Talk:Raw foodism/Archive 7

Claims section
In the claims section which gives various claims held by raw food proponents, most of the claims are actually false. I don't have time to add sources to rebut every one of these fringe claims, but the stuff about enzymes is entirely irrelevant. Arnold E. Bender covers this in his book Health or Hoax "Many diet books advocate eating raw food as a source of enzymes. In fact, although raw fruit and vegetables do contain many enzymes, they are inherent to the plants and are of no use to us. As enzymes are proteins, they are simply digested like any other protein in our diet." (p. 15), whilst it is true that cooking can destroy enzymes, this makes no difference to a healthy diet because "The body makes all the enzymes we need, even when the diet is as poor as it is in some developing countries, so taking extra is useless." (p. 61) HealthyGirl (talk) 16:10, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

The claims about "cooked foods contain harmful toxins" is also cherry-picked, because so do natural foods, in fact natural foods contain more toxins than cooked foods. As Bender reports "Almost every natural unprocessed vegetable contains harmful substances, although in small amounts. There is oxalic acid in spinach, potatoes, watercress, parsley, coriander and even lettuce... The list of harmful substances found in nature is almost limitless. Sweet potatoes contain ipomearone (which damages the liver and lungs), mace and nutmeg contain myristin (which causes hallucinations and if eaten in quantity by pregnant woman can affect the baby in the womb). This chemical is even found in bananas, parsnips, celery, black pepper, and fennel. The enormous number of toxic compounds in food is exemplified by a group of chemical called pyrrolizidine alkaloids. About 150 of these are found in a wide variety of plants eaten by animals... A vast number of plants naturally contain oestrogens - soy beans, Mexican yams, carrots, potatoes, cherries, plums, garlic, parsley, green beans, peanuts, wheat, rice, oats, barley and even ordinary apples." (33-34). HealthyGirl (talk) 16:39, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

The above claims are not supported by modern science per se, let alone other diet authors. The enzymes in raw fruits, raw vegetables, and even raw meats help break down the food as it ages/rots - also enzymes are not just proteins, they are protein catalysts. For example, most grasfed-meat farmers allow the raw meats to be left in chill-rooms(at c. 2 degrees Centigrade) for several weeks before sale in order to allow the enzymes in the meats and other bacteria to predigest/break down the raw meats in order to make them tastier and easier to chew. Also, raw foodists have pointed out that enzymes in raw foods help predigest the raw foods while the latter are in the upper stomach. Obviously, once the raw foods are in the lower stomach etc., then the body's enzymes start working. Interestingly, older people often have to take extra enzymes in pill form once their own enzyme-creating organs start to fail. For those, eating fermented, raw foods would allow them to reduce enzyme supplementations. 

Another obvious point:- one reason why people cook foods is in order to preserve the foods so that they last longer in the fridge etc. They achieve this by destroying all the enzymes and bacteria via precooking the foods. Vorlon19 (talk) 12:44, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

The above is wholly inaccurate. In actual fact, cooked foods contain far more toxins than raw foods. Here is a list of most of the heat-created toxins created by cooking:-

Advanced Glycation End Products(AGEs).They are called "AGEs" because they are heavily linked to age-related diseases. Nitrosamines Heterocyclic Amines polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons(PAHs) Advanced Lipoxidation End Products(ALEs). Acrylamides

Heterocyclic amines and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons are, incidentally, also byproducts of car-exahust fumes and cigarette-smoke. Raw vegetables do contain tiny negligible amounts of toxins but these are mostly trapped in the cell-walls, only released via juicing.Raw fruits and raw animal foods do not contain such toxins. Vorlon19 (talk) 12:44, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Not a reliable source.
 * See Toxin and Detoxification_(alternative_medicine). --Ronz (talk) 14:30, 2 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Vorlon19 wrote "The above claims are not supported by modern science per se". Yes they are, what you are promoting are just myths. I took the quotes in my original post from Arnold E. Bender's book. Bender was a leading expert on nutrition and well qualified to know what he is talking about. He exposed many of the myths associated with dieting. In response you have posted in a quack website by a fringe writer Jon Barron who doesn't provide a single scientific source for his claims. According to Steven Novella "Jon Barron is hardly a reliable source – he is just trying to sell his own quack detox programs. So he directly profits from the bad science he is selling." . It seems you will uncritically read anything written on any pseudoscientific website and believe it without checking the claims but this is not my problem.


