Anti-Raw Article

[Dan.Linehan]

This made me say, Huh-whaaa?

Cooking and Cognition: How Humans Got So Smart

[Dan.Linehan]

And another,

The Raw Food Diet: A Raw Deal

[Dan.Linehan]

That said, humans have always eaten some cooked food. So, too, do many land animals; and so did our human ancestors. How? Largely in the form of roasted grasshoppers or other small critters caught in forest fires and brushfires.

This is hilarious. Is he really saying that a primary source of food for our ancestors were insects roasted in wild fires?

That honestly might be one of the silliest things I've ever read.

What did our ancestors do when there weren't any wildfires? Also, I'm pretty sure insects don't really just get "roasted" in wildfires. They would get completely incinerated if anything.

[igmistro]

The first article is nothing more then a researcher speculating on causes based on his own beliefs. It's interpreting data to fit a predetermined outcome. No scientist actually concerned for his reputation will actually accept this as a valid form of reasoning.

The second article is poorly researched, misleading, and has no proven data to back it up.
1.) Poorly researched: "But plant enzymes, which raw dieters wish to preserve, are largely mashed up with other proteins and rendered useless by acids in the stomach." - This is not true if the food is properly combined. Fruits, for example, will pass through the stomach in the matter of minutes and will not cause a secretion of acid.
2.) Misleading: "The Inuit have survived thousands of years almost entirely on a diet of raw fish and meat." - Surviving and thriving are not the same thing. The average lifespan of Inuits is more then 15 years less then of an average Canadian. There are also very high incidents of cancer, osteoporosis, hear disease, etc. in the Inuit population.
3.) No data: "Major and surprising sources of food-borne illness, however, are raw sprouts, green onions and lettuce." - I personally have been unable to find any data to back up this claim. The couple incidents I did find were traced back to the produce being contaminated when it came into contact with meat or mishandled in some other way.

[Matthew Shea]

Originally Posted by igmistro

The first article is nothing more then a researcher speculating on causes based on his own beliefs. It's interpreting data to fit a predetermined outcome. No scientist actually concerned for his reputation will actually accept this as a valid form of reasoning.

Bingo!

It's more likely that, as humans figured out how to hunt and cultivate food more reliably, they had more time to spend on other, more intellectual pursuits. That, in turn, would certainly result in smarter people.

If I was into a raw-vegan diet, I'd certainly overlook this as exceedingly biased.

[beautyscientist]

I agree with igmistro. It is a piece of speculation, proposing a theory. Nothing more. I don't think it can be portrayed as anti-raw food propaganda.

How could the theory proposed be falsified? I would be interested to see a study comparing the mental abilities of people on a standard diet with those on vegetarian diets and those who include a lot of raw food in their diet. If meat eaters or cooked food consumers do have mental resources greater than people who are not then the theory might be correct.

[Stu]

Originally Posted by Matthew Shea

Bingo!

It's more likely that, as humans figured out how to hunt and cultivate food more reliably, they had more time to spend on other, more intellectual pursuits. That, in turn, would certainly result in smarter people.

If I was into a raw-vegan diet, I'd certainly overlook this as exceedingly biased.

Actually, cultivating crops took a lot more time than hunting and gathering did and it was actually a pretty bad idea for our ancestors to make the switch (although I'm certainly glad they did). However, crop cultivation allowed larger settlements, which eventually meant that certain people within society could focus on things other than growing food, like rudimentary government, invention, and various trades, which led to more trade, economic systems, you get the idea...

An excellent book on this subject is Jared Diamonds 'Guns, Germs, and Steel'

[Fullcrum]

Igmistro, where are the proof for your claims? The articles claims one thing, and you refute it by stating another fact. How do you know that fruits do not stimulate the secretion of stomach acids? How do you know how fast they pass out of the stomach?

Where did you get your data on disease and mortality in the Inuit population? I've read the exact opposite data in other places. Who is right? Obviously I cannot take either you or the other sources at their word.

One thing the first article mentions is that other animals eating raw food take a lot of energy to grind it down in their stomachs. You'll also notice that the jaws of humans have shrunk so that we can no longer tackle tough plant food in large numbers just by chewing alone. So the obvious answer, to me, seems to be fruit. Humans are meant to include fruit as a large part of the diet, just like our closest relatives, the chimpanzees. It includes simple sugars that the body can almost immediately absorb, and fiber to stem the increase in blood sugar and provide consistent energy.

The second article uses a lot of persuasively styled phrases and explanations to make us assume the raw diet is a stupid idea and to make us not even consider it. It portrays cooked food as something we're missing out on and that we need to "lighten up" and start cooking. Very interesting - not such a basis in fact. I've heard, but cannot prove, that vitamin b12 is produced in the gut by healthy bacteria and fauna as well as being found on the bacteria in wild edible plants. For example, in the book Green for Life, one person reported that "Green Smoothies Stabilized Levels of B12" and goes on to explain how she was on some plant based diet but then had low levels of B12. She had green smoothies for a couple of weeks, went back in, and the levels had returned to normal. Could there be some other mechanism besides the raw production of B12? Maybe. Maybe it was trapped elsewhere in the body and needed the green smoothies to "free" itself through some metabolic pathway.

In any case, the logical arguments for meat consumption fail when you notice the energy gains, mental clarity, clear skin, and physical strength increase noticed on a raw diet.

Check this out for a more reasoned approach to dispelling raw food myths. Were Eskimos the Only Raw-Food Culture? / Hunter-Gatherer Health

[igmistro]

Originally Posted by Fullcrum

Igmistro, where are the proof for your claims? The articles claims one thing, and you refute it by stating another fact. How do you know that fruits do not stimulate the secretion of stomach acids? How do you know how fast they pass out of the stomach?

Where did you get your data on disease and mortality in the Inuit population? I've read the exact opposite data in other places. Who is right? Obviously I cannot take either you or the other sources at their word.

I will prepare a more detailed answer once I had a chance to gather some references. But for now... The answer to your first question can be found in many college textbooks on human physiology. I will see if i can find some online sources for you to read, but if not I will have to refer you to the library and the specific books that I studied from.

Second one is much easier. Type "Inuit lifespan" in to Google and read the top 10 results. If you want the actual statistical data look here (you'll have to use the search function there to find census data and then run the numbers yourself). Statistics Canada

P.S. Btw... If you were simply pointing out that I didn't cite any references myself, then you right. It was my intention to demonstrate that the article was presenting information that can easily be disputed as fact.

[Fullcrum]

Thanks much!

Interesting stuff.

Cool that you weren't insulted by me questioning you.