Talk:Raw foodism/Archive 6

Apricot kernels contain amygdalin, which contains the toxin cyanide.
Amygdalin, or Vitamin B17 [otherwise known as Laetrile] is stated to contain the toxin cyanide in this article, repeating an exageration that has been used to suppress information on amygdalin. The amount of cyanide is minute, and huge quantities of amygdalen would have to be consumed to cause any harm, much as many substances and plants contain traces of chemicals which in large quantities can be described as dangerous toxins.

There are many sources of amygdalen from apricot kernels on the net, and it is available in smaller amounts from a wide range of vegetable sources, so this caution in a list of dangers posed by raw foods is misplaced and alarmist. Since there is ample evidence that B17 is an anti-cancer agent, it is tempting to think this deliberate exaggeration of dangers was first initiated from the drug companies which make billions from cancer drugs, and as we know, a rumour on the net can go round and round forever, constantly being recycled when it suits the motive of the writer. I expect Wikipedia to be more accurate and impartial than this. If the writer is unaware of all this, Google will help find hundreds of articles and suppliers to read through. If there is the slightest chance that its anti-cancer claims are true, you are doing everyone a disservice by repeating lies and exaggerations, perhaps even being complicit in deaths that could have been avoided. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.115.133.151 (talk) 17:04, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * This is dangerous advice. Many have died from cyanide poisoning after laetrile ingestion:-- Cyn RN Talk  06:26, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Amygdalin doesn't contain any cyanide. It is metabolized by the body to form hydrogen cyanide. There's a reason our ancestors bred this chemical out of agricultural stocks, and it wasn't its 'anti-cancer' properties.50.147.26.108 (talk) 01:31, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Raw meat...
Raw foodists don't believe raw meat is essential on a raw food lifestyle because most types of meats need to be cooked, otherwise the meat will still contain parasites and then it can be very dangerous to someone's health. Although many raw foodists will often eat many types of fish raw, because they are safer to consume. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.8.69.30 (talk) 03:17, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Personally I would not eat raw fish after reading the following

gioto (talk) 05:30, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Raw Fish Spread Liver Cancer( Uncooked fish can cause human liver cancer, but most sushi lovers need not worry.)By Eric Bland, Oct 12, 2009
 * Raw-fish eaters face parasite infections Nutrition Health Review, Wntr, 1989
 * FISH PARASITES by Paul Carnes, M.D. (FISH PARASITES THAT INFECT HUMANS AND FISH CONSUMPTION RELATED ILLNESSES)


 * Did you ever wonder why sashimi is served with wasabi and gari as condiments? Simple, they are antiseptic.  Think about the implications of eating raw fish along with antiseptic condiments for a while, thanks!
 * 98.218.248.90 (talk) 13:24, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Personal opinions based on scary articles aren't particularly useful here. Dayyan (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:55, 26 August 2011 (UTC).

NPOV help
The article Omophagia needs major NPOV help—it repeats the claims of quacks like Vonderplanitz without indicating that this is a very fringe belief. I am not even sure if Vonderplanitz is warranted under the Fringe theories rule. But this article seems much better balanced in that respect; perhaps people can help out over there. --Mr.98 (talk) 02:11, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Propose renaming Category:Raw food to Category:Raw foodism
Category is to describe philosophy/movement of eating raw food, rather than just the type of food. Otherwise food items, such as a carrot and an apple, could be listed in the category. Please add comments here. nirvana2013 (talk) 06:41, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Prevalent in UK
The piece from the Independant gives no information on the prevalence of Raw Foodism in the UK. It notes that its "latest celebrity food fad?", that a single restaurant in the UK's largest City had opened and the reference is five years out of date.GraemeLeggett (talk) 15:59, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if the link is a bit old, though there are a few more recent ones.. As for the prevalence of such diets in the UK, no one has any real idea. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Loki0115 (talk • contribs) 10:29, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Prevalent in Germany
FWIW, the (German) article supposedly about the prevalence of the raw food movement in Germany is very similar. It describes the opening (in 2008) of a single "juice" restaurant in Munich. Its says "Originating in New York, in Europe there are now "juice"-restaurants in London, Istanbul and even in Munich", which can hardly be called "prevalence".

In fact, if I were to use this citation as an indication of the popularity of "raw food" in Europe, I'd take the exact opposite from it: "While popular in the USA, the raw food movement has only gained ground as novelty restaurants in a few large cities in Europe". Because that is what the article states, it certainly doesn't say that this new (in 2008) trend has suddenly become "prevalent" all over Europe.

