21 replies to this topic

[infinityXme]

I'm interested in exploring further a raw food lifestyle. I know I'll never be 100% raw, but I'd like to include more raw food into my diet. Presently, I'm only about 30% raw. Question, what do you eat for breakfastif you're a raw food fanatic? How do you manage with meal preparation? I have to prepare some meals ahead of time. I'd like more than salad and smoothie suggestions. Also, have you experienced better skin, better health, reversal of gray hair on raw food diets? I've read all sorts of claims but don't believe half of them.

[Ace of Zardoz]

I consume a large percentage of raw food in the form of fruits and vegetables. As for some of the claims of raw food diets, theyre total BS. Others are true. Raw foods tend to have lower GI's, more vitamins and minerals as well as natural enzymes remaining intact. I find that I feel much better and have better digestion and recovery from training on a largely raw diet. As for better health, I feel that is has definitely given me better health and my recent blood tests have improved greatly.

Whats wrong with carrot sticks, celery sticks, whole fruits, etc?

As for food ideas ... http://rawfoods.com/recipes/ is a good place to start. Also http://vegweb.com/in...php?board=154.0 is an excellent place for raw food recipes and each category listed contains a decent amount of recipes. Those two site alone are a wealth of recipe and food ideas but you should be able to find a ton of ideas just by googling "raw food recipes" as a search term.

The only way to know how a raw food diet works for you is to dive into it. Some people feel like its a miracle cure and others dont feel it benefits them much.

I personally feel historically humans ate raw foods for far longer than cooked foods and most foods are better off raw. Though items like corn, carrots and tomatoes benefit from cooking as it raises their antioxidant availability greatly.

[kismet]

"natural enzymes remaining intact" - name one such enzymes that is beneficial and win a prize. I could come up with very few examples if any..

Ok, so raw or lightly cooked is healthier as a rule of thumb, but usually the enzyme thing is just out of the propaganda playbook.

Science will be your guide. Ignore testimonials.

[niner]

"natural enzymes remaining intact" - name one such enzymes that is beneficial and win a prize. I could come up with very few examples if any..

Ok, so raw or lightly cooked is healthier as a rule of thumb, but usually the enzyme thing is just out of the propaganda playbook.

Science will be your guide. Ignore testimonials.

Yeah, I saw all the enzyme blather on one of the sites linked above. The guy writing it actually made a point of saying that he was using terms "loosely", which suggests that "living enzymes" is just a metaphor for something else. I would venture that to be the lack of exogenous AGES, which I consider to be the primary advantage of raw diets. There is ample evidence from the Vlassara lab that exogenous AGES are significantly disadvantageous. The raw world is a little too cult-like for my tastes, not to mention steeped in scientific ignorance, nevertheless I would like to move my diet in the raw direction. Whether or not I make the effort to accomplish this remains to be seen. The taste and convenience of cooked food are kind of addictive.

[Ace of Zardoz]

"natural enzymes remaining intact" - name one such enzymes that is beneficial and win a prize. I could come up with very few examples if any..

Ok, so raw or lightly cooked is healthier as a rule of thumb, but usually the enzyme thing is just out of the propaganda playbook.

Science will be your guide. Ignore testimonials.

Proteases, Amylases, and Lipases which are naturally present in raw food are destroyed or damaged when heated above 118 degrees roughly. These classes of enzymes help break down and improve digestibility and assimilation of the food consumed. Proteases break down protein, amylases break down carbs and lipases break down fat.

As we age we produce less enzymes in the body reducing our ability to naturally get the most out of what we ingest. Why make it harder to digest food by cooking it and destroy vitamins and minerals in addition to the enzymes?


There is also this issue:

In 1930, under the direction of Dr. Paul Kouchakoff, research was conducted at the Institute of Clinical Chemistry in Lausanne, Switzerland. The effect of food (cooked and processed versus raw and natural) on the immune system was tested and documented.

