Raw Vegan Life

[HerDotness]

Yes, some things like broccoli do retain more of the nutrition when raw.

No, not true.

The 250 gram stalk of broccoli which I cited above contains 6 grams of protein. 1 cup of chopped raw broccoli, 91 grams, contains just 3 grams of protein. So while one could say that 91 grams is certainly less than 100 grams, the amount of protein in raw broccoli is not significantly more than that in cooked.

Nutrition Facts and Analysis for Broccoli, raw

So, it appears to me that the most healthy diet would consist of both raw and cooked foods, rather than an absolute stance of only one or the other.

This much I agree with as long as a vegan diet is carefully supplemented with B12 and the person eating this way regularly monitored to prevent malnutrition.

 

[Falvlun]

No, not true.

The 250 gram stalk of broccoli which I cited above contains 6 grams of protein. 1 cup of chopped raw broccoli, 91 grams, contains just 3 grams of protein. So while one could say that 91 grams is certainly less than 100 grams, the amount of protein in raw broccoli is not significantly more than that in cooked.

Nutrition Facts and Analysis for Broccoli, raw

Okay, but that's only looking at one particular nutrient: protein.

Cooking broccoli destroys the enzyme myrosinase, which ultimately means sulforaphane isn't produced. Also, vitamin C is not heat stable in any vegetable. That's just from the article I posted earlier.

Since eating completely raw really isn't necessary for any real health advantage, though, I really see no reason why a good mix of raw and cooked veggies wouldn't be the best way to go.

 

[Me Myself]

So... B12 from where? anyone? <_< >_>

 

[Penumbra]

So... B12 from where? anyone? <_< >_>

B12 can come from bacteria in the natural environment on veggies and things. In a more natural setting, where food is eaten "as is" from the environment, it is more likely to have larger trace quantities of B12 on it (and humans need only tiny amounts of B12).

Commercialization has reduced that availability, but it can be replaced by supplements. Or, one can just go vegetarian instead of vegan. Many options.

 

[Hawkeye112200]

I'm not sure if the raw part of your diet is healthy.
Aren't vegetables treated with pesticides?
When you cook your vegetables they may be removed but not when you eat them raw.
Do raw vegetables taste at all?
Some vegetables like carotts or tomatos I always eat raw, but I cannot imagine to eat raw corn or broccoli.

Certified Organic, or produce that is label with a number that begins with a 9 is as pretty safe to be free from pesticides. Aside from that, we buy from local sources or grow it ourselves. If we cannot get organic, we make sure to peel the fruit or vegetable, as the skin may be suspect. Raw veggies, taste great, but we also add vinegars like plum vinegar, spices, and other things to make it interesting and playful, so flavor is always a big part of our meals.

Is there any particular ratio of protein, carbohydrates, and fat that you target for consumption, roughly speaking?

What amount of weight in your food decisions do you give to transportation? That is, how important to you is local food or country of origin for your food?

I try to keep the ratio pretty balanced, hemp seed is the major source for our protein, it is perhaps the most perfect source on the planet, or close to it. A couple table spoons of that a day is perfect. Either in shakes, salads or just in a spoon
We try to always grow our food or get it locally, and that is a big aspect for us, to quit long haul transportation. Aside from saving the environment from gas, the fruits and veggies aren't beat to death from the long haul, which does effect taste.

Not bad. I was a raw vegan for a couple months. Lots of juicing and dehydrating, too. And I found a love for avocado that I never thought I'd had before. Making my own salad dressings, and snacking on raw nuts and seeds when I needed a little something-something.

The switch back to cooked food came when I craved a bowl of rice. Since then, I haven't returned to being a raw vegan, but I'm glad I did it. It gave me a chance to try very different preparations of food.

Fruit tarts made with fresh fruit and a crust with ground nuts.

Apple and fennel salads

Chilled soups

Zucchini "pasta" noodles with fresh tomato sauce and basil

And....probably my most ubiquitous raw staple.....hummus. Oh, I had that with just about everything. I dipped vegetables, dried kale leaves, zucchini chips....in the hummus and ate happily. It's so cheap to make, and so delicious. I haven't actually stopped, but just slowed down a bit.

I know some people used to tell me that hummus wasn't TECHNICALLY raw, since I used chickpeas, but I didn't care.

