beforewisdom Posted August 12, 2008 Author Share Posted August 12, 2008 Hey people; I realize I may be coming off as nasty, please know that is not my intent. I look forward coming to VBB everyday to talk to all of you. About science and alternative health. Let me start an analogy that illustrates the way I see many arguments here disagreeing with science because science disagrees with an idea we like. If somebody who never worked out before claimed he could lift more than VeganEssentials, you would be amazed at her claim. You would ask her, "What makes you think you can lift more than VE, he lifts weights all of the time, you haven't lifted weights at all?" You would tell her that it takes lifting, strength work to lift a lot and it takes a lot of that work to compete with VE. That is how I see people who have no credentials in nutrition, medicine or science making wondrous claims about raw foodism. They haven't lifted any of the weights. They haven't been to school and learned what the _facts_ are in regards to how human bodies work. On the other hand, science is a method for discovering truth that has been developed and sharpened over 2000 years if you follow it back to its roots in Greek philosophy. That is centuries of many brilliant people working hard on developing the method of discovering facts and using that method to discover facts. Centuries of people doing the lifting of weights, learning how to do it better, and teaching it to others who go to school for years to learn how to use it and to learn what has already been discovered. How can a person without any of that training, without centuries of work compete against that? You may well say "Well, it works for me", but those centuries of work have show many times that anecdotal accounts are not enough to make conclusions. Haven't you ever thought that one thing was causing something only to discover that is was something else? That is the problem with eating a raw diet, feeling better, and deciding that the enzyme theory....or eating raw is active factor. For all you know just eating more vegetables then you were before may be what is making you feel better. To bring it back home, that is how I and other people see people making claims about the "enzyme theory" of raw foods, or just saying raw foods are better as if it was obvious. They are like the gal who never lifted saying she can lift more than VeganEssentials. She never went to school or did similar reading of what the facts are. She never learned how to use a method brilliant people worked over centuries to develop. She is saying things that those people know are not facts. She hasn't touched a weight in that gym. Again, I love talking to you at all. Please don't take this as anything nasty, I'm just explaining where I am coming from. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
offense74 Posted August 12, 2008 Share Posted August 12, 2008 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...The burden of proof should come from whoever claims something. Proving all wrong things to be wrong could take awhile since for every true statement there will (literally) be infinite false ones. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beforewisdom Posted August 12, 2008 Author Share Posted August 12, 2008 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...The burden of proof should come from whoever claims something. Proving all wrong things to be wrong could take awhile since for every true statement there will (literally) be infinite false ones. If Dan or other raw foodists believe that raw diets have an advantage because of the "enzyme theory" my proof against that is already in any biochem 101 text book. If Dan is a student I encourage him to look up a biochem TA or Professor during their office hours to ask them if enzymes from raw foods can do the things raw foodists can claim they can do. If they are not students they can go to a library and check out a biochem 101 book. There is my proof. Again, no offense to anyone, I am just making a point, I don't think anyone is going to provide several randomized, double blinded clinical studies indicating that enzymes in raw foods can make people healthier or that raw foods have something that ALL raw foods have that will make people healthier by virtue of being raw. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaN Posted August 12, 2008 Share Posted August 12, 2008 Dan, I don't consider people disagreeing with my opinion as BASHING my opinions or dissing me I realize I may be coming off as nasty, please know that is not my intent. I look forward coming to VBB everyday to talk to all of you Dude I never said anything about bashing, nor did I say you were coming off as nasty, because you are not.You are simply voicing your opinion, which is what we are all here to do I just want to know, if your opinion is that cooked food is healthier than raw food, or if it easier to digest, or maybe something else.I just dont know what you are saying really.I am not questioning you because I want you to provide me with concrete proofs of anything, I am simply interested because it contradicts what I have always thought, which is that cooking removes nutrients, therefore eating raw foods is healthier.My mum always taught me this, I didnt hear it anywhere else.Bear in mind I only joined this forum a few months ago & have never read any of the previous discussions on this. By the way I know nothing of any enzyme theories, used by rawists.I didnt even know what a rawist was until I saw this thread a few days ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beforewisdom Posted August 12, 2008 Author Share Posted August 12, 2008 Dan, I told you my opinion above. You can't make a general statement about raw food ( not talking about "raw foodism" or raw diets ) being healthier to eat. Some foods are poisonous raw, but healthy cooked. Some foods have "anti-nutrients" that prevent nutrition from being used when they are raw that are destroyed with cooking. Some foods have things which can hurt people when raw, but those things are neutralized when cooked. Some foods are more nutritious when raw and some are more nutritious when cooked. The real kicker is that some of these statements can apply to the same exact food. Broccoli is a good example. Raw, it has goitergens which can hurt people with weak thyroids, but it has more anti-cancer chemicals. Cooked, the goitergens are neutralized, some anti-cancer chemicals are lost and some other nutrients are made more available. You can find articles with facts like that all over the web. You can't make a general rule that all raw or cooked food ( even for the same food ) is more nutritious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