 * The 'cooking destroys enzymes' claim is a misconception. As is pointed out there "Yes, heat destroys enzymes. But humans make their own digestive enzymes to break down large food molecules into smaller ones. The raw-enzyme logic itself breaks down when you consider that most humans cook food and that most humans are digesting that food reasonably well. Ironically for the raw vegan, most of the plant enzymes in raw food get destroyed anyway in the acid of the human gut... In reality, humans make new enzymes throughout their lifetimes." HealthyGirl (talk) 14:56, 2 June 2016 (UTC)


 * "Raw fruits and raw animal foods do not contain such toxins", there are toxins found in raw fruits. The Ackee fruit is one example, which is the national fruit of Jamaica. It is highly toxic, it contains natural toxins (see Hypoglycin A) . HealthyGirl (talk) 15:14, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

The "raw fruits do not contain such toxins" issue. OK, granted, there are some toxic fruits and vegetables which humans anyway either do not eat or have to process in some way to avoid issues - so citing a few poisonous raw fruit is irrelevant since most raw fruits and raw veg that humans eat is not poisonous. What I meant was that raw foods of reasonably high quality do not contain the vast amounts of specific heat-created toxins found in cooked foods.Also, you cited such toxins as oxalic acid etc. The trouble is that mainstream science/nutrition does not really recognise them as toxins but instead call them "antinutrients" and do not view them as seriously unhealthy unless they are present in huge quantities.BY contrast, advanced glycation end products now have 10s of thousands of studies confirming that they are far more harmful substances(by comparison to very much smaller amounts of largely harmless antinutrients like oxalic acid found in some plants which you cited) which speed up aging among other aspects. I already provided numerous studies previously on the raw foodism wikipedia page but there are plenty more.

Your claim re enzymes falls apart when one considers an obvious point, that many humans are now forced to take extra enzyme supplements in order to properly digest foods their human bodies no longer can. Which supports the logic of raw foodists who state that the enzymes in raw foods last in the upper stomach, doing their work re predigesting the raw foods, and only eventually when they reach the lower stomach do they get fully destroyed.

http://www.realmilk.com/health/enzymes/

As regards the E Bender guy, seemingly a James-Randi-like fanatic who attacked anything alternative(and given his death in 1999, is way, way out of date given current advances in science re nutrition.Never heard of him and I'm a Brit. 1 person cannot prove anything by himself anyway. By contrast, there are 10s of thousands of studies on advanced glycation end products, a type of heat-created toxin found in cooked foods - just search pubmed etc. with that term. I also previously cited a number of times the fact that heterocyclic amines and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons are also found in cigarette-smoke and tar-pits and car-exhaust fumes, which rather backs up the point that they are toxins. Or are you one of those who believe that smoking is healthy for you?! As regards the "toxins" comment by Ronz, this is contrived and unfair. Those who practice alternative health mainly refer to toxins mainly as very-slow-acting poisons which have a much harsher effect in the long-term, although sometimes they refer to some toxins as being fast-acting in a few cases, whereas you choose to only classify toxins as fast-acting, deadly poisons. A matter of semantics. Vorlon19 (talk) 16:19, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

I realise that there were 2 camps in wikipedia, 1 which stated that only mainstream views should be included with anything non-mainstream being derided even if no actual facts were presented, and another camp which believed that all viewpoints should be included and that all viewpoints should be given their due provided there was enough scientific evidence provided in each case. It seems to me that the 1st camp has been victorious for some time, so I think it wisest to just drop this and eventually post a raw foodism wiki page or whatever. Vorlon19 (talk) 16:19, 2 June 2016 (UTC)


 * "BY contrast, advanced glycation end products now have 10s of thousands of studies confirming that they are far more harmful substances", slightly exaggerated but yes you are right there is a paper on that here . Nobody is going to dispute this. In my original post quoted from Bender all I was mentioning was that Raw Food proponents consistently talk about "cooked foods contain harmful toxins" (they do), but there are toxins found in raw foods that they usually do not mention. You are certainly right there are heat-created toxins (nobody denies this) but claims of their effect in relation to disease by raw food proponents are usually exaggerated.


