you never forget how to do it.

It's programmed into your dna what foods are good for you, and what ones are not.

[flanders77]

No one is anti-raw on this forum. We ALL eat raw foods! However, some of us feel defensive when we are told that our cooked foods and grains are poison/toxic/etc. In the past, this defensiveness has led to some of us going on the offensive. I hope we are past that point as a group.

I am very happy to see that the former antagonists (Zack, Josh, DV on one side and some raw foodists including andesuma and myself either stay out of this discussion, take it easy and/or discuss in a peaceful and respectful way.

 

I read an article in the magazine GEO a while ago dealing with the topic of human evolution. It said that there are so few bones or sceletons from humans or their ancestors that it is really hard to say how they really lived and what they ate.

IMO what makes humans unique is our ability to adapt. We can survive on so many "foods". There are modern humans who consume only french fries and meat and still live

Concerning raw one thing is for sure: At one point in our history our ancestors ate exclusively raw. I do not think anyone will ever be able to prove without a doubt that the changes that took place since that time make us a natural cooked foodist. And the other way around noone will prove without a doubt that we are still natural raw foodists by looking at bones and sceletons.

There are different theories and we choose in which scientific hypothesis we want to believe.

The raw-cooked discussion has taken place many times on this board and countless other boards.

IMO the the raw section is not the place to (constantly) question the raw ideas.

 

I look at it like this: This board is about vegan BB&F. This is what connects us.

Since there are some (more or less) experienced raw athletes we have the opportunity of having a raw section. If someone wants info on raw food and BB&F, he/she will find it there.

If one wants info about a a "standard" vegan diet and BB&F he/she can find it in "Health & Nutrition Programs".

I am usually very careful when it comes to posting "raw ideas" outside the raw section.

Personally I feel great on raw food.

And I feel bad after eating cooked food.

[beforewisdom]

Veganism is an ethical system born out of some strong emotions so it is understandable ( not the same as being right or wrong ) that people get upset when vegan ethical beliefs are discussed.

 

Raw foodism is just a diet. Talking about the merits/downsides of various facets of it should be no different than talking about which auto parts, techniques do and don't work among car buffs.

 

I don't buy the idea that unless you post something that is 100% supportive of raw foodism you are attacking people.

 

It is a diet, it isn't a value system. People shouldn't get emotional about it.

[Guest]

I wouldn't call raw foodism just a diet. Some people are so passionate about it that I wouldn't want to bring it down to just a diet. For many people it is a spiritual journey. Some people would call veganism a diet and for some people maybe it is...but to me it definitely isn't just a diet.

[beforewisdom]

I wouldn't call raw foodism just a diet. Some people are so passionate about it that I wouldn't want to bring it down to just a diet. For many people it is a spiritual journey. Some people would call veganism a diet and for some people maybe it is...but to me it definitely isn't just a diet.

 

Veganism had the Watson's as founders of the word and the ethical system. There are also volumes about the philosophy. There is no belief system to raw foodism beyond the faux science (no offense) beliefs of raw foods having enzymes that people can use to become healthier. Raw foodism is just a diet. Again, I don't mean any offend anyone but getting emotional about something that is just a diet is like car buffs getting angry over opinions about what motor oil or car part to use.

[flanders77]

I agree to Potter (who is not a rsw foodist butaway...):

Even though being raw can be looked upon as just a diet to me and many others being raw is a personal journey. It does not matter to me if something was actually founded at one specific moment. Everyone of us chooses what to believe in and developes his/her own believe system doing that.

IMO raw foodism can change the world because it enabled me to do an important step of my spiritual path (I do not want to that everyone will be enlightened or something but I profited very much from eating raw). It is the individual person that can make a difference.