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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Splinemodel 
. . . food poisoning with raw seafood most often comes from spoiling taking place during the phase between harvesting and the dinner plate.
. . . food poisoning with raw seafood most often comes from spoiling taking place during the phase between harvesting and the dinner plate.
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.
Comments
Uh, huh... Important enzymes, eh? Ones that miraculously survive digestion? I think you might mean cofactors, but you used the term enzymes, which makes me further believe you don't actually know what you are talking about... There is no nutrient so essential that cooking meat will cause you to lose all sources of it.
". . . you don't actually know what you are talking about . . ." I only know what I read.
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.
A number of medications should not be taken with grapefruit juice itself. These include certain immunosuppressants, cholesterol-lowering drugs, and antihistamines - if in doubt consult a physician.
from wikipedia:
Grapefruit can have a number of interactions with drugs, often increasing the effective potency of compounds. . .
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.
Enzymes in food do not survive digestion. They don't assist digestion. Those that survive the acid in the stomach are proteolyzed in the gut.
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
Ubiquinone (Q10) is not a vitamin. We get all of the q10 we need from bacteria in our digestive track.
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:
"Young people are able to make Q10 from the lower numbered ubiquinones such as Q6 or Q8. The sick and elderly may not be able to make enough, thus Q10 becomes a vitamin later in life and in illness."
You cite an article from wiki, a questionable source for such specific information to begin with, that talks about the BELIEFS of people who eat raw food. Beliefs.
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.
This article attempts to be balanced but lays out the fact that the raw food benefits you cite are essentially bullshit . . .
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.
. . . the only scientific benefits are associated with the lower fat and salt consumption that comes with many raw only diets, the rest are all placebo-like 'feel-good' that wear off . . .
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?
Part of the western increase in bowel cancer is linked to the increasing tendency towards highly processed and manufacturered foods with higher additives of uncertain function. Whereas vegetables constitute roughage (cellulose) for a healthy diet, it does so mostly by stimulating regular bowel movement to prevent stasis. This in turn enables bowel hygiene. Fruit and vegetable, raw or slightly cooked, I think most people can grasp this.
Travelling around the Far East last year, I discovered how delicious Japanese sushi is - the Japanese chefs use the best slithers of meat from fish, away from the gut and intestinal parts of the fish. I notice in the literature that the incidence of stomach cancer is also higher in Japanese populations - a reflection of their dietary preoccupation perhaps. Although one wonders with the amount of malachite green toxin in fish nowadays, whether it's possible that the two are linked.
Please don't mention oysters.....I'm going to get post-traumatic stress just thinking about an oyster shucker in my dreams...
I notice in the literature that the incidence of stomach cancer is also higher in Japanese populations - a reflection of their dietary preoccupation perhaps.
I read it was their liking for many pickled foods. I don't think anyone knows for sure, however.
Please don't mention oysters.....I'm going to get post-traumatic stress just thinking about an oyster shucker in my dreams...
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.
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.
First off, let me preface anything I say with a short disclaimer: if whatever you're doing as far as health and diet is working for you and you're happy with the results, I'm not going to tell you that something else is better for you. With that said, I actually shy away from raw foods myself. I think sushi is great, but the big caveat is that it can contain parasites, such as tapeworms, flukes, etc. Granted, there are ways of taking care of these, natural and artificial, but I'd rather avoid. I also cook all of the vegetables I eat, since my digestive tract is no good at breaking down cellulose. Also in regard to produce, I try to only eat organic stuff since overfarming has pretty much leeched all the nutrients out of standard, grocery store produce. Unless you need the fiber, it's better to just take a good, daily vitamin.
". . . you don't actually know what you are talking about . . ." I only know what I read.
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.
Coenzymes are NOT vitamins. Heme, which your body naturally produces is a coenzyme... it is NOT a vitamin... etc...
All vitamins are coenzymes, but the converse is not true.
As outlined in the article I cited in the other thread:
Bone density is diminished in people who eat raw only diets.
The supposed benefit of digestive enzymes IN the food is not real -- people produce 'ample enough enzymes" on their own.
Raw food sometimes CANNOT be absorbed, quite literally contrary to every claim out there that you can more easily absorb raw food...
Vitamin B12 deficiency.
Insufficient calories.
Nutritional deficiencies like:
Low Iron.
Low calcium.
low protein.
The only scientifically proven benefit is something we already know -- low sodium, low fat diets are healthier, but you DON'T NEED TO EAT RAW TO GET THIS BENEFIT.
In other words, snoopy, it is bullshit and carries more proven health risks than benefits...
