[Zack]

Hello everyone. I don't know if this sort of thread is allowed, if not, feel free to delete it.

While watching videos on Youtube, I stumbled across this:

The video basically explains how essential the practice of cooking is to being a fully developed human.

I fully support the notion that many of us don't get enough raw fruits and vegetables, and that increasing our intake could be very beneficial for our health. However, I am also somewhat swayed by these arguments.

And of course, some will disagree with the video's version of evolution, or evolution in general. You're all entitled to have and share your opinions.

 

[Enthios]

Cooking (and many say meat) is responsible for humanities evolutionary transition from a primate? But humankind is still a very primitive species in comparative reference to our greater potential. So be cautious about believing present interpretations of intelligence. Common present deciphering of evolution is yet primitive.
Cooking plays a role, but then so did and does many things including murderous warring, but lets not believe in that as an answer to our evolution (many actually do). Example, alcohol helps many people and you cannot convince many of those people that it is not good and there is a better alternative because alcohol truly helps them. But some of us do know better, right?
There are foods that are more palatable cooked and this in itself has great purpose as this makes for main staples in world sustenance such as rice, potatoes, and wheat etc. Raw popcorn? noooo!!
But the experience of a raw diet speaks for itself for most of those who in their evolution have the ability and/or inclination to maintain such a strict prolonged diet. But this knowledge of this experience only is available to the ones who have it.
When it comes to consciousness development, it is an individual personal journey and we only limit ourselves as to how much we can handle or attain. You may experience this and test your ability to grow into a more pure being when attempting such a highly nutritious diet of whole raw foods.
Example, sprouted grains (raw) increase in nutrition, while cooking destroys many nutrients and vital live enzymes in all cooked food. Enzymes are a main essential active life force in life. etc.
Dried legumes don't digest well when raw and getting them in their fresh state off the vine isn't always easy. Sprouting grains requires a steady routine. Making foods taste good raw takes learning practice. This may not be a diet of convenience. It is hard in many ways including the overcoming of bad eating habits. There is quite a bit of learning and work involved. Evolving isn't for everyone and is hard to do all the time. It does happen.

 

[Beautiful Joe]

The only viable argument I can think of against raw is that it's not a feasible diet for the entire human population, considering its current size and distribution.

However, that's not likely to ever be an issue, since most people aren't attracted to an entirely raw diet. (I'm not, for sure!)

I don't think that there's anything ethically superior about raw, though, even though some raw foodists seem to think there is.

 

[rasitha.wijesekera]

http://m.livescience.com/26278-risks-raw-vegan-diet.html

Just something I saw in the Internet. Not that I've researched a lot about this.

 

[Go Vegan]

http://m.livescience.com/26278-risks-raw-vegan-diet.html

Just something I saw in the Internet. Not that I've researched a lot about this.

Thanks to the OP for the video and thanks to RW for posting the link

This article raises some interesting points but at times promotes animal product consumption, which I don't agree with.

It is good that it has no problem with vegetarian or (standard) vegan diets from a health perspective.

I can see no moral problem with cooking food and I feel that a (standard) vegan diet is healthy enough so personally I am not really a big fan of raw...

 

[Enthios]

The majority of the population believes meat is good for them, and huge amount of professional support agrees, but do we believe that, NO, because we have experienced the better diet of vegetarianism and know better, and for the most part it could be said that we know better without a doubt (like in no doubt at all).
A person who has the strength - will-power ability - inclination etc. to practice a raw diet extensively will most of the time come to the same conclusion - NO DOUBT - at all (surely there will be exceptions, just like there are attempts at vegetarianism that revert to meat for some reason) but the proof is in the experience, and only somebody who has the experience (extensively) even has any right at all to make a comparative judgement, meaning that somebody without the experience is just running their mouth.
A person with extensive raw experience knowledge and communication skills can easily deduce the - any cooking debate (including the above article and video clip) to nonsense - easily, without a doubt.
Anybody with extensive experience would be fun to converse with about this topic but if you haven't had the awesome undeniable beneficial experience of an extensive raw diet then consider yourself an inexperienced unworthy judge and consider the-such (raw attempt) a learning project to gain a greater life knowledge and experience.
That said, if you are interested in learning more about the topic from someone with extensive raw food experience, I might (or maybe not) feel up to answering sincerely asked questions.
(Please be smart enough to learn from people experienced at greater ways of living - being and not people running their mouths to justify their inability to overcome their bad habits, or consider yourself lost among the masses).

