Benefits of Eating Raw Food

The first five posts here are from the thread about raw oysters. The focus there is just raw oysters, as it should be. I posted something related, and it quickly got off topic. So whether it's legal on this forum or not, here are the five posts again, to kick off the topic on the benefit and problems of eating raw food in general.



I frequently eat raw salmon, which is caught and then frozen while still on the ship. (According to the store literature.) I thaw the salmon in a bowl of water, to which I add ten drops of GSE, grapefruit seed extract. GSE kills any bacteria. Never have been sick from it. Raw foods contain important enzymes that are lost in cooking.

I wouldn't recommend eating anything raw but ocean fish. There is a difference between the bacteria in saltwater and freshwater creatures.

Also, if you don't know about GSE, it is one of the most useful things to keep around the house, or to take with you camping or traveling in uncivilized areas. Ten drops to a gallon will kill bacteria from mountain stream water, for example. If you get amoebic dysentery or food poising, drink a glasses of water with 15 drops of GSE added, several times a day, or until symptoms disappear. It is very bitter, but you can add a sweetener like stevia.

". . . you don't actually know what you are talking about . . ." I only know what I read. There are 'digestive' enzymes in raw food which help our bodies digest it. When we cook, the high temperature destroys them, just as enzymes in milk are destroyed by pasteurizing. If you are so well informed about nutrition, please write something that will let me correct my miscomprehension, rather than simply saying I don't know what I'm talking about.

Maybe you are thinking about coenzymes, which are actually vitamins. For some unknown reason, coenzyme Q10 is not referred to as a vitamin, but rather CoQ10.

Grapefruit is something to avoid, especially for men. It affects hormones. Also, I avoid any drugs, but prefer natural approaches to healing and keeping well. I guess it works. I was sick only once in the last 10 years, a minor, one day bout with the flu with a 99.5 degree fever. The net result was that I got a little extra sleep.

Back to GSE, which is not grapefruit, but an extract from the seed and pulp I believe. You can find more information on Google, searching 'grapefruit seed extract.' Wikipedia takes a dim view of it, but I know first hand that it works very well.

As I said before, I only know what I read. Do you have any reference links I can read? Your view is different from most of what I read so far. Here is what Wikipedia has to say about raw food.

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



I have not read that bacteria produces Q10, so that is new information. Regarding whether it is a vitamin or not, the answer seems to be 'sometimes.' Here is what Wikipedia has to say about Ubiquinone being a vitamin:

I thought the Wikipedia page was fairly balance. It did talk about beliefs in the section on background, but also discussed research. Some of the beliefs are of course invalid, but many were shown to be correct.



Thank you for that link. I thought the article was quite good. Strange how I got an entirely different impression of what was said. Anyone reading this thread and interested in nutrition should read this article, and make up their own mind what it says. What I appreciate is the balance approach they take. Raw foods have benefits, but must be approached with some caution. I think that is the bottom line.

We are very selective what we eat raw. Salt water fish, fruits, nuts, and a few vegetables. We did drink raw milk, but it was banned in Oregon by some over zealous health officials. BTW, if you live in a state that permits raw milk, I would add twelve drops of GSE to each gallon to eliminate contamination, which would be rare, but I lean to the cautious side.

Most vegetables need to be steamed to break down the cellulose, I think it's called, so it can be digested easily. We don't have a stomach like a cow. Also, cooking can eliminate toxic effects of certain plants, like rhubarb and to a lesser extent garlic and onions.

Don't even think about eating any meat raw, except salt water fish.

FYI, the rest of our diet is what we do not eat, or eat in small amounts: starchy vegetables, grains and grain products, refined sugar, all supermarket oils, except virgin olive oil. We also add flax seed oil and fish oil to our diet.



I've been on a diet like this for a long time. I definitely feel good, and it has not worn off in over ten years now. I must be due for a big crash any time now, right?

I read it was their liking for many pickled foods. I don't think anyone knows for sure, however.



Okay. I've been there, eating something that disagreed with me. I could not eat it again for a long time.

BTW, I mentioned eating raw nuts, which are good. However, do not eat raw peanuts. Technically, these are not nuts, and should only be eaten roasted.

