Raw foods

[Thor]

Last fall and winter I spent a couple of months on a raw-food diet. I had read a lot of promising results stemming from a raw food diet. The main claim is that the enzymes in the food are killed off at 42 degres centigrade and consequently the enzymes that are no longer present in the food, you have to produce from the body. The body can do that but it is taxing and by utilizing the enzymes in the (raw) food itself you free up a lot of resources that your body can spend on healing, energy, etc.
Enthusiastically, I started my raw food diet and after a short period of time my wife got tired of it but I continued for about three months. I don’t blame her as the raw produce in Denmark during the winter has very little variety and therefore the diet was somewhat uninteresting. After three months I had lost somewhere between 5 and 7 pounds. That might not sound like a lot but when you’re 6’8” and end up weighing 160 pounds that’s simply not enough. The result was that I was cold all the time and my hands were a bluish purple most of the time. Whether this was due to the weight loss or the fact that something was missing from my diet I can’t say for sure but I would think that it had to do with the raw food diet as I am now weighing my normal weight which is a little less than 170 pounds and the cold feeling and blue hands are gone. I did not feel my energy levels go up, nor did I achieve any of the other benefits that I had read about. Therefore, my personal conclusion is that a strict raw food diet is not for me.

At one point I asked an Indian yogi that also has a university degree in Ayurvedic medicine about his understanding of raw food diets. He replied that according to Ayurveda there are some constitutions that can easily live on raw food diets and others where cooked food is not only advisable but necessary to survive as they metabolize raw food poorly. In my personal experience, I have met people (mostly in Los Angeles) who were on raw food diets and I must say that they displayed radiant health. However, these people were often very health conscious and whether their apparent good health was due to the raw food diet or the super foods that often goes together with the diet or something entirely different is hard to say. At the same time, most of these people were also highly identified with their particular diet – almost to religious levels.

I personally think that both diet and medicine also have a lot to do with body type/constitution. This could explain why some people react to some types of food or medicine in one way and others react in a quite different way. According to the Ayurvedic tradition there are three main constitutions (vata which equals air, pita which equals fire and kapha which equals earth and water). Every person is a mix of the three and diet, medicine, emotional reactions, daily rhytms,ect, etc, should be adjusted according to the constitution of the person (for a good introduction to Ayurveda, see “Prakriti – your Ayurvedic Constition” by Robert F. Svoboda). It may be that the question of Ayurvedic constitutions in relation to supplements and diets has been discussed elsewhere. If this is the case please point me to the thread. Also, if this should be considered a new topic please let me know. I am very interested in hearing the thoughts and knowledge of the people on the forum regarding Ayurveda as part of cleaning the machine.

 

[svjetlonosa]

Lord knows, I'm not pleased at finding myself in a machine that requires animal protein to function best. If I allow myself to dwell on it, I can get downright cranky. It's also impossible, at present, to change the world so that the evils that exist in the food production industries can be done away with, including corporate farming of beef, chicken, etc. I CAN do all I can to not contribute to it by buying family farm raised meats and giving an affirmation in my mind in honor of the creature that is feeding me.

I've tried vegetarianism. One of my children went vegan for a year or two and became so unhealthy, she was practically on the verge of being hospitalized. Her cholesterol and triglycerides were so high, she was a candidate for a stroke.

On the other hand, there are people who have less need for meat protein and can do quite well on mostly vegetables. But I really don't think that anyone is truly healthy who is absolutely strict.

As Laura and many other people mentioned, there were cases when vegetarianism went not well for persons who implemented it. I am a vegetarian for 12-13 years (not sure for how long) and have experienced a lot of things related to food and food addiction. I would like to address people who are forcing any type of diet. One should have developed an inner attention to select food items in markets/stores, to decide how and when to prepare it or just eat it raw. Every meal is a decision to make: Is this good for me or not? If your body is not ready to sustain on non-meat diet then DON'T DO IT! But if you force things, you are making violence over your body (disrespecting your body's will either). As a result you'll get worse instead better. Pay attention on what your body wants to eat, not what you think it would be good/fashionable/righteous to consume. In time, you'll recognise signs your body is sending to you.
Reading other experiences helps, but listening of own body is the right way to clean up machine.