 

[Kiwibird08]

I think I would want to see a WHOLE LOT MORE solid scientific evidence before I buy into this theory. While an interesting argument, it's literally all supposition, and since we have no early hominids or humans to tell us their personal experiences, there isn't even anecdotal evidence. I don't disagree that some cooked foods tastes better and certain foods are much safer to eat cooked (meats or certain plants), but I don't necessarily agree with it being a significant contributing factor of how we progressed from early hominids into modern humans.

I'm also not saying raw is for everyone, but I know the changes it has made in my own life have been dramatically for the better. I can 'feel' my body responding to live foods, and have noticed a personal increase in concentration, energy, patience and creativity since going raw I never felt on cooked. Most other raw foodists I've met since going raw have described similar positive changes after going raw that have continued long term as they remain raw. Not to mention a growing body of (admittedly, some anecdotal based on individuals personal experiences) that raw foodists do not "show" or "feel" aging as badly as those who eat cooked food, have overall better long term health, complete resolution of prior long-term health issues and better mental outlooks.

 

[River]

Arguments based on what humans used to do, evolved to do, should do based on either of the above, hilarious. They are almost always based entirely on supposition and hypothetical evidence and not one shred of physical evidence.

Particularly when you consider that the food system as it exists today is nothing like the food system we originally adapted from other apes. We have...

GROCERY STORES!

What once would have been a nightmare to find all the things you need to be healthy is now available (generally) just around the block! I can go from my office right now, walk five minutes, and be in produce heaven. Kale, avocados, anything my heart can desire, generally.

We are not living on the savannah scouring the prairies for roots and grubs. You can walk, drive, or mail order a completely healthy and whole raw vegan diet, should you choose.

That's not to say cooking is a bad thing. I don't generally agree with the thought that when you cook a food you invalidate it of any nutritional goodness, but it's not necessary with the variety available.

For vegans that is.

I wouldn't recommend anyone eating animals to go chow down on a raw leg of cow, but that's not the same thing. Cooking foods made it easier for us to digest what food was available, and what was available then pales in comparison to what is available now.

 

[Zack]

Arguments based on what humans used to do, evolved to do, should do based on either of the above, hilarious. They are almost always based entirely on supposition and hypothetical evidence and not one shred of physical evidence.

Particularly when you consider that the food system as it exists today is nothing like the food system we originally adapted from other apes. We have...

GROCERY STORES!

What once would have been a nightmare to find all the things you need to be healthy is now available (generally) just around the block! I can go from my office right now, walk five minutes, and be in produce heaven. Kale, avocados, anything my heart can desire, generally.

We are not living on the savannah scouring the prairies for roots and grubs. You can walk, drive, or mail order a completely healthy and whole raw vegan diet, should you choose.

That's not to say cooking is a bad thing. I don't generally agree with the thought that when you cook a food you invalidate it of any nutritional goodness, but it's not necessary with the variety available.

For vegans that is.

I wouldn't recommend anyone eating animals to go chow down on a raw leg of cow, but that's not the same thing. Cooking foods made it easier for us to digest what food was available, and what was available then pales in comparison to what is available now.

Strong argument. I'm compelled to agree.

 

[Enthios]

A whole plant food diet with say 35 percent lightly cooked food can be considered a very good diet. Even with more cooked than that, say 50 or 60 percent cooked, it can be considered a very good diet to maintain - considering. (Just like a vegan diet can possibly be a junk-food diet) a raw food diet can possibly be considered to be somewhat non-productive if it not eaten well... yet a high quality (organic), with quality diversity, and right sized portions and combined well, raw diet has more energy involve than an average human being can handle on a regular basis (extensively). It as only been accomplished by a rare few persons through-out history. You would have to try it to understand what this refers to. Life offers us the chance to grow to the extent of our own individual ability but we lack in will-power to make too much advances.
My present diet is not even close to being raw, at all, it is actually worse than I even want to admit to you to be honest, but once (with the exception of a few people who may react poorly to it) a person has had the chance to accomplish the experience of such a quality (truly pure) raw diet, then it is there to be respected.

 

[cuberail]

i am convinced beyond a shadow of a doubt that raw vegetables provide more protection from cancers than cooked. i compiled a list of references.

for heart disease it hasn't been studied. the big problems with heart disease are saturated fats, fats in general beyond requirements, and foods without fiber.

when you cook foods you break down the fibrous matrix, so you probably lose some optimal protection there, too.

but raw is tough! we are adapted to starch-based diets.

i say try to get a lot of raw foods in your diet, but it doesn't have to be 100%. let the rest be beans and cooked starches.

