[Dancewithme]

I'm still rather new to vegetarianism, i started over two months ago. One day I was questioned about rawfoodists, and why they eat raw. I realized that I had no idea, and that I don't know anything about it. I'm really interested though. So, if you could just tell me the basic philosophy behind it and why you personally are raw, that'd be fantastic. Thanks in advance for putting up with my ignorance, I honestly don't know anything about it other than you don't cook food and you don't eat meat. I would assume you're also vegan? Ehhh, I don't know. Explanations, please!

 

[Carwere15]

Raw foodists eat raw foods because cooking a food to above 118 degrees F. is said to deplete or destroy the natural enzymes in the food. These enzymes promote better health, aid digesteion, and help with many other things.

 

[dizzymisslizzy]

I'm also curious about raw foodism. is it possible to be superathletic and still raw?

 

[KDB]

not only enzymes, i guess all nutrients are changed to a certain degree, usually for the worse, especially protein. that's why high fever is already dangerous to the human body, so just imagine what happens to protein when cooked.<br><br>
frankly, i wonder why humans should be the only species which cookes its food. all other species eat their stuff raw and our bodies too are made for raw food. i guess raw stuff is harder to digest, thus we pamper our digestive system.<br><br>
for me personally another pro is that by not heating our food we can save a looot of energy.<br><br>
but i am no extremist, i think it is ok to eat a vegetarian pizza or beans (most of them are poisonous without heating anyway) at the weekend <img alt="" class="inlineimg" src="/images/smilies/smiley.gif" style="border:0px solid;" title="">

 

[Tova]

For me it just seems right to eat my food raw and how nature intended it. Why ruin something that nature made so perfectly. I feel better on a raw diet and I like raw food so much better.

 

[Killik]

I like the feeling raw gives me. Eating SAD (Standard American Diet) foods really wrecked my health<img alt="" class="inlineimg" src="/images/smilies/shocked.gif" style="border:0px solid;" title="">. Now that I'm raw, I feel as if I have more energy<img alt="" class="inlineimg" src="/images/smilies/rockon.gif" style="border:0px solid;" title=":rockon:">

 

[laurie15]

<div class="quote-container"><span>Quote:</span>
<div class="quote-block">Originally Posted by <strong>dizzymisslizzy</strong> <a href="/forum/post/0"><img alt="View Post" class="inlineimg" src="/img/forum/go_quote.gif" style=""></a><br><br>
I'm also curious about raw foodism. is it possible to be superathletic and still raw?</div>
</div>
<br><a href="http://www.brendanbrazier.com/bio/index.html" target="_blank">http://www.brendanbrazier.com/bio/index.html</a> << check out this guy. he is very raw incorporated - i've spoken with his company and some people at certain shows regarding his diet, and he's incredible. good book, too.

 

[nigel]

<div class="quote-container"><span>Quote:</span>
<div class="quote-block">Originally Posted by <strong>KDB</strong> <a href="/forum/post/0"><img alt="View Post" class="inlineimg" src="/img/forum/go_quote.gif" style=""></a><br><br>
not only enzymes, i guess all nutrients are changed to a certain degree, usually for the worse, especially protein. that's why high fever is already dangerous to the human body, so just imagine what happens to protein when cooked.<br><br>
frankly, i wonder why humans should be the only species which cookes its food. all other species eat their stuff raw and our bodies too are made for raw food. i guess raw stuff is harder to digest, thus we pamper our digestive system.<br><br>
for me personally another pro is that by not heating our food we can save a looot of energy.<br><br>
but i am no extremist, i think it is ok to eat a vegetarian pizza or beans (most of them are poisonous without heating anyway) at the weekend <img alt="" class="inlineimg" src="/images/smilies/smiley.gif" style="border:0px solid;" title=""></div>
</div>
<br><br><br><br><br><br><br>
OK - I respect a person's choice to go raw and understand that humans can subside just fine, especially in modern times, on a raw diet, but I've been trying to process the above for a week now and it just doesn't make sense.<br><br><br><br>
I don't get the high-fever/cooking protein analogy at all. We're talking about illness of a creature versus preparation of a food item! If I get a fever of 106 degrees F it can kill me. It won't do much to beans - it won't even kill them if they are still alive. So what if proteins convert when they are raised to high temperatures? They don't turn into cyanide! If I died in a fire, I don't think many carnivores would object to eating my body, or be any worse off for having eaten cooked proteins.<br><br><br><br>
Cooking food was one of the greatest thresholds of hominid advancement. It makes things far more edible, makes inedible things edible, and breaks down overly fibrous/hard fibers and seeds so that they can be eaten and be more digestible. When cooking food was "invented," lifespans increased substantially. When/where stewing was invented, they went through the roof (people without teeth can now eat!). If cooking had never existed, you wouldn't be around to write about how unnecessary it is.

 

[Dirty Martini]

Fire is natural.

