According to Victoria, if we eat 99% raw and 1% cooked food, our bodies assimilate 3.0% of nutrition from the food. If we eat 100%, our bodies are able to assimilate 30% of the nutrition. That is a big difference. Also, in this table of hers, the more cooked food one eats, the less nutrition is assimilated, so that people who eat only 5% raw actually assimilate only 0.03% of nutrition from the food they eat.

I am puzzled by this - I have found it in her book "12 Steps to Raw Foods" and it was fascinating to me. Can the difference be really that drastic?

Must be an old version, she has since started incorporating more cooked foods into her diet. I personally don't agree that some steamed veg, soup, condiments etc that aren't raw are going to have that much of an impact on digestion, certainly not for every physiology across the board. Your personal digestive strength, how well you chew, if you drink liquids while eating, food combinations, how and where you eat and your activities before and after meals, all of these things will make a difference in how you assimilate foods.

I have been reading that book as well, & I know the chart. Don't have a real solid answer, except I know that I feel much better on raw foods than I ever did on cooked...could also be a psychological effect with me, since I want it to be, therefore it is...

@ coco,

I have seen youtube vids and read some stuff in her email newslatters that makes me wonder if she is moving more & more towards cooked & away from raw.

I wondered if maybe she is slowly slipping back into old habits, esp. since her recent separation from Igor (her hubby)

I personally liked her old "hardcore" stance better, lol.

I also can't think it makes that much difference. Is there any reference in her book to some kind of study or is it wishful thinking on her part?

She used to take a real hardcore stance but she talks about that in the newest version of 12 Steps, it's really beautiful what she says. She is lightening up in the same way that Brian Clement did a few years ago, including some healthy cooked foods but really it's such a small percent. I find it a very balanced philosophy myself.

I did read that in her newest book, about "lightening up". She explains in the book, & also in some of the newsletters about being "lighter", so as not to be so abrasive, or coming across in that manner, like we raw foodists have a tendency to do sometimes!

I just wander if there were any independent studies or opinions of doctors with many years of practice that would confirm that there is a big difference, especially between 99% and 100% raw. It probably depends what that 1% is and what the rest of 99% are consisted of. Still, I don't think she gave those numbers "out of the blue", at least I hope not. Also, it sounds logical that processed food can slow down the metabolism, the question is - how much?

Also, what you call "lighter" some other people will see as maybe a commercial compromise...or something like that.

I would like to see any studies which confirm or deny her original claims, not an unsubstantiated opinions. Those studies should come from some source that we can trust, unfortunately, often it is not government.

Actually, that chart of hers is what put me off to raw foods. I thought--if I can't be 100%, it's no good. Well, that's silly--the more raw, the better. If I am only 30% raw now or 50%, to aspire to 75% is great and will totally increase my wellbeing. 100% raw is a lot easier when you live in a place like CA with year-round great produce, raw nuts sold at farmer's markets, etc. In Chicago we have autumn and winter and we tend to crave denser foods at those times. I tend to believe macrobiotics when it comes to the seasons. Root veggies in the winter seem to be more nourishing and warming than eating them on a sticky day in July, when I'd rather have mostly raw. So basically I am glad to hear that Victoria is easing up a bit on her diet. Matt Monarch interviewed her and she revealed it to him and he was a bit shaken up by the news. I think I read that Ani Phyo is also eating a bit of cooked quinoa now. This helps me not get paralyzed by perfection. I also like the flexibility of not having to worry about my food, which is more likely with a raw diet.

I think it has something to do with the body's reaction to cooked foods getting in the way of assimilation. That 1% of cooked foods might trigger the immune system to produce anti-bodies to get rid of the toxins, it might trigger extra mucus which would coat the intestinal wall and reduce the assimilation of nutrients.

I don't know if this is true or not. She probably read it somewhere and is just repeating it.

Cooking denatures proteins. Fats are rendered carcinogenic. Carbohydrates become carcinogenic. Vitamins and minerals are rendered inert. Fiber is broken down. Water is evaporated.

Its not hard to believe that a huge percentage of the nutritional value is lost.

It is hard to believe that light cooking utterly destroys food value.

