Talk:Raw foodism/Archive 5

Use of word "Beliefs" is misleading
Why is this section titled "Beliefs"? Beliefs are typically opinions or perspectives held without empirical evidence. However many of the items listed, are testable, verifiable facts. Use of the word "Beliefs" relegates raw foodism to a sort of cult pseudo-science, which it is not. Can we change this? Offer to use "Principles" instead of "Beliefs".--218.248.78.38 (talk) 11:06, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Some of these beliefs are very controversial and not based on evidence. There seem to be some pseudo-science elements to raw foodism. There is much that is favorable in the article toward raw foodism. Listing "beliefs" does not seem to marginalize raw foodism when you see the section in context of the whole article. "Principles" might be too uncritical -- —CynRN  ( Talk )  05:36, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Also, you must realize that there is a difference between what raw-foodists 'believe' their practice offers them, and the 'principles' followed by raw foodists. E.g. "Raw Foodists believe that their lifestyle is healthy. The principles of raw-foodism are primarily eating uncooked foods." As the evidence in favor of such beliefs is marginal (at best), this is probably the most you can hope for.--C00kiemnstr (talk) 20:47, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Human Evolution, again
The disputed paragraph was discussed at length in WT:NOR. It seems to me that everything after the first sentence really belongs in an article about human evolution, not here. While there's several arguments to remove it based on WP:NOR and other policies, the simplest is that the paragraph very strongly suggests that if cooking started only 250,000 years ago, humans could not possibly have an evolutionary adaptation to it.

That doesn't sound right to me, and I'm not sure any of the sources say that. Its likely humans have adapted to far more recent changes in diet. The way I see it, there's probably many people who have debated on whether humans have evolved to digest cooked food more efficiently, and we should simply cite several different opinions on that. Squidfryerchef (talk) 03:16, 10 December 2008 (UTC)


 * First of all, the discussion should really have remained here on the Raw Foodism page as NOR page is solely about policy. Secondly, there is a regular series of arguments used against raw-foodism, that we are all evolved to eat cooked-foods, that we supposedly need to eat cooked-foods to survive and that cooked-food-consumption supposedly helped humans evolve, which need to be included on the raw foodism page - indeed, up till a year ago, all of Wrangham's views were, erroneously, portrayed as absolute fact on this page. Therefore, it is necessary not only to point out Wrangham's views re cooked-food-consumption leading to bigger brains (as he is THE main proponent of the theory), but it is also necessary to point out the mainstream views as regards this theory of Wrangham's. It is a fact that Wrangham's views are considered "fringe" and are discounted by "most other anthropologists" in the field and this needs to be noted.


 * To summarise, Wrangham is NOT stating, randomly, that we are evolved to eat cooked-foods, any old how. He is making claims that we started eating cooked-foods c.1.8 to 2.3 million years ago, because that is at a point when human brain-size dramatically increased. This is the point that "most other anthropologists", as cited,  debunk, instead favouring the 250,000-year-date for cooking, given the available evidence re hearths.  Also, the mainstream view, among anthropologists, given the available archaeological evidence and the lack of evidence for Wrangham's claims,  is that meat-eating, not the consumption of cooked-food as such, is responsible for human evolution, and this needs to be noted as well, as it's a mainstream view in the field.


 * I should also add that the issue of whether humans are, in an overall sense, adapted to cooked-foods or not, has deliberately NOT been addressed in that paragraph, as this is about Wrangham's anti-raw claims. Only Wrangham's views have been noted as he is the only notable individual in the field to make such extreme claims(indeed any online reference to cooking/human evolution/adaptation to cooking invariably has some mention of Wrangham, somewhere).


 * As for the usual claims re supposed adaptation to cooked-foods/needing cooked-foods to survive, I would say that such concerns are already addressed in other parts of the article.Loki0115 (talk) 14:12, 12 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I would like to point out that while it is unlikely that the human body (genetically human) has evolved to high dependency on cooked-foods, it is on the other hand highly likely that the bacteria and fungus which are largely responsible for digestion have.


 * Further, one could easilly argue that modern human life-style is dependant on high-energy levels, and this is most efficiently served by 'high-calorie meals with low chance of causing illness. That is to say, cooked meals are easier to digest and have many of their calories already 'unlocked'. These meals are also less-likely to cause a debilitating infection which would make it difficult to perform the numberous daily tasks modern humans face (i.e going to work, 30minute lunch breaks, etc).


 * Thus it may be more appropriate to say that humans have evolved our meals to best suit our needs (e.g. the sandwich), and that perhaps our intestinal flora have adapted to these meals as well. --C00kiemnstr (talk) 20:57, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Query
I removed a "citation required" statement as additional refs I provided seemed to give the relevant citations needed. Is it permitted to remove other people's statements re "OR", "citation required" etc., if one feels that additional information provided changes things, or are only those people who originally posted those concerns allowed to remove them? Loki0115 (talk) 13:58, 13 December 2008 (UTC)


 * If you believe that you have fully addressed the concerns, then you may remove any such tags. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:57, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Wrangham deletion
I've got a real problem with the following sentence:- "Wrangham further states that "no human foragers have been recorded as living without cooking [...] " in the criticism section. I could just as easily state that "no human foragers have been recorded as living without raw foods". It's a misleading statement by Wrangham and am considering deletion but am happy to wait for comments from others.Loki0115 (talk) 15:21, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I see no problem with that sentence. "No human foragers have been recorded as living without raw foods" is not a working corollary to "no human foragers have been recorded as living without cooking." You propose a logical fallacy. --71.229.78.196 (talk) 21:29, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Gallery
Whatever it's subject matter, the captioning, or the photos chosen, a gallery is unnecessary and excessive. In the last revert, the assertion was made that because it's "interesting," it should be kept. I'm sorry, but interesting is not a sufficient reason. There is a reason the other food articles such as Veganism, Vegetarianism and Meat do not have galleries: Wikipedia is not an image gallery. Our sister project of Commons exists to be a repository of all the interesting multimedia related to raw foodism, and a gallery is not encyclopedic content which provides critical facts about raw foodism. The article already includes great encyclopedic content describing the various types of foods included in a raw diet, and a gallery both violates policy and guideline. I propose it be removed forthwith. This is what links to Commons are for. To keep articles from being clogged with large image galleries. Steven Walling (talk) 10:33, 21 December 2008 (UTC)


 * First you deleted the gallery because it was POV, but now it's because galleries don't belong? Raw foods is a very unusual diet, and a visual representation of what is eaten in it is quite informative, striking, and encyclopedic. The veganism article could probably benefit from a picture spread of its main meals as well. Meat is fairly basic, but I would expect that it have a basic picture of each of the main types of meat before becoming featured. I shouldn't say that Common is useless, but many people don't click through to it, and thus wouldn't have the benefit of seeing the pictures. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia: it's here to provide professionally informative articles. If something increases how informative an article is, it should stay. The gallery does not take up a lot of space when compared to how much information it provides. There are similarly-sized images throughout the encyclopedia, where appropriate. See, for example, the gallery of ecological cycles presented at this section of ecological economics. Commons hosts an unselected array of pictures; here there is a gallery of selected meals. There's a difference. The latter is quite within Wikipedia policy. II  | (t - c) 10:44, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * With the removal of the accompanying text, I don't think POV is a substantial problem anymore. But galleries still are. Every subject needs illustration, which is why we include images along with text. But this large, stand-alone gallery eats up space and does little to seriously illustrate what every-day raw foodists eat (whale blubber? Are you kidding me?). The gallery provides very little real information about the average raw food diet, and a gallery large enough to do would be excessive. Simply put, a well-written paragraph (like some of the ones already present) does infinitely more to provide verified info about raw foodism than a large gallery does. The other articles related to diets don't include galleries for a very important reason: it isn't very helpful, and it violates our policy against making articles image repositories. Steven Walling (talk) 10:52, 21 December 2008 (UTC)


 * There is a difference between a gallery and a repository of images. The latter does not belong on Wikipedia, but the former is sometimes appropriate -- I pointed out an example in ecological economics, and I think a short gallery would not be inappropriate here. I agree that the images could use pruning for relevance, but I think they should all be added to a Commons category, which should be linked from this article, before deletion. Perhaps you'd be willing to do that as a gesture of good faith, because I don't know how and I've got a dial-up speed internet connection. Then a few of the most relevant pictures could be distributed throughout the article. This article is unfortunately vague on the staple foods which supply most of the calories to most rawists. II  | (t - c) 11:10, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm going to bed for now, but whatever happens to gallery, relevant images do need to be added to a raw foods category in Commons, and I'd be more than happy do that. Steven Walling (talk) 11:18, 21 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I would have to heavily disagree with the notion of removing the various images. As has already been pointed out, raw foodism is an unusual diet, so that examples should be shown with images. Secondly, it should be pointed out that the Inuit eat a partially-raw diet which includes raw whale blubber, so that that food-item is, indeed, highly relevant to raw-foodism. Secondly, the very short descriptions of each image are necessary to show what each item is and they do not violate POV as they don't promote health-benefits for each item. Similiarly, the other images are also highly relevant to raw-foodism(eg:- the raw horsemeat eaten not only by the Japanese but raw-animal foodists like myself, raw dairy is a primary staple of many Raw animal foodists so hardly irrelevant, as are raw oysters, fermented fish(as eaten by the Inuit and Raw Animal Foodists alike) Same goes for images of raw muesli, eaten by raw vegans etc.  In short, these images are essential to the page. I should add that, previously, the images were more spread out about the page, but several people objected to the way the images were placed, and insisted that most of the images be put at the end of the article.Loki0115 (talk) 13:56, 21 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Another point to be made is that other, similiar wikipedia pages, such as the Palaeolithic Diet, have plenty of images as examples, plus I am one of zillions who has never heard of this "Commons" project(at least, this is the very first time I have ever heard of it. This Commons project is, presumably, just a hodge-podge collection of images from all over the Web, judging from the above discussion(I can't even find it via Googling!). At any rate, given the above obscure website, I and many others would never really be able to come across those images, unless we encountered them on Wikipedia, while reading text on raw foodism. So, I vote that the images stay.Loki0115 (talk) 13:06, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The pictures are nice, but don't help explain to someone curious about raw food, what the usual fare of a "rawist" looks like. Most raw foodists are vegans and I would like to see, if anything, photos of nut spread, air-dried crackers, raw vegetable lasagna, and the like. This gallery is not relevant. I would support deletion of most of these photos, sorry.-- —CynRN  ( Talk )  07:01, 13 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I have removed Casu marzu, cheese riddled with live insect larvae and live fish served as sashimi. Please correct me if I'm mistaken, but these are not commonly eaten foods for anyone, including raw foodists, even the meat-eating variety of raw foodist; therefore including them in a gallery in this article is misleading. -kotra (talk) 01:24, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Wrangham
There was a comment made by Wrangham to supprt his anti-raw argument, inserted into the raw foodism page, about how no human tribes have ever lived without cooked food in their diet. I removed the sentence as it was misleading. I could just as easily state, after all, that "no hunter-gatherer tribes have ever lived without incorporating raw food in their diet". In short, Wrangham's comment is irrelevant and based on a false premise, and isn't Wikipedia-friendly.Loki0115 (talk) 16:38, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
 * What do you mean by "Wikipedia-friendly"? WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:09, 27 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't think it meets Wikipedia guidelines. The statement seems to be a way of introducing bias as it carries the implication that, since no human tribes have ever lived without cooking, that, supposedly, cooked-food is obligatory/essential for humans. This is a clear case of a false premise as I can similiarly state that no tribes have ever lived without incorporating raw foods into their diet, thus supposedly making raw food obligatory/essential for humans. Obviously, neither statement is logically plausible as the habit of eating something does not, in and of itself, make it essential for health or survival.