 

[cdh4r]

Re: Any fruitarians or raw food people.

When I realized that the raw food and vegetarian movements were full of alleged alien abductees, which we know is an STS phenomenon, I took a closer look at it and asked the Cs about it. Seems that aliens like to eat people who are vegetarians and who don't smoke.

with the Cs attitude toward vegetarianism and pro-meat eating, i further ask, should we then eat meat cooked or raw? i've found "research" on the effects of cooking meat (ironically all from vegan/raw vegan books, hence why i put research in quotes as most was used to encourage the idea that we shouldn't eat meat, though some articles are from well known journals but i dare say, i've never hear of "mutation research").

i'm not anti or pro raw meat (as i myself eat my meat cooked) but i'm just curious as to what others opinions are towards such a diet. you can find more information on such by googling "paleo raw meat diet" plus or minus other choice words.

perhaps this is just another raw food movement full of alleged alien abductees! dunno but once again, i'm just curious of others thoughts

excerpt from living on live food by alissa cohen

"When you eat meat, fish, or chicken, you’re not getting as much protein as you think you are. Take chicken, for example. Say there are 20 grams of protein in a chicken breast. Once you cook it, you destroy half the protein. Now your body has to digest and assimilate this heavy, dense source of 10 grams of protein, that wil l take up to 100 hours. How much do you think is getting stuck in your body as toxic waste by the time it reaches your colon? How much protein from a cooked chicken breast will you actually get? Maybe a few grams, if you’re lucky."

Dr. Francis Pottenger's Cat Study: Dietary Factors in Degenerative Disease
Probably the most well-known study on the effects of cooked versus raw food was performed by Francis Pottenger, MD, during the years 1932-1942. He was raising cats for a scientific study on adrenal glands. He ran out of the raw food he had been feeding these animals, so he gave some of them leftover cooked table scraps to economize.
He noticed health degeneration in the latter group, and so he decided to do an additional controlled experiment on the effects of raw versus cooked food. Over a ten-year period, he raised about 900 cats. Half were fed a diet of cooked meat, whereas the other half were fed raw meat. Both groups were given supplementary milk and cod liver oil.
These groups were kept in separate pens so there could be no eating from the other group's food. Pottenger was very careful to use scientifically controlled methods and even used the same male cat for breeding with both groups to minimize genetic factors. He kept such meticulous records that his study was published in the American Journal of Orthodontics and Oral Surgery.
The first generation of deficient cats began its cooked food diet only as adults. Their kittens were called second-generation deficient cats, and their "grandkittens" were called third-generation deficient cats.
Pottenger noticed progressive health declines with each generation. Gingivitis and gum tenderness worsened. Skulls got progressively smaller. Teeth did not grow in straight, and there was a narrowing and foreshortening of the dental arches. The calcium content of the bones worsened progressively until, by the third generation, the deficient cats had bones like sponge rubber with "spontaneous fractures on the slightest provocation."
Note: Cooked food often contributes to acidity in the body. Upon threat of death to the organism, the body reacts to acidity by drawing upon calcium and other alkaline minerals from the bones in order to neutralize this acidity.
In the second generation of deficient cats, 83% of the males were sterile, as were 53% of the females. The third generation cats were not even able to produce kittens and in fact died prematurely at about six months, the period corresponding to childhood in humans.
The deficient cats displayed these symptoms: incomplete development of the skull and bones, bowed legs, rickets, curvature of the spine, paralysis of the legs, convulsive seizure, thyroid abscesses, cyanosis of liver and kidneys, enlarged colon and degeneration of the motor nerve ganglion cells throughout the spinal cord and brain stem, with some cells affected in the cerebellum and cerebral cortex. The raw-fed cats suffered none of the above.
Behavioral differences were also documented. Cooked fooders were more irritable. A role reversal occurred, with male cats becoming submissive and females becoming more aggressive.
Furthermore, it was found that by returning kittens to the optimal diet of raw food, a gradual regeneration could occur. Yet from the second-generation deficient cats, it took three generations of kittens to get a litter that returned to the optimal health of the original cats! In the second generation of cats returned to raw food, deformities and allergies were still present due to their parents' having eaten cooked food! It was only their kittens that could achieve optimal health.
Pottenger made the following comments: "Man is rarely restricted in his dietary to a totally cooked food ration. It must be remembered that these cats do receive raw milk of market grade and that this is not sufficient to overcome the effects of cooked meat. Man seems to be more like a rat, having greater vitality than the cat, and he can apparently respond to deficient conditions in a better manner. The changes found in cats are nevertheless comparable to many of those that we see in human beings. Moreover, anthropologists today tell us that civilized man is physically steadily on the downgrade. May not the heat processing to which we are subjecting a great portion of our foods be a factor in this downward trend?"
He went on to remark that his colleague, Dr. Weston Price, dramatically documented the same downhill spiral of civilized man in his book Nutrition and Physical Degeneration: A Comparison of Primitive and Modern Diets and Their Effects. Although humans, rats and hogs are the most versatile mammal species on the planet, they still suffer when eating cooked food, as has been borne out by many experiments.
There was even an experiment within this experiment. At some point, various types of milk were tested: raw, pasteurized, evaporated and sweetened condensed milk. Plants that sprang up in the various pens were observed. Those that had been fertilized with the urine and feces of the cats fed raw food were vigorous and healthy. Plants fertilized with the excreta of the cats fed pasteurized milk were less healthy. The growth was very poor with evaporated milk, and almost