 

[Go Vegan]

The majority of the population believes meat is good for them, and huge amount of professional support agrees, but do we believe that, NO, because we have experienced the better diet of vegetarianism and know better, and for the most part it could be said that we know better without a doubt (like in no doubt at all).
A person who has the strength - will-power ability - inclination etc. to practice a raw diet extensively will most of the time come to the same conclusion - NO DOUBT - at all (surely there will be exceptions, just like there are attempts at vegetarianism that revert to meat for some reason) but the proof is in the experience, and only somebody who has the experience (extensively) even has any right at all to make a comparative judgement, meaning that somebody without the experience is just running their mouth.
A person with extensive raw experience knowledge and communication skills can easily deduce the - any cooking debate (including the above article and video clip) to nonsense - easily, without a doubt.
Anybody with extensive experience would be fun to converse with about this topic but if you haven't had the awesome undeniable beneficial experience of an extensive raw diet then consider yourself an inexperienced unworthy judge and consider the-such (raw attempt) a learning project to gain a greater life knowledge and experience.
That said, if you are interested in learning more about the topic from someone with extensive raw food experience, I might (or maybe not) feel up to answering sincerely asked questions.
(Please be smart enough to learn from people experienced at greater ways of living - being and not people running their mouths to justify their inability to overcome their bad habits, or consider yourself lost among the masses).

If you feel up to it, as an inexperienced unworthy judge can I ask just how it is so much greater to eat raw vegetables rather than cook them?

 

[RiggerBoots]

I personally struggle with the concept of being 'raw'.

I also wouldn't condemn nor dismiss it though.

For me there's a hazy middle ground that involves raw and cooked foods, that's personally where I currently aspire to be although I'll freely admit that I just don't partake in a salad as much as I should and up until my vegan lifestyle dragged me kicking and screaming, I did not eat enough fruits.

Where there is an argument for cooking;

1) Some foods which are the staples of peoples more in touch with nature than ourselves, are in fact poisonous. Processing of leaching these foods in water and then cooking them vastly reduces if not neutralising the toxic elements. This can't be said for all foods but starches I believe are where this becomes a necessity.
2) Cooking reduces water content and makes foods 'weaker', one would imagine that means we can eat more and digest easier thus gaining more nutrition per space filled over raw foods. Science indicates this to be true and I think we all know that tomatoes and but one food that's helpful nutrients become more potent when cooked. Countering this I would suspect that Flaxseed's omega 3's would be damaged by cooking but that's a gut feeling rather than what the evidence says.
3) It's perhaps subjective but I personally feel I'd really struggle to be happy and satisfied eating raw permanently, maybe I'm wrong here but if you considering happiness and being satisfied components of a healthy and happy life then it's a reason to cook.

Arguments against cooking;

1) Subjective again but I do feel that we need some raw food in our diets then round off our health, just as I think we become poorer for not cooking I believe we become poorer for not enjoying fresh raw fruit and veg, nuts and seeds. Certainly it could be argued I've contradicted the point about cooking means more nutrition for less effort but I'm not arguing for an entirely cooked diet, I'm arguing for a balance and if you're going to eat something raw then fruit, seeds, nuts surely is the place to be.
2) Cooking damages nutritional content?!?!, it does but the question is - by how much? As far as I understand it even if you are savaging certain veggies in your cooking the damage to nutritional content is relatively low, something which could be countered by merely adding a fraction more veg to the pot. There may be things that are damaged beyond all recognition or processes we do not understand, but I'm not aware or any personally - perhaps Omega 3's being unstable to heat is one? Once again I think the safest thing to say is it wouldn't hurt to have some raw veggies and keep an open mind on this point but I wouldn't say it's conclusive with regards to being a reason against cooking everything.
3) Bacteria, they does seem to be an argument that bacteria on certain foods is expected by our bodies because we've always ate them with bacteria on them and in turn they are part of the process we depend on for health from foods or in conversion of foods to what our bodies use them for - once again for me this is a maybe at best. Some bacteria you don't want, some might help b12 for example. It once again says to me that a little raw and a little cooked is probably safer than one or the other.

Conclusion - That's where I stand with it, I think both camps have a point but neither can say it's one-way only with anything other than personal instinct or bias. I am willing to hear any information or argument that would correct me or change my view here so please do share your knowledge but I'm not interested in western-hippy woo-woo, camp-in-the-woods, beliefs or feeling. Just evidence or rational, logical points. I don't think we should cut out either cooked or raw foods and should aim to strike a balance that see's both feature regularly.

 

[Naturebound]

Arguments based on what humans used to do, evolved to do, should do based on either of the above, hilarious. They are almost always based entirely on supposition and hypothetical evidence and not one shred of physical evidence.