It's also important to note that people in Germany (as well as most other European countries) only eat in restaurants on special occasions (unlike the USA where I get the impression "eating out" is a large part of the diet for a lot of people), so the existence of a restaurant cooking in a certain style has absolutely nothing to do with the existence of any kind of "movement". People go there out of curiosity and because it (I presume) tastes good, hardly because it's part of their "diet". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.212.39.49 (talk) 11:07, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I am afraid the above is definitely a false assumption. I have been in numerous European countries, over the decades, and can safely attest to the fact that, on the European mainland, visiting restaurants is a common, frequent practice, not just done on special occasions. The only exceptions to this are the UK and Ireland. The UK has restaurants which are commonly more expensive than on the European mainland as they take into account the fact that the UK public don't eat out as much as on the Continent. As far as Germany is concerned, I also happen to know that there is a big rawist/Rohkost community over there.Loki

Mushrooms and fungi aren't plants
The article keeps referring to veganism and vegetarianism as eating only plants. Few vegetarians or vegans avoid eating mushrooms and other fungi, which belong to a whole other kingdom than plants. Jds10 (talk) 00:21, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Most people do seem them as being a type of vegetable though, like seeing tomatoes as vegetables. It depends.. do you want most people to understand the article, or do you want to be scientifically precise? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.169.205.60 (talk) 11:56, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

That's a false dichotomy: accuracy and readability don't have to be exclusive. Also, tomatoes are still plants. Fungi are a whole other kingdom. Jds10 (talk) 19:17, 20 January 2011 (UTC)


 * You're right that they don't have to be exclusive, but it's also a little problematic to put this in the article in my opinion. I think it's fair to say that in casual usage the word "plant" is often used in a way that would include mushrooms and, as such, this article perhaps isn't the place to tackle that issue.


 * Broadly speaking, I'd say this sort of thing is undesirable because it raises a question of technical classification in the reader's mind which really has very little to do with the article they're reading (in this case they start thinking about whether a mushroom is a plant - something that is really besides the point when the only thing that matters here is that a mushroom is not an animal). Casual language and actual taxonomy are often at odds with one another and I think sometimes it's better to just accept the (technically) wrong usage and keep the message clear and simple. Blankfrackis (talk) 02:16, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Prevalence
Echoing the comment above about the UK, but worldwide: are there many people who actually believe in this stuff? It seems shockingly contrary to all we know from science and the history of human civilisation. --194.98.58.121 (talk) 14:51, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

The above comment is actually nonsense. Most scientists would readily admit that cooking destroys nutrients to a greater or lesser extent. Plus, there is the now very popular "Hygiene Hypothesis" theory which points out the numerous benefits of bacteria and parasites. So raw foodism, in terms of the multitude of published studies on the damage to health caused by heat-created toxins such as advanced glycation end products etc, is actually quite in line with mainstream notions. Which is why it is gaining in popularity, worldwide. Loki —Preceding unsigned comment added by Loki0115 (talk • contribs) 10:50, 19 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Okay, Loki, two things: first off, I liked your above reply. There's a reason comments like the one above yours are left unsigned. It was ... well, let's just say his argument was unsupported. Second thing - it's awesome that you have a passion for this subject - & I say that without a hint of irony, because the passion to people ratio is a bit low.


 * Now, I have no opinion about this subject - or about diet generally, really (blame it on youth). But reading your posts, I decided to comment, because I do have opinions on debate, argument & the art of persuasion. (Also, you don't have a user talk page.) Your opening line was awesome, but when you use words like "multitude" (&, to a lesser extent, "worldwide"), especially about a topic that is still (relatively) new to the public forum, it sounds exaggerated even if it isn't. Also, throwing in twenty five cent words like "glycation" (which I had to look up) & the Hygiene Hypothesis (with which I was already acquainted), without explaining why these concepts contributed to your larger argument weakened your point.


 * Also, watch out for your tone. I know NPOV isn't mandated on Talk pages, but I recommend the practice anyway - I've found that, especially with subjects I care about, I manage to convince best when I stay level-headed. Oh, & I know that I can come across as preachy or holier-than-thou about this stuff. I am sorry about that. Still I'll risk it - because one of the things that disheartens me is seeing people who, while clearly displaying expertise in a subject, don't care about their arguments' tone or persuasiveness. You know your stuff, man. But if you want to contribute to the movement's "...gaining in popularity, worldwide," then don't just be right. Win them over. Devon.underwood (talk) 09:43, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

My intentions are as follows:-

1) By using more complicated words like "glycation" or "hygiene hypothesis", I force those seeking to win an argument with me to actually read about such named subjects, whereas, in previous discussions, some people would often just  make blanket statements based on ignorance or cursory looks at a few newspaper articles. "Glycation" and "hygiene hypothesis" both have their own pages on wikipedia, which is why I chose them.Raw foodism is a very complicated subject, despite appearances, and, just as one would expect only those with some knowledge of physics to make serious, major changes to physics-related pages, so one ought to expect those who edit the raw foodism page to know a bit more re raw food diets and their various strengths/weaknesses re theory /practice etc.