 * I appreciate your interest in this but all the links you seem to be pasting in are quack websites written by raw food proponents or pseudoscientists. For example that article about raw milk is from the Weston A. Price Foundation, according to Quackwatch the foundation promotes "questionable dietary strategies" and Price's core assumptions as contrary to contemporary medical understanding." I am sorry but I will not be continuing this debate as it is not really improving the article and we should not use this talk-page as a debating ground. I used to be very much interested in debunking diet myths and quackery but I have other interests now, the subject bores me. Take care. HealthyGirl (talk) 17:00, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I realise that there were 2 camps in wikipedia... That viewpoint is incorrect and problematic. We write articles following our policies and guidelines. In the case of this article WP:MEDRS and WP:FRINGE strongly restrict what sources we can use and how we can use them. --Ronz (talk) 15:52, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Raw Food
Mostly is Raw Food only till 42 degree celsius, that's why it's disturbs me, 49 degree celsius can't be more raw food, because all enzymes are mostly death. AdiGHustler19 (talk) 22:37, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Gerson therapy
The history section has this statement: " Gerson therapy, an unhealthy, dangerous and potentially very harmful[20][21] raw juice-based diet and detoxification regime claimed to treat cancer.[20]"  Two problems. First, there is no reference to any actual claim by anyone involved with Gerson therapy. Footnote 20 is a statement by the American Cancer Society that says "Gerson therapy is a form of alternative cancer treatment involving coffee enemas, supplements, and a special diet that is claimed to cleanse the body, boost the immune system, and stimulate metabolism" without any reference. Second, Gerson therapy might be "unhealthy, dangerous, and potentially very harmful", but this is someone's opinion. Again, perhaps valid and true, but in a section on history, this needs to be stated along the lines of "Gerson therapy (which the ACS and UK Cancer Research say is ...)" So I will rewrite it, unless someone disagrees. --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 18:50, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Don't. Per MEDRS we put what high quality MEDRS sources say in Wikipedia's voice.  See also WP:Lunatic charlatans. Jytdog (talk) 19:37, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Role of cooking in human evolution Section
The third last sentence in this section makes no sense.

''Further, archaeological evidence suggests that cooking fires began in earnest only around 250 kya, when ancient hearths, earth ovens, burnt animal bones, and flint appear regularly across Europe and the Middle East. ...[52]''

Unfortunatly the server that the reference is linking to is down so I cannot look up the correct time since cooking fires began, but this should be fixed when the source is available again. Johanhilge (talk) 11:42, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Raw foodism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.cancer.org/docroot/ETO/content/ETO_5_3x_Gerson_therapy.asp
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120214182738/http://www.nih.go.jp/JJID/60/405.html to http://www.nih.go.jp/JJID/60/405.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 05:41, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Deutsch Rohkost.--Wikiseidank (talk) 16:40, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Infant development citation is unsatisfactory
The passage "A raw food diet is likely to impair the development of children and infants. " cites an editorial which says "extremely restrictive diets such as a raw foods diet have been associated with impaired growth". These are two different claims, and no citation is given for the latter in the editorial. This citation should be removed or at least marked as questionable. ~dandel-rovbur (talk) 17:27, 9 May 2019 (UTC)


 * It is an adequate source for an unexceptional claim, particularly in the context of the surrounding material. However an even better reference would be good. Alexbrn (talk) 17:50, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

For the article, I attempted to add more sources, appliances useful for those who practice the diet, add another claim made by proponents of the diet, and explain the difference between a raw vegan diet and a raw vegetarian a bit further. Cungrmawi (talk) 04:30, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

In this article, I added a paragraph noting the effect raw foods has on pop culture. I added a list of celebrities that have famously taken up raw foodism. This addition is important because the effect this trend has on pop culture, and popular people in pop culture is significant, and should be noted. Tuj53916Tuj53916 (talk) 20:58, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Missing information: Destruction or loss of vitamins and other nutrients by cooking. Toxins created by cooking.
There's plenty of information on this article missing or plain wrong. There's plenty of scientific evidence that vitamin C, B1 and other nutrients are destroyed or lost when exposed to high temperatures. Here is an article from harvard university about vitamin B1 that mentions that: https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/vitamin-b1/. Here is an article about vitamin C that also mentions it: https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/vitamin-c/. Here is an article from oxford university about heterocyclic amines, a known carcinogen formed after exposing meat to high temperatures: https://academic.oup.com/jnci/article/91/23/2038/2606704. Otherwise you can just google it and find many other sources of information that will tell the same thing. I've tried adding it to the page but the edit got reverted right away for no plausible reason. Wikieditor1377 (talk) 01:36, 31 October 2020 (UTC)


 * The sources you mention are not endorsing raw foodism. I recommend that you read WP:MEDRS. Psychologist Guy (talk) 03:01, 31 October 2020 (UTC)