 * Also, the pro-Wrangham comments were stated as though they were indisputable fact(and seemingly left unattributed to anyone), so I made it clear in my current version that the calculations referred to were made by Wrangham himself, not some other researcher.Loki0115 (talk) 13:25, 27 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh, and someone complained that there was an implied suggestion in the paragraph that cooking hadn't been adapted to yet. While there is no such suggestion or implication, in reality, as only Wrangham's points are addressed, it's made clear with an extended statement(as taken from the ref), that it's only the notion that cooking was invented c.1.8/2 million years ago that is being criticised by anthropologists - nothing else.Loki0115 (talk) 15:48, 27 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Are we allowed to just copy and paste sentences from refs? You might want to reword that bit a little. Lot   49a talk 16:01, 27 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Our own analysis is probably a violation of WP:NOR. If Wrangham said something, even if it's idiotic, and that something gets cited as an anti-raw argument, it should be included in this section.  Critics are allowed to have their illogical criticisms publicized.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:54, 27 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Fair enough, I'll reintroduce that particular sentence re tribes and cooked-foods, as removing it seems to have been an illegal move. I understand why OR is frowned upon as Wikipedia strives for notability. At the same time, this does cause a few problems, such as in this case. Wrangham's views/claims are considered extremely dodgy by other anthropologists in his field, so much so that very few, if any, scientists even bother addressing more than 1 or 2 of Wrangham's more ludicrous assertions. This means that as long as some crackpot has a PHD to his/her name, they're likely to get away with almost any absurd claims on Wikipedia as long as they're considered too fringe by their more knowledgeable colleagues to be worth criticising online.Loki0115 (talk) 14:48, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * We occasionally need to assume that our readers are smart enough to realize that eating "some" cooked food does not necessarily mean eating "solely" cooked food. Their own experience is likely to guide them to the correct answer.  I don't think that we need to worry about it.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:49, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Potential harmful effects of cooked food section
I'm going through the article and checking assertions with the references and I'm deleting this: "Also, microwaving increased (toxic)AGE content more rapidly compared with conventional cooking. methods " The reference is a letter that cites some references to studies done on mice, on diabetics with poor renal clearance and the like. Can we find a better ref for the statement? Or perhaps, we have enough about AGEs in the article already. -- —CynRN  ( Talk )  02:18, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I wasn't sure about that ref. I'll look into this over the next week, and provide some more definite refs re microwaving.Loki0115 (talk) 17:44, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * May I suggest that we don't need more on microwaving in this article? Any more deleterious effects should be in the microwave cooking article. The article should mainly be a description of raw food diets and why people adopt them. All the nitty gritty about various cooking methods can be in the respective articles about those methods.-- —CynRN  ( Talk )  18:44, 9 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Another problem phrase here, not backed up by references: "Another study has shown that meat heated for 10 minutes at 130°C (266°F), showed a 1.5% decrease in protein digestibility[111]. Similar heating of hake meat in the presence of potato starch, soy oil, and salt caused a 6% decrease in amino acid content.[112]" the first ref has nothing to do with the claim and the second claim about hake meat is not supported by the abstract that is available. -- —CynRN  ( Talk )  20:12, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Those words are taken verbatim from a beyondveg.com site which discussed the 2 studies' details and appears to be quoting direct from the paper:-

http://www.beyondveg.com/tu-j-l/raw-cooked/raw-cooked-2a.shtml

(bottom paragraphs) . Anyway, I've cleared up the refs. If you want, I could simply use the language in the refs, which is vague but mentions that cooking/heating decreases protein digestibility in both cases. Is that OK? If you agree, I'll do that tomorrow.Loki0115 (talk) 18:32, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Evidence for wider acceptance of early cooking
I didn't want to just delete the last sentence in the article about "mainstream" views before more discussion. The Pennisi article is from 1998. A more recent article states, "Evidence of controlled use of fire" is probable from the site at Swartkrans in South Africa dated at 1.5 million years ago and from North Israel to 790,000 years ago. Not to beat a dead, raw horse, but the dogmatic assertion that "most anthropologists believe" etc, is from this one article and not necessarily representative of what most of them believe, in light of newer discoveries. -- —CynRN  ( Talk )  07:41, 9 January 2009 (UTC)http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3670017.stmv and http://www.dichotomistic.com/mind_readings_fire.html

There are 1 or 2 sensationalist media-stories claiming that fire was invented millions of years ago, but when you look at the general concensus among anthropologists, you find that, even now, there is precious little evidence for cooking being invented that far back. There are various ,both recent and further back, references to "many anthropologists" "most anthropologists" viewing Wrangham's work as fringe/dubious etc.

(Sorry, don't know how to underline key points, so have used exclamation marks)

Re your 1st article, it came up as a dud/broken link, though I think I've come across it before. The 2nd article you provided acknowledges that Wrangham's views are considered dubious by most of his colleagues in the field of anthropology:- "Within palaeoanthropological circles, there will be many(!) fingers crossed hoping the latest findings just aren’t true. This is because hominid control of fire at 1.6 million years poses huge problems for current thinking(!) about human evolution."

Plus, from that same article, more clear evidence that the whole million-year-date for cooking is considered fringe by anthropologists:- "While a few(!) of Harris’s fellow researchers were convinced, others said not so fast. The "burnt" patches of soil could be the result of bushfires, lightning strikes, puddled iron deposits or even a weird fungus. There was no corroboration in the form of ash, hearth stones, fire-lighting tools or food remnants. But more than this, controlling fire simply seemed too intellectually sophisticated a feat for this creature. After all, Homo erectus had only just emerged 1.6 million years ago, it was a primitive toolmaker and showed no signs of symbolic thinking over the million years or more of its existence"

Other than Wrangham's million-year-claims re cooking, there is only the 790,000 year-old claim and the Zhoukoudian 500,000 -year-old claim. The very article you cite mentions that the Zhoukoudian cave theory has already been effectively debunked:-

" He only recently helped score a goal for the anti-fire camp by showing that the famous layers of ash in the caves of "Peking Man"--the 1920s finding of 500 000 year old Homo erectus skeletons in Zhoukoudian near Beijing--are probably not ash at all but sediment. The rock hollow "hearths" look more like water carved features and charred animal bones may have been washed into the caves."

Then there's the 790,000 year claim which has also been debunked due to similiarly scanty, questionable evidence. In this article about the 790,000-year-old claim, http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn4944 it's mentioned that "But suggestions that these were 1.6-million-year-old hearths have failed to convince many(!) researchers. " In short, all over the place it's made clear that "many" or "most" anthropologists are deeply sceptical/hostile to any notions that cooking was invented earlier than c.250,000 to 300,000 years ago, given the lack of credible evidence for such claims.

In another article http://anthro.palomar.edu/homo2/mod_homo_3.htm

about the 790,000 years-old claim for cooking, :- "A 0.79 Myr old site in Israel [Gesher Benot Ya'aqov, Science 304 (2004)725)] has more credible evidence, though there does not seem to have been any cooking or repeated fire creation." Rather contradicts the sensationalist BBC article I read ages ago, to put it mildly.

Re the 500,000 years-old zhoukoudian cave theory:- "The association of fire with faunal remains, stone-tools and hominid fossils is far from conclusive and is most likely the result of noncultural postdepositional processes" (Binford and Ho 1985, Binford and Stone 1986). taken from:-

http://www.jstor.org/pss/2743299?cookieSet=1

In short, the general concensus among most anthropologists is that the strongest evidence for the invention of fire for cooking comes c.250,000 years ago, with any evidence from earlier times being viewed as scanty and dubious/inconclusive etc. Therefore, it is absolutely correct to point out that the mainstream view among anthropologists is totally different from Wrangham's.

It should be noted that Wrangham originally made his claims about cooking in 1999, where he also mentioned that tubers were related to the growth in ancient hominid brains. He was forced to reinvent that theory, by addressing cooked-foods in general, because the anthropological community rejected the tuber-theory as being flawed with the meat-theory being given more credence. Wrangham's claims have also been criticised given that the evidence he cites is so scant:-"But other anthropologists say data supporting the claim is scant.

First fires After about 250,000 years ago there is good evidence, in the form of the charred remains of hearths, that our ancestors controlled fire. Further back in time, though, the evidence isn't so strong." taken from:-

I do concede that there is stronger evidence for fire having been invented as far back as 400,000 years ago, but fire for warmth and fire for cooking are two quite different concepts and anthropologists view the invention of fire for cooking as a much later invention, unsurprisingly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Loki0115 (talk • contribs) 16:57, 9 January 2009 (UTC) In short, to portray Wrangham's and simliar views re cooking as anything but fringe would be erroneous, given that there are numerous online sources stating that the dominant view is that meat rather than cooking led to bigger hominid brain-size and that cooking was only invented c.250,000 years ago.Loki0115 (talk) 17:42, 9 January 2009 (UTC)


 * There are plenty of articles about the ancient fire sites and mentions of scores of anthropologists studying the possible contribution of cooking to evolution. It's not just Wrangham. It could be said that the traditional view is that cooking began 250,000 to 400,000 years ago. As the article stands, it sounds like there is this one crazy guy who harbors these ideas. It's quite impossible to say "most anthropologists" unless there is some kind of survey among anthropologists on this question. One article from 1998 is not enough evidence. -- —CynRN  ( Talk )  18:38, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I think this the article that I tried to post above re the ancient fire pits in Israel: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3670017.stm -- —CynRN  ( Talk )  08:32, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

First of all, the article made it very clear that most anthropologists view earlier dates of cooking as dubious, and too scanty to be considered reliable, plus I mentioned numerous other sources which also demonstrated that the majority of anthropologists view earlier dates for cooking as extremely dodgy and unreliable - thus the concensus that cooking was invented roughly 250,000 years ago, which is still the current view, not just as of 1998 - hardly a survey needed for that, given all the online references, and the mainstream view does need  to be mentioned.


 * As regards Wrangham, almost all of the articles which discuss earlier dates for cooking either mention Wrangham only(in most cases) or discuss Wrangham's points while mentioning in passing 1 or 2 obscure, unknown colleagues who support Wrangham's points, hardly "scores" of scientists. So, since Wrangham is behind 99% of such claims, and is the only such anthropologist to openly criticise raw diets, Wrangham is the only scientist relevant/notable  enough to be mentioned in the raw foodism article.

Lastly, the 250,000 figure for cooking is the number most frequently cited both in anthropological/archaeological circles and in the general media. Other claims are less often mentioned, given the lack of evidence re hearths etc. etc. I've never heard of the 400,000 figure cited as regards cooking, just re fire for warmth. At best, the range 250,000 to 300,000 years-ago is cited,(though, less often than the 250,000 figure itself). As regards the use of the term "traditional view" that is erroneous as it is not just the old, traditional view, but also the current view, and the majority view, as shown above re numerous examples. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Loki0115 (talk • contribs) 14:17, 10 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Ah, I've found the clincher that sorts out this line of argument, beyond doubt. Here's an excerpt which shows that the mainstream view of anthropologists as regards frowning on Wrangham's fringe-theories, is still the same, even 10 years after Wrangham gave his last cooking/tuber theory, so that pennisi article is still clearly delineating the current view:-

"In the 10 years since coming on his theory, Wrangham has stacked up considerable evidence to support it, yet many archaeologists, paleontologists and anthropologists argue that he is just plain wrong. Wrangham is a chimp researcher, the skeptics point out, not a specialist in human evolution. He is out of his league. Furthermore, archaeological data does not support the use of controlled fire during the period Wrangham’s theory requires it to." taken from:-

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=cooking-up-bigger-brains

Loki0115 (talk) 17:19, 10 January 2009 (UTC)Loki0115 (talk) 17:27, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Additionally, words like "inconclusive" "weak", "scant" etc. are routinely used in many articles to describe the very  sparse evidence for earlier dates for cooking, with only the 250,000 years-old date for cooking being 100% undisputed - a typical feature of a fringe notion.Loki0115 (talk) 17:32, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * "Fringe" is a word to describe something out in left field in a scientific sense, not scientifically plausible, like homeopathy. In the articles, the journalist will state that "most" anthropologists don't accept the early date of fire, but that doesn't mean Wrangham's ideas are "fringe". In the article above, the words "Considerable evidence" are used describing the evidence for early cooking. The 500,000 year date is cited. In this one, http://anthro.palomar.edu/homo2/mod_homo_3.htm, "Earlier convincing evidence of cooking from 550,000 to 300,000 and 400,000 from Terra Amata in France.-- —CynRN  ( Talk )  20:11, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Those couple of references are out of date. The reference to "500,000 years ago" could only be a reference to the Zhoukoudian Cave find, as it's the only find this 500,000 year-old cooking-claim is made about, which have already been shown to be based on faulty conclusions(see above and the article below:-)

http://www.trussel.com/prehist/news78.htm

"But a new chemical analysis challenges this view and concludes Peking man did not actually conquer fire in the cave, which is located in the southwestern suburbs of Beijing in Zhoukoudian, researchers said Thursday."