2) I used the word "multitude" which is vague, but it is apt:- there are indeed several thousands of studies done on the harm caused by heat-created toxins. A quick search on the scientific study database "pubmed" under "advanced glycation end products"(just 1 type of heat-created toxin) will confirm this.

3) I admit that when I am faced with really obvious bias or a clear contempt by a wikipedia user towards an opposing side, that I do sometimes use a derisive word, occasionally. But this is mainly to encourage them to pursue a more convincing argument, based on more solid references, more scientific deductions etc. I just got a bit tired of people previously trying to add unreferenced statements or dud references to support their anti-raw stance while they tried to force the deletion of (often, but by no means always) pro-raw paragraphs I had written which had many solid scientific studies as references, simply on the sole basis that they felt that mainstream views did not need any solid data to back them up, while they felt that most pro-raw data was invalid for Wikipedia  simply because they (ironically, somewhat incorrectly) felt it didn't fit into mainstream views in any way. Not what the founder of Wikipedia had in mind, judging from some  comments he's made in the past.

A really bad example of what I meant above, was an addition sometime back by an anti-rawist who cited a vague claim by a Steve Jones that it was physically impossible for a raw foodist to survive on 100 percent raw foods for more than 3 months, supposedly because we humans had lost the ability to produce the necessary enzymes to properly digest raw foods. Given the presence of numbers of long-term raw foodists who've eaten 100 percent raw for years without issues, and the lack of even 1 reference for such an extraordinary claim, I was a bit stunned at its insertion.Loki0115

I have now removed 2 clearly biased statements from the paragraph on Wrangham. 1 statement made a clear statement that raw foods were less digestible than cooked foods, whereas scientific studies show that some raw foods are actually more easily digested than cooked foods. It should have been presented as merely an opinion/suggestion of Wrangham's rather than as a fact. Also, one of the statements claimed that "no human foragers have ever lived without eating some cooked foods". This is a misleading statement as it implies that humans cannot survive without eating some cooked foods. I could, just as easily, point out that, equally correctly, that "no human foragers have ever lived without eating some raw foods", thus supposedly showing that humans cannot survive without eating some raw foods. In other words, the above statement re cooked foods and human foragers is unnecessary and suggests a highly false conclusion. Loki —Preceding unsigned comment added by Loki0115 (talk • contribs) 09:57, 1 October 2010 (UTC)


 * All of the above is only in reference to what I said seems to me to be the case. Maybe I am fantastically uninformed, that is not the point.  Still it certainly seems to me that most people still cook their food.  So then, how prevalent is raw foodism?  Are there 100 people who follow an all-raw diet in the world? 1000? 10,000? --194.98.58.121 (talk) 15:11, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, it all depends on how one defines "raw foodism". For example, using a similiar logic to your above comment, very, very few humans do NOT eat any raw foods at all, so the diets of almost all humans could be said to be partially-raw. Another, more common, definition of "raw foodist" is someone who one eats at least 60% raw - if we use that definition, then the number of raw foodists must be at least numbering in the millions. For example, 15 years ago, just before the rising interest in raw foods got started , one particular guru, of a minor type of raw-meat diet, estimated, based on sales of his books/attendance at workshops etc., that he had c.20,000 people following his particular raw diet in North America. Since there are many other raw-meat diets out there in addition to that guru's diet, and raw vegan/fruitarian diets are far more popular than raw-meat-oriented diets, it's reasonable to conclude that raw foodists now number in the millions, especially if one takes into account those Arctic tribes like the Nenets who have been eating a diet consisting mostly of raw meat and raw berries, for millenia.Loki0115 (talk) 09:41, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Bias
Many of the references supporting these claims are from the early '90s. Much research has been done since then, and many of these claims debunks, including many things stated in the references. The scientific evidence needs to be updated, or else supported by updated references.

I had to remove a number of clearly biased claims and references or alter several to make them more accurate statements. Some claims were made ages ago, and have not been deleted up till now, despite being gravely scientifically incorrect (such as that AGEs claim re sugars).

This article presents pseudo-science as facts throughout. One glaring fault is the confusion about what a digestive enzyme is. Digestive enzymes do not occur in plants (plants do not digest food), they occur in creatures. Enzymes such as amylase when found in plants, break down the starch to maltose (ripening), they do not exist in plants to aid our digestion. I have altered the sentence about these enzymes accordingly. If only I had more time; this article is so ropey. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.99.57.207 (talk) 22:39, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

The problem with the "Beliefs" section.
Here are my objections to the vaguely fringe POV "Beliefs" section that caused be to change it before.


