Raw Foodism doesn't work the way they say it does

[beforewisdom]

Raw foodism may work for some people, but the idea that raw foods are better because they have vitalizing enzymes is simply false as the article below shows:

http://www.fredericpatenaude.com/enzymes.html


Enzymes: Are they the key to raw foods?

I've received the following question from a reader : "You say that raw foods are good for us but not because of the enzymes.. This is really something ... then why all this raw food movement is expanding throughout the western world? Many well known hygienists and raw foodists claim that enzymes are the exact reason of why raw food is superior to the cooked one. Can you please clarify this one? Do we really have any scientific information on whether the enzymes that the foods carry don't or do take a part in digestion?”

My Answer: That’s an interesting question. In most raw-food books you’ll read that food enzymes are “the lifeforce” of foods and that they’re the reason why we should eat a raw diet. That’s what I used to think when I gullibly believed everything that the raw-food gurus said. Now my understanding is that food enzymes are not important at all in the digestive process, and most of them are destroyed in the process of digestion anyway. If they are not destroyed, it is unlikely that they have any role to play in digestion.

You ask if I’ve got any scientific research to back it up. You should ask the question differently. Do raw-foodists have any scientific research to back up their enzyme theories? Very scant. Open up any physiology book and you’ll realize that all of those theories are pure conjectures. Everything that I just said about enzymes are recognized facts of physiology.

Here’s what one of my correspondents sent me, and this summarizes this issue a lot:

“It was SO good to read your snippet about enzymes as you have put out publicly exactly the conclusions I had come to! All this hype about enzymes being good for your health flies in the face of proven science on many counts:

1) Enzymes are biological catalysts and the definition of a catalyst is that it is something that alters/speeds up a reaction without being used up in the process. So, by definition, we cannot 'run out of enzymes'. Even if we could:

2) Enzymes are proteins and are made up of the same amino acids as other proteins needed in the body. Thus, if more are needed, more can easily be made from the same materials as other body parts! Our raw plant foods actually go to make up enzymes!

3) Enzymes are specific - they catalyze one reaction and one reaction only. That means that plant enzymes are there to deal with reactions connected with the plant's life and not to help humans digest food. Look at the speed at which fruit ripens then decays. It takes days, if not weeks! But human digestion of fruit takes only hours. How can the same enzyme suddenly do that? Simply, it can't. Also, enzymes being specific, human metabolic enzymes cannot logically be used as digestive enzymes. They are there only to catalyze the metabolic reaction.

In my opinion, the food enzyme theory and its wide following is one of the major things against more mainstream acceptance of raw foodism as a whole. It's blatantly wrong and gives those who insist on it a bad name. If the raw and natural food movement wishes to be gain wider credibility, it has to be more credible.” Elizabeth, UK

Let’s take the example of the banana. An unripe banana is loaded with various enzymes that are needed BY THE BANANA to transform its own starch into simple sugars. As the banana ripen, it becomes sweeter as complex substances (starch) are transformed into simpler ones (sugar). In the end, the enzymes are themselves disintegrated in the process. So when you eat the ripe bananas, there are few enzymes in it. But then, it is so easy to digest that the body will use fewer enzymes to digest it than if you ate a slice of bread, which contains mostly complex carbs. So in the end, you indeed “save up” your enzymes by eating the raw banana, but this has nothing to do with the enzymes in the bananas, which are not needed anyway.

Raw-foodists often say that avocados are easy to digest because they contain a lot of fat-digesting enzymes (called lipase). It this were true, the avocado would digest itself. It would not sit on the counter and ripen, but it would quickly digest itself down! In reality, when you eat a ripe avocado, your body has to use its own enzymes to digest it.

Nuts and seeds are easier to digest when they are soaked not because it supposedly “activates the enzymes” in the nuts. In fact, they are easier to digest simply because they are hydrated. A dried fruit is also easier to digest when it is soaked.

But enzymes supplements work, you’ll say. Sure they work. The enzymes used are specific digestive enzymes. However, when you use them, you cripple a natural function. If you’re experiencing digestive problems and you find relief in using supplemental enzymes, you’re simply not addressing the cause of your problem. Over time, your digestion will become less and less efficient because you are using a natural “aid” like a crutch – you’ll end up with a weaker digestion.