It should be noted that the Zhoukoudian Cave claims re cooking are not only decades-old, but also discredited, as of 10 years ago, given that article's date of publication!

As regards the issue re "fringe", the primary reason why most anthropologists view wrangham with disdain is because his theories are scientifically implausible. First of all, Wrangham makes a claim for cooking leading to bigger brain-size, trouble is that the only solid evidence for cooking comes at c.250,000 years ago, where there was no such spurt in brain-growth, so wrangham abritrarily chooses a date that fits in with his theory even though there's no real evidence for it(c. 1.9 million years ago during Homo Erectus), when hominid brain-size increased at one point. He doesn't, however, satisfactorily, explain why hominid brain-size(during homo habilis times) previously increased by a similiar amount as during that later  1.9 million-year-date, despite eating a raw meat diet etc. I accept that hes' relevant to the raw-foodism page if only for his anti-raw comments, but the fact is that his theory is not taken seriously by most anthroplogists.Loki0115 (talk) 15:26, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

. As regards the term "considerable evidence", this is contrasted by multiple references to Wrangham's evidence, involving descriptions by anthroplogists of his evidence as being "scant", "no evidence", "weak" "inconclusive" etc. But the clincher is that there are only a very small handful of evidence hotspots cited for dates earlier than 300,000 years ago,(primarily zhoukoudian and the yaaqov Israeli site and very little else) whereas by comparison, evidence for cooking starting at 250,000 years ago is plentiful, given the presence of hearths etc. That's the reason for anthropologists' view that cooking started only c.250,000 years ago.Loki0115 (talk) 15:26, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Problems with this paragraph
"There are also concerns regards advanced glycation end products, otherwise known as AGEs, toxins which are present in cooked-foods in sizeable amounts and which contribute to age- and diabetes-related[90] chronic inflammatory diseases such as atherosclerosis,[91] asthma,[92] arthritis,[93] myocardial infarction,[94] macular degeneration,[95] nephropathy,[96] retinopathy[97] or neuropathy.[98][99]" It's late, and I may have missed one, but none of these studies are relevant to the topic at hand and could be called Original research Mostly, these refs refer to the phenomenon in which diabetic hyperglycemia causes the formation of AGEs in tissues and cannot be used in the Raw foodism article to criticize cooked food! May we delete this paragraph? -- —CynRN  ( Talk )  08:05, 9 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The studies are all relevant as they focus on the harmful effects of advanced glycation end products which are major toxins created by cooking foods.Since cooking is the primary source of AGEs in the human body, and since there is a common raw foodist belief that there are toxins created by created by cooking which leads to ill-health, it is by no means, original research to mention links between AGEs and other heat-created toxins to various types of illnesses.Loki0115 (talk) 15:49, 9 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The studies are concerning diabetics and not about diet at all! It's really a stretch to put these studies in this article and imply that eating AGEs causes or contributes to macular degeneration, heart disease and the like.
 * Loki, when you reply to someone, please put a colon, thereby indenting your reply. To underline or put italics, just highlight what you want to emphasize and hit one of the buttons above, i.e. the second button is the italic. -- —CynRN  ( Talk )  18:31, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Loki, would you work with me to go through the refs in the "harmful effects" section? Some are broken links and some don't relate to the claim made.-- —CynRN  ( Talk )  22:04, 9 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't understand how such links can be regularly broken. I've noticed that several "bots" operate these articles and fix things. Well, I'll check. As regards the refs themselves, they are pretty solid. I agree that if you find any studies focusing on rats/mice rather than humans, that these can be avoided, as it can be argued that humans are adapted to cooked-foods while animals have less time to adapt, but any human-centered studies need to be kept. Should you find any studies on any claimed health-benefits of such heat-created toxins scuh as AGEs, feel free to post them, though.Loki0115 (talk) 15:18, 10 January 2009 (UTC)


 * As regards your claim re studies and AGEs, any cursory glance at such studies shows:- "More importantly, recent studies have provided evidence that diet is a significant exogenous source of highly reactive AGEs. Food processing, heating in particular, has a significant accelerating effect in the generation of glyco- and lipoxidation products."(taken from:-


 * http://clinical.diabetesjournals.org/cgi/content/full/21/4/186


 * So, in short, mentioning direct links between advanced glycation end products and diabetes and other illnesses is highly  relevant as cooked diets are a significant source of such AGEs.Loki0115 (talk) 15:18, 10 January 2009 (UTC)


 * As regards the claim re AGEs and diabetes and other illnesses, plenty of online studies and articles make it very  clear that the AGEs are diet-derived(eg:-


 * http://circ.ahajournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/110/3/285


 * http://jasn.asnjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/14/3/728


 * http://www.citeulike.org/user/YamaPing/article/2800684


 * http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16037267


 * http://care.diabetesjournals.org/cgi/reprint/29/6/1420.pdf


 * http://www.springerlink.com/content/w030605721813215/


 * Actually, judging from these and other online studies/articles, I've just realised that Advanced glycation end products seem to be linked to even more health-problems than I'd come across before. It looks as though I'll need to add several further references over the next week or two.Loki0115 (talk) 15:26, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Good finds here, pretty interesting stuff! But, I have to say that we are in danger of having way too much content in the Raw foodism article about these toxins. I still believe that this should be in the AGE or cooking article. Be that as in may, I suggest replacing the paragraph I questioned above with:
 * AGEs are produced by the body and are higher in diabetics and renal patients. They are also found in food cooked at high temperatures, e.g, by grilling, frying or broiling. Studies have shown a high dietary intake of AGEs in diabetics increases inflammatory markers, such as C-reative protein. AGEs are implicated in the development of chronic diseases associated with underlying inflammation, such as atherosclerosis, rheumatoid arthritis and renal failure.  -- —CynRN   ( Talk )  19:55, 10 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I've corrected some of the numerous corrections, and wish to make my reasons clear:-

1) First of all,re various peoples' edits, it's inaccurate to suggest that "there is speculation" re AGEs being harmful. The word "speculation" certainly isn't used in the advanced glycation end products wikipedia entry, and casts unnecessary doubt on a subject which has had 1,000s of studies done on it over the last couple of decades. Secondly, AGEs are formed as a result of all forms of cooking, even boiling, not just foods cooked at high temperatures, so that's inaccurate and I've changed that.:-

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6T6R-4SX9G22-C&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=554acb4d6a4a28f62e775e20675208bc

http://bastyrcenter.org/content/view/976/&page=

Nitrosamines:- These are also formed by cooking at high temperatures(eg:- frying):-

http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Nitrosamines

http://lib.bioinfo.pl/meid:82383

The reference to "some anthropologists":- Again, this is factually incorrect and misrepresentative of the anthropological community's views, taken as a whole, so I'm changing that back.I've already provided numerous examples of the stance of the anthroplogical community versus Wrangham's ideas with references to "many anthropologists"/"most anthroplogists" citing flaws in Wrangham's methodology/evidence etc., so that is pretty definitive.


 * More to follow, as I check things)Loki0115 (talk) 14:51, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I've also deleted the dietician-reference in the potential harmful effects of cooked-foods section as that is long overdue. That statement was seriously misleading as it had a dietician state what she thought the views of two american cancer societies were/should be on the issue of raw foods. Not only is this a case of original research, as this is not a page on cancer but on raw foodism, but also the woman in question is by no means a spokeswoman acting on behalf of those organisations so cannot be said to accurately portray the exact views of those societies.Come to think of it, given the international status of wikipedia, only a worldwide body such as the world health organisation(?) etc. should be entitled to have a say(though only on the cancer page).Loki0115 (talk) 15:56, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

The references re AGEs and other toxins are needed as the central raw-foodist belief is that cooked-foods create toxins. Taken altogether, the info provided is only a tiny fraction of the combined total number of wikipedia pages devoted to those toxins in all. Actually, the raw foodism page is about the same sort of size as the Palaeolithic diet wikipedia page.Loki0115 (talk)

I've just realised that a couple of the scientific papers, while perfectly valid by themselves, and quite appropriate for inclusion in the cooking(under effects of cooking) wikipedia page, are wholly out of place in a section called "potential harmful effects of cooked-foods", as they clearly related to claims of benefits for cooking. In short, they clearly seem to constitute OR. I've removed them, therefore(the raw egg and steaming(irrelevant to microwaving sentence) references).Loki0115 (talk) 16:45, 11 January 2009 (UTC)



Technically, that study re microwaving was about broccoli, only, though the study did conclude that microwaving vegetables in general was the worst form of cooking for that purpose. So I agree with that.Loki0115 (talk) 17:41, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Loki, you have made many sweeping changes without consensus. Please self revert the quote from the dietician that you deleted without recent discussion. Wikipedia articles are supposed to present the mainstream viewpoint. I don't have time right now to address the many other changes, but will get back in a few days about Wrangham and the rest. This article is very heavily weighted with material about raw meat eating. As the raw meat eaters are quite minority, I think this is a mistake. -- —CynRN  ( Talk )  21:36, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, I was somewhat non-plussed to find that many recent changes were made by you and phenylalanine without concensus, so I thought some emergency changes were needed, especially as regards the factually incorrect info re AGEs and cooking at high temperatures etc..
 * I was trying to make the claims in the article conform to what the references actually said. I don't think consensus is needed for such editing. In regards to the problem paragraph, I did bring it to the talk section to discuss. "Emergency changes"? What does that mean? -- —CynRN  ( Talk )  00:40, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

It means I was forced to correct some obvious factual errors made. Some previous errors were easily avoidable.Loki0115 (talk) 15:15, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Re that nutritionist comment:-

I am aware that wikipedia is supposed to reflect the mainstream viewpoint, but that statement was not a valid one. If you can find a reliable health-organisation or cancer-institute where someone actually speaking on behalf of that organisation says something along the lines that "raw foods are unnecessary for health" or whatever, then that's fine(shouldn't really be that hard to find as there are many commentators willing to denounce raw food diets). I'll, extremely reluctantly, reinstate that comment, but only for 7 days, until you find a more suitable wikipedia-friendly replacement that more accurately reflects the mainstream view. I mean that section clearly violates OR, and involves a dietician making unsupported claims about what she thinks two cancer-related organisations's views are. Loki0115 (talk) 17:06, 12 January 2009 (UTC)