 * Raw foodist believe that digestive enzymes (such as amylases, proteases, and lipases) aid digestion. Heating food above 104-120 degrees Fahrenheit degrades or destroys these enzymes in food.

I'll ignore the verb agreement issue and non-standard temperature scale for now. More insidiously, the first, almost tautological, statement is one of the few introduced as a belief, giving the impression that everything not introduced with such a clause on the list is settled fact, which becomes a big problem further down the line. In any case, both of these statements are objectively true. What's missing is the unspoken implication that the human body needs more digestive enzymes than it can produce, which is the actual belief that sets raw foodists apart from the mainstream.


 * Raw foods include bacteria and other micro-organisms that affect the immune system and digestion by populating the digestive tract with beneficial gut flora. 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.

The first sentence, given as fact, is technically factual but clearly worded to play up the good aspects of foodborne bacteria. The phrasing of the clause of the third sentence explaining the hygiene hypothesis implicitly seems to support it ("a concept which focuses on..." and ", which..." imply fact).


 * Raw foods have higher nutrient values than foods which have been cooked.

Stated as fact; laughable. There's no single agreed-upon "nutrient value." If you mean the quantities of specific nutrients, some of these, such as beta-carotene, are released or created by cooking, and higher quantities aren't necessarily better; for instance, nearly all of us (although not raw foodists) get too much vitamin C. Moreover, most of those citations seem to go to cranks pushing a personal model.


 * In addition, raw foodists believe processed food and convenience food often contain excitotoxins (flavor enhancers) which can cause excitotoxicity. Foods with added chemicals, preservatives, additives, colouring agents/dyes of any kind are frowned upon by raw-foodists.

Again, what's stated as belief is a fact (that these foods contain excitotoxins), and what's stated as a fact, and indeed is made to seem tautological, is a belief (excitotoxins, in small doses, can cause excitotoxicity). Furthermore, excitotoxins and "flavor enhancers" aren't quite the same thing.


 * Raw foods are the ideal food for human consumption, and the basis of a raw food lifestyle. Consume no irritants or stimulants like coffee, alcohol, and tobacco. Avoid heated fats and proteins like fried oils and roasted nuts, as they are carcinogenic. A raw diet will set you on a sustainable path of steady weight, energy, and health. Though the other elements of the raw food lifestyle all play an important part, diet is undoubtedly the first building block.

...yikes. This one reads like a manifesto, not a neutral explanation of a group's beliefs. Every single word in this bullet point breaks NPOV, most of it's basically been said already, and it makes no sense for it all to be in the same bullet point. The last sentence, especially, belongs nowhere near this wiki.


 * Wild foods followed by organic whole foods are more nutritious than conventionally domesticated foods or industrially produced foods.

Again, stated as fact, and not a matter of consensus. Organic vs. conventional, as regards nutrition, is absolutely not settled, and "wild foods" could very well kill you, even if they're descendants of perfectly nutritious foods - evolution is funny like that.


 * Cooked foods contain harmful toxins, which cause chronic disease and other problems, Heating oils and fats can produce trace amounts of trans fats. Cooking foods produces advanced glycation end products ("glycotoxins", see also Maillard reaction).

Style is wonky, but more importantly, it's again stated as fact that these toxins can cause chronic disease and other problems in the quantities we're talking about. Regarding the examples given, we're talking about very little trans fat - the free radicals are a bigger concern - and "glycotoxin" is a scare word for something that, admittedly, isn't very good for you.


 * Raw foods such as fruits and vegetables are high in antioxidants and raw-foodists believe they can help to stifle signs of aging.

Fair enough, but there should probably be a note that cooked fruits and vegetables, while in most cases not as high in antioxidant effect (probably a better term than "antioxidants," since different antioxidants are effective in different quantities), aren't exactly slackers.

All in all, this reads like an argumentative essay, well over the NPOV line, and needs to be changed. I think we should have more of these that say roughly "raw foodists believe [point of contention]" or "raw foodists believe [fact] outweighs [fact]." I tried, but my edit was reverted, and I don't want to start an edit war. However, I will go back and change it if I haven't gotten a reply fairly soon. Twin Bird (talk) 23:35, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm not going to bother editing the article, but your contribution here on talk is clearly more valuable than the article in its current state. 205.211.142.79 (talk) 19:06, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

My reply to the above comments.
First of all, I should make clear that the beliefs section is simply that:- a summation of what raw foodists believe in. It really is irrelevant if some group believes in the Loch Ness monster or the Flying Spaghetti Monster or UFOs or that the Earth is Flat or whatever it is that very few others believe in. All that matters, in that Beliefs section, is that the specific beliefs of the group are mentioned, regardless of whether they are viewed by others, due to their own belief systems, as being completely false. In other words these statements are merely beliefs not facts. If you do not think that some comment is a genuine raw foodist belief among raw foodists that is fine to mention such, but the inherent beliefs need to be mentioned in the beliefs section otherwise.