offense74 Posted August 12, 2008 Share Posted August 12, 2008 Good article from William Harris M.D. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beforewisdom Posted August 12, 2008 Author Share Posted August 12, 2008 Dude I never said anything about bashing, beforewisdon, What are you basing whichever of these opinions you are expressing, on? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zack Posted August 12, 2008 Share Posted August 12, 2008 Dude I never said anything about bashing, beforewisdon, What are you basing whichever of these opinions you are expressing, on? Man that says BASING not BASHING. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beforewisdom Posted August 12, 2008 Author Share Posted August 12, 2008 Ooops, my bad and my apologies Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaN Posted August 12, 2008 Share Posted August 12, 2008 I wondered why you were so defensive!! Some foods are poisonous raw, but healthy cooked. Some foods have "anti-nutrients" that prevent nutrition from being used when they are raw that are destroyed with cooking. Some foods have things which can hurt people when raw, but those things are neutralized when cooked. Some foods are more nutritious when raw and some are more nutritious when cooked Thanks, I wanted to know what opinion you were trying to put across, & now you have told me.I actually agree with what you have said. Earths best food ~ roast potatoes.I asked an alien once & he agreed too.He was pretty impartial. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flanders77 Posted August 12, 2008 Share Posted August 12, 2008 @beforewisdom: Although you are using a nice little comparison with VE and the girl you do not seem to get the point I want to bring across: I never said that every raw food theorie is valid. I tried to explain some points of criticism concerning the science many put so much faith in.And just for the record: I am a scientist (still working in the field of epidemiology) and think I know what I am talking about. I read lots of scientific literature concerning health and nutrition and also the stuff you would certainly call "non-scientific". So I am not exactly comparable to the girl in your comparison. I don't know what your backround and profession is and how healthy your diet and lifestyle is but that is something personal and not everybody wants to tell about these things in a public forum.The burden of proof should come from whoever claims something. Proving all wrong things to be wrong could take awhile since for every true statement there will (literally) be infinite false ones.If there are opposing views on a matter and both sides claim their view is correct who decides which side has the burden of proof?I just made a statement about the standard method in science to falsify H0 leaves H1 as the only hypothesis possible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
offense74 Posted August 12, 2008 Share Posted August 12, 2008 The burden of proof should come from whoever claims something. Proving all wrong things to be wrong could take awhile since for every true statement there will (literally) be infinite false ones.If there are opposing views on a matter and both sides claim their view is correct who decides which side has the burden of proof?I just made a statement about the standard method in science to falsify H0 leaves H1 as the only hypothesis possible.If there are opposing views then both should provide evidence. However this is very seldom the case and it is not so in this case either. You claim A. I say: ok, prove it! Then you say: You're always so negative. Why don't you prove I'm wrong?! If you fail then I must be right. See the difference. I never claimed anything. I'm just suggesting that A is wrong, not that (not A) or B is right.The claim I make is that whole plant foods is good for you and there is plenty of evidence to back that up from epidemiological and clinical double-blinded studies. There may well be a next step to my reasoning but the science just isn't there yet. Raw food could be the next natural step but then again, so could anything. More beans, less stress, more stress, war, conflict, love, hate, believing in God, etc.I could start my own niche called the more Gods doctrine, stating that health and happiness is linearly correlated with the number of Gods one believes in. I could make up a whole lot of stuff about cro magnons, early humans and what is natural, sell a few books and get rich. I could say that I feel better every time I add a God to my collection and that may friends who do the same feels the same way. In fact, my niece had cancer and when she added three more Gods to her belief the cancer disappeared. I think you would disagree with me if I stated this, no? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beforewisdom Posted August 12, 2008 Author Share Posted August 12, 2008 flanders; Yes, scientists are human beings, but I really don't see the a large part of the population as being biased against raw foodism for the sake of it. I have seen one or two write ups of the one or two studies on it that seem fairly neutral in tone. My answer to Dan is the same for my answer to you. Aside from which particular foods are better raw or cooked I see raw foodism as being based on "the enzyme theory" which contradicts basic human biochemistry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flanders77 Posted August 13, 2008 Share Posted August 13, 2008 flanders;Yes, scientists are human beings, but I really don't see the a large part of the population as being biased against raw foodism for the sake of it. I have seen one or two write ups of the one or two studies on it that seem fairly neutral in tone.I repeat myself here: I did not say they are biased against raw but believe that their (normal) diet is healthy. The fact that write ups seem neutral to you is irrelevant IMO. My answer to Dan is the same for my answer to you. Aside from which particular foods are better raw or cooked I see raw foodism as being based on "the enzyme theory" which contradicts basic human biochemistry.Sorry to say that but this statement is kind of revealing... IMO you really do not know what raw food lifestyle is all about. It really does not matter if the enzyme theorie is correct or false - raw food (a diet based on ripe fruit, vegetables, nuts, seeds and sprouts) is usually very digested easily and quickly. If the enzymes in raw food help digestion by predigesting the food until inactivated by the acidic environment or broken down by digestive enzymes really does not matter when looking at the raw food diet. Some information as a sideline:It takes the hydrochloric acid in the stomach about 30-60 minutes to soak into the food completely. The digestion however starts right in the mouth during mastication. If there are enzymes in that food there would be at least a short amount of time for them to help digestion.I do not say that the enzyme theorie is correct but saying that the low ph-level and the digestive enzymes "kill" all enzymes instantly after entering the stomach is a simplified and IMO wrong assumption. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaN Posted August 13, 2008 Share Posted August 13, 2008 As mentioned I do not have any research into this so called enzyme theory.And for me it doesnt matter whether its right or wrong, because I think raw is probably better than cooked for the following reason: My view is that billions of organisms have thrived on raw fruit, vegetables & meat.We are the only ones to heat up our food, & prior to the invention of fire, we too thrived on a diet of raw fruit, vegetables & meat.This is a basic fact of nature suggesting to me that eating raw food is more natural than eating cooked food.Some serious, overwhelming, & undeniable scientific evidence would have to be presented for me to believe otherwise.In the absense of this evidence it seems to me likely that only in some cases is cooking food preferable, usually because it kills bacteria, for example in meat, which I most certainly would never eat raw.Also certain plants which are toxic when eaten raw, but harmless when eaten cooked. Moral of the topic - cooked or raw, who cares!? We should all hug & be friends Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tasha Posted August 13, 2008 Share Posted August 13, 2008 (edited) Well said Flanders I really miss you being on here. Edited August 13, 2008 by Tasha Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beforewisdom Posted August 13, 2008 Author Share Posted August 13, 2008 Flanders; I don't think the things you view as facts are facts and I think at this point we are trading subjectivities about the level of bias on raw diets in the research community. Have a nice weekend. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flanders77 Posted August 14, 2008 Share Posted August 14, 2008 Flanders; I don't think the things you view as facts are facts and I think at this point we are trading subjectivities about the level of bias on raw diets in the research community. Have a nice weekend.Without addressing my arguments you only make a general statement that serves no purpose but discrediting me. Since you obviously want to stop exchanging arguments and use your last contribution to discredit me it is a good idea to end the discussion at this point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aaron Posted August 14, 2008 Share Posted August 14, 2008 As mentioned I do not have any research into this so called enzyme theory.And for me it doesnt matter whether its right or wrong, because I think raw is probably better than cooked for the following reason: My view is that billions of organisms have thrived on raw fruit, vegetables & meat.We are the only ones to heat up our food, & prior to the invention of fire, we too thrived on a diet of raw fruit, vegetables & meat.This is a basic fact of nature suggesting to me that eating raw food is more natural than eating cooked food.Some serious, overwhelming, & undeniable scientific evidence would have to be presented for me to believe otherwise.In the absense of this evidence it seems to me likely that only in some cases is cooking food preferable, usually because it kills bacteria, for example in meat, which I most certainly would never eat raw.Also certain plants which are toxic when eaten raw, but harmless when eaten cooked. Moral of the topic - cooked or raw, who cares!? We should all hug & be friends Thrived? Got a link for that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flanders77 Posted August 14, 2008 Share Posted August 14, 2008 @Aaron: Maybe survived is the term that fits better especially when considering the low life expectancy of our ancestors... Humans are able to adapt to almost every condition and even survived (were able to reproduce) under very hostile conditions and climates. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaN Posted August 14, 2008 Share Posted August 14, 2008 Thrived? Got a link for that? Definitions: 1. To make steady progress; prosper.2. To grow vigorously; to flourish. Dinosuars THRIVED for 150 million years on raw food (no cookers or microwaves needed) Up until the discovery of fire, we THRIVED on raw food.Our current population because of that success is now in excess of 6.7 billion. What are you implying? That if the MILLIONS of species thriving on raw food would be more succesful if they grilled their bracken? Are you implying that the MILLIONS of species thriving on raw food would be more succesful if they pan fried their latest catch of buffalo? Should they sautee the next aphid they catch? http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_species_of_organisms_are_estimated_to_inhabit_the_earth How many of that 2 - 100 million cook their food? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zack Posted August 14, 2008 Share Posted August 14, 2008 How many of that 2 - 100 million cook their food? How many of them have the brain power of the only species that does cook food? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beforewisdom Posted August 14, 2008 Author Share Posted August 14, 2008 I'm formally dropping out of this thread. I've noticed the effort to politely disagree with me , I appreciate that, and I would like to contribute by bowing out while things are still like that. I don't want to contribute to another iteration of " a bunch of people left after that thread". I genuinely like several of those who I've debated in this thread and based on my experience I feel safe in the assumption I probably opened the minds of some lurkers. None of the main players in this thread, including me, are changing their opinions so I am bowing out. I'm here to make vegan e-friends. There are other boards for pissing contests as far as I am concerned I'm driving out to AR 2008 later and I hope to see some of you there. If not, have a good weekend. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaN Posted August 14, 2008 Share Posted August 14, 2008 How many of them have the brain power of the only species that does cook food? I am not sure what your point is.. Are you saying that cooking the food was what gave us the 'brain power' as you put it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zack Posted August 14, 2008 Share Posted August 14, 2008 How many of them have the brain power of the only species that does cook food? I am not sure what your point is.. Are you saying that cooking the food was what gave us the 'brain power' as you put it? Yes. among other things that don't involve raw veganism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now