This brings back memories. Have fun with your raw adventures!

Yeah Hummus is one of those things it is hard to get away from, but it gives me gas! So that keeps me from it mostly

Can you ever be sure about that?
Doesn't that exclude too many vegetables?

Again, we get certified food, or grow it ourselves, so that isn't really a problem, but at the end of the day we still have to eat and survive, so if we are getting duped sometimes, what really can we do?

From, where do you get your B12?

Hemp Seed is one of the best sources. It is perhaps the most amazing foods on the planet.

Where do you get the protein from in a raw diet? Nuts and seeds?

I would personally get bored with a raw diet, as I like cooked food and I couldn't afford to buy enough organic nuts and fruits. I'll stick to plain vegan.

Again, we get protein from plenty of nuts and other veggies, but the hemp seed offer a mostly complete complex of proteins.
One misconception is the boredom. However, one only needs to crack open a Raw Cook Book to see the HUGE variety it offers. Funny enough, it is more varied than meat eaters, who tend to rely on staples, like a hamburger, hotdog, chicken, and if you were honest about it the average American has the same thing every week, so variety isn't really a concern.

I do commend you on your self-control.

Although, I really don't see the point behind the raw part. "Natural" is really such an arbitrary thing. I mean, cavemen had fire and likely were cooking certain foods. Was that unnatural?

Also, while it may be true for some foods, it is incorrect to claim that cooked food is less healthy, or has less nutrients, than raw food.

From the Scientific American:



Cooking also increases the amount of the antioxidant lycopene from tomatoes. It is also important in breaking down the tough plant fiber cellulose, making it easier to digest.

Yes, some things like broccoli do retain more of the nutrition when raw. So, it appears to me that the most healthy diet would consist of both raw and cooked foods, rather than an absolute stance of only one or the other.

Our digestive system is more akin to primates, who are primarily herbivores. We have long intestines, which causes much of the meat we eat to begin putrefying before it is expelled. Unlike Lions for example who have a short intestine so the flesh can pass right through.
The lycopene argument is pretty week. While partially true, it is a mere exception.

As for you claiming cooked food is just as healthy, is simply wrong. Take for example, boiling mineral rich foods. They are packed with minerals essential for us. As soon as they are boiled all that goes in the water.
I am not here to argue it, but I will respect you choices and opinions.

When you cook food, so much is lost. Though it is true, certain things do happen when you cook food, I am not denying that, but the benefit analysis of cooked verse Raw, is simple favored for the Raw. I am sure there are some exceptions, which is why eating Raw isn't a ball and chain. We are free to do what is best.

Take the tomato example again. If you cook it lycopene is elevated. However, is anything lost? Do the nutrients lost out weight the increase of lycopene? It is those kinds of questions each individual must ask themselves.

I will also point out a study done in 1930's about white blood cells and how they reacted when watched during a person eating cooked foods. Their activity increased as if a foreign invader entered the body. However, nothing happened when eating Raw Food.
Granted that is a simple example, it is definitely an interesting one.

 

[Falvlun]

Our digestive system is more akin to primates, who are primarily herbivores. We have long intestines, which causes much of the meat we eat to begin putrefying before it is expelled. Unlike Lions for example who have a short intestine so the flesh can pass right through.

I wasn't arguing against the vegetarian part. I was arguing against the raw part, and specifically, the "it's more natural" argument for eating raw.

The lycopene argument is pretty week. While partially true, it is a mere exception.

I posted other "exceptions" as well. HERE's some more. The fact is, cooking can enhance or unlock some nutrients, just as it can destroy or decrease others. It also makes plant matter easier to digest, which a) means you are using less energy digesting your food and b) you may actually be able to better absorb the nutrients in that food.

As for you claiming cooked food is just as healthy, is simply wrong. Take for example, boiling mineral rich foods. They are packed with minerals essential for us. As soon as they are boiled all that goes in the water.
I am not here to argue it, but I will respect you choices and opinions.

I didn't say that they were "just as healthy". I said that making an absolute "raw is always best" sorta stance is incorrect. In some cases raw is better, in some cases cooked is better, and in the majority of cases, the difference is really pretty small.

