-
Share
Email
Print
October
2
Top 7 Bad Arguments in Favor of a Raw Food Diet
Filed under Raw Food Controversies by Frederic Patenaude
67
Post Your Comments!
Lately, some people have recently decided to engage in a sort of “war of arguments” to try to prove to me that a 100% raw diet is the best diet for everybody, no matter what, in every and all circumstances.
I’m talking about the fanatical raw foodists who are so convinced that their point of view is right, that they can’t seem to stop arguing and pushing their philosophy down other people’s throats.
Even though, all they are doing is rehashing arguments they have read in other raw food books basically word for word.
Some people seem to think that I’ve suddenly become “anti raw foods,” when in fact I’m very pro raw foods.
But, I want people to eat raw food for the RIGHT reasons, and dispel the non-sense that’s been spread over the years on the subject.
So in this two-part article I want to present what I think are the REAL reasons to eat raw, and also discuss the WRONG arguments people use in favor of a raw diet. Let’s start with the bad ones…
Don’t see this as a negative article. Once I’m done exposing the misinformation, I’ll tell you why I still think raw foods are so beneficial.
Top Bad Arguments to Eat a Raw Food Diet
1) Enzymes
This one is easy. Plant enzymes are produced by the plant for its own purposes. For example, a green banana is full of starch and amylase. As the banana ripens, the enzymes in bananas called amylase breaks down the starch into simple sugars and it becomes sweeter.
We produce our own digestive enzymes, like amylase. We don’t need the enzymes in raw foods to help our digestion. In fact, most those enzymes are destroyed when they reach our stomach acid. We also do not have a “limited supply of enzymes” like a few people once thought. Ask any medical professional or true scientist and they will concur.
2) It’s the diet of our “species”, the human species
I admit that for a long time, I used to believe that one and even taught it.
The idea is that every animal has a natural diet. For examples, carnivores, like cats, must eat meat. Omnivores, like pigs, eat a bit of everything.
If we look at nature, we’ll find that the closest relatives to human beings are the chimpanzees. If we compare their anatomy to ours, we’ll find that it’s remarkably similar. And surprise, surprise, they live on fruits and greens! Therefore, we must do the same. Right?
The truth is that humans and chimps have some serious differences. Chimpanzees can eat certain astringent and fibrous types of wild fruits that humans could never digest.
Richard Wrangham, professor at Harvard University, writes compellingly on the topic in his book “Catching Fire”:
“Evolutionary adaptation to cooking might likewise explain why humans seem less prepared to tolerate toxins than do other apes. In my experience of sampling many wild foods eaten by primates, items eaten by chimpanzees in the wild taste better than foods eaten by monkeys. Even so, some of the fruits, seeds, and leaves that chimpanzees select taste so foul that I can barely swallow them. The tastes are strong and rich, excellent indicators of the presence of non-nutritional compounds, many of which are likely to be toxic to humans—but presumably much less so to chimpanzees. Consider the plum-size fruit of Warburgia ugandensis, a tree famous for its medicinal bark. Warburgia fruits contain a spicy compound reminiscent of a mustard oil. The hot taste renders even a single fruit impossibly unpleasant for humans to ingest. But chimpanzees can eat a pile of these fruits and then look eagerly for more. Many other fruits in the chimpanzee diet are almost equally unpleasant to the human palate. Astringency, the drying sensation produced by tannins and a few other compounds, is common in fruits eaten by chimpanzees.”
(…) Astringency is caused by the presence of tannins, which bind to proteins and cause them to precipitate. Our mouths are normally lubricated by mucoproteins in our saliva, but because a high density of tannins precipitates those proteins, it leaves our tongues and mouths dry: hence the “furry” sensation in our mouths after eating an unripe apple or drinking a tannin-rich wine. One has the same experience when tasting chimpanzee fruits such as Mimusops bagshawei or the widespread Pseudospondias microcarpa. Though chimpanzees can eat more than 1 kilogram (2.2 pounds) of such fruits during an hour or more of continuous chewing, we cannot.
(…) The shifts in food preference between chimpanzees and humans suggest that our species has a reduced physiological tolerance for foods high in toxins or tannins. Since cooking predictably destroys many toxins, we may have evolved a relatively sensitive palate.”
If modern-day raw foodists tried to live on what chimpanzees eat in the wild, they would live in a more or less permanent state of indigestion and would likely not be able to survive.
The ultimate proof of this? Look at the foods that raw foodists eat. People love the sweetest mangoes, the sweetest melons, the least acidic oranges, and would cringe at eating very acrid fruit like the “quince.”
Chimps in zoos fed bananas and kale are NOT fed their natural diet. And even so they still prefer hybridized human food, even cooked food compared to their natural food.
Humans produce in their saliva up to 12 times more amylase (an enzymes that digests starch) than chimpanzees do. That’s an evolutionary adaptation to eating cooked starches. We develop this enzyme from the age of 2 and up. (New borns cannot digest starch and should only be fed human breast milk and non starchy fruits up to the age of 2)
The main thing to keep in mind is that over 4 to 7 million years of evolution separate chimpanzees from humans. They may be our closest relatives, but they are very distant ones indeed.
3) We never “adapted” to cooked foods.
The human being has adapted to eating cooked foods, to some degree. This is evidenced by our smaller digestive system, which is 25% shorter than that of chimpanzees (by body size). The idea behind this adaptation is that we are used to eating more concentrated nutrition than they do. We also produce more starch-splitting enzymes, among many other changes.
Richard Wrangham writes:
“All great apes have a prominent snout and a wide grin: chimpanzees can open their mouths twice as far as humans, as they regularly do when eating. If a playful chimpanzee ever kisses you, you will never forget this point. To find a primate with as relatively small an aperture as that of humans, you have to go to a diminutive species, such as a squirrel monkey, weighing less than 1.4 kilograms (3 pounds).”
(…) The difference in mouth size is even more obvious when we take the lips into account. The amount of food a chimpanzee can hold in its mouth far exceeds what humans can do because, in addition to their wide gape and big mouths, chimpanzees have enormous and very muscular lips. When eating juicy foods like fruits or meat, chimpanzees use their lips to hold a large wad of food in the outer part of their mouths and squeeze it hard against their teeth, which they may do repeatedly for many minutes before swallowing. The strong lips are probably an adaptation for eating fruits, because fruit bats have similarly large and muscular lips that they use in the same way to squeeze fruit wads against their teeth. Humans have relatively tiny lips, appropriate for a small amount of food in the mouth at one time.