Banana Who, I think that was the realization that inspired her to change her stance. The "all or nothing" approach is very radical and off-putting for a lot of folk who might otherwise benefit from including any increased amount of raw in their diet. She asked herself, and we can too, what's our purpose in promoting and following this diet? Is it to benefit in whatever amount is possible or are we after an ideal of perfection?
The former is balanced, that latter perhaps deserving of the label of orthorexia. Sorry to any who disagree but guilt and regret are not healthy components of any diet. That soup or sandwich ain't gonna kill ya!

Yes Coco - I agree with you

Prana, I agree with you - cooking is not natural. But, the point is - eating just 1% of cooked food, reduces the amount of absorbed nutrition by ten times? Instead of 30% it is now only 3%? This may be true, but I would like to understand the mechanism.

rab,

I have just looked through my 2007 edition of 12 Steps to Raw Foods, and in chapter 13, "How Important Is It To Be 100% Raw," she does mention that 99% raw to 1% cooked ratio, but it's a philosophical discussion. Where is this chart that shows such poor assimilation of over all nutrients as cooked food ratio increases?

Where exactly is she getting these numbers?



Swayze
[www.fitonraw.com]

I have a 2002. copy of the book (got it from a friend). The data is on the page 22. I don't know if she changed that later. I was influenced by that chart (list, table, whatever it is) very much, and I don't regret.
I think that there is a very logical assumption that even the smallest amount of processed food can do a lot of damage, especially if one's body is used to fresh produce. There aren't enough studies that I know of which could help me understand what really happens with the body of the 100% raw food vegan or the 99% one, or others.
I always wanted to ask this question, I thought this forum would be the best place for it.

rab,

Nothing like that in my edition. Perhaps it was edited out becuase it had no scientific basis? The 2007 edition is very well documented, so this table might have been speculation, though I'd have been way perturbed to see something like that in my book--like, it wouldn't make sense to me that consumption of a tiny fraction of cooked food nutrients would neutralize the uptake of raw nutrients. In individual foods, yes, there are data showing decreased bioavailability, but there aren't any comparisons made to show a correlation between raw and cooked uptake. That would need something serious to back it up!

2007 copy of the book - it is on page 32/33.

On page 31 she mentions that "The division of Experimental Diabetes and Aging in the Department of Geriatrics at the Mount Sinai School of Medicine in New York tested 250 foods for their AGE content."

I don't really know the science behind the testing processes, but is that the credible source you were looking for? I don't believe she would pull random facts out of the air, that is not her nature.

I believe Prana stated the facts. It does say pretty much that in her book as well, that a huge percentage of the nutritional value is lost.

I have been watching a youtube series of one of her lectures and her knowledge is astounding. Makers me feel like a kindergartener!

As I mentioned, I liked her "old school" approach. For me, I like being "all - raw". I feel so much better on it, much more energy.

It can be "off-putting" to cooked foodists, but a lot of that comes from a guilty feeling on their part, that they don';t measure up as a purist...

At least, that is what I perceive from others that I interact with. In person, I come across very gently when mentioning my eating habits, if I mention them at all...

I can see the look on the other persons face when I mention how I eat. They immediately get very defensive about their food choices.

Victoria also mentions this - and I believe that may be one of the reasons she is gravitating away from the 100% approach...

EDIT: - The AGE chart is not exactly what you are referring to, rab, but is is pertinent information as far as cooking foods go...I am not sure about that other chart, I cannot seem to locate it either...



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/24/2010 02:49AM by juicerkatz.

For me, a table such as the one described would require a valid reference before I would take it as fact - no matter who the person is who printed it.

I personally think it's fine when people are not 100% raw, as long as they're healthy and happy. I also think it's fine when people are 100% raw, as long as they're healthy and happy. One is not necessarily always better than the other.

I'm very sensitive to cooked foods and don't do well with them, even when they make up only a small percent of my diet. That's why I prefer to stay 100%. But if other people are happy with whatever percent, then I feel like that's certainly OK. Lots of people have lived long and healthy lives without being 100% raw. To me, the more important dietary goal is just to be vegan, because of the humanitarian considerations.

