Food for thought. An undoubtedly contraversial article I found.

I'm not 100% sold on raw food as the only way to eat. I have found outstanding results from eating this way and plan on doing so solely for its own merit. Because it's working so well, really it's night and day.

Thanks for the article. Its good to talk about how people see these issues so we can improve the quality of the discussions we have about them. I didn't agree with the article at all, and not for its conclusions, I didn't find the way it was presented to be very helpful.

Here's what I think on each point:

Misconception #1: Cooking destroys nutrients

"Sure, raw foods can be nutritious. But cooking breaks apart fibers and cellular walls to release nutrients that otherwise would be unavailable from the same raw food."

Fiber is a nutrient, therefore it does indeed destroy nutrients.

"Cooking tomatoes, for example, increases by five-fold the bioavailability of the antioxidant lycopene."

There are other examples of this as well. Is that good? Can the human body make use of all that lycopene at once? Surely there aren't enough details here on what makes something bioavailable and what optimum nutrient balance looks like.

"Admittedly, some nutrients are lost in cooking, such as vitamin C and certain B vitamins."

So again, it actually does in fact destroy nutrients? I guess those were the nutrients we didn't need anyway.

"As for the concept of life energy in raw food, this is a spiritual belief beyond the realm of science, so debating its benefit, let alone existence, would be futile."

Agreed so why does the article bring it up so much, as if it's an integral part of some kind of "Raw Mythology"?

Misconception #2: Cooking destroys enzymes

"This one is absolutely true, but it doesn't matter."

So, this one is true too. What was the point of this article again?

'"I know of no importance of plant enzymes in human digestion," said McDougall.'

Well if a doctor that promotes a diet of cooked food can't see any importance then it must be true. Oh, wait, I meant the opposite. You didn't think to ask someone who had an alternate opinion on this one? I guess its fine because McDougall certainly knows everything there is to know about human nutrition. Because only no one else on Earth does. This whole science is so young, lack of evidence and lack of knowledge doesn't mean a thing. What if there was just one, or a couple? And what if that was somehow important? Or maybe they do their job while in the mouth? Well clearly no one knows so its probably nothing. Right?

"A corollary myth is that humans have a finite number of enzymes and that, once they are used up, these enzymes are gone. This idea, too, was hatched by Howell. But where would this packet of enzymes reside? Howell never said. But in reality, humans make new enzymes throughout their lifetimes."

Funny, I've seen a video of Dr. Graham saying just that... I now think this article is criticizing a certain type of Raw Fooder that may or may not have anything to do with the concept of eating raw food in the first place.

Misconception #3: Raw foods are detoxifying

"At best, detoxification schemes (juicing, fasting) can help by virtue of not placing more toxins in our body for a day or two. And a healthful, plant-rich diet with plenty of water can, in general, help your liver and kidneys process and remove toxins more effectively, McDougall said."

Funny, this is the only thing I've ever read or heard about detoxification from diet, whether it's Vegan or Raw food, or whatever. Again, I've seen Dr. Graham say just this as well. What was the misconception again?

"Another argument is that burning fat — in this case, on a raw vegan diet — would release toxins from the body. But fat cells don't burn up, as if into ashes, liberating their contents. Fats cells merely get bigger or smaller, depending on the amount of fat within the cell that's used."

Umm... No one thinks burning fat is like burning it up into ashes. What?

"It is unclear how much of a toxin, if any, would be set free if the fat molecule it is attached to is burned. The toxin is now free to attach to other fat molecules. If it does mobilize with other recently liberated toxins, in the case of extreme starvation, then the toxin could become toxicand overwhelm the liver."

In other words, We don't know, and it's theoretically possible. OK. Good job so far.

Misconception #4: Raw veganism is healthful

OK, not to say other things are not "healthful"....but, it's not?

"Healthfulness when eating a raw, vegan diet is a challenge; it's not inherent. Many on the diet do lose weight by consuming fewer calories. But weight loss should not be the ultimate goal."

No one should want to lose weight unless they are too heavy, but its not even weight loss that is claimed by this diet, it's supporting the body to regulate itself naturally. So, if you are too thin you will gain weight. Can a diet both allow you to gain weight and lose weight at the same time, both by underrating on calories? See what I did there? Its what this article has been doing all over the place.

"The most apparent problems are nutritional deficiencies, particularly for vitamins B12 and D, selenium, zinc, iron and two omega-3 fatty acids, DHA and EPA. Without taking supplements in pill form, it would be very difficult (and, for B12, impossible) to obtain a sufficient amount of these nutrients from raw, plant-based foods."