(…) Human chewing teeth, or molars, also are small—the smallest of any primate species in relation to body size. Continuing farther into the body, our stomachs again are comparatively small. In humans the surface area of the stomach is less than one-third the size expected for a typical mammal of our body weight, and smaller than in 97 percent of other primates. The high caloric density of cooked food suggests that our stomachs can afford to be small. Great apes eat perhaps twice as much by weight per day as we do because their foods are packed with indigestible fiber (around 30 percent by weight, compared to 5 percent to 10 percent or less in human diets). Thanks to the high caloric density of cooked food, we have modest needs that are adequately served by our small stomachs.
(…) The human small intestine is only a little smaller than expected from the size of our bodies, reflecting that this organ is the main site of digestion and absorption, and humans have the same basal metabolic rate as other primates in relation to body weight. But the large intestine, or colon, is less than 60 percent of the mass that would be expected for a primate of our body weight. The colon is where our intestinal flora ferment plant fiber, producing fatty acids that are absorbed into the body and used for energy. That the colon is relatively small in humans means we cannot retain as much fiber as the great apes can and therefore cannot utilize plant fiber as effectively for food. But that matters little. The high caloric density of cooked food means that normally we do not need the large fermenting potential that apes rely on.
(…) The weight of our guts is estimated at about 60 percent of what is expected for a primate of our size: the human digestive system as a whole is much smaller than would be predicted on the basis of size relations in primates.”
Modern day raw foodists do not eat like wild animals. They blend foods, eat highly hybridized, extra sweet fruit, and have many ways to make vegetables easier to chew and digest. That’s because as human beings, we are adapted to eating highly nutritious and more concentrated foods of higher caloric density, as opposed to the low-calorie wild fruits eaten by chimpanzees and other apes.
The modern fruits loved and revered by raw foodists, like bananas, dates and durian, are extremely high in calories and low in fiber, compared to wild fruits eaten by chimpanzees.
There is a really interesting series called Becoming Human that has a wealth of information on how humans were NOT the first upright-walking ape to cook foods and how they helped in our successful domination over other races like Neandertals. It’s also available on iTunes.
4) We are the only animal on the planet who cooks food
I love that one.
“Have you ever seen a wild animal with pots and pans cooking up something? Well maybe that’s the reason they don’t get sick!”
No, I haven’t seen a deer roast some potatoes, but I’ve also never seen a wild chimpanzee blending up bananas in a Vita-Mix, for that matter.
There are a ton of things that wild animals don’t do — like wear clothes, make music and write books. But I have yet to see raw foodists give up those things to live like a wild animal.
By the way, wild animals DO get sick sometimes, mainly due to parasites and viruses. The sick animals also get eaten by predators, before they have time to die of those diseases.
Raw foodists tend to think that wild animals have an awesome life, living in harmony with nature. The truth is that it’s a ruthless world out there. We can learn thing or two from wild animals, but to just use wild animals as examples on what to do is a pretty weak argument.
5) All cooked food is “toxic”
It’s true that cooking changes the food at a molecular level. In some cases, cooking foods at high temperature can create toxins, But it doesn’t mean that all cooked food is toxic.
The biggest culprits seem to be carbohydrate foods that are fried (like potato chips or French fries), and meat that is broiled and browned.
There is no evidence that steaming vegetables or boiling some rice creates toxins that truly harm the human body. Thousands of people around the world switch to a plant based diet, avoid all meat, dairy products, other animal products, refined foods and added oils and eat most of their foods cooked, yet they are able to reverse a wide range of conditions such as:
- heart disease
- In some cases cancer
- obesity
- hypertension
- type-2 diabetes
- and many other diseases
Obviously, if cooking food was the primary reason why people get sick, you would not see these kinds of results on a whole foods, low fat, mostly-cooked, plant-based diet. The types of foods you eat make more of a difference than whether they are cooked or not.
6) There is lifeforce in raw foods that’s destroyed when you cook it
Foods are raw material. That lettuce may be alive when you pick it from your garden, but you can be certain that by the time you digest it, it is long past “dead.”
Don’t tell me that when you blend your vegetables, or chew them aggressively in your month, that you’re not destroying that “life force” that they supposedly have.
7) The Bible Says we should eat raw
A lot of Christians are using the Bible to make it say whatever they want. I was raised as a Christian, and I studied the Bible. To my knowledge, the Bible was not intended as a reference guide on nutrition!
You can take quotes from the Bible, out of context, to make almost any point you want. Some people use it to justify meat eating. Sure, there’s Genesis 1:29, but if you look at the Bible as a whole, you’ll find that the nutrition advice wasn’t too clear.
–
While I may appear critical of raw food diets here, my main goal is to dispel the myths that hurt people. In my next article, I will give you my REAL reasons to eat raw foods. Stay tuned for that!
67 Responses to “Top 7 Bad Arguments in Favor of a Raw Food Diet”
-
Marina says:
Dear Frederic, thank you so much for your wonderful work and all the explanations you provide. This is an excellent, open minded article. I myself have bloathing problems when I eat only fruits and veggies, and I have problem after a meal of steamed sprouted millet or lentils. Honestly, I do not understand why everyone go against whole gluten free sprouted grains and lentils…
-
Sorry, I excluded “no” in the message above. So, I myself have NO problem after a meal of steamed sprouted millet or lentils.
-
Natasa says:
I agree with you that it is quite ok to eat some cooked foods, and that in some circumstances it can be beneficial to children.
But, I do not agree with your statement that 100% raw vegan diet is worse than high raw with some cooked foods. Maybe this statement was not explicit, but one can implicitly conclude this.My opinion is that we do not know this. There are no research on this topic.
So, it is really pointless to discuss this.For me personally, it works better 100% than 90-95%. Sometimes, I do get pain in my stomach from cooked foods and sometimes not. But in the morning I have better smell in my mouth when I eat only raw.
And, I do not find cooked vegetables without seasonings more delicious than raw vegetables (excepts for cooked potatoes, which is not much more mineral nutritious than fruit).I do respect your work and I think that it would be good to have: “Mostly raw diet (vegan)” described in more details, what would be for breakfast, lunch, dinner, some recipes, … It is for sure 100000….% better than SAD
. -
Derek says:
You may want to post facts instead of your own opinion.