 * The sources I've mentioned refer specifically to the statements above, i.e., vitamin C, vitamin B1 and heterocyclic amines. It couldn't be more clear. About the references I've used, the first two I've mentioned are harvard university's nutrition source links, backed by numerous book references within. The third from oxford university does the same. They are definitely reliable sources of information. Or are you suggesting otherwise? Wikieditor1377 (talk) 14:41, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Wikieditor1377 is off topic (and possibly soapboxing, WP:SOAP) for insisting on discussion of cooking effects on nutrient contents. This is a better place for that discussion. The article sufficiently mentions the effect of cooking on nutrient content in the Claims section. Zefr (talk) 15:16, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Actually the loss or destruction of water soluble vitamins, specially vitamin c, is a widely known effect cooking has on food and it's missing from the page. So the claim section is basically missing the most widely known scientific information. Nothing off topic there. Wikieditor1377 (talk) 15:35, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The problem is that the sources you link to do not mention or endorse raw foodism so it is off-topic. Most people eat a mixture of cooked and raw foods. The links you cite say that a specific vitamin (in this case vitamin C or vitamin B1) can be destroyed by high-heat cooking, there is nothing controversial here. Nobody disputes this. The articles you link to are not saying not to all cook foods that contain vitamin c, or eat a diet based on entirely raw foods. Vitamin C is found in citrus and fruits such as orange, lemons or strawberries. Most people don't cook these foods, they eat them raw. You seem to be just cherry-picking pieces of information from these sources but none of them are recommending a diet of entirely raw food. Psychologist Guy (talk) 15:58, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The effect that exposure to heat has on vitamins and other nutrients in terms of destruction, loss, bioavailability or formation of other substances is clearly within the topic since it's the main basic idea behind raw foodism. Also the references I've used were specific to the statements they follow, as they should be, i.e., destruction or loss of vitamin C and B1 and the other about heterocyclic amines. They are not references to texts on different parts of the page, which would be clearly incorrect. If you observe again, there are a number of references on the page that don't mention raw foodism at all such as references 36 to 45 and others that deal with a range of topics written on the page such as foodborne illness. Wikieditor1377 (talk) 17:59, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

== Acrylamide information insufficient on claim section. It is currently described as carcinogenic or likely carcinogenic by a number of organizations such as the World Health Organization or the Environmental Protection Agency ==

There is a study about acrylamide, a substance found on starch foods after exposing them to heat, published in 2019 on Genome Research, the World Health Organization and other venues that states that "Experimental and pan-cancer genome analyses reveal widespread contribution of acrylamide exposure to carcinogenesis in humans". . It shows the involvement of acrylamide in one third of 1600 tumor genomes corresponding to 19 human tumor types from 14 organs through a unique signature mutation imprinted by acrylamide through the effects of its reactive metabolite glycidamide. It further states that "The highest enrichment of the glycidamide signature was observed in the cancers of the lung (88% of the interrogated tumors), liver (73%), kidney (>70%), bile duct (57%), cervix (50%), and, to a lesser extent, additional cancer types. Overall, our study reveals an unexpectedly extensive contribution of acrylamide-associated mutagenesis to human cancer". There has been numerous tests and researches done on both consumption and exposure to acrylamide via other means and there are a number of regulations already in place such as the ones that limit the ammount of acrylamide that they add to public water, in the manufacturing of cosmetics and numerous other materials. Wikieditor1377 (talk) 22:20, 31 October 2020 (UTC)


 * This is abuse of this talk-page. Stop the soapboxing otherwise you will be reported and blocked. Psychologist Guy (talk) 23:42, 31 October 2020 (UTC)


 * I haven't done a single incident of abuse or soapboxing. The references I've used are among the most respected on the planet. Deleting my edits after I've used references from Harvard, Oxford and others is what constitutes an abuse and infringement of wikipedia's policies. Wikieditor1377 (talk) 23:56, 31 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Boiling and steaming foods do not produce acrylamide so there's no reason to adopt a raw food diet based on an acrylamide concern. None of the sources you list mention adopting a raw food diet, neither does the FDA in regard to concerns about acrylamide or the American Cancer Society . A better place for this content and discussion would be the Acrylamide article. Psychologist Guy (talk) 17:51, 1 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Roasting and frying have shown to result on higher levels of acrylamide and studies have also shown that boiling results on formation of acrylamide as well, specially high pressure boiling using a pressure cooker for example. Adopting a raw food diet or endorsing it is irrelevant to the topic of acrylamide formation due to cooking. Which diets different organizations endorse on a given time period is off topic. Wikieditor1377 (talk) 18:37, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Fitzgerald is a reliable source
Fitzgerald is a reliable source, his book as a reference for the pseudoscientific claims of raw foodists shouldn't be removed from the article. Psychologist Guy (talk) 02:18, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 30 August 2021 and 13 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Cslezak2.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 08:40, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

"Vegan cake"
I flagged for incoherence. The BDA came out against the raw vegan diet, and I can't vouch for the legitimacy of this, but the quoted section isn't relevant to raw diets specifically:

"A vegan cake is still a cake, vegan syrups are adding sugar and vegan foods often contain the same calories as non-vegan foods", and "may not damage your health in the short-term but could in the long-term if not balanced."

Sounds true but doesn't summarize the objections to raw veganism well. Especially the "vegan cake" part. It'd be confusing for someone unfamiliar with the topic. 2603:7081:1603:A300:1CD3:CB15:725:5934 (talk) 00:57, 26 March 2023 (UTC)