I'm a newbie to this so please bear with me

Can the diet that a raw vegan would adhere to be summarized as such:

Do Eat: Fruits, Vegetables, Nuts, and Berries.

Do Not Eat: Meats and Fish, Grains, Beans, Potatoes, Dairy, Sugar.

I got this list at a Paleo diet site (I moved Meat and Fish to the Do Not Eat list . My thinking is that since the foods are eaten raw and the above 'Do Not Eat' require preparation or processing of some sort that they are not eaten.

Am I being to picky?

Thank You.

"If you're not tough it's hard to survive in this world; and if you're not kind then you don't deserve to survive." –Raymond Chandler

The basic raw vegan diet is fruits, vegetables, nuts, and seeds.

Berries are a kind of fruit.

Another way to think of this diet is fruits, which most people eat raw anyways, and vegetables that are found in salads, that most people also eat raw anyways.

Outside of basic fruits and salads, you start getting into some controversial foods. say like fermented foods, dehydrated foods, starchy foods, sea vegetables, and super foods.

Then there are some ingredients that are found in raw gourmet foods, that aren't raw at all really: maple syrup, nutritional yeast, nama shoyu, salt, etc.

Nuts and seeds can be a challenge to find truly raw and fresh. Most of the ones in the store that say they are raw have been treated a temperatures above 105 degrees Farenheit.

Thank You Bryan:
Another question if I may. I found this at:
[www.veghealthguide.com]

"If the idea of soaking your nuts and seeds seems too time-consuming an endeavor for you, don't worry—many nutrients cannot be heated out of foods, like protein, vitamin E, and fiber, which are found in ample quantities inside nuts and seeds of all kinds, both cooked and uncooked."

Question: What exactly is lost when one 'cooks' or prepares a food using a temperature over 105 degrees.

Thanks for the patience. This site needs a 'rookies' section for those like me


"If you're not tough it's hard to survive in this world; and if you're not kind then you don't deserve to survive." –Raymond Chandler

The higher the exposure to heat, the more vitamins and minerals are lost. Also, as food is exposed to heats, toxins are formed - fats become carcinogen, sugars are carmelized, proteins are denatured, water is evaporated and fiber is broken down rendering it useless.

Bryan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The higher the exposure to heat, the more vitamins
> and minerals are lost. Also, as food is exposed to
> heats, toxins are formed - fats become carcinogen,

Not most fats, it's definitely bad to heat with certain vegetable oils.

> sugars are carmelized, proteins are denatured,

denaturing proteins often hurts absorption, sometimes improves it.

> water is evaporated and fiber is broken down
> rendering it useless.

that's simply inaccurate. fiber is not rendered useless by heat. who told you that?

RE:fiber, heat doesn't make it useless, but it does make it less effective. It's why certain phytochemicals (most notably lycopene) tend to have higher absoprtion when the foods that contain them are cooked. Blending also partially breaks down the fibrous matrix but ostensibly with less damage to the nutrients and phytochemicals.

You get the most fiber benefit from eating whole uncooked foods. But you still get some benefit from the fiber if your foods are cooked.

I think a simple experiment speaks volumes. Take two carrots and cook one and leave the other raw. Now take your fork and mash up the cooked carrot. See how easily it squeezes through the tongs in the fork. Now take your fork to the raw carrot. Mash up the raw carrot. See how difficult it is for the raw carrot fiber to squeeze through the tongs of the fork. Did cooking change the carrot ? What do you think will be the effect on peristalsis ?

The stomach churns regularly whether food is present or not.

Bryan is exactly right, of course. The real deal is not 'what is lost' in the cooking process...and how much processing CAN I get away with....but rather....what is gained by cooking? Taste and texture....but no nutrition is added to the food. Philosophical: and beyond this is the question of what is inside us that causes us to WANT food of a lesser nutrition...and prefer taste over health? These are the questions we all deal with. Power to you!

-David Z. Mason

WWW.RawFoodFarm.com

Not that simple Dave nor is Bryan correct in most of his assement. A better question is whether the variety maintained by eating a partially cooked diet offsets the minimal damage inflicted by cooking certain things. I'd say yes, others no, it's a personal choice & depends on the variety of the raw diet & the method of cooking.