 

[Fyvel]

For what it's worth, the acid in your stomach basically does the same thing to enzymes (which are proteins) that cooking does.<br><br><br><br>
Let's use an analogy: proteins are like a string of beads. The beads are amino acids, all bound together to create a string. Then if you crumple this string up, some parts will bind to other parts and create a nice little 3D structure. This is your basic protein.<br><br><br><br>
When you heat a protein (or add acid to it, like in your stomach), it unravels (denatures). This happens in your stomach, because you need to break the protein down in order to absorb the amino acids. In your stomach, you also have special enzymes that are designed to withstand the high acitidy of the stomach, that will assist in breaking up the amino acid strands into smaller chunks. Most proteins cannot survive in this environment.<br><br><br><br>
Cooking the food, for the most part, simply unravels the proteins (which include enzymes). The exact same thing that will happen once the enzymes get into your stomach, unless it can withstand the high acidity.<br><br><br><br>
Don't get me wrong, I agree that in many cases, raw foods are very healthy for the body. I just don't agree with the enzyme theory and have yet to hear a good explanation of how the enzymes help digestion if they're chewed up in the stomach.

 

[KofiAnnonymous]

Nigel speaks truth.

 

[ollie]

the question was why raw, not why not raw

 

[organica]

As I understand it, many vitamins & minerals are damaged when food is cooked...<br><br>
I feel better when I eat raw.

 

[gaya]

I think being raw or at least mostly raw (when I'm doing it) keeps me away from processed foods, which is especially helpful because I lack discipline with bread, pasta etc. When I don't eat processed junk I feel so much better!

 

[Dirty Martini]

So.... could a raw person eat raw fish and still be considered raw?

 

[GhostUser]

yeah. there are raw foodists who aren't vegan.

 

[jenna]

carol alt eats raw meat. that's the only famous one i know of that does. most raw foodists are vegan but there are a handful that eat raw meat.<br><br><br><br>
and as far as the question of "why raw?", i don't really get into the whole enzyme deal, etc. i eat raw because i feel better when i do it. i think clearer, sleep better, have more energy, better skin, healthy weight loss and quite a few other benefits. i like the simplicity of it, as well.

 

[Mr. Sun]

<div class="quote-container"><span>Quote:</span>
<div class="quote-block">Cooking food was one of the greatest thresholds of hominid advancement. It makes things far more edible, makes inedible things edible, and breaks down overly fibrous/hard fibers and seeds so that they can be eaten and be more digestible.</div>
</div>
<br><br><br>
What are you talking about??? What evidence is there that cooking food was one of the great thresholds of hominid advancement? That seems like speculation to me.<br><br><br><br>
As far as making things more edible and all that, foods that are digestable for certain creatures will be eaten by those creatures. Gorillas eat bark and leaves and such because their digestive systems evolved to digest those foods. Whatever foods we were designed to eat are still there to be eaten. True, we would have to "relearn" that old way of eating if we exclude grinding and blending machines but the foods are there. Probably lots of fruits, certain vegetables, leafy greens, nuts and seeds and soft grains. In the bible Jesus' disciples were given a hard time because they were picking the grains and eating them as they were walking along. Oat groats are especially soft.<br><br><br><br><div class="quote-container"><span>Quote:</span>
<div class="quote-block">When cooking food was "invented," lifespans increased substantially. When/where stewing was invented, they went through the roof (people without teeth can now eat!).</div>
</div>
<br><br><br>
How do you know??? People without teeth could have others chew the food and then give it to them. I know that sounds gross but is it any grosser than tongue kissing? Spit is spit.<br><br><br><br><div class="quote-container"><span>Quote:</span>
<div class="quote-block">If cooking had never existed, you wouldn't be around to write about how unnecessary it is.</div>
</div>
<br><br><br>
Do you really think that if humans had not started cooking food that we would have become extinct? Why do you think that? I think we probably would've evolved more in the warmer climates but that we would've survived quite nicely and eventually learned to write and then make computers and then type and then I would still be here to type up this post. <img alt="" class="inlineimg" src="/images/smilies/smiley.gif" style="border:0px solid;" title=""><br><br><br><br>
I don't really buy the enzyme theory either and there are other claims that I've read that seem a bit out there.

 

[nigel]