[kirkjobsluder]

Good post.

[veganmaster]

Over time, your digestion will become less and less efficient because you are using a natural “aid” like a crutch – you’ll end up with a weaker digestion.

Funny how this article dismisses the raw foodists claims because they don't have supporting science, then provides no references and then ends the article with an an unsupported claim that sounds just as unscientific as the raw food theories he claims to debunk! I do agree that the "live food" angle is overblown,
and that most of the miraculous results people attribute to raw food are due to the no sugar, no oil vegan diet (McDougall) - regardless of the cooked/raw angle. Notice I said "most" - as any good research scientist or Gorilla knows that raw foods are the best for health. Below is an article about the benefits of enzymes that is based on science (not just general "accepted" ideas, but specific studies) and actually provides some scientific references. :)


http://www.lef.org/magazine/mag99/apr99-cover.html

Well the article wouldn't fit, so here's the link!

[beforewisdom]

Funny how this article dismisses the raw foodists claims because they don't have supporting science, then provides no references and then ends the article with an an unsupported claim that sounds just as unscientific as the raw food theories he claims to debunk!


I have been told by doctors all of my life in all sorts of situations that they wanted to be cautious about how long they kept me or other people on certain drugs/supplements because they didn't want the body to become acclimated to that substance and stop producing it own.

I don't think the idea that taking digestive enzymes could cause a human body to produce less of its own is that far fetched.




Notice I said "most" - as any good research scientist or Gorilla knows that raw foods are the best for health.


There are real differences between apes and humans. I remember reading once that many apes can make their own vitamin C whereas humans are missing one of the genes to do so. I also read that Gorillas eat bugs, dirt, and feces. If a human ate **** they would most likely get sick. Apes != people and I have never heard of anyone with mainstream nutrition research credentials recommend raw food as being the best.

I'm not a professional, you may know more than I do in this case.



Below is an article about the benefits of enzymes that is based on science (not just general "accepted" ideas, but specific studies) and actually provides some scientific references. :)
http://www.lef.org/magazine/mag99/apr99-cover.html
Well the article wouldn't fit, so here's the link!

I only skimmed through this article but it seems to mostly be talking about the value of preserving health to preserve the body's ability to produce digestive enzymes so that it can stay healthy in later years.

That much of what they have to say isn't saying anything radical.

I remember when Dirk Pierson (sp?) and his wife Sandy Shaw wrote the original "Life Extension" book. You would see them on many tv talk shows claiming they looked young, athletic, healthy despite not exercising, and eating junk foodl because the massive amounts of supplements ( and drugs ) they took kept them in the peak of health. They always looked awful and older than their age, IMHO fwiw.

In that respect they do have a connection to the raw foodists. You always here ancedotal accounts of vibrant health, but you usually hear them from someone who looks like they could use a vacation.

In the US you can sell somone religion if you help them lose 5 pounds. That is how Atkins got its foothold despite it being contrary to known science. Once somoene loses that 5 lbs of water weight ( which they would lose starting any diet lower in calories)........they are sold.........they got religion........you can't talk them out of anything even though you may have hundreds of years of facts on your side. They know their pants are temporarily looser and they will not listen to you.

It works the same for raw foodists.

Many people who dabble with raw foods unknowingly reduce their calories.........and like you said they also cut out a lot of crap to get some real benefits. They probably also get more fruits and vegetables then they ever did before as well.

That doesn't mean that those benefits are exclusive to raw foodism ( or that they will keep coming and not at the expense of other health issues ).

It also doesn't mean that the metaphysical claims made by raw food authors are by any means facts

The claims made by raw food authors ( the original article in this thread ) are contradicted by opening a basic physilogy book. I know that because I was a raw foodist as a teenager. When I got to college I asked my zoology professor about raw foodism and he showed me such a text book.

[kirkjobsluder]

Below is an article about the benefits of enzymes that is based on science (not just general "accepted" ideas, but specific studies) and actually provides some scientific references. :)


http://www.lef.org/magazine/mag99/apr99-cover.html

Well the article wouldn't fit, so here's the link!

Did I miss it, I'm not seeing any references :lol:.

[beforewisdom]

Did I miss it, I'm not seeing any references :lol:.

