"The Raw-Food Diet" Article - I Don't Buy This, Do You?

[FirstGarden]

Hi Everyone

A well-meaning friend sent me this short article from EatingWell.com. My friend is quite health conscious, never said anything against the raw food diet, and simply shared this out of concern. ;)

I'd really like to know your opinion. I'm sure that issues like Vit B12, enzymes and protein have been discussed to death in this forum. I have my own opinions about being close to nature. It has always been my view (well, since the early 70s) that food -- firsthand, organic and raw -- is the best, most natural way to health. :p

Maybe some of you have seen this article before. In your words, what is the best response when people raise questions like this about the raw food diet? :cool:

The raw-foods movement took hold in the mid-1970s with the publication of Survival into the 21st Century, a book that purported the diet could resolve physical ailments and extend lifespan. Its unlikely author: Viktoras Kulvinskas, a former computer consultant for MIT. Three decades later, the diet still thrives. High-profile devotees, such as actors Demi Moore and Woody Harrelson and Chicago chef Charlie Trotter, shun animal products and heat-processed grains; they eat nuts, seeds, sprouted grains, fruits and vegetables—ones that haven't been heated past 118°F.

The theory is that consuming uncooked foods boosts energy, aids in weight loss and prevents disease. Heat-processing destroys digestion-aiding enzymes and creates tissue-damaging toxins—two reasons why raw foods are healthier, say the diet's advocates. Supporting evidence for the "enzyme hypothesis" and reduced toxin loads are lacking, but limited studies do suggest some health benefits—and risks. A 2005 study in the Journal of Nutrition found that raw-foodists were far less likely than the general population to register high levels of "bad" LDL cholesterol. On the flip side, 38% of the study's 201 subjects were deficient in vitamin B12, a nutrient that's also important for heart health. A 2005 study in Archives of Internal Medicine reported that raw-foods-diet followers had significantly lower body-mass indices (a measure of body fat) than people consuming a typical American diet; they also had lower bone densities, a risk factor for osteoporosis.

Experts say: "There's no doubt that plant-based diets have been linked with a lower risk of obesity and other chronic diseases, but because the raw-foods diet is so restrictive, its followers are at risk for deficiencies of vitamin B12 and omega-3 fatty acids if they don't take supplements," says Andrea N. Giancoli, M.P.H., R.D., a spokesperson for the American Dietetic Association in Los Angeles. "And the diet isn't based on science: cooking destroys some nutrients, but it makes others (like the lycopene in tomatoes) more absorbable."

Our bottom line: Our digestive systems have their own enzymes; we don't need to get them from foods. The benefits of raw-foods diets—reduced cholesterol and weight control—can be achieved by eating more vegetables, fruits and whole grains, limiting foods high in saturated and trans fats, and using portion control.

[dreamrawalwz]

Well uhhh, waht about ALL those cooked omnivores that have low B12?? Ya can't blame the diet! They didn't meausre their levels before they went raw and then after they were raw for a while. Plus how can one level fit all people? Just like calorie needs, protein needs, etc. are ALL individual. Maybe the "low" level was their "normal."

[KellyL]

Her is a link for another article and an quote that discusses bone mass in people who eat a raw food diet. It appears to be to be an objective scientific study. You may have to copy and paste the address b/c I don't know how to make it a link.

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medicalnews.php?newsid=21897

"For example, it is clear from research that higher rates of bone turnover equate to higher risk of fracture," Fontana says. "But in these people, although their bone mass is low, their bone turnover rates are normal."

[belleadonna]

Hi Everyone
Maybe some of you have seen this article before. In your words, what is the best response when people raise questions like this about the raw food diet?

.


http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o293/belleadonna/kittenlick.gif

[RawVegan4Health]

Ditto what belleadonna said!:p

[FirstGarden]

Well uhhh, what about ALL those cooked omnivores that have low B12?? Ya can't blame the diet! They didn't measure their levels before they went raw and then after they were raw for a while. Plus how can one level fit all people? Just like calorie needs, protein needs, etc. are ALL individual. Maybe the "low" level was their "normal."

