Raw food and bacteria

[Brutha]

The claim that eating raw is benefitial to your health is popular in this forum.
That leaves the question of why eating raw should be healthy.

One explanation would be that cooking food kills bacterias in the food that the human body needs.
Seth Roberts for example argues that most Westernes don't eat enough bacteria.

[openeyes]

Originally Posted by Brutha

One explanation would be that cooking food kills bacterias in the food that the human body needs.
Seth Roberts for example argues that most Westernes don't eat enough bacteria.

Among raw foodists who eat meat (or at least dairy) this is often mentioned (Aajonus Vonderplanitz in particular). Another would be Wild Fermentation

[Chap]

Children who live and play next to raw sewers have amongst the worlds highest immune systems, although I wouldn't recommend it to anyone.

Going on a raw food diet will produce pleasant results, probably because ones normal diet should contain a lot less processed foods. To live purely off raw nuts, pulses, and such however is possible but not essential.

[ginkgo]

You can also buy a whole book on enzymes. Enzymes are nutrients in foods that are killed by cooking. Enzymes help you to digest the foods that you eat.

Hence the saying, "You are not what you eat, but what you assimilate." As far as good bacteria, wheat has a lot more good bacteria than yogurt. But people cook the wheat. But if you buy raw wheat berries and soak them in water for a day, the water is loaded with the good bacteria that is rapidly growing (see Rejuvelac).

[funchy]

Originally Posted by Brutha

The claim that eating raw is benefitial to your health is popular in this forum.
That leaves the question of why eating raw should be healthy.

One explanation would be that cooking food kills bacterias in the food that the human body needs.

The theory I've heard is that cooking destroys important proteins, namely enzymes. A protein is just a huge folded-up molecule, a chain of amino acids bonded together. Heat tends to break bonds, allowing the molecule to unfold and possibly break bonds between poly-peptide chains (chunks of amino acids). In other words, by cooking the food, we'd be destroying specific proteins that [according to the Raw theory] we thrive on.

Without ironclad proof either way if a 100% raw diet is ideal, I can see where it offers other heath benefits. We know most Americans will suffer from diet-affected conditions: diabetes, heart disease, stroke, and cancer. Most of the correlating or causative factors point towards processed foods, artificial additives, added salt/fat/calories, or meat (since meat is almost never eaten raw). A raw foodist has no choice but to also eat fiber, antioxidants, phytonutrients, and other goodies in their daily diet -- all believed to be good for health. So even if someone isn't 100% sure about the theory behind Raw, it does seem to offer many benefits.

Seth Roberts for example argues that most Westernes don't eat enough bacteria.

I'm hesitant to agree with the link you posted. It's based on some bits and pieces taken out of the Mazmanian/McBride article, and at a glance I didn't get the same conclusions. Bacteroides fragilis is a pathogen in humans -- in other words it causes disease, generally not a 'good' bacteria. Suggesting we need to eat more pathogens to be "healthy" seems illogical.

I do agree raising and keeping mice in a 100% sterile environment is not going to be great for their immune system. But no human lives a life clean enough to come close to the mice's completely sterile cages. Suggesting people expose themselves to more bacteria may not be a good thing. Some bacteria will make even a healthy person very sick.

The mechanism they propose is that this pathogen works to help with inflammation caused by H. hepaticus in mice. But Helicobacter hepaticus is a worse pathogen, showing a strong correlation to intestinal or liver granulomas & cancer. Wouldnt it just be easier to find ways of lowering exposure to Helicobacter hepaticus, rather than trying to band-aid its inflammation with a second pathogen?

[andersonx]

In some foods cooking reduces the nutrients (for example boiling vegetables cause the nutrients to leach into the water).

However, with some foods cooking increases the availability of nutrients. The cooking and roasting of garlic are good examples, which increases the levels of compounds in these food that protect your immune system. Kale, as anothe example, reaches maximum nutrient availability after five minutes cooking.

There is no need to follow a strict, rigid dogma about cooking or not cooking.

A diet that contains very large quantities of fresh food and vegetables, and leaves out refined carbs, chocolate, sugar, pasteurized dairy is obviously going to be a healthier diet.

It doesn't neccessarily need to be 100% raw, in fact, as discussed, cooking certain foods can increase their health promoting effects and make them easier to digest.

[aggie]

i do not know a lot about truly raw diets...the only thing i've ever known is with raw foods...a lot of it has to do with the handling of it...human hands can contiminate raw fruits and vegetable very easily. any elaboration from the experts would be appreciated. thanks.

[James81]

Hmm, well the way I see it, if you're going to go completely raw and are worried about the BAD bacteria, then you should focus on keeping the food really cold (as opposed to cooking the food to kill the bacteria).

According to Food Handlers classes I've been in (back in college), bacteria thrive between 40-140 degrees.

So if you aren't cooking it, then keeping it a temperature below 40 degrees would seem like a logical choice to me. (assuming you're worried about bacteria that is)

The words "good bacteria" make me laugh though. That sounds like an internet armchair term to me.

[JSB]

Originally Posted by James81

The words "good bacteria" make me laugh though. That sounds like an internet armchair term to me.

Probiotics: What are they? - MayoClinic.com

An Introduction to Probiotics [NCCAM Health Information]

[James81]

Originally Posted by JSB

Probiotics: What are they? - MayoClinic.com

An Introduction to Probiotics [NCCAM Health Information]

Ok, how about a good mainstream source?