Dr. Kouchakoff's discovery concerned the leukocytes, the white blood cells.
It was found that after a person eats cooked food, his/her blood responds immediately by increasing the number of white blood cells. This is a well-known phenomena called 'digestive leukocytosis', in which there is a rise in the number of leukocytes - white blood cells - after eating.
raw foods and leukocytes


Since digestive leukocytosis was always observed after a meal, it was considered to be a normal physiological response to eating. No one knew why the number of white cells rises after eating, since this appeared to be a stress response, as if the body was somehow reacting to something harmful such as infection, exposure to toxic chemicals or trauma.

Back in 1930, the Swiss researchers at the institute of Chemical Chemistry made a remarkable discovery. They found that eating raw, unaltered food did not cause a reaction in the blood. In addition, they found that if a food had been heated beyond a certain temperature (unique to each food), or if the food was processed (refined, chemicals added, etc.), this always caused a rise in the number of white cells in the blood.

[infinityXme]

"natural enzymes remaining intact" - name one such enzymes that is beneficial and win a prize. I could come up with very few examples if any..

Ok, so raw or lightly cooked is healthier as a rule of thumb, but usually the enzyme thing is just out of the propaganda playbook.

Science will be your guide. Ignore testimonials.

Yeah, I saw all the enzyme blather on one of the sites linked above. The guy writing it actually made a point of saying that he was using terms "loosely", which suggests that "living enzymes" is just a metaphor for something else. I would venture that to be the lack of exogenous AGES, which I consider to be the primary advantage of raw diets. There is ample evidence from the Vlassara lab that exogenous AGES are significantly disadvantageous. The raw world is a little too cult-like for my tastes, not to mention steeped in scientific ignorance, nevertheless I would like to move my diet in the raw direction. Whether or not I make the effort to accomplish this remains to be seen. The taste and convenience of cooked food are kind of addictive.

I like the taste and convenience of cooked foods also, but am interested in immortality, so I may need to venture out of my comfort zone to achieve it. If you don't believe a raw food diet will be beneficial to you, then why would you do it? If your brain doesn't fully believe it will help, then most likely it won't. I'm very much of the school of belief that the brain controls the body. Say something is so and it becomes so. Like the placebo effect.

[xEva]

Proteases, Amylases, and Lipases which are naturally present in raw food are destroyed or damaged when heated above 118 degrees roughly. These classes of enzymes help break down and improve digestibility and assimilation of the food consumed. Proteases break down protein, amylases break down carbs and lipases break down fat.

As we age we produce less enzymes in the body reducing our ability to naturally get the most out of what we ingest. Why make it harder to digest food by cooking it and destroy vitamins and minerals in addition to the enzymes?

That's typical rawfooders propaganda, based on plain disinfo. What you list here applies to animal foods, which indeed are better digestible raw (but who wants the associated risks?) It has nothing to do with vegetable foods, simply because their nutrients are enclosed in cell walls made of cellulose which is hard to break. Rawfooders never ask themselves why vegetarian animals need such huge guts and why they are always chewing. Certainly not because their food is so easy to digest, ah?

However, the raw food diet is a good substitute for CR, exactly because it is more difficult to extract nutrients from raw than from the same food cooked. The glucose levels are lower and its rising and falling curve post meal is much smoother, while the stomach is pleasantly full. Plus, yeah, certain vitamins are better preserved, but then it is balanced by some vitamins that are better assimilated cooked..

So... if you want to promote your raw food lifestyle, drop that pseudo-scientific "enzyme" crap. That's what tuns people off.

[Ace of Zardoz]

Proteases, Amylases, and Lipases which are naturally present in raw food are destroyed or damaged when heated above 118 degrees roughly. These classes of enzymes help break down and improve digestibility and assimilation of the food consumed. Proteases break down protein, amylases break down carbs and lipases break down fat.

As we age we produce less enzymes in the body reducing our ability to naturally get the most out of what we ingest. Why make it harder to digest food by cooking it and destroy vitamins and minerals in addition to the enzymes?

That's typical rawfooders propaganda, based on plain disinfo. What you list here applies to animal foods, which indeed are better digestible raw (but who wants the associated risks?) It has nothing to do with vegetable foods, simply because their nutrients are enclosed in cell walls made of cellulose which is hard to break. Rawfooders never ask themselves why vegetarian animals need such huge guts and why they are always chewing. Certainly not because their food is so easy to digest, ah?