-
Julie says:
Wow, this is a very interesting read. I, for one, appreciate both facts (the chimpanzee contrasts for ex) AND your opinion- getting your POV (point of view) is the main reason I subscribe since you have much more time devoted to this conversation and are more willing to be open minded about this than anyone else I’ve come across. Thank you.
-
Great article Frederic! I have to admit that sometimes I get carried away with some of those arguments too! I think the key is to be high raw and also to be able to be adaptable. In our world, I think it’s about being able to find the right balance of eating the best foods we can without necessarily marginalising ourselves. Thanks for sharing – Matt
-
I do not see how the argument that chimpanzees have a different anatomy and a different digestive system discredits an argument in favor for a diet that is best adapted to humans.
The chimpanzee diet is, indeed, different from an optimal human diet. Therefore we would expect to find differences in the anatomy and in the digestive enzymes.
A large portion of the chimpanze diet comes from leafy greens. And so they are not primarily frugivores, or fruit-eaters. Humans, on the other hand, appear to be better adapted to a diet with primarily fruit and only some tender leafy greens.
An interesting study is the comparison between a fruigivore such as the Spider Monkey and a very similar monkey (I forget the name) that happens to eat a large proportion of leafy greens. Though very similar, they have some interesting differences, like the digestive system and even the size of the brain and intelligence. Likewise, one would expect to find anatomical differences between chimpanzees (who eat a large portion of greens) and humans (who are better suited to a fruit-based diet with only few tender leafy greens).
-
Hey Fred, great post.
Derek, why not add something to the conversation with the facts you know to prove or disprove what Fred has written?
Live Awesome!
Kev -
Tyra says:
Thank you.
-
Frederic Patenaude says:
@Basia: i like you way of thinking. I believe this topic is very interesting and merits more research. The logical deduction I will make from the research done on different primates is that the more intelligent primates have access to more concentrated nutrition. For example, leaf-eating primates are not very smart. Their food is of low caloric-density and they spend most of the day digesting. On the other hand, bonobos, who eat mostly fruits, are very intelligent. However, humans are still DRAMATICALLY smarter than the smartest primates on a different order of magnitude. It’s possible that the higher caloric density of human diets have allowed them to develop their brains overtime. Richard Wrangham made a compelling case for cooked foods being the major factor for that change, instead of meat (which is what many anthropologists believe). Maybe there’s more to that story, like the role of fruits in human nutrition. It’s important to understand why certain foods have helped us evolve, and also what is the optimal diet. These are two different topics, not necessarily interdependent for every aspect of understanding. What I hope is that people promoting a raw food diet will stop promoting it for the WRONg reasons.
-
Satch says:
I love this article! It shows some of the things I discovered when I did 95% raw for many months. I had to eat all day it seemed like and I was still skinny as a rail and boy did I have to cram food into my belly. At the end of most days I would still lie there craving some calorie-dense foods. I have settled in on eating low fat vegan with 50-70% raw. My teeth are recovering nicely since I do not have to eat as much fruit even though it is still a healthy portion of my diet. They were really getting sensitive there for a while especially with all the dates and bananas I ate compulsively. I honestly don’t know how the “30 bananas a day” people do it. If I eat 10-15 bananas a day I feel bloated, lazy and stupid.
-
Rock On Frederic !
Keep Stirring it Up !
I was a Raw-food Nazi for the last 10 years. Been on and off raw food since 1987 And now It’s really about what works for people where they can be healthy and happy. If you live a relative long healthy life then so what. Right ?
Do people think that we are going to turn into zombies just because cooked food is are part of our Life now and that 100% rawfood is going to transform us into light and catapult us into the stars on 2012.
What about the oldest living person on record, Jeanne Louise Calment. She made it to 122. She wasn’t raw and rode her bicycle till 100.
None of the oldest people were 100% raw.People need to chill.
Keep it up Fred !!
-
Miriam says:
Frederic, so please share with us what are the RIGHT reasons, because I got bit confused…
-
The RIGHT reasons article is coming very soon. I’ll try to send it out on Thursday…
-
Frederic the Rockstar !
One more thing to add. What about the Eskimos, I wouldn’t go telling them that a raw vegan diet is best. They would starve to death.
Thats why, like you said. What works for people in there own circumstance is best.
Cheers Fred !
-
Great Article Frederick,
Because we are all unique not one diet works for all people. Its best if each individual chooses what is best for their body, mind and spirit. We all instinctively know what is the right way to eat, we don’t always choose it!. keep up the great work
-
Great article, Fred, as usual!
I particularly like point #7. I’ve been getting a lot of emails from people as of late who are going raw because of something stated in the Bible. This really troubles me because it seems that the people who use this as their basis for eating raw won’t look much further into the why’s and how’s of doing the diet correctly (low fat, high carb; eating enough; getting in your greens; supplementing when necessary; other factors of health, etc.).
On the other hand, I also get lots of emails from people questioning a raw food diet specifically because of what is stated in the Bible. One question I get a lot is about grains. I wrote an article on why grains are not ideal a while back and still get emails frequently about why grains are great simply because they are promoted in the Bible.
As you said and as I learned from a philosophy course on the Bible in college, people can use the Bible to support almost any viewpoint.
Swayze
ww.fitonraw.com -
I think people don’t understand what a FACT is. For example, how enzymes work in the body IS a fact. I don’t have to cite a source because I would have to cite every single physiology textbook that already exist. It would be like trying to cite that the theory of gravity is a “fact.” All I’m pointing out is that the arguments that raw foodists use are NOT facts. Plus I’m trying to keep the articles short and not overburden them with quotes and links.
Another thing to understand is something called the “Burden of Proof”. When someone comes up with a theory that goes against existing and accepted truth, the burden of proof is upon THEM to prove it. In the case of the enzyme theory, the burden of proof would be upon YOU to prove to me that the existing theory is wrong, and then we could discuss those arguments. I would like you to come up with just ONE physiologist alive today (just ONE, I’m not asking for much), who thinks that the way enzymes work in the body is bunk, and that food enzymes are necessary for health, and you’d get my FULL attention. I think however I’ll be waiting here forever for that day to come
Same thing for example for the “life force.” Why would I have to prove a negative? In logic, you’re never called upon to prove a negative. I cannot say, “I have proof that there is life on other planets because you CANNOT prove that there is NO life on other planets” That is bunk. If you want to prove there is life-force in food, you have to PROVE it. I don’t have to prove it. Therefore, all I can say is show that there IS no proof and give a few examples. If someone can bring me the PROOF, then I can discuss that in more details.
