Re: Do the raw foodists have a point?

March 30, 2005

You can do a lot of things with a food dehydrator. There are even recipes for "bread" that are technically raw.

To some it means vegan, to others organic, and I recall some who eat raw meat.

Raw milk? can they spell Louis Pasteur?

Fertile eggs? I can recall when that was thought to be a no-no.

"our bread bulged with brown, grainy nuggets. " bread implies cooked, right?

March 30, 2005

Hi folks:

I guess the issue is .......... do people who eat only raw food

live longer or healthier lives than those who eat some raw and some

cooked foods. If they want to convince me they need to start by

taking groups of mice, feeding the groups differently and taking a

look at the incidence of diseases and lifespan among the groups.

But life isn't, yet, long enough for each of us to do our own

experiments. So someone else is gonna have to do it for me.

The advocates of these diets are the obvious ones to do it ..... if

there are any of them in universities who have the qualifications and

wherewithall to produce good research. In the meanwhile I am going

to rely on the research that has already been published that I know

about. Like the stuff that gets posted here.

Rodney.

> You can do a lot of things with a food dehydrator. There are even

recipes for " bread " that are technically raw.

>

> To some it means vegan, to others organic, and I recall some who

eat raw meat.

> Raw milk? can they spell Louis Pasteur?

> Fertile eggs? I can recall when that was thought to be a no-no.

> " our bread bulged with brown, grainy nuggets. " bread implies

cooked, right?

March 30, 2005

There is the issue of some foods being healthier cooked. Tomatoes are

sone such example. Lycopene is best released from cooked tomatoes with a

bit of (healthy) fat.

on 3/29/2005 8:12 PM, Rodney at perspect1111@... wrote:

>

> Hi folks:

>

> I guess the issue is .......... do people who eat only raw food

> live longer or healthier lives than those who eat some raw and some

> cooked foods. If they want to convince me they need to start by

> taking groups of mice, feeding the groups differently and taking a

> look at the incidence of diseases and lifespan among the groups.

>

> But life isn't, yet, long enough for each of us to do our own

> experiments. So someone else is gonna have to do it for me.

>

> The advocates of these diets are the obvious ones to do it ..... if

> there are any of them in universities who have the qualifications and

> wherewithall to produce good research. In the meanwhile I am going

> to rely on the research that has already been published that I know

> about. Like the stuff that gets posted here.

>

> Rodney.

>

March 30, 2005

I'm not finding a lot of support for the " raw food only " idea on line.

Perhaps if someone can subsist on only fruit and veggies, they might

eat it just raw. Probably started with the juicers.

Some foods change radically, like onions when sauted I can eat, not

raw, so there are chemical changes that take place in food when it's

cooked. But I see no advantage unless you're trying to get a specifc

chemical like that in cabbage and it has to be raw.

Regards.

> > You can do a lot of things with a food dehydrator. There are even

> recipes for " bread " that are technically raw.

> >

> > To some it means vegan, to others organic, and I recall some

who

> eat raw meat.

> > Raw milk? can they spell Louis Pasteur?

> > Fertile eggs? I can recall when that was thought to be a no-no.

> > " our bread bulged with brown, grainy nuggets. " bread implies

> cooked, right?

March 30, 2005

I have compiled a list of the 25 or so studies on Raw Fooders with their

abstracts and some minor comments by me if anyone wants to see it. I can post it

to the list or send it privately.

About half are somewhat postivie and half are somewhat negative.

I was a 100% raw fooder for several years. The question is, can you meet all

your nutritional needs while consuming only raw foods? As with any dietary

regime, the answer is yes, but as with any dietary regime, you must know what

you are doing.

Several of the theories that raw foods are based on have no basis in science

and/or misrepresent the science. The most common ones are the works on

Pottengers cats, the keuchokoff (sp?) studies (which i have the translated

versions of) and the enzyme theory. And, they can use a lot of substances, that

while raw, may not be the healthiest (ie sodium, fat, etc).

There is a trial going on right now here in S FL because a over a year ago, a

infant died while being fed a raw food diet. When they checked in on the

family, the other two children were removed as they appeared malnourished.

The case is about to go to court and I was asked to be an expert witness in

defense of the raw food diet. I declined. The reason is, My response was that

a raw food diet could be nutritonally adequate, but from what I knew this was

not a case of raw foods vs a more traditional diet, this was a case of

malnutrition, as these " crazy " parents malnourished their kids. It was not a

question of what they feed them, but quantity and variety, and I cant defend

that. And the babay was of an age that it should have been still being

breastfed. (PS, these comments are all based on what appeared in the paper and

not any inside info I have, as I Dont want to be sued) I had written a

letter to the editor of the paper at the time, defending what they called

" alternative " diets, and seperating out these issues.

