Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,852 Year: 4,109/9,624 Month: 980/974 Week: 307/286 Day: 28/40 Hour: 2/4


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Raw Food Diet
Max Power
Member (Idle past 6035 days)
Posts: 32
From: Minneapolis, MN, USA
Joined: 06-03-2005


Message 1 of 93 (424232)
09-26-2007 10:33 AM


A friend of mine has been on the raw organic food diet and I was wondering what you all thought about it. He has significantly decreased in size and everyone I know is worried about how thin he is. This diet consists of only raw organic fruits, vegetables and nuts. He considers food that has been (take a deep breath) blanched, irradiated, steamed, boiled, fried, cooked, baked, microwaved, enriched, fortified, altered with preservatives, additives, food colorings, insecticides, herbicides, fungicides, genetic manipulation, tilled in chemical laden, mono-cropped, effete soil and transported across the country, continent, or planet dead or dieing food and thus does not eat any of it.
Also, this individual has been known to suffer from depression and his main motivation in life is to not be depressed. He doesn't have health insurance and doesn't like the idea of being dependent on drugs so will not take any antidepressants.
Here is his rationale:
1. Humans have been evolutionarily selected for to eat these types of food. More precisely human ancestors were selected for to eat these types of foods. This time period is much longer than the time we have been eating cooked and other "dead" foods.
2. Raw organic foods contain more nutrients and caloric density and therefore will give you more energy. This of course is offset by the extreme expense of organic food combined with the fact that he doesn't make a lot of money.
3. He explains that food enzymes which help you digest are killed when you heat food and therefore it costs you more energy to digest cooked food. (I haven't been able to get much scientific information about this other than that it occurs, according to raw food websites)
4. He cites experiments about mice with significant caloric depletion in their diet that live longer.
5. He distrusts the FDA (worried that the food and drug responsibilities are controlled by the same people) and big businesses in the food market. He likens the big food companies to big tobacco and anti-global warming with massive misinformation campaigns.
6. He also believes pretty firmly in the conscious living life style. He hates the big factory farms and all of the extra energy used in transporting goods etc.
Ultimately, what do you think about the raw organic food diet? Can it be done successfully, do you think it will help with depression (or hurt for that matter)? This individual responds to scientific data but unfortunately I haven't been able to find too much, apparently this diet is still in its infancy.
Edited by Max Power, : No reason given.

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by crashfrog, posted 09-26-2007 11:04 AM Max Power has replied
 Message 3 by Chiroptera, posted 09-26-2007 11:06 AM Max Power has not replied
 Message 4 by Dr Jack, posted 09-26-2007 11:29 AM Max Power has not replied
 Message 5 by Jazzns, posted 09-26-2007 11:48 AM Max Power has not replied
 Message 6 by Modulous, posted 09-26-2007 12:16 PM Max Power has not replied
 Message 11 by Kitsune, posted 09-26-2007 5:24 PM Max Power has not replied
 Message 16 by nator, posted 09-26-2007 6:17 PM Max Power has not replied
 Message 18 by molbiogirl, posted 09-26-2007 7:24 PM Max Power has not replied
 Message 32 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-27-2007 10:32 AM Max Power has not replied
 Message 55 by Thor, posted 09-27-2007 10:11 PM Max Power has not replied

  
Max Power
Member (Idle past 6035 days)
Posts: 32
From: Minneapolis, MN, USA
Joined: 06-03-2005


Message 7 of 93 (424297)
09-26-2007 1:25 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by crashfrog
09-26-2007 11:04 AM