The page has its own scroll bar. There is a "further reading" list at the bottom of the article, but the article does not footnote its claims to those sources so it is easy to miss.

I read the titles and none of them seem to be saying anything about raw foods having enzymes that are usuable by human beings through normal eating.

That is apart from issues of those sources being reputable, based on good studies etc.

[inkwenkwezi]

interesting article. one component that it seems not to mention is that vitmains and minerals can be lost through cooking. wouldn't that be an advantageous reason for eating raw food? to get all your vitamins and minerals, never mind enzymes.

[beforewisdom]

interesting article. one component that it seems not to mention is that vitmains and minerals can be lost through cooking. wouldn't that be an advantageous reason for eating raw food? to get all your vitamins and minerals, never mind enzymes.

No one has ever done the math.

By that I mean some nutrients, vitamins, and minerals are made more absorbable by cooking. Cooking also destroys many low level toxins, goitergens as in cruciferous vegetables ( broccoli, cauliflower etc ) and some anti-nutrients ( digestive inhibitors ).

Whether or not it is better to cook a food depends on the particular food and the particular cooking method.

[veganinohio]

Gorilla knows that raw foods are the best for health.


Humans are apes, but the stomach and digestive system of a gorilla is very different from a human's, being designed to handle huge amounts of roughage.

That said, it is amazing how strong and massive an animal can become from eating nothing but raw plants.

[inkwenkwezi]

No one has ever done the math.lacking the mental capacity therefore, myself, i wish somebody would do the math for us all!

[TreeManEarthSteward]

a new member called "Daral" is good at math :yes: Truthfully!

[beforewisdom]

lacking the mental capacity therefore, myself, i wish somebody would do the math for us all!

I didn't literally mean arithmetic.

My point was that whether or not it is better to cook depends on the food as well as the preperation method.

Assuming adequate research exists ( scientifically constructed studies, not making up stories as the raw food authors , atkins types, and other food cultists do ).......which I don't think it is the case we would need someone to go through on a food by food basis.

Broccoli is a good example of the benefits of cooking. Cooking destroys the goitergens in it which can make your thyroid sick.

On the other hand I would bet that cooking does not do much for oranges.

I know that lycophene(sp?) in tomatos is also made more absorbable by cooking tomatos and cooking them heavily. Lycophene (sp?) decreases the risk of prostate cancer.

[inkwenkwezi]

I didn't literally mean arithmetic.yes, i know, i was merely running with your metaphor.

i wish someone, qualified enough, would do all the research required and compile it. that being said it would probably be a herculean task to undertake - and the reason why there is currently so much conflicting 'evidence' about everything we eat, cooked or not.

[beforewisdom]

yes, i know, i was merely running with your metaphor.

i wish someone, qualified enough, would do all the research required and compile it. that being said it would probably be a herculean task to undertake - and the reason why there is currently so much conflicting 'evidence' about everything we eat, cooked or not.

I think the studies would be the hard part.

Compiling the results into a nutrtion guide/cook book wouldn't be that big of a deal.

I don't think it is necessary. If people want to increase their energy and lose weight the information on how to do that is out there. It also doesn't require raw foodism.

[stellar26]

It's good to be skeptical- it's bad to be skeptical and then pull theories out of your ass to back up the reasons why you were skeptical in the first place.
The fact of the matter is this: nobody is going to be 'proved' wrong here for years and years to come. People can argue about the health benefits of a vegetarian/vegan diet containing cooked foods, too- because the only 'scientific' evidence that we have to back these up hasn't been repeated and there haven't been any concrete journals published on them. Health claims are made every day- but one must keep in mind the fact that these are nothing BUT claims and should always be questioned.

[beforewisdom]

It's good to be skeptical- it's bad to be skeptical and then pull theories out of your ass to back up the reasons why you were skeptical in the first place.

The claims I am attributing to raw food authors can be found in their books. I know this because I read several of their books, I was a raw foodist once.

The point about about raw foodism working being based on non-factual beliefs about how enzymes do/do not work made in the original post can be found in the textbooks of any college curriculum on human physiology.

What I had to write about broccoli and tomatoes being nutritionally improved with cooking has come from reading articles ( from several sources ) that wrote up the results of actual scientific studies.

If you have information of similar quality please feel free to share it with us, I would genuinely be interested in reading it.