Right, but CoQ10 is a vitamin for a large number of people, who's bodies are unable to make it from the lower Q6 or Q8. These are usually the sick and elderly. For them, Q10 is a vitamin. For those who's "body naturally produces" Q10, it is not a vitamin -- using your definition. It's a minor point anyway. What is significant is that many people are unable to make enough CoQ10 and it must be supplemented to stay healthy.



The article cited is very good in my opinion, being very balanced:

http://www.iowasource.com/food/rawfood_0806.html

Some of the problems you cite above are not a result of raw food at all. Some of the problems, such as a deficiency in vitamin B12, are brought about by a vegetarian diet that some raw food enthusiasts follow. Others are caused by ignoring a balanced approach, which the article advocates and so do I. We do not eat many raw vegetables because our body cannot break it down in our digestive track. Steam most vegetables, but some are okay raw.

Low protein can be a problem in any diet, and is not restricted to eating raw food. Saltwater fish can be eaten for protein, for those who are want almost all food to be raw. Vegans eat no animal products, however, and make it difficult on themselves, to get enough protein. We eat cooked meat and eggs for protein. Yes, eggs can be eaten raw, but my wife and son do not do this. Just be sure to wash the shell to avoid contamination. Mix it in a drink.

Regarding your comment that people produce enough enzymes on their own, I say it is like the Q10 issue. Not all people are the same and some are deficient in enzymes. Even for those who produce enough now, eating raw food puts less of a burden on the body. What happens when one of our system is overworked.? It sometimes wears out. Raw food is a step toward preserving our natural digestive system.

The bottom line is we must use our heads when approaching raw food, and take a balanced approach. Fanatics get into trouble in everything it seems -- not just with raw food diets. Raw food can be a large or small part of any diet. Let's face it, most of us seldom cook our apples and oranges.



Only the risks that people open themselves up to when they don't use their head. The benefits can be many in my opinion. If your digestive system is pumping out lots of enzymes, and you are not concerned about over taxing it, then cook all your food if you prefer. But saying there are no benefits for anyone else is simply not true. We are all different and should make our own choices, while using our brains of course.

BTW, you made the statement in an earlier post that enzymes are destroyed by acid in the stomach. I have not found this in any of the articles I've read. If you have a link I'd like to see it. I'm open to learn something, but at this point I believe digestive enzymes in raw food do assist digestion.

I don't know, and a brief search didn't find anything. It is something I read years ago, and since I never had any intention of eating raw peanuts, I didn't check it out. If anyone likes raw peanuts, check it out before continuing to eat them. That's what I'd do.

It is reputed to be very good for you. A juice bar will squeeze about an ounce of fresh grass. Very strong taste, but can be mixed with another juice to make it palatable.

For those who haven't yet tired of this discussion.

Here's an article explaining raw food fairly well. It is slightly commercialized, but you can skip that stuff if you are not interested. The replies I make below will be taken from this article.

http://www.mercola.com/2004/apr/28/raw_food_diets.htm


"There are many health-promoting compounds and factors in whole, unbroken raw foods that we do not exactly or fully understand, even given all our scientific and technical advances. Dr. Price demonstrated this when he showed that butter from cows grazing on fast-growing grasses during a specific time period in the spring of the year contained a compound, not present at other times, that improved health, bone density and healing, much more effectively than cod liver oil alone. The compound, labeled Activator X, has still not been isolated."


"Cooked food increases white blood cell count. Swiss researchers in the 1930s found that eating unaltered raw food or food heated at low temperatures did not cause a reaction in the blood, whereas food heated beyond a certain temperature, or refined, chemicalized or processed food always caused a rise in the white blood cell counts. This phenomenon was named pathological leukocytosis. The worst offenders, not surprisingly, were the high heat processed foods, including beer, refined carbohydrates such as white flour and rice, and homogenized, pasteurized or preserved foods."


"Taking supplements of isolated nutrients combined in a pill or capsule is not the same as getting nutrition from whole, natural, live foods. Even if the essential nutrients are included, nutritional supplements are almost always acidic, whereas live foods, especially greens, are alkalinizing."

