Raw versus Cooked: Which is More Natural?

[beforewisdom]

It comes down to the question whether a forum is meant to be a place to socialize or a technical resource. In the second situation, yes, look things up. In the more casual first situation I do think people get a bit of a cold feeling when they are told to look something up as DV pointed out.

 

It is tiring repeating the same stuff.

 

However, nobody is forcing anyone to participate in a thread. Also if someone does have a technical question instead of just wanting to talk I don't think it is offensive if you tell them someone did a good job of answering that question, you don't want to repeat the work and that here is a URL.

[Tasha]

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.

 

Well said Flanders.

On being Repeatedly many times in the raw section.

It seems that this point doesn't get across.

[Dr. Pink]

It is my personal belief that there is nothing wrong with either a cooked or a raw diet when used in the right way. The act of cooking food has been used by humans ever since the element of fire was discovered. And there are lots of different foods which are very good for you which can't possibly be eaten raw.

 

Like some beans. Pinto for example. And even though some people say sprouting can all beans truly be sprouted? And is it even healthy to eat some sprouted beans?

 

Pasta can be healthy but impossible to cook.

 

Correct me if I am wrong but the whole idea behind Raw in the first place was because some of the foods had some of the vitamins and minerals removed or eliminated. Putting the matter of Toxins aside for now and focus on this aspect. I can understand not cooking fruits and vegetables. Those are the most important in regards to nutrition and if eating them raw preserves any of there nutrition I saw that is good. But then to abstain from ever eating foods that need to be cooked in order to eat is kinda silly. Because say you do cook them and lets say some of the nutrition does die( Even if it's only a little bit ) That little bit of nutrition is still nutrition. And by not eating these foods you won't get ANY of the nutrition it can give. If you ask me I'd rather eat those foods and get that little bit of extra nutrition( On top of my mostly raw diet ) then not get any of that Nutrition at All.

 

And as for Toxins. I'm not sure if it has been proven or not but I do know that some plants have natural toxins in them that can only be removed by cooking. Like Soybeans for instance( Which I learned rather recently do indeed have toxins in there raw state )

 

Of course the way you cook is also important. There are healthy/good ways to cook your food and unhealthy/bad ways to cook your food. Here are just a few ways to cook.

 

Baking. Frying. Boiling. Deep-Frying.

 

Baking and Boiling can probably be considered the best ways to cook. Frying is not so bad. You only use a little bit of oil. And depending on the quality of oil you use and what that oil is made out of( It would be even healthier if you made the oil yourself ) it can also be considered healthy. I'd recommend not Deep-Frying anything. Deep-Frying can be considered the worst way to cook. It basically means to completely submerge your food in a huge, boiling vat of cooking oil. And even if you are using healthy oil it would still be Unhealthy to do so.

 

Also with Raw food there is that added risk of contamination. Like E-Coli for example. Which is why it is important to wash totally and completely. But of course like I said some foods don't do well eaten raw( Like Potatoes )

 

The way I see it. We can really benefit from a varied diet made from a combination of Raw and Cooked. Like maybe 90-95 percent raw and the rest be cooked.

 

But of course there will always be Raw Vegans. And there will always be Cooked Vegans. Nothing will change. But what is important is that we share our ideas and values. And maybe hopefully someday we can merge and possibly create a new diet that would surpass both raw vegan and cooked vegan.

[Im Your Man]

It is my personal belief that there is nothing wrong with either a cooked or a raw diet when used in the right way. The act of cooking food has been used by humans ever since the element of fire was discovered. And there are lots of different foods which are very good for you which can't possibly be eaten raw.

Like which food? Saying that mankind has been cooking since long time ago is no excuse to continue. We could say that mankind has been eating 100% raw for a long time too before fire was discovered.

Like some beans. Pinto for example. And even though some people say sprouting can all beans truly be sprouted? And is it even healthy to eat some sprouted beans?

 

Pasta can be healthy but impossible to cook.

Potato is the only food that can't be eaten raw. Or we can but it's not very good, perhaps it's easier to digest when cooked, and cooking kills the parasites, worms, that are often in potatoes. But yes, all beans can sprouts. Soaking and sprouting remove the toxins, cooking neutralize the remaining toxins if there's any left. But hey, perhaps we're not even supposed to eat beans, who said we must eat all things on Earth as if everything was potentially food. Some things are poisons or drugs.

That being said, pastas are a food because it can serve to nourrish someone and because it's made of grains only, but it's just an invention of mankind, a food product. And are you sure it can't be eaten raw? I mean fresh pastas.