-
Michele says:
During my experiences with choosing the right diet for me I became, I became overwhelmed with information. I finally decided to look at what I ate in the past vs. what I felt I needed to eat. After finding a medium I feel that I am on a better track. It is such an individual thing.
Thank you for your insights. -
Sara says:
Thanks so so much for your open minded practical and immensely important information. I believe EVERYONE considering (on on) a raw food diet MUST read all your blogs!!
-
Miha says:
Great article.
I would just add to no. 6 that kirlian camera shows difference between some raw foods and cooked foods. But what this cameras show, is probably more ions. -
Erika Shaw says:
Thank you Frederic for addressing the common myths the regarding raw food diet. Your article is filled with good information. I had bought into these myths and hurt myself.
I had been a 100% raw fooder for over ten years and over time became very thin and undernourished. This happened because I could never eat the quantities of raw food required to get enough calories and the level of nutrients needed on a daily basis. Besides that I have a compromised digestive system and did not realize that I was not equipped to digest all of raw food. I am doing fine since I combined easily digestible raw with healthy cooked food. -
What is striking me is the level of fanaticism and blind faith many raw foodists seem to have.
Fer seems to think that “raw” and “cooked” are two religious philosophies.
In reality, people eat FOOD. They eat DIETS. You can make a diet 100% raw, or 80% raw, or 5% raw. There are other components to the diet besides “raw” and “cooked” which are much more important than just “raw or cooked.”By saying “100% raw organic food will always be the healthiest” and that I’m wasting time spinning arguments, you are proving my own point: which is that your arguments are bad.
Then you bring up Natural Hygiene as if it’s some sort of religious faith that one must not question.
Who would even remotely suggest that parasites don’t exist and that viruses are not a reality? Ask Doug Graham himself and he will tell you that you are quite mistaken.
People have DIED on a 100% raw food diet from viruses and parasites in 3rd world countries and being contaminated by drinking water. I know of many people who have tried to heal themselves with 100% 80/10/10 and are still struggling because of the damage from parasites.
In my next article, I will show you what reasons should be used to promote a raw food diet. Unfortunately these reasons do not seem to be very possible.
-
nilsholgerson says:
Dear Frederic, i love his article. How much time i spend to debunk the rawfood myth to get more fun in life. This is a gret freedom work. and the textes on chimpanzes are awesome.
Still ihave some points. actually years ago i hhad a period where i ate a lot bitter tastes and i got used to it. i try to eat mostly local stuff and mostly organic. there was some good hings in this period, also if it wasnt that balanced and i had a 100percent raw time as well. still ithink also we humans have a adaption to bitter taste. i think a lot avoid it ccause of sereral reasons.
I like your open heart. and that you learned a lot langugages your a wonderful honest person. Also that kevin giannni reads your blog and respect you. He also had you at the great health debate.
IN germany you also wrote on the you wrote on the germans and their rawfood scene. now days german rawfoodist got more spread and divers. trend of superfoods from the usa arrrived and the vitamix is more used also gourmett rawfoodi is much more common raw food restaurants in berlin and potlock in a lot big citites. Still the “urKost” ( kinda paleorawveganism”) .critiques and sceptics call its Ur-kotz was is the german slang for throw up.
Urkost is a extrem diet and Konz the founder based his theory on primates. he did his research in the US libaries and in connection with the natural hygene movement. This people eat a lot wild edible plant and also plants containing tannins like the acorn. from the oak tree. and other berries.
the most popular followers beside Franz Konz are briggitte Rondholz and Dirk Riske, a former bodybuilder who healed cancer with rawfood and still training on his Raw food.It would be challanging and hopefully inspirationing to challanges this URKOST followers with your newest facts. Im actually to much in enjjoying life for this job. maybe someone else wanna challange on this hard rrock..
now i come to tthe kirlian fotography one proof of light. i dont know how much this count for you. i know for some it count much. and this iis a proof ffor life. if this link is dead. search fro images “kirlian fotography rawfood”
http://www.google.com/search?q=kirlian+fotography+rawfood&rls=com.microsoft:de:{referrer:source%3F}&oe=UTF-8&rlz=1I7_____de&um=1&ie=UTF-8&hl=en&tbm=isch&source=og&sa=N&tab=wi&biw=1024&bih=574
They found in island or more on viking settlement towrards newfundland crashed bones. and they interpret it as a method to get everything out of the bones and make a broth with it.
For me this is a sign that food has a value if its needed and that there is waste which we can make nourishing.Another story i wanna tell. its on isuma.tv its from the inuit. they got resettled by the canadian goverment. Sorry that your coincidentally youre canadian. what ever?! they got settled to a place up north where its is harrsh to life and only possible to hunt when you have time to prepare. Still the goverment kinda forced and manipulate them. So a lot families moved up north in uncommon environment. They had hhunger so they try to silently go to the military base up there and stole the trash from the militars. This people normaly rely on the food they hunt. through this fast cchange and the actions from the canadian offficials and the military the people get in poverty and in shortcut of food. you can watch the shortfilm on isuma.tv .its called “exile”.
Also this shows we give ffood worth from the environmen we live in!! The life food have is the life we see in food!!! And each environment ggive us other view on this!!!
I wish i would havve more examples.
I wanna add one crazy theory, by people wanna go wild or rewild. its the theory and its a bit crazy or beside rational. its a bit naiv or childish. and maybe more at the origin from the rawfood children revolt.
ITs that humans always looked for the animals they lived with and learned from their behavious.
this is ffindings you ffind in science. What is more crazy and parascience is that people learn from flys bees insect spiders cats dogs. whatever the animals they living with. so that is a bit bizarr rawfood theory still i have heard it years ago. ITs says that you can eat a apple cause a wasp like it are cause a fly like sweet fruit or bacteria likes sweet fruit so we can like sweet fruitt.i personal beleif we humans are to stupid to realy find own solution. we only can interpret them in the right way. we learn and cope everything from outside. be it flys little insect. or monkeys. or other animals or plants or mold.
there arre humans who have a mold in a applejuice botttle as a kinda pet!!!!
a applejuice-mold- pet!!! We learn ffrom the world outside. may it be light crystals or whatever. or insects or bacteria.take care you are a wonderful guy!!!!