"Analysis of cooked meat muscles for heterocyclic amine carcinogens," Mutation Research, 12 May 1997, Vol. 376 (1-2), pp. 129-134.
The study concluded that cooking meat makes it carcinogenic. The most carcinogenic method of cooking of those tested was shown to be flame grilling.

"Carcinogens In foods: heterocyclic amines and cancer and heart disease," Adv Exp Med Biol, 1995, Vol. 369, pp. 211-220.
Carcinogens occur naturally in the foods we commonly eat, including a number of heterocyclic amines (HCAs) identified in beef, pork, poultry and fish as a result of cooking. These compounds are formed during the normal cooking process by the reaction of creatine with various other amino acids.
HCAs were singled out because of their high mutagenic activity in the Ames test, which involves feeding the chemicals to rabbits to see how much it takes to kill half of them. The HCAs can be separated into two types, nonimidazole and imidazole, the latter being the predominant type present in Western foods.
Both types of HCAs have been found to be carcinogenic in rodent bioassays. A high proportion of the nonhuman primates tested also developed myocardial lesions.
The conclusions were that consumption of the HCAs formed by cooking meat may constitute a risk factor for both cancer and cardiovascular disease in humans.

"Pyrolysis and risks of toxicity," Cahiers de nutrition of de diatetique [Joumal of Nutrition and Dietetics], 1982, Vol. 17, p. 39.
Cooking has been proven to produce millions of different Maillard molecules. The research in this paper verifies that the numerous substances generated are endless chains of novel molecules that are toxic, aromatic, peroxidizing, anti-oxidizing, mutagenic and carcinogenic.

"Characterization of mutagenic activity in cooked-grain-food products," Food and Chemical Toxicity, January 1994, Vol. 32 (1), pp. 15-21.
The study tested wheat gluten or flour from several plant sources heated at 410° F (210° C) for one hour, as well as baked or toasted grains and a heated grain beverage. The study found that heated grain products form aromatic amine chemicals during heating that are mutagenic in bacterial mutation tests.