Am I getting more nutrition eating a wide range of boiled, steamed, baked, raw, juiced, fermented foods than a person who eats "all raw" from only one food group? I'd say the answer is yes.

Not to say raw is necessarily bad, it just takes a lot more work & the cost, practicality & social aspects don't make it (by it I mean "100% raw" appealing to me at this time.

Also, from an ecological standpoint importing hundreds of pounds of raw food grown in the tropics doesn't make a lot of sense where I am. In the summer my raw intake will naturally increase dramatically.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/09/2009 07:49PM by communitybuilder.

Sure. I hear you CB. Raw does not take the place of common sense. There are those who can abuse the most 'healthy' diets! Ha! ha! For sure. I do stick by my personal observation/opinion (and I think I'm on the same page with Bryan) that ANY processing (including heat/cooking) is not going to improve the vitamin/nutrient/protein content of the food. People will have to make their own decision about how much of the good raw stuff to include in their diets. And I certainly support any person that is pursuing THEIR dietary goals........and do not have any pre-conceived notion of a diet that is exactly right for others.

-I think Mrgreen's questions are great....and that he will surely get to the heart of what it means to eat healthy....and what raw is.

-David Z. Mason

WWW.RawFoodFarm.com

Community Builder,

You mentioned

"Am I getting more nutrition eating a wide range of boiled, steamed, baked, raw, juiced, fermented foods than a person who eats "all raw" from only one food group? I'd say the answer is yes."

I would like you to prove this to me.

Lets go to Nutridiary or Fit day and check things out.

You can justify your actions all you want but please lets talk facts and not compare fermented, juiced foods to real foods here.

All I know is raw foods make me feel better.

Also, I threw in about an ounce of cacao nibs into my cookie dough recipe.

Cocoa pretty much blows away the rest of the competition in terms of minerals (and that's just the chemically farmed stuff).

[www.nutritiondata.com]

Thanks for pointing that out Narz, I had never given cocoa much thought and I hadn't realized. I've been avoiding sweets since my root canal ($$$$$ ouch!).

It would be good with bananas and avocado for a raw chocolate pudding.

Hey Narz,

Lets keep the discussion vegan. I deleted your non-vegan post.

You deleted pretty much my whole post Bryan. Yes, I admitted to eating b***er & e**s but that wasn't reason to delete my whole friggin' post.

Also, you should really allow people to edit their posts. This is an annoying feature of this forum & I never would join if I hadn't already been a member for 5-years and attached to some posters here.

My post now looks utterly retarded since all the context of my reply to globalresult is taken out. Why not just set up an auto-censor for the words meat, dairy, eggs, butter, cheese, flesh, etc.

Re the 'variety of foods' (including cooked) v eating raw from just one food group.

Heard ard this argument used before, and it is usually given as a reason for eating cooked food by those still choosing to eat it (and nothing wrong with that!).

But the problem I have with it is - I don't know any raw vegans who actually do eat 'from just one food group'. Does anyone?

Now having said I don't 'know' any, I have had uncorroborated reports of a very small number of people who eat fruit and NOTHING else, although I'm wondering if even that is actually the case.... But they are by no means typical of raw vegans, or, for that matter, those on a high-fruit diet.

I can't see my physiology ever allowing me to eat from one food group only, as, quite simply, when I've had a ton of fruit, I find myself desiring greens. When I've had too much fat, well...I feel a bit queasy, and it leads me to greens, or fruit.

And my (100%) raw diet is incredibly varied, in fact, if anything, too varied. My digestion could do with a break by having a little less variation.

Someone eating lots of boiled, steamed, baked, juiced food etc is ingesting lots of damaged and fragmented food. What that means is lots of unbalanced food, eg as certain vitamins and minerals will be destroyed/lost/rendered unassimilable by the body, so way too much of certain things and not enough of others. A diet of this kind would very likely result in deficiencies of all sorts of nutrients, as anyone looking at the science of what cooking does to food will of course know.