You raise a very good point, dream. Some non-rawists experience deficiency as well. My own personal belief there is that a completely, natural organic diet without the tons of contaminants and environmental pollution would spell a very different story about people's nutrient levels. :cool:

You see, I'm a nature boy from way back. And I believe in the ancient Genesis record that the diet of paradise was specified as to be entirely Raw. I cannot be convinced otherwise. Raw makes overwhelming sense. It's just that today, we are so far removed from our pure, pristine environmental state. As such, there are considerations on how we may possibly need to compensate. But the raw, organic diet itself is flawless.

[FirstGarden]

Her is a link for another article and an quote that discusses bone mass in people who eat a raw food diet. It appears to be to be an objective scientific study. You may have to copy and paste the address b/c I don't know how to make it a link.

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medicalnews.php?newsid=21897

"For example, it is clear from research that higher rates of bone turnover equate to higher risk of fracture," Fontana says. "But in these people, although their bone mass is low, their bone turnover rates are normal."

Thanks for sharing this link. I will certainly check it out. :)

[FirstGarden]

http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o293/belleadonna/kittenlick.gif

Nice KiKi shot! At first I didn't see the animation. Too cute!
Is this a raw Kitty?

Actually I was hoping for something a little more articulate, lol.

[Solace]

So ya take the b12 because our soil is now deficient in it = meaning it once contained b12 rich soil. We take the oils - replacing fish oils with ALGAE oils OR mercury free fish oils=whatever ! As well as our hemps and flax oils we know we need to make up for where our earth is now deficient THAT is easy, NO ????:)

[FirstGarden]

So ya take the b12 because our soil is now deficient in it = meaning it once contained b12 rich soil. We take the oils - replacing fish oils with ALGAE oils OR mercury free fish oils=whatever ! As well as our hemps and flax oils we know we need to make up for where our earth is now deficient THAT is easy, NO ????:)

Yes, that is easy. I lik-a dat. ;)

[belleadonna]

Nice KiKi shot! At first I didn't see the animation. Too cute!
Is this a raw Kitty?

Actually I was hoping for something a little more articulate, lol.

You expect articulate from a kitty?? No, actually the kitty is an carnivore.

First Garden, I agree with your hypothesis that God created us to be fruit/herb eaters. He later allowed for meat eating but only after the introduction of sin into the world. (How's that for articulate?). That does not mean that we should eat meat but only that He allowed for it. A fruit/herb diet would be the ideal I believe.

[bodaflower]

That's such a scientific-sounding study on raw foodism! I don't even want to read it all, I don't like that much cooked science in my diet thank you :p

[Stina]

Anyone have any explanation about the high cholestrol issue?

[FirstGarden]

First Garden, I agree with your hypothesis that God created us to be fruit/herb eaters. He later allowed for meat eating but only after the introduction of sin into the world. (How's that for articulate?). That does not mean that we should eat meat but only that He allowed for it. A fruit/herb diet would be the ideal I believe.

I totally agree. I believe that meat eating was never the ideal within Divine Providence. It was later permitted, in my view, because there were vast climate changes since the early earth with its paradaisical conditions. Not everyone accepts the canopy theory. That's okay. I myself hold to it loosely, though I do believe in it. Very interestingly, the prophecies speak quite a bit about a return of humankind to its original vegetarian diet. :cool:

[belleadonna]

Welp, Me thinks that God is not so concerned about our diet as much as our hearts. The Bible says that we are appointed a certain number of days. So, I do not think that diet will extend our days BUT we can affect the quality of our days by a good diet. :)

[FirstGarden]

Me thinks that God is not so concerned about our diet as much as our hearts. The Bible says that we are appointed a certain number of days. So, I do not think that diet will extend our days BUT we can affect the quality of our days by a good diet. :)

If bad diet shortens our days, good diet will at least preserve what our lives might normally be.

Oh, I was only addressing the dietary aspect, not speaking about our inner state. I fully agree with you about that. ;) :)

[FirstGarden]

Anyone have any explanation about the high cholestrol issue?

Not sure what ya mean, Stina. Here's the quote:

A 2005 study in the Journal of Nutrition found that raw-foodists were far less likely than the general population to register high levels of "bad" LDL cholesterol.

On this point they seem to be acknowledging a benefit with raw food.

