Please select the category that most closely reflects your concern about this content,
so that we can review it and determine whether it violates Civility 101 or isn't
appropriate for some other reason.
Abusing this feature is also a violation of Civility 101.
Explanation:
For some people cutting down on their daily intake of Oreos and bacon is daunting, so the thought of living on raw vegetables might seem completely outrageous. Still, a growing number of people have devoted their lives to eating uncooked veggies, nuts and beans, insisting that the health benefits of a raw diet are unmatched. Is it time to turn down the heat or is this just another food fad?
There is absolutely no scientific basis for your claims whatsoever. Either you have no idea what you are talking about or you are deliberately deceiving people.
- MrBook
July 28, 2009 6:31PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
That is how cat scans work. The irony is that the latest scans detect tumours by frequency, but they do not want to research deeper into frequencies.
The latest scan machines are all based on quantum physics, but ironically the same community that uses quantum physics for detection calls it vodoo science .
They are the ones deliberately decieving people
If you have not heard of frequencies does not mean it is not true.
Yes but I would like to ask Alex Malinsky to provide any kind of data for the above. Like the Hamburger frequency. Also why hasnt alex mentions the frequency of sprouts.
Where can I find such data.
I find the above frequency theory plausible becuase I(and almost the entire scientific community that knows how scans work) know that cancer cells and normals cells have different frequencies. That is how the latest scan machines detect tumors.
- rawraj
September 7, 2009 8:50AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
"That is how cat scans work. The irony is that the latest scans detect tumours by frequency, but they do not want to research deeper into frequencies."
CAT scans work by taking x-ray images in narrow slices then compiling all the images using a powerful computer.
MRI machines do function based on frequencies. In an MRI machine powerful magnets align the water molecules in an individuals body, then a radio field pushes all the water molecules in another direction. The radio field is then turned off and the water molecules realign to the original magnetic field. Different tissues return to the original alignment at different rates, and as they return they emit EM radiation that is detected. That is the 'frequencies' that are detected in an MRI machine. They would not occur without the first magnets action of aligning the water molecules.
"The latest scan machines are all based on quantum physics, but ironically the same community that uses quantum physics for detection calls it vodoo science ."
See above for how MRI machines work, there is nothing 'voodoo' about it. The claims that cancerous tissue has a 'different frequency' does not make a great deal of sense in this context... Frequency relates to the 'motion' of a wave... roughly speaking it is the number of 'peaks' or 'troughs' that occur during a given time period (5hz would be five peaks/troughs in one second). So when you say that a tumor has a different frequency I have to ask "frequency of what?". The same goes for raw food ...
"They are the ones deliberately decieving people"
How exactly are they 'deceiving' people?
"If you have not heard of frequencies does not mean it is not true."
I am familiar with frequencies... as a Computer Engineer much of my studies involved electrical signals operating at different frequencies.
"I find the above frequency theory plausible becuase I(and almost the entire scientific community that knows how scans work) know that cancer cells and normals cells have different frequencies. That is how the latest scan machines detect tumors."
See my above explanation of an MRI machine... what frequency are we talking about?
- MrBook September 7, 2009 7:32PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
Like I said I got the name of the machine wrong.
MRI machines are the ones I am talking about.
in my other comment to you I have said it is pointless arguing with you, because you are her to argue and get me all caught up.
If you had an open mind I am sure since you know that I was talking about the MRI machines. You can see what I am talking about.
"See above for how MRI machines work, there is nothing 'voodoo' about it." that is exactly what I feel. I am pointing out the IRONY that modern science / doctors use/accept the MRI machine which is a product of quantum physics, but calls the quantum physics as "vodoo science".
"See my above explanation of an MRI machine... what frequency are we talking about?"
I again apologize I was talking about the MRI machine itself.
You can see in an MRI tumours are detected because they have a different frequency.
So about cancers cells having a low frequecy as pointed out in the article I have read that before.
I really do not know or have ever heard of a burger having low frequencies and actually leeching frequencies from the cells(I am with you on this point MrBook, as you see I do not blindly believe anything)
Even though I do not eat a burger and I feel pretty bad after eating one. I am pretty sure that is because of all the junk and chemicals /trans fat in it.
So again I am talking about MRI machines.
It detects the tumours because they have different frequencies which the MRI can detect.
- rawraj September 9, 2009 3:13PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
"I am pointing out the IRONY that modern science / doctors use/accept the MRI machine which is a product of quantum physics, but calls the quantum physics as "vodoo science"."
Quantum physics isn't referred to as voodoo science in any serious context... though it is sometimes spoken of humorously (I've heard a few good tunneling jokes in my time).
"You can see in an MRI tumours are detected because they have a different frequency."
The don't 'have' a different frequency. The frequency is based on the strength of the magnetic field generated by the magnets in the MRI... the signal that is detected is based on the rate at which hydrogen atoms (protons) in the water molecules within the tumor return to alignment with the magnetic field generated by the MRI machine after they are pushed out of alignment by another electromagnetic field.
What you are saying is akin to saying that bats navigate by listening to the sounds put off by their environment ... completely ignoring the fact that the source of those sounds is the bats themselves.
"Even though I do not eat a burger and I feel pretty bad after eating one. I am pretty sure that is because of all the junk and chemicals /trans fat in it."
I've found that it depends on where you get your burger from. I stopped eating from most fast food joints a very long time ago. A really good burger made from some high quality hamburger, hand pressed with chopped onion mixed in, is quite delicious.
"It detects the tumours because they have different frequencies which the MRI can detect."
See above... tumors do not have an inherent frequency... it is a product of the magnets in the MRI itself.
- MrBook September 9, 2009 6:59PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
This is just a general discussion below
I wonder why there is no research on frequencies. Theoretically if you just change the freqency of the tumour it should "heal". The only problem with that is that in theory the tumour should dissappear as soon as the frequency changes and that would again sound so unscientific.(not to mention unimaginable and impossible)
Some people have proposed this kind of treatment and there are electric zappers and some quantum physics healing aparatus like Crystals and other stuff. But to me all of those look like a scam. But it does not mean the concept of "frequency changing"(If we can call it that) is wrong. I feel it is just too difficult to do it and maybe impossible.
