The Rawtarian Community
The Rawtarian Community is one of the largest online raw food communities. In addition to this community forum, you can browse and search thousands of community recipes added by over 5000 talented Rawtarian Community members just like you!
Visit The Community
Comments
Ok, I have found and read “The influence of food cooking on the blood formular of man” by P. Kouchakoff. I was disapointed. This is not a scientific paper! It is the notes for a speech given at a scientific conference. There is no data shown in the transcript and no references to any published scientific papers! As I wrote above, to be accepted as proper research it is important that a scientist submits their work for peer review, this hasn’t happened in this case. Scientists attend conferences to talk about their work, either current or recently published (in a peer reviewed journal). Sometimes work discussed at these meetings does not make it past the scrutiny of other scientists and when this happens it can’t be published in a scientific journal and also can’t be considered good science. Basically if the reviewers fail work it is because the work has errors in it, maybe the data was interpereted wrongly, maybe there were a few experiments missing before these conclusions can be reached. Once the submited paper has failed, the author can do more experiments or change his conclusions and re-submit, if nessesary time and time again. But if it never ends up getting published in a scientific journal then there is a good reason for this! For this reason the above mentioned piece of work must be considered unreliable, at worst, completely flawed.
BTW: the last post is not meant to sound anti-raw, I am not anti-raw I am pro raw and currently working hard to increase the amount of raw me and my boyfriend eat.
But there is so much good scientific research that has passed the peer review test that I am incredulous as to why, old, unproven “scientific research” is held onto, it just makes us look like fools that can’t tell true from false and that undermines the good work that is being done to promote raw food diets.
Lulu you said earlier in the thread “(Please don’t start throwing stones, i’m really tiny!)” but now it seems you are the one throwing stones and making assumptions which has no hold in reality so I will stop my discussion with you now, I respect your opinion and hope you have a wonderful day!
Jah Bless, Ras Saadon.
Each individual person should decide for him or herself which way of eating is best for their body to be healthy and fulfill it’s needs. Not by following what everyone else says works for them. Everyone is unique, therefore requiring different needs for their body.
Hi Ras and everyone else – I agree with Spring about the cancer-related compounds found in some cooked foods, especially BBQed meats and stuff.
I feel that the other benefit of raw foods, being of course the ONLY thing every animal on the planet eats except for us, is the presence of food enzymes in them that help in the initial breakdown and digestion. This is where Springleaf and I (along with most raw foodists) disagree.
Let me clarify a few things. Nothing has been disproven from Howell’s work. I have the book Enzyme Nutrition, and there are LOADS of referenced studies from the 30s, 40s, 50s, 60, 70s, and 80s. Just because some of the earliest studies were not peer-reviewed doesn’t mean they are invalid.
I’ve been to BeyondVeg and reviewed his comments there. I mean, he pulls out ONE sentence from ONE study to dispute the impact of pre-digestion of ONE type of food (a complex carbohydrate). It’s taken out of context, and the same study is referenced over and over.
BeyondVeg takes issue with Howell’s use of the term “life force.” Howell quoted the term too, because it’s just an analogy and that’s just the term he came up with. The reason is that enzymes seem almost magical in their contributions to all aspects of metabolic function in the body, and just because some of the functionality of the 4000+ enzymes is unknown doesn’t mean his theories are invalid. Enzymes are both kind of a chemical and biological entity, and the essence of what makes them “tick” are still not completely understood. It’s kind of like how Einstein used the term “god” in describing some of the aspects of time and space, although he didn’t believe in any kind of supernatural entity. He could have said “Mother Nature”, but his topic was so much more encompassing, he wanted a grander analogy. However, his use of the word “god” was taken by some to prove that he believed in god, which he didn’t (Einstein later said that his biggest mistake was ever using that term).
BeyondVeg has its own agenda that is not consistent with raw foodism, but he tries hard to “prove” his arguments using logic and singular studies that just don’t work for me. The agenda is a bit transparent, and the arguments somewhat specious and weak.
He keeps coming back around to Howell’s use of “life force” as a term of mysticism, but that his term! Howell made no such claim.