 * No. WP:OR only applies to Wikipedia editors making unsupported claims about what they think.  Once it's been published in an independent, third-party reliable source, then it cannot violate WP:OR.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:02, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The American Cancer Society supports a healthy diet, and one can read about it on their site. It includes fruits and vegetables, but certainly does not insist that a predominantly raw food diet is necessary. The dietitian quoted is qualified to make a statement about what the leading organizations recommend. It's a nice summing up of what mainstream opinion is regarding raw food diets. -- —CynRN  ( Talk )  00:40, 13 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I still disagree as the statement is seriously misleading, given that the nutritionist has no obvious links to the institutes she's claiming to speak for, she's hardly a spokeswoman for those organisations. The way that statement is made, it's deeply insidious OR. Not only does the nutritionist put falsely-attributable words into the mouths of these organisations, but also by saying that neither of the two organisations recommend raw foods, she's implying that they recommend cooked-foods by implication as "being OK". In fact, I've come across statements from similiar organisations which state that they are undecided as to the issue of raw or cooked versus cancer, which is quite a different belief from the one  the nutritionist is trying to claim.In short, I am not at all against a minstream view being expressed, but it should be one that is official" rather than just 1 minor nutritionist's view, appearing in a  small, local newspaper.Loki0115 (talk) 15:13, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

As regards the issue of weighting towards raw-meat-eating, that's only because there are no raw vegans contributing right now. If there were, the raw veganism section would have been expanded by now with info on the 80/10/10 diet etc.. The info re raw-meat-eating is mostly essential info, and given that several raw-meat diets also include raw plant-food, it should be obvious that they are considerably more complicated than raw vegan diets, requiring more detail to describe them.

and most of the info related to animal foods also correlates to the issue of raw foodism or cooking, which is relevant to raw veganism as well. As for the whole info on different types of cooking and their harmful effects on foods, these need to be mentioned not only because of the cardinal raw foodist belief that cooking creates toxins and leads to various diseases(diseases which are also mentioned in raw foodist circles in that context), but also because raw foodists believe that some forms of cooking are more damaging than others - plus, the info provided is a tiny resume of much larger info-pages on those subjects.Loki0115 (talk) 17:06, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Again, it's too much content on details of "toxins" in this article. The article could use more on the history of raw foodism, Dr. Graham is not even mentioned. We already have a "Beliefs" section. In the "Potential harmful effects" section, a more rigorous standard needs to be applied to claims of health dangers of cooked food.-- —CynRN  ( Talk )  00:46, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * One paragraph in "Potential harmful effects" can be about AGEs; a statement similar to the one I tried above with studies that clearly state the danger from them to healthy people, not just diabetics. So far, there are no studies, that I have seen, that clearly show this. The studies are on diabetic or renal patients. Using test tube studies to imply that a diet high in AGEs cause any specific disease, as it stands in the article, is OR. -- —CynRN  ( Talk )  00:32, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Section break

 * Actually, most of the studies directly link AGEs to specific diseases such as atherosclerosis etc. However, over the next week, I'll look for studies re further refs.

Ironically, I tried including the doug graham reference months ago in the raw veganism section, but it was rejected due to not being notable enough. As regards the issue of toxins, it's a primary focus of raw diets, and so it needs to be explained in detail(including the bit about cooked-foods lowering nutrients etc.)

As for the rigorousness of the studies, I find it ironic given that the whole secion is littered with endless refs to scientific studies while anti-raw comments are have only weak or no references to back them up. I'll see about including more detailed studies, though, over this week, to sort out any concerns re them.Loki0115 (talk) 15:21, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * There are not many studies about raw foodism because it's still a very small minority of people who practice this diet. There are just a handful of studies and the article cites nearly all of them. Regarding OR, we can't say "AGEs are absorbed from food" "AGEs are found in the diseased tissues of diabetics", therefore AGEs cause diabetes (or cardiac disease, etc) when eaten in the diet. It's original research, please reread the policy.
 * It's Sylvester Graham I was thinking of! The originator of the Graham cracker. Here's some info we could use:
 * http://www.satyamag.com/june03/berry.html
 * In the U.S., one of the earliest proponents of a raw food diet was the 19th century advocate for healthy living (who gave his name to the Graham cracker), Sylvester Graham (1794-1851). In his book, Lectures on the Science of Human Life, he elucidates the reasons why humans should return to eating their food in its unfired state.
 * Other 19th and early 20th century Americans who advocated a raw or semi-raw diet were Dr. John Harvey Kellogg (1852-1943), who, despite having invented flaked cereals and (according to some) peanut butter, lived chiefly on apples and nuts; Dr. James Caleb Jackson (1814-1895), who served raw and lightly cooked vegetarian meals at Our Home, the country’s first successful health spa in the 1850s; Bernarr MacFadden (1868-1955), who lived as a raw fooder as he sat atop one of the country’s largest publishing empires at the turn of the century; and Herbert Shelton (1895-1984), who systematized raw foodism into Natural Hygiene from the 1920s to the 1970s.
 * Dr. Carl Schultz, a pioneering naturopathic physician, legendary fruitarian farmer-philospher Bill Pester, and Arnold Ehret, a prolific author of books on fasting and raw foodism.-- —CynRN  ( Talk )  07:59, 14 January 2009 (UTC)


 * OK, I'm slowly going through the ages entry and changing refs. Have changed the diabetes refs to more solid ones.Loki0115 (talk) 15:18, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Since cooking/heating is cited as a "significant" source of AGEs, it is not OR to describe the effects of such toxins, as that is relevant. Indeed, most of the studies specifically mention diet-derived advanced glcyation end products.Loki0115 (talk) 15:27, 14 January 2009 (UTC) The studies  mention a direct  link between diseases such as diabetes and levels of AGEs. All I have stated is that cooking happens to form AGEs(as in the new statement), rather than that AGEs are formed by cooking, as that is not the same thing.Loki0115 (talk) 15:44, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * This is what the study actually concludes regarding asthma: "MC activation by S100A12 might exacerbate allergic inflammation and asthma. S100A12 might provide a novel marker for eosinophilic asthma. It is a study on mice. It doesn't claim anything about dietary AGEs in humans. There are studies that do make that connection, however tentatively, and they can be used.-- —CynRN  ( Talk )  17:02, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Innaccurate wrangham text etc.

 * First of all, re recent changes/deletions:- "the wording "many pro-raw dairy advocates" was changed to "some raw dairy-advocates". Since accusations of bias are routinely made by virtually all pro-raw dairy campaigners of any note(see weston-price/aajonus vonderplanitz  etc.) I thought it best to reword the text to just "pro-raw dairy-advocates to avoid a stress on the number of people.
 * OK -- —CynRN  ( Talk )  17:23, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

The new text in the wrangham paragraph, deleting previous text without any real discussion of my previous points, is clearly misleading. First of all, as I pointed out earlier, wrangham's notions are a distinct minority view with wrangham himself admitting in a number of articles that he has no solid evidence to back up his claims, and, secondly, as you pointed out re another point, the mainstream view has to be included, which just happens to be that most anthropologists view the meat-theory as being the most likely theory etc..Loki0115 (talk) 15:52, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Secondly, regardless of the different claims re cooking, the only one that is undisputed is the 250,000 figure, as it's the only time in which hearths appear in quantity, which is why most anthropologists favour that figure above all others. All others have words like "controversial", "disputed" etc. attached to descriptions of their evidence in anthroplogical journals etc.etc.. As a result, as pointed out in those refs and in my above points much further up this page, it is erroneous to attach undue weight to such theories, especially in an article about raw foodism, where only mention of Wrangham is (if only marginally) relevant.
 * You can find a few articles that say "most anthropologists" but this is hardly definitive proof that there is a vast majority. I have been reading the literature, too, and I see a much older date given as probable...400,000 years ago, at least. The Gesha Benot Ya'aqov site has 6 kinds of burnt wood, seeds and burnt flint at 790,000 years. Wrangham gets a lot of respect in the literature I read. He wrote the chapter in the book I referenced, Evolution of the Human Diet, by Peter S. Ungar. Loki, we have to follow the references.-- —CynRN  ( Talk )  17:23, 13 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid that is misleading. Virtually every single article about Wrangham mentions that most/many anthropologists view his theories as crackpot ones:-(eg:-

"In the 10 years since coming on his theory, Wrangham has stacked up considerable evidence to support it, yet many archaeologists, paleontologists and anthropologists argue that he is just plain wrong. Wrangham is a chimp researcher, the skeptics point out, not a specialist in human evolution. He is out of his league. Furthermore, archaeological data does not support the use of controlled fire during the period Wrangham’s theory requires it to."

taken from:-

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=cooking-up-bigger-brains

Arguing that earlier cooking dates are "probable" when words like "inconclusive" etc. are bandied about, is dubious at best.

Before I correct some of the assertions, I wish to make the following incontrovertible justifications:-

1) Wrangham (probably) needs to be mentioned as he has criticised raw diets. On the other hand, no other scientist has mentioned raw food diets, so only Wrangham's cooking/anti-raw theories are relevant to the raw foodism page. Anything else would be OR. Of course, an argument could be made that Wrangham is so marginal that he doesn't merit mention in the raw foodism page, let alone criticism of Wrangham.

2) The original info on Wrangham included only his mention that cooked foods were easiest to chew. So, going into detail on Wrangham's comments re needing 5.7 to 6.2 hours to chew raw meats to get enough calories each day is therefore wholly unnecessary, as Wrangham already claims that raw foodists can't get enough calories on a raw diet. You yourself said that the wikipedia page needed cutting down.

On an off-note:- I find it actually a good thing to have crackpots like Wrangham spouting such unscientific nonsense as that ludicrous 5.7 to 6.2 hours a day claim re sufficient calories on a raw meat-diet.It makes raw foodists actually look good re credibility. However, it really is unnecessary to mention that in detail(especially since there are no quotation marks to indicate that Wrangham is making that claim, making it seem like an OR-like statement.


 * One glaring error re the above statement is that Wrangham is making that 5.7 to 6.2 hours' statement based on homo erectus having the same chewing-rate as chimpanzees. Since neither humans, let alone homo erectus, are chimpanzees, it's clear that this sentence is inappropriate to include in a page on human raw-foodism(as opposed to chimp raw foodism).*

see excerpt re chimp-mention:- "Wrangham found data showing that even at chimps’ chewing rate, which can deliver them 400 food calories per hour, H. erectus would have needed to chew raw meat for 5.7 to 6.2 hours a day to fulfill its daily energy needs." taken from:-

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=cooking-up-bigger-brains —Preceding unsigned comment added by Loki0115 (talk • contribs) 17:11, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

3) In order not to violate NPOV, criticism of Wrangham needs to be included. Since virtually every article about Wrangham includes heavy criticism of him, it is legitimate to mention that. Citing 1 or 2 authors who favour Wrangham gives a highly misleading view of wrangham, seriously violating NPOV, especially when there are so many other sources/articles condemning Wrangham's claims. You may well, personally, feel that Wrangham provides solid evidence, but that is simply not the view of the majority of anthropologists in the field.

4) The only solid, undisputable evidence for cooking is cited as being from 250,000 years ago. All evidence for other earlier dates are cited, in numerous articles as being "inconclusive" "weak" "unlikely" etc.. It is therefore imperative to mention the only undisputable viewpoint. The other vague dates may be discussed in the cooking entry for wikipedia as that is relevant, but is not valid to discuss a dozen different arbitrary dates for cooking on the raw foodism page.Loki0115 (talk) 16:09, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

5) The mainstream view of Wrangham's theories has to be included. CYN has already frequently mentioned the need to include the mainstream viewpoint in other cases - I see no reason for that to be excluded here. Since the mainstream view is expressed in several different articles, that needs to be included.

6) It was factually incorrect to refer to "some" anthroplogists" when "many" "most" anthroplogists are cited as opposing Wrangham. Like you said, we have to follow the refs, and a large number of refs make it very clear that most anthroplogists do indeed view Wrangham's theories as faulty.