But then I see a ray of hope where a cyst almost dissappear like magic.
My friend had got painful lumps in her breasts, she went to her doctor and then to an oncologist(a very reputed one) and got a mamogram and stuff and was diagnosed with breast cancer .
But they told her that they will only "declare" it after the biopsy. There have been quite a few cases where the cysts show symptoms of breast cancer but they have turned out be only cyst that were painful and can be treated with medicine .
She had called me a week before that and was in KFC. Then she tells me this and is all sad and tells me to pray for her.(She is in another city has been there since 7 years) So i ask her about KFC I asked her how much does she goes there. She says she practically eats there and in chinese joints. No time to cook.
I tell her that her cancer or cysts is just due to her diet (i told her about my cyst that dissappered in 5 days as soon as went on a raw diet in a yoga camp, thats a long story now) and concinced her to go raw for the next 8 days(her biopsy was in 8 days).
She said how I said just eat salads from a joint eath it as much as you can. Forget about organic forget about fresh pick up the pre-cut vegetables packs from the super market and put some lime and pepper and force it down.
She managed to do it only for 5 days and at fruits and cereal on the other day.
When she reached for her biopsy. She had 12 cysts(in two days her pain dissappeared) and the doctor only found 1 big one. She had a 3 cysts that were bigger than this 1. The doctor had planned to take sample for the biopsy from one of these 3 cysts.
But he was suprised. He said no problem lets take it from this one.
When he put the needle in the cyst just dissappeared. It was like you poke a needle into a ballon, but id did not burst it just like dissapeared.
He was left with nothing. He took more scans but could not find anything.
The Doctor admitted that in his entire proffession he has never seen something like this happen. The doctor was shocked.
My friend was just ecstatic well she promised me she would look into raw lifestyle but she swore off raw food. She has now shifted to Canada and I have lost touch.(but I am damn sure if she gets cancer again she would mail me or something).
So coming to the point of this entire story. You see something "magical" is possible.
But I do not see this as "magic" I see it as proof that raw food can change your frequencies and cure tumour. Also proof of the theory I mentioned before("frequency changing" to cure tumours). As you see it can dissappear almost magically.
The only reason why " science " is not working is because scientist(the minority that are trying quantum physics) are searching for an "aparatus" or a "zapper" since it is physics(or else they would be searching for a pill) to change frequencies.
Which is again a paradox, because they are ignoring the laws of concept physics and are actually going the newtonian way.
The fact is that frequencies can be changed but it has to be done internally. It happens when you are on a raw diet(it also happens with pranayama but lets not argue about that now :-D).
As you go on a raw diet your body responds to it internally.
We do not know how it works and it is just arrogant to think we can find out how it works. The mainstream scientific community acts as if they know everything about the human body.
They keep holding on to that claim, by disproving anything they cannot detect or "see".
So that is why even though Alex maybe be right about frequencies. It does not mean they work the way he says(by leeching or feeding the frequencies).
But there is a lot of potential in that.
But you MrBook and the mainstream science and media are not ready to conduct your own scientific research into that area.
But instead they just want to hold on to their arrogant claim that they know exactly how the human body works and there is nothing more to know.
So according to their knowledge such a thing is not possible.
- rawraj September 9, 2009 3:16PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
"I wonder why there is no research on frequencies. Theoretically if you just change the freqency of the tumour it should "heal". The only problem with that is that in theory the tumour should dissappear as soon as the frequency changes and that would again sound so unscientific.(not to mention unimaginable and impossible)"
You have yet to define what frequency you are talking about. Cancer is the result of a transcription failure within the genetic code that governs cellular replication. This failure causes the cell(s) to replicate uncontrollably, consuming resources and disrupting functionality. Once cancer cells begin replicating the only way to cure it is to kill the cancerous cells.
"The Doctor admitted that in his entire proffession he has never seen something like this happen. The doctor was shocked."
That is not all that uncommon. Cysts develop from time to time, and they can often appear cancerous... this cannot be confirmed until after a biopsy has been done (which is why the doctor said that he could not say it was cancer until after the biopsy).
Your story is anecdotal, without a biopsy of the cysts before and after the dietary change it cannot be logically stated that the cysts changed due to that diet .
"The only reason why " science " is not working is because scientist(the minority that are trying quantum physics) are searching for an "aparatus" or a "zapper" since it is physics(or else they would be searching for a pill) to change frequencies.
Which is again a paradox, because they are ignoring the laws of concept physics and are actually going the newtonian way."
There is no serious research along the lines that you describe. Manipulating quantum states requires incredibly complex devices operating in exotic environments... it is not something that can be applied to living tissue (far to warm and muddled).
"The fact is that frequencies can be changed but it has to be done internally. It happens when you are on a raw diet (it also happens with pranayama but lets not argue about that now :-D)."
Again... what frequencies?
"We do not know how it works and it is just arrogant to think we can find out how it works. The mainstream scientific community acts as if they know everything about the human body."
The mainstream Scientific community knows that they don't know everything about the human body. But just because we do not know everything about the human body does not mean that every claim that comes along is true... there is a level of rigorous experimentation that must be applied to any claim.
"But instead they just want to hold on to their arrogant claim that they know exactly how the human body works and there is nothing more to know
If there was nothing more to know then why is there still research being conducted?
- MrBook September 9, 2009 7:28PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
...this is definitely a persuasive and well written summary in support of what your advocating. I just might make up my mind once and for all.
- F2XL November 1, 2008 9:58PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
1) This is only partially true... cooking some foods can destroy vitamins, while cooking other foods makes them easier to digest. Raw foods are also harder to digest, giving you less energy per unit of food consumed.
2) Very much not true. I've had cooked food as is, and raw food with spices added.
3) Also not true, to process raw foods for consumption can take a good amount of time and energy.
4) and if nobody ate nuts then there wouldn't be a chance for some to get stuck in ones teeth.. this is probably the silliest of the bunch
5) This isn't much of a a point, the clean up time is largely trivial, and does not speak to the nutritional or caloric content.