ITs so important to speak on this questions. nd topics. hope kevin will mention its a rennegate health.
-
sans says:
Great article. I like how you present your research without getting preachy. Thank you
-
the only reason i stay nearly high raw is the cleaning aspect of cooking.
-
Brian Greco says:
Fer – *Frederic’s* views lack authority/science/common sense?! Are you kidding me?
Without even my own opinion or having anything relating to the diet information itself, your statement is just incorrect.
Fred has written a long article quoting scientific research and findings, as well as input from his 14+ YEARS of experience with this and having met thousands of people involved in this field.
And you write a 6-line comment with fascistic dogma as if NH or eating fruit was a religion, and discount all of this?
I know I will never convince you because you are SO set in your ways, and I don’t even know who you are because you are hiding behind a 3-letter username in a comment section of a blog, but I just felt compelled to put in my thoughts there because what you are saying is unsubstantiated and just ultimately rude.
**Because remember…**
This is Frederic’s website and he is free to write what he pleases. And what he is writing is to help people and share information and experience and ultimately promote and agree with so much of what you’re saying: eating lots of fresh fruit and veg, keeping this low fat and veg, and so on. Yet you’re condemning him because what he is saying strays from the dogma you are attached to. And all in all, no one is forcing you to be here.Brian
-
In general what promotes health through diet is easy digestion. The less strain, the better we feel. Then we might have the importance of relative synchronicity. That would be eating whole food, including steamed or boiled. There is one aspect of high raw and high fruit and that is you just feel more joy for some reason and then I am not talking about sugar high. Maybe it has to do with low fat and therefore better flow of blood and other streams within the body. Yoga and Qi Gong promotes flow of blood and energy within the body. So would the easily digested low fat fruits and vegetables. Makes sense to me.
-
Ryan says:
Everything you say here Fred, sounds like the truth.
People need to get off their high horses and stop thinking that EVERYTHING they think is correct.
Can you image how bummed scientists felt once the world was discovered to be round? How certain do you think they were that it was?
Take everything with a grain of salt, go with what SEEMS sensible and TRY it.
Only then will you know the truth.
The truth for me is eating mostly raw and only when I’m hungry
1) I have less energy (Less brain power AKA foggy brain)
2) I eat lots during the day (I work, do you know how hard it is to fit in eating over 45 minutes which includes buying the food over two breaks to sustain you for 8 hours? IT’S NOT EASY! I have to snack often which brings me to my next point)
3) I get sensitive teeth as stated by Satch
Fred posted facts obviously through experience, with common sense and my own experience I believe what he has written.
Remember people cooked food has been a part of our diet for a couple of million years or so, of course that’s going to affect our physiology.
-
“Fire destroys!”
Who said anything about fire?
We’re taking about common sense cooking here.
Steaming & boiling (around 200 degrees Celsius)
Not 1200 degrees fires! Jesus.
-
Well said Ryan! Rely on your own experience and your sense of logic. No need to close off your mind and blindly try to convert everybody else.
-
Fire as cooking method has a diffferent intense than potcooking or steaming. also through the smoke of natural wood. probably it is carcinopgen or unhealthy. still it has a life energy.
-
Oh My! says:
Right on, Derek.
And there’s waaaay too much here to address in the short amount of time I have to view this page.
Anyways, this was disappointing.
-
http://www.isuma.tv/hi/en/isuma-productions/exile-0
look this documentary, then you know that lifeforce in food is beside cooking or raw.
-
Fer it was my first book written years ago. I have since updated and am on the 3rd edition of Raw Secrets.
Many raw leaders deny ever being wrong. I am not one of them.
-
Dr Robert Lockhart says:
Thank you for a valuable and insightful article Fred. I do recommend you and all our fellow raw food travellers obtain and read “Left In The Dark” by Tony Wright and Graham Gynn, which discusses why our brains have effectively been shrinking, and we as individuals and as a society, have become more dysfunctional over the last 200,000 years since we started cooking our food, and moved away from the exposure to the biochemical mix that was provided in the tropical forest environment, by the fruits and greens provided therein.
Respectfully yours,
Dr Robert Lockhart. -
Frederic,
I appreciate the work that you have done, but I must say that in my own personal experience and research that some of your facts/opinions are only partially founded. And, without the desire to contribute to your “war of arguments” the one area which I take the most exception to is your argument about the Life Force of foods. The Life Force is not about “biology or physiology” it is about energy which is immutable and digestion has little to do with or the ability to change the “living energy” of a substance. This energy, however can do much to contribute to the living energy which animates all human beings. Like begets like comes to mind. So foods which are still living have a very real capacity to enhance or, otherwise, contribute in a sympathetic manner to the “living energy” or Life Force of another living system.
Just something to ponder. -
Tom says:
Aloha Fred : Once again a big thank you for opening up the conversation. 10 years ago I too was looking at the raw food diet as my panacea. The desire for the “simple solution” seams to pave the paths most of us walk. This human body is so complex most people can not figure it out, or be willing to accept that everyones path maybe different then our own. What happened to us that we can not see that “being right” serves no one. We all want to feel good and do our best. For me, if that means sharing a birthday cake with someone I love; why hold onto a diet. Mahalo for growing, evolving, right in front of us Fred. Inspiring.
Aloha Tom -
Dave says:
Hi Fred – I’m a little confused.. In your last post you talked about feeding children grains, legumes and potatoes, and saying how most raw children you come across are not healthy, but in this article you say “We develop this enzyme from the age of 2 and up. (New borns cannot digest starch and should only be fed human breast milk and non starchy fruits up to the age of 2)”. So you wouldn’t give kids cooked food until they are 2? Thanks.
-
I would not recommend cooked starches for kids under the age of 2. Up until 2 they should have mainly breast milk and fruits and low starch vegetables.
-
Wow, that’s twice in a row you’ve surprised and impressed me, Fred! I’ve been a vegetarian (mostly vegan) for 30 years and off-and-on dabbler in raw vegan. I started getting your emails several years ago, but, to be honest, quit reading them because I thought they were too ‘purist’ at the time, with a lot of emphasis on the ‘wrong’ ways to eat. Recently, I have shifted to very high raw, and started reading your articles again, and I’m so glad I did! Imagine my surprise to find you actually defending the idea that maybe, just maybe, we aren’t totally screwed if we – gasp – feed our children a bit of cooked food or, – gasp – actually eat it ourselves!