Now, on to the various points you made:-

1) The enzymes mention needs to be corrected, I agree. I think a suitable change would be to add instead of "raw foodists believe that enzymes aid in digestion" that "raw foodists believe that enzymes in raw foods aid in digestion." That is far more accurate, and I seem to recall that it used to be like the latter version but someone foolishly changed it without it being noticed. Well spotted. I will alter that within a few hours, as it is such a minor change.

As for the non-standard temperature scale, that is perfectly valid as there is a different spectrum of opinion within the raw food diet world where some state that 104 degrees F is the limit and others as much as 120 degrees F. It is necessary to represent the differing viewpoints within the RVAF world, especially as regards to what is defined as being "raw".

2) The belief that bacteria aid in digestion is a fundamental belief along raw foodists. There is nothing wrong with that. Concerns/statistics about bad bacteria re food-poisoning are already mentioned elsewhere in the article so both sides' stances need to be represented. Besides, putting anti-raw claims in the raw foodism Beliefs section is decidedly not kosher, as the former are not raw foodist beliefs.

The Hygiene Hypothesis comment is fine, mostly. The coment "which focuses on" merely covers the beneficial effects of bacteria and parasites(which is what the hygiene hypothesis is all about after all, so is merely descriptive), it does not state that bacteria and parasites are always beneficial nor does it state that bacteria/parasites are never harmful, and, like I said, in other sections of the raw foodism page , there are already plenty of concerns made about bacteria and parasites in raw foods. I agree that the "which builds natural resistance" is irrelevant and overly descriptive, and besides, one only needs to check the Hygiene Hypothesis wikipedia page if one wants to read about info re bacteria/parasites building up resistance.

3) " Raw foods have higher nutrient values than foods which have been cooked." I suppose it could be renamed as "raw foodists believe that raw foods have higher nutrient values than foods which have been cooked". However it would be very bad English to write "raw foodists believe that" before every single belief sentence, and the fact that the section is headed "Beliefs" and the fact that each beleif is prefaced by the statement ("Common beliefs held by raw foodists:")rather makes it clear that such sentences are beliefs not facts.

As to your other comments, the remark re vitamin C shows some bias as many other people view humans as needing a lot MORE vitamin C, not less, so your notions re vitamin C are definitely not fact, merely a minority opinion among many other differing ones. The simple fact is that raw foodists BELIEVE that raw foods generally contain more nutrients than cooked foods. Sure, there are stated exceptions(you mentioned beta carotene and there are a few other exceptions but those are mentioned elsewhere in the article anyway). If you look at the bottom of the " Potential harmful effects of cooked foods" section, you will also find several references to scientific tables showing some quite dramatic losses of nutrients caused by cooking, re losses of vitamins and minerals, so it is clear that the raw foodist belief is centred to a great extent on fact, anyway. The references are solid deriving from encyclopaedias etc. so it is rather difficult to criticise them with any validity. Besides, I seriously doubt that any competent scientist would refuse to admit that cooking usually lowers nutrients. I mean if one cooks to the point that a piece of food is almost like charcoal, there is virtually nil nutrition in it, that is only logical.

4) The wording "excitotoxins(flavor-enhancers) could be easily reworded as "excitotoxins(such as flavor-enhancers)". That would be fine then. As for the rest of it, it's fine; The wording of the sentence itself contains the mild word "believe" plus the word "often" and "can", hardly strong words, and therefore fine for describing a belief rather than a fact.

5) Re comment:- "Raw foods are the ideal food for human consumption, and the basis of a raw food lifestyle. Consume no irritants or stimulants like coffee, alcohol, and tobacco. Avoid heated fats and proteins like fried oils and roasted nuts, as they are carcinogenic. A raw diet will set you on a sustainable path of steady weight, energy, and health. Though the other elements of the raw food lifestyle all play an important part, diet is undoubtedly the first building block."

OK, I wholeheartedly agree that the above comment is way out of line. I will try to reword it along wikipedia guidelines. It should be mentioned that things like coffee and alcohol and other stimulants are frowned upon by raw foodist. The last 2 sentences of that comment really have to be deleted, as they stink.

6) Re comment:- "Wild foods followed by organic whole foods are more nutritious than conventionally domesticated foods or industrially produced foods."

OK, I will reword it as "raw foodists believe that.... etc.") I should add that while there is all sorts of discussion and disagreement among non-rawists as to whether organic is better, they are completely irrelevant to the main central point, which is that Raw Foodists BELIEVE that wild foods are better than organic foods and believe that organic foods are better than conventional foods. The latter is a central belief of raw foodists so needs to be included.