Cooked food, whether it's starches or meat feed the demon baby hiding in everyone's liver, which in turn saps all of your nutrients and leaves you a hollow walking corpse... I mean...as long as we're making things up...

This is of course false, I've seen it in my own experience, as have many others.

""The problem with the raw food diet is where do you get your energy food?" asked Caldwell Esselstyn of the Cleveland Clinic, the doctor who convinced Bill Clinton to adopt a plant-based diet. "You get it from pouring down nuts," he said, and these are high in fat and not healthful when eaten in excess."

Of course. It has to be nuts. I mean you're not going to dig up a potato and eat that sucker raw are you? There is literally nothing else on Earth that is high enough in calories to sustain you.

"If it's not nuts, then it's bananas, which are healthful perhaps at a level of one or two per day, but not when providing the majority of your calories. Some people on a raw food diet rely so much on fruit that their teeth begin to erode: from acids in the fruits that wear down the tooth enamel, from sugar promoting decay, from dried fruit (another raw vegan staple) sticking to the teeth and further promoting decay, and from a general mineral deficiency."

Oh, right fruit. I forgot all about that. Well everyone knows fruit is bad. It has no minerals, severely lacks vitamins, and every long term fruit eater has no teeth left. Or is that a load of crap too? I love how it mentions in the end "general mineral deficiency". What? are you getting more minerals in your meat, potatoes, or rice? Why aren't you eating anything else? I don't get you.

"The raw diet could be more healthful than the so-called S.A.D. ("standard American diet") of processed foods. But there is no evidence that, even given the resources to prepare a variety of raw foods daily, the raw vegan diet would be more healthful than the plant-based diets promoted by McDougall or Esselstyn, or than the diets that allow modest amounts of animal products."

You know the old scientific expression, "lack of evidence is evidence of lack" or something like that. Clearly because there is a huge lack of any nutritional research to the point where we can't rely fully on the studies we have to form a solid opinion, then we can just start denying everything. There is no evidence that cooked vegan diet is more healthful than the Raw vegan diet, either. Which one was the default again?
Misconception #5: Raw-only foods are natural

Are they not? Are they un-natural? Skipping passed the B12 issues, which also effect a cooked vegan diet (and everyone else too)--

"Our raw-vegan cousin, the gorilla, has three times the body size of humans, but one-third the brain cells; it grew muscular on plants, but not smarter. According to a study published in October 2012, the gorilla would have needed to eat raw plants for more than 12 hours a day to consume enough calories to evolve a humanlike brain."

This feels like misdirection to me. Clearly evolution requires more than calories. We have an obesity epidemic in America, not a genius epidemic. I'm not sure why speculating on evolution counts as evidence for anything.

I struggle to find anything in those 7 paragraphs worth commenting on. There isn't anything substantial stated. It even advocates eating meat, which seems odd for an article that seemed to be promoting a cooked vegan diet initially.

I think that's some good commentary on the article Bryant.

I hope when people try new diets and ways of living they share the same skeptisism for the expected outcome we do for all things, doctors and snake oil sellers.

There is a good chance that non of us will feel well wayyyy down the road in our older age because of what were trying now. Or, we'll experience no difference or the best outcome possible happens!

It's all un-proven still and won't be untill we have ultra reliable test subjects and scientists that would never waiver in their day to day behaviours and routines.

I'm not so sure I see the promoting aspect of the article however. I feel the author attempts to remain in an unbiased state and simply allows us to pose the question of if we are really experiencing healthfullness from our diet and that if it must be so restrictive or regimented.

I do not feel the doctors are advocating the consumption of animal meat niether. They are simply stating that they "feel" without real substanstial evidence that aside from vitamin B12 we're likely missing out on some nutrients that can be found in meat.

Sofar for me, the only reason why I want to stop eating meat, eggs and milk products is because it makes me feel sad that they get hurt in the process of being raised and dying so that I can eat them.

Replies

Maria Stevens August 28, 2013 at 7:20am

Very well reasoned article. I don't want to get too involved, but even Dr. Graham has a few common sense things to say about the dietary myths.

re: enzymes https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V951nGyKIYM
Bryant Sullivan June 22, 2013 at 3:52am

I'm not 100% sold on raw food as the only way to eat. I have found outstanding results from eating this way and plan on doing so solely for its own merit. Because it's working so well, really it's night and day.

Thanks for the article. Its good to talk about how people see these issues so we can improve the quality of the discussions we have about them. I didn't agree with the article at all, and not for its conclusions, I didn't find the way it was presented to be very helpful.

Here's what I think on each point:

Misconception #1: Cooking destroys nutrients

"Sure, raw foods can be nutritious. But cooking breaks apart fibers and cellular walls to release nutrients that otherwise would be unavailable from the same raw food."

