Raw Food - Raw Deal?

It would be more devastating if you could cite the sources of the bogus claims, just so no wackos can claim you're attacking straw men.

It's also worth pointing out that the whole reason humans invented cooking was to make food _more_ digestible. Cooking breaks down tough proteins and complex carbohydrates, so we can get more food value out of them. Essentially we're using the energy of our cooking fuel to process what we eat instead of the energy of the food itself -- chimps spend _much_ more time eating than humans do because the food they're eating is harder to digest.

Raw food and and vegan diets are nothing but cultural food taboos, no different from the kosher and halal rules of Judaism and Islam. The only purpose is to identify and distinguish the in-group from outsiders.

Cambias, Amherst, MA
March 01, 2007 12:58pm

Camcias, please don't equate raw foodism wih veganism. There are rational, non-wacko, non-religious ethical/environmental reasons for not wanting to contribute to factory farming and for adopting a vegan diet.

RC Jones, San Francisco
March 01, 2007 8:54pm

Brian,

You said, "80% of centenarians have abnormally large HCL molecules". That had to be a joke.

You were kidding, right?

Bruce Barr, Tampa
March 02, 2007 6:03pm

Oops! Not a joke, but an embarrassing tongue slip. I meant to say HDL particles, not HCL molecules. That is a bit silly!

I'll correct it in the transcript, but the recorded version may leave others scratching their heads. Thanks for catching it.

Brian Dunning, Laguna Niguel, CA
March 02, 2007 10:31pm

Some cooked food can be considered carcinogenic, especially on the barbeque, where the cracked saturated hydrocarbon oils can form nasties...

And never use fluid to squirt onto the cokes. It's got nasties too. Not to mention the cokes! If it's not coked properly...

Griff...sweating over a hot stove.

neil griffiths, Cardiff uk
March 25, 2007 4:58pm

Excellent show, and naturally I agree with the analysis.

Just a small point, thought, on the conversion of 'organic' food to an 'inorganic' state upon cooking. The boundaries of what is organic and inorganic in chemistry are actually surprisingly ill-defined, and graphite (despite containing concatamers of carbon as described) is considered to be inorganic. You are right to say that the temp required to drive the breaking of C-C bonds in cooking is excessive; however, you don't take into account oxidation by atmospheric O2. This is why some foods can be converted from organic starch (for example) to inorganic graphite - think of burnt toast - at much lower temperatures. The graphite is indigestable - so the toast has lost a (tiny) amount of nutrients. However, graphite is also apparently quite good for your digestion, and so claiming that this inorganic component is bad for you still doesn't make sense.

Certain cooking techniques (eg. BBQ) also have a tendency to oxidise foods, particularly protein, to nasty polyaromatic molecules which could potentially be carcinogenic. Evidence that this represents a significant cause of cancer is currently pretty lacking, however.

Keep up the good work!

Jon Ayling, Oxford, UK
April 09, 2007 6:14am

Indeed! As one of the last carnivores on the planet, I feel it is my right to gainsay some of the nonsense. Vegans and vegetarians are free to practice their bizarre culinary predilections but I wish that they would leave the omnivores alone! Studies that I have read ( see Nature and Science magazines et.al.) show that omnivorous primates have significantly higher intelligence that that their fruit or leaf-eating brethren...
I might add that those freshman students who adopt the aforementioned lifestyles are more prone to develop explosive gas as a result of their diet, thus adding to the global warming crisis.

darryl kenneth ross, Prince George BC
April 23, 2007 4:52pm

its okey..........

chuva, phil
July 04, 2007 4:39am

Good show in general, like all of your others. I am beginning to wonder about the true accuracy of your programs, however. Most of the topics you cover I have no knowledge of, and so I believe you are presenting the factual information correctly. However, on the few podcasts you have done on subjects I am familiar with, you often make incorrect statements. In this episode you claim that baboons are apes. This is not true in the scientific sense of the word. The only true apes are gibbons, siamangs, orangutans, gorillas, chimpanzees, bonobos and humans. The word ape is often used to refer to any primate lacking a tail, but that does not have scientific validity (see Wikipedia ape site for further clarity). You are attempting to claim that baboons have some kind of close phylogenetic relationship to humans by being apes, thus their diet is a good model for a healthy human diet. However baboons are not particularly closely related to humans and in the case of diet even a close relationship doesn't guarantee a similar diet (most people wouldn’t like the mostly fruit and leaf diet of the chimpanzee). I don’t doubt that humans are well adapted to eating meat and that raw foods don't convey special benefits on humans aside from their basic nutritional value, but make sure you are using real evidence to support this claim. Small but consistent inaccuracies like this call into question the amount of research you have truly done on a given topic.