Actually it applies to all food types not just meat. Its also not propaganda. Raw meat has no major risks when handled properly either. Look at japanese cuisine which happens to have many raw elements to many dishes such as sashimi, raw egg dishes or some sushi dishes. I have eaten raw animal proteins both meat and eggs most of my life with zero illness. Everything from fish and other seafood to beef to a wide variety of animal eggs all raw and I have never suffered from any food poisoning my entire life. So raw meat being a risk is a myth when it is handled and prepared appropriately.

The fact is cooked fruits, vegetables and grains tend to have a significantly higher GI as well as triggering a rise in white blood cells which is an immune response. They also tend to be less digestible. Not propaganda at all.

The only animals with huge guts as you say are cellulose digesters ie grass eaters they chew cud to release nutrients from high cellulose plants.All animals eat their food raw unless you know of some animal that can cook food? No offense but you dont seem to have a good grasp on the topic you are trying to discuss. Please educate yourself better before trying to say something is propaganda or incorrect. I love how many points are ignored to try to pick apart a nonexistent flaw through a strawman maneuver.

However, the raw food diet is a good substitute for CR, exactly because it is more difficult to extract nutrients from raw than from the same food cooked. The glucose levels are lower and its rising and falling curve post meal is much smoother, while the stomach is pleasantly full. Plus, yeah, certain vitamins are better preserved, but then it is balanced by some vitamins that are better assimilated cooked..

So... if you want to promote your raw food lifestyle, drop that pseudo-scientific "enzyme" crap. That's what tuns people off.

CR and raw food is compatible I think its optimal to do both. I integrate as much raw food as possible into CR including the occasional raw egg (cooking oxidizes cholesterol). Im not promoting anything btw. Only clearing up misconceptions and ignorance about a lifestyle many are so against without any true knowledge on the subject. There is a lot of propaganda out there on ALL food diets period but I think raw foods offend people most because people are so attached to cooking.

It is NOT more difficult to extract nutrients from raw food. Thats purely speculation. Glucose levels are lower because cooking hasnt destroyed the structure of the food. This doesnt make it harder to extract nutrients but rather prevents a sudden rush of broken down sugars which is what happens when you consume a cooked carb vs a raw carb such as fruits and vegetables for example. Raw food is more ideal as it is lower GI which has nothing to do with digestibility.

Very few foods or vitamins or substances are enhanced by cooking. Largely most food is deteriorated widely by cooking meaning that most nutrients will be reduced and it will spike insulin more in cooked form vs raw.

Enzymes play a very real role in food and science both. Try digesting carbs without amylases in your body. lol Its science not pseudo-scientific crap and frankly you happen to be a very rude person who seems to apply pseudo-knowledge to many things.

This thread isnt about promoting raw foodism but rather education and sharing of knowledge.

[niner]

"natural enzymes remaining intact" - name one such enzymes that is beneficial and win a prize. I could come up with very few examples if any..

Ok, so raw or lightly cooked is healthier as a rule of thumb, but usually the enzyme thing is just out of the propaganda playbook.

Science will be your guide. Ignore testimonials.

Yeah, I saw all the enzyme blather on one of the sites linked above. The guy writing it actually made a point of saying that he was using terms "loosely", which suggests that "living enzymes" is just a metaphor for something else. I would venture that to be the lack of exogenous AGES, which I consider to be the primary advantage of raw diets. There is ample evidence from the Vlassara lab that exogenous AGES are significantly disadvantageous. The raw world is a little too cult-like for my tastes, not to mention steeped in scientific ignorance, nevertheless I would like to move my diet in the raw direction. Whether or not I make the effort to accomplish this remains to be seen. The taste and convenience of cooked food are kind of addictive.

I like the taste and convenience of cooked foods also, but am interested in immortality, so I may need to venture out of my comfort zone to achieve it. If you don't believe a raw food diet will be beneficial to you, then why would you do it? If your brain doesn't fully believe it will help, then most likely it won't.