7) This paragraph was already sorted out via arbitration, ages ago, with the same sort of points that CYN put forward previously being debunked - see archives. It therefore doesn't need any further changes.


 * So far, other than a mention of 1 or 2 books, there hasn't been any real support re the claim that Wrangham's theory is widely favoured or even considered seriously by the majority of anthropologists, just 1 or 2 books/authors being cited, really.Loki0115 (talk) 16:09, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I have so far provided numerous references to back up the point about most/many anthropologists opposing Wrangham. None of which have been convincingly debunked(here's some of them including references to the 250,000 year figure's undisputable status and questionable status re other eras):-

" Yet he, Michigan's Brace, and most other anthropologists contend that cooking fires began in earnest barely 250,000 years ago, when ancient hearths, earth ovens, burnt animal bones, and flint appear across Europe and the middle East. Back 2 million years ago, the only sign of fire is burnt earth with human remains, which most anthropologists consider coincidence rather than evidence of intentional fire. " taken from:-

http://cogweb.ucla.edu/Abstracts/Pennisi_99.html

"In the 10 years since coming on his theory, Wrangham has stacked up considerable evidence to support it, yet many archaeologists, paleontologists and anthropologists argue that he is just plain wrong. Wrangham is a chimp researcher, the skeptics point out, not a specialist in human evolution. He is out of his league. Furthermore, archaeological data does not support the use of controlled fire during the period Wrangham’s theory requires it to."

taken from:-

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=cooking-up-bigger-brains

""But if you want hard evidence for fire in the form of stone hearths and clay ovens, you are in the last 250,000 years," he said. That is the time of archaic Homo sapiens in Europe and late Homo erectus in Asia."

and " Over the last two years, though, several groups of researchers have published a series of papers that have deepened the debate, casting doubt on the evidence for human-made fire at Zhoukoudian and lending fresh support to the argument for very early control of fire.

A team including Dr. Bar-Yosef; Dr. Steve Weiner, professor of structural biology at the Weizmann Institute of Science in Israel; Dr. Paul Goldberg, professor of archaeology at Boston University; and Dr. Xu Qin-qi and Dr. Liu Jin-yi of the Institute of Vertebrate Paleontology and Paleoanthropology in Beijing found that the ashes archaeologists long believed were produced by human-made fire 500,000 years ago in Zhoukoudian washed in from outside and could have natural causes. Burnt bones and stone tools still suggest the presence of fire, but there is no direct evidence that humans built it, Dr. Goldberg said."

" But the prevailing view among many anthropologists has long been that the archaeological evidence from East Africa for the early conquest of fire is ambiguous at best and that, in fact, Homo erectus lived successfully as a hunter and scavenger of big game for more than a million years without fire. Homo erectus, and possibly other species of human ancestors, the theory holds, began to control fire only out of necessity when they moved into more northern latitudes and had to contend with frozen meat and bone-chilling cold. "

"But if you want hard evidence for fire in the form of stone hearths and clay ovens, you are in the last 250,000 years," he said. That is the time of archaic Homo sapiens in Europe and late Homo erectus in Asia.

taken from same article:-

http://faculty.cbu.ca/rkeshen/rkeshen2/120/overheads/First%20Term/Weektwo/16FIRE.html

Here are excerpts where Wrangham admits he has "evidence" etc. to back up his claims:-

"All of that is just circumstantial evidence, Wrangham admits. There is no "smoking skewer" to prove H. erectus families gathered around hearths so far back in time. " taken from:-

http://www.hno.harvard.edu/gazette/2002/06.13/01-cooking.html

"While Dr. Wrangham admits that there is no smoking gun among the scant remains of humanity's ancient forebears -- nothing akin to the evidence found in comparatively recent archaeological sites of repeatedly used hearthplaces, with their charred blocks and roasted animal bones" taken from:-

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D0CEED7123BF93BA15756C0A9649C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all
 * The Pennisi paper you quote from is a decade old, now. More recent discoveries are proving Wrangham right. Wikipedia must use current sources, after 2000 if possible. I'll put quotes around the chewing reference. Thanks for pointing that out. Provide a link from old archives in Wiki for when this question was 'settled'. Wikipedia articles are rarely settled! I think that you are cherry-picking from the articles to discredit Wrangham. You get the last word in the paragraph, so the paragraph is fairly balanced. Neutral point of view is what Wikipedia is about. Here is an interesting article:
 * Then in April a bombshell was dropped. At the Paleoanthropology Society annual meeting in Philadelphia, Brian Ludwig, from Rutgers University revealed evidence that fire use by erectus was widespread. Ludwig, a student of Harris, had carried out an exhaustive analysis of flint artifacts and the debris of tool-making, personally inspecting some 40 000 pieces collected from over 50 sites in Africa and covering the period from 2.5 million to less than 1 million years ago. His aim was to see whether flint knapping skills really did remain static over this period. "I wasn’t even looking for signs of fire," says Ludwig. But he found them anyway.

"When stones like basalt or quartz are exposed to intense heat, like being left around near a campfire, they change colour and also get these potlid fractures--little dimples--on the surface," says Ludwig. He found these signs of thermal alteration all over the place, and there was a clear pattern. No potlid fractures on any of the stone tools until around 1.6 million years ago. Then after that, they occur consistently across many sites, including the post-1.6 million year old strata at Olduvai on the shores of Lake Turkana where, despite remarkable preservation of other artifacts, fire had never been reported before. While not as direct evidence as burnt earth, the burnt tools considerably broaden the claim for early fire.

It’s hardly surprising that these findings have met with some opposition. Henry Bunn of the University of Wisconsin-Madison says the control of fire is such a crucial development that it is going to require much stronger evidence to convince everyone in the field. And Ofer Bar-Yosef of Harvard’s Peabody Museum, is also sceptical. He only recently helped score a goal for the anti-fire camp by showing that the famous layers of ash in the caves of "Peking Man"--the 1920s finding of 500 000 year old Homo erectus skeletons in Zhoukoudian near Beijing--are probably not ash at all but sediment. The rock hollow "hearths" look more like water carved features and charred animal bones may have been washed into the caves.

But even the cautious minded Bunn and Bar-Yosef believe there is good evidence that Homo erectus did use fire later on. From about 400 000 years ago proper hearths--rings of stones--burnt bones, and other clear evidence of fire become common throughout Europe. New finds are made nearly every year with recent discoveries, soon to be described in more detail, including Beeches Pit in Suffolk, Britain, and SchØ ningen in Germany.

Bar-Yosef says the 400 000 year old SchØ ningen site is particularly significant because beautifully carved wooden spears and butchered horse remains were also found there. The wooden spears have been a huge shock to researchers, forcing them to accept that late Homo erectus was a skilled hunter and skilled tool maker. "People had been trying to split erectus and even the Neanderthals off from every kind of cultural activity, saying they couldn’t really have done this or that until 40 000 years ago. But that’s rubbish," says Bar-Yosef. "Erectus would have needed fire just to be in Europe during the ice ages. And even the latest dates that people accept--around 250 000 years ago--would be a problem for the idea that everything important starts to happen with Homo sapiens."http://www.dichotomistic.com/mind_readings_fire.html-- —CynRN  ( Talk )  17:19, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Another point to consider is that even the refs that CYN provided mention heavy criticism of earlier dates for cooking:-

http://www.dichotomistic.com/mind_readings_fire.html

"There are still plenty of holes in the story, though. If Homo erectus was a fire lighter, then why are there no obvious fire striking stones in the archaeological record until about 100 000 years ago? And if humans have been using fire for 1.6 million years, then surely we ought to have hands as tough as oven gloves or a fire-nurturing instinct wired into our brains? There has been plenty of time for more obvious signs of genetic adaptation. And when exactly did cooking start? From the first, Homo erectus had significantly smaller teeth and jaws--thought to be a result of their switch from a diet of tough plant material to more meat. But it was not until modern Homo sapiens that there was a second dramatic drop in tooth size, as if these people had started eating more chewable food."

"While a few of Harris’s fellow researchers were convinced, others said not so fast. The "burnt" patches of soil could be the result of bushfires, lightning strikes, puddled iron deposits or even a weird fungus. There was no corroboration in the form of ash, hearth stones, fire-lighting tools or food remnants. But more than this, controlling fire simply seemed too intellectually sophisticated a feat for this creature. After all, Homo erectus had only just emerged 1.6 million years ago, it was a primitive toolmaker and showed no signs of symbolic thinking over the million years or more of its existence."

Note the reference to "few" re anthroplogists supporting earlier dates for cooking.Loki0115 (talk) 17:16, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

In light of my above points, and the general weakness/unreliability of refs re the claim that wrangham's claims are supposedly widely favoured, I hereby change things back to the original.Loki0115 (talk) 17:18, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Not yet, Loki. That was just one reference. I have plenty more. Your Pennisi article is very old in scientific circles.-- —CynRN  ( Talk )  17:34, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Reply to numbered objections
I reposted Loki's justifications here for convenience: "Before I correct some of the assertions, I wish to make the following incontrovertible justifications:-

1) Wrangham (probably) needs to be mentioned as he has criticised raw diets. On the other hand, no other scientist has mentioned raw food diets, so only Wrangham's cooking/anti-raw theories are relevant to the raw foodism page. Anything else would be OR. Of course, an argument could be made that Wrangham is so marginal that he doesn't merit mention in the raw foodism page, let alone criticism of Wrangham.
 * I don't think we need mention the many other anthropologists by name. It is clear from the literature that many anthropologists are on the same page, i.e. Rowlett, et al. He is mentioned very favorably, even by the skeptics. He's anything but marginal!-- —CynRN  ( Talk )  01:08, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

2) The original info on Wrangham included only his mention that cooked foods were easiest to chew. So, going into detail on Wrangham's comments re needing 5.7 to 6.2 hours to chew raw meats to get enough calories each day is therefore wholly unnecessary, as Wrangham already claims that raw foodists can't get enough calories on a raw diet. You yourself said that the wikipedia page needed cutting down.
 * OK, I'll go along with deleting the chewing part.-- —CynRN  ( Talk )  01:08, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

On an off-note:- I find it actually a good thing to have crackpots like Wrangham spouting such unscientific nonsense as that ludicrous 5.7 to 6.2 hours a day claim re sufficient calories on a raw meat-diet.It makes raw foodists actually look good re credibility. However, it really is unnecessary to mention that in detail(especially since there are no quotation marks to indicate that Wrangham is making that claim, making it seem like an OR-like statement.
 * Calling Wrangham a crackpot is extreme.-- —CynRN  ( Talk )  01:08, 15 January 2009 (UTC)


 * One glaring error re the above statement is that Wrangham is making that 5.7 to 6.2 hours' statement based on homo erectus having the same chewing-rate as chimpanzees. Since neither humans, let alone homo erectus, are chimpanzees, it's clear that this sentence is inappropriate to include in a page on human raw-foodism(as opposed to chimp raw foodism).*

see excerpt re chimp-mention:- "Wrangham found data showing that even at chimps’ chewing rate, which can deliver them 400 food calories per hour, H. erectus would have needed to chew raw meat for 5.7 to 6.2 hours a day to fulfill its daily energy needs." taken from:-

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=cooking-up-bigger-brains —Preceding unsigned comment added by Loki0115 (talk • contribs) 17:11, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not about what you think or what I think. It's about verifiability. What Wrangham thinks is relevant to the section, but I'll concede we don't need the hours of chewing part.-- —CynRN  ( Talk )  01:08, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