Erica Kempf, Sheffield, UK
July 03, 2008 3:29am

i believe that raw food can be healthier then cooked food, even though most of the time cooked food can taste better. Anyone who thinks that cooked foods are poison and lower our life span are idiots (no offense) but there is a lot more evidence against you. SORRY!

Edward Otey, Estacada,Oregon
November 03, 2008 9:38am

some of the raw foods are healthy for you like sushi it has raw fish in it which is good for you.and the statement that says animals don't get sick because of their natural diet habits of what they eat. i belive that becuase they eat that stuff everyday. but MR DONNELLY ROCKS

ed allen, Estacada,Oregon
November 03, 2008 9:41am

To all of the raw food advocates:

Potatoes cannot be eaten raw. They contain a chemical compound glycoalkaloids. These are poisonous to humans.

Humans can only eat a few varieties of maize raw. The other type can cause a nutrition deficency unless we cook it with a product called first Cal.

Most plantains, besides the Cavendish, cannot be eaten raw. They need to be cooked to break down the starches over time.

Even though there are humans that do this anyway, chilli's are not meant to be eaten by humans. Infact, all mammals cannot eat

We can eat meat raw, provided they are fresh enough. We should not eat the innards unless we cook them.

So, not all raw foods are good for us.

Joseph Furguson, Brawley Ca
November 04, 2008 7:53am

The bottom line with any diet is... try it for 30 days and see how you feel :)

Leon Willett, Barcelona
December 23, 2008 11:54am

I'm not a raw foodist, but I've read enough to know that your statements regarding the philosophy behind raw foodism and your "evidence" against those beliefs are very inaccurate. You mix truth with fiction and sell it as gospel. Unfortunately there are people out there that don't read or do any research for themselves, so they blindly let other people form their ideas and opinions. I've got a novel idea; How about actually doing research, using citations, and writing fact based blogs?

cristal, Oklahoma City
January 10, 2009 8:32am

Cristal,

Maybe you could share some of your research and sources with us.

Where have you found inaccuracies?

You mixed conjecture with cynicism and sold it as a reasonable, informed contribution.

If you have research that proves any of the statements wrong; please share it.

I think the people that blindly let other people form their ideas and opinions would benefit from your sources and information.

Dave H., Danbury, CT
January 10, 2009 1:58pm

Dave H,

The reality is that most of what was shared in this article is not what most raw-foodists believe.

I agree with what Leon suggested:

Try it for 30 days and see how you feel!

in light,
Aleesha

Aleesha Stephenson, Vancouver, BC
January 23, 2009 3:44pm

I do eat a fully raw diet and loved your article:-)

My comment will be as brief as it can be to get to the point and show another view.

I do hear these claims and know they are way overgeneralized. It seems to me many oversimplify their explanations of what is happening either because they actually don't understand or because they want to reach the widest possible audience.

Let me give an example: The claim of "Cooking food renders it unrecognizable to the body as food." When food is cooked some of the proteins become denatured, or in other words, lose their structure. Denatured proteins are shown to have a loss of solubility and show a tendency to aggregate, or clump. A decrease in solubility as well as an increase in aggregation would seem to lead to an increased need for more of the body's resouces to break down this denatured protein, which would detract from the energy that the body could be using for other processes, including immune system upkeep, daily activities, waste removal, etc.

My idea is that the less extra work the body has to contend with, digestion is a high energy process, the more energy it has for other vital processes as listed before.

To conclude, I think the main idea of "raw or living foods" is more about optimal nutrition with the greatest possible outcome than life or death nutrition.

Sorry for the length and lack of resources. This is simply put together from experience, and my study of biology and organic chemistry.