I agree and I think I've convinced him that the evolution argument is weak at best so I'll keep that out of the discussion for now.
This doesn't make any sense. For the first part, it's unlikely that an organism would help you eat it by producing enzymes that would break itself down for you.
But it could have first produced the enzyme, then we evolved a way to utilize that enzyme to break it down. I know its flimsy but thats what he'll say.
For the second part - enzymes are catalysts, which means that when they help promote chemical reactions (like the ones that break down food) they are not themselves consumed in the process. You have your own enzymes for digestion.
And even if the claim was true - isn't that a good thing? If you're using more energy to digest your food, isn't that reducing the net calorie gain you get from the same amount of food? And wouldn't that help you fight obesity?
Trust me, obesity isn't a problem for him. We are talking about maximizing as much energy as possible per food unit. This is because he doesn't get the energy from grains and meats and he is on a strict budget.
Life expectancies for actual human beings that live under starvation and malnutrition conditions are less than one-half as long as humans who live in Western countries. Across the world, the largest causes of death are almost all vitamin deficiencies.
Starvation is not healthy for you, regardless of what is true in mice. We are not mice.
But vitamin deficiency isn't what he's going for. He's actually going for getting a ton of vitamins (which he believes to be a major asset of organic foods) and minimizing calories. Do we have any examples or studies of groups getting all of the vitamins and nutrients etc but low caloric intake?
It's actually the USDA that monitors produce and meat production, and they're the ones that certify farms as "organic" or not. So unless he grows it all himself, he can't escape government involvement in the food he eats.
His distrust for the government is more important because he believes that the levels of pesticides and other chemicals put in our foods are set too high because there are incentives be it to keep people sick or just because lobbyists have pushed them too high.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by crashfrog, posted 09-26-2007 11:04 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by crashfrog, posted 09-26-2007 3:15 PM Max Power has not replied

  
Max Power
Member (Idle past 6035 days)
Posts: 32
From: Minneapolis, MN, USA
Joined: 06-03-2005


Message 26 of 93 (424497)
09-27-2007 9:34 AM


Ideal Diet
First, I want to thank everyone for your input. I will get back to some of the specifics in the organic issue shortly (as I would like to do more research first). Also, LindaLou, I appreciate you giving your perspective despite the consensus seems to be in disagreement. If nothing else, it keeps the debate going and there is more information for me to sift through, thank you. Molbiogirl, I appreciate the hint with scholar.google that is most helpful.
I have a second question and since this is in the Coffee House I assume it wont be an issue.
What do you believe to be the ideal diet? Is there an ideal diet? Is it the scientific consensus that the pyramid is still king? What about people who are vegetarian for reasons other than health? Would you say follow the pyramid but eat more nuts and other forms of protein and fat?

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by macaroniandcheese, posted 09-27-2007 9:55 AM Max Power has not replied
 Message 29 by nator, posted 09-27-2007 10:19 AM Max Power has not replied

  
Max Power
Member (Idle past 6035 days)
Posts: 32
From: Minneapolis, MN, USA
Joined: 06-03-2005


Message 88 of 93 (428721)
10-17-2007 12:24 PM


Response
Thank you for all of your responses, I have been reading them and enjoyed all of the information. I finally got a response and wanted to see what you all thought of some of this.
1. Here is a compilation study between nutrition quality of organic vs conventional. Basically the results say that organic foods have significantly more minerals than non-organic foods. I understand that meta-analysis screams bunk but this paper claims that "this analysis used all available studies that compared crops produced with organic fertilizer or by organic farming systems to crops produced with conventional fertilizers or farming systems." Also, I understand that The Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine is a less than reputable source, but just because a crazy person is yelling F=ma doesn't mean its not so. I guess my question is, what do you think about this study?
2. Here are a few quotes he gave me without sources so I know they aren't credible but I'd like to hear what you think.
John Robbins mentions something like 30% or 50% of cows have uterus infections, and 70% of chickens have ?leukisis? cancer. WTF!?
Also Europe and Canada have banned rBGH, but the US has not...WTF?
one interesting stat, our animals have up to 70% less nutrients in their bodies.

Replies to this message:
 Message 89 by Kitsune, posted 10-17-2007 12:53 PM Max Power has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024