6-8) Such statements calls for a [Citation Needed]. both of these claim that raw foods can prevent or heal illness without providing any studies that demonstrate that.
9) This ignores the amount of energy that would be required to both produce and transport that amount of food. It also ignores that a significant amount of our energy goes to heating / cooling and lighting our buildings. Further it ignores that all those raw foods would still have to be packaged for transport. Finally, and most humorously, the production of oxygen would reverse the greenhouse effect.
10) Life force?
- MrBook August 27, 2009 8:08PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(2)
Side: Uncommitted
It amazes me that anybody would say, with a straight face, that cooked food "is not recognizable to the body as food." That statement reflects a basic misunderstanding of what food is, how the body works, and the human immunological process in general.
Let's be clear - your body does not "recognize" ANYTHING as food; to put it differently, anything you shove down your throat is going to be treated as food, whether it's digestible and nutritious or not. There is no mystical marker that indicates to your body that a carrot is food while a handful of poison ivy is not. If you ate a spark plug, the same basic processes would occur in your body as if you had eaten a handful of grapes. Granted, you're not going to do much of anything to the spark plug and it'll probably do some damage because of the miscellaneous dangerous substances contained within it, but your stomach will still secrete acid, the lining of your small intestine will still try to absorb anything that comes off of the object, and the muscles of your GI tract will still try to force the object through your intestines to your colon.
Even more amazing is the idea that the fact that most of the world's animal population consumes raw food, that implies that humans SHOULD consume raw food. It hurts my brain to think of what's wrong with this. First off, equating humans with animals for the purpose of dietary and nutritional analysis is a bit like suggesting that bears shouldn't need to eat because plants can photosynthesize all the energy they need. Shazzie suggests here that those living in horrifyingly underdeveloped nations (areas of the world still peopled by hunter-gatherers) "hardly ever" contract diseases like cancer, heart disease, arthritis, obesity, or diabetes, not only without evidence, but with patent disregard for the fact that even if the statement were true on its face, none of those facts suggest the lack of cooked food as the agent of cause (arthritis, heart disease, and cancer are all diseases which present more frequently as age advances - not a significant problem for a society so technologically backward that they are incapable of cooking their own food - while obesity and Type II diabetes both develop as a result of a sedentary existence that no typical hunter-gatherer could hope to have).
I'm very disappointed with this opening argument.
- Brian Seiler October 30, 2008 10:40AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(2)
Side: Uncommitted
I agree with everything you said until the end.
"Shazzie suggests here that those living in horrifyingly underdeveloped nations "hardly ever" contract diseases like cancer, heart disease, arthritis, obesity, or diabetes, not only without evidence, but with patent disregard for the fact that even if the statement were true on its face, none of those facts suggest the lack of cooked food as the agent of cause"
There is plenty of evidence that the premise is true, check The China Study for decades of peer reviewed science on the matter. Her conclusion is not part of that science though as you point out. The science suggests very strongly that the sources of these chronic western diseases is eating animal protein.
"arthritis, heart disease, and cancer are all diseases which present more frequently as age advances"
The China Study specifically dealt with this issue and that of diabetes. I highly recommend reading the book Dr. Campbell wrote about the study and many others that reaffirm the conclusions. All peer reviewed serious science.
- reckoner October 30, 2008 12:02PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
I'm afraid I have to disagree with your citation. There's problems with that book, and I would definitely question your qualification of it as "decades of peer reviewed science." I'll give you a few problems and some links to some of the more prominent criticisms I found with just a quick Google search.
Right in front, though, we need to understand that this book and the studies therein are NOT science in any average understanding of the term. The book proposes some hypothetical mechanisms of action, but all that it really constitutes is a statistical survey of already extant data points. It can serve as a legitimate point for starting experimental inquiry, but for carrying the burden of proof of the ultimate unhealthiness of meat, as you're implying here, it's a terrible entry.
I am not a scientist and I don't claim to be one, but much of Mr. Campbell's tone, and that of his later somewhat hysterical defense of his positions, leaves me skeptical as to the objective nature of the material in question. He, like far too many advocates, seems to have convinced himself that ANY consumption of meat equates to EXCESSIVE consumption of meat - a common error in reasoning you'll find in most pro-vegan "science." Either way, just the following two links seem to present significant concerns, though the tone of the second is a touch hyperbolic, and that's just from a casual Google search.
http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com/Campbell-Masterjohn.html
http://anthonycolpo.com/the_china_study.html
- Brian Seiler October 30, 2008 2:03PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
"but all that it really constitutes is a statistical survey of already extant data points."
This is patently false. I can see you have never read the book, yet you assume to know why it's flawed. Many of the statistical points made in the book were also tested in the lab and the results were the same.
You are also choosing to attack his character rather than specifics of hte science, which is real science, and is peer reviewed. Since you like to pick apart people rather than data did you bother to do the same on the two links you provided? The first is a person with no science background and the second is someone who owns a site called "theomnivore.com". If you claim that Dr. Campbell is a biased vegan then surely you must also conclude that theomnivore is also a biased view, right?
Again, put aside the ad hominems and stick to the science.
- reckoner October 30, 2008 3:25PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
She clearly states that humans ate a raw food diet and evolved on a raw food diet for a much much longer period of time than eating a cooked food diet. Why not try it and see for yourself? You can argue about it all you want, but try 21 days raw and you'll feel and see a difference.
- Santa Cruz Mom November 4, 2008 8:53AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
I agree with Brian Seiler in his opinion that the only reason people in highly primitive sociteties don't get arthritis and age related illnesses is because they don't live long enough to develop them, and they don't get diabetes or become obese because they are not given the opportunity to be sedentary. I have to add, however, that they get plenty of their own diseases, like worms, parasites, bacterial infections, and on and on. In the story of human development, fire was a major component in our success as a species because it allowed us to cook our food, killing the aforementioned parasites and bacteria, and making it easier to digest.
- richardsonkr November 1, 2008 9:05AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: No
They must be good for us if we developed them!