"Theres no question about it, the body does better on whole, live, natural foods, from animal and vegetable sources, especially if they are organically grown. One study at Rutgers found that organic produce had an average of 83 percent more nutrients. Besides having higher nutrient density, being more sustainable and more harmonious to the earth and our bodies, this food tastes better--and helps us keep in balance more easily."

Thus far we have been discussing the general health benefits of raw food. The article I've been quoting also discusses the medical benefits.


"Live foods have also been used as a powerful healing treatment. Even as far back as 500 B.C., the wise teacher Pythagoras used raw foods to heal people with poor digestion. Throughout Europe and also here in the United States, completely live food and juice diets have been used to heal a variety of ailments, from arthritis, high blood pressure, diabetes, ulcers, heart and circulatory diseases to cancer and other degenerative diseases."

"Dr. Edward Szekely, for example, saw over 123,600 patients, 17 percent of who were diagnosed medical "incurables" over a 33-year period from 1937 to 1970 at his clinic at Rancho La Puerta, Mexico. Over 90 percent regained full health on a live-food diet."

Bottom line is that with all our scientific knowledge today, there are many things in nature we simply do not understand. When we tinker with our food supply, we tinker with things that are vital to our life. Do we trust trust those who make statements things like, "There is not significant difference between . . . ?" You fill in the blanks. The government at times is our worst enemy in a fight to stay healthy. Under the guise of protecting us they often deprive us of natural compounds essential to good health or life itself. Too many die too soon for lack of knowledge. Just my little rant about staying alive.

I sense we we have irreconcilable differences of opinion here.

Yes, I only know what I read, which goes for most of us. There are so many differing opinions out there that it's difficult to know who to believe. Whose advice do we follow when the experts disagree? When I really don't know, I look at the risk I take by following one or the others advice. Just a thought.

I sense you believe those with the highest reputations, who are in general agreement with their colleagues and most noted professional organizations. I, on the other hand, look to both the recognized experts and the mavericks. If there is something worth knowing, I want to know it and don't care where it comes from. So you are right that much of what I believe is unproven. I want the advantage of this knowledge during the 20 years or so it takes the experts to discover it is true. I'll live with the risks, but be cautious about what I accept.

Such differences of opinion are easy for me to accept. You go your way and I'll go mine, and we can still be friendly. 75 percent of my close friends don't believe me and don't want my opinions about health. That's okay, I don't share my knowledge with them unless they ask for it. I might venture a remark like, "Do you want to know what I think?" On a forum like this, no one is forced to read any of this stuff.

The only problem I have with difference of opinions is enforcement, like regulations that prohibit me from buying and eating what I want. If things get bad enough, I may need to investigate the freedom allowed in other nations. New Zealand is one that comes to mind.

Yes, there are those in power who think everyone should do it their way and only their way. Therefore, we who want to follow a different road must fight for this right. If it were not for the many who are willing to take regulatory agencies to court, we would not be free to buy half the supplements on the market today, which includes many of the most important. I understand it is worse elsewhere, and I really feel for those who must live there yet yearn to be different.

Those on one end of the population are happy with a great deal of regulation. Those on the other end want the freedom to buy what they wish. Those in the middle don't care. Almost no one on either end wants either total control or total freedom, but the distinction between the end groups is very clear. I'm in the freedom group obviously.

I'll give one personal example. My wife suffered from debilitating symptoms for over ten years, and has seen about ten different doctors with no help. A year ago she got on an internet health forum, and discovered her diagnosis: adrenal fatigue and hypothyroidism. She searched and found one doctor in Portland who sounded like he could help. He changed her diet, prescribed some new supplements and put her on a natural T3/T4 hormone. I'm glad we found a doctor, considered a Quack by some I'm sure, who knows what to do. The other doctors saw the same lab test results, but did not interpret them correctly. Even the endocrinologists were worthless. She is now slowly recovering, after years or neglect by the 'recognized' medical profession, who all followed 'recognized' medical protocol.

In your opinion I "have demonstrated a shear lack of critical thinking," yet I really do "enjoy living with my quackery." I recommend it.