I like that you are still promoting raw vegan, but are challenging the rigid dogmas associated with it. A major reason why I haven’t stuck with the raw vegan diet is guilt. If I ate a baked potato – horrors! – I felt that I had FAILED. For some reason I had this all-or-nothing attitude and unless I was 100% raw, I felt really bad about it, continually vowing to do better ‘tomorrow.’
Recently, I finally made peace with allowing myself to eat that occasional baked potato or steamed broccoli or whatever. And guess what? I find myself doing that less and less! It seems that once I let go of the rigid constraints I had put on myself, I’ve been able to just naturally gravitate towards what is healthier.
Overall, I agree with most of what you said, and I am very surprised to learn about the differences in anatomy, the preferences of monkeys given a choice, etc. All of the info you presented is very enlightening and I look forward to the next article!
I’d like to comment on 3 points:
1. The Bible can be used to justify anything. Look at how much violence, bigotry and other atrocities have been committed because of some passage in the Bible. The Bible gives clear instructions for genocide, ritual sacrifice and infanticide – does that mean we do that too?
2. The mainstream scientists tend to say, “the body is designed to do xyz” but often fail to take into consideration that the average person’s body isn’t necessarily functioning optimally. For example, they’ll say, “the colon will expel all waste” but obviously those eating a lot of meat and junk have toxic colons. Likewise, I’m wondering if, even tho the human body is ‘supposed’ to manufacture all its own enzymes, does it actually do that? I’ve attended lectures by Viktoras Kulvinskas (whom I know you’re obviously familiar with) and Christian Drapeau (world renowned expert on microalgae) and both emphasis the importance of adding enzyme supplements. I’m wondering whether you’ve considered their views on this subject.
3. You’re right: The lifeforce issue cannot be proven. However, I’d like to share my opinion on that, fwiw. It’s true that you can’t prove a negative. I actually do agree with the ‘life force’ theory but would never presume to be able to prove it. It’s not something that is provable, but is a spiritual belief that one either agrees with or they don’t. My personal opinion is that ALL lifeforms, whether plant or animal, have ‘lifeforce’ but when an animal is killed, his soul immediately leaves the body, so what is left is dead matter. This is because, imo, the animal has evolved to the point where it has an individuated consciousness. Whereas, plants have group consciousness, not yet individuated. A dead animal can still provide the raw materials to sustain the human body, but it doesn’t add ‘lifeforce’ because the soul is long gone by the time it’s eaten. But when a carrot is pulled from the ground, it’s still alive, and when we eat it, it doesn’t die but is TRANSFERRED to us. Sort of like pouring a cup of water into the ocean – the water is not separate but merges. Animals, being more evolved than plants, already have separate souls, so there is NO merging when eating an animal. But raw plants don’t have separate souls, just lifeforce, and when we eat them, they impart their lifeforce to us. So the advantage to eating raw plant foods isn’t just about keeping the body running in a mechanical way – cooked foods or even meat can do that – but the difference with raw plants is that they ALSO add lifeforce – ie. they go above and beyond just keeping the machine running.
It’s silly to think that eating raw will magically make us ascend (if you believe in that spiritual stuff). However, a diet high in raw plants can lighten our vibration, thus assisting in our spiritual process.
Again, I’m NOT claiming anything as FACT – these are just opinions that I thought I’d share, just to clarify why some people believe eating raw plants is more ‘spiritual’ than eating cooked. I just know I feel lighter, clearer, and more spiritually awake when my diet is lighter and higher in raw.
-
I agree you don’t need to have absolute scientific proof in order to do something! My original point was to show that raw food diets are not credible because they use too many bad arguments without any strong foundation. If they used better arguments, this diet would gain more recognition.
-
The only part I didn’t like was talking about the fact that chimps prefer cooked food over their normal diet. If we are talking about health here what difference does it make what they prefer? Most humans would prefer pizza to raw vegetables but does that mean its better for us? I don’t see that as a logical argument.
-
Martin T says:
Regarding your point #5 about cooked food not being “toxic,” it may not be “toxic,” but there certainly cooking food removes moisture from it and changes the molecular structure; obviously certain foods are more easily digested in cooked form – or can only be eaten cooked – but if a food can be eaten in raw or soaked or sprouted form, then it would make sense to eat it in that form rather than cooking it. For example, I fail to understand why people cook buckwheat or quinoa – or even oats – when they are so easy to digest if you just soak them overnight, and become even better if you then sprout them for a little while.
Regarding point #6 about “life force”, I think that clearly many people’s experience is that fresh, uncooked raw food seems to have a certain energetic quality to it that cooked food simply does not have; and Kirlean photography shows raw food has some type of energy field surrounding it that cooked food does not have. Just because we do not yet know precisely how to measure this higher energy (or electrical potential or electro-magnetic state or “life force”) that seems to be inherent in raw food does not mean it does not exist. I believe that those whose intuitions (and Kirlean photography) have led them to conclude that raw food has a certain “life force” to it are correct. That “life force” is only very partially destroyed in a blender, but it seems to be more fully destroyed by cooking. Therefore, argument #6 in favor of raw foods is not a “bad argument,” it is simply an argument that you do not fully understand and that is difficult to define and measure precisely at present.
-
Great points.
-
Suzanne says:
Great article, Frederic!
One thing to consider: So many people are made to feel guilty if they are not on a 100% raw diet, and in some cases, it’s just not possible. There are people in this economy who simply can’t afford it. Have you seen the prices of fruits and vegetables lately? They used to be the “poor man’s food”–not now. Some of us have had to rely at times on food pantries and food stamps just to feed our families any food at all. You say check out farmer’s markets? What if you have no transportation and can only shop within walking distance and purchase what you can carry home? This is the reality for many people. They can make still nutritious choices, such as some fruits, some vegetables, whole grains and legumes (whole foods, low-fat, plant-based diet) instead of filling up on processed junk foods. We all have to do what is right for us and be encouraging, not judgmental, towards others. Your views are very balanced and encouraging. Keep up the good work!
-
Giselle says:
Hi Fred,
Thanks for all of ur emails, books, lectures, & newsletters. All I know is ever since I follow everything u say I feel much better.