- Santa Cruz Mom November 4, 2008 8:48AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: Yes
First off, you responded to the title, and not the entire comment. Second off, bombs and guns have nothing to do with raw food. Cooking meat makes it easier to digest and kills harmful organisms inside of it. Cooking is required to make grains into breads and pastas, which greatly increases their potential for nourishment. Cooking was one of the prerequisites of a sedentary agricultural society, which was in turn the cause of specialization and dramatic population growth, with the ultimate result of modern civilized society, capable of producing the bombs and guns that have established humans as the dominant species of the planet.
- richardsonkr November 21, 2008 4:23PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(2)
Side: No
While Santa Cruz definitely should have presented the argument better instead of appealing to emotion, richard, you are missing her argument.
Just because we developed it, and just because it once had a purpose, does not make eating raw veggies and fruits more or less healthy. Instead of believing they are less healthy because it involves less technology, analyze the health benefits on their own merits.
- Blue Linchpin December 18, 2008 10:52AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: Yes
I realize, Mr. Linchpin, (or is it Ms... alas I have insufficient information. I apologize in advance for any offence) that foods should be evaluated based on their nutritional value, and they have been. The point I was making in bringing up fire was that the nutrition value gained by cooking is so apparent that even primitive man, with no science or statistics confirming it, knew that it was so. Now that we have that science and those statistics, there is no longer need for a debate. Cooking kills harmful organisms in the food, and it helps to break down proteins and other components of food, making it easier to digest. Many foods are impossible to digest without cooking. Cooking also allows humans to consume grains, which have provided the nutritional staple that has allowed our species to grow so rapidly. Eating raw meat and grain is dangerous, but without these two foods human civilization would be insustainable. Are raw fruits and vegetables also part of a good diet? Absolutely. But cooked foods to include meat and especially grains are essential for a global population. While it is technically possible for a small percentage of the population to sneak by on a vegan diet with modern supplements, such a strict and unreasonable diet would put far too great a strain on the Earth's natural resources if adopted by a majority, or even a signifigant number or, the world's population.
- richardsonkr January 17, 2009 9:03AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Humans developed fire because it denatures proteins and makes something that would've been inedible edible, like raw meat.
Raw foods & vegan foods are great because they're easy to digest and don't rot in your colon like animal products do.
- Mena404 December 17, 2008 6:42PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: Yes
The implication there is that a diet including meat is necessarily boring... or at least having less variety then a diet that includes meat.
This is quite untrue... as a diet that includes meat can still eat all the foods listed above, while adding a variety of meats to the mix.
- MrBook July 28, 2009 10:58PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
I have a question for you Shazzie.
Will going to eating at least 51% of raw vegatables per meal actually help out my system as much as you say?
- ben
January 8, 2010 9:31AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
This must be why cooked food eaters rarely live beyond 80 or 90 years old. If we all ate raw food we'd no doubt be living well into our 300s.
- liquidmonkey
May 15, 2009 10:56AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: Uncommitted
Using words like "undeniable truth" in the context of science is palpable nonsense. Science is about the balance of evidence. While it will always be possible to find fringe scientific studies to support the most ludicrous of propositions this does not make it the "truth". There is plenty of other research that comes to very different conclusions.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg16221893.700
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=raw-veggies-are-healthier
http://www.beyondveg.com/tu-j-l/raw-cooked/raw-cooked-1a.shtml
- liquidmonkey May 15, 2009 11:37AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
One study hardly rises to the level of scientific proof. It also does not sound like the study supports raw food as being 'better' then cooked food either...
Claims that other studies are somehow in the pocket of big businesses doesn't work unless you can demonstrate the flaws in their research or provide counter studies of your own.
- MrBook July 28, 2009 11:50PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
"It is true that cooking food can destroy their natural enzymes. The problem with this theory is that most food enzymes are destroyed or rendered inactive by the acidity of the stomach anyway."
1) If one believes that cooking food destroys their enzymes, then they don't cook it. Therefore, this statement is true. Succeeding statements are contradictory from Giancoli's argument. If facts are true about enzymes in food, as Giancoli says, then the statement about theory in the next sentence is self-reciprocating logic.
2) Amylase in the salivary glands begins the digestive process. Cooked foods interrupt that process of digestion.
3) Alkaline-based foods prevent acidity in the stomach anyway.
- poemgranite December 28, 2008 8:55PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(2)
Side: Yes
Let's face it. If you were travelling across India, eating raw food would be foolhardy, because of the risk of bacterial contamination. When it comes to milk, pasteurisation makes it safe, and for those who can't digest milk, turning it into yogurt makes it digestible. Raw food may be good for you, but cooking sometimes has some clear advantages.
- Michael Glass
February 14, 2009 6:30AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
Thankfully I am not alone, Poemgranite has already pointed out that Giancoli's statement uses contradictory terms.
This sounds so much like the arguments given by the industry, lets say for example in India(so I will also address Michael Glass comment later) when the pesticides levels in coke were found to be higher than normal, the coke industry and its "sponsored experts" who appeared on national television argued, that "pesticides already present in fruits vegetables and milk ANYWAYS!!"
Doesnt the anyway logic in the above statement sound similiar to Giancoli's.
Also if enzymes do not reach the intestine(anyways) is Gaincoli trying to say that enzymes have no bodily function at all!!!
Enzymes are useless.
If and only if enzymes are useless then I am ready to accept that raw food is useless.
There is tons of research out there that show eznymes are the building block of many functions of the body.
I think Giancolis argument is flawed and it all comes from "industry sponsored" misinformation.
The great lycopene argument of processed foods. Now let me debunk that.
This was an industry sponsored research to being with and before you think it is my opinion, I remember reading that 100gm of processed tomato paste(sauce) contained more lycopene than 100 grams of raw tomatoes.
Well before Giancoli says yes, let me tell you that tomato paste is concentrated. To make 100 grams of tomato paste you need more than 100grams of raw tomatoes.
There are some tomato pastes where two tablespoons is equal to 1 tomato(and that 1 tomato definitely weights more than two tablespoons of tomato paste)
This misleading research was used to brainwash consumers into consuming tomato sauce and other processed products instead of the fresh tomato.
Also a watermelon contains more lycopene that tomatoes.
Now the carrot story. This utter lies and propaganda. What Giancoli is doing is being "economical with the truth" :-P.
