Hello all!

I am currently writing a research paper, and chose to write on the raw and living foods diet. My paper cannot just be a report or a synopsis of the raw food diet--it must PROVE something about this diet. I need some help with my thesis. It needs to be specific so that the length of my paper does not get out of hand. My paper must be 5-8 pages, double spaced.

Here is what I have so far for my thesis statement:

"A plant-based diet, consisting primarily of foods eaten in their raw, natural state, can provide all the essential nutrition that a human body needs, promote longevity, and can prevent and reverse most disease."

I don't quite like how I worded that--something seems off. I can't really ask my typical friends/relatives for help with this topic, since they are totally unfamiliar with the merits of this way of eating. Basically, the three points I am making about the diet are:


1. it provides all the essential nutrition that a human body needs

2. it promotes longevity

3. it prevents and reverses most disease

These points would then become topic sentences for paragraphs in the body of my essay. But maybe there are better and/or more specific points I should be making?

I am limited by time...I need to submit my working introductory paragraph TONIGHT by midnight (this is for an online course). My full paper is not due for awhile, and the wording of my introductory paragraph can change, but my thesis CANNOT change once it is submitted. I would REALLY appreciate your advice!!

musicbebe

You might scan "Raw Vegan/Raw Food Diet Research" compiled by beyondveg.com to see what has been published, and may support your thesis:

[www.beyondveg.com]

I would approach the Research Paper from a Physical and Moral
[en.wikipedia.org]
[en.wikipedia.org]
viewpoint. This would be much easier to deal with than trying
to prove your three points.
Good Luck with your paper. I'm sure you'll learn a lot from
writing it......WY

musicbebe Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> "A plant-based diet, consisting primarily of foods
> eaten in their raw, natural state, can provide all
> the essential nutrition that a human body needs

>
> (It CAN provide) all the essential nutrition that a
> human body needs

I agree with WY that you could revise/limit your thesis.. i.e. like above, while still keeping it plenty challenging and interesting.

good luck,
loeve

Quote

Basically, the three points I am making about the diet are:

1. it provides all the essential nutrition that a human body needs

IIRC, there is some raw vegan group in Europe who's been studied and found basically healthy. Arugula may know more about them.

Quote

2. it promotes longevity

Don't think you'll find much supporting this. With the exception of Norman Walker (who died at 99) you won't find any raw foodists who've lived particularly long & many have died prematurely probably partially due to severely restricted diets.

Quote

3. it prevents and reverses most disease

I don't know about "most" but there is certainly anecdotal evidence that raw food can reverse many diseases. Might want to check out Gabriel Cousens work. He recently did a documentary about reversing type 2 diabetes with raw food (Raw for 30).

Good luck!

Go here
[www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov]

search on

raw vegan
uncooked vegan
methionine restriction
vegan IGF-1
vegan diabetes
vegan cancer
vegan B12
vegan vitamin D
vegan DHA

It will be impossible to prove any of your points. But there is some evidence for 2 and 3.

1. There is some question with B12 and D. Really this is very questionable. It makes me nervous that so many people are so confident about this with so little evidence. We can get our B12 and D2 and DHA from pills that don't have animal products in them.

2. I think it can, if done properly, meaning that no deficiencies develop. Vlassara and her colleagues have shown that diets low in glycotoxins can extend lifespan compared to diets high in glycotoxins (basically the same food, but overcooked). She hasn't compared raw to lightly steamed, though. This hasn't been proved, but looks promising. The foods associated with most cancer protection are the uncooked vegetables, more protective than the cooked versions.

3. I think it can slow down the onset of many diseases (the diseases of affluence: CVD, type II diabetes, certain types of cancers) and maybe even reverse to some extent. But the main things seem to be a. the diet should be high to very high in fiber, b. the diet should be limited in or devoid of processsed foods, c. animal products should be limited, but not necessarily eliminated, d. fats should be good fats in good balance and not too much of the unnecessary ones which can hose the balance and clog the cardiovascular system, e. the food should not be overcooked, and f. there should be at least some uncooked plant foods in the diet especially green leaves.

Regarding 3.c. there is some good evidence supporting methionine restriction for longevity and prevention of cancers, and methionine is most prevalent in animal proteins. Also lower animal protein intakes are associated with lower IGF-1 levels which are in turn associated with lower cancer risks. So maybe it is better to be vegan. I don't think we really know yet. There is no real proof because the statistics are not there yet, generally sample sizes are too small to show highly compelling effects. Plus the long latency period of some diseases throws us off, if we ate garbage for most of our lives and only just went vegan 2 years ago and then get cancer...

Mark McCarty recently wrote a nice paper about this summarizing the state of the literature. He is a vegan, btw, but not raw AFAIK.

You can credit me by providing a link to this post. And your visa or mastercard number and expiration date.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/19/2008 01:37AM by arugula.

Thank you all SOO much for your advice so far...and I still welcome any more thoughts. You gave me some GREAT ideas for further research. I would really like to narrow my thesis even further, though I am mentally stuck on the three point format because it will help me organize my paper better. Longevity does seem hardest to substantiate because of the lack of actual raw food persons who have lived super long...though arugula gave me some good leads on factors that would presumably lead to a longer lifespan.

I did reword my thesis, is this one any better?

New thesis:

"A plant-based diet, consisting primarily of foods eaten in their raw, natural state, can provide proper nutrition, promote longevity, and can prevent and even reverse many disease conditions.

Here was the old one:

"A plant-based diet, consisting primarily of foods eaten in their raw, natural state, can provide all the essential nutrition that a human body needs, promote longevity, and can prevent and reverse most disease."

Would "prevent obesity" be an easier point to substantiate than "promote longevity"? Or does obesity fall under the category of a disease condition?

musicbebe Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> I did reword my thesis, is this one any better?
>
> New thesis:
>
> "A plant-based diet, consisting primarily of foods
> eaten in their raw, natural state, can provide
> proper nutrition, promote longevity, and can
> prevent and even reverse many disease conditions.
>

I like your new thesis a lot.... "consisting primarily of foods eaten in their raw natural state", to many people will mean 75% or more, IMO, depending on who your audience is.... so if your intent is to do a report on a 100% raw vegan diet that may need to be clarified (and it may be difficult to prove).. either way depending on your intent.

Thank you all for taking the time to help me with my question, I really, really appreciate it!

Well, scientists have already proven that a calorie-restricted diet is so far the only known way to extend life-span... I would argue that the raw food diet is, indeed, a calorie restricted diet (while thankfully, not feeling like one). Although without measuring the actual caloric intakes of numerous raw foodists over time, this may be a little difficult to prove in and of itself. However, maybe you could skim over the topic and use it as a supporting example (calorie reduction via "volumetrics".

In my mind, no paper about the healthful aspects of Raw Foods
can be the least bit thorough without some discussion about the
Theory of Toxemia (see link below) and how Raw Foods help enable
to blood to become (and stay) largely purified; whereas a buildup
of toxicity in the bloodstream (as a consequence of unhealthful
living practices) is (according to the theory) the REAL cause of
disease. Raw foods help to keep the blood pure (as do other
healthful practices such as clean air and water, adequate sleep,
emotional well-being, adequate sunshine, etc.) and that is why
they're significantly more healthful than non-Raw, toxifying
foodstuffs.

[www.soilandhealth.org]

Steve
[www.meetup.com]
[www.rawgosia.com]