"Cooking procedures and food mutagens: a literature review," Food and Chemical Toxicity, Sept 1993, Vol. 31 (9), pp. 655-675.
The abstract reads, "Commonly eaten meat products prepared from beef, pork, mutton and chicken show some level of mutagenic activity following normal frying. Food preparation methods have a significant influence on the formation of the mutagenic activity. The main food mutagens found in cooked meat products are heterocyclic amines. Several of them have been tested in long-term animal studies and shown to be carcinogenic in rodents. From a health point of view, it is desirable to reduce or prevent the formation of food mutagens. Therefore, a deeper understanding of the precursors and reaction conditions for mutagen formation during normal domestic cooking is very important."
The study goes on to show that several of the precursors in the formation of thermic mutagens are creatine or creatinine cross-linked with other amino acids and sugars.

"Determination of heterocyclic aromatic amines in food products: automation of the sample preparation method prior to HPLC and PHLC-MS quantification." Mutation Research, 12 May 1997, Vol. 376 (1-2), pp. 29-35.
The study found, "Heat-processing protein-rich foods may cause the formation of heterocyclic aromatic amines (HAM), all of which arc mutagenic, and some also have carcinogenic potential."

"Effects of heating time and antioxidants on the formation of heterocyclic amines in marinated foods," Journal of Chromatography B, 25 March 2004, Vol. 802 (1), p. 2737.
Marinated food samples were cooked at 208° F (98° C) for 1, 2, 4, 8, 16 and 32 hours. Results showed that heterocyclic amines formed during heating increased in amount for each increase in heating time. Antioxidants (BHT and Vitamins C and E) helped inhibit HCAs, but the effect was minor.

"Effects of temperature and time on mutagen formation in pan-fried hamburger," A Cancer Journal of Clinicians Cancer Letters, July 1979, Vol. 7 (2-3), pp. 63-69.
Mutagenic activity was found in hamburgers during pan-frying. It increased with temperature and time, but especially with temperature.
Uniformly frozen patties were fried at varied temperatures. Mutagenic activity was not detected in the uncooked hamburgers. In hamburgers fried at 289° F (143° C), mutagenic activity remained low for those fried from four to twenty minutes. However, when fried at 375-410° F (191-210° C) for up to ten minutes, mutagenic activity increased considerably. Mutagenic activity in fricd hamburgers sold at selected restaurants ranged from very low to moderately high.

"Food-derived mutagens and carcinogens," Cancer Research,
1 April 1992, Vol. 52 (7), pp. 2092s-2098s.
This study showed that cooked food contains a variety of heterocyclic amines (HCAs), byproducts of cooking found to cause cancer in animals. All the mutagenic HCAs tested were carcinogenic in rodents, most of these poor creatures ending up with cancer of the liver and other organs.
"Quantification of HCAs in cooked foods and in human urine indicated that humans are continuously exposed to low levels of them in the diet."

"Formation of mutagens in cooked food. II. Foods with high starch content," Cancer Letters, March 1980, Vol. 9 (1), pp. 7-12.
Mutagens are formed when starchy foods are cooked. The study included fried potatoes, toasted bread, baked bread and fried bread to produce mutagenicatty active substances. Toasting white and dark bread produces mutagens at the same initial rate, but dark bread produces much higher levels of mutagenicity when toasted for long times.
The study concluded, "Significant mutagenic activity is produced when starchy foods are prepared by common cooking procedures."

"Health risks of heterocyclic amines," Mutation Research, 12 May 1997, Vol. 376 (1-2), pp. 37-41.
The study found, "Common cooking procedures, such as broiling, frying, barbequing (flame-grilling), heat processing — any pyrolysis of protein-rich foods — induce the formation of potent mutagenic and carcinogenic heterocyclic amines."
The cooked proteins produced organ tumors in mice and rats, as well as in nonhuman primates. The differences of risk from heterocyclic amines range greatly among humans, depending on exposure and genetic susceptibility.

"Lipid extracts isolated from heat processed food show a strong agglutinating activity against human red blood cells," Food Research International, 2002, Vol. 35 (6), pp. 535-540.
Agglutination of the blood cells refers to their stickiness, the cells sticking together as if glued together. (See Glossary.) In this study, the hemagglutinating (blood stickiness) activity of several mass market oils and several lipid mixtures isolated from different food items was evaluated against human red blood cells and against hamster red blood cells.
Unheated oils had a low agglutination effect, but when the same foods were heated at a common cooking temperature for 24 hours, the isolated mixture of lipids and oils showed strong hemagglutinating activity, which shows that heated oils have a toxic effect on humans. Agglutination of blood forms clots. Clots can block blood flow in arteries, leading to heart attacks and strokes.