Let me list down the points she conveniently forgot to tell us.
The study was on cooked carrots that were Mashed up.(she forgot to mention the mashed part)
The carrots were cooked and pureed for the study, now every raw foodist(and any decent expert) knows that pureed vegetables release more nutrients and anti-oxidants.
Then the most important part, the study then never took raw carrots pureed them and compared the results, NO.
Instead they took the available data on whole raw carrots and compared it with data on cooked and pureed carrots. Did I(and Giancoli) forget to mention that the research(ers) stored these cooked and pureed carrots at 40 degrees Centigrade (104 degrees Fahrenheit) for 4 weeks.
It is also mentioned in the research that the level of this cooked and pureed carrots were compared with 'raw carrots" not pureed!!!.
Also the researcher has "admitted" that further tests need to be done to see if this "Cooked and pureed" anti-oxidants are absorbed or processed better by the body.
So the researcher himself is implying that raw carrots nutrients are better absorbed and also for crying out loud,"THE RESEARCH CONCLUDES SAYING THAT ONLY THE AMOUNT OF ANTI-OXIDANTS IS MORE, NOTHING ABOUT ABSORPTION OR NUTRIENTS)
I am surprised that opposing views is running this argument, this argument is invalid, misleading and some of it is outright lies.
All that kept aside don't you see a "pre-written agenda" in Giancolis argument when she want to totally write off raw foods just based on two vegetables(1 is technically a fruit) that are not the only source for the mentioned nutrients.
Just because lycopene is more in just one fruit is that enough of "substance" to write off raw foods, any sensible person will not agree.
And you are missing the entire point, that almost each and every other fruit and vegetables gives more nutrients and more anti-oxidants that cooked food .
I am highly disappointed that such lies is consider a valid arguments
- rawraj September 5, 2009 4:07PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
"Also if enzymes do not reach the intestine(anyways) is Gaincoli trying to say that enzymes have no bodily function at all!!!
Enzymes are useless."
It would seem, to me at least, that she is saying that enzymes found in food are largely destroyed befor they reach the part of the body where they can be absorbed into the blood stream. Thus the body does not get its enzymes from food, but rather produces them in house.
Can you show a study that demonstrates that humans get their enzymes from food, or that the enzymes found in food survive long enough to be absorbed through the intestines.
- MrBook September 6, 2009 8:33PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
Then why does it not kill germs. The theory that stomach acids does not allow "living" thing to pass through it is flawed.
Now do not give me the examples of H.Pylori, studies have found it deeply buried in the stomach lining, it does not live in the stomach acids. Which means that it cannot stand the acids that is why it buries itself deep into the stomach lining where the acids cannot reach it.
The most probable cause is the baking powder in processed foods that reduce the acid in the stomach allowing germs to pass through and infect us.
That is how they found the Pylori in the stomach lining.
So the same way enzymes too can get in especially if the food is alkaline.
Now I ask you only 1 question, do you have any double blinded scientific research that proves that enzymes do not make it through the stomach acids or that we do not absorb enzymes from food??
Do not give me articles written by "experts" like Gaincoli.
It is again a theory, since stomach contains acids it should destroy enzymes (since cooking does).
Fruits like Lime contain enzymes the acids in lime do not destroy it.
It has always been like that. These Anti- health "experts" always propose a theory based on assumptions. There is not study ever done for that theory, but when we oppose it they ask us for study.
This is just like the ridiculous argument/reason given to us when we ask if chemical that put in food are safe in the long term.
The answer given(mostly by the industry and its cronies) are that "there have been no studies that prove that this chemical is harmful"
If you ask them if there are studies that have proved its not!! they do not have an answer. They tell you that in the short term it is safe(means nobody dropped dead, if anyone got a headache, well there are so many other reason for a headache so we cannot pin point it on the chemical, which means it is scientifically wrong to say that the chemical causes the headache since there are so many other variable, they follow it up with some mathematics too)
It is simple when it comes to dangerous chemicals and food additives we are being made to follow the principle "innocent until proven guilty". But when it comes to hears and normal food like raw food or vegetarian food we are supposed to follow the principle "Guilty until proven innocent".
You see anything related to health this is happening. IF there are studies they are industry funded.
In this entire debate, sometimes raw foodists(and health advocates) get a little overzealous and say something that has not been "proved"(but has loads of anecdotal evidence and also seems very logical), but "experts" like Gaincoli and you MrBook :-) just catch that one point. That one single point and limit your argument just to that and try to debunk the entire stand on raw foods just based on 1 point.
And it works you know there is reason that the general (uniformed, ones with a lower conscious if you may) are the one that love your argument.
Just like Gaincoli gives an example of just 1 vegetable the tomato(the carrot example has been debunked the research is out there clearly, if the raw carrots were also purred and kept for the same amount of time as the cooked carrots were then it would also have the same amount of nutrition) to debunk the entire theory of "raw foods is good for you".
And there is no mention of how much of lycopene is absorbed more in cooked food. Is it double?? No I am guessing it is a very small amount.
- rawraj September 7, 2009 3:09AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
"Then why does it not kill germs. The theory that stomach acids does not allow "living" thing to pass through it is flawed."
I did not say that it did not allow any living thing through... just that the amount of enzymes that do make it through the stomach are inconsequential next to the bodies own enzyme production.
Bacteria are fundamentally different from enzymes, in that enzymes do not replicate. If a few bacteria 'make it through' then they can multiply deeper in the gut and cause illness. Bacteria can also evolve to be resistant to environment inside the stomach... which would allow for more to survive and cause problems. There is no evolutionary pressure on plant enzymes to survive in the stomach.
"The most probable cause is the baking powder in processed foods that reduce the acid in the stomach allowing germs to pass through and infect us."
Then why has food born illness decreased since the introduction of processed food? Where do you get then idea that baking powder is a common component of processed food?
"Now I ask you only 1 question, do you have any double blinded scientific research that proves that enzymes do not make it through the stomach acids or that we do not absorb enzymes from food??"
Not that I can find... but the chemistry for enzyme survival does not work out when you consider the concentration of acid in the human stomach.
Can you show a study in a credible journal that shows that the enzymes in raw food have a significant impact on the human body?