Stephanie Harrington, Cincinnati, OH
January 29, 2009 9:26pm

I have lived 95% of my life on what I thought was a healthy standard diet consisting of mainly cooked foods with salads and some fruit. I rarely ate red meat. Ate fish once or twice a week as well as organic poultry and eggs. I minimized dairy products and consumed cooked whole grains. I was active in sports and exercise. Unfortunately in my 40's I began to experience some health issues such as abdominal pains, headaches, sore joints, and general lethargy. After going to several doctors/specialists who all said they could find nothing wrong with me but perscribed some medication anyway, I decided to take my health into my own hands. After several years of experimenting on my own body my diet evolved into one of predominantly raw foods (+80%). I am now 51 years old, and feel better than I have in 25 years! I take no medications at all, unlike most of my friends. All of the above symptoms have vanished. My doctor says my pulse rate and blood pressure is that of a fit teenager and says I am the fittest 50 year old he has seen in years.

Raw food works for me. And I was a non-believer a few years ago. So don't criticize it until you have lived it. Otherwise your opinions have no basis in validity.

Cheers

Jeff, Canada
February 09, 2009 11:09am

I mean if raw foods are good for you, eat a potato raw.

Wait we cannot because, in its raw form, a potato is poisonous.

Yes, I can criticize without trying for the simple reason that I rely on something a little bit more useful than anecdotal evidence. I rely on lab tests to tell me how to eat. The reliable lab tests I see tell me that the amount of nutrition I lose from cooking my food is minimal.

No, I do not look down on you. If you find that raw food works for you, then by all means eat as much as you want. Heck, you can have my fill as well. I have learned not to try anything unless it has been tested or it is cooked.

The only food that I will eat raw is tuna, halibut, and salmon. Also, only if I am within 30 miles from the ocean. The rest of the time, I will eat food cooked.

Joseph Furguson, Brawley, Ca
March 19, 2009 7:36pm

Uh oh...

I eat raw potato all of the time. I like the flavour.

(gasps and falls to the floor)

Brenton, New Zealand
March 19, 2009 7:55pm

Does not change the fact that potatoes are toxic. Does not change the fact that if you eat too many of them you will die.

You are not an exception.

Joseph Furguson, Brawley, Ca
March 25, 2009 1:22pm

Even if you cook potatoes, if you do it improperly- I think it has something to do with not cooking hot enough -, then there is a chance you are consuming Clostridium Botulinum bacteria, who produce the most toxic protein known to man. It causes complete muscular paralysis, so victims die of suffocation because their diaphragm has locked up. You will die if you continue eating raw potatoes, because it only takes once. By the way, washing doesn't change a thing.

Joseph, Norman
May 09, 2009 10:29am

Living inside a 'live' body - and I know we all do the same ;) - I've experienced a difference in how I feel after eating 'live' food in contrast to how I feel after eating cooked. The raw food seems to 'disappear' and turn to energy. But the cooked, seems to lay heavy and stick with me for hours. Sometimes it goes in reverse! Hmmmm... what could the difference possibly be? ENZYMES in 'live' food doing their job?
I'm a be'LIVE'r!!!!!!!!!!!!
Of course... I'm not talking RELIGION!

Barbaraw, Riverhead NY
May 20, 2009 9:00pm

Joseph, you are quite right - they are toxic - but "too many" is a HELL of a lot.

I read recently that there hasn't been a potato related death in the US for something like fifty years...

Brenton, New Zealand
May 20, 2009 11:51pm

Enzymes are made to work in a particular chemical environment; your stomach is not where the enzymes were intended to function.

Listen to the placebo effect, or read about it somewhere. That explains you perfectly.

Joseph, Norman, OK
June 07, 2009 6:03pm

Many foods can and should be eaten raw but in my opinion most foods were meant to be cooked. People who eat a normal healthy diet of cooked foods (vegetarian or not) are every bit as healthy as raw foodists.

vicky, Portland, OR
July 07, 2009 11:05am

Vicky,
The key question is...what do most people believe is a normal healthy diet? Unfortunately today, normal means McDonalds, Wendy's, Pizza Hut, Coke, potato chips and a myriad of other toxic, processed junk. I am 52 and have been a raw food vegan for 15 years. Prior to that I was eating what I thought was a healthy diet of meat, dairy, cooked veggies, bread, sweets, fruits juices, cooked grains, etc. Same diet as most people. I had developed diabetes, colitis and stomach ulcers. When drugs couldn't cure me of those illnesses, I found raw plant based foods. Today I am free of those diseases and healthier than every other person I know over 30. All you need to do is try living on a predominantly raw diet of fruits and leafy greens for 30 days and you'll see and feel the amazing difference. But don't don't take my word for it, you can prove it to yourself. But sadly most people won't bother because they are just too lazy and brainwashed by the processed food industry. Sad really, because Americans (and Canadians) are the sickest, most overweight slobs in the world.