In general, I think the best option is likely having a wide variety of foods and styles of eating them, raw or cooked. That way you get the best of both worlds, you're not artificially limiting your diet in a way that is not really necessary, and you're getting all the nutrients you need.

 

[HerDotness]

Okay, but that's only looking at one particular nutrient: protein.

True enough. Silly me! Guess I was too focused upon protein since that's what was originally mentioned.

 

[HerDotness]

I didn't say that they were "just as healthy". I said that making an absolute "raw is always best" sorta stance is incorrect. In some cases raw is better, in some cases cooked is better, and in the majority of cases, the difference is really pretty small.

In general, I think the best option is likely having a wide variety of foods and styles of eating them, raw or cooked. That way you get the best of both worlds, you're not artificially limiting your diet in a way that is not really necessary, and you're getting all the nutrients you need.

I agree wholeheartedly with these statements as well as with the rest of Falvlun's in the posting where these appear.

"Raw is more natural and thus healthier."
"Humans have long intestines and thus really aren't meant to be omnivores."
"People can get enough B12 from eating unwashed fruit and produce."

All the above, none of which can be conclusively proven to be true, are some of the hype put out by the raw foodism movement. As Falvlun indicates, there is in fact much evidence to demonstrate that there is little if any truth to these statements.

 

[Desert Snake]

B12 can come from bacteria in the natural environment on veggies and things. In a more natural setting, where food is eaten "as is" from the environment, it is more likely to have larger trace quantities of B12 on it (and humans need only tiny amounts of B12).

Commercialization has reduced that availability, but it can be replaced by supplements. Or, one can just go vegetarian instead of vegan. Many options.

Or just eat meat.

 

[Valjean]

This is so not true.
As shown on the linked table, 100 grams or 3.5 oz. of meat, mostly steaks, contain around 20 grams of protein.

Meat - Caloric, Fat, & Protein Nutrition Info

One large stalk of broccoli (approx. 250 grams) as defined on this chart:

Nutrition Facts and Analysis for Broccoli, cooked, boiled, drained, without salt

contains only 6 grams of protein.

You're going to be eating a LOT of broccoli to get anywhere near the amount that's in a steak!

D'oh!
You're right -- I mistyped. I was thinking Calorie for Calorie.

 

[HerDotness]

I'll excuse ya after my gaffe on speaking of protein as if it's the only nutrient in broccoli.

Guess we're both liable to append the pink face, huh?

 

[Hawkeye112200]

I didn't say that they were "just as healthy". I said that making an absolute "raw is always best" sorta stance is incorrect. In some cases raw is better, in some cases cooked is better, and in the majority of cases, the difference is really pretty small.

And I have never said anything opposing this or absolutes, and if I did I was mistaken. In general, it can be a combination of both.

However, in the US where the majority of things are processed and trickery labeled, it is safer to say it will be healthier to eat raw.
Most people don't even know how poisonous SOY products are. Unless you are eating fermented soy, it is extremely bad for you. Check your pantry, 95% of the products is filled with Soy Filler which a waste product.

Aside from that, I just wanted to post some GOOD sources of B12 and ask who in the heck actually eats the majority of this stuff on a regular basis? So it could be said that the majority of people are B12 deficient.

Sources of Vitamin B12 (aside from the milk and cheese, who regularly eats this following? Enough to be sufficiently filled with B12?)

Whole cow's milk
Simmered turkey giblets
Simmered chicken giblets
Raw Pacific oysters
Raw clams
Raw chicken breast (see Salmonellosis)
Panfried beef liver
Egg (raw, whole chicken's egg)
Cooked Alaska king crab
Cheese
Braunschweiger pork liver sausage
Beef (uncooked sirloin)

 

[Hawkeye112200]

"People can get enough B12 from eating unwashed fruit and produce."

All the above, none of which can be conclusively proven to be true, are some of the hype put out by the raw foodism movement. As Falvlun indicates, there is in fact much evidence to demonstrate that there is little if any truth to these statements.

The facts are B12, is so complex the jury seems to be still out on how it is taken, absorbed, obtained, etc...
Example, yes meat has it, but when meat is cooked, it kills most if not all of the bacteria known as B12. Hence, why most b12 is said to come from eating raw meat products.
Eggs for example, have within it a possible digestive blocker that prevents the b12 from being absorbed, so again even egg may be a bad source.

