Raw versus Cooked: Which is More Natural?

[beforewisdom]

Bambam, you might this video to be interesting

http://www.herebedragonsmovie.com/

[flanders77]

Without getting into this useless discussion again I have to tell both sides:

Please read side 1 and 2 of this topic. IMO the discussion does not serve any good purpose. Nobody will change his/her believe and all the arguments are exchanged too many times already.

[DV]

Flanders,

 

We have new members who have not had this discussion before so it might be relevant to them. No one is debating the health aspects of raw foods per se, just the raw enzyme theory (amongst others). I think it's always important to point out the strengths and weaknesses of theories for new members and those who are raw curious. Having a discussion about these topics on a board that is open to raw and vegan nutrition doesn't happen anywhere else on the internet so far as I know. You cannot find scientific/medical critique of the enzyme theory on raw forums so it's great that you can find it here. When I was looking into raw foodism I had a VERY difficult time finding any scientific backing for the enzyme theory, food combing theory, detox theory, etc.

 

I think that everyone recognizes that a piece of raw food is free of added salt, sugar and fat - making it healthy. I think we also recognize that heating foods can decrease some vitamin content. We also recognize that some people feel better and gain health, in comparison, on new diets. None of this is being debated.

 

When someone states that a food is toxic then it's only fair to identify what toxins are being produced. Just stating that something is toxic is not good enough since anyone could claim that certain things are toxic without proof. Talking about detoxification without identifying which toxins are being removed and by which physiological process is a belief, not a reality. Repeating the raw foodism enzyme theory with no physiological evidence to support it is weak. When these weaknesses are pointed out on this forum, there arises great opportunity for raw foodists to back up their claims with biology, physiology and studies - just as leaders in veganism have done. Instead of entering into a fact-based debate, there seems to be a lot of "you just have to believe" or "science isn't always right" type of answers from raw foodists. Why? Is there such a paucity of evidence behind certain raw foodism theories that we cannot have these discussions in the light of day? Or have we just encountered those raw foodists who are unable to discuss these topics. I think there are/have been many members on this forum who enjoy learning new things, especially if those things improve the health of humans/animals/the earth.

 

I've been on this forum for a couple of years and have seen few, if any, members become raw and stick with it. Generally, someone is already raw or thinking about it, then starts posting here. My assumption would be that A) most people feel well on a vegan diet and see no need to stop preparing foods with heat, and/or B) the raw food movement has failed to prove that raw foodism is healthier than veganism, and/or C) that those who have tried a raw foods diet didn't notice any difference.

 

No one likes fanaticism. I don't like it in vegans who insist that all animals products are toxic and bad for you and I don't like it in raw foodists who claim any cooked food is toxic. I think the evidence is clear that the human body has evolved to process "toxins" and that many diets have worked for humanity - some better than others, but there have been many variations based on geography and food availability. I think the raw food movement would have better success if there was less fanaticism and more flexibility.

 

Yesterday, I took my 86 year old grandmother to a restaurant for lunch. She ordered fish - she always does. She's 86 and still works 3 days per week and still lives on her own. She took a 29 hour train ride here and then went for a walk, a museum tour and played 5 hours of cards - this is a very vibrant woman. Could I sell her on the health aspects of veganism? No way. Perhaps she would be open to the environmental or animal cruelty aspects, but not the health aspects. And I wouldn't be either at her age and health. So, where does that leave raw foodists? Vegans already lead a life as cruelty-free as possible. How about the environmental aspects of raw foodism? Unfortunately, with imported exotic ingredients and eating foods that are out of season, most raw food diets don't look more environmentally-friendly than veganism. So, the only topic left is human health. This is where I would expect raw foodism to shine! Unfortunately, I'm still waiting. So, until there is ample evidence that eating cooked food is "toxic" and eating raw foods will "detox" you and our grandparents are really dying of enzyme depletion - I believe these theories will continued to be challenged on this forum.

[DaN]

Ok firstly I cannot believe there is any division at all between people who heat up their food & those that dont.I mean really.

 

No other animal to my knowledge cooks food.Humans may cook food, maybe for last 1 million years perhaps, just for arguments sake.On that basis that still leaves millions & millions of years of all life on the planet surviving on raw food.Therefore any argument against raw food is simply futile.Herbivorous dinosaurs exist in the fossil record for 75 million years before carnivore dinosaur bones appear, proving that raw food can sustain even the largest of creatures.Even the carnivorous ones ate the meat raw.

 

It is likely that heating food is a purely human evolution.