Jeff, Canada
July 09, 2009 11:20am

Jeff,
Ditto. I started eating raw 18 months ago. I had fibromyalsia for 9 yrs. I lost my 40s to disease. I am free of fibromyalsia, I take no medicine, I lost weight, lost cellulite, don't have herpes out breaks and have a ton of energy. I get to eat all the fruit I want everyday and amazing raw food recipes. I never was into fast food but enjoyed a long life of seafood and rich foods. It's not easy as you say. In fact I just finished a class on raw food lifestyle and my husband came with me to my last class. He has helped me and has seen all the changes but continues to live on the S.A.D. lifestyle. He smokes and coughs and takes blood pressure and cholestorol rx and has no sex drive and is fat and old for 57. But I love him and he loves me and he's entitled to his opinion which he shared at the class tonight. He's happy for me but thinks it's a scam. So sad. I see 30 something women I work with all day that have terrible long term illnesses and getting operations eating fast food for breakfast lunch and dinner and they wonder why they're so sick but they're too lazy to change. I've learned to only answer questions when asked which they do cause they see I'm 51 and look like I'm 35 and have tons of energy. Brian, I understand that some people make false claims and some people are mean but I'm not like that. And you know I can't say that I'll never eat shrimp or crabs or chicken ever cause I do but the more raw fruits and veggies the better I feel. Just try it.

Honey, greenville,sc
August 21, 2009 8:58pm

I must say some of the claims that were cited in this show truly are strange and obviously untrue. When I heard about raw food several years ago, though, there were other benefits listed, which I think make more sense.

The basic idea was that eating raw foods is just eating the natural foods all humans ate before agriculture and cooking were used, which is very recent in evolutionary terms. Basically we just eat what humans used to hunt and forage. Grains and rice were the original "junk food". Quick easy calories, but not as healthy and meat, fish, nuts, fruits and vegetables. That's the stuff we evolved to eat over millions of years, and it makes sense we are most adapted to it. This argument seems plausible to me.

Of course, we need the grains and rice now, because you can't feed 7 billion people without them.

I was also taught growing up that vegetables are healthier raw, because cooking destroys some of the "nutrients". Not sure if this is really true (don't tell me my mother was wrong!), but it can't hurt. Besides, I can't stand the taste of smell of cooked broccoli, but I don't mind it raw. :)

I would be curious though if anyone has any scientific references that back up (or refute) this nutrient theory.

Chris, Toronto
August 28, 2009 9:46pm

Jeff,
It is very good to hear that you've found a diet that suits your needs. I'm not convinced though that the reason for the good changes due to the raw food part of your lifestyle change. In any case there is a lot of evidence that the way the food is cooked influences its nutritional value. However, McDonalds and other types junk food should be excluded at all costs.
However, be wary of such a restricted diet. I must warn you that not all nutritional deficiencies work as fast as scurvy (lack of vitamin C), e.g. example vitamin B12 deficiency (http://bit.ly/46zbdf) can take 10 years or more to appear in vegans.

Honey,
I'm sure your husband and others around you love your condescending gospels. In fact, I guess it is the real way to save from their "S.A.D. lifestyle".

The rawfoodist claims were very prevalent in the yoga classes I attended. I actually tried to follow it for a week just for the small refreshing change in the lifestyle, but I just don't find it healthy to be constantly hungry and hunting for real food.

Bono, Bulgaria
November 16, 2009 3:30pm

Thanks for posting this Brian.

There is so much mis-information on the internet and people seem to beleive what they want (whether or not it is true).

Many 'raw-foodists' seem to be very dogmatic and make pseudo-science claims about their diet.