 

I can understand not cooking fruits and vegetables. Those are the most important in regards to nutrition and if eating them raw preserves any of there nutrition I saw that is good. But then to abstain from ever eating foods that need to be cooked in order to eat is kinda silly. Because say you do cook them and lets say some of the nutrition does die( Even if it's only a little bit ) That little bit of nutrition is still nutrition. And by not eating these foods you won't get ANY of the nutrition it can give. If you ask me I'd rather eat those foods and get that little bit of extra nutrition( On top of my mostly raw diet ) then not get any of that Nutrition at All.

That doesn't mean anything. Raw foodists don't eat less calories and nutrients than non-raw vegans, they just eat the same amounts, but raw. Like by eating more fruits and greens. Otherwise it would be like saying that vegans can't eat as much as omnis because we don't eat animal products. I can tell you that I ate for 3 omnis today, like 6000 calories.

 

 

Frying is not so bad. You only use a little bit of oil. And depending on the quality of oil you use and what that oil is made out of( It would be even healthier if you made the oil yourself ) it can also be considered healthy. (...)

 

Frying is never healthy because it involves to heat oil, it modifies the molecular structure of fats, and all oils are rancid except if you make it yourself and use it right away.

[Dr. Pink]

Right. No one said we must eat all things on earth. No one said we had to eat all things raw either.

[Im Your Man]

Right. No one said we must eat all things on earth. No one said we had to eat all things raw either.

Yes, Mother Nature, lol. well there's no oven in nature, except the sun, which allows "cooking" at 40 celcius (100 fahreiheit). That's why raw foodists also allow to prepare some foods at this temperature.

[Dr. Pink]

You're forgetting the fact that there is a strong possibility that animals that live in hotter climates( Like perhaps near where Volcanoes and Hot Lave are frequent ) might get there food naturally cooked by heat sources hotter then direct sunlight.

 

If you want to be a 100 percent nature man there are things left for you to do that are somewhat contradictory and over-all unnatural.

 

1. Stop wearing clothes. Nature didn't tell us we could wear them..

2. Stop living in your house. Nature didn't tell us to make those either.

3. Stop using the Internet. It's the most unnatural thing of all.

 

Personally I couldn't do it. But hey you have a lot of will power. And I respect that.

[flanders77]

It comes down to the question whether a forum is meant to be a place to socialize or a technical resource. In the second situation, yes, look things up. In the more casual first situation I do think people get a bit of a cold feeling when they are told to look something up as DV pointed out.

But those members who advocate a scientific approach always emphasize how important reliable information is. From that POV stickies for general questions (like is raw or cooked better?) or the way to go.

 

It is tiring repeating the same stuff.

 

However, nobody is forcing anyone to participate in a thread. Also if someone does have a technical question instead of just wanting to talk I don't think it is offensive if you tell them someone did a good job of answering that question, you don't want to repeat the work and that here is a URL.

Don't get me wrong when I say: This is exactly what I said in my previous posts in this dicussion.

 

 

You're forgetting the fact that there is a strong possibility that animals that live in hotter climates( Like perhaps near where Volcanoes and Hot Lave are frequent ) might get there food naturally cooked by heat sources hotter then direct sunlight.

Maybe somewhere in a galaxy far far away... Sorry but this is so irrelevant.

 

If you want to be a 100 percent nature man there are things left for you to do that are somewhat contradictory and over-all unnatural.

 

1. Stop wearing clothes. Nature didn't tell us we could wear them..

2. Stop living in your house. Nature didn't tell us to make those either.

3. Stop using the Internet. It's the most unnatural thing of all.

This "argument" reminds me of what omnis often say in "why-are-you-vegan-discussions": "If you want to be 100% vegan you have to stop driving, riding the bike, walking because you kill microbes with every move. And you have to stop buying product made by people who buy non-vegan products from the money you give them." The response is: if you decide not to change you behaviour at all just because you cannot be 100% at the end you will never change anything at all. It is always better to make the firsts steps in the right direction than remaining where you are.

 

Personally I couldn't do it. But hey you have a lot of will power. And I respect that.

This statement I heard a hundred times from non-vegans, too.

[DaN]

That statement is a mixture of apples and oranges

 

I am not sure how many organisms there are in earths history but I am guessing its in the ballpark of billions.How many of these cook their food, just a few as far as I know.