I absolutely believe it would be beneficial. So would CR, but that doesn't mean I will actually accomplish either of them. Eating raw looks like it's a lot of work, relative to cooked food. Partly I'm sure that's just my ignorance of the methodology. I continue to hold as a goal moving toward a more raw diet, but I have to be realistic about my ability to pull it off in the near term.

[sthira]

I'm interested in exploring further a raw food lifestyle. I know I'll never be 100% raw, but I'd like to include more raw food into my diet. Presently, I'm only about 30% raw. Question, what do you eat for breakfastif you're a raw food fanatic? How do you manage with meal preparation? I have to prepare some meals ahead of time. I'd like more than salad and smoothie suggestions. Also, have you experienced better skin, better health, reversal of gray hair on raw food diets? I've read all sorts of claims but don't believe half of them.

I've been a (mostly) raw vegan for several years, and I find it healthy and easy. Eating a wide variety of raw fruits and vegetables is a great habit to cultivate -- whatever your level of interest. I'm not 100% raw because many vegetables are better cooked (tomatoes, carrots, sweet potatoes, brussel sprouts, others). It's not a religion as it seems to be for others, and I ignore wild, irresponsible claims. It's just food. Food is not magic. So many of these raw food gurus are exploiting the ignorance and desperation of sick people. And like the purveyors of so many vitamins, they're just making a buck. I ignore the enzyme talk. I use the Cronometer, and supplement what's lacking (usually B-12, D, calcium) I don't pay any attention to protein comments -- although I used to listen.

You asked about breakfast: I grind up flax seeds and use it and some walnuts, almonds, pistachios as a bed for blueberries, and it's kind of like cereal. I don't eat anything packaged. As for meal preparation -- I just eat a lot of salad, and try to make salads as colorful as possible, with a lot of variety. I keep trying new vegetables -- it's fun and interesting -- I try to eat organic as much as possible. It seems silly to not try to limit exposure to poisons in food -- it's one area of pollution I can (partially) control. I try to limit over consumption of giant, sugary fruits. I have zero concerns about GMOs.

As Kismet says, I try to follow the science, and when the science eventually changes (it will), I'll bend to fit the new. I'm eating this way to 1. extend my healthspan, 2. leave a smaller personal footprint on the ecology, 3. because I'm concerned about the cruel treatment of commodified animals in the meat business. What are the longterm benefits? Who knows... But I do have low blood sugar levels, low body temperature, low blood pressure, low BMI, and pretty average looking blood numbers. Skin and hair? Oh, I'm sure I "look my age" and I try to stay realistic about all that...

[1kgcoffee]

I experimented with mainly raw foods diet for some time. The community is interesting with a lot of mystics roaming around but very little science beside superficial cherry picked studies. When science doesn't agree with them, they simply ignore it. My advice for anyone considering it is to have a look at long-time practitioners like Doug Graham, Juliano and David Wolfe. There is a lot of posturing but few of them have any real knowledge. Those that do are silent members of the community. The one exception might be Dr Brian Clement. Could be bad genes, but Graham looks like shit, Juliano () like a holocaust survivor and David 'Avocado' Wolfe who used to look good is FAT and starting to show his age.

The diet is far from balanced and tough to digest. As opposed to lightly cooked foods, there are fewer digestible nutrients and greater anti-nutrients.

[Matt]

doesn't help that they spend so much time in the sun. Raw fooders have this believe that the sun doesn't cause damage and doesn't age you. Once I made a comment on a popular raw foodist channel, Kevin Gianni, and the comment was deleted because I stated that the sun does damage the skin and too much is going to age you faster. I think a raw food diet is good, but I don't like to get involved with them too much. Some of the raw foodists can be a little strange, they get the information wrong so wrong a lot of the time, they exaggerate a lot, and believe in crazy things that I'm even gonna bother to mention haha.

[JLL]

I personally feel historically humans ate raw foods for far longer than cooked foods and most foods are better off raw.

That doesn't really mean much unless you also specify the time periods during which raw vs. cooked foods were eaten. If we ate raw foods for the first 150,000 years and then cooked for the last 100,000 years, our genetics would be more adapted to cooked food, even though we'd have eaten raw foods for longer.