[stellar26]

What I had to write about broccoli and tomatoes being nutritionally improved with cooking has come from reading articles ( from several sources ) that wrote up the results of actual scientific studies.


No, no, no. The point that I was trying to make through my post is that none of that matters. None of it! Unless the study has been repeated multiple times by multiple scientists in double blind studies and then published my a RELIABLE source (for example, The New England Journal of Medicine), it can't be taken seriously. Every day a new study comes out that claims to have found the cure for one ailment or another (how many times have you heard on the news that they've come up with a cure for cancer?). You can't believe everything that you hear! Just because one (unrelaible author) said one thing, and a different (unreliable author) said another- just because they're both doctors (from what graduate program in what school, with what type of degree did they graduate?) does not mean that they know what they are talking about.

I'm just saying that skepticism is a good thing, but don't use that skepticism to promote another view that is just as skeptical. That's how you make yourself look stupid.

[beforewisdom]

No, no, no. The point that I was trying to make through my post is that none of that matters. None of it! Unless the study has been repeated multiple times by multiple scientists in double blind studies and then published my a RELIABLE source .

I have to confess I don't know the sources of those articles use.. The idea that raw cruicerfous vegetables have goitergens in them that are destroyed by cooking is fairly well accepted.



I'm just saying that skepticism is a good thing, but don't use that skepticism to promote another view that is just as skeptical. That's how you make yourself look stupid.

I agree with what you said about depending on reliable sources. My point was and is that the author of books on raw foodism reliable sources. That is fairly well backed up. If you have doubts I would suggest a shopping trip at the local college text book store in the human physiology section.

It is hard for me to argue with you beyond this point because you haven't made any specific claims. You made the point that skepticism shouldn't be an in itself which is a trivial point. The point of this thread is and has been that the theories published in many ( if not all ) books on raw foodism about enzymes contradicts well know facts. That is not the same as saying that raw foodism doesn't and never will work in any way. It just means what the title of this thread says. It just doesn't work ( if it works ) they way the raw food authors claim it does.

May I ask if you are into raw foodis or what your field is ( mine isn't health )?

[MzNatural]

No, no, no. The point that I was trying to make through my post is that none of that matters. None of it! Unless the study has been repeated multiple times by multiple scientists in double blind studies and then published my a RELIABLE source (for example, The New England Journal of Medicine), it can't be taken seriously. Every day a new study comes out that claims to have found the cure for one ailment or another (how many times have you heard on the news that they've come up with a cure for cancer?). You can't believe everything that you hear! Just because one (unrelaible author) said one thing, and a different (unreliable author) said another- just because they're both doctors (from what graduate program in what school, with what type of degree did they graduate?) does not mean that they know what they are talking about.

I'm just saying that skepticism is a good thing, but don't use that skepticism to promote another view that is just as skeptical. That's how you make yourself look stupid.
You made some good points. I have to admit I was slightly skeptical about some of the claims I have heard about raw foods but I have not automatically dismissed them. My biggest concern was maintaining my weight and not losing my muscle mass since I will be entering a Figure competition later this year. However I knew I felt better the more raw foods I ate so I tried to find as much information as possible. It wasn’t easy. Not everyone chooses the raw food lifestyle as a way to lose weight. I know I didn’t. The more raw foods I ate, the more energy I had. I have always been healthy but I honestly feel better, and have more energy since increasing my intake of raw foods. I honestly don’t think you will see solid research of it here in the USA for a little while, although Dr. Gabriel Cousins does mention research from various clinics, two specifically (located in Europe, they both have been in existence for several years. One has had over 250,000 people pass through their clinic) in his book Conscious eating. A very interesting read. In Conscious Eating Dr. Gabriel Cousins has a chapter, towards the end of the book, in which he talks about enzymes. I have not read through the chapter yet. I plan to complete it by the end of this week.

The reports I read about why raw food is bad, or does not work the way it claims, reminds me of articles I see in regards to vegetarianism. There are a number of doctors, researchers, etc. who have made those claims also. It does not mean it is correct. I question them since I am wondering where are they gathering their research? What were the eating habits of those who participated in the research? How many studies were done before the work was published? Are they just parroting what they have read from another journal/‘doctor/researcher’?

