Dr Weil On Raw Foods...

[Davylp25]

: I've been considering a raw foods diet. Can you discuss the pros and cons? -- Meredith

A: The raw foods diet is exactly what it appears to be - a diet in which you eat only foods that can be consumed raw or after minimal heating. On the plus side is the fact that it provides plenty of fruits, vegetables, seeds and nuts, all of which should be part of any healthy diet. You also get plenty of fiber and no processed food. And, because you don't eat animal foods - meat, fish, or poultry - you avoid the contaminants they may contain. Another advantage: there's little danger that you'll consume too much protein or fat or the wrong kind of fat.
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. 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. For example, you can get lycopene, the carotenoid pigment that protects against prostate cancer, only from cooked tomatoes, not from raw ones. The carotenoids in carrots are more bioavailable from cooked carrots than they are from raw ones.

Another disadvantage stems from the fact that many of the natural toxins in edible roots, seeds, stems and leaves are destroyed by cooking. Alfalfa sprouts contain canavanine, a natural toxin that can harm the immune system; button mushrooms contain natural carcinogens, and celery produces psoralens, compounds that sensitize the skin to the harmful effects of ultraviolet radiation in sunlight. All of these are broken down by simple cooking. Although our bodies have natural defenses against these toxins, a raw food diet can add to the toxic load we're already dealing with.

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. 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.

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.

This recent study adds new information to the risks a raw foods diet presents. If a vegetarian diet appeals to you, I think you'll do better if you follow the Mediterranean diet but eliminate meat, poultry and fish.

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.

Andrew Weil, MD

Last Reviewed: August 2005


Hmm I dont agree. He has a right to his opinion though.

[juliebove]

I've read similar things elsewhere. As for Weil, I agree with some but not all of what he says about various things. I have one of his books.

[Selena]

To be fair, he did say many good things about raw food which is more than many others would have. I did find his counterarguments to be a little lacking though, especially the labor intensive part.

I think we've had a thread about this before and someone mentioned that any restaurant dish, raw or cooked, is much more labor-intensive than what you make at home.

[Pansy]

Just wondering why this is on here!

This forum is for people that choose to eat rawfood, support this lifestyle and know it is right for them, not sit around thinking or debating if it is good for them and bringing in other peoples beliefs and how they feel about it.

This is Alissa's forum....NOT anyone elses!!!! :D

;) :) :rolleyes:

[trinity082482]

I think to any lifestyle of eating, there are pros and cons. Its a personal choice and although I don't think taking a vitamin is "good enough" I encourage everyone to take their daily suppliments because its better than nothing.
My girl friend vegan turned vegeterian is only 27 and she was diagnosed with osteoporosis. She says it was from being vegan for over 9 years.
I think even eating cooked.. doesnt mean you get the vitamins you need. Plus your adding crap into the foods that make it unhealthy like loads of butter and salt and oils and transfats and with cooked foods its easy to consume over 700 cals in 1 meal!!! That is more than half of the daily cals allowed.
I guess my point is.. there is good and bad to everything. We must take care of our selves the best way we can and I have never heard of people curing ailments with fried chicken :p

[Revvell]

.... ditto... Weil is not raw.... unless something has changed recently, and as Pansy says, why is this being discussed here?



Just wondering why this is on here!

This forum is for people that choose to eat rawfood, support this lifestyle and know it is right for them, not sit around thinking or debating if it is good for them and bringing in other peoples beliefs and how they feel about it.

This is Alissa's forum....NOT anyone elses!!!! :D

;) :) :rolleyes:

[JGex]

Let's see, this is a raw foods forum. The article is questioning a raw food diet. Seems pertinent to me.

I am a little taken aback by the apparent wish to suppress any information that may not completely toe the raw foods diet line. After all, isn't this whole forum & lifestyle about being healthy? And if the raw foods diet IS so healthy and right, shouldn't it stand on its own against any criticism?

[swingbolder]

There've been a couple of threads about this already (in the archives).

[Pailani]

if the raw foods diet IS so healthy and right, shouldn't it stand on its own against any criticism?

In a perfect world, yes it would. But there's so much counter information, misinformation, mainline prejudice against anything not recommended by the medical establishment, that plain old truth gets mixed up and out-voiced. The problem with using Alissa's forum to air and dicuss criticism is that there's so many ill-informed naysayers, we could spend years debating, discussing, going round and round the same old questions . . . and never really get anywhere. In fact, this very Weil interview was just posted on this forum just a few weeks ago for discussion.

The point of this particular forum is to just do it. After trying it, a person can judge the results for themselves. But if we keep everyone preoccupied with all the naysayers and questions and reasons why it's "not supposed to work," people will never even try it.

[Sharon in Colorado]

Dr. Graham addresses Dr. Weils concerns.

http://www.rawfoodtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=16230&highlight=Graham+Weil

Now lets get back to raw!!!