3) In order not to violate NPOV, criticism of Wrangham needs to be included. Since virtually every article about Wrangham includes heavy criticism of him, it is legitimate to mention that. Citing 1 or 2 authors who favour Wrangham gives a highly misleading view of wrangham, seriously violating NPOV, especially when there are so many other sources/articles condemning Wrangham's claims. You may well, personally, feel that Wrangham provides solid evidence, but that is simply not the view of the majority of anthropologists in the field.
 * The critics get the last word in the article. NPOV is maintained. The recent cooking dates are called "mainstream". Again, how in the world can you or anyone tell what the majority of anthropologists think? Scores of them are on Wrangham's side. There is no poll. You can't just find articles that quote this or that archeologist or science writer to determine this.-- —CynRN  ( Talk )  01:08, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

4) The only solid, undisputable evidence for cooking is cited as being from 250,000 years ago. All evidence for other earlier dates are cited, in numerous articles as being "inconclusive" "weak" "unlikely" etc.. It is therefore imperative to mention the only undisputable viewpoint. The other vague dates may be discussed in the cooking entry for wikipedia as that is relevant, but is not valid to discuss a dozen different arbitrary dates for cooking on the raw foodism page.Loki0115 (talk) 16:09, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The references we already have go to 400,000 and 500,000 for "incontrovertible" evidence of fire and hearths. Follow the references.-- —CynRN  ( Talk )  01:08, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

5) The mainstream view of Wrangham's theories has to be included. CYN has already frequently mentioned the need to include the mainstream viewpoint in other cases - I see no reason for that to be excluded here. Since the mainstream view is expressed in several different articles, that needs to be included.
 * See above, I added that "mainstream view" is recent dates for fire.-- —CynRN  ( Talk )  01:08, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

6) It was factually incorrect to refer to "some" anthroplogists" when "many" "most" anthroplogists are cited as opposing Wrangham. Like you said, we have to follow the refs, and a large number of refs make it very clear that most anthroplogists do indeed view Wrangham's theories as faulty.
 * See above. We can only say "many". Obviously, there are "many" who favor Wrangham's views, too.-- —CynRN  ( Talk )  01:08, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

7) This paragraph was already sorted out via arbitration, ages ago, with the same sort of points that CYN put forward previously being debunked - see archives. It therefore doesn't need any further changes.
 * What arbitration? You mean consensus? The article is not "locked" and isn't "owned" by anyone.
 * I hope we can work together, Loki. People with opposing POVs can make a better article.-- —CynRN  ( Talk )  01:08, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Eggs and reptiles
Secondly, the veterinary manual reference re egg-whites is valid as it is talking about avidin in eggs, in general, as being reduced if eggs are fertilised. Obviously, this is a piece of general data that is not just applicable to lizards.Loki0115 (talk) 15:59, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * You are going off into OR here! Not so obviously, at all, as lizards may have very different metabolisms, more sensitivity to avidin. The egg experts say fertilized eggs have no advantages. Can you find a better reference? -- —CynRN  ( Talk )  17:14, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I can't find a thing about fertilized eggs having any advantage. They tend to spoil faster, but that's the only thing I could find. I did find a source that delineates how many species are subject to biotin injury from raw eggs, with nothing on fertilized eggs.  —CynRN  ( Talk )  07:42, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, it's a huge stretch to assume that lizards have a special hypersensitivity to avidin. Can you find a relaible source that says that lizards are more sensitive to avidin than other species? The statement clearly applied to eggs, in general, not lizards.Loki0115 (talk) 14:12, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The veterinary source you supplied talks about the biotin injury to reptiles, actually certain kinds of reptiles..skinks, etc. It actually doesn't even belong in this article. I was just changing the statement in the article to match the reference to point this out. I challenge you to find anything reliable that says that fertilized eggs reduce avidin injury. It's not plausible and it's not in any literature out there.

http://books.google.com/books?id=y1N5nCi8CLwC&pg=PA237&lpg=PA237&dq=reduces+amount+of+avidin+in+egg&source=web&ots=SJ33y-sUHG&sig=6ipl_BUUv7am-yOuFLpYAhTX5ns&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=3&ct=result-- —CynRN  ( Talk )  17:31, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

The big picture
I was going through the refs about 'reduced protein digestibility' and have come to the conclusion that this is information that doesn't belong in "Potential harmful effects". Some proteins are more digestible, as was shown in the study that Loki deleted. In any case, reduced protein digestibility is not really a toxic effect. Let's stick to the nitrosamines and the like, and get rid of the protein digestibility stuff. -- —CynRN  ( Talk )  01:08, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

That would be inappropriate. After all, reduced protein digestibility is hamrful to one's digestion - the title of the paragraph is not about "toxic effects" but about "harmful effects of cooked foods",and harm can arrive in the form of the loss of nutrients caused by cooking, decreased digestibility of protein etc. Incidentally, those studies re protein digestibility make it clear that this decrease in digestibility is a facotr at high temperatures, so they need to be included.Loki0115 (talk) 15:24, 13 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Eggs are more digestible. It's easier to consume cooked meat. The slight decrease in digestibility of some proteins in cooked food is trivial. Lower protein is probably a good thing, since most people in the industrialized world eat too much protein anyway. "Harmful effects" should emphasize the toxins.-- —CynRN  ( Talk )  17:11, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

The argument re easier to digest cooked meat is only made by Wrangham, mainly. Studies I've shown indicate the opposite that protein is worse digested after cooking. As regards the harmful effects issue, loss of nutrients and worse digestion obviously constitute harm. So, referring to toxins only would be misleading and limiting. As for the comment re excess protein, that is somewhat OR, as there are many equally valid dietary theories out there.Loki0115 (talk) 14:09, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Anyway, this is all relevant as 3 of raw foodists' central beliefs are that 1) cooking food creates toxins 2) that cooking food reduces digestibility and 3) cooking leads to a loss of nutrients, so any related info is necessary for inclusion.Loki0115 (talk) 14:40, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I can find plenty of evidence that cooking makes protein more digestible. -- —CynRN  ( Talk )  17:37, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Antiquity of cooking
I found a good recent source for the antiquity of cooking:




 * Here's another one, although the article is not freely accessible: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18451764

--Phenylalanine (talk) 01:26, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It seems evident from these articles and other recent ones, that the earliest date for cooking has been pushed back, with newer archeological finds. The older dates can be included in the article, as it's relevant to the whole raw foods issue. -- —CynRN  ( Talk )  08:00, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Overlinking
I noticed today that #Raw foods movement has a serious problem with overlinking. MoS prohibits more than one link to any given article per regular-length section. Most editors apply this more strongly and never link the same page more than twice in an entire article.

If the link isn't actually important to understanding the article, then it might be better off not being linked at all (the overall goal is no more than 10% of words linked in any given paragraph). Please consider cleaning up some of this as you're editing. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:48, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Citation & Adding Oprah Video-link

 * For the [citation needed] after [45] about pepsin (being a digestive enzyme & itself being readily digested in the stomach) in the History Paragraph ( History )
 * May the sources (3-6) from the wiki for Pepsin ( cite-note-2 ) be used, as they cover the same material?
 * Specifically:
 * 3 Northrop, J. H. (1929). "Crystalline Pepsin". Science 69: 580.
 * 4 "Enzyme entry 3.4.23.1". 3.4.23.1Retrieved on 2008-12-14.
 * 5 Nelson, David L.; Cox, Michael M. (2008). Lehninger Principles of Biochemistry (5 ed.). New York: W. H. Freeman. p. 96.
 * 6 Nelson, David L.; Cox, Michael M. (2008). Lehninger Principles of Biochemistry (5 ed.). New York: W. H. Freeman. p. 675.


 *  For the [citation needed] after [49] under Beliefs ( Beliefs )
 * Digestive Enzymes: The Key to Good Health and Longevity By Rita Elkins, M.H. Woodland Publishing, 1998 ISBN 1580540287 p10-11
 * see: G!-Books
 * undertand that as a 'Belief' this idea is not completely accepted by the scientific community, which has at times disputed the assertion
 * specifically: Conservation of Digestive Enzymes Physiological Reviews, Vol. 82, No. 1, January 2002, pp. 1-18; 10.1152/physrev.00022.2001.
 * Full Text:
 * which seems to show evidence that digestive enzymes are recycled by the body, however much like Iron & cholesterol are physiologically 'recycled', it is still possible that some attrition occurs and that dietary supplementation would not be deleterious


 * Under the 'Raw Food Movement' section ( Raw food movement )
 * should there be mention of the recent support in popular culture for Raw-Food from Television appearances on 'The Truth about Food' & 'Oprah' ?
 * it details the practical pseudo-experiment of placing heart-disease victims on a 12 day diet of only: "11 pounds of raw fruits, vegetables and nuts every single day" showing that "after 12 days, their cholesterol dropped by an average of 25 percent, their blood pressure dropped by 10 percent, and they lost about 10 pounds each, including two-and-a-quarter inches of their waists"
 * See:
 * video:
 * this is consistant with the many benefits that the scientific community has found with a diet rich in fruits & vegetables, and those deficient in these foods may improve their health significantly by increasing their fruit & vegetable consumption
 * See:
 * Fruit and Vegetable Intake and Risk of Major Chronic Disease JNCI Journal of the National Cancer Institute 2004 96(21):1577-1584; doi:10.1093/jnci/djh296
 * Full Text:
 * Fruits and vegetables in the prevention of cancer and cardiovascular disease  Public Health Nutrition  (2000), 3: 103-107 Cambridge University Press  doi:10.1017/S1368980000000136
 * Full Text:
 * Vegetables, fruits and phytoestrogens in the prevention of diseases PostGraduate Medicine  Year : 2004  |  Volume : 50  |  Issue : 2  |  Page : 145-149
 * Full Text:
 * Fruit, Vegetable, and Antioxidant Intake and All-Cause, Cancer, and Cardiovascular Disease Mortality in a Community-dwelling Population in Washington County, Maryland  American Journal of Epidemiology 2004 160(12):1223-1233; doi:10.1093/aje/
 * Full Text:
 * Fruit and Vegetable Consumption and Colorectal Adenomas in the Nurses' Health Study [Cancer Research 66, 3942-3953, April 1, 2006]
 * Full Text:
 * New insights into the effects on blood pressure of diets low in salt and high in fruits and vegetables and low-fat dairy products Current Controlled Trials in Cardiovascular Medicine 2001, 2:71-74doi:10.1186/cvm-2-2-071
 * Full Text:
 * Fruit and vegetable consumption is inversely associated with blood pressure in a Mediterranean population with a high vegetable-fat intake: the Seguimiento Universidad de Navarra (SUN) Study British Journal of Nutrition  (2004), 92: 311-319 Cambridge University Press  doi:10.1079/BJN20041196
 * Full Text:
 * Intake of fruit and vegetables: implications for bone health  Proceedings of the Nutrition Society  (2003), 62: 889-899 Cambridge University Press   doi:10.1079/PNS2003310
 * Full Text:
 * Changes in intake of fruits and vegetables in relation to risk of obesity and weight gain among middle-aged women  International Journal of Obesity (2004) 28, 1569-1574. doi:10.1038/sj.ijo.0802795
 * Full Text:
 * The burden of cardiovascular disease and cancer attributable to low fruit and vegetable intake in the European Union: differences between old and new Member States Public Health Nutrition  (2006), 9: 575-583 Cambridge University Press  doi:10.1079/PHN2005910
 * Full Text:
 * Greater Survival After Breast Cancer in Physically Active Women With High Vegetable-Fruit Intake Regardless of Obesity  Journal of Clinical Oncology, Vol 25, No 17 (June 10), 2007: pp. 2345-2351  DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2006.08.6819
 * Full Text:
 * Fruit and Vegetable Intake in Relation to Risk of Ischemic Stroke JAMA   Vol. 282 No. 13, October 6, 1999
 * Full Text:
 * Prospective Study of Fruit and Vegetable Consumption and Risk of Lung Cancer Among Men and Women NCI Journal of the National Cancer Institute 2000 92(22):1812-1823; doi:10.1093/jnci/92.22.1812
 * Full Text:
 * Tomatoes, Tomato-Based Products, Lycopene, and Cancer: Review of the Epidemiologic Literature JNCI Journal of the National Cancer Institute 1999 91(4):317-331; doi:10.1093/jnci/91.4.317
 * Full Text:
 * Fruit and Vegetable Intake and Incidence of Bladder Cancer in a Male Prospective Cohort   JNCI Journal of the National Cancer Institute 1999 91(7):605-613; doi:10.1093/jnci/91.7.605
 * Full Text:
 * Increasing Fruit and Vegetable Intake and Decreasing Fat and Sugar Intake in Families at Risk for Childhood Obesity  OBESITY RESEARCH Vol. 9 No. 3 March 2001 p171-178
 * Full PDF:
 * Fruit and vegetable intake and risk of cardiovascular disease in US adults: the first National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey Epidemiologic Follow-up Study American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, Vol. 76, No. 1, 93-99, July 2002
 * Full Text:
 * Fruit and vegetables, and cardiovascular disease: a review  International Journal of Epidemiology, Vol 26, 1-13, 1997
 * Full PDF:

Orchus2 (talk) 22:09, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Orchus2, nearly all of the links you provide are entirely irrelevant. It's possible to eat a veggie-only diet that cooks every single mouthful. It's also possible to eat a raw-only diet that contains zero fruits and vegetables. This page requires sources that talk specifically about a raw-only or raw-primarily diet. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:39, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing, Thanks for the response and reasoned critique. I see your point about the many links I posted at the end supporting the use of fruits & vegetables as healthy. I should have made more clear that I did not intend those as specifically raw-food only links, rather as a (perhaps verbose) supporting detail that the scientific community has repeatedly found benefits to fruits & vegetables (something that those interested in a raw-vegetable diet may find to be of interest - NOT something intended as an addition to the Wiki, as you are entirely correct, it is NOT specifically about RAW food, but rather specfically about fruits and vegetables). But what about the suggested citations above those many links, the ones about the belief in depleting digestive enzymes and Pepsin? Is the pseudo-experiment of people eating raw fruits, vegetables, nuts and seeds for 12 days at least as relevant as the link to SuperChargeMe (Jenna Norwood's 30 day experience eating raw only fruits vegetables nuts and seeds)? (sorry if the bold type seems obtrusive, I only intend to emphasize that the offered critique of my post seems to ignore these earlier parts of the post) Certainly the fact that a raw-food diet can be vegetables, meats or both does not preclude the inclusion of raw-vegetable, raw-meat or raw-vegeatble-and-meat. I mean all subsets of a given category are relevent - like the page on the Potato, rightly includes a section on the varieties of potato. I agree most of my posted links are not suitable for inclusion in the Wiki (because I did not propperly make clear that the many links at the end were not intended to be). The links preceding those, about depleting digestive enzymes, pepsin and the 12 day raw-food pseudo-experiment do seem relevant.

Orchus2 (talk) 12:30, 8 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Why don't you remove (or all the sources here that don't specifically discuss a raw-only or raw-primarily diet, and then we'll see what's left?  WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:48, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi Orchus, and welcome! I think your ref about the enzymes may be useful. Many of the other other sources you found re. the benefit of vegetables are great, but WhatamIdoing is right that they need to be studies of the "Raw food diet", not just about the healthfulness of a mostly vegetable diet. The article is a bit bloated, IMHO, and over-weighted in favor of the raw meat diet, which is pretty rare (excuse the pun), as opposed to the raw vegan diet. Most of the time, as you know, any reference to a "raw diet" means a raw vegan diet. Regarding Oprah, if she had a 'raw foodist' on, it might be notable. There was an episode of Wife Swap that featured a raw meat eating family. I am not sure how far we need to go down the 'as featured in the media' road. I'll try to look at more of your post tomorrow. -- —CynRN  ( Talk )  06:11, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * This ref. re digestive enzymes should be worked in to counter the "depletion of enzyme theory". Good find.
 * From Orchus: "this idea (finite amount of digestive enzymes) is not completely accepted by the scientific community, which has at times disputed the assertion specifically": Conservation of Digestive Enzymes Physiological Reviews, Vol. 82, No. 1, January 2002, pp. 1-18; 10.1152/phys rev.00022.2001.  Full Text: [1]
 * "which seems to show evidence that digestive enzymes are recycled by the body, however much like Iron & cholesterol are physiologically 'recycled', it is still possible that some attrition occurs and that dietary supplementation would not be deleterious."-- —CynRN  ( Talk )  02:17, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

AGE toxicity
Many toxic effects are claimed for AGEs in the diet, but some of the studies cited are 'in vivo' or studies on animals. Such speculative studies and claims need to be deleted. I just removed asthma from the list. This constitutes original research. "The conclusion of this (mouse) study: S100A12 might provide a novel marker for eosinophilic asthma." This study could be in the AGE article, perhaps, but here it's implying that cooked food leads to asthma.-- —CynRN  ( Talk )  15:45, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Probiotic rich diet
All this about probiotics is very POV. I think it should be deleted unless someone can come up with a more encyclopedic way to link probiotics to the topic of raw foodism. The section seems thrown into the article willy-nilly. I deleted it and pasted it below. What, if any belongs in the article? -- —CynRN  ( Talk )  06:12, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Probiotics are bacteria or yeasts that favour life. In regards to their symbiotic relationship within our human context, these highly under-appreciated probiotic species serve as powerful and essential co-factors for the generation of our vitality. Because absence in probiotic concentrations alongside reductions in the spectrum of probiotic species, quite literally implies that a level of malnourishment is at play, a developing movement is placing greater emphasis upon the ingestion of these beneficial lifeforms through dietary sources. Raw cultured probiotic-rich foods like sauerkraut, kimchi and traditionally made dairy and nut/seed cheeses, alongside beverages like kvass, kefir, yoghurt, kombucha, and sauerkraut juice, have all recently acquired greater recognition and prestige in honour of their important and timely dietary contributions. Within the raw and living foods arena, Sally Fallon, Donna Gates and Kyle Vialli are notable proponents of raw probiotic-rich diets.


 * I agree with removing it. It's not specific to a raw diet, and many foods (like yogurt) can be both cooked and contain probiotic bacteria or yeasts.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:06, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Cooking kills the probiotics. Hopefully that is mentioned elsewhere in the article. 75.15.201.143 (talk) 20:20, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * But you could first cook the food (e.g., pasteurize the milk), and then inoculate it with desirable bacteria or yeast. Such a product would (1) not be raw and (2) contain viable microorganisms.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:24, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Certainly cooking kills microorganisms; but isn't a well-washed raw tomato or hunk of raw meat also lacking in microorganisms? They should be, anyway. -- —CynRN   ( Talk )  04:50, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

You might be able to clean a tomato well, but certainly not the meat, though draining blood and salting to withdraw liquid (kashrut, halal) goes a long way in that direction. But it's not at all clear that you want to remove all micro-organisms. Some are beneficial (probiotics), others are important in a limited quantity to stimulate your immune system because you are unlikely to be able to live in a completely sterile environment anyway (bubble boy?, Hygiene hypothesis?). 75.0.7.218 (talk) 18:48, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Anyway, I think that we've adequately demonstrated that probiotic issues are separate from raw foods. A person could follow one, the other, or both dietary approaches.  Material on probiotic foods therefore does not belong in this article unless it specifically mentions its role in an all-raw or primarily-raw diet.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:58, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I would like to read references on how a probiotic rich diet is directly related to specifically raw foodism. QuackGuru (talk) 03:05, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Isn't it obvious? Or didn't you know? For example, raw sauerkraut includes probiotics, pasteurized or canned or cooked sauerkraut (which you typically find in the market) does not. You need a reference for that? 75.15.204.7 (talk) 19:07, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Another note to perhaps clarify: One source of probiotics is raw food. Another source of probiotics is dietary supplements, of course in order for those supplements to be viable, they must be raw (uncooked). The foodstock for the manufactured probiotics can be cooked or raw but the probiotics themselves are killed (rendered inactive) by cooking. 75.15.204.7 (talk) 19:13, 27 March 2009 (UTC)


 * It would be obvious if references were presented to show probiotics is part of Raw foodism. QuackGuru (talk) 19:16, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Who is claiming that? The two are related, that's all. If you only eat cooked food, you can still get probiotics with dietary supplements. If you eat some raw food, you are probably getting some probiotics in your food. Raw cabbage for example includes lactobacilli. Another strong probiotic source is raw ginger (hence kimchi). 75.15.204.7 (talk) 19:22, 27 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I would like to read references on this and the article can be improved according to the references presented. Just a couple of references can help a lot. QuackGuru (talk) 19:26, 27 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't understand why we're having this problem.
 * Cook the milk.
 * Add the probiotic bacteria to turn it into yogurt. It's 89¢ for six ounces at the grocery store this week.
 * — This is a probiotic food, yes?
 * — But this is not a raw food, because the milk was cooked.
 * This article is about raw foods. Wikipedia has an article on probiotic foods, but this isn't it.
 * If you want to include information about probiotic foods as part of a raw food diet, then we need reliable sources, not assertions of "it would be obvious". See WP:BURDEN.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:59, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

There are probiotic foods manufactured using cooked foodstock (such as the typical yogurts found in a store that claim to have live cultures) and there are natural probiotic foods that have never been cooked. There is a difference. Raw probiotic foods could be mentioned in this article, as they are a type of raw food. What are raw probiotic foods? The most obvious example is natural, unpasteurized, sauerkraut; this is an example of a raw food and a probiotic food at the same time. You will generally only find this in a health food store. 75.14.222.100 (talk) 02:50, 29 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The "importance of probiotics" is already mentioned in the article under "beliefs":
 * Raw foods include bacteria and other micro-organisms that affect the immune system and digestion by populating the digestive tract with beneficial gut flora, see also Probiotics and Prebiotics. These are generally killed by cooking. In addition, many Raw-Foodists, particularly Primal-Dieters, are believers in the hygiene hypothesis, a concept which focuses on the health benefits of exposure to parasites and harmful bacteria which builds natural resistance.
 * No need to add more on this topic here in Raw foodism.-- —CynRN  ( Talk )  06:41, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored. 75.14.222.181 (talk) 16:54, 30 March 2009 (UTC)


 * See WP:UNDUE weight. QuackGuru (talk) 18:04, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Raw foods and religious asceticism
Not knowing much about the subject of raw foodism, I think it would be interesting under the History section, which actually covers only the modern period, to look at ancient and medieval philosophers or religious figures who ate raw foods for ethical or ascetic reasons. Tthe article on Saint Aibert has this intriguing statement: 'Aibert began to live a life of asceticism with a Benedictine priest named John near the abbey in Crespin. While Aibert and John shared a single cell, they survived primarily on uncooked herbs and, occasionally, bread. Roberts states that, "they chose to eat neither foods of animal origins, nor foods that had been cooked."' Cynwolfe (talk) 16:27, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Go deeper. The Benedictines basically came from the Carmelites, who basically came from the Nazareans of Mt. Carmel (related to the Essenes and Therapeutae,) who are believed to have eaten mostly raw.  Also it is likely this tradition can be traced further.  For one thing Pythagoras also studied with the Nazareans and he ate a raw vegab diet, and his followers were at least vegan.  Inner circle followers may have had to live more like he did.--Dchmelik (talk) 04:44, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

temperature in environments where the plants grow
upon hearing that you cannot heat food to more than 115/120 made me think of corn growing in the hot desert sun... anasazi indian corn watered by irrigation, standing out in that hot sun.

then i thought of tomatos, in the american south.. layin out on their vines on the hot dirt, laying in the sun for hours while the bugs buzzle and chirp in the summer.

watermelons.. too.. the south.. and africa... now what about date trees in the middle east, the plants there centuries old farming techniques...

all of it growing plants that probably are above 120 from time to time .. just from how hot it is where these things grow.