I'm open to the idea, mind you. But those links do nothing but prove the whole "internet armchair" statement I made.

[JSB]

Originally Posted by James81

Ok, how about a good mainstream source?

I'm open to the idea, mind you. But those links do nothing but prove the whole "internet armchair" statement I made.

The Mayo Clinic and the National Institute of Health aren't mainstream enough for you? Sorry, but I don't think it gets any more mainstream than that.

[liamona]

Originally Posted by James81

I'm open to the idea, mind you. But those links do nothing but prove the whole "internet armchair" statement I made.

I know what you mean! But all my skepticism about "good" bacteria has been removed by taking the industrial-strength probiotic supplements from the Custom Probiotics company.

I started off with 25 billion bacteria once or twice a day, and have now moved up to 50.

Sorry for the TMI, but if I take too much I get diarrhea. Just the right amount means great regularity, no matter how much or how little fiber I consume.

Although I'm a big fan of fermented veggies and drinks, nothing I've ever eaten or drunk has had the miraculous effect on my health as this supplement.

[James81]

Originally Posted by JSB

The Mayo Clinic and the National Institute of Health aren't mainstream enough for you? Sorry, but I don't think it gets any more mainstream than that.

It appears to me that both of those links are big propenents of alternative medicine. I really don't consider alternative advocates to be "mainstream." (not that there is anything wrong with alternative medicine, mind you)

Maybe I'm wrong.

[Brutha]

The theory I've heard is that cooking destroys important proteins, namely enzymes. A protein is just a huge folded-up molecule, a chain of amino acids bonded together. Heat tends to break bonds, allowing the molecule to unfold and possibly break bonds between poly-peptide chains (chunks of amino acids). In other words, by cooking the food, we'd be destroying specific proteins that [according to the Raw theory] we thrive on.

I would think that most proteins get anyway degerated in the stomach.

Bacteroides fragilis is a pathogen in humans -- in other words it causes disease, generally not a 'good' bacteria. Suggesting we need to eat more pathogens to be "healthy" seems illogical.

If you happen to believe in reductionism it does seem illogical.
If you however think that the body needs to be in balance to be healthy removing more pathogens than there would have been 10,000 years ago in the food woud destroy the balance.

In biology there are a lot of sigmoid curves that do different things than the average person who believes that everything is linear would expect (one of the main thing I learned in my biochemistry courses).

Bonnie Bassler on how bacteria "talk" | Video on TED.com is a nice ted talk that might shift your mindset a bit.

Wouldnt it just be easier to find ways of lowering exposure to Helicobacter hepaticus, rather than trying to band-aid its inflammation with a second pathogen?

Killing specific bacteria isn't easy.

The words "good bacteria" make me laugh though. That sounds like an internet armchair term to me.

The fact that we live in symbiosis with a lot of bacteria in our body isn't something that in dispute scientifically.
We however don't really know what all those bacteria do in our body. Craig Venter tries at the moment to sequence those bacterias.
Maybe we will learn exactly what all those bacteria do in our body and how we can change what they do but that not something that mainstream science understands at the moment.
It's to complex.

[JSB]

Originally Posted by James81

It appears to me that both of those links are big propenents of alternative medicine. I really don't consider alternative advocates to be "mainstream." (not that there is anything wrong with alternative medicine, mind you)

Maybe I'm wrong.

The National Institutes of Health and the Mayo Clinic are about as medically mainstream/traditional as you will ever find in the U.S.

The fact that each has a webpage addressing alternative health issues says more about the recent shift in public acceptance of complementary and alternative medicine than it does about NIH or Mayo.

[liamona]

Originally Posted by JSB

The National Institutes of Health and the Mayo Clinic are about as medically mainstream/traditional as you will ever find in the U.S.

The fact that each has a webpage addressing alternative health issues says more about the recent shift in public acceptance of complementary and alternative medicine than it does about NIH or Mayo.

I think it says a lot about allopathic medical providers: they know perfectly well that people are willing to spend lots of money out-of-pocket to see alternative doctors who can actually heal them rather than just provide a band-aid for chronic problems.

The nice thing is that recently many talented M.D.s have also studied alternative modalities, so you get the best of both worlds.

I have one like that; he practices in the wealthy part of town, is open for limited hours, and doesn't take any insurance because he doesn't have to.

Coincidentally or not, he has no Big Pharma posters, pens, or coffee cups plastered with drug ads, like the HMO doctors.

[Brutha]

The National Institutes of Health and the Mayo Clinic are about as medically mainstream/traditional as you will ever find in the U.S.

NCCAM exist inside the NIH because of political reasons. Some congressman who like alternative medicine decided to fund studies for alternative medicine.
If you would ask NIH leadership they would probably give NCCAM no money.

There are studies such as Elsevier: Article Locator that show some positive effect of probiotics.
There however haven't been enough studies of different probiotics to completely explain what probiotics do and which probiotics are the best ones when you want a high scientific standard.
Exploring an area like that simply takes a lot of studies and there isn't much money to be made as you don't need FDA approval for probiotics.

[liamona]

Originally Posted by Brutha

Exploring an area like that simply takes a lot of studies and there isn't much money to be made as you don't need FDA approval for probiotics.

That makes a lot of sense. And the FDA gets what—about 60% of its funding from drug patents and other monies from Big Pharma companies?