Sharon in Colorado
06-24-2006, 10:30 AM
Just wanted to share this gem. It answers a lot of questions and concerns that seem to often get raised here about the raw food diet.
For those who are unfamiliar with Dr. Andrew Weil he is a widely-known alternative health author and lecturer.
From http://www.doctorgraham.cc/
Sharon
-------
Dr. Graham Answers Andrew Weil About A Raw-Foods Diet
Written by Dr. Doug Graham
Recently, Dr. Graham was asked to respond to Andrew Weil's concerns for the raw-food diet. It is typically not a practice of Dr. Graham's to answer such requests but it was made by a dear friend. Due to the novelty of this occurrance the discussion is here for everyone.
AW: However, I'm not a proponent of the raw foods diet. First of all, when you eat everything raw, you lose much of the best flavor, texture and appearance of food
DG: This is so blatantly wrong. The best flavor is in fresh raw food. Concentrated flavors are created by cooking, for sure, and flavors are perverted, of course, from those created by nature, to which one may acquire a liking. Is there a texture that we don't have in raw food? What could there possibly be about the appearance of food that improves with cooking? Get real. But now he has a premise, based on an assertion which he never proves, and it gives him a foothold from which to proceed.
AW: More importantly, however, is the fact that many of the vitamins and minerals found in vegetables are less bioavailable when you eat these foods raw than when they're cooked.
DG: Approximately 1 in 10,000 nutrients becomes more bioavailable when cooked while the other 9,999 become less available. I challenge AW or anyone else to prove otherwise.
AW: Another disadvantage stems from the fact that many of the natural toxins in edible roots, seeds, stems and leaves are destroyed by cooking.
DG: I see natural toxins in plants as strong indicators that these plants are not truly foods for humans. Certainly in times before we began cooking, these plants were not used as foods for humans, ever, and we managed to thrive quite nicely without them.
AW: Although our bodies have natural defenses against these toxins, a raw food diet can add to the toxic load we're already dealing with.
DG: And what natural defenses do our bodies have against the myriad toxins produced during the cooking process, especially when 99.99% of the nutrients in our foods have been lost due to that very cooking process? We have no natural defenses against the carcinogens created by the cooking process, nor against the malnourishment that accompanies the consumption of any cooked food, nor against the hormonal imbalances that result.
AW: The latest word on raw food diets comes from a new study which shows that vegetarians who eat only raw foods have abnormally low bone mass, a sign that they may be vulnerable to osteoporosis. The study, published in the March 28, 2005 issue of the Archives of Internal Medicine, found that other markers for bone health among the raw foods group were normal.
DG: Raw fooders, on average, weigh significantly less than people who eat cooked food. A 20% difference in weight will eventually translate into a 20% difference in bone mass, with zero statistical evidence that this is anything other than normal. Considering that, "other markers for bone health among the raw foods group were normal" it seems quite a stretch to point to lower bone mass amongst raw fooders as a problem. That said, if I am recalling the same study that AW refers to, it was done on an incredibly small sampling of raw fooders (27, I believe) and there were almost no parameters for factoring in lifestyle, fitness activities, caloronutrient ratio, or length of time on raw foods as criteria for determining validity of the conclusions.
AW: However, the intake of calcium and vitamin D was very low (only 579 mg per day of calcium and 16 units of vitamin D) among those on the raw foods diet compared to 1,093 mg of calcium and 348 units of vitamin D among a control group that ate a typical American diet.
DG: Since Vit D intake is primarily (95% or more is considered normal) through sunlight, not food, this hardly seems a valid consideration for cooking food.
As increases in calcium intake on "the standard American diet" decidedly DO NOT coincide with increases in bone density (in fact, just the opposite) this seems yet another rather odd indictment of raw food. If anything, it seems an indictment of cooked foods.
But strangest of all is the reliance upon "typical American diet" nutritional facts when attempting to decry the validity of raw food nutritional value. How ludicrous to cite the nutritional values of one of the world's most unhealthy diets in an effort to make the world's most nutritious diet seem inadequate in any way.
AW: The raw foods group consumed fewer calories than the control group and had a body mass index (BMI) averaging 20 (in the normal range) compared to just over 25 in the control group. While this BMI sounds healthy, 20 was the average, suggesting that it was lower among some of the study participants on the raw foods diet. Those with a BMI of 19.5 or lower are at risk of low bone mineral density because their bones aren't bearing enough weight, a factor that contributes to bone strength.
DG: We begin to see the contradictions coming to light here. The raw food group consumed fewer calories and had a lower BMI, which would lead to the logical conclusion that they would require, and demonstrate, lower bone density, which they did.
