Raw foodism

From RationalWiki

There is a broader, perhaps slightly less biased, article on Wikipedia about Raw foodism

For those of you in the mood, RationalWiki has a fun article about Doughism.

Raw foodism is an example of food woo and is a belief and practice that embraces raw foods as being intrinsically healthier than cooked foods. Though this is not inherently the case, most raw food diets are vegetarian or even fruitarian in nature.

[edit] Premise

There is no unified source for researching raw foodism. The scientific literature contains very few studies. What is out there is mostly in articles and websites. There do seem to be some agreed-upon premises in the movement.

1. Humans ate raw food for millions of years and were just fine.
2. All other animals eat raw food and are healthier and relatively longer-lived than humans
3. Raw foods contain enzymes that are very good for you
4. Cooking food produces toxins
5. Cooking food can break down some vitamins in food (while making others available). ^[1]

[edit] Examining the premises

1. Humans did evolve for millions of years eating raw food, before they discovered fire. There is no evidence that humans were any healthier or long-lived than humans after the discovery of fire^[2]. Humans have continued to evolve since the discovery of fire. Humans did not know about first aid, glasses, or aspirin either, but those discoveries like fire have improved the lifespan of humans by years.
2. There is no scientific evidence that other animals live proportionally longer than humans, or are even healthier. In fact, the human life span has increased dramatically over the years, as we have applied our intelligence to medicine and public health. Some rawbies are fond of pointing out that certain animals live x times past the age of maturity, and humans do not match this. This, in most cases, is generally considered irrelevant due to developmental differences between species, namely the long gestation and postnatal growth period required to foster the human brain before puberty.
3. Enzymes are simply protein catalysts that operate at the specific temperature and pH for which they evolved. There is nothing magical about enzymes, and indeed the plant enzymes that raw foodists are so enamored of aren't even meant to function in a mammalian body. In any case, human digestion breaks most proteins (including natural enzymes) down to constituent amino acids fairly quickly, making them nutritious, but inactive. There are some cases where cooking foods can cause the leaching of nutrients (specifically by boiling them) however, this is not true in all cases, and sometimes cooking can even make nutrients even more accessible.
4. Some ways of cooking some foods can produce carcinogenic compounds. Cooking also kills germs, destroys some natural toxins (for example, cyanogens, lectins, some kinds of bacterial toxins), and makes some foods more digestible by breaking down indigestibles like hemicelluloses, pectins, and complex proteins such as collagen.
5. A logical explanation for the abundant anecdotes claiming raw foodism makes foodists feel healthier and more energetic has nothing to do with the hypothesis behind the diet, but rather with the healthy incidentals that are necessary to support "raw foods". Like many people, raw foodists have a vested interest in not contracting Salmonella. This forces them to consume more salads and fewer Big Macs. Also, raw food diets are lower in saturated fats primarily used for frying, eat less processed sugar (which is not considered 'raw'), and have diets rich in anti-oxidants.

[edit] Summary

There is no convincing evidence currently available to fully evaluate raw foodism. There is evidence that in general, people who consume fewer calories are in many ways healthier. There is also evidence that diets with less animal fat and fewer calories help prevent cardiovascular disease. These, however, are truisms that equally support vegetarian or flexitarian diets and a general reduction in consumption, and have no real bearing on the possible dangers of cooking.

For raw foodism to prove itself, studies could be designed to select a sample of people to randomly assign to either a usual Western diet or to a raw foods diet. Then, meaningful outcome measures need to be evaluated over a period of years. This study, if practical,^[3] would lead to a valid evaluation of raw foodism.

[edit] Raw milk

There is a movement in alternative medicine championing the availability of raw milk, believing that the pasteurization process damages the nutritional value of milk. Due to the possibility of unprocessed raw milk containing pathogens such as bovine tuberculosis and brucellosis, most medical authorities consider raw milk to be rather dangerous, much like eating raw chicken; as it happens, many raw milk enthusiasts are germ theory deniers and often invoke conspiratorial thinking in their defense of raw milk consumption.

[edit] See also

• Macrobiotics
• Kombucha

[edit] External links

• Raw Food Life
• Rawfoods.com
• NYT: "Totally Uncooked"
• Raw milk commentary and NYT link from User:PalMD

[edit] Footnotes

1. ↑ http://www.ba.ars.usda.gov/hb66/025nutrition.pdf
2. ↑ Unless you believe in things like Adam lived actual 900+ years and fire didn't get discovered until say, Abraham
3. ↑ Practicality in this case would be dependent on two things: a) the subject would have to be trusted and b) the experiment could somehow be done without double-blind testing. a) is difficult; b) is highly unlikely.