Re steaming and baking, cooking processes so often used by those who eat cooked food, they may be less unhealthy than a deep-fried Mars Bar, but, nevertheless, they're not 'healthy'and will have consequences for our health, if not today in the long-term.

[debbietookrawforlife.blogspot.com]

There are lots of arguments for keeping a little cooked food in the diet, but I haven't found any yet from the nutritional standpoint that stand up to scrutiny. Psychologically easier - sure. Situationally, socially, practically easier...sure.

Anyhow, seems like I'm stating the case for raw food here, on a raw food forum. Apologies for teaching grannies to suck ****.

Quote

But the problem I have with it is - I don't know any raw vegans who actually do eat 'from just one food group'. Does anyone?

Now having said I don't 'know' any, I have had uncorroborated reports of a very small number of people who eat fruit and NOTHING else, although I'm wondering if even that is actually the case.... But they are by no means typical of raw vegans, or, for that matter, those on a high-fruit diet.

I've met a few. But I agree they are atypical of raw vegans in general.

However there is a trend in the RV community to shun as much as possible. The more you shun the more "pure" you appear to your peers ("Oh yeah, I ate that in my transition phase but now I can feel the utmost subtle realms & only eat grapes".

Quote

Someone eating lots of boiled, steamed, baked, juiced food etc is ingesting lots of damaged and fragmented food. What that means is lots of unbalanced food, eg as certain vitamins and minerals will be destroyed/lost/rendered unassimilable by the body, so way too much of certain things and not enough of others. A diet of this kind would very likely result in deficiencies of all sorts of nutrients, as anyone looking at the science of what cooking does to food will of course know.

That's the raw theory but I'm not sure it pans out in reality.

I'd be curious to see a study of maybe 500 raw people cross-referenced with 500 non-raw people who considered their diet healthy & balanced. Until then we can only speculate.

Quote

Re steaming and baking, cooking processes so often used by those who eat cooked food, they may be less unhealthy than a deep-fried Mars Bar, but, nevertheless, they're not 'healthy'and will have consequences for our health, if not today in the long-term.

That's your opinion. Others might say the same about a fanatical raw diet. To each their own & let time tell the tale.

Quote

There are lots of arguments for keeping a little cooked food in the diet, but I haven't found any yet from the nutritional standpoint that stand up to scrutiny. Psychologically easier - sure. Situationally, socially, practically easier...sure.

Well I posted my diet for globalresult to cross reference with your average fruitarian's but unfortunately Bryan thought it wise to delete my whole post because my diet isn't 100% vegan. Oh well.

Even arugula will agree with me thought that it's much easier to cover all your nutritional bases on a less limited diet.

Quote

Anyhow, seems like I'm stating the case for raw food here, on a raw food forum. Apologies for teaching grannies to suck ****.

heh, never heard that one before.

The things I consider food are

Fruits
Vegetables
Nuts
Seeds
Legumes
Grains

The last two I only eat sprouted.
The nuts and seeds are limited and prefer sprouted.
Enjoy fruits and vegetables to your heart's content!

Any non-animal product that can be eaten raw with as little processing as possible would be the goal...IMO.

Look at what's natural....What other species cooks their food???

Hi Communitybuilder

I said:

Re steaming and baking, cooking processes so often used by those who eat cooked food, they may be less unhealthy than a deep-fried Mars Bar, but, nevertheless, they're not 'healthy'and will have consequences for our health, if not today in the long-term.

And then you said:

That's your opinion.

Communitybuilder, for your information...BAKING:

When baking, food is cooked to extremely high temperatures - anywhere from 300 to 600 degrees. Protein is denatured, rendering it less assimilable by the body.

Vitamins are destroyed. Arthur M Baker, MD and naturopath: 'vitamins are heat-labile, with thiamin (B1) and vitamin C being the most susceptible to baking losses. When the pH of the baked product rises above 6, nearly all of the thiamine is destroyed. In high-protein cookies, calculations revealed thiamin losses exceeding 90%.' (When B vitamins are cooked out of our foods, our bodies will raid their own reserves of them in order to metabolise the food.)