 

However, heating something may 'kill' all these wonderful things that are inside them, but it will still provide energy, which is lets be honest, all we really need.Heating certain foods often make them more palatable & easier to enjoy.Example, raw potato - absolutely ing.Cooked potato - maybe one of the nicest things on the planet.

 

Lets be honest, raw is probably healthier, forget scienctific studies done recently suggesting they are not, just look at nature.

 

Do both, & enjoy!

[offense74]

Thanks DV!

We've had this discussion before and we came to the conclusion that "anything goes" in the raw part of the forum. That means that critique is off limits and is not allowed.

 

However, people from all over the world is watching this board, some with interest and some with contempt. As plant eaters we are always in the line of fire. Threads on this forum can be pointed to from other places on the 'net with potentially huge amounts of readers (ie bodybuilding.com). If noone here critiques ass flushing or "detox syrups" as a means to achieve muscle and/or health we as a community will not have credibility.

I believe that just as low-carb is a fad among many bodybuilders, raw foodism is a fad among vegans.

We need to be able to deliver critique on this part of the forum too.

[beforewisdom]

IMO the discussion does not serve any good purpose. Nobody will change his/her believe and all the arguments are exchanged too many times already.

 

I completely agree with your second point. The usual players who will post will not change their opinions. However, posting opinions about what you think is true is not only about those who will respond to you, but about the audience, often unseen on web boards, who will read your opinions and be influenced by your opinions.

Edited August 8, 2008 by beforewisdom

[beforewisdom]

Lets be honest, raw is probably healthier,

 

I don't know that.

 

forget scientific studies done recently suggesting they are not, just look at nature.

 

The scientific method has evolved over the centuries to be one of the most reliable methods for discovering truth. Why would I want to forget that?

[beforewisdom]

Thanks DV!

We've had this discussion before and we came to the conclusion that "anything goes" in the raw part of the forum. That means that critique is off limits and is not allowed.

 

I don't get that at all.

 

People get upset in discussions about politics, religion, and ethical beliefs. Their values are involved. Eating a raw diet is about health and it is only a means to an end.

 

I see discussing the merits of different diets on this forum as being similar to car enthusiasts having a forum discussing the virtues of different brands of parts and disagreeing without getting offended. "I haven't had good results with ACME mufflers, but if you have, great! It will not effect my car".

 

Even if values and beliefs are disagreed with ( which they are not ), disagreeing with an idea is not the same as rating (badly) a person. If George Bush told me the sky is blue, I would agree with him, but I still wouldn't like him. If my best friend told me 2 + 2 = 5, I would still think she was a great person, just mistaken about math.

[beforewisdom]

However, people from all over the world is watching this board, some with interest and some with contempt.

 

I have had people tell me that they love the atmosphere of this board, but that they stopped reading it because of all of the false alternative health information on it. They weren't nasty about it, they just told me they wanted to learn facts and that this board wasn't helping them.

 

When people see questionable ideas being questioned in a forum they know that there are people who know things on the forum or....at the least if something is bogus, there is a possibility that it will be revealed as bogus. In other words, they can learn things from reading.

 

That makes them decide to stay, which makes VBB grow, and makes the vegan fitness things grow which are our goals as well as Robert's goals.

 

Respectfully disagreeing with statements, not people, and stating facts has its place.

[Zack]

However, people from all over the world is watching this board, some with interest and some with contempt.

 

I have had people tell me that they love the atmosphere of this board, but that they stopped reading it because of all of the false alternative health information on it. They weren't nasty about it, they just told me they wanted to learn facts and that this board wasn't helping them.

 

When people see questionable ideas being questioned in a forum they know that there are people who know things on the forum or....at the least if something is bogus, there is a possibility that it will be revealed as bogus. In other words, they can learn things from reading.

 

That makes them decide to stay, which makes VBB grow, and makes the vegan fitness things grow which are our goals as well as Robert's goals.

 

Respectfully disagreeing with statements, not people, and stating facts has its place.

 

Well said.

[beforewisdom]

If I was a raw foodist I would value the discussions about raw foodism here.

 

If I managed to be healthy on it and someone made a good case for that "enzyme theory" being bunk then I would know that something else about my diet is giving me the good results I value.

 

Not only would I be free of a false belief, but I would free to find out what is really doing the work of giving me the results I value.

 

That would allow me to not only avoid doing things that are not necessary and that I don't like to keep the good results coming, but it might also allow me to find a way to improve upon the good results I am getting.

 

There are raw foodists who think the "enzyme theory" is bunk and who are happy eating raw.