I do think there's something about raw food that has a significantly different effect on the body than cooked food. I just believe this because of my own experience, although I know I'm just one person. My newest personal theory has to do with coenzymes. The current science doesn't validate Howell's enzyme theory, because the pH of the stomach is too low for most food enzymes to survive. But, certain vitamins act as "coenzymes", that are essential for enabling the body's own enzymes to function. This includes enzymes responsible for functions other than just digestion - energy metabolism for example. According to the Linus Pauling Institute, a coenzyme is: "a molecule that binds to an enzyme and is essential for its activity, but is not permanently altered by the reaction. Many coenzymes are derived from vitamins."

It seems to me that if vitamins are devitalized by cooking (which many are, to at least some extent), then the vitamins are less effective in their function as coenzymes. For anyone who might be interested, you can check the following page from the Linus Pauling Institute for a good example:

[lpi.oregonstate.edu]



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 08/24/2010 03:44AM by suncloud.

I met victoria last year in Seattle. I enjoyed her presentation. The small room was packed and there were people hanging from the stairs and peeking around corners to hear her message. She looked like she had gained some weight however her message was clear concerning the benifitts of eating raw foods. She mentioned purchasing a vitamix for her oldest son when his wife was pregnant and how her grand baby loves green smoothies. She stated her grand baby will bang on the cupboards untill he gets a green smoothie. I thought it interesting when she stated the importance of the food being very small in order to digest. She did state she was trying to invent a refridgerator lock and that there were times she had to leave her house in order to not eat something. I love her message and enjoy the green smoothie. I use to try to make ann wigmores energie soup but I felt it was way to green for my taste. I would become frusterated when trying to eat green because the recipes Ann Wigmore had were awful. The green smoothie is a great first step towards learning to eat raw. Before I left the meeting I shook her hand. she then visited with others and then reached out and grabbed me and gave me a very genuine, warm hug. She is a very kind person.

suncloud Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I personally think it's fine when people are not
> 100% raw, as long as they're healthy and happy. I
> also think it's fine when people are 100% raw, as
> long as they're healthy and happy. One is not
> necessarily always better than the other.

Great point, suncloud. Happiness is much more important than being 100% raw and the bottom line is that not every person will be happy as a raw foodist, even if it does improve their health



Swayze
[www.fitonraw.com]

what if we juice our raw foods ( not smoothies but juice)

will we absorb 100%?

I don't believe teh 3% or 30%, but that doesn't mean I want to eat 1% cooked foods to not appear "radical." I'm not taking care of my body in order to gain people's approval. My life is my own, my body my own.

How do these raw food 'leaders' get away with publishing statements like that without references? That's exactly what footnotes are for.

Not sure what happened with my previous post. Did I say something inappropriate?

I explained that the quoted figures are entirely made up. There is no scientific reference to back them up. I suggest to interpret them as the author's opinion on how damaged cooked food is. Do not get attached to the numerical values though.


RawGosia channel
RawGosia streams

rawgosia Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Not sure what happened with my previous post. Did
> I say something inappropriate?
>
> I explained that the quoted figures are entirely
> made up. There is no scientific reference to back
> them up. I suggest to interpret them as the
> author's opinion on how damaged cooked food is. Do
> not get attached to the numerical values though.


rawgosia,

I am not really attached to numerical values...but I am curious as to how you know she made them up?

1. Lack of reference.
2. Common sense.



RawGosia channel
RawGosia streams

3%

30percent

and .03 percent

were the numbers given

there is a fetish with the number 3


rawgosia said it best

forget the numbers

grasp the essence of what is being said

and go to sleep

Victoria's science makes no sense. Bless her heart, but she has zero credentials, and while she can talk from experience, any scientific information she throws at you is fluff.

Best,
Mark

The idea is, I believe, that if you eat processed food, this causes a protective layer to be created inside intestines, which prevents the proper digestion of all food, including raw. So, if you eat only 1% of cooked food, this prevents you from digesting everything that you eat properly.

The whole presentation of hers was based on the idea of this "protective layer" in the intestines, that body creates to defend itself from the junk food we eat. That is why Gerson therapy has that important part with cleaning the intestines. A lot of cleansing diets are aimed at cleaning this layer so that we can absorb food better.