First of all my digestive system works much better
No mor Migrains
No more Virtigo
My Titnus is under control
I have more Energy
I sleep less
My Memory is better
Thanks to U I feel Great, so keep up the good work & don’t let some people put u down. I read every single e mail I get from u, & I recommend u to everyone who is interested in what i do to subscribe to ur website. U keep me motivated all the time & I have learned so much from u. So keep all those newsletters coming.
Idk what I would have done without u.Thanks Fred
Giselle -
What about Enzymes Fred U never mention Enzymes. Do we need to take it or not?
-
Hi Giselle! Supplemental enzymes are not necessary. Some supplemental enzymes have been capsulated to effectively work and not get neutralized in the stomach. However there has to be a real reason to take them.
-
People like to say that we haven’t adapted to cooked foods. Well other animals don’t cook their foods and yet prefer eating cooked foods when possible even though they may not have “adapted to it”. But we know for a fact that humans and pre humans have been eating cooked foods for hundreds of thousands of years and pre humans for millions. In that span of time if cooked food was so toxic and they could not adapt to it, we would not be here today.
We are highly adaptable, that is why we beat out all the rest and colonized the entire planet. It is more complicated than raw food is health food and cooked food is toxic. Clearly feeding people steamed veg and potatoes every day would not be so toxic as to kill them and give them degenerative diseases. We know this.
Raw food benefits have much better reasons than the arguments above.
-
han. says:
Ah, I love sensible people. It’s refreshing. Thanks Fred! *Glares at idiotic raw food nazis*
-
David Stein says:
Thank you, Fred, for this most helpful article! I cannot express enough about how your article today ahs helped me. You are very brave, to speak the rtuth in a no nonsense way. This has helepd me to dispel the erronoeus myths that I have stupidly believed in for over 15 years. I also intuitively knew that cooked food could not be toxic. In fact I find ti best to eat a combination or raw and cooked foods. What is important is when you eat and also how much.
Thanks again for a truly life changing article!
-
Hey Fred,
Your post has many holes unfortunately and, I think the failure to make it work lies in the way you might have applied and integrated raw food within your life style.
Fred, why don’t you add the facts about raw food instead just plaster the internet all over with what you “think”? One could experience different levels of health and healing on raw foods, yet to be 100% raw foodist require enough dedication and passion to make it work.
The so called references you pointed out in the text each and there are very weak indeed!
Live Truthful!
Jazz -
yura.k says:
Thank god for Doug Graham
No intelligent person will follow AN IDIOT like you with no qualifications, trying to make money at all cost.
People like you should be DEAD!
-
yamina says:
This question of enzymes is very passionating. I am just now reading books from Edward Howell who stated that we inherit a capital of enzymes that, once depleted, leads to death. Other names of this capital : vital energy, nerve energy, etc. Only this capital determines lifespan. According to this author, enzymes that are not found in food have to be secreted by the organism, task which does not permit to work at repairing functions, for instance. And those enzymes in food are only existing in raw foods. If your bananas, ripen with their own enzymes are cooked, it would cause an excess of amylase production in the body, with exhaustion of pancreas. I am just at the beginning of my searchs, but I found this statement of inhereted and limited capital quite scaring. Damned ! What have I done with this capital with all the cookies I have eaten ?! Even our emotions, joy, happiness are related to this capital ! Very passionating and serious subject that your arguments in the first lines of this article moderate. But where’s the truth ? Do our wishes prevail on the inflexible laws o nature ? Is Howell wrong ? Are Frédéric’s arguments more reliable ? Or do exist other laws than the scientific or the emotional ? My very imaginative mind tends to prefer this third possibility. But before reaching my own conclusions, and why not writing my own (amazing) book, I have to study this matter thoroughly, et il n’y a pas assez de 24 heures dans une journée ! Thks for your very interesting blog !
-
Godwin says:
Yura.k seems to be in need for some Omega 3. No one should get away with this kind of language. Heated debate is ok. But saying someone should be dead is a threat and should be taken as such.
-
Wow, yura, that was really hateful. Comments like that do a lot of damage to the raw foods movement. The rest of us get judged by others as being ‘hateful fanatics’ or ‘raw foods bigots’ because of such comments. Not only that, but how is being so hateful EVER ok?
Also, I think many of the posters have missed the point. Fred isn’t suddenly championing cooked foods! He is objectively analyzing the common arguments and finding their flaws. And he said he will follow this article with some good reasons to eat raw. But many have seized upon this to come out of the woodwork and twist his words into a justification for eating not only cooked foods, but even meat??
People are missing the point.
-
I agree with Godwin. Yura’s comment was totally UNacceptable! Yura, you can disagree all you want, but there’s no reason to get so ugly! I don’t agree with Fred on everything, but he is entitled to his opinions. And duh it is HIS blog!
-
Chris says:
To me, experience and longevity show the best results. For 29 years I lived on the Standard American Cooked Food Diet. I had every illness possible beginning early in life!
At age 30 I became cooked food vegan. Better, but still caught every cold, flu, bronchitis, pneumonia, etc. At age 51 became raw vegan; it is now 7 years later and I’ve never been sick for even 1 minute ever since becoming raw vegan. Say whatever you like, you cannot tell me that the Raw Vegan Diet is not superior to all others. I also eat predominantly plant foods and have vibrant boundless energy, so please don’t say that those who eat plant foods will be low energy or sleeping all the time, laying flat and such. Perhaps during detox, but not after.
On the few rare occurrences I eat a baked potato, if I go out to an occasional dinner with friends and can’t get them to understand a LARGE salad.. I’ll add a plain baked potato because wait staff can understand and acccommodate that – - but I won’t feel great after.. its comforting and smells good. . but it drains my energy and puts weight on. Thanks but no thanks. I’ll remain raw.
Whatever you decide, thanks for remaining vegan! Above all, be ‘conscious’ and kind to the animals. For me, I’m raw and vegan all the way.
-
Chris, I’m glad to hear you are enjoying great health! But just out of curiosity, you say you are ‘raw vegan’ but then say you eat ‘predominately’ plant foods. The definition of vegan is 100% plant foods. So I am curious what else you eat that’s not plant?
-
Monica: I mean I eat more plants than fruit. I consume a small amount of fruit each day, a small amount of nuts and seeds.. and large amount of plants.
Yura.. What are you thinking!! You need to apologize!! That’s a terrible thing to say. There is never room to speak to any-one or any-thing in such a manner. .