P.S. On another note, I would not look at Dr. Weil and think he's the healthiest apple on the tree, so why would I (or anyone who's looking for health) feel the need to follow him?

[Revvell]

Perfectly said....



In a perfect world, yes it would. But there's so much counter information, misinformation, mainline prejudice against anything not recommended by the medical establishment, that plain old truth gets mixed up and out-voiced. The problem with using Alissa's forum to air and dicuss criticism is that there's so many ill-informed naysayers, we could spend years debating, discussing, going round and round the same old questions . . . and never really get anywhere. In fact, this very Weil interview was just posted on this forum just a few weeks ago for discussion.

The point of this particular forum is to just do it. After trying it, a person can judge the results for themselves. But if we keep everyone preoccupied with all the naysayers and questions and reasons why it's "not supposed to work," people will never even try it.

[JGex]

Dr. Graham addresses Dr. Weils concerns.

http://www.rawfoodtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=16230&highlight=Graham+Weil

Now lets get back to raw!!!

P.S. On another note, I would not look at Dr. Weil and think he's the healthiest apple on the tree, so why would I (or anyone who's looking for health) feel the need to follow him?


And THIS post is a perfect example of why I think this info is pertinent to being posted here... if the original article had not been posted, this second article would not have been.

"Just do it" works for Nike, but some of us need a little more input than just diving right in. I'm still learning, and judging from the amount of questions posted here daily, I'd say a lot of people are still learning.

[Sharon in Colorado]

Here's the whole thing so you don't have to switch over:


-------


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.

[Forever Young]

P.S. On another note, I would not look at Dr. Weil and think he's the healthiest apple on the tree, so why would I (or anyone who's looking for health) feel the need to follow him?

Now sharon you know you shouldn't shake the tree to hard maybe a couple of nuts will fall instead of apples. :D Forever young :cool:

[Pailani]

"Just do it" works for Nike, but some of us need a little more input than just diving right in. I'm still learning, and judging from the amount of questions posted here daily, I'd say a lot of people are still learning.

Maybe what's needed is one dedicated website or forum that answers all these doubts, questions and challenges - all the interviews, articles and pooh-poohs responded to in one easy place. Then when someone brings up an article or interview (the same ones tend to cycle pretty regularly) we can just direct them to the one site.

Wouldn't that be a great outreach project for a raw enthusiast??

[michigan roman]

now turn this around and let graham
comment on the cooked food diet ,
youd see how wrong weil is .

[michigan roman]

In a perfect world, yes it would. But there's so much counter information, misinformation, mainline prejudice against anything not recommended by the medical establishment, that plain old truth gets mixed up and out-voiced. The problem with using Alissa's forum to air and dicuss criticism is that there's so many ill-informed naysayers, we could spend years debating, discussing, going round and round the same old questions . . . and never really get anywhere. In fact, this very Weil interview was just posted on this forum just a few weeks ago for discussion.

The point of this particular forum is to just do it. After trying it, a person can judge the results for themselves. But if we keep everyone preoccupied with all the naysayers and questions and reasons why it's "not supposed to work," people will never even try it.


very logical deduction and enlightening post .

theres only so much info ones mind can
process before getting confused , and i
dont want to do that here . like alissa
says i want to work on perfecting the raw
food diet here not debate if its whats best .

ps - that said jgex makes great points ,
its just that to me that debates for different
type forums .

[Sharon in Colorado]

FY - well, some of us are fruits and some are nuts! Which category do you fall under? :p

I agree a lot of these articles that keep ciruculating seem to defeat the purpose of this site. Alissa did mention it was okay to bring concerns and questions here, but not to try to dissuade others from raw by posting anti-raw stuff. When I placed the "answers" a few months ago, it was to alleviate concerns that others have about raw food. However this article was just stuck up there without any answers. Fortunately I was tickled to see this, remembering what I had posted before, and I was so happy to put it in this thread.

It would be a good idea to have a separate forum or section for things such as these, like the spinach and green onion scare and what health "experts" have to say about the raw diet. I just think the majority of people here are looking for support and answers to their own issues, more than trying to find arguments to answer all the time.

I have had aqcuaintances that would constantly bring stuff like this up to me, and I felt like it was their way of putting off starting, or continuing on a raw food program. It's just another way to find an excuse not to do it. I think if you've been here for more than a few weeks, you are pretty convinced that raw has promise for you, so you should just get off the fence and go for it.

[Pailani]

When I placed the "answers" a few months ago, it was to alleviate concerns that others have about raw food.

And you should have been able to post that answer once and for all time. Shouldn't those kinds of things be kept handy and readily accessible for times like this?

[Revvell]

I have had aqcuaintances that would constantly bring stuff like this up to me, and I felt like it was their way of putting off starting, or continuing on a raw food program. It's just another way to find an excuse not to do it. I think if you've been here for more than a few weeks, you are pretty convinced that raw has promise for you, so you should just get off the fence and go for it.



nod,nod,nod :D