According to AW's argument, we are now forced to base our "normal" values upon our national "average" values, even though they do not relate in any way to what is world wide considered "healthy" values. In fact, it seems that we are being asked to base our "healthy values" upon national statistics, whereby being just .5 too low in BMI is considered a significant health risk but being as much OVER the suggested healthy BMI as the average American is should simply be overlooked. At some point I believe it is imcumbant upon our health advisors to look the part.
Weight is a funcion of body fat percentage, water weight, and muscle mass. Most Americans are significantly undermuscled as a result of a sedentary lifestyle. When excess fat and water is lost after beginning the raw food diet, it often takes several years before the desired amounts of muscle mass can be gained. Overall, raw fooders are less fat than most Americans, carry less water weight, yet are better hydrated (fat being only 5% water, by weight, on average.) AW is making this out to be a bad thing, yet there is no evidence of any type that indicates that a body fat level of over 10% for men or 20% for women serves any health benefit, in any way, ever.
The bones need not be stronger than our weight requires them to be. Basing "normal" bone density on the bone density levels of fat Americans hardly seems like a valid assessment.
AW: This recent study adds new information to the risks a raw foods diet presents
DG: Coming from a dyed-in-the-wool cooked fooder, it is easy to understand AW's concerted effort to make raw foods seem like anything other than the health panacea that they can be. After all, it would cast anyone in the poor light of contradictory living if he suggested that raw foods were the best foods but that he simply chooses not to eat them. But then, I can only imagine that any health professional would suggest that fitness is an essential element of overall health, and yet most are quite content to live with their obvious lack of fitness.
AW again suggests that there ARE risks to the raw food diet, but he mentions none of them. In fact, earlier in his comments he stated that he now had a bit of information that cast possible shadow upon the value of the raw food diet, and tried to capitalize upon the false bone density/calcium intake premise. So, his entire argument ends up being nothing more than a scarecrow in Wizard of Oz clothing.
AW: By the way, I've gone to a few upscale raw food restaurants on the east and west coasts. The food was tasty but seemed to me very labor-intensive to prepare and contained way too many nuts.
DG: While I couldn't agree with AW more that many raw recipes contain too many nuts, I certainly cannot use that fact as an indictment of the raw food diet any more than the fact that many cooked recipes have way too much fat is an indictment of the cooked diet. The fact that some raw food chefs choose labor intensive recipes as a method of showcasing their craft certainly also cannot be used as an indictment of raw foods, which are notoriously accessible and require virtually no preparation in order to be deliciously ready for consumption. Many mainstream chefs also rely upon elaborate preparations in order to make their foods unique, artistic, and tasty.
For those who are unfamiliar with Dr. Andrew Weil he is a widely-known alternative health author and lecturer.
From http://www.doctorgraham.cc/
Sharon
-------
Dr. Graham Answers Andrew Weil About A Raw-Foods Diet
Written by Dr. Doug Graham
Recently, Dr. Graham was asked to respond to Andrew Weil's concerns for the raw-food diet. It is typically not a practice of Dr. Graham's to answer such requests but it was made by a dear friend. Due to the novelty of this occurrance the discussion is here for everyone.
AW: However, I'm not a proponent of the raw foods diet. First of all, when you eat everything raw, you lose much of the best flavor, texture and appearance of food
DG: This is so blatantly wrong. The best flavor is in fresh raw food. Concentrated flavors are created by cooking, for sure, and flavors are perverted, of course, from those created by nature, to which one may acquire a liking. Is there a texture that we don't have in raw food? What could there possibly be about the appearance of food that improves with cooking? Get real. But now he has a premise, based on an assertion which he never proves, and it gives him a foothold from which to proceed.
AW: More importantly, however, is the fact that many of the vitamins and minerals found in vegetables are less bioavailable when you eat these foods raw than when they're cooked.
DG: Approximately 1 in 10,000 nutrients becomes more bioavailable when cooked while the other 9,999 become less available. I challenge AW or anyone else to prove otherwise.
AW: Another disadvantage stems from the fact that many of the natural toxins in edible roots, seeds, stems and leaves are destroyed by cooking.
DG: I see natural toxins in plants as strong indicators that these plants are not truly foods for humans. Certainly in times before we began cooking, these plants were not used as foods for humans, ever, and we managed to thrive quite nicely without them.
AW: Although our bodies have natural defenses against these toxins, a raw food diet can add to the toxic load we're already dealing with.
DG: And what natural defenses do our bodies have against the myriad toxins produced during the cooking process, especially when 99.99% of the nutrients in our foods have been lost due to that very cooking process? We have no natural defenses against the carcinogens created by the cooking process, nor against the malnourishment that accompanies the consumption of any cooked food, nor against the hormonal imbalances that result.
AW: The latest word on raw food diets comes from a new study which shows that vegetarians who eat only raw foods have abnormally low bone mass, a sign that they may be vulnerable to osteoporosis. The study, published in the March 28, 2005 issue of the Archives of Internal Medicine, found that other markers for bone health among the raw foods group were normal.