So to fall back on the tired bandwagon of that b12 can not be gotten by vegans or raw foodists is to be living in denial. The fact is, most people are b12 deficient. Only a little research will show this to be true.

Now, compare this one part, to ALL the benefits that are scientifically proven beneficial from eat raw foods, it would appear some want to stay blind because of a misunderstanding about b12.
If need be one day I will take a supplement, but don't be foolish and think that meat eaters are getting any more or better quality b12 than non meat eaters. THAT is the myth.

 

[HerDotness]

I've examined the research on both sides, and that cited by advocates of veganism and vegetarianism is frequently based on supposition, "known truths," and isolated studies improperly conducted or otherwise insufficiently supported.

I did not say that B12 CANNOT be gotten by vegans or raw foodists but only that a vegan or rawie cannot be certain of getting enough B12 to prevent deficiency if the person eats no animal products whatsoever, certainly if the person does not supplement with B12.

Although I didn't specify, even Gabriel Cousens, a staunch advocate of veganism, says that human-active, plant-based B12 appears to be effective, but that it does seem so doesn't account for those who don't know that their ability to absorb nutrients is impaired. Cousens emphasizes that supplementation is crucial and recommends regular bloodwork to monitor for possible deficiencies in various nutrients.

A personal communication with Nazariah Owen who developed weakness, fatigue and impaired motor and nervous system symptoms including the loss of the ability to walk following a seven year history of lacto-vegetarian diet followed by a five year history of a pure raw vegan diet tells of a too common story. His symptoms disappeared after starting B12 supplementation and eating B12 fortified foods. He found many people who had similar B12 deficiency symptoms, but who were afraid to share publicly. An additional health problem associated with a low B12 is elevated homocysteine which is associated with an increased incidence of heart attacks, neurological problems, neural tube defects in children especially if the folic acid is low, increased incidence of hearing loss with age. In one study women with higher homocysteine levels had 170% chance of two or more pregnancy losses in the first trimester.

Later in this article, Cousens states outright:

The research conclusion is that: it is a reasonably safe bet that about 80% of the vegan and live food population, over time, runs the risk of a subclinical or clinical B-12 deficiency and increased homocysteine levels.

Source: Dr. Cousens' blog

Nazariah Owen's own account of the severe damage he suffered which resulted from B12 deficiency as well as his personal knowledge that paid promoters of raw food vegan diets conceal their own experiences with nutritional deficiencies. Owen refers to Cousens' blogged information about B12 deficiency. The article linked above details Cousens' findings and conclusions about current knowlege regarding what forms of B12 are and are not effective.

Source: Frederic Patenaude interview

I'll again refer you and others to the site I mentioned previously which contains various research attesting to how much more likely vegans are to be B12 deficient with disastrous consequences, particularly longterm vegans, than ovo-lacto, lacto-vegetarians or meateaters. I've argued this too many times to want to trot out all that again here.

www.beyondveg.com

I think you are most unwise not to supplement at all, Hawkeye. "If need be" could easily be too late and result in your suffering significant, possibly permanent damage or dropping dead because you're B12 deficient, and both can and have occurred.

 

[Hawkeye112200]

Let me also say this. I didn't start the thread to preach or convince anyone of anything. I personally believe it is all a person's choice, and what it right for me may not work for other people.

So, I welcome information that educates, you won't get any resistance from me, as I am not on a mission or anything.

Thanks for commenting and keeping it interesting though.

 

[Desert Snake]

Let me also say this. I didn't start the thread to preach or convince anyone of anything. I personally believe it is all a person's choice, and what it right for me may not work for other people.

So, I welcome information that educates, you won't get any resistance from me, as I am not on a mission or anything.

Thanks for commenting and keeping it interesting though.

Yes, it is interesting. Some people have mentioned a sort of natural 'detox', from going raw, though I suspect that might be the effect of simply eating eating healthier.

I personally think that organic veggies are far superior to non-organic, I can tell the difference 9/10 times, regardless of whether naysayers state there is no difference in taste.

 

[Penumbra]

I've tried a bunch of different ways of eating, and what I found is mainly this:

-Going from processed foods and conventional meats to organic vegetarianism, with little processing, improved energy and well-being.