I would also like to mention the human use of cooking. The earliest undisputed use of fire is 310,000 years ago. It is unlikely that was for cooking, more likely for warmth and to ward off predators. And, being the earliest, it is likely then that hominids were only able to harness naturally-occurring fires initially. Creating fire and using it to cook were most likely much, much later in human evolution and thus our DNA have not adapted much of any, if any, benefit from it.
The split from our last common ancestor is considered to be about 6-7 mya (million years ago), and if we are generous and say that we’ve been cooking for 300,000 years (very generous and unlikely), then we’ve been cooking maybe the last 1/12 of our modern existence. If one considers all of hominid evolution and uses realistic numbers for cooking, were talking about 24 mya and 50,000 years of cooking (it really may only be about 10,000 but we’ll stay generous). Then we’re in the range of 1/500th of our evolution.
I doubt one could claim that we’ve improved on evolution by cooking. Sure, some fibrous plants and meats are sort of broken down a little bit, but most of the other nutrition is lost through cooking (enzymes at 118 or so, vitamins after that, and proteins gradually throughout and then 80% or more denatured at higher temps). Dangerous chemicals are created as a by-product of cooking.
Animals that are fed cooked food don’t live as long as those fed raw food. The same foods!
Do you think if we start giving steaks or potato chips or steamed vegetables to gorillas in the wild that they will live longer, or get stronger? It’s very, very unlikely. There’s nothing to show that that’s likely, and a lot of info to show that it’s not.
I don’t think we’re spoiled eating raw foods. Maybe buying raw cacao nibs and other things shipped all over is, but the entire animal kingdom and almost ALL of human evolution and many primitive societies don’t cook! It’s not a luxury, it’s natural. Cooking is a luxury, and fuel is expensive.
Lulu, I agree with your ethical reasons for being vegan. I think everyone should be, but it seems like you’re trying to justify eating some cooked food. That’s fine, and some is probably okay.
Our bodies compensate by pumping out more digestive enzymes, but of course there is a metabolic cost to that. Nothing is free. Animals that are given cooked foods get enlarged pancreases from the extra enzymes they have to crank out, and they don’t live as long.
Peace.
i agree with lulushka8 here. human beings are ADAPTABLE. just look at eskimos – you’re telling me they’re on a high fruit raw vegan diet? i’m sure there are plenty of omni’s out there living full healthy lives. saying one diet is more “natural” than the other isn’t strictly true. i choose vegan because it’s the food diet that sits best with my ethics and the best one for the planet, no question. i choose high raw because i’m conscious of my health and want the freshest food possible in me, but I’m PRAGMATIC with it. If some crew are going for a meal after a day out in town, I’m not gonna beat myself up if I go eat with them at the vegan cafe and have some vegan cheesecake. I’m happy with my 90/95% raw diet, and the use of fortified soy milk for my b12 consumption.
Hi streets – not sure if you’re addressing me or not, but I just wanted to reiterate that cooking is too recent in human evolution for our bodies to “know” cooked food. It’s alien to us, which is why our white blood cell count jumps when eating cooked but not raw. I guess in that sense eating cooked food is not natural…
But of course, a little is okay. Everything is on a continuum.
I don’t disagree either that it’s sometimes not easy or convenient.
I am not wealthy, and I am a very happy 100% raw fooder. I live in the UK, and it has been easy fr me to maintain this. For me, being 100% is way easier than being even 99% raw because of the cooked food craving and being knocked off my raw high that the cooked food creates for me, in my personal experience.
When I first went raw, everytime I unwittingly ate cooked food, realised it was not raw (like nuts for example) and cut it out, I felt much, much better. It took me about a year to transition from vegan to 100% raw, but even if it takes 10 years, who cares? Just do what truly makes you happy, and be honest with yourself about what true happiness means for you, i.e. happiness is NOT satisying a craving for an addictive substance.
It always made a huge difference to me. It is easy, pleasurable, not too expensive as I don’t eat much now, and it is the best way for me to live.
I am an advocate for this way of living because it is doing so much for me.
wow…i just started eating raw and boy am i now feeling pressured ;) I am still transitioning but my body is not liking all the raw stuff, i,e. the fiber…bad bad tummy aches and i am detoxing way too fast so i have to go slower…now i feel like i need to jump right in no matter how i am feeling…what a heated debate!!!!
take your time!!! transition slowly. I took 3 years to get to 100%.
mickmaster: Great review of BeyondVeg!!! Spot On!