Can you show any way in which the human body can even use the enzymes of a plant species?
"The answer given(mostly by the industry and its cronies) are that "there have been no studies that prove that this chemical is harmful"
If you ask them if there are studies that have proved its not!! they do not have an answer."
I've never heard that last bit. Before a chemical enters wides spread use extensive studies are done that show the toxicology of the chemical. It is easy to show that a chemical is dangerous... it is much harder to prove that it is not (as there are many factors that can impact toxicology, only some can be tested for during a trial).
"It is simple when it comes to dangerous chemicals and food additives we are being made to follow the principle "innocent until proven guilty". But when it comes to hears and normal food like raw food or vegetarian food we are supposed to follow the principle "Guilty until proven innocent".
You see anything related to health this is happening. "
That is because the claims of raw foodists run counter to chemistry, biology, and even physics... such extraordinary claims require exceptional proof.
"sometimes raw foodists(and health advocates) get a little overzealous and say something that has not been "proved"(but has loads of anecdotal evidence and also seems very logical), but "experts" like Gaincoli and you MrBook :-) just catch that one point."
Like the frequency claims? That is highly illogical in light of physics... the same goes with plant enzymes surviving in large enough numbers to make to to the stomach and the human body being able to use enzymes from a vastly different species.
You'll not that I have put myself as 'uncommitted' in this debate... I don't think that it is at all properly worded. Raw foods are healthy, just as cooked foods are so I'd be inclined to say "yes"... but actual debate is about a strict raw food diet , something that is not supported by the evidence.
- MrBook September 7, 2009 3:25PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
That if you really believe this about all the claimes that chemicals and food additives are safe for you
"I've never heard that last bit. Before a chemical enters wides spread use extensive studies are done that show the toxicology of the chemical. It is easy to show that a chemical is dangerous... it is much harder to prove that it is not (as there are many factors that can impact toxicology, only some can be tested for during a trial)."
Then we cannot have any further discussion. I am sure then you also believe that MSG is safe for you, so is aspartame, and so is transfat,BPA, you name it, ah did I forget pesticides, PCBs.
That is what you do not know you need to go and do some research.
Let me tell you about a research paper I found(the research was done by a health advocate, this was my initial days when I too that "big companies" were trustworthy and some people were just paranoid, so thats is why I searched for the source found it read it myself and I was shocked).
This was about a research that showed, vitamins can kill you.(not they were not talking about Vitamin-A or vitamin K and definately not about overdose).
They said that eating vitamins(in recomended doses, not some mumbo-jumbo treatment dose or injecting vitamin C directly into blood and stuff like that) can double your chances of death.
I do not remember the exact details(that is non-revelvant figures like how many test subjects in each group etc) but you can get the point.
2 groups of 100 people each were taken, both were groups that were sick and hand some serious disease like cancer etc(and also some chronic lifestyle diseases like diabetes ).
1 group was given vitamins, regular ones like E, B complex etc and the other was given a placebo. At the end of the research in the vitamin group 2 people died and in the placebo group only 1 person died.
Since 2 is the double of 1 they said your chances of death are double.
Now the Mainstream media article conviniently forgets to mention the statistics and also the fact that both groups had patients suffering from fatal diseases like cancer and could have died just like that.
Then in that same article another research was shown(which I checked out) about a drug and its safety.
Same 2 group of 100 people each. 1 given placebo and 1 group given the drug.
From the group that was given the drug 1 person dies. In the placebo group none.
The headlines for that research(and the drug also was approved by the FDA because of this conclusion) is that new drug causes only 1% "casualty"(or some other misleading word but not death).
The drug was a newer molecule of an older drug which caused a lot of deaths . The inside story was the company simply changed something in the old molecule so that it could be marketed as a new "version" of the old drug which was safer(but these are just conspiracy theories aren't they :-P).
Since 1 out of 100 is 1% that is what they conclud. No questions asked as to why did the person die in the first place and how can it be a reliable study when no one from the placebo groupd died??
But same vitamin study was concluded as "DOUBLE" even though 1 person from the placebo group died(that means a person can die for no reason or other causes to and this was not taken into account). Also it was a vitamin test for crying out loud. How can anyone in the world get phycologically affected and die from consuming vitamins. He should only be feeling good if he was on a placebo(since he thinks he is taking vitamins that are good for him). If he was on a drug then there are cases a placebo group can get "delusioned" and think that he is getting some side effects. So you see how ridiculous these scientific tests are.
- rawraj September 9, 2009 3:23PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
"Then we cannot have any further discussion. I am sure then you also believe that MSG is safe for you, so is aspartame, and so is transfat,BPA, you name it, ah did I forget pesticides, PCBs."
I believe that they were tested to an extent, but that no testing process is perfect.
"I do not remember the exact details(that is non-revelvant figures like how many test subjects in each group etc) but you can get the point."
That's as helpful as your claim that you had proof, but couldn't show it.
"1 group was given vitamins, regular ones like E, B complex etc and the other was given a placebo. At the end of the research in the vitamin group 2 people died and in the placebo group only 1 person died.
Since 2 is the double of 1 they said your chances of death are double."
Wow, that sounds like a terribly designed study. How many people were in the study? What did the two individuals die of? What was their overall health state, the progress of their cancer , their age?
"So you see how ridiculous these scientific tests are."
That one study you cited sounds as though it was a model for how a bad study can be designed.
- MrBook September 9, 2009 7:39PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
The only problem MrBook is either you are a part of the entire "propaganda brigade"(I am not actually accusing, trying to find possible reasons for such strong rooted bias) or you just take this whole thing as an argument and believing in arguing point to point. Never bothering to check or recheck what you have been believing all this while.
Without getting into the depth of the issue.
So i think I will not waste my time with you. I have spent years of research to reach this stage. Things that I never keep references of of.
Cause it was for my own benefit I am not trying to prove anything.
I was once where you are now. And whenever I heard someone like me telling me something that was against what I believed. I first searched the net to find out if others apart from him believe the same(or is he just farting conspiracy theories from his bottom).
If I find enough of people or buzz about that issue on the net, then I find out the source. If there is a study I find out.