7) Re comment:-  "Cooked foods contain harmful toxins, which cause chronic disease and other problems, Heating oils and fats can produce trace amounts of trans fats. Cooking foods produces advanced glycation end products ("glycotoxins", see also Maillard reaction)."

A simple addition of the word "can"(as in "can cause chronic disease") should easily cover any possible doubt, here re fact/belief. I will add that in.

The issue re trans-fats is actually viewed by many others(even mainstream non-raw-foodists) as being a really serious problem. There have been reports of local governments(eg:- New York) going out of their way to ban trans-fats in restaurants

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16051436/ So your belief re trans-fats is merely one of many differing opinions. Your comment re creating "only very little trans-fat" really only applies to normal cooking at home, anyway. Industrial cooking/processing of foods generally creates far higher levels of trans-fats. Since there is a raw foodist BELIEF that trans-fats are harmful, it needs to be included. You may personally believe that free radicals are a bigger problem(again a view some others don't share), but the fact is that raw foodists BELIEVE that trans-fats ARE a big problem, so this needs to be mentioned. As for the term "glycotoxins", this is merely a scientific term, commonly used by scientists studying the effect of cooking on foods mentioned in pubmed etc., so it is a perfectly legitimate term, not a scareword.

8) Re comment:- "Fair enough, but there should probably be a note that cooked fruits and vegetables, while in most cases not as high in antioxidant effect (probably a better term than "antioxidants," since different antioxidants are effective in different quantities), aren't exactly slackers."

Well, the trouble is that mainstream non-rawist nutritionists routinely recommend eating raw fruit/veg or only lightly steamed veg in order to get the most out of the antioxidants. Again, this notion re antioxidants in cooking is merely your opinion, and it remains that raw foodists BELIEVE that raw foods contain higher levels of antioxidants(which is factually correct, anyway) and they believe that they become healthier as a result.

I will change all the various things I mentioned above in the next 12 hours or so.Most are very minor anyway, but should be satisfactory re wikipedia standards. Loki0115

Hmm, the business re "raw foodists believe that..." really does not work grammatically and sounds stilted given the first phrase "common beliefs of raw foodists:-" right at the start of that paragraph. To repeat "raw foodists beleive that" would be tautologous and unnecessary. It has already been written once, already, anyway.

Correction to deletion attempt
A standard check online shows that, actually, while overt menstruation exists in a few other animals apart from humans, bleeding is a "non-event" with regard to other animals, and is only present in humans:-

" In all of these, the loss of blood is a non-event, compared to the situation in humans." taken from:-

http://en.allexperts.com/q/Wild-Animals-705/Animal-Menstruation.htm

(among other links). So, the reason given for deletion is completely invalid.--Loki0115 (talk) 12:24, 14 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't think you understand the definition of overt menstruation. Taken from the following page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Menstrual_cycle


 * "Overt menstruation (where there is blood flow from the uterus through the vagina) occurs primarily in humans and some animals such as chimpanzees.[1] Females of other species of placental mammal undergo estrous cycles, in which the endometrium is completely reabsorbed by the animal (covert menstruation) at the end of its reproductive cycle."


 * The line you have chosen to focus on was speaking specifically about "Malayan flying lemur, as well as cat-like marsupials (dasyures), tree shrews, elephant shrews, hedgehogs and various species of free-tailed and American leaf-nosed bats and vampires" and I will point out, that a "non-event" is not the same as "does not occur". And if you actually read the page it linked to, I can't find any evidence of that line. Nekopan (talk) 20:42, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Original research and unreliable sources tag
This article includes far too many self-published and questionable sources such as blogs and other areas that are trying to promote a particular view.

To quote WP:RELIABLE, ''Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or with no editorial oversight. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, or promotional in nature, or which rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions. Questionable sources are generally unsuitable for citing contentious claims about third parties, which includes claims against institutions, persons living or dead, as well as more ill-defined entities. The proper uses of a questionable source are very limited.'' Furthermore, WP:RELIABLE also warns against self-published sources. ''Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason self-published media—whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, personal pages on social networking sites, Internet forum postings, or tweets—are largely not acceptable.'' Both questionable and self-published pretty much sums up sources on this page such as 1800naturalhealing.com, Meatalovestory.com, Realmilk.com, Holisticjunction.com, Nutritiondata.com/nutritiondata.self.com, Living-foods.com, etc. These sources need to be removed and replaced with reliable sources.

Furthermore, there is entirely too much original research occurring on this page. I see several issues. The first is that far too many primary sources are relied upon in this article. As WP:PRIMARYTOPIC states, Wikipedia should seek to use secondary articles as it is far too likely to involve interpretation:

''Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources. Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and to avoid novel interpretations of primary sources, though primary sources are permitted if used carefully. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors.''