DG: Raw fooders, on average, weigh significantly less than people who eat cooked food. A 20% difference in weight will eventually translate into a 20% difference in bone mass, with zero statistical evidence that this is anything other than normal. Considering that, "other markers for bone health among the raw foods group were normal" it seems quite a stretch to point to lower bone mass amongst raw fooders as a problem. That said, if I am recalling the same study that AW refers to, it was done on an incredibly small sampling of raw fooders (27, I believe) and there were almost no parameters for factoring in lifestyle, fitness activities, caloronutrient ratio, or length of time on raw foods as criteria for determining validity of the conclusions.
AW: However, the intake of calcium and vitamin D was very low (only 579 mg per day of calcium and 16 units of vitamin D) among those on the raw foods diet compared to 1,093 mg of calcium and 348 units of vitamin D among a control group that ate a typical American diet.
DG: Since Vit D intake is primarily (95% or more is considered normal) through sunlight, not food, this hardly seems a valid consideration for cooking food.
As increases in calcium intake on "the standard American diet" decidedly DO NOT coincide with increases in bone density (in fact, just the opposite) this seems yet another rather odd indictment of raw food. If anything, it seems an indictment of cooked foods.
But strangest of all is the reliance upon "typical American diet" nutritional facts when attempting to decry the validity of raw food nutritional value. How ludicrous to cite the nutritional values of one of the world's most unhealthy diets in an effort to make the world's most nutritious diet seem inadequate in any way.
AW: The raw foods group consumed fewer calories than the control group and had a body mass index (BMI) averaging 20 (in the normal range) compared to just over 25 in the control group. While this BMI sounds healthy, 20 was the average, suggesting that it was lower among some of the study participants on the raw foods diet. Those with a BMI of 19.5 or lower are at risk of low bone mineral density because their bones aren't bearing enough weight, a factor that contributes to bone strength.
DG: We begin to see the contradictions coming to light here. The raw food group consumed fewer calories and had a lower BMI, which would lead to the logical conclusion that they would require, and demonstrate, lower bone density, which they did.
According to AW's argument, we are now forced to base our "normal" values upon our national "average" values, even though they do not relate in any way to what is world wide considered "healthy" values. In fact, it seems that we are being asked to base our "healthy values" upon national statistics, whereby being just .5 too low in BMI is considered a significant health risk but being as much OVER the suggested healthy BMI as the average American is should simply be overlooked. At some point I believe it is imcumbant upon our health advisors to look the part.
Weight is a funcion of body fat percentage, water weight, and muscle mass. Most Americans are significantly undermuscled as a result of a sedentary lifestyle. When excess fat and water is lost after beginning the raw food diet, it often takes several years before the desired amounts of muscle mass can be gained. Overall, raw fooders are less fat than most Americans, carry less water weight, yet are better hydrated (fat being only 5% water, by weight, on average.) AW is making this out to be a bad thing, yet there is no evidence of any type that indicates that a body fat level of over 10% for men or 20% for women serves any health benefit, in any way, ever.
The bones need not be stronger than our weight requires them to be. Basing "normal" bone density on the bone density levels of fat Americans hardly seems like a valid assessment.
AW: This recent study adds new information to the risks a raw foods diet presents
DG: Coming from a dyed-in-the-wool cooked fooder, it is easy to understand AW's concerted effort to make raw foods seem like anything other than the health panacea that they can be. After all, it would cast anyone in the poor light of contradictory living if he suggested that raw foods were the best foods but that he simply chooses not to eat them. But then, I can only imagine that any health professional would suggest that fitness is an essential element of overall health, and yet most are quite content to live with their obvious lack of fitness.
AW again suggests that there ARE risks to the raw food diet, but he mentions none of them. In fact, earlier in his comments he stated that he now had a bit of information that cast possible shadow upon the value of the raw food diet, and tried to capitalize upon the false bone density/calcium intake premise. So, his entire argument ends up being nothing more than a scarecrow in Wizard of Oz clothing.
AW: By the way, I've gone to a few upscale raw food restaurants on the east and west coasts. The food was tasty but seemed to me very labor-intensive to prepare and contained way too many nuts.
DG: While I couldn't agree with AW more that many raw recipes contain too many nuts, I certainly cannot use that fact as an indictment of the raw food diet any more than the fact that many cooked recipes have way too much fat is an indictment of the cooked diet. The fact that some raw food chefs choose labor intensive recipes as a method of showcasing their craft certainly also cannot be used as an indictment of raw foods, which are notoriously accessible and require virtually no preparation in order to be deliciously ready for consumption. Many mainstream chefs also rely upon elaborate preparations in order to make their foods unique, artistic, and tasty.