"Metabolism of food-derived heterocyclic amines in nonhuman primates," Mutation Research, 12 May 1997, Vol. 376 (1-2), pp. 203210.
The study found that the heterocyclic amines from cooked meat increased the risk of liver cancer in monkeys.

 

[iloveyoghurt]

Adolph Hitler would have been a model PETA activist

Adolph Hitler was a vegetarian - although it is widely known that in his early years he would have a lapse and indulge in the odd liver dumpling. He was a hater of hunting and cared for the company of animals more than of people and had many dogs for companions over the years. His final hours were spent in the company of his favorite dog, "Blondi".

.........

Adolph's dogs name was Blondi?

 

[RyanX]

Adolph Hitler would have been a model PETA activist

Adolph Hitler was a vegetarian - although it is widely known that in his early years he would have a lapse and indulge in the odd liver dumpling. He was a hater of hunting and cared for the company of animals more than of people and had many dogs for companions over the years. His final hours were spent in the company of his favorite dog, "Blondi".

.........

Adolph's dogs name was Blondi?

Yup.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blondi

 

[RedFox]

dunno but once again, i'm just curious of others thoughts

I think it comes down to the source of the meat. Should you have just hunted down and killed a wild animal, then I have seen that in some cultures they do eat some things raw on the spot.

As this isn't an option for most of us, cooking meat to make sure bacteria and parasites are killed off is probably a good reason not to have raw. That (and as far as I understand it) cooking means food is more easily digested.
A really fresh organic lightly cooked (pink but not bloody) beef stake is nice every so often though :P

 

[truth seeker]

dunno but once again, i'm just curious of others thoughts

Just my thoughts but I think where this study fails is that it tries to say that the system of humans is similar to that of cats (animals). I think it's just another way of people attempting to deny their own humanity by getting around the uncomfortable feelings having to do with any enjoyment of meat. How many people would seriously relish the thought of eating uncooked meat - particularly those who have difficulties eating cooked meat in general?

It just seems like another idea designed to pull people off the path that is most beneficial to them. For what it's worth.

Adolph's dogs name was Blondi?

Unfortunately, I'm not surprised. If people project their own narcissistic wounding upon their own children, I would suspect that some would do the same with their pets.

 

[Laura]

Cooking food is one of the key elements of being human: it reduces the digestion load on the body and frees up that energy for the brain.

 

[Thor]

dunno but once again, i'm just curious of others thoughts

Just my thoughts but I think where this study fails is that it tries to say that the system of humans is similar to that of cats (animals). I think it's just another way of people attempting to deny their own humanity by getting around the uncomfortable feelings having to do with any enjoyment of meat. How many people would seriously relish the thought of eating uncooked meat - particularly those who have difficulties eating cooked meat in general?

It just seems like another idea designed to pull people off the path that is most beneficial to them. For what it's worth.

Adolph's dogs name was Blondi?

Unfortunately, I'm not surprised. If people project their own narcissistic wounding upon their own children, I would suspect that some would do the same with their pets.

FWIW, I discussed this issue with a friend of mine who is and Indian yogi and has a university degree in ayurvedic medicine. According to ayurveda ever person is a different combination of the three basic constitutions (vata, pita and kapha). Depending on your constitution, you will be able to digesting meat without problems or with difficulty. Similarly, the raw diet that is currently fashionable will be fine for some constitutions while others (including myself) have a hard time digesting raw plant foods.

In line with much that is discussed on this forum and in the Mark Hyman book I think the main point is that every body is different and will react differently to different things. That being said, there are things that are universally bad (or evil as some choose to call it), such as dairy, wheat, etc.

The question that logically remains to be answered is then whether non-meat falls into the bad for all category or just bad for some, depending on individual genetic and constitutional make-up.