I find it strange when many raw-foodists put out e-books etc with science-like claims when many of them are not scientists nor have they studied human anatomy and phyisiology. It's quite dangerous as others look up to them and beleive what they say. A little knowledge can be dangerous.

Also if raw foodists beleive this is the only diet for people (or if they beleive it is the one true natural diet) then how about people who have trouble digesting raw foods or people who are in climates that are not appropriate for raw food diets?

The claims that 'cooked food is toxic' is so ridiculous to me. Cooking helps makes foods more digestible and helps break down cell walls so we can obtain nutrients!

Oh and the claim that 'raw foodists never get sick on raw diet'...the thing is getting sick is enevitable we will all get sick some time in our lives...a good diet will surely help to lower our risk of certain diseases and illness...but no diet can really prevent us from fully never getting sick.

Some raw food is important in ones diet but some of the claims are a bit ridiculous... I beleive there is no universal diet and everyone has to find what works for them. Moderation is key (with all cooking methods).

Michelle.

Michelle, Melbourne, Australia
November 17, 2009 4:05pm

Hi everyone. I found skeptoid not long time, it's a very interesting podcast. Thank you Brian for doing this. I have to comment this episode because I have changed my diet several months ago and I have some facts to share with your listeners. I wasn't a BBQ guy nor raw foodist nor vegan. I wasn't into fast foods, wasn't fat and wasn't a sportsman. Just a normal guy who moved from ex-Soviet Union to Canada at age 27. In first two years I've gained about 5-6 kg (life stile change, I guess). Then in about 7 more years I've gained 2-3 more kg. No health changes though, just slow aging. I used to have strong headaches back home and I had them in Canada. My diet was 15-25% (fruits and small salads) and 85-75% cooked food. Not exact data because it was changed by the season. This summer I read a book "Eat to live" by Dr. Joel Fuhrman and in one week I have changed my diet to about 80% fruits and big green salads and 20% cooked grains + little bread. As of today: fast food=0; donuts, cakes=0; meat, fish, eggs, butter=0; ice cream=0; cheese=0, milk=0. I feel better in the morning, feel same through the day. Headaches that I could not manage without Advil are gone. No one headache since August. Upon weather changing I feel like it starts in my head but never develops into a strong headache. I lost 8 kg and in my 37 I look like in my 27. May be it's a coincidence may be not. I'm not saying go 100% row, but if you go at least 80+20 it may help you. Cheers everybody.

Dimitri, Stoney Creek, Ontario, Canada
December 11, 2009 3:22pm

Erica,

Nowhere does the author claim that baboons are apes. He (correctly) states that they are primates.

Jess, Pinole
December 30, 2009 9:57am

I just came across this and just wanted to say, great article. Well thought out and researched. I would like to add a couple of things though. Raw food PURISTS DO take things to far with their scientific and spiritual reasoning for eating raw food. A raw food lifestyle is a personal choice that should not be gone into lightly. You have to really look at getting a variety in your diet just as you would in an average diet. The difference is with a regular diet most people still do not get their daily requirements of vitamins and minerals. Eating and planning a raw food diet a person is more likely to know what they are lacking and therefore supplement.

Raw food can be rewarding personally and financially if you look at that. But again it is personal and should not be backed by unscientific claims or based on a spiritual belief.

Ken Crawford, Richmond, Va
January 10, 2010 2:01am

"Humans are the only primates who eat meat."

I'd love to show some of these people videos of chimpanzees eating . . . not just other primates, but other chimpanzees.

"We are not Jeff Goldblum in The Fly."

Noo! It's not true! Don't crush my hopes and dreams! *buzzes away*

"Animals live to a much greater multiplier of their maturity age."

lol, one word; . . . Mayfly. They live as pupae for months/years (not sure) and when they become adults they don't even have mouths, they don't need them. They die after 24 hours.

"you can enjoy it without making absurd claim"

Yes, but absurd claims are fun!

A) Cooked foods cause mutations like radiation in superhero comics, potentially turning people into X-men
B) This is somehow not awesome.