Fiber is a nutrient, therefore it does indeed destroy nutrients.

"Cooking tomatoes, for example, increases by five-fold the bioavailability of the antioxidant lycopene."

There are other examples of this as well. Is that good? Can the human body make use of all that lycopene at once? Surely there aren't enough details here on what makes something bioavailable and what optimum nutrient balance looks like.

"Admittedly, some nutrients are lost in cooking, such as vitamin C and certain B vitamins."

So again, it actually does in fact destroy nutrients? I guess those were the nutrients we didn't need anyway.

"As for the concept of life energy in raw food, this is a spiritual belief beyond the realm of science, so debating its benefit, let alone existence, would be futile."

Agreed so why does the article bring it up so much, as if it's an integral part of some kind of "Raw Mythology"?

Misconception #2: Cooking destroys enzymes

"This one is absolutely true, but it doesn't matter."

So, this one is true too. What was the point of this article again?

'"I know of no importance of plant enzymes in human digestion," said McDougall.'

Well if a doctor that promotes a diet of cooked food can't see any importance then it must be true. Oh, wait, I meant the opposite. You didn't think to ask someone who had an alternate opinion on this one? I guess its fine because McDougall certainly knows everything there is to know about human nutrition. Because only no one else on Earth does. This whole science is so young, lack of evidence and lack of knowledge doesn't mean a thing. What if there was just one, or a couple? And what if that was somehow important? Or maybe they do their job while in the mouth? Well clearly no one knows so its probably nothing. Right?

"A corollary myth is that humans have a finite number of enzymes and that, once they are used up, these enzymes are gone. This idea, too, was hatched by Howell. But where would this packet of enzymes reside? Howell never said. But in reality, humans make new enzymes throughout their lifetimes."

Funny, I've seen a video of Dr. Graham saying just that... I now think this article is criticizing a certain type of Raw Fooder that may or may not have anything to do with the concept of eating raw food in the first place.

Misconception #3: Raw foods are detoxifying

"At best, detoxification schemes (juicing, fasting) can help by virtue of not placing more toxins in our body for a day or two. And a healthful, plant-rich diet with plenty of water can, in general, help your liver and kidneys process and remove toxins more effectively, McDougall said."

Funny, this is the only thing I've ever read or heard about detoxification from diet, whether it's Vegan or Raw food, or whatever. Again, I've seen Dr. Graham say just this as well. What was the misconception again?

"Another argument is that burning fat — in this case, on a raw vegan diet — would release toxins from the body. But fat cells don't burn up, as if into ashes, liberating their contents. Fats cells merely get bigger or smaller, depending on the amount of fat within the cell that's used."

Umm... No one thinks burning fat is like burning it up into ashes. What?

"It is unclear how much of a toxin, if any, would be set free if the fat molecule it is attached to is burned. The toxin is now free to attach to other fat molecules. If it does mobilize with other recently liberated toxins, in the case of extreme starvation, then the toxin could become toxicand overwhelm the liver."

In other words, We don't know, and it's theoretically possible. OK. Good job so far.

Misconception #4: Raw veganism is healthful

OK, not to say other things are not "healthful"....but, it's not?

"Healthfulness when eating a raw, vegan diet is a challenge; it's not inherent. Many on the diet do lose weight by consuming fewer calories. But weight loss should not be the ultimate goal."

No one should want to lose weight unless they are too heavy, but its not even weight loss that is claimed by this diet, it's supporting the body to regulate itself naturally. So, if you are too thin you will gain weight. Can a diet both allow you to gain weight and lose weight at the same time, both by underrating on calories? See what I did there? Its what this article has been doing all over the place.

"The most apparent problems are nutritional deficiencies, particularly for vitamins B12 and D, selenium, zinc, iron and two omega-3 fatty acids, DHA and EPA. Without taking supplements in pill form, it would be very difficult (and, for B12, impossible) to obtain a sufficient amount of these nutrients from raw, plant-based foods."

Cooked food, whether it's starches or meat feed the demon baby hiding in everyone's liver, which in turn saps all of your nutrients and leaves you a hollow walking corpse... I mean...as long as we're making things up...

This is of course false, I've seen it in my own experience, as have many others.

""The problem with the raw food diet is where do you get your energy food?" asked Caldwell Esselstyn of the Cleveland Clinic, the doctor who convinced Bill Clinton to adopt a plant-based diet. "You get it from pouring down nuts," he said, and these are high in fat and not healthful when eaten in excess."

Of course. It has to be nuts. I mean you're not going to dig up a potato and eat that sucker raw are you? There is literally nothing else on Earth that is high enough in calories to sustain you.