On a personal note, I was thrilled to start eating meat again after a couple of years of vegetarianism and a stint of raw-foodism. I love bacon in the morning and tonight I am having roast pork :P

mod fixed quotes

 

[cdh4r]

dunno but once again, i'm just curious of others thoughts

I think it comes down to the source of the meat. Should you have just hunted down and killed a wild animal, then I have seen that in some cultures they do eat some things raw on the spot.

interestingly enough, there are people who do this (guy-claude burger and zephyr to name a few) and such a diet is refered to as "instinctive eating" in other words, they eat what they they think their body instinctively craves for, hunt it then eat it! odd but, hey, whatever works for one :)

A really fresh organic lightly cooked (pink but not bloody) beef stake is nice every so often though :P

i couldn't agree more!

 

[cdh4r]

Just my thoughts but I think where this study fails is that it tries to say that the system of humans is similar to that of cats (animals). I think it's just another way of people attempting to deny their own humanity by getting around the uncomfortable feelings having to do with any enjoyment of meat. How many people would seriously relish the thought of eating uncooked meat - particularly those who have difficulties eating cooked meat in general?

It just seems like another idea designed to pull people off the path that is most beneficial to them. For what it's worth.

i agree. it makes me think of the studies done on rats/mice within the book, china study, where mice are intentionally "injected" with different types of cancer and then given extracted casein protein to see the effects of it on the cancer. there's a BIG difference in being being a rat intentionally "injected with cancer" and given extracted nutrients than someone who's accumulated cancer via toxins over a period of time eating REAL food.

 

[cdh4r]

Cooking food is one of the key elements of being human: it reduces the digestion load on the body and frees up that energy for the brain.

i imagine if someone part of the raw food world read such a statement, he/she would probably throw something of the following at you:

an excerpt from diet, nutrition and cancer aimed at the effects of cooking food and its effects on the cells within:

initiation of the carcinogenic process may involve an alteration in the genetic material of a cell. therefore, it is reasonable to suppose that chemicals that alter DNA (i.e., cause mutations) will have a high probability of carcinogenesis

sure, it's more a of a presumption but would it be a "reasonable" presumption to think that cooking could trigger carcinogenesis?
i recall reading articles a few years back (and hearing it on the news) that claimed when food is charred on a grill, there's supposedly high amounts of carcinogens. tho, when food is "regularly" cooked, carcinogens aren't as ample (in comparison to charred) but they are still there.

also, a raw foodist would bring up "digestive leukocytosis" which is an increase of leukocytes after eating cooked food. since leukocytes are white blood cells involved in defending the body of infection and foreign material invaders, raw foodists claim that leukocytosis occurs after eating cooked food b/c the pancreas is either overtaxed and unable to produce sufficient food enzymes or cooked food produces foreign toxins to the body, hence the occurrence of leukocytosis. also, when this happens, it supposedly leaves the body temporarily unavailable to carry out normal defensive and restorative functions within the body.
whereas, if one eats raw food, regular digestive enzymes from the pancreas are used and no "digestive leukocytosis" occurs.

there's also the bout on Maillard's experiments on food and how he supposedly found 450 novel chemicals in a broiled potato alone, 50 of which were "proven" to be carcinogenic to laboratory animals. and, of course, it's stated that his employer terminated that line of research and gave him something else to work on before he could test the others.

it's all more than likely "raw food propaganda" and heresy rather than facts but i suppose it's an interesting view. what are others opinions on this?
(i remember coming across the above via reading about it a few years back when i was interested in such, so forgive me if i come off as a "raw food propagandist" as i can assure you, i am not one... i enjoy cooked food waaaayy too much :D i, once again, am just curious of others thoughts)

 

[Franco]

So after reading the C's session last week and now this I decided to a bit of research.

This article seems to cover many of the things we are talking about here in regards to anti nutrients and enzymes and raw foods.

http://www.wellsphere.com/healthy-eating-article/are-raw-vegetables-healthier-than-cooked-vegetables/734607