[vgloveforlife]

Yes any restrictive diet can result in deficiencies. I have to honestly say that what some raw foodists eat in a day is so limited that is going to certaintly result in deficiencies. In fact when I ate a very strict vegan high raw diet for almost a year my body aged about 5 years in that time.
I'm all for raw food but only as part of the diet. Our food is too deficient in nutrients to eat so strictly.

[Revvell]

Where are the "restrictions"? I'm missing something here. People who eat cooked food are waaaaay more restrictive than many raw vegans ~ meat/fish (which, to me, is meat) and rice or potatoes and MAYBE a small side salad with head lettuce is not restrictive?); many vegetarians are waaaaay more restrictive, especially those who eat for ethical reasons.

For instance, instead of real food, they will add chips and baked goods. They're vegetarian aren't they? They drink alcohol instead of fresh juices. AND if we're supposed to be concerned about lacking nutrients because of the soil, etc., then why destroy even more by cooking the life out of the food?

I use to go to a vegetarian dinner club and I was appalled at what those people ate in the name of saving the animals. What about saving themselves?

All I know is, and none of this is "belief" ~ how I feel when I eat raw vs. how I feel when eating cooked ~ and I don't care how "healthy" the cooked meal is "supposed" to be, not to mention (although I will) that ANY "scientific study" can prove or disprove anything the scientist wants to prove or disprove. They usually start out with a hypothesis and set out to prove it's true.

IF scientifice studies were worth anything to me, I'd still go to doctors, take their drugs and drink milk. Can't see any of that happening anytime soon ~ at least in this lifetime.

Revvell

[RawVegan4Health]

I agree 1748.375% with Revvell. I am getting WAAAAYYYY more nutrients now than I ever did before. Not that I can prove this of course, but if I add up the nutrients of what I ate before compared to what I eat now, I am willing to lay the money down RIGHT NOW that what I am eating as a RAW VEGAN is more nutritious than what I ate as an omni, a veggie or even a vegan!:eek:

[Maddy]

Raw food isn't normal and not normal scares people especially experts because they don't like not knowing or understanding or not being able to sound clever.

Raw food I think is right - it flicks a switch of rightness inside me and all of you.

You know how you feel the experts don't and can't define that

Alot of science of health is based on a population that really isn't healthy but that is the sample they have had to work with and draw conclusions. Raw food has not been scientifically examined for any length of time so the experts dare not say out right that its a good idea there just isn't enough scientific evidence to back that up

I also don't think there is any such thing as unbiased science anymore - someone has to pay the bills and most research organisations need to keep the funding coming in so statistics are red in certain ways to suit the funding body

Vegetarians apparently struggle to find 'good' iron sources yet in the UK iron deficiency is less in vegetarians. The norm is meat eating

If you feel good in yourself then that is all you need

[RawChicky]

Can you imagine what would happen if a huge scientific study concluded that a raw vegan diet is the best possible diet and everyone should eat this way?

People would go crazy, nobody wants to admit that meat and cheese and cooked food sucks. Why? Because that would mean CHANGE. They would have to change how they eat. Give up their beloved meat and cheese products. It would be too painful and too damn hard. Plus, SO MANY INDUSTRIES WOULD LOSE MONEY. bottom line

[LightLover]

bumping to read later this day...:)

ll

[Cherry-tree]

Thanks for the article. It is always good to read up on other people's opinions and what is being said. But, no I don't buy it at all. Maybe some people don't get enough without taking supplements if they NEVER eat anything with oils. Other than that, it does not make a whole lot of sense, esp. the part of warming tomatoes to make the lycopene more absorbable?!?! WTH? I don't get that reasoning.:confused:

[Dr. White]

Anyone have any explanation about the high cholestrol issue?


That one's actually pretty simple. Raw foodist have higher cholesterol levels because the AMA norm of cholesterol is too low. Anything under 160 actually puts the body at higher risk for cancer because it's ability to fight off free radicals is debilitated from the low cholesterol. I try to keep my clients between 175-275 total( so if that's where you are, you are doing well. It's the AMA that is off)... Cholesterol is a reaction to inflammation in the body more so than what a person is eating (although the reaction to some foods can be inflammatory) and it is only a picture of the chemistry of the blood at one particular moment. Cholesterol numbers change constantly, so it is really not a good measure of ones health.