"If it's not nuts, then it's bananas, which are healthful perhaps at a level of one or two per day, but not when providing the majority of your calories. Some people on a raw food diet rely so much on fruit that their teeth begin to erode: from acids in the fruits that wear down the tooth enamel, from sugar promoting decay, from dried fruit (another raw vegan staple) sticking to the teeth and further promoting decay, and from a general mineral deficiency."

Oh, right fruit. I forgot all about that. Well everyone knows fruit is bad. It has no minerals, severely lacks vitamins, and every long term fruit eater has no teeth left. Or is that a load of crap too? I love how it mentions in the end "general mineral deficiency". What? are you getting more minerals in your meat, potatoes, or rice? Why aren't you eating anything else? I don't get you.

"The raw diet could be more healthful than the so-called S.A.D. ("standard American diet") of processed foods. But there is no evidence that, even given the resources to prepare a variety of raw foods daily, the raw vegan diet would be more healthful than the plant-based diets promoted by McDougall or Esselstyn, or than the diets that allow modest amounts of animal products."

You know the old scientific expression, "lack of evidence is evidence of lack" or something like that. Clearly because there is a huge lack of any nutritional research to the point where we can't rely fully on the studies we have to form a solid opinion, then we can just start denying everything. There is no evidence that cooked vegan diet is more healthful than the Raw vegan diet, either. Which one was the default again?
Misconception #5: Raw-only foods are natural

Are they not? Are they un-natural? Skipping passed the B12 issues, which also effect a cooked vegan diet (and everyone else too)--

"Our raw-vegan cousin, the gorilla, has three times the body size of humans, but one-third the brain cells; it grew muscular on plants, but not smarter. According to a study published in October 2012, the gorilla would have needed to eat raw plants for more than 12 hours a day to consume enough calories to evolve a humanlike brain."

This feels like misdirection to me. Clearly evolution requires more than calories. We have an obesity epidemic in America, not a genius epidemic. I'm not sure why speculating on evolution counts as evidence for anything.

I struggle to find anything in those 7 paragraphs worth commenting on. There isn't anything substantial stated. It even advocates eating meat, which seems odd for an article that seemed to be promoting a cooked vegan diet initially.
- Keith Murray > Bryant Sullivan June 22, 2013 at 5:10am
  
  I think that's some good commentary on the article Bryant.
  
  I hope when people try new diets and ways of living they share the same skeptisism for the expected outcome we do for all things, doctors and snake oil sellers.
  
  There is a good chance that non of us will feel well wayyyy down the road in our older age because of what were trying now. Or, we'll experience no difference or the best outcome possible happens!
  
  It's all un-proven still and won't be untill we have ultra reliable test subjects and scientists that would never waiver in their day to day behaviours and routines.
  
  I'm not so sure I see the promoting aspect of the article however. I feel the author attempts to remain in an unbiased state and simply allows us to pose the question of if we are really experiencing healthfullness from our diet and that if it must be so restrictive or regimented.
  
  I do not feel the doctors are advocating the consumption of animal meat niether. They are simply stating that they "feel" without real substanstial evidence that aside from vitamin B12 we're likely missing out on some nutrients that can be found in meat.
  
  Sofar for me, the only reason why I want to stop eating meat, eggs and milk products is because it makes me feel sad that they get hurt in the process of being raised and dying so that I can eat them.
  - Dennis Price > Keith Murray June 22, 2013 at 10:37am
    
    Keith, I used to enjoy eating meat. At one point, I thought about the animals. Then I wussed out and got scared because other people told me I would get sick.
    
    But for years I've had a lot of the common chronic illnesses that other people have. I learned that if you eat a variety of fruits and vegetables and stay high carbohydrates that I seem to be the happy and healthiest I have ever been. I never though I could be this happy and healthy. So it is the best of both worlds. Eat lots of fruits and vegetables, eat high carb cooked foods if you cant afford all fruits and veggies or you are out for social/work reasons and you are not at a health oriented establishment.
    - Keith Murray > Dennis Price August 1, 2013 at 5:36am
      
      I've been eating a mostly raw vegan lifestyle now for just 2 weeks and so far the results are seeming positive as well! Unfortunately, I have to play a bit of a balancing act game with the sugar intake from certain fruits or it seems I'll swing into hypo-glycemia. My body over-reacts to the intake of sugar and I just recently tested positive for this via blood testing. :(
Marius J June 22, 2013 at 3:37am

Thanks for the post. Good article, expect this part bout the raw diet

"it is impossible to survive on this diet without modern conveniences such as refrigerators, storage devices and easy access to packaged foods — such as the aforementioned shelled nuts."

This reply was deleted.