 

I don't care how many amazing scientific studies tell us cooked is better, I use common sense, an equally powerful tool, to tell me that billions of organisms are right, & that you are wrong.

 

Therefore it is not apples & oranges, it is a valid point, which I think you have failed to understand.

 

I should add again that half of what I eat is cooked.Sometimes it makes things taste better.Overall it makes food alot more interesting.But you cannot argue it is a more effective way to eat food, because it is not.

Edited August 11, 2008 by DaN

[offense74]

Some very wrong and even dangerous ideas have come out of using "common sense" in the past. Science made those guesses more on par with reality and thus our common sense are now sharpened.

 

I'm not against making guesses based on feelings, belief or religion. The problem I have is mostly when the religious guesses or the common sense contradicts the facts. B-12 is a good example of this.

[DaN]

Some very wrong and even dangerous ideas have come out of using "common sense" in the past

 

The same can be said for science & religion, thats not to completely invalidate all that these modes of thought reveal.

 

[Zack]

Raw veganism is a luxury we have now, not a diet our ancestors evolved on.

Edited August 11, 2008 by Zack

[beforewisdom]

Religion isn't a way of thinking. It is a set of fixed beliefs that one accepts whether or not their is evidence for those beliefs. The word is "faith". What I like about science is that the theories science teaches change. In other words, if something new is discovered they will deal with it.

[DaN]

Raw veganism is a luxury we have now, not a diet our ancestors evolved on.

 

I agree.I never said our ancestors evolved on a raw diet.

 

The only known species to have evolved not on raw foods is us, because we cooked alot of our food.So we agree on that.

 

Im saying all other known species ever existing on planet earth (which weighs in in the millions/billions) evolved on raw vegan diet, while the carnivores evolved on raw carnivore diet.

 

Religion isn't a way of thinking. It is a set of fixed beliefs that one accepts whether or not their is evidence for those beliefs. The word is "faith"

 

I'm guessing this is aimed at me for mentioning religion as a mode of thought.I hope I am not being regarded as 'religious' because for the record, I follow no particular religion.I agree with you also, it is a set of fixed beliefs, laid down by people from the past.

 

Although I do think that maybe the assumption that religion sets down fixed belief is a little exagerated because in the Christian religion it is the case.Adam & Eve is a prime example.Dinosaur fossils clearly make Christian dogma look ridiculous.

 

It should be said that some religions like Buddhism, are alot more open minded, fluid & in my opinion relevant to reality.

[offense74]

Religion isn't a way of thinking. It is a set of fixed beliefs that one accepts whether or not their is evidence for those beliefs. The word is "faith". What I like about science is that the theories science teaches change. In other words, if something new is discovered they will deal with it.

Well, religion change too, as can be seen in the different interpretations of the christian religion (derived from what is written in the bible). Also, agnosticism can be anything, it doesn't even have to have rules.

I like to describe religion as series of ad hoc statements added to the subjective reality to "fill in the gaps".

[beforewisdom]

Religion isn't a way of thinking. It is a set of fixed beliefs that one accepts whether or not their is evidence for those beliefs. The word is "faith". What I like about science is that the theories science teaches change. In other words, if something new is discovered they will deal with it.

Well, religion change too, as can be seen in the different interpretations of the christian religion (derived from what is written in the bible). Also, agnosticism can be anything, it doesn't even have to have rules.

I like to describe religion as series of ad hoc statements added to the subjective reality to "fill in the gaps".

 

As I wrote, religion changes from societal pressure, not by discovering new things. Science changes by discovering new things.

[Dr. Pink]

If we were intended to eat raw god would not have invented the sun.

[Im Your Man]

Raw veganism is a luxury we have now, not a diet our ancestors evolved on.

 

I agree.I never said our ancestors evolved on a raw diet.

 

The only known species to have evolved not on raw foods is us, because we cooked alot of our food.So we agree on that.

 

Im saying all other known species ever existing on planet earth (which weighs in in the millions/billions) evolved on raw vegan diet, while the carnivores evolved on raw carnivore diet.

 

It depends what do you mean by our "ancestors"... If for you ancestral era begins only with the discovery of fire, then yes we didn't evolved on a raw diet. But from ape until the discovery of fire, we evolved on a raw diet.

 

If we were intended to eat raw god would not have invented the sun.

I hope you're being sarcastic! First of all if god wouldn't have invented the sun, like you say, we wouldn't exist neither, and our whole solar system neither. Seond, the sun heats our planet at less than 100 degrees Fahreiheit, life adapted to resist at this temperature. It's only beyond this temperature, like with a oven, that heat begins to destroy vitamins, enzymes, cells... life.