-But trying out lots of different things after that, like vegetarianism, veganism, raw foods, pescetarianism, yes or no to dairy, yes or no to eggs, etc., had little observable impact.

I spent much of my life as a vegetarian. I tried a few times for veganism, but each time, I began losing weight, which for me means becoming too skinny. I've recently experimented with pescetarianism, seeing evidence for cultures that eat a lot of fish to be healthy, seeing that much of the brain is made of omega 3 fatty acids that are inconsistently converted from the plant sources or directly supplied from fish, and so forth, and so far have observed no noticeable difference.

So from what I gather through experimentation, getting rid of all the processed stuff that passes for food today (huge quantities of processed corn and soy additives, vegetable oils, carb-heavy nutrient-deficient stuff, pesticides, poorly fed animals) goes a long way. But then after that, there seems to be diminishing returns, and I suspect that optimal diets vary between culture.

I've seen little consistent scientific evidence that any one particular style of eating (assuming whatever is eaten is very high quality and basically whole), ranging from vegetarianism to veganism to pescetarianism to those paleo diets to raw foodism and so forth, is vastly superior to other forms. Some people talk about how going vegan made them feel way better, and then there are people saying going from vegan to paleo made them feel a whole lot better. I see back and forth things about cooking or not, etc. I think it's easy to get behind one particular style as the best, but through observation and personal experimentation, it seems to me that there are several successful ways to eat, once the basics of avoiding crappy food are covered.

 

[Hawkeye112200]

I've tried a bunch of different ways of eating, and what I found is mainly this:

-Going from processed foods and conventional meats to organic vegetarianism, with little processing, improved energy and well-being.

-But trying out lots of different things after that, like vegetarianism, veganism, raw foods, pescetarianism, yes or no to dairy, yes or no to eggs, etc., had little observable impact.

I spent much of my life as a vegetarian. I tried a few times for veganism, but each time, I began losing weight, which for me means becoming too skinny. I've recently experimented with pescetarianism, seeing evidence for cultures that eat a lot of fish to be healthy, seeing that much of the brain is made of omega 3 fatty acids that are inconsistently converted from the plant sources or directly supplied from fish, and so forth, and so far have observed no noticeable difference.

So from what I gather through experimentation, getting rid of all the processed stuff that passes for food today (huge quantities of processed corn and soy additives, vegetable oils, carb-heavy nutrient-deficient stuff, pesticides, poorly fed animals) goes a long way. But then after that, there seems to be diminishing returns, and I suspect that optimal diets vary between culture.

I've seen little consistent scientific evidence that any one particular style of eating (assuming whatever is eaten is very high quality and basically whole), ranging from vegetarianism to veganism to pescetarianism to those paleo diets to raw foodism and so forth, is vastly superior to other forms. Some people talk about how going vegan made them feel way better, and then there are people saying going from vegan to paleo made them feel a whole lot better. I see back and forth things about cooking or not, etc. I think it's easy to get behind one particular style as the best, but through observation and personal experimentation, it seems to me that there are several successful ways to eat, once the basics of avoiding crappy food are covered.

Nice post. In the end, that is what matters. You eat what works for you. And, unfortunately if that happens to be pizza, whom am I to say different.

You mentioned the Omega 3. I would look into the benefits of Hemp Seeds. They have a complete offering of 3 and 6.

I will be perfectly honest. I can easily see myself eating fish at times. I love certain fish, and if done in moderation I don't personally have a problem with it.

I read an interesting experiment today, where a lab tested rats by feeding them junk food. Then after a while start to do electric shock on them. Surprisingly the rats endured the shocking to get to the junk food.

At the same time another control group of rats were being fed only healthy food. When they introduced the junk food rats with the control group, the junk food rats starved themselves to death because they were so taken with the junk food.

So, there is evidence that junk food acts as a drug to some people especially children. Especially when we see rats will endure electrocution to get the junk food and will starve to death when shown alternatives.

 

[HerDotness]

Hawkeye, your proclaiming so many raw foodist claims as true is unpersuasive, because most of them are simply false or only partially true at best.

Well, despite popular belief that Turkey has a secret tryptophan sleepy pill in it, it really doesn't. So why do we get so sleepy? The fact is, our body is busy breaking down the food.