[beforewisdom]

When I was looking into raw foodism I had a VERY difficult time finding any scientific backing for the enzyme theory, food combing theory, detox theory, etc.

 

That is because it contradicts very well known, very long known biological facts that any biochemistry 101 student will learn. The "enzyme theory" can only be believed in the absence of education to what scientists have already know.

 

I think that everyone recognizes that a piece of raw food is free of added salt, sugar and fat - making it healthy.

 

Its amazing how things get twisted over time. I don't think I have ever read anyone making claims that eating salads is unhealthy. Even Atkins advised his victims to eat two cups of broccoli a day. The questions, at least for me, has always been

 

1. Is eating a diet of raw food exclusively or most of the time healthy?

 

2. If number 1 is true, is it the optimal way to eat for the best health?

 

3. The "enzyme theory" and other made up ideas surroning raw foodism being passed off as truth.

 

Instead of entering into a fact-based debate, there seems to be a lot of "you just have to believe" or "science isn't always right" type of answers from raw foodists. Why? Is there such a paucity of evidence behind certain raw foodism theories that we cannot have these discussions in the light of day?

 

Without thinking poorly of any raw foodist, that is what I believe.

 

I've been on this forum for a couple of years and have seen few, if any, members become raw and stick with it.

 

I was a raw foodist for about a year as a teenager. I've only heard stories about people who were thriving as 100% raw. The healthy raw foodists I've met have only been partially raw. I frequently hear phrases like "I'm 40% raw". Well, even SAD eating omnis who put tomatoes on their death burgers are probably at least "1% raw" in that regard.

Again, I'm not attacking any person. I am making a point about an idea. I am not making a point about a person.

 

How about the environmental aspects of raw foodism? Unfortunately, with imported exotic ingredients and eating foods that are out of season, most raw food diets don't look more environmentally-friendly than veganism.

 

That is an interesting point.

 

A raw organic diet, particularly for people with high calorie needs isn't cheap. It isn't for everybody.

[DaN]

The scientific method has evolved over the centuries to be one of the most reliable methods for discovering truth. Why would I want to forget that?

 

You are citing Centuries of data compared to Millions of years of evolution.Perspective is a great tool, so too is science, so you have to find balance.

[beforewisdom]

The scientific method has evolved over the centuries to be one of the most reliable methods for discovering truth. Why would I want to forget that?

 

You are citing Centuries of data compared to Millions of years of evolution.Perspective is a great tool, so too is science, so you have to find balance.

 

That statement is a mixture of apples and oranges. Science isn't data, it is a process of discovering truth. Evolution isn't information, it is a process of biological change. You can't compare those two things as they are in different categories.

 

Going back to the original post of this thread, human beings have been cooking long enough for our biology to have changed in that time and become partially dependent on it. A good example is our lack of simian-like protruding snout which apes still have, our ancestors had and we do not. As a result apes and ancestors can eat things without cooking that we can not because we lack the anatomical equipment.

Edited August 8, 2008 by beforewisdom

[offense74]

I love you beforewisdom!

 

If it's not science it is religion. And how do you critique religion to a religious person who agrees that it is not science and that that is a good thing?

This is where we've ended up in the past when discussing this. This is about understanding the scientific, empirical method. For some reason this understanding is lessening all over the place it seems and don't know exactly why. One theory I have is that some scientific data (that are part of a bigger picture) sometimes gets drawn out of it's context because of political and/or economical reason. The dairy industry and it's lobbying is a good example of this.

This doesn't change the big picture though, just peoples perspective on it. But when the perspective change and the subjective reality is obviously not in sync with the objective reality (if there's such a thing) then "science" gets the blame because it was the source of the partly true information.

It's just a theory I have.

Edited August 8, 2008 by offense74

[medman]

That statement is a mixture of apples and oranges. Science isn't data, it is a process of discovering truth. Evolution isn't information, it is a process of biological change. You can't compare the two things are they are in different categories.

 

This is among the best posts I have read on this forum.

[beforewisdom]

 

If it's not science it is religion.

 

 

I wouldn't agree with that. Philosophy and logic are not science, yet they are not religon.

 

And how do you critique religion to a religious person who agrees that it is not science and that that is a good thing?

 

Religion is about faith. Faith is accepting something as true in the absence of evidence to prove it true. Many smart people, some who are scientists, who know that and have religious views anyway. They just know what arena to use those beliefs in and which not.

 

It comes down to a simple lack of education about the scientific method, logic, critical thinking and the facts that science has already discovered. Nobody would dispute that the sky is blue, because it is obvious to everyone. Yet to know that the "enzyme theory" is nonsense in the same way claiming the sky is red, you would have had to made it toBiochemistry 101 or done a related amount of reading. Many smart, educated, thoughtful and nice people haven't.