Regards

Jeff

________________________________

From: jw wright [mailto:jwwright@...]

Sent: Wed 3/30/05 8:56 AM

Subject: [ ] Re: Do the raw foodists have a point?

I'm not finding a lot of support for the " raw food only " idea on line.

Perhaps if someone can subsist on only fruit and veggies, they might

eat it just raw. Probably started with the juicers.

Some foods change radically, like onions when sauted I can eat, not

raw, so there are chemical changes that take place in food when it's

cooked. But I see no advantage unless you're trying to get a specifc

chemical like that in cabbage and it has to be raw.

Regards.

> > You can do a lot of things with a food dehydrator. There are even

> recipes for " bread " that are technically raw.

> >

> > To some it means vegan, to others organic, and I recall some

who

> eat raw meat.

> > Raw milk? can they spell Louis Pasteur?

> > Fertile eggs? I can recall when that was thought to be a no-no.

> > " our bread bulged with brown, grainy nuggets. " bread implies

> cooked, right?

March 30, 2005

I’d like to see the abstract Jeff.

And thanks for the offer

Braniff@...

From: Jeff Novick

[mailto:jnovick@...]

Sent: Wednesday, March 30, 2005

6:07 AM

;

Subject: RE: [ ] Re:

Do the raw foodists have a point?

I have compiled a list of the 25 or so studies on Raw Fooders with

their abstracts and some minor comments by me if anyone wants to see it. I can

post it to the list or send it privately.

About half are somewhat postivie and half are

somewhat negative.

I was a 100% raw fooder for several

years. The question is, can you meet all your nutritional needs

while consuming only raw foods? As with any dietary regime, the answer is

yes, but as with any dietary regime, you must know what you are doing.

Several of the theories that raw foods are based

on have no basis in science and/or misrepresent the science. The most

common ones are the works on Pottengers cats, the keuchokoff (sp?) studies

(which i have the translated versions of) and the enzyme theory. And,

they can use a lot of substances, that while raw, may not be the healthiest (ie

sodium, fat, etc).

There is a trial going on right now here in S FL because a over a year ago, a infant died while

being fed a raw food diet. When they checked in on the family, the other

two children were removed as they appeared malnourished. The

case is about to go to court and I was asked to be an expert witness in defense

of the raw food diet. I declined. The reason is, My response

was that a raw food diet could be nutritonally adequate, but from what I knew

this was not a case of raw foods vs a more traditional diet, this was a case of

malnutrition, as these " crazy " parents malnourished their kids. It

was not a question of what they feed them, but quantity and variety, and I cant

defend that. And the babay was of an age that it should have been still

being breastfed. (PS, these comments are all based on what appeared in

the paper and not any inside info I have, as I Dont want to be sued)

I had written a letter to the editor of the paper at the time, defending what

they called " alternative " diets, and seperating out these

issues.

Regards

Jeff

________________________________

From: jw wright [mailto:jwwright@...]

Sent: Wed 3/30/05 8:56 AM

Subject: [ ] Re: Do the raw foodists

have a point?

I'm not finding a lot of support for the " raw

food only " idea on line.

Perhaps if someone can subsist on only fruit and

veggies, they might

eat it just raw. Probably started with the

juicers.

Some foods change radically, like onions when

sauted I can eat, not

raw, so there are chemical changes that take place

in food when it's

cooked. But I see no advantage unless you're

trying to get a specifc

chemical like that in cabbage and it has to be

raw.

Regards.

> > You can do a lot of things with a food

dehydrator. There are even

> recipes for " bread " that are

technically raw.

> >

> > To some it means vegan, to

others organic, and I recall some

who

> eat raw meat.

> > Raw milk? can they spell

Louis Pasteur?

> > Fertile eggs? I can recall

when that was thought to be a no-no.

> > " our bread bulged with

brown, grainy nuggets. " bread implies

> cooked, right?

March 30, 2005

Thanks very much, Jeff, as usual, a well defined statement.

I wonder if there is any particular reason one would use an all raw diet, as opposed to one raw and cooked, like what do we miss other than the vitamins like C which might be cooked out?

For example, is indole 3 carbinol (sp?) cooked out of cabbage?

Obviously some are improved absorption like lycopene, but you don't have to cook a tomato to get lycopene.

I suspect that I could add to the "you must know what you are doing. " a statement that your body must become adapted and that may not be possible/easy at age.

Regards.

----- Original Message -----

From: Jeff Novick

;

Sent: Wednesday, March 30, 2005 8:06 AM

Subject: RE: [ ] Re: Do the raw foodists have a point?