Anyway, good episode

Jonathan, Earth
January 13, 2010 4:11am

Sigh. Sounds like ad hominem. I'm a raw foodie and I've never heard ANY of the claims above. A couple of them are close but 'ridiculified' versions of good reasons to eat raw food.
Cooked food is toxic. Toxic doesn't have to mean death causing. It can mean simply 'more poisonous.' Like breathing in fumes from a wood fire is not going to kill you, but wouldn't you rather breath clear air? Cooked food is cooked. Altered. Toxic in the sense that ashes are toxic. In large enough amounts, anything can kill you, but I'm not as concerned about my food killing me as I am knowing I'm consuming it in it's most beneficial form. The human body did not evolve to consume cooked foods. 'Cooked' also spans 'processed', as processing involves cooking at high temperatures and turning food that was nutritious, i.e, grain, sugar cane, in to processed non-food items like flour and sugar. bla bla bla. Anyway, my point was that the items in your list seemed unfairly weighted toward the far side of outrageous and leaning more toward ad hominem attack. Not at all what a reasonable raw foodist believes.

Bertha, Salt Lake City
February 11, 2010 3:45pm

Bertha, how can you possibly say that you've never heard ANY of the claims above, and then REPEAT claims from above? Are you incapable of hearing yourself?

Just because we evolved doing things one thing in absolutely no way means it is the optimal way to do things.

Brandon, Falconer NY
February 11, 2010 7:12pm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8543906.stm

Did the discovery of cooking make us human?

C, Portland
March 14, 2010 12:14pm

Oops. I think I meant 'straw man' argument. Not ad hominem. Brandon, I am repeating the claims to identify the ones I want to focus on for debate. Simply restating soemthing doesn't mean I'm 're-asserting' it. Is that what you meant? And um, saying that we arrived at our current evolution due to it being anything other than optimal is to completely miss the point of natural selection.
C Portland: We were human before the 'invention' of fire, so how could 'cooking' make us human? Perhaps you meant to make a different point and it came out wrong...

Bertha, Salt Lake City
March 23, 2010 3:20pm

Bertha, you have fundamentally misunderstood evolution (as I suspect so too have the majority of raw fooders). Evolution does not posit that natural selection creates optimal versions of an animal, it states that it selects for animals most able to reproduce; survival is merely selected for as a byproduct of the true goal: reproduction. As a result, animals are not optimally designed to survive and flourish in their environments, they are merely better at reproducing than their competition, be it because of added survival or added reproductive appeal (male peacocks' feathers being a prime example of how survival is second to reproduction, the feathers greatly increase predation, but so too do they increase reproduction). I find that this is the most misunderstood part of evolution by most members of the public.

Your body is not optimally designed, the inclusion of an appendix alone (a vestigial organ which takes up resources with no proven benefit) should make that obvious so an argument from naturalness fails.

Your previous argument doesn't work either: processing food and burning food should not increase its toxicity and should not significantly lower its nutritional benefit. It can, however, kill off any antigens present on the food. Your analogy to ash is fallacious, as the reason ash ridden air is harmful is because the respiratory system cannot process non-gasses, whereas unwanted, but inert, substances simply pass through the gastrointestinal system.

Ben, London
April 27, 2010 8:40pm

"Cooked food is toxic. "

Evidence?

Cooking can alter the food, certainly. Cooked starches can form webs better, cooked proteins can denature and alter their form (not necessarily a bad thing--it's what sets the albumen in an egg, making a hard-boiled egg hard), and it can remove/create aromatics. All of that is evident to any dinner. After that, I'd like to see some real proof of toxicity.

You listed grain as nutriteous and flour as non-food, which I find interesting. Flour is merely pulverized grain (BLEACHED flour is another issue, chemically), and facilitates in turning undigestible starches into something humans can digest. Hardly a bad thing, and hardly non-food, considering mastication (chewing) would do the same thing, only much less efficiently.

"The human body did not evolve to consume cooked foods."

As Ben said, the human body didn't evolve to do anything other than reproduce. The rest is a means to that end (biologically speaking). We're eating cooked food now; those of us who have systems that can handle it better than others may have some advantage reproductively. That's all you can say in terms of evolution.

The point of natural selection is to make things "good enough"; optimization requires thought, and evaluation, and an ideal against which to compare your current situation, none of which are available to natural selection.

Gregory, Alabama
June 08, 2010 12:51pm