Coenzymes are NOT vitamins. Heme, which your body naturally produces is a coenzyme... it is NOT a vitamin... etc...
All vitamins are coenzymes, but the converse is not true.
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.
As outlined in the article I cited in the other thread:
Bone density is diminished in people who eat raw only diets.
The supposed benefit of digestive enzymes IN the food is not real -- people produce 'ample enough enzymes" on their own.
Raw food sometimes CANNOT be absorbed, quite literally contrary to every claim out there that you can more easily absorb raw food...
Vitamin B12 deficiency.
Insufficient calories.
Nutritional deficiencies like:
Low Iron.
Low calcium.
low protein.
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.
In other words, snoopy, it is bullshit and carries more proven health risks than benefits...
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.
However, do not eat raw peanuts. Technically, these are not nuts, and should only be eaten roasted.
What's wrong with raw peanuts?
What's wrong with raw peanuts?
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.
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.
No; no it doesn't. You cannot possibly over tax your digestive system unless you were constantly feeding. Your claim that it is less of a burden is unproven. The heating that causes enzymes to break down also breaks down other proteins and DOESN'T prevent you from extracting protein, starches, sugars or fats from your food. The ONLY reasonable suggestion is that ALL diets should have some RAW OR STEAMED VEGETABLES, and ONLY SOME for BETTER sources of vitamins. That being said, vitamin deficiencies are often caused by the genetics of the person rather than the source of food. Supplements of vitamins are more than SUFFICIENT to supply the needed nutrients if they are lacking at all.
Once again, the digestive system isn't like muscles, it doesn't wear out. It can become diseased but it does not wear out. It is not overtaxed by cooked foods. There are no benefits to even a mostly raw diet that cannot be found in diets that reduce fat and salt.
Again. It is a personal preference, but not one that benefits anyone...
Have you reached any conclusions yet? I'm about to run out for some sushi...
I think we should move on to discussing one of the more difficult subjects such as OS X vs. XP or just home much Apple is better than Dell.
"Good evening, Clarise."
V/R,
Aries 1B
I've read and watched some stuff of wheatgrass juice and its health benefits despite the supposedly horrid smell and taste of the stuff. I'm thinking of having a go at it. Anyone tried it before?
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.
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
You cannot possibly over tax your digestive system unless you were constantly feeding. Your claim that it is less of a burden is unproven.
"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."
The heating that causes enzymes to break down also breaks down other proteins and DOESN'T prevent you from extracting protein, starches, sugars or fats from your food.
"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."
That being said, vitamin deficiencies are often caused by the genetics of the person rather than the source of food. Supplements of vitamins are more than SUFFICIENT to supply the needed nutrients if they are lacking at all.
"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."
"There?s 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.
1) There is no increase in white blood cell (pathological leukocytosis) count after eating properly prepared foods -- there is never a citation to this study anyway as if it doesn't exist or is obscure. In fact, you will only see this if the foods are not cooked.
2) Unidentified factors coming from a herbivore eating grass at a very specific time of year speaks to the legitimacy and scientific repeatability of these results -- ie they are either an experimental artifact or complete crap. And given that this butter was so beneficial, one has to wonder whether why these vultures aren't marketing this already... screams of bullshit.
3) Acidifying and alkanizing foods... BULLSHIT! snoopy, you clearly have no understanding of biology. Our body is buffered, primarily through phosphate, but also through a variety of other protonateable groups. You cannot possibly change the pH of the fluids in your body by eating food -- the buffering capacity is just that great and our body responds to pH changes very rapidly. this concept screams wholistic unsupported bullshit. cooking food does not change the products into which that food is metabolized, meaning a cooked piece of fish is going to have the same propensity for changing the ph of your body fluids as an uncooked piece of fish. regardless... our stomach is pH 1... taking supplements which are absorbed in the stomach or even the colon that are "acidic" isn't going to appreciably change this pH...
4) Wait... Organic or raw? You have ben suckered into this diet, I think.
5) Ancient knowledge isn't accurate or reasonable knowledge... Pythagoras probably also believed that you vital spirits are held in the humors...
6) OOOH... you finish with the classic FUD statement... the g-man's gonna get you and those scientist, they don't know anything... shut the fuck up. you aren't one to judge anything. you have demonstrated a shear lack of critical thinking in this and the other thread; i should have realized this when you said you only know what you read...
THEN READ:
Read Me!
No, read me!
NO! READ ME!
NO! READ US ALL!
And before you go off proselytizing your next cause-du-jour check out:
Main site
I am done here... Enjoy living with your quackery...