I have compiled a list of the 25 or so studies on Raw Fooders with their abstracts and some minor comments by me if anyone wants to see it. I can post it to the list or send it privately. About half are somewhat postivie and half are somewhat negative. I was a 100% raw fooder for several years. The question is, can you meet all your nutritional needs while consuming only raw foods? As with any dietary regime, the answer is yes, but as with any dietary regime, you must know what you are doing. Several of the theories that raw foods are based on have no basis in science and/or misrepresent the science. The most common ones are the works on Pottengers cats, the keuchokoff (sp?) studies (which i have the translated versions of) and the enzyme theory. And, they can use a lot of substances, that while raw, may not be the healthiest (ie sodium, fat, etc). There is a trial going on right now here in S FL because a over a year ago, a infant died while being fed a raw food diet. When they checked in on the family, the other two children were removed as they appeared malnourished. The case is about to go to court and I was asked to be an expert witness in defense of the raw food diet. I declined. The reason is, My response was that a raw food diet could be nutritonally adequate, but from what I knew this was not a case of raw foods vs a more traditional diet, this was a case of malnutrition, as these "crazy" parents malnourished their kids. It was not a question of what they feed them, but quantity and variety, and I cant defend that. And the babay was of an age that it should have been still being breastfed. (PS, these comments are all based on what appeared in the paper and not any inside info I have, as I Dont want to be sued) I had written a letter to the editor of the paper at the time, defending what they called "alternative" diets, and seperating out these issues. RegardsJeff

March 30, 2005

Some time ago we discussed the fact that cooking will kill bacteria,

protozoa, and parasites thereby making food safer to eat.

Last year, I remember some raspberries from Chile were recalled after

they were found to carry some kind of pathogenic bacteria.

Frequently, produce imported from other countries has fecal

contamination due to the way that the plants are fertilized.

Raw meats and fish (even smoked fish), oysters, may have parasites

that can cause human diseases. Trichina (Trichinella spiralis) is a

parasitic nematode worm that causes trichinosis. It can occur in

pork, but it is killed by cooking.

Toxins from bacteria such as botulism toxin, which is a protein, is

denatured and made harmless by cooking.

Cooking is one of the best ways of increasing longevity by eliminating

parasites, pathogens, and toxins from the food that we eat. Do any

centenarians eat raw food?

Tony

===

Some additional reading:

Parasites and Foodborne Illness

http://www.fsis.usda.gov/oa/pubs/parasite.htm

Candle Nut (Aleurites moluccana) The raw nut is mildly toxic, but once

cooked is quite safe.

http://www.asiafood.org/glossary_1.cfm?alpha=C & wor

did=3247 & startno=1 & endno=25

March 30, 2005

To emphasize the point regarding imported produce, our new au pair

from Ecuador (who went to medical school there) was shocked that I

was not using soap to soak and wash strawberries. She said to simply

rinse them in her country would not make them safe to eat, and that

people get very sick, especially children, if the strawberries are

not washed extremely well. I now understand, too, why she is not

accustomed to eating raw vegetables and always wants to cook them.

She is having to get used to eating raw salads, because we serve

them with most lunches and dinners. On the other hand, their meat

supply may be safer, because I've had to be very explicit about

treating raw meat and poultry as a hazard.

--- In , " citpeks " <citpeks@y...>

wrote:

>

> Some time ago we discussed the fact that cooking will kill

bacteria,

> protozoa, and parasites thereby making food safer to eat.

>

> Last year, I remember some raspberries from Chile were recalled

after

> they were found to carry some kind of pathogenic bacteria.

> Frequently, produce imported from other countries has fecal

> contamination due to the way that the plants are fertilized.

>

> Raw meats and fish (even smoked fish), oysters, may have parasites

> that can cause human diseases. Trichina (Trichinella spiralis) is

a

> parasitic nematode worm that causes trichinosis. It can occur in

> pork, but it is killed by cooking.

>

> Toxins from bacteria such as botulism toxin, which is a protein, is

> denatured and made harmless by cooking.

>

> Cooking is one of the best ways of increasing longevity by

eliminating

> parasites, pathogens, and toxins from the food that we eat. Do any

> centenarians eat raw food?

>

> Tony

>

> ===

> Some additional reading:

>

> Parasites and Foodborne Illness

> http://www.fsis.usda.gov/oa/pubs/parasite.htm

>

> Candle Nut (Aleurites moluccana) The raw nut is mildly toxic, but

once

> cooked is quite safe.

> http://www.asiafood.org/glossary_1.cfm?alpha=C & wor

> did=3247 & startno=1 & endno=25

March 30, 2005

Good points all... I have experimented with freeze cooking which could provide

some of

the benefits of both. I don't have a commercial freezer cold enough to kill many

bugs,

but I can break down cell walls and somewhat increase bioavailability of

nutrients.

I suspect variety when it doesn't compromise food safety is good path.

JR

-----Original Message-----

From: Berkovitz [mailto:michelleberkovitz@...]

Sent: Wednesday, March 30, 2005 9:47 AM