Particularly when you consider that the food system as it exists today is nothing like the food system we originally adapted from other apes. We have...

GROCERY STORES!

What once would have been a nightmare to find all the things you need to be healthy is now available (generally) just around the block! I can go from my office right now, walk five minutes, and be in produce heaven. Kale, avocados, anything my heart can desire, generally.

We are not living on the savannah scouring the prairies for roots and grubs. You can walk, drive, or mail order a completely healthy and whole raw vegan diet, should you choose.

That's not to say cooking is a bad thing. I don't generally agree with the thought that when you cook a food you invalidate it of any nutritional goodness, but it's not necessary with the variety available.

For vegans that is.

I wouldn't recommend anyone eating animals to go chow down on a raw leg of cow, but that's not the same thing. Cooking foods made it easier for us to digest what food was available, and what was available then pales in comparison to what is available now.

The irony to me of a raw food diet now is that raw fruits and vegetables and nuts/seeds etc can actually be more expensive to live on than buying some cooked/canned/frozen/prepared types of foods mixed in there. I tried all raw for a week at a time and it meant buying copious amounts of fruits and vegetables because I went from five or six or seven servings a day to fifteen to twenty or more servings per day of them. High quality produce can be quite expensive, even if it is available around the corner (and in some poor areas of the country fresh produce is not available to people as easily, whether by location or due to financial difficulty). I could buy a jar of peanut butter for $4 and get quite a bit of energy/calories from it. Fresh nuts or seeds would cost me an arm and a leg (not literally lol) for that same energy/calorie intake as a jar of peanut butter (and raw almonds are nearly impossible to find in the U.S.). Findiing organic fruits and vegetables and consuming those is even more expensive unless you grow your own food and not everyone has that option. Many people live in apartment complexes or in houses with very little yard. Thankfully there are community supported gardens and farmers markets to turn to but they are not always abundant either. I have to travel to get to one. I am fortunate to have a car and a bike. Not everyone does. And then to truck all that raw food home, or get to the store every other day to keep up with all the fresh produce I would need to support my all raw diet. It is harder than it seems.

And then there is the issue, beyond health I suppose, of what is available locally versus shipping food around the country or world. If I only bought locally grown raw food, I would have to say goodbye to bananas, pineapple, oranges, coconuts, almonds, cashews etc. None of those foods are grown around here and the climate does not support them. The locavores would have a field day with this. But that is a whole other argument. I don't think our food system nowadays makes eating all raw all that easy.

 

[River]

The irony to me of a raw food diet now is that raw fruits and vegetables and nuts/seeds etc can actually be more expensive to live on than buying some cooked/canned/frozen/prepared types of foods mixed in there. I tried all raw for a week at a time and it meant buying copious amounts of fruits and vegetables because I went from five or six or seven servings a day to fifteen to twenty or more servings per day of them. High quality produce can be quite expensive, even if it is available around the corner (and in some poor areas of the country fresh produce is not available to people as easily, whether by location or due to financial difficulty). I could buy a jar of peanut butter for $4 and get quite a bit of energy/calories from it. Fresh nuts or seeds would cost me an arm and a leg (not literally lol) for that same energy/calorie intake as a jar of peanut butter (and raw almonds are nearly impossible to find in the U.S.). Findiing organic fruits and vegetables and consuming those is even more expensive unless you grow your own food and not everyone has that option. Many people live in apartment complexes or in houses with very little yard. Thankfully there are community supported gardens and farmers markets to turn to but they are not always abundant either. I have to travel to get to one. I am fortunate to have a car and a bike. Not everyone does. And then to truck all that raw food home, or get to the store every other day to keep up with all the fresh produce I would need to support my all raw diet. It is harder than it seems.

And then there is the issue, beyond health I suppose, of what is available locally versus shipping food around the country or world. If I only bought locally grown raw food, I would have to say goodbye to bananas, pineapple, oranges, coconuts, almonds, cashews etc. None of those foods are grown around here and the climate does not support them. The locavores would have a field day with this. But that is a whole other argument. I don't think our food system nowadays makes eating all raw all that easy.

I totally agree with all that you have said. I was responding to this idea that humans are not supposed to be/not healthy being/not [insert pejorative adjective] raw. It is hard in some areas, particularly food deserts where getting ANYTHING healthy and wholesome is hard.

But humans, in our present state of "I want everything and I want it now" are more than capable of being raw.