In the last 10 years I have gone through research papers and even hacked into research sites to get a copy of their research which available only to members.
So if you really want to get to the bottom of the issue and know the truth(for whatever reasons) you have to disregard all that mainstream science tells you(ofcourse there are the obvious one the basics which even a 10 years old knows that its right, I am sure you know what I mean).
Only after going through this stage in my life. I really understood the UB40 song "Higher ground".
Every hour of every day I'm learning more
The more I learn, the less I know about before
The less I know, the more I want to look around......
I liked the tune but I used to always think that this line was just being poetic without meaning "The more I learn, the less I know about before". How can one learn more and know less about before. I used to wonder what is he talking about a memory problems
Today I understand it.
When I learnt about these new concept of health and life. Everthing I knew about health before was wrong. Which means I know LESS.
Man that song is deep I feel guilty for ridiculing it for so long.
I hope you got what I am trying to say :-)
- rawraj September 9, 2009 3:24PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
"The only problem MrBook is either you are a part of the entire "propaganda brigade"(I am not actually accusing, trying to find possible reasons for such strong rooted bias) or you just take this whole thing as an argument and believing in arguing point to point. Never bothering to check or recheck what you have been believing all this while."
I'm not part of some sort of 'propaganda brigade'... I've got no stake in cooked foods, though I do enjoy eating them.
So far you have yet to offer any actual evidence to support your points... can you show specifically where I have made factually incorrect statements?
"In the last 10 years I have gone through research papers and even hacked into research sites to get a copy of their research which available only to members."
Then you should have no trouble supporting your claims with published, peer reviewed, articles.
"So if you really want to get to the bottom of the issue and know the truth(for whatever reasons) you have to disregard all that mainstream science tells you(ofcourse there are the obvious one the basics which even a 10 years old knows that its right, I am sure you know what I mean)."
One of the fun things about mainstream Science is that it only becomes mainstream when it has been tested and retested by many individuals... that is a very important point, because if something is actually true then it is testable.
- MrBook September 9, 2009 7:53PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: Uncommitted
This is all industry driven propaganda and some very biased people argument.
This entire argument against raw food is baseless and invalid.
I am just surprised that the other experts like Shazzie have not raised this point.
There is one major reason why raw food is getting so much negative publicity, it cures cancer . Period. Do not ask me for proof (there is proof but the only problem is the cancer society finds one flaw in the research which has no impact whatsoever on the conclusion to disregard that study)
We all know it. Thousands of people have been going raw.
It might be news to the west but Indian ayurveda has a raw food therapy since its inception. It is very unpopular because there are a number of herbal treatments for all disease in ayurveda.
There is the documentary Raw for 30 which is proof that the raw food cures diabetes . I myself have seen over 3500 people get cured just on raw food and pranayam. And not only of diabetes, but also kidney problems, Varicose veins, Migranes(which was never cured for 30 years), anxiety and a few cases of blood cancer, tumors and also AIDS (but they cannot claim it or else he will be thrown in jail. so any AIDS patient is treated in this yoga camp saying that you will "feel better" that’s all not cure).
I just find it absurd that there are people asking for proof. Right now all the 3500 people who I am talking of have Medical records of their disease. Most of which are incurable. If the intention of these "experts" or "researchers" was to find a cure, then they would be down there looking at the their records.
In India an ayurveda company claimed that it can cure AIDS. They had conducted some years of research and just before they were going to complete the study, they just gave a hint to the public since the 99% of research was positive.
Instead of the scientific community being excited, the health minister of India and the media went into a frenzy and demanded that the "head" of the institute give an apology. Apology for saying that "we think we can cure aids ours studies say so now we would like other faculties to do their research and prove the same".
But they were asked not to talk about it and also threatened with legal consequences.
Why? Most of the drugs are extract of plants, The first wonder drug aspirin was extract of the willow tree. The drug tamiflu is derived from Star anise.
So why is it so hard for them to believe that natural plants can cure diseases.
Because no one makes money that’s why.
If everyone goes in for raw food(even temporarily till their disease is cured) the BiG pharma and hospitals do not make money.
That is the only reason why this kind of natural health alternative lifestyles and therapies are being so strongly opposed.
I think all raw food supporters and experts should first ask for proof of all these ridiculous theories.
Just like one or two studies is not enough to conclude that a natural therapy is good enough for you.
The same way just 1 single research(that is the tomato one which was funded by the tomato processing industry) is not enough to prove that processed tomato is more good for you. BTW the study is years old and was aimed to prove that processed tomato paste has more benefits in comparison to cooked tomatoes.
They were basically trying to make the consumer use tomato paste(processed packaged)instead of raw tomatoes TO COOK.
But you see experts like Gaincoli have just latched on to the RAW word in this study and has very deceptively used to make this study appear as if it was Cooked/processed(they add the processed there to be politically correct) versus raw tomatoes.
So you see there is lot of deception and misinformation here and it is deliberate.
So MrBook before you ask for studies that prove humans get their enzymes from food you should be asking for studies that prove otherwise.
Even if they provide you studies you have to take it with a grain of salt.
See how Gaincoli just gave us the "STUDIES" but the truth was twisted (twisted to the extent it becomes a lie)
- rawraj September 7, 2009 3:10AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
So you claim that it can be cured... but that you cannot show me the proof that it can be cured? Can you see how someone who has not seen your research would be skeptical?
"Why? Most of the drugs are extract of plants, The first wonder drug aspirin was extract of the willow tree. The drug tamiflu is derived from Star anise."
Yes, Evolution is very effective at creating complex organic molecules. Through a Scientific process these molecules can be isolated, analyzed, and synthesized for maximum effectiveness (aspirin is far more effective the willow bark tea at curing headaches).
"So MrBook before you ask for studies that prove humans get their enzymes from food you should be asking for studies that prove otherwise."
Why? The chemistry that shows that nearly all enzymes would be destroyed in the digestive tract seems sound to me. It would also seem that, evolutionarily speaking, a species would evolve its own enzymes rather then rely on them from another source.
The burden of proof is on you.