Fire and cooking are old inventions. Maybe there are benefits to eating raw foods (though I am skeptical of less exogenous AGEs being one of them), but arguing from an evolutionary perspective is pretty much a doomed idea.

Edited by JLL, 14 December 2010 - 03:30 PM.

[kismet]

That doesn't really mean much unless you also specify the time periods during which raw vs. cooked foods were eaten. If we ate raw foods for the first 150,000 years and then cooked for the last 100,000 years, our genetics would be more adapted to cooked food, even though we'd have eaten raw foods for longer.

Fire and cooking are old inventions. Maybe there are benefits to eating raw foods (though I am skeptical of less exogenous AGEs being one of them), but arguing from an evolutionary perspective is pretty much a doomed idea.

Well, I always wanted to shoot down this particular line of evolutionary reasoning. So here we go. The "we ate stuff for XYZ but let us ignore the preceding period" argument really doesn't fly. Our ancestors ate raw food for about 4 billion years, this is a significant issue. Anyway, two problems: Whether adaptation to heated food occurred depends not just on time, but on the actual adaptive value and how ingrained the metabolic pathways were that needed change. Do you know the answer to those questions?* And - this always plagues evolutionary reasoning - whether the adaptation that actually happened, if much at all happened, is beneficial to longevity (or any other modern goal: well-being, intelligence, athleticism) IS NOT A GIVEN.

Evolution favours the passing on of your genes, they could be adaptive by providing (massive short term) survival benefits while shortening your life- and healthspan (e.g. antagonistic pleiotropy) or not.

*if you argue that adaptation is fast. Ok, but still remember, this may weaken your arguments against neolithic foods.

Therefore, arguing mainly or solely from evolution is a lost position both for or against raw foods; for or against almost any eating habits. Understanding evolutionary change is only easy in retrospect once the evidence is in. And, of course, the AGE evidence does not favour your view that much..

Edited by kismet, 14 December 2010 - 07:31 PM.

[Thorsten3]

doesn't help that they spend so much time in the sun. Raw fooders have this believe that the sun doesn't cause damage and doesn't age you. Once I made a comment on a popular raw foodist channel, Kevin Gianni, and the comment was deleted because I stated that the sun does damage the skin and too much is going to age you faster. I think a raw food diet is good, but I don't like to get involved with them too much. Some of the raw foodists can be a little strange, they get the information wrong so wrong a lot of the time, they exaggerate a lot, and believe in crazy things that I'm even gonna bother to mention haha.

Too much time in the sun? I hope we are all in agreement that the sun in resonably small and sensible doses is very healthy for us. You can't generalize about all raw foodists like that. Some actually have sense. Me being one of them. Even if I am out in the sun for just 5-10mins it gives me a crucial boost in vitamin D which has a cascade of health benefits and then I'm done. If you do this sensibly I don't see how this would age the skin massively. People who stay out in it for too long though are asking for trouble (aging of the skin would be the least of my worries if that was me).

[Logan]

doesn't help that they spend so much time in the sun. Raw fooders have this believe that the sun doesn't cause damage and doesn't age you. Once I made a comment on a popular raw foodist channel, Kevin Gianni, and the comment was deleted because I stated that the sun does damage the skin and too much is going to age you faster. I think a raw food diet is good, but I don't like to get involved with them too much. Some of the raw foodists can be a little strange, they get the information wrong so wrong a lot of the time, they exaggerate a lot, and believe in crazy things that I'm even gonna bother to mention haha.

Too much time in the sun? I hope we are all in agreement that the sun in resonably small and sensible doses is very healthy for us. You can't generalize about all raw foodists like that. Some actually have sense. Me being one of them. Even if I am out in the sun for just 5-10mins it gives me a crucial boost in vitamin D which has a cascade of health benefits and then I'm done. If you do this sensibly I don't see how this would age the skin massively. People who stay out in it for too long though are asking for trouble (aging of the skin would be the least of my worries if that was me).