True to an extent thus far. However, the natural diversion of blood to the stomach and intestines to aid digestion can occur after any meal and make people sleepy. It's not what or how much we eat necessarily but that we eat and digest. A basic health class teaches this.

Source on the chemistry of Thanksgiving dinner's aftereffects

The above article demonstrates that the Turkey Day nap is more likely caused by the facts that Thanksgiving meals are overly large, high in carbohydrates (especially the simple ones--low-fiber, sugary and starchy foods) and often accompanied by alcohol--all of which tax the digestive system and tend to make people sleepy.

Thus, it is only true to a point that eating Thanksgiving dinner, traditionally almost or entirely cooked foods, makes you sleepy because your body is overworked trying to digest cooked foods.

"Paradoxically, what probably makes people sleepy after Thanksgiving dinner is…dessert," he [neuropharmacologist Richard Wurtman of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology's Department of Brain and Cognitive Sciences in Cambridge, Mass.] adds. "Eating carbohydrates increases brain serotonin in spite of the fact that there is no tryptophan in carbohydrates."

Source: Scientific American magazine

Our body has to use so much energy to break down this type of food [turkey], that we literally get tired. This is also the case with many of the foods we cook. We literally destroy the enzymes and many other nutrient rich areas of the food that are there to help us.

That cooked food is less readily digested than raw food (or even that cooked food is toxic, another common claim) is simply raw foodist hype.

Contrary to what many raw-food web sites claim, the enzymes contained in the plants we eat do not catalyze chemical reactions that occur in humans. The plant enzymes merely are broken down into simpler molecules by our own powerful digestive juices. Even when the food is consumed raw, plant enzymes do not aid in their own digestion inside the human body. It is not true that eating raw food demands less enzyme production by your body, and dietary enzymes inactivated by cooking have an insignificant effect on your health and your body’s enzymes....

Unfortunately, sloppy science prevails in the raw-food movement. Rawfood advocates mistakenly conclude that since eating processed and cooked carbohydrates is harmful for us, all cooked foods are harmful.

Source See also www.beyondveg.com for much more on these claims.

More raw foodist propaganda denied by various studies--

Raw food, however, say like zucchini, has enzymes built into the food, that actual do the breaking down of the food for us, so we do not have to allocate certain aspects of our body's resources to it.

Too much detail required to explain here. See this source for citations of various studies which demonstrate that this is simply not true. Source here

Which btw, is why our milks, snacks and plethora of other foods are injected with unnatural vitamins and minerals to help sell to unsuspecting moms and dads. By the time the products make it to the grocery store, they are nutrient deficient.

Still more raw foodist propaganda--that natural is better.

If it were true that enriched products are nutrient deficient, then a lot of established food science would be false and producers would hardly waste money fortifying such foods with nutrients. [Edit to correct this statement which was confusedly worded.]

It is simply not true that enriched foods are nutrient deficient. Some are less healthy, such as bleached, enriched wheat flour than whole wheat flour mostly because of the removal of wheat germ and fiber, but even bleached flour is a far cry from "nutrient deficient."

Can you imagine a gallon of milk, that said on the label "no vitamin D". Would you buy it?

Of course not, because that would mean that the naturally occurring Vitamin D in milk had been removed.

There is no mandate that U.S. milk producers must enhance milk with Vitamin D.

Unlike Canada, where fortification with vitamin D is mandatory for designated foods, the addition of vitamin D to eligible foods in the United States is optional in most cases, with the exception of fortified milk. Fluid milk in the United States is not required to have vitamin D added unless the label declares that it is fortified.

Source: The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition

 

[Falvlun]

And I have never said anything opposing this or absolutes, and if I did I was mistaken. In general, it can be a combination of both.

Okay, no prob. I'm just perplexed why'd you only want to eat raw if you do think a combination could work just as well.

However, in the US where the majority of things are processed and trickery labeled, it is safer to say it will be healthier to eat raw.
Most people don't even know how poisonous SOY products are. Unless you are eating fermented soy, it is extremely bad for you. Check your pantry, 95% of the products is filled with Soy Filler which a waste product.

There is a difference between eating cooked foods and eating processed foods. I can buy organic vegetables and cook them myself at home. I agree with you that a huge problem with American diets is that they are completely based upon prepackaged or restaurant food. People don't seem to know how to cook for themselves anymore.