 * While the air may be 120 degrees in the sun, that doesn't mean the tomato or the watermelon gets up to that temperature. Otherwise it would cook? ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:47, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Multiple issues: rewrite needed?
I agree with the tag at the start of the article, it has multiple issues.

A major one is that "Raw Foodism" is a meaningless label, and possibly derogatory, therefore POV. Why not call it "Raw food" or "Raw Food diet"? Exercise is good for your health, some say we should do more, some say less. But nobody writes an article on "Exercisism". Similarly, I've never met a person who says they are a raw foodist: and I haven't seen it referred to (much) as raw foodism outside this article.

Many of the sections summarise the literature or principles, and many are clearly POV either way.

I think it needs rewritten, simplified and cut back. Also renaming as above would help.

Every respect to those who have worked hard on the article, but this sometimes happens because of the weight of opinion on both sides.

Does anyone agree with me? I would appreciate if you could record your views on re-naming and re-writing, and then something can be done if there is a majority for it. TonyClarke (talk) 12:00, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate the bent of your argument, but I couldn't disagree more. The use of the term "vegetarianism" is probably 150 years old.

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=vegetarian

For good or ill, -ism has been adopted as a suffix related to certain diets. Almost 100 years later was "veganism" coined.

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=vegan

Indeed, I have seen many references to raw-foodism both in print, and particularly on television. As for your example, excerisism, the world basically exists in another usage. Atkinsisms, likely for similar reasons of excessive cumbrousness, was also never adopted. However, Bushism, Clintonism, and many other such suffixed words are produced frequently, as the suffix is still productive.173.21.106.137 (talk)
 * A cursory search reveals that raw food dieters are most often referred to as Raw Foodists, who, logically, would be adherents of Raw Foodism. I've also heard of "Rawists", but it doesn't seem as common as raw foodists. Here is a discussion of the term: As far as being unbalanced, it seems that Raw Foodism spends too much time on the raw meat eater's diet, considering that these dieters are a minority subset of raw foodists. Also, there are many claims in the "dangers of cooked food" section that I have a problem with possible being Original research. The article seems a bit bloated, but not unbalanced.-- —CynRN   ( Talk )  23:59, 22 September 2009 (UTC)


 * The terms 'raw (food) diet' and 'raw foodist' may (not) be interesting, but it is clear what 'raw' mostly has to do with: food. 'Rawism' and 'rawist' gramatically fit the requirements to be word: there are others that start with noun-adjectives.  What on earth does 'raw fooder' mean? (it is making a verb out of 'food.')  Maybe there is some philosophical idea behind 'raw (food) diet' and maybe not, but it does not really matter whether 'rawism' does--it is just more concise.  I guess people could be talking about raw grass that animals eat, or raw chemicals used in some sort of production, but the term 'rawism' has never been used that way, so how about just using the most concise, clear term?--Dchmelik (talk) 04:36, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

"Raw Foodism"
Thanks for your views.

I did a Google search for vegetarianism, then "Raw" & " Foodism". About 24 000 results for the latter, 1.4 million for the former. That might just mean vegetarianism has more followers, but I think it also means that the label is not common, whereas eating some proportion of raw food is very common, eg salads. Also the first page of results were apparently against the diet. I feel this partly bears out what I said, that the term 'raw foodist' is stigmatising, creating a minority where there really isn't one. It also sets its followers up for criticism, as evident in this article. Later posters have shown that the proportion of raw is not really fixed, so to call it an 'ism' is premature IMHO.

I think we should rewrite the article, cutting out the bloat(!), and call it something less controversial, more mainstream, like "Raw Food" or "Raw food diet"TonyClarke (talk) 00:52, 27 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't mind if the article is called "Raw food diet", but "Raw foodism" seems to capture the fact that raw foodism is a lifestyle that requires a fair amount of dedication, vs just eating "some proportion of raw foods", which is very common. Raw foodism is often a lifestyle that is adopted to make some radical change in one's life or in response to an illness. "Raw food diet" has 706,000 hits on Google, but "raw food dieter" only 8,290.
 * Are you suggesting that this article should stay clear of criticism? What would you cut out?-- —CynRN  ( Talk )  04:11, 27 September 2009 (UTC)


 * The terms 'raw (food) diet' and 'raw foodist' may (not) be interesting, but it is clear what 'raw' mostly has to do with: food. 'Rawism' and 'rawist' gramatically fit the requirements to be word: there are others that start with noun-adjectives.  What on earth does 'raw fooder' mean? (it is making a verb out of 'food.')  Maybe there is some philosophical idea behind 'raw (food) diet' and maybe not, but it does not really matter whether 'rawism' does--it is just more concise.  I guess people could be talking about raw grass that animals eat, or raw chemicals used in some sort of production, but the term 'rawism' has never been used that way, so how about just using the most concise, clear term?--Dchmelik (talk) 04:36, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Philosophical Distinction
I am not sure this is the proper forum to air this complaint, but if the Wikipedia article on vegetarianism states, in its Introduction, that according to certain sourced and referenced dietary arbiters that vegetarians don't eat fish, how in the world can a similar "design" diet qualify itself as raw-foodist on the basis of a 75% raw-food rationale? Are these people counting calories and using a calculator? Strictly defined, a raw-foodist, like the vegetarians similarly defined in these pages, eats only raw foods, and nothing else, or the title is a complete misnomer. As a non-pesci- lacto-ovo-vegetarian, I admire Wikipedia for its elucidation of all such diets, but if the standards of this (the raw-foodist) movement cannot live up to the commitment of their eponymous rationale, why should they be spared in the Introduction? And in such sparing terms?173.21.106.137 (talk)

I will add: how is using a food processor unrelated to food "processing?" How can yogurt, which is aged and cultured, raw? Etc., etc. I am loath to demean anyone, but defenders of this practice will need some heavy hitters before they can escape being swallowed up in their own contradictions.173.21.106.137 (talk)


 * I know some raw foodists, and I understand that it is very difficult to maintain a 100% raw diet and get enough calories. It takes a tremendous amount of time to prepare certain foods, like bread, made with a dehydrator. But, really, if raw foodists believe that eating 75% raw defines them as a raw foodist, that is the parameter Wikipedia must follow.  -- —CynRN   ( Talk )  18:17, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

The point I'm make is, who defines raw-foodism this way? Would a raw foodist who strictly eats 100% raw food tolerate the distinction? The arbitrary number, in particular, rather than a qualitative continuum (q.v. vegetarian) is rather irksome.
 * Yes, it's irksome! We just have to go by what percentage "respected" raw food authorities say is the range of "raw" that is acceptable. -- —CynRN   ( Talk )  08:24, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Diet Section and Objectiveness of this article
"The most popular raw food diet is a raw vegan diet..." - I think this needs a citation. From my experience, this is not true.

I'm also generally disturbed by the regimented nature of this article and feel that it is opinionated and misleading. There are a lot of people out there who easily fit the 75% raw food dietary requirement quoted in this article who also eat plenty of red meat (cooked) and, in my case, even a good baked ziti.

Clearly this indicates that this article has moved beyond "objective". I would advise a massive rewrite in the interest of including more balanced and factual information on the raw food diet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.155.57.58 (talk) 18:18, 2 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Propose your new wording and interested editors can collaborate here on the talk page. I agree that the article has problems!

One comment, though. Your own experience in a subject can inform your research, but you need to find a source to say that the raw vegan diet is not the predominant raw diet.-- —CynRN  ( Talk )  07:23, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Hariz deletions
I previously changed the wording in the Beliefs section of this raw foodism page to reflect greater accuracy. A previous claim was, more or less, that "some" raw foodists did not believe in the enzymes in raw foods being useful in the process of digestion". This was wholly inaccurate, since it is a mainstay of raw foodist belief that enzymes in raw foods are very important indeed. Citing just 1 lone exception as an example, in this case Doug Graham, only emphasises the point that the notion that enzymes in raw foods are NOT useful is merely a very rare opinion held only by a tiny number of raw foodists, like Doug Graham.

Then there is a blatantly pro-cooked bias in the statement that "These (bacteria in raw foods) are generally killed by cooking". First of all, it all depends on the amount of bacteria in the raw food. For example, many raw foodists eat raw foods extremely high in bacteria, such as aged, raw meat,having higher levels than in fresh, raw foods which would therefore have an even higher chance of reaching the gut intact. Secondly, the claim that "these bacteria are generally killed by cooking" suggests that no bacteria ever reach the gut alive, which is, of course, false. Indeed, there are now multiple studies indicating that gut bacteria are useful re digestion, so having no bacteria ever entering the gut would be harmful to human health, in the long term. Thirdly, that section was the raw foods beliefs/principles section so should not have any pro-cooked advocates commenting on the feasibility or non-feasibility of a particular belief - that belongs in a separate section such as the criticisms section.Loki0115 (talk) 10:26, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Re Hariz's recent deletions:-
First of all, I should add that the relevant section should be called "Common Beliefs", not " Common Practices". After all, the whole section is about the "beliefs" of raw foodists. If it were about "practices", that section would then be describing the different dietary patterns/practices of raw foodists, but that aspect has already been fully covered in the previous sections on raw animal food diets, raw vegan and raw vegetarian diets.

Secondly, the issue of rs sites has already been discussed with a senior Wikipedian. The latter pointed out that references do not have to be primary(rs="reliable sources", incidentally?) if one is just describing standard beliefs of a particular group. Obviously, if one is stating such beliefs as fact, then primary sources are needed to back them up, but otherwise it was considered perfectly OK to cite various raw food sites when citing various commonly held beliefs of raw foodists.

Incidentally, a simple googling(under " raw foodism air pollution article") shows that air-pollution, for example, is a big issue for raw foodists.Loki0115 (talk) 09:00, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Edit War
I just read a warning note to me on my personal wikipedia page. I did not know about the 3-edit per day limit. I did note that there was a certain amount of double-standards in the relevant note. For one thing, I was told to discuss on the talk page before I did anything to avoid an edit war. Yet I had already suggested to that very poster, among others, that they should first discuss their reasons for mass deletion on the talk page of raw foodism, yet none did so. At least I have found no such notes here or at the start.

My basic points are these, some of which are in agreement with the deleters, some not:-

1) The raw foodist beliefs section should not be deleted simply out of a desire to block unwelcome beliefs. Such beliefs are not meant to be scientific-based even, they are just beliefs and therefore need to be included in order for the average person ignorant of raw diets to have at least some remote clue as to what being a raw foodist means.In the same way, a few people may believe in an absurd theory such as a  flat or hollow earth, and yet it would be reasonable within wikipedia guidelines to list the various beliefs of such people.Mass deletion is just not warranted in this case, and demonstrates bias.

2) The mass deletion of perfectly good scientific data. This is just plain wrong. The reasons given for mass deletion included generally mention of just one or two minor examples.Mass-deleting whole paragraphs ought to automatically involve a lengthy explanation on the Talk page before doing anything, preferably followed by abritration if considerable solid arguments are used against. In short, mass deleting lots of references to scientific studies just because one does not like the implications of those studies is not wikipedia-friendly.

The one good argument re deletion of such studies is that some may be old or outdated. However, this ought to be done on a piecemeal basis, checking 1 study at a time per edit/deletion. Just blindly mass-deleting is not acceptable.

3) I have no problem with re-arranging/re-inventing the page as one should not have a page remain static for ages. However, I do expect that the deleters post their reasons on the talk page if they disagree, and that an abritrator be called if no concensus can be reached. Though I hope that will not be necessary.

Anyway, I will be posting some minor corrective edits on a gradual, regular basis for now in order to make the article more scientific on both sides. Vorlon19 (talk) 09:19, 24 December 2015 (UTC)