Sorry to ramble, and I'm not sure if this made sense or not, but bottom line is that cholesterol does not concern me and I was a Nurse Practitioner in the Cardiology field before I turned ND. It makes me feel guilty when I think of all of the cholesterols that I lowered and realise that I was actually defeating the body's natural process.

[belleadonna]

That one's actually pretty simple. Raw foodist have higher cholesterol levels because the AMA norm of cholesterol is too low. Anything under 160 actually puts the body at higher risk for cancer because it's ability to fight off free radicals is debilitated from the low cholesterol. I try to keep my clients between 175-275 total( so if that's where you are, you are doing well. It's the AMA that is off)... Cholesterol is a reaction to inflammation in the body more so than what a person is eating (although the reaction to some foods can be inflammatory) and it is only a picture of the chemistry of the blood at one particular moment. Cholesterol numbers change constantly, so it is really not a good measure of ones health.

Sorry to ramble, and I'm not sure if this made sense or not, but bottom line is that cholesterol does not concern me and I was a Nurse Practitioner in the Cardiology field before I turned ND. It makes me feel guilty when I think of all of the cholesterols that I lowered and realise that I was actually defeating the body's natural process.

Hmm. This totally differs from what the China Study says. Not sure about the below 160 putting one at risk for cancer. What's the science on that??:confused:

[Craig]

That one's actually pretty simple. Raw foodist have higher cholesterol levels because the AMA norm of cholesterol is too low. Anything under 160 actually puts the body at higher risk for cancer because it's ability to fight off free radicals is debilitated from the low cholesterol. I try to keep my clients between 175-275 total( so if that's where you are, you are doing well. It's the AMA that is off)... Cholesterol is a reaction to inflammation in the body more so than what a person is eating (although the reaction to some foods can be inflammatory) and it is only a picture of the chemistry of the blood at one particular moment. Cholesterol numbers change constantly, so it is really not a good measure of ones health.

Sorry to ramble, and I'm not sure if this made sense or not, but bottom line is that cholesterol does not concern me and I was a Nurse Practitioner in the Cardiology field before I turned ND. It makes me feel guilty when I think of all of the cholesterols that I lowered and realise that I was actually defeating the body's natural process.



I took a cholesterol blood test before and they told me that I have high blood cholesterol. So what if I have high blood cholesterol. My blood pressure is still in the norm and I am 44.

They can take thier studies and shove it!

[Veganforlife]

I sit and read all these various posts about us raw foodist being deficient in this and that and everyone (newbies and oldbies alike) here on the forum questioning this and that. Think about this. If the SAD/CRAP food was questioned as much as raw food is being scrutinized, which direction do you think folks would go? I'd bet a body part toward raw. If they read "Fast food Nation", by Eric Schlosser, "The China Study" by Campbell, if they watched "The Future of our Food" (sorry can't remember the director), they would really start to question everything they are cramming down their throats. It amazes me that we live on the circle of life called Earth which produces (could produce in abundance) wonderful fruits, veggies, seeds, nuts, EVERYTHING humans, animals and forms of life need to live on, but we play God (or whomever your higher being is) and decide we as humans know better. Who are we kidding? In my perfect world all the doctors and big pharma idiots would work on organic farms. All the fast food places would become organic food stands (REAL fast food places) and life as it was MEANT to be would be worth living. But our world is not perfect.
I come from an era of questioning authority and I have done my share for many a year - I still do, but I am not questioning the Raw diet. It has healed me in less then a year of two devastating illnesses - migraines and a non-functioning thyroid. Illnesses that had me about this close ::holding up thumb and index finger a hair apart:: from wanting off this circle of life. I was not living. I was merely functioning in pain and in unhealth. And in less then a year I am alive and thriving. Healed, cured, absent of all illnesses. Energetic, vibrant, full of life and love.
It makes sense people. Doesn't anyone get that? It just makes sense.

[Stina]

Not sure what ya mean, Stina. Here's the quote:

A 2005 study in the Journal of Nutrition found that raw-foodists were far less likely than the general population to register high levels of "bad" LDL cholesterol.

On this point they seem to be acknowledging a benefit with raw food.

Me not good reader:) eight days fasting......