All true. Many time I must make up my mind when there is no sound scientific evidence supporting one of the alternatives. Often I just try it and play guinea pig. I'm surprised how often the experiment succeeds, and I begin to feel better. I find this is a good way to adjust natural hormone usage too. I change the level. If I don't improve I go back to the old level. If I begin to feel better, I continue for about 12 weeks, tell the doctor and have my levels checked. So far he has said to keep doing it.



I don't mind looking like a fool if it works. But I'm also not convinced anything was debunked from what I read. I'll have to look into it more in the future, however, just to satisfy myself and to be able to answer questions more intelligently.

I see that Quackwatch debunks all opposition to fluoridating the public water supply. Nice. I wonder what those in the EU think about that. From what I hear, the EU does not even allow public fluoridation of water. Quackwatch also debunks opposition to using mercury amalgam dental fillings. Those writing act like these are not controversial issues, but well proven and safe practices. I don't believe it. If it makes me a fool, so be it. Quack, quack.

Tonton, you have good taste. I love rare steak. The short grilling kills any bacteria on the surface. Don't eat rare ground meat, since the bacteria are thoroughly mix in.

Regarding raw vegetables, the typical salad varieties are fine and we eat lots of salads here. I was speaking of those who try to eat all or most all raw food. Many vegetables should not be eaten raw, like potatoes. Even so, it is a trade off between the taste and texture of things like tomatoes, onions, garlic, broccoli and carrots, and the added nutrients released when these are cooked or steamed. Other vegetables are just better cooked or steamed, like all forms of beans and corn.

By the way, you might like Pinnacle Peaks Patio, outside Phoenix, Arizona, if it is still there. Twenty miles of dirt road and there it is, surrounded by twenty miles of cactus. If you wear a tie, they sneak up and cut it off, but give you an Arizona lariat, or what ever it is called, to go around your collar. They ask, how do you want it? All stakes are the same, and two pounds. You get a prize for eating it all. They have lots of doggy bags however.

Fluoridation and mercury amalgam dental fillings are just two controversial issues supposedly being debunked. The debunkers can give the impression that the opposition consists of uninformed folks who fear anything new or different. Not so. The opponents include a large number of very concerned scientists, many from prestigious universities around the world. So I am not impressed by your simple answers here. Google can yield detailed reasons for wanting to avoid such things, if anybody is interested. Regarding fluoridation, a quick look at Google turned up this page with some references:

http://www.fluoridation.com/abstract.htm

One in particular caught my eye. An EPA employee was pressured to write into the drinking water regulation a statement that the EPA considers it okay for children to have discolored teeth because it is only a cosmetic effect, and does not affect health. It seems the EPA was under political pressure to set its standard for fluoride higher. One thing lead to another, and EPA employees union ultimately organize to fight fluoridation completely, as more and more data on fluoridation became available. The article can be found here:

http://www.fluoridation.com/epa2.htm

A simple answer exists for many issues, including why cooked foods are just as healthy as raw foods, but when scientists dig deeper I've noticed it gets more complicated. Many times it takes years to discover the truth. What do we do until then? For myself, I act on incomplete knowledge to find the safest and most beneficial route.

Why should I expose myself to potential dangers, which may turn out to be real dangers when we know more? It does not hurt me or my children if there is no fluoride in Portland's drinking water. We visit a good dentist often enough to catch any problems early, which have been very few. Usually it's just cleaning the teeth.

Likewise, why should I deprive myself of most raw foods and many supplements and herbs that haven't been proven, yet, to be beneficial? It's just my personal preference to act this way, and so far no one has come up with a good enough reason for me to change.

BTW, my wife is an RN, and when we got married everything went by the book, like the Merck Manual. Since her episode with adrenal fatigue and low thyroid, however, she has turned against 'recognized' medicine, and is now open to whatever works best.

Another BTW, I would have no objection to fluoridated salt, if non-fluoridated salt is also available. That way there is freedom of choice. I don't want the government forcing just one approach onto everybody. You're a chemist. I understand it is relatively easy to remove chlorine from drinking water, but is very difficult to remove fluoride. Let me know if I'm mistaken.