I know 3 people personally who have ate a high amount of raw foods my grandmother and two of my great aunts. My grandmother passed away this past November at the age of 93. her sister, my great aunt, passed away early in the spring of 2004 at 95. I still have one great Aunt who is alive she is 97 the majority of their food intake (about 80%) was/is raw foods. They also exercised, had low stress, and made healthy food choices. I think those were all factors. My great aunt is still very active at 97.

Sure you can be very unhealthy eating raw foods. You can experience the same with a vegetarian, macrobiotic, omnivore diet. It is important when making any choice to read as much information as you can in regards to the subject, follow up with a nutritionist if you are still concerned. I tend to stay away from the raw foods books/sites that seem to be promoting it from a weight loss angle.

[kirkjobsluder]

Sure you can be very unhealthy eating raw foods. You can experience the same with a vegetarian, macrobiotic, omnivore diet. It is important when making any choice to read as much information as you can in regards to the subject, follow up with a nutritionist if you are still concerned. I tend to stay away from the raw foods books/sites that seem to be promoting it from a weight loss angle.

I think the question is not so much "are raw foods good" but "why are raw foods good." A lot of the raw food promotion is based on claims about enzyme that tend to trigger my bull**** warning system. Among other things:

1: Enzymes are just proteins. And they are digested just like other proteins.
2: Most enzymes are finicky. They work best within a specific range of temperature, pH and salinity. So I'm skeptical as to whether plant enzymes can be effective replacements for animal enzymes.
3: It is not always the case that plants want to be eaten. Even with fruits, plants have some nice mechanisms to ensure that a critter eats a quantity that is good for the plant, and not for the critter. Vegitative growth such as leaves and stems have chemical defense mechanisms.

[catswym]

3: It is not always the case that plants want to be eaten. Even with fruits, plants have some nice mechanisms to ensure that a critter eats a quantity that is good for the plant, and not for the critter. Vegitative growth such as leaves and stems have chemical defense mechanisms.


indeed. many plants (fruits and vegetables) are filled with proteins designed to inhibit one's own digestive enzymes. this is one (of many) reasons why raw food's enzyme theory cracks me up.

[beforewisdom]

. The more raw foods I ate, the more energy I had. I have always been healthy but I honestly feel better, and have more energy since increasing my intake of raw foods.


The situation could be similar to the ancedotal accounts of Atkins followers ( almost the exact opposite of most raw regimes ). They swear they feel better, which they actually do. That doesn't mean they feel better because Atkins' theories are correct ( they are of much better quality then the raw food author's ideas, but still laughed at by real scientists ).

People who go on Atkins or who go raw could simply feel better because they are eating less crap or more vegetables.



The reports I read about why raw food is bad, or does not work the way it claims, reminds me of articles I see in regards to vegetarianism. There are a number of doctors, researchers, etc. who have made those claims also.

[stellar26]

I agree with what you said about depending on reliable sources. My point was and is that the author of books on raw foodism reliable sources.

No, it's not a reliable source. The author has bias. A reliable source is one that is readily accepted by doctors and scientists across the board because various double-blind procedures have been repeated and completed successfully multiple times. That is in the scientific method. Period.



It just doesn't work ( if it works ) they way the raw food authors claim it does.

You can make that claim, but that doesn't make it fact- just like the author's claims on the benefits of raw food are not fact.


May I ask if you are into raw foodis or what your field is ( mine isn't health )?

No, I'm not into raw food. I just randomly saw the title of this thread and read your article. I found your attempt at sounding factual funny. I posted to make a point, which I feel that I have made- but I see that I'm still not being understood.
To answer your other question- I'm a student and not officially going in the direction of any particular field as of yet. I am, however, seriously considering a nutrition major, as it's something that I like to study in my free time.


However I knew I felt better the more raw foods I ate so I tried to find as much information as possible. It wasn’t easy. [...] The more raw foods I ate, the more energy I had. I have always been healthy but I honestly feel better, and have more energy since increasing my intake of raw foods.
Placebo has proven to be a very strong thing, indeed. I know a woman who participated in a scientific double-blind study through the University of Minnesota on arthritis. Half of the people in the study were given a medication of some sort that was to relieve pain and inflammation, while the other half were given a placebo. The woman swore up and down that this medication had cured her arthritis! She called her daughter and raved about the product that was given to her by the researchers. When the study was completed, she was informed that she was a part of the placebo group.
I kid you not, to this day that woman still swears that the pill worked for her.