 

[Enthios]

The real reason for cooking is for taste. Tasty food is psychologically important or an addiction. Only if a person wishes to bring more life into their being can they then begin to distinguish the difference between alive food and food that has been processed - altered.
Raw food contains the most dense concentration of vital nutrients. Look into the importance of live enzymes as they are amazing as a very main life force in the phenomenon of life, which are killed at temperatures exceeding 114 degrees. If a food needs to be cooked to make it palatable then it is inferior in comparison to a food that doesn't.
The present ability to retain to a permanent raw diet by people is nearly never accomplished so there is no debate as to concerning the complete exclusion of cooked food.
The question to consider is how much raw can be handled. 95 80 75 percent? The purer (non-processed) the diet the better... The dense concentration of nutrients and vital live enzymes creates a greater life force that can be experienced. A person who takes such life focuses seriously has a lot of gain to experience from the endeavor.
The deviation from what nature has provided for the very process of evolutionary life to evolve is an inferior choice that we all make. To promote altered forms of alive plant matter is an inferior position to take. We all are destined to be indulgent upon our unhealthy desires (choices) but it is real important to know what is best for us. Eating cooked food is not really all that bad at all but then there is even huge difference in quality within how food is cooked, there is an endless amount of learning involved in getting closer to having what it takes to be on a truly pure high quality diet.

 

[Enthios]

A reason that retaining to a raw diet is hard (other than convenience of availability, which can be considered to be relative to mobility because there are lots of places including farms where good food can be received) is relative to the same reason that we all have a hard time remaining clean clear and sober but need our comfort food (or drink or drug of choice). It's like as though the clarity awareness of true reality is a hard look to have to face and easier to just avoid through some form of disruption. That is if we even have the willpower to abstain from our addictions long enough to clean out our bodies and mind.
True extreme sobriety of a pure raw diet is so clean (cooked food are a form of a mild relaxant comforting absorption within our habitually addictive need for gross sensation input?) that our awareness and sensitivities of our surroundings and our emotion psychological reflections can become quite overwhelmed.
Who doesn't have bad habits that are a help to make life seem easier or more enjoyable? Who thinks that they can do without those bad habits? Who thinks that it would be easy to do without them?
Our understanding of how greater being is ideally (actually) supposed to be relating to life is deluded.

 

[Zack]

True extreme sobriety of a pure raw diet is so clean (cooked food are a form of a mild relaxant comforting absorption within our habitually addictive need for gross sensation input?) that our awareness and sensitivities of our surroundings and our emotion psychological reflections can become quite overwhelmed.

One of my favorite posts so far. I've seen a lot of others say that a "raw" diet will make you feel different, and that it's an experience you can't imagine unless you try it.

The above quote is the only attempt that I've seen to rationalize this, and perhaps the only thing said so far that actually makes me want to try a raw diet. "Extreme sobriety" is an oxymoron, but it also sounds like something that could improve one's quality of life. It's interesting to think that for all of human history, we've been taking a mild but unnatural "drug" that other animals haven't been. So, to eat a raw diet may make you feel more like a natural organism.

 

[Enthios]

When we stick to raw it is as nature intended and our being is then the same, the connection to nature is unadulterated (or less so). The immensity and fabric of nature starts to then be more accessible and clear. And the extent to which we can handle this transformation and learning is up to our own inclination and ability.

It is the very course that is established for evolution.

But we have a choice. We don't have to. We can also digress if we wish. ...enjoy and have fun or is that an illusion?

 

[odizzido]

I actually read through this whole thread. Just going to write a quick thing, but first I want to let riggerboots know about omega 3s/flax. According to the nutritionfacts.org guy, omega 3s can be cooked at 350F for an hour without losing anything. However this is only true when the omega 3s are in the flax seed still. If you have flax seed oil the omega 3s are destroyed extremely quickly when subjected to even low heat.

As to this topic I went from junk omni to cook everything from scratch omni to cook everything from scratch vegan to eating only one cooked meal a day and the rest raw vegan. I've noticed zero change physically.

As to what is better raw or cooked....no idea. There was a great article I read looking at every vitamin and how it does with not just cooking but things like sunshine and air. Cooking was found to destroy maybe 15% tops of the vitamins that don't do well in heat. It's so little it's not a concern.

However there is a lot we don't know about nutrition. Infact I'd say we know very little. The studies I find the most value in are the ones that look at large numbers of people to see what actually happens. I did a little quick googling and these are the types of things I mean:

http://www.health.harvard.edu/family_health_guide/red-meat-and-colon-cancer
http://www.webmd.com/food-recipes/20150302/nuts-may-lengthen-your-life-study-suggests

The reason I like studies like this is because it doesn't matter if we know why it happens, just that it happens which for me is what is really important. I have no opinion on whether raw or cooked is better, or equal, until I see one of those studies done.