Some people here are entirely too sun phobic IMO. I can't imagine having not spent so many wonderful days out in the sun feeling amazing just because I thought that sun exposure of any amount would damage my skin. As long as you have sunscreen on and you don't end up with noticeable change in skin tone and color, I don't see why spending a day in the sun would be bad for anyone. I just think you sun phobics out there are depriving yourself of some great days that everyone should get a chance to experience, especially in our youth.

Sorry to get off topic. I think a paleo-like diet keeping cooking to a minimum and reserving it for foods that benefit from some cooking is best. I don't see this diet as something that is at all difficult to achieve.

[Thorsten3]

doesn't help that they spend so much time in the sun. Raw fooders have this believe that the sun doesn't cause damage and doesn't age you. Once I made a comment on a popular raw foodist channel, Kevin Gianni, and the comment was deleted because I stated that the sun does damage the skin and too much is going to age you faster. I think a raw food diet is good, but I don't like to get involved with them too much. Some of the raw foodists can be a little strange, they get the information wrong so wrong a lot of the time, they exaggerate a lot, and believe in crazy things that I'm even gonna bother to mention haha.

Too much time in the sun? I hope we are all in agreement that the sun in resonably small and sensible doses is very healthy for us. You can't generalize about all raw foodists like that. Some actually have sense. Me being one of them. Even if I am out in the sun for just 5-10mins it gives me a crucial boost in vitamin D which has a cascade of health benefits and then I'm done. If you do this sensibly I don't see how this would age the skin massively. People who stay out in it for too long though are asking for trouble (aging of the skin would be the least of my worries if that was me).

Some people here are entirely too sun phobic IMO. I can't imagine having not spent so many wonderful days out in the sun feeling amazing just because I thought that sun exposure of any amount would damage my skin. As long as you have sunscreen on and you don't end up with noticeable change in skin tone and color, I don't see why spending a day in the sun would be bad for anyone. I just think you sun phobics out there are depriving yourself of some great days that everyone should get a chance to experience, especially in our youth.

Sorry to get off topic. I think a paleo-like diet keeping cooking to a minimum and reserving it for foods that benefit from some cooking is best. I don't see this diet as something that is at all difficult to achieve.

I definitely limit my exposure to it, that's not to say I won't also spend longer periods in it too but not at the peak times. I choose not to use cream so laying in it for longer periods isn't an option for me, although I'll happily lay in the evening sun which is more enjoyable to me. I wouldn't describe myself as sun phobic like you say, I worship the sun. I just choose to be careful in this respect. Each to their own though!

As an aside did hunter gatherer man cook his meat that he caught or was this eaten straight away? I am on a paleo diet myself and it includes lots of raw foods. I would recommend this as well.

[Logan]

doesn't help that they spend so much time in the sun. Raw fooders have this believe that the sun doesn't cause damage and doesn't age you. Once I made a comment on a popular raw foodist channel, Kevin Gianni, and the comment was deleted because I stated that the sun does damage the skin and too much is going to age you faster. I think a raw food diet is good, but I don't like to get involved with them too much. Some of the raw foodists can be a little strange, they get the information wrong so wrong a lot of the time, they exaggerate a lot, and believe in crazy things that I'm even gonna bother to mention haha.

Too much time in the sun? I hope we are all in agreement that the sun in resonably small and sensible doses is very healthy for us. You can't generalize about all raw foodists like that. Some actually have sense. Me being one of them. Even if I am out in the sun for just 5-10mins it gives me a crucial boost in vitamin D which has a cascade of health benefits and then I'm done. If you do this sensibly I don't see how this would age the skin massively. People who stay out in it for too long though are asking for trouble (aging of the skin would be the least of my worries if that was me).

Some people here are entirely too sun phobic IMO. I can't imagine having not spent so many wonderful days out in the sun feeling amazing just because I thought that sun exposure of any amount would damage my skin. As long as you have sunscreen on and you don't end up with noticeable change in skin tone and color, I don't see why spending a day in the sun would be bad for anyone. I just think you sun phobics out there are depriving yourself of some great days that everyone should get a chance to experience, especially in our youth.