[durianrider]

another cooked study to produce another cooked response to mother natures raw request..

[Dr. Pink]

Don't worry IYM. I was being Sarcastic

 

Don't take me the wrong way. I have nothing against a Raw Diet. In fact I'd love to try it myself sometime. It's just not feasible at this point in my life. I don't have the money to afford to be 100 percent raw. Hell I barely have enough money to have a healthy Cooked Vegan Diet.

 

I can't find employment, My Father doesn't live with the family anymore( Though he does pay child support ) my mom has Multiple Scerosis and therefore can't work and we are a few hundred( Possibly a thousand or more ) dollars in dept. So right now The Raw Diet is out of the question.

 

But I am open to it

 

 

It would just be hard to give up Pasta though. That is my favorite Food.

 

Question though. What do Raw Vegans/Raw Foodists feel about Fermenting Soybeans to make into Soymilk? If I ever were to go Raw I'd still want to at least make my own homemade Soymilk.

[flanders77]

another cooked study to produce another cooked response to mother natures raw request..

We discussed this phenomenon a while ago. IMO it is as unlikely for a "cooked" scientist to find out something positive about a raw diet as it is for a SAD-scientist about a vegan diet.

 

@dr. pink: I really do not want to belittle the difficulties you are facing right now but if you want to do something - don't let anything stop you from doing it. Or as Robert would say: TAMIH! (take action and make it happen)

[beforewisdom]

Believe it or not there are objective nutrition studies done by scientists who don't care if a study validates veganism, raw eating or cooked eating. They only care about where the facts fall. If you want to prove that there is bias the burdeon of proof is on you to come up with scientific evidence that proves raw food theory or that eating raw is healthier than any other diet. Scientific evidence would be randomized, double blinded, clinical studies....not anecdotal accounts

[DaN]

beforewisdon,

 

I am maybe a bit unsure as to what you are trying to say - are you saying that cooked food, is physically more healthy than eating food uncooked?

 

Do you think that cooking releases nutrients, or makes it easier to digest or what?

 

What are you basing whichever of these opinions you are expressing, on?

 

Are there conclusive studies backing this up?

 

I am just interested to know..

 

[beforewisdom]

Dan, I don't consider people disagreeing with my opinion as BASHING my opinions or dissing me. The original meaning of the word "argument" did not mean two people attacking each other verbally. It meant people discussing an issue, making claims, counter claims and testing those claims to see which held up to scrutiny and to learn what the truth is.

 

I have learned all sorts of super things & gotten to know so many cool people I would not have gotten to know by restraining my human reflex to take a disagreement of ideas as an attack.

 

Since you asked, what "I'm saying" is:

 

The "enzyme theory" of raw foodism is not the product of scientific research and it contradicts facts. It is just something somebody made up.

 

If some people are healthy on it they aren't healthy because of enzymes or because the foods are "living foods", there is something else going on. I'm also saying that if *some* people manage to stay healthy on raw food diets that doesn't mean that is the healthiest diet for them or for anyone else.

 

I think raw diets are less than optimal for a few other reasons, but that is the gist of it and I don't want to repeat myself.

[flanders77]

Believe it or not there are objective nutrition studies done by scientists who don't care if a study validates veganism, raw eating or cooked eating.They only care about where the facts fall.

Maybe they don't care but in the back of their minds they believe that their diet is healthy. Therefor they are not objective IMO. Maybe you are right and there are some who really try to be objective - but there are too few of them. Take a look at the lobbies behind the studies and understand that even the heroic scientists you believe in have to pay their bills.

If you want to prove that there is bias the burdeon of proof is on you to come up with scientific evidence that proves raw food theory or that eating raw is healthier than any other diet. Scientific evidence would be randomized, double blinded, clinical studies....not anecdotal accounts

Your conclusion is wrong. You connect two things that are independent from each other. I am talking about a basic problem modern science has.

I already said before that more sound studies on raw food diets should be done (while knowing that there are limitations to nutritional studies) because they would hopefully help to eliminate prejudices.

Butaway from a scientific point of view one would try to proof that there is no bias and if he/she fails, the opposite will be accepted as true...

 

What Dan asked is important IMO: can you cite studies showing that raw theories (i.e. enzyme theorie) is not valid? Do you have scinetific evidence that cooked food is healthier than raw food. If you ask the raw foodists to prove their claims you should back up yours as well...