Furthermore, I see many examples of violations of WP:SYN:

''Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources. This would be a synthesis of published material to advance a new position, which is original research.[5] "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published the same argument in relation to the topic of the article.''

An example of this is the statement ''Raw eggs contain avidin, a vitamin B7 or biotin inhibitor, which can cause “egg white injury”. As many as 24 egg whites would have to be eaten to inactivate biotin. Avidin is denatured by heat.'' This then references Iowaegg.com (a questionable, self-published source) which does not back-up the statements made. The word "avidin" is not even to be found in the reference. There is another primary source that I have not had a chance to read. However, I am quite confident that this is not the only place this is happening on this page. This is why I added the tags, and hope this article can quickly be improved to meet Wikipedia standards. Lgstarn (talk) 17:55, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, first of all, you should have placed your comment in the 5th archive, not in the 1st archive, as the 1st one is from ages ago. Secondly, if you had read through all the 5 archives, you would have realised that we have already discussed this extensively with a Wikipedia Moderator who heartily agreed that all the sources involved were perfectly OK, and gave solid reasons for this. The egg-white/avidin issue is, I will admit, a bit absurd. The anti-raw notion that avidin in raw egg-white is dangerous has no solid reference to back this up, and neither does the pro-raw reference, so all should be removed re mention of avidin/raw egg-white.Loki0115

The issue of primary topics:- Wikipedia does allow them if used with caution. The previous wikipedia moderator who was here was fine with the various sources cited, that is those with primary sources as he said they were mostly used in a merely descriptive way to cite a common raw food belief(as opposed to a fact), for example, not as means to make conclusions/promotions. For example, there may be newspaper articles with interviews of raw food gurus, but info on numbers of raw foodists and other more precise info being only available on certain blogs.Loki0115

Raw foods at Wikimedia Commons
Ive collected and categorized raw foods there. I have included raw fish and raw beef dishes. By the way, isnt wine a "raw" food? its not heated, unlike beer and of course spirits. no mention of wine here. (breaking out "raw foodism" from raw foods doesnt seem necessary at this time).Mercurywoodrose (talk) 06:46, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Corrections to previous alteration
The first sentence or so was originally changed to:- "Raw foodism (or rawism) a diet of uncooked, unprocessed, and often organic foods." I changed it to the more grammatically-correct version:-

"Raw foodism (or rawism) is a diet consisting of uncooked, unprocessed, and often organic foods.

The above correction of mine is more grammatically correct as it includes a verb ("is") and the word "consisting" is generally used before listing further details. I also included mention of "wild foods" as many raw foodists eat raw, wild foods almost exlusively, so not mentioning wild foods would be a grave error.

Have a look at wikipedia pages for "metallurgy" and others. You will also find that they use words like "is" or "consisting" etc. Omitting verbs like "is" is only acceptable if one is writing in shortened note-form, which is not wikipedia's style. More changes to follow.Vorlon19 (talk) 12:58, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Removed dodgy claim as it was years old and no ref had ever been added to back it. I also added a counter to a claim with a new ref added. Vorlon19 (talk) 16:00, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

One-Sidedness
This article is very one-sided, blatantly supporting this lifestyle while offering little in terms of an opposition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.5.215.217 (talk) 15:20, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

For this to be justified, I would expect some evidence to be put forward to support this claim. I already note that there is a section on food-poisoning etc. so the claim that there is little in terms of opposition seems to be unfounded. Well, I will leave it for the moment, but if no further evidence is put forward in the next few weeks, I will have to remove the neutrality-NPOV comment as it loooks highly inaccurate. Vorlon19 (talk) 09:28, 8 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Looks to me the problem is a combination of poor sources (WP:MEDRS should be followed and is not), selective sourcing to give undue weight to certain points of view, simply ignoring related topics (egAntinutrient), and the organization of the material (especially "Common beliefs", "Research", "Controversies"). --Ronz (talk) 16:10, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Far worse than that is the occasional actively misleading use of sources, like using an article about cooking fires in Asia producing soot to blast all cooking, or quoting only the positive parts of an ambiguous study, or just using one study to trump any mainstream view that goes against it. Adam Cuerden (talk) 12:41, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

What I'm still having difficulty finding is the scientific consensus, properly documented, on raw vs cooked food. Clearly, cooking makes the food safer to consume and it's nutrients more accessible.

On the other hand, it's unclear what references are reliable for beliefs that are truly common, short of reports on surveys.