Sorry to get off topic. I think a paleo-like diet keeping cooking to a minimum and reserving it for foods that benefit from some cooking is best. I don't see this diet as something that is at all difficult to achieve.

I definitely limit my exposure to it, that's not to say I won't also spend longer periods in it too but not at the peak times. I choose not to use cream so laying in it for longer periods isn't an option for me, although I'll happily lay in the evening sun which is more enjoyable to me. I wouldn't describe myself as sun phobic like you say, I worship the sun. I just choose to be careful in this respect. Each to their own though!

As an aside did hunter gatherer man cook his meat that he caught or was this eaten straight away? I am on a paleo diet myself and it includes lots of raw foods. I would recommend this as well.

I'm just thinking of the great days out on the beach(not laying out), at all day concert festivals, and playing sports, all of which were done with great friends. Do you really hide from the sun between 12 and 3 at the expense of missing out on such fun? Ya know, what if we don't make significant progress in fighting aging in our life time. You may find yourself looking back thinking that you were not truly living life to it's fullest. If you are healthy, the middle of the day sun should feel pretty damn good. Sunscreen and sunglasses! Although I get quite stimulated and feel really good when I get some sun in my eyes.

[infinityXme]

doesn't help that they spend so much time in the sun. Raw fooders have this believe that the sun doesn't cause damage and doesn't age you. Once I made a comment on a popular raw foodist channel, Kevin Gianni, and the comment was deleted because I stated that the sun does damage the skin and too much is going to age you faster. I think a raw food diet is good, but I don't like to get involved with them too much. Some of the raw foodists can be a little strange, they get the information wrong so wrong a lot of the time, they exaggerate a lot, and believe in crazy things that I'm even gonna bother to mention haha.

Too much time in the sun? I hope we are all in agreement that the sun in resonably small and sensible doses is very healthy for us. You can't generalize about all raw foodists like that. Some actually have sense. Me being one of them. Even if I am out in the sun for just 5-10mins it gives me a crucial boost in vitamin D which has a cascade of health benefits and then I'm done. If you do this sensibly I don't see how this would age the skin massively. People who stay out in it for too long though are asking for trouble (aging of the skin would be the least of my worries if that was me).

Some people here are entirely too sun phobic IMO. I can't imagine having not spent so many wonderful days out in the sun feeling amazing just because I thought that sun exposure of any amount would damage my skin. As long as you have sunscreen on and you don't end up with noticeable change in skin tone and color, I don't see why spending a day in the sun would be bad for anyone. I just think you sun phobics out there are depriving yourself of some great days that everyone should get a chance to experience, especially in our youth.

Sorry to get off topic. I think a paleo-like diet keeping cooking to a minimum and reserving it for foods that benefit from some cooking is best. I don't see this diet as something that is at all difficult to achieve.

People who suffer from autoimmune diseases, like Lupus, can really suffer from sun exposure, even experiencing flares from the sun. It makes me wonder about the dangers of too much exposure or if the sun is so much stronger now that the ozone layer has been worn away that it's becoming more dangerous, making more and more people sick, with each passing decade?

A raw food diet IS difficult to achieve if you don't like raw food, live in a cold climate, or don't have lots of time to devote to food preparation, and I'm all three. However, I've begun serving some of my Asian meals on beds of shredded raw lettuce instead of grain. It doesn't taste as good, but I tell myself it's better for me. I'm proud of myself for achieving this. I know any transition I make to raw food eating will be a slow one but as long as I get there that's all that matters I think. Plus I practice QiGong so incorporating more raw foods is fitting in with my other health regime.

[xEva]

...I know any transition I make to raw food eating will be a slow one but as long as I get there that's all that matters I think. Plus I practice QiGong so incorporating more raw foods is fitting in with my other health regime.

Funny that you mention qigong in this context. Did you forget that there is no salads in Chinese cuisine. Aside from some peeled fruit, absolutely everything is cooked, even though true, stir-fried vegies are crisp... Still, Chinese believe that raw food is hard on stomach, that cooking food on fire preserves one's own internal "fire".