[Stina]

I sit and read all these various posts about us raw foodist being deficient in this and that and everyone (newbies and oldbies alike) here on the forum questioning this and that. Think about this. If the SAD/CRAP food was questioned as much as raw food is being scrutinized, which direction do you think folks would go? I'd bet a body part toward raw. If they read "Fast food Nation", by Eric Schlosser, "The China Study" by Campbell, if they watched "The Future of our Food" (sorry can't remember the director), they would really start to question everything they are cramming down their throats. It amazes me that we live on the circle of life called Earth which produces (could produce in abundance) wonderful fruits, veggies, seeds, nuts, EVERYTHING humans, animals and forms of life need to live on, but we play God (or whomever your higher being is) and decide we as humans know better. Who are we kidding? In my perfect world all the doctors and big pharma idiots would work on organic farms. All the fast food places would become organic food stands (REAL fast food places) and life as it was MEANT to be would be worth living. But our world is not perfect.
I come from an era of questioning authority and I have done my share for many a year - I still do, but I am not questioning the Raw diet. It has healed me in less then a year of two devastating illnesses - migraines and a non-functioning thyroid. Illnesses that had me about this close ::holding up thumb and index finger a hair apart:: from wanting off this circle of life. I was not living. I was merely functioning in pain and in unhealth. And in less then a year I am alive and thriving. Healed, cured, absent of all illnesses. Energetic, vibrant, full of life and love.
It makes sense people. Doesn't anyone get that? It just makes sense.

Well said Lucy. Proof is in the pudding. My intellectual mind says, hey, like all cultures eat meat all throughout time, animals eat it innocently in nature, eat some meat, as long as it's good for your blood type! But my experience shows that my glands swell up and I get constipated. Not thinking that that's optimal health.

[Dr. White]

I misread too, that it said that LDL's will be higher in raw foodists.

[konmai]

Raw food isn't normal and not normal scares people....

If you feel good in yourself then that is all you need

^^^ That should be the article right there. :p ^^^

Sure. Us raw vegans detox and feel bad occasionally(mostly feeling bad due to detox is caused by our previous way of eating and not the raw foods themselves), but I'm guessing those who are not raw vegan feel bad due to what their eating more so than what we're eating.

[FirstGarden]

I try to keep my clients between 175-275 total( so if that's where you are, you are doing well. It's the AMA that is off)... Cholesterol is a reaction to inflammation in the body more so than what a person is eating (although the reaction to some foods can be inflammatory) and it is only a picture of the chemistry of the blood at one particular moment. Cholesterol numbers change constantly, so it is really not a good measure of ones health.

Sorry to ramble

Not rambling at all, Doctor. I so appreciate the input. The bodily functions are not what we'd call simplistic. It's only regrettable that the AMA treats the matter simplistically. :cool:

[andypdx]

but because the raw-foods diet is so restrictive...

LOL!

Oh, yeah, it's Sooooo restrictive.

On average, most SAD eaters regularly eat about 5 species of animal, and if they're LUCKY, about a dozen species of fruit and vegetable.

It's the same ol' cow, chicken, fish, pig, turkey, corn, wheat, rice, potato, tomato, iceburg lettuce, sugarcane diet played over again and again, every day of their lives.

While little ol' me over here on my "restrictive" diet, has enjoyed close to ONE HUNDRED species of fruits and vegetables on a continuous basis, and can even use these ingredients to simulate the taste of texture of basically any old SAD dish, if I ever had the inclination to do so.

I can make burgers. I can make pizza. I can make lasagna.

Can SAD eaters perform this same magic?

I'd like to see them make a green smoothie out of cow guts! :rolleyes:

Yes, folks...raw vegan is restrictive indeed! :D

[rawgreenyogini]

Can you imagine what would happen if a huge scientific study concluded that a raw vegan diet is the best possible diet and everyone should eat this way?

People would go crazy, nobody wants to admit that meat and cheese and cooked food sucks. Why? Because that would mean CHANGE. They would have to change how they eat. Give up their beloved meat and cheese products. It would be too painful and too damn hard. Plus, SO MANY INDUSTRIES WOULD LOSE MONEY. bottom line

Well said. I think you are right on the money!

What would happen to all the drug companies, the "doctors", the hospitals...?
With only raw vegan foodists in the world there would be far less of the above mentioned, someone wouldn't be a millionaire.