It's not clear what sources are reliable for beliefs in general. Identifying and discussing claims from proponents appears to be the common way to avoid such problems. --Ronz (talk) 16:19, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Acrylamide
is mentioned here. Is there aby source linking it to Raw foodism? Alexbrn talk 15:59, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

You are missing the point. The point being that one of the main beliefs/tenets of raw foodism is that cooking creates toxins.One such toxin is acrylamide. So it has to be included in the raw foodism article.To not do so would create bias against raw food diets. Vorlon19 (talk) 23:34, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Propose renaming of article to "Raw food diet"
Since "Raw foodism" (and "rawism") are extremely rare terms in good sources, but "raw food diet" is a WP:COMMONNAME. Alexbrn talk 06:58, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

"raw animal food diets"
slightly confusing headline - sounds like it's food diets for animals that are raw. Anyways, my concern about this section is that the text is confusing. E.g. why is kefir mentioned with fermented fish, when dairy has already been mentioned above? And besides, kefir and all dairy food is covered in the section on vegetarian raw food. And then "in general not raw grains". It is the first part of a terribly written sentence introducing the main article on "raw animal food diets". If no one objects I will replace the first paragraph with "Raw animal food diets include the basic concepts of raw foodism and also incorporate raw animal meat. Many believe that raw meats should come from sources such as grass-fed meats or wild game rather than grain-fed or factory-farmed meats." Richardson mcphillips (talk) 17:13, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

edits 6 may 2015 and Beliefs section

 * As per comments by Ronz, insufficient justification has been provided to attribute this entire list of beliefs to raw foodists. Thus the qualifiers.
 * Removed the (scientifically false) claims about the function of specific enzymes at specific temperatures - all supporting links are dead. Accessible sources must be found if such an (imho embarassing) claim is to be attributed to an entire movement of people.
 * Moved the information rebutting above claim to "Effect of cooking on digestibility and allergy" section. --Wormcast (talk) 14:34, 6 May 2015 (UTC)


 * As it stands, each entry needs sources demonstrating that these are indeed the beliefs of some defined group of people who promote or follow a raw food diet. I don't think it's possible to do, so maybe we should rethink it. Claims from notable proponents should be easier. As it is, it violates V, OR, etc. --Ronz (talk) 14:46, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Agreed --Wormcast (talk) 17:44, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Misunderstanding re raw foodist beliefs
I should add that raw foodists are aware that not all enzymes are destroyed at 40 degrees celsius. After all they know of some extreme bacteria which can survive, enzymes intact, at temperatures far above boiling such as in underwater volcanic vents.What is key is that they claim that some enzymes START getting damaged and eventually destroyed at around that temperature with the rest of the enzymes getting damaged and destroyed at higher temperatures. This is a reasonable assertion to make. For example, one reason why, during flu episodes, it is lethal to get a body temperature above 43 degrees celsius is that the enzymes in the human body get harmed and start to malfunction and the body starts dying.

So, the WHOLE point of the raw foodist belief is that enzymes get damaged and eventually destroyed by the extra heat generated by cooking, which is per se accurate.

There was another misunderstanding as well, last I checked. There is the raw foodist belief that enzymes help to predigest the raw foods entering the body. The usual counter-claim by dieticians is that this belief must be dead wrong as the body's digestive system destroys the enzymes in the end. However, raw foodists claim that the raw foods stay in the upper stomach and do not get fully digested until some time later, by which time the enzymes in the raw foods have done their work.

Lastly, while I have no issues with having anti-raw claims and beliefs being made elsewhere in the article. so as to allow other sides to have their say, it is certainly highly inappropriate to write anti-raw claims within the raw foodist beliefs section. The point being is that these are merely descriptions of raw foodist BELIEFS, ie what raw foodists believe in, not facts or statements carved in stone. Whether those claims are right or wrong can easily be discussed elsewhere. So, for example, if Muslims believe in certain religious tenets such as that one should not consume pork products, then one should not start writing a counter-claim in the same paragraph on Muslim beliefs, stating namely that eating pork is actually very healthy and nutritious and that cutting it out of the diet might be too restrictive.Vorlon19 (talk) 19:37, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Raw foodism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.cancer.org/docroot/ETO/content/ETO_5_3x_Gerson_therapy.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 12:37, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on Raw foodism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081227163041/http://journals.cambridge.org:80/download.php?file=%2FPNS%2FPNS12_01%2FS0029665153000188a.pdf&code=ced53855b1b383c57fc0936b8a4b398c to http://journals.cambridge.org/download.php?file=%2FPNS%2FPNS12_01%2FS0029665153000188a.pdf&code=ced53855b1b383c57fc0936b8a4b398c
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20121019075901/http://journals.cambridge.org/download.php?file=%2FPNS%2FPNS4_02%2FS0029665146000321a.pdf&code=44a8dfdde48fb6037fc0936b8a4b398c to http://journals.cambridge.org/download.php?file=%2FPNS%2FPNS4_02%2FS0029665146000321a.pdf&code=44a8dfdde48fb6037fc0936b8a4b398c

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 21:51, 9 February 2016 (UTC)