Arthur M Baker again: 'Bake some yams or sweet potatoes. Notice the sweet sticky goo oozing from the skin that partially turns to ash from the excessive heat. You're witnessing sugar molecules (carbohydrates) caramelising, fusing together like sticky molasses. Similar to protein coagulation, caramelization also occurs on a microscopic level when all foods are sufficiently heated, whether or not it is witnessed. When complex carbohydrate sugar molecules are caramelized or fused together, amylases (digestive enzymes) cannot cleave them into constituent simple sugars for use as an energy source. Not only are they unavailable, but the heat turns them into an ash-like toxin.'

Baking is one of the cooking processes found by scientists to produce acrymalides, linked with various forms of cancer. And 'Acrylamide has been found to cause benign and malignant stomach tumors and to also cause damage to the central and peripheral nervous systems. Acrylamide occurs in baked potatoes,...' (Gabriel Cousens, 'Rainbow Green Live-Food Cuisine'). Acrylamide forms when certain carbohydrate-rich foods are fried, baked or roasted.' Note that it has been found that acrymalide levels appear to rise the longer the food is heated (not a great ad for slow-cooking).

Fresh fears have been raised over the safety of cooked foods
(Daily Telegraph 3.12.07):

For many years now scientists have known about acrylamides – substances created by cooking that can cause cancer. It’s only recently that further studies have resulted in this news reaching the mainstream media, making headline news in national newspapers in 2007. The Daily Telegraph reported that acrylamides, caused by frying, roasting or grilling, could double the risk of ovarian and womb cancer in women.


I'm very surprised that you seem unaware of this information.

Meh, you seem either unwilling to or incapable of understanding my point though I made it quite clear. Suit yourself.

Who's 'meh'?

Assuming it's me, I don't think it necessary to comment on your interesting reply.

BTW, folks, it just occurred to me that there could be an unfortunate misunderstanding earlier back...

the word represented by the four asterisks is...EGGS!

Mrgreen!

Hope the answers in this thread have been useful to you.

Just occurred to me I could answer the original question quite well by referring you to this page on my website:

[rawforlife.co.uk]

debbietook Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Who's 'meh'?

Sorry Debbie, it's hard to discuss with people who either don't read or misread your postings.

My point is simple & I will put it in parable form for easy digestion.

Say you're trapped on a desert island with no hope of escape.

You have no form of intellectual stimulate besides some books you brought along.

You have a choice, you can either have ten perfectly intact books or one hundred books, ten of which are perfectly intact & ninety of which have a page or two missing.

I know which I would choose.

Anyway, you can say, oh protein absorption decreases by 9% or whatever (even though actually protein absorption can increase in some cases since the denaturing process is sort of like a pre-digestion) but overall the question remains, is a extremely limited diet ideal? It's a personal question.

I could also argue that picking fruit unripe, shipping it long distances, juicing, blending, even leaving in the fridge lowers nutrient density in rates comparable to cooking.

Communitybuilder, you had said that my statement on the unhealthy aspects of certain cooking processes was my 'opinion'.

I then simply posted some information to show that that statement was more than 'opinion' - it was based on fact.

For some reason, that reply really upset you. Interesting.

Debbie said

'
Someone eating lots of boiled, steamed, baked, juiced food etc is ingesting lots of damaged and fragmented food. What that means is lots of unbalanced food, eg as certain vitamins and minerals will be destroyed/lost/rendered unassimilable by the body, so way too much of certain things and not enough of others. A diet of this kind would very likely result in deficiencies of all sorts of nutrients, as anyone looking at the science of what cooking does to food will of course know. '

Would you say that vegans are deficient of nutrients then? I remember when i first went vegan years ago, I really thought I had found the answer and i loved the vegan diet. Are there reports of long term vegans - I mean 20 plus years and are they showing up illnesses due to their diet i wonder.

I think a diet that includes a variety of fresh raw whole vegan foods will supply the body with what it needs. The key is to tune in to the body's signals and learn to filter out the static from the true health & wellness signals that the body is sending to those who are listening.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 02/12/2009 10:54AM by EZ rider.