I find the naming of this debate to be rather disingenuous. Raw foods are 'good for you' but so to are cooked foods... thus I cannot answer 'no'. But the focus on a raw foods diet as opposed to just eating raw foods is completely unsupported by the evidence I have seen.
- MrBook September 7, 2009 7:49PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
"A couple caveats - if one doesn’t eat any animal foods a reliable source of Vitamin B-12, either from a supplement or foods fortified with Vitamin B-12, is in order."
This is predicated on the assumption the body doesn't process its own B12 in microflora.
" Lastly, if one isn't consuming any fatty fish s/he is missing out on the omega-3 fatty acids, DHA and EPA, which have been found to lower heart disease risk, support immunity and possibly inhibit some cancers."
This is an outright lie, unless one is living in an environment devoid of walnuts and hemp seeds, but then they would probably be living in a desert environment, devoid of fish.
Last I checked, raw food was the stuff that came out of my refridgerator. Probably not as good as eating it off the tree, as a caveat.
- poemgranite January 11, 2009 8:47PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
poemgranite:
In addition to the raw food , you also need to get that letter "d" to come out of your refrigerator.
- Correction
October 3, 2009 5:06AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
B12: Fortified foods or supplements are fine. Some people use nutritional yeast.
For more info, read this: http://www.veganhealth.org/articles/vitaminb12
Omega 3s: There are plant sources like flax seeds.
For more info, read this: http://www.veganhealth.org/articles/omega3
- ElaineVigneault January 25, 2009 5:57PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
"Depending on how restrictive one is with food choices s/he can potentially
miss out on other essential nutrients as well."
This holds true with any diet, as we have been told all our lives - eat a balanced diet. Cooked foods are not better source of essential nutrients.
"Lastly, if one isn't consuming any fatty fish s/he is missing out on the omega-3 fatty acids,
DHA and EPA, which have been found to lower heart disease risk, support immunity and
possibly inhibit some cancers."
Fatty fish is not the only source, if that were true for us to have survived this long, every human would have been living by the water. Obviously, people can survive on other sources when they are not consuming fish. - Flaxseeds, hemp seeds, pumpkin seeds, Leafy green vegetables, walnuts...
- AmyTuggle February 18, 2009 2:33PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
Just because someone eats meat does not mean they have adequate B12. B12 is not something that is "found in meat". It is a bacteria that is on the PLANTS that cattle eat, but if the cattle is raised on a feedlot as most are, B12 will not naturally be part of the cattle or your steak. Everyone should take a B12 supplement these days. It is necessary because of our over-emphasis on sterilization, which kills harmful bacteria, but also kills good bacteria like B12 from the plant foods we eat.
- fshwear August 14, 2009 2:24PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
Biweekly updates on new debates and experts
Please check your email to confirm your subscription.
© 2008-2010 Opposing Views, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Opposing Views, Inc. is not responsible for the content posted on this website. Please view full disclaimer under Terms
Is Raw Food Good For You?
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
I feel better on raw food
I have to say that there is a lot of pseudo science banded around about raw food; higher frequencies, spiritual mumbo jumbo, that kind of thing. And to be honest, when I read it, it makes me a little angry. But there are numerous instances were it has genuinely improved peoples health, I would recommend the film "Simply Raw - Reversing Diabetes in 30 Days" if you are interested in this. On a personal note, I've tried eating only raw foods on a number of occasions and always felt a noticeable improvement in my own health. The only reason I went back to eating cooked foods was for emotional reasons. I believe in time, there will be proper scientific evidence that supports the benefits of a raw food lifestyle. In the meantime, I would suggest taking a lot of the pseudo science that surrounds raw food with a large pinch of sea salt. If you want to improve your health, give it a go, you might be pleasantly surprised. One thing worth thinking about, you can't add nutrients to food by cooking it, only take them away. Yes, raw food is good for you.
- sosmix
November 26, 2008 11:43AM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
hmmmm
With reference to your last point while indeed cooking does not " add " nutrients it does make certain nutrients available which raw food doesn't (see http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=raw-veggies-are-healthier and http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg16221893.700 -boiled-is-best.html).
- liquidmonkey
May 15, 2009 11:46AM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
What happens to food as you cook it?
Answer: it's heated, which destroys certain molecules by breaking bonds, and those molecules in a lot of cases are the micronutrients that can only be obtained by eating foods in their raw state.
Of course uncooked meat is extremely unsafe, but then again, humans shouldn't be eating animal flesh anyway.
- bagpiper2005
February 22, 2009 12:54AM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Dr. Rosset
Human beings are omnivores and should be eating meat , fruit and vegetables. Those children who suffere the worst health problems and the most mental problems including severe retardation come from countries that eat have the least meat available to eat. It is a crime of abuse to suggest that human beings shouldn't be eating meat when it is our main source of protein for brain development. Remember that the first things a cult does is to control how much and what kind of protein you are allowed to eat. This is really criminal to suggest to people that eating meat is not meant for human beings when we are biologically driven to get our protein in this manner. This is just a political pose that has no basis in science . Also if meat is handled properly uncooked meat known as steak tartar is very good and is a staple in many French restaurants.
- Rosset
December 21, 2009 9:18PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
I just wonder...
The human species has been around for what....200,000 thousand years? What did they eat? Did they have their little stoves tucked away in a corner of their cave?
- rkm
June 4, 2009 3:15PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
cooking and evolution
Interestingly enough there is some indication that the development of humans into their modern form may relate to the invention of cooking by proto-humans. The development of cooking would enable humans to get more energy out of a given volume of food by breaking down the chemical components into a more easily digested form. This allowed for a smaller stomach and more energy for brain development.
- MrBook
July 27, 2009 10:10PM
Reply to this Recommend
(1)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
I found
This weird strange warning on the fish, chicken and beef I was about to eat raw.
It was like they didn't want me to catch some strange germ from them. They said I could Die if I didn't cook it.
As for the cave men... Maybe the raw food was part of why they didn't live as long as we do now.
Raw G.E. fruits and veggies are supposedly bad for you too.
You know what though they said smoking was good for you. Guess they aren't always right.
- ttut21
September 10, 2009 2:59AM
Reply to this Recommend
(1)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.