Re evolution and raw food: the use of fire for cooking is what made us humans. That's what separated us from the rest of the animal world. It must have provided an unsurpassed advantage. I'm guessing.. maybe it was disruption of pathogens and parasites cycles -?

[JLL]

That doesn't really mean much unless you also specify the time periods during which raw vs. cooked foods were eaten. If we ate raw foods for the first 150,000 years and then cooked for the last 100,000 years, our genetics would be more adapted to cooked food, even though we'd have eaten raw foods for longer.

Fire and cooking are old inventions. Maybe there are benefits to eating raw foods (though I am skeptical of less exogenous AGEs being one of them), but arguing from an evolutionary perspective is pretty much a doomed idea.

Well, I always wanted to shoot down this particular line of evolutionary reasoning. So here we go. The "we ate stuff for XYZ but let us ignore the preceding period" argument really doesn't fly. Our ancestors ate raw food for about 4 billion years, this is a significant issue. Anyway, two problems: Whether adaptation to heated food occurred depends not just on time, but on the actual adaptive value and how ingrained the metabolic pathways were that needed change. Do you know the answer to those questions?*

*if you argue that adaptation is fast. Ok, but still remember, this may weaken your arguments against neolithic foods.

Fair enough, good points. I don't know the exact answers to those questions, but certainly the difference in the human gut, teeth, etc. and those of our vegetarian ancestors is clear, so significant adaptation must have occurred. I wouldn't necessarily say "adaptation is fast", since even 100,000 years is not exactly a short time (and evolution has been shown to happen in shorter periods). I don't claim that "let's ignore the preceding period", just that the history closest to us is in some cases more important than the ancient past.

I just threw those numbers as an example. I don't know what the consensus is on when humans began to cook, but I think the range is from 250,000 to 1.8 million years ago.

And - this always plagues evolutionary reasoning - whether the adaptation that actually happened, if much at all happened, is beneficial to longevity (or any other modern goal: well-being, intelligence, athleticism) IS NOT A GIVEN.

Evolution favours the passing on of your genes, they could be adaptive by providing (massive short term) survival benefits while shortening your life- and healthspan (e.g. antagonistic pleiotropy) or not.

Well, if you've read my posts then you already know that I agree. In fact, that's my main problem with the paleo approach -- I don't want to optimize my reproduction, I want to optimize my lifespan, which may or may not coincide on a paleo diet.

Therefore, arguing mainly or solely from evolution is a lost position both for or against raw foods; for or against almost any eating habits. Understanding evolutionary change is only easy in retrospect once the evidence is in. And, of course, the AGE evidence does not favour your view that much..

You're the one always arguing for clinical end-point data -- is there any for AGE consumption? I.e. do people how cook food die younger? The numbers on how much AGEs get absorbed from food are often quoted wrong, and the studies Michael posted didn't seem to apply to real life scenarios -- although I must admit I have yet to go through them properly.

IAC, I try to avoid overcooking and consuming excess AGEs, but after going through some of the studies, it's no longer a priority. A steak cooked black every day could be a bad idea, but cooking in general causing enough AGE accumulation to cause problems? I doubt it.

[infinityXme]

[/quote]

Funny that you mention qigong in this context. Did you forget that there is no salads in Chinese cuisine. Aside from some peeled fruit, absolutely everything is cooked, even though true, stir-fried vegies are crisp... Still, Chinese believe that raw food is hard on stomach, that cooking food on fire preserves one's own internal "fire".


Re evolution and raw food: the use of fire for cooking is what made us humans. That's what separated us from the rest of the animal world. It must have provided an unsurpassed advantage. I'm guessing.. maybe it was disruption of pathogens and parasites cycles -?
[/quote]


Yes I do know that. They even blanch lettuce leaves and serve the main course on top of it. When I serve a cooked meal on top of raw lettuce leaves, the warmth of the meal warms the leaves too so it's not all crunchy but it's still raw as in uncooked. Still, I do think there is something to the raw foods diet. I'll never be 100% raw, but I still want to incorporate as much as I can into my diet. I never feel full on raw food alone, so I'm afraid I'd end up overeating to compensate if I got out of my comfort zone with this and that would be worse.