I know 3 people personally who have ate a high amount of raw foods my grandmother and two of my great aunts. My grandmother passed away this past November at the age of 93. her sister, my great aunt, passed away early in the spring of 2004 at 95. I still have one great Aunt who is alive she is 97 the majority of their food intake (about 80%) was/is raw foods. They also exercised, had low stress, and made healthy food choices. I think those were all factors. My great aunt is still very active at 97.
Heredity plays a huge role in how long one will live. These women are all related to eachother. The fact that they all ate a lot of raw foods may, in fact, have helped them to live longer- but your claim has no scientific basis! It's nothing but another claim.

[Hummusisyummus]

Imagine a ball of yarn. That's an enzyme. Now imagine that the ball of yarn unraveled and cut to pieces along its length and little pac mans eating it from the ends. That's an enzyme after it's trip through the stomach. At that point its not doing anymore enzyming.

Even if some of them did make it through the stomach it would be sequestered in the GI tract where at best it could speed up digestion.

Peptide chains more than a few amino acids long aren't absorbed into the intestine villi. But even if whole enzymes could be absorbed into the cells, all of the enzymes of thing you just ate going nuts would be deadly poison. It would be biochemical chaos. It would consume energy and nutrients and create heat and waste products.

Cooking may or may not improve a food depending on a lot of factors. In some cases it makes it edible (potatoes, soy beans), in others it destroys nutrients (carrots, grapes). It is almost impossible to make a blanket generalization to which there is no exception.

I've heard that raw food diets increase energy in some people. Well, I've read in journal articles it reduces energy in some people and can result in some pretty bad deficiencies.

[beforewisdom]

Imagine a ball of yarn. That's an enzyme. Now imagine that the ball of yarn unraveled and cut to pieces along its length and little pac mans eating it from the ends. That's an enzyme after it's trip through the stomach. At that point its not doing anymore enzyming.

It is a nobel effort HIY, but I think you are going to be huffing and puffing to little avail.

There is an element of a "food cult" mentality in the US. In that situations a choice in diet is not about ethics, or what is known about nutrition. It is about people falling in love with the metaphysics of a diet the way some people fall in love with the fictional universes of some popular science fiction shows.

It is not about the reality, it is about having a fetish for an idea.

An idea that appeals to people because it makes them feel like they have some sort of magic wand, a secret weapon that other people don't have. It makes them feel special.

If you publicly speak against it, especially if you are right, the followers will attack you as the followers of any religion will attack you. You are trying to take away their psychological security, their magic wand and what makes them feel better about themselves.

Additionally, there is also the cult of weight loss in the US. If someone loses 5 lbs fast on something they get converted.........they get religion......and you will not be able to reason with them.

Unfortunately the way the facts go, any reduced calorie regime, newly adopted, will cause a human body to lose about that much in water weight in a very short amount of time .

That is why so many people swear by Atkins as a fat loss tool.

People in the US have also been eating crappy diets for so long( sometimes for their whole lives ) that any diet that is less crappy that makes them feel better is not perceived as a crappy diet.

After much criticism Atkins amended his work to tell people to eat 3 cups of broccoli a day. Many of Atkins readers have never had 3 cups of vegetables a month in their entire lives before doing Atkins, so in addition to that fast weight loss hit from water loss......guess what..........they also felt better.

Many of the people who I have met who swear by raw foodism ate a lot of junk food and very little if any vegetables before going raw. Forget about salads, forget about fruit etc.

You may convinve a few people, you just have an uphill battle ahead of you.

Nobody convinced me to give up raw foodism. I just got sick of feeling weak and losing muscle ( I followed all of the advice of the raw food authors ).

People go raw because they want to control their weight, have more energy, and be healthier.

People do those things everyday with diets based on cook foods.

They just have sane diets that include some raw foods, a LOT of fresh vegetables, plenty of water, attention to obtaining nutrients, some discipline in minimizing processed/junk foods, adequate water intake and exercise.

Those things work, and they don't have to live on a restrictive regime for no reasons and often for no results either.