-
Rick says:
Your statements that, “We don’t need enzymes in raw foods to help our digestion;” that, “We also do not have a “limited supply of enzymes” like a few people once thought.” and to “Ask any medical professional or true scientist and they will concur,” are indeed factually incorrect.
And Kevin Gianni’s endorsement of your post, “Great post, Fred…” is reckless and irresponsible.
Neither you nor Gianni are “medical professionals or true scientists”, but you both are earnestly supported by individuals (such as myself) who trust you are doing a reasonable job of researching the work you present to the public. Food-enzyme health has long been the cornerstone of the raw-food-health argument and for you to dismiss a half-century of research* without any explanation citing any peer-reviewed research is just plain sloppy and arrogant.
* “Dr. Edward Howell (“Enzyme Nutrition”) and Dr. Hiromi Shinya (“The Enzyme Factor”) are two of the most respected “medical professionals and true scientists” in the field of enzyme research. Both have proven through “documented clinical evidence” and “peer-reviewed research” we can “tremendously strengthen our gastrointestinal characteristics — and thus our (overall) health — by following A DIET THAT SUPPLEMENTS ENZYMES (from fresh, whole fruits and vegetables). Shinya/”Enzyme Factor”/p 4…
Both Drs. Howell and Shinya concur “that the number of enzymes a living thing can make during its lifetime is predetermined and fixed”. And both concur that, “if uncooked foods are eaten, fewer of your body’s internal digestive enzymes will be called upon to perform the digestive function. That, “…hundreds of scientific papers have shown that (while) peptic digestion of protein takes place in the lower parts of the stomach, initial pre-digestion occurs in the upper part of the stomach and is PERFORMED BY EXOGENOUS ENZYMES (enzymes from the food we eat). Howell/”Enzyme Nutrition”/pp 51, 52.
Please cite the peer-reviewed research which support your claims that (1) “We don’t need enzymes in raw foods to help our digestion;” (2) “We also do not have a “limited supply of enzymes” like a few people once thought.” and (3) “Ask any medical professional or true scientist and they will concur.”
-
Please cite the peer-reviewed research which support your claims that (1) “We don’t need enzymes in raw foods to help our digestion;” (2) “We also do not have a “limited supply of enzymes” like a few people once thought.” and (3) “Ask any medical professional or true scientist and they will concur.”
-
You don’t have to prove a negative… you missed the point. If we needed these things there would be peer reviewed research that shows this and clinical studies. The books you quoted from do not have sound studies to use as arguments.
Scientists know how enzymes work in the body, you will produce less if you are sick, but you do not “run out” and need to “eat food for enzymes”
-
I’m not “missing the point.” Your point is non-sensical.
You state that: “We don’t need the enzymes in raw foods to help our digestion. In fact, most those enzymes are destroyed when they reach our stomach acid. We also do not have a “limited supply of enzymes” like a few people once thought. Ask any medical professional or true scientist and they will concur.”
Asking you to prove that, is not asking you to “prove a negative”. It’s asking you to BACK UP YOUR OWN STATEMENTS that, “We don’t need the enzymes in raw foods to help our digestion. In fact, most those enzymes are destroyed when they reach our stomach acid. We also do not have a “limited supply of enzymes” like a few people once thought. Ask any medical professional or true scientist and they will concur.”
Again, please cite the peer-reviewed research which support your claims that (1) “We don’t need enzymes in raw foods to help our digestion;” (2) “We also do not have a “limited supply of enzymes” like a few people once thought.” and (3) “Ask any medical professional or true scientist and they will concur.”
-
Laura says:
Dear Frederic, Thank you so dearly for your leadership and unequivical honesty. You have helped me so much as well as countless others. My raw vegan life turned the corner when I decreased my fat intake and began fasting. I have very strong convictions as you do yet ultimately remember everyone must do what is best for them as that is what I am doing for myself and it is working magnificently. What I am doing is very sacred to me and allowing much freedom and great fun in life unlike in past times. No one can label it or argue or criticize what I have found to work for me and that I cherish very deeply.
I am a registered nurse with a passion to help people especially with mental health issues. That Yura woman appears to be mentally ill and I am sorry for her terrible comment of hatred.
Thank you again Frederic, you are awesome.
-
This discussion is degenerating into a negative one, so I will close comments. Feel free to comment on the follow up article, which contains more details.
Some food for thought.
1) The Food Enzyme theory is NOT substantiated by science. I will provide necessary references in a future article from physiology textbooks. In the meantime, I ask you to consider the following.
- Many long-term promoters of the raw food diets have recognized the food enzyme theory to be a fraud. Dr. Harris, long-term vegetarian and raw foodist, is one of them. Watch this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ySD1s8C0oBw- If you prefer to read, Dr. Harris did a thorough debunking of the food enzyme theory:
http://www.vegsource.com/harris/raw_vs_cooked.htm- Open any physiology book and learn a little bit about how enzymes work in the human body. Nowhere will you find any mention of food enzymes to be necessary for digestion
- Food Enzyme advocates have the burden of proof to provide a SINGLE study done in the last 30 or 40 years that proves that food enzymes are NECESSARY for digestion. Quoting an old book by long-dead author Howell will not do it.
- Although I don’t endorse all views on the BeyondVeg sit, they have a great article on food enzymes:
http://www.beyondveg.com/tu-j-l/raw-cooked/raw-cooked-2b.shtml- Again, the food enzyme theory is not recognized science. To ask me for peer-reviewed “journals” on this fact is a little bit ridiculous. It’s like asking me for peer-reviewed journals on established knowledge, like proving that the cells of the body run on glucose and NOT on electricity, as has been claimed by some fake “scientists” lately. Open ANY textbook on physiology and try to find any substance behind the fact that food enzymes are necessary for digestion. You won’t find it.
- Physiology textbooks are beyond scientific journals. You publish in a scientific journal when you have a theory that is not part of established scientific knowledge or goes against an established fact. Food enzyme advocates should really produce a recent study on the subject if they wan’t to substantiate their claims.
- Ask Doug Graham what he thinks of the food enzyme theory.
- There is no point in talking about food enzymes when eating fruit because fruit does not require many enzymes to digest because it is literally “pre-digested.” So food enzymes matter in the sense that they convert the starch into simple sugars before you even put it in your mouth. In that sense food enzymes matter. When you eat fruit there are very few enzymes left because they’ve already been utilized by the plant.
Read the follow up article to this one:
http://www.fredericpatenaude.com/blog/?p=2103