 

If someone wants to remain willfully ignorant, there isn't anything you can do. If you aren't exhausted about talking over the same issue for the umpteenth time you talk about it again not for those people, but for the new people with an open mind who are passing by.

 

Many people will simply accept things if they hear enough people saying it. Many new vegans conflate raw foodism as being a logical straight line progression of veganism, when the two have nothing to do with each other. Veganism is an ethical belief. Raw foodism is a diet that can be a vegan *diet* or not a vegan diet.

 

Talking about it helps new people not get sucked into that confusion.

 

Again, this isn't a put down of any person. It is disagreement of ideas, not a devaluing of any person.

[flanders77]

Flanders,

We have new members who have not had this discussion before so it might be relevant to them. No one is debating the health aspects of raw foods per se, just the raw enzyme theory (amongst others). I think it's always important to point out the strengths and weaknesses of theories for new members and those who are raw curious. Having a discussion about these topics on a board that is open to raw and vegan nutrition doesn't happen anywhere else on the internet so far as I know. You cannot find scientific/medical critique of the enzyme theory on raw forums so it's great that you can find it here. When I was looking into raw foodism I had a VERY difficult time finding any scientific backing for the enzyme theory, food combing theory, detox theory, etc.

As I said I will not get into the discussion (wether it is enzyme or raw food per se) again.

I agree to you that it is important for new members to get well balanced information. I am not against discussion or members (did you read that my defence? , butaway this is a nice little piece of theory you outlined there! ) who question raw theories and request scientific proof.

As I said before stickies would be very helpful for this and other subforums. New members can also use the search function (and should told to do so). Additionally there is the possibility to link to the discussions that already took place so that the same arguments are not exchanged again and again.

Again: I am not against discussion or debate (as many of you know ) but against doing the exact same discussions over and over again.

I am aware of the fact that there is little and not enough scientific evidence to back up or deny raw theories. IMO more sound studies should be done on raw food theories.

Concerning the value of science: We already had a long and intense discussion about it, too, and IMO a link to that discussion will enable new members to get an idea of the different points of view that are part of this forum.

[beforewisdom]

People don't read stickies or search old threads unless prompted to do so. It doesn't seem like people here are into that. My intuition is that people would also be offended if stickies with views about raw foodism were made.

[DV]

I agree with the above. If I wanted to enter into a discussion and was told to view a sticky, I would feel as if someone told me "hey, we discussed this before and don't want to hear anything from you - read what we wrote, even if the members don't post here anymore." The nature of a changing forum is to have similar discussions time and time again. New members and new information means that the discussion always changes, IMO. If someone wishes to link to an older thread then certainly do so, especially if it is relevant.

 

 

 

(Offense, doesn't it suck when you say "I love you" and it's met with silence (ahem, BW)? Well, even though you didn't say it to me, I'll tell you that "I love you too!" Men just don't get it sometimes.)

[offense74]

I guess we're just going to hug without him. That's right, no more love for you BW!!

[beforewisdom]

LOL!

[flanders77]

@DV and BW: I disagree on this. Stickies are very helpful. When a new member enters he/she can get an idea of what the stand of the discussion about an important topic is. If a member has to add something new to this I and every other member is open for discussion.

A forum that has similar or even the same discussions over and over does not change but stands still.

I do not think anyone would be offended if the different perspectives on raw food are presented in a sticky.

I think that new members are interested in in having the opportunity of entering the discussion on a relatively high level.

Again: I am not against discussion or debate. IMO the raw members of vbb&f are tired of exchanging arguments again and again.

If you want to tell every new member who is interested in raw lifestyle that there is no science behind some raw food theories in your opinion - i am fine with that. But IMO a sticky can save you that time...

I have no problem accepting that you need a scientific proof (if something like this would exist) for every dicision you make. Are you able to respect that others do not believe in the way science usually is performed as much as you do?

[beforewisdom]

I disagree with you about stickys, but I understand where you are coming from. It gets tiring typing the same conversations over and over again. That happens on all kinds of web boards. I guess that is partly why people eventually move on.

[Im Your Man]

I find that some people arrive on forums and ask about something that have been asked and answered/debated a million times, because they didn't bother to read the other posts before, because some people simply don't like to read and search, others read and found the answer but they want it directly and personally answered to them. That being said, I must admit that some people do make research among the posts but never find what they're looking for because of the poor search engine system.