<span style="color:#0000FF;">Cooking food was one of the greatest thresholds of hominid advancement. It makes things far more edible, makes inedible things edible, and breaks down overly fibrous/hard fibers and seeds so that they can be eaten and be more digestible.</span><br><br><br><br><div class="quote-container"><span>Quote:</span>
<div class="quote-block">Originally Posted by <strong>Mr. Sun</strong> <a href="/forum/post/0"><img alt="View Post" class="inlineimg" src="/img/forum/go_quote.gif" style=""></a><br><br>
What are you talking about??? What evidence is there that cooking food was one of the great thresholds of hominid advancement? That seems like speculation to me.</div>
</div>
<br><br><br>
Admittedly, there is some subjectivity involved in terms like "greatest". It is not speculation, however, that hominid population and population spread, at least so far as the archaeo/paleo record is concerned, increased dramatically after fire became a part of their life. Maybe this isn't "great," but it is at least significant.<br><br><br><br><div class="quote-container"><span>Quote:</span>
<div class="quote-block">As far as making things more edible and all that, foods that are digestable for certain creatures will be eaten by those creatures. Gorillas eat bark and leaves and such because their digestive systems evolved to digest those foods. Whatever foods we were designed to eat are still there to be eaten. True, we would have to "relearn" that old way of eating if we exclude grinding and blending machines but the foods are there. Probably lots of fruits, certain vegetables, leafy greens, nuts and seeds and soft grains. In the bible Jesus' disciples were given a hard time because they were picking the grains and eating them as they were walking along. Oat groats are especially soft.</div>
</div>
<br><br><br>
I took no position on the diet of gorillas and agree that different creatures eat different foods. I don't dispute that humans can eat just about anything that early hominids did. Clearly they survived. They also had less to choose from in terms of diet. Given the technology and control we now have, I agree with your allusion that we could happily and healthily return to the old ways of eating. Almost.<br><br><br><br><br><br><span style="color:#0000FF;">When cooking food was "invented," lifespans increased substantially. When/where stewing was invented, they went through the roof (people without teeth can now eat!).</span><br><br><br><br><div class="quote-container"><span>Quote:</span>
<div class="quote-block">How do you know??? People without teeth could have others chew the food and then give it to them. I know that sounds gross but is it any grosser than tongue kissing? Spit is spit.</div>
</div>
<br><br><br>
I know because I study the evidence for a living. If you look at human osteological remains from "archaic" (pre-ceramic) cultures, you'll find a lot of dead 20-30 somethings with worn down teeth. After ceramics were introduced, people started living a lot longer and their teeth show far less wear. You are willing to assume that the feeble would have been taken care of. I won't argue with that, even with no reason to believe it, but I'm not sure how effective that would be in a grand sustenance scheme.<br><br><br><br><br><br><span style="color:#0000FF;"><span style="color:#000000;"><span style="color:#0000FF;">If cooking had never existed, you wouldn't be around to write about how unnecessary it is.</span></span></span><br><br><br><br><div class="quote-container"><span>Quote:</span>
<div class="quote-block">Do you really think that if humans had not started cooking food that we would have become extinct? Why do you think that? I think we probably would've evolved more in the warmer climates but that we would've survived quite nicely and eventually learned to write and then make computers and then type and then I would still be here to type up this post. <img alt="" class="inlineimg" src="/images/smilies/smiley.gif" style="border:0px solid;" title=""></div>
</div>
<br><br><br>
I never said we would have become extinct, but we wouldn't be quite so advanced. You, Mr. Sun, I'm sure would have tablets and a chisel, and still have your posse.<img alt="" class="inlineimg" src="/images/smilies/tongue3.gif" style="border:0px solid;" title="">

 

[Mr. Sun]

<div class="quote-container"><span>Quote:</span>
<div class="quote-block">Originally Posted by <strong>nigel</strong> <a href="/forum/post/0"><img alt="View Post" class="inlineimg" src="/img/forum/go_quote.gif" style=""></a><br><br>
Admittedly, there is some subjectivity involved in terms like "greatest". It is not speculation, however, that hominid population and population spread, at least so far as the archaeo/paleo record is concerned, increased dramatically after fire became a part of their life. Maybe this isn't "great," but it is at least significant.</div>
</div>
<br><br><br>
I forgot to point out that it was a raw foodist who first learned to harness fire and it was a raw foodist who "invented" cooking. Chalk up two great inventions to the raw foodists. <img alt="" class="inlineimg" src="/images/smilies/smiley.gif" style="border:0px solid;" title=""> As far as fire and longevity go: maybe the fire gave the humans other advantages such as a way to repel predators and keeping them warm at night.<br><br><br><br><div class="quote-container"><span>Quote:</span>
<div class="quote-block">I know because I study the evidence for a living. If you look at human osteological remains from "archaic" (pre-ceramic) cultures, you'll find a lot of dead 20-30 somethings with worn down teeth.</div>
</div>
<br><br><br>
Oh, I thought you were just a mortal VBer like me who just says things, lol. That's cool that you study this stuff. I would like to know though, why you think humans eating raw foods would have their teeth worn down. Does this happen with other primates? And why do all the "experts" out there tell us that we need to chew our food more? Apparently we are supposed to activate our digestive juices in our mouths more by chewing. (<--- mortal VBer thoughts). Are the "experts" in cahoots with the dentists who just want to sell us dental implants?<br><br><br><br>
And I wonder if maybe they invented some kind of medicine at the same time that the ceramics were invented and kept the medicines in the ceramic containers. That would explain the longer life span.<br><br><br><br>
Seriously, though, what do the ceramics have to do with cooked food. Couldn't they have just cooked enough to eat without using the ceramics to store the cooked food (if that's what they were supposedly used for)? I don't see the connection. Is there proof of a connection between ceramics and cooked food?<br><br><br><br><div class="quote-container"><span>Quote:</span>
<div class="quote-block">I never said we would have become extinct, but we wouldn't be quite so advanced. You, Mr. Sun, I'm sure would have tablets and a chisel, and still have your posse.</div>
</div>
<br><br><br>
Hey, as long as I have my posse I'm happy.<br><br><br><br>
*chisels out a happy face*