If you read Melissa’s blog Fitness NYC, you might already know her friend Gena (Jen-na), who wrote two informative posts found (here and here) about her approach to her raw lifestyle. These posts inspired Melissa to try eating raw for one day and made me want to try a raw foods challenge here on Hangry Pants. Gena read the article I posted yesterday about raw foods diets. Below is her response. Thank you Gena.
______________________________________________________________________
Hello all!
Gena here. I’m a young, high-raw vegan. This means that my diet consists of mostly raw fruits, vegetables, nuts, seeds, seaweeds, and occasional sprouted grains. I also eat cooked and steamed root vegetables. I’ve been a vegan for some time now, and raw for the last six months. Since “going raw” I’ve experienced countless benefits and improvements in my health; you can read more about my journey here and here.
The lovely Ms. Heather has offered me a chance to respond to Melanie Thomassian’s article on the raw foods diet, and I’m glad; though I think it’s smart to welcome all opinions on all ways of eating, I think this particular piece has some major logical and argumentative flaws. But I should begin with a few disclaimers.
1) I do not eat a mainstream diet. Mine is not a typical or conventional approach to food. This said, I believe that ALL people can benefit by adding raw foods to their diets, whatever those diets may be, and by following some of the principals of raw eating.
2) I’m not a scientist. I’ll respond to some of the claims about the science of raw eating here, but I claim no expertise.
This article is a genuine attempt to make sense of the raw food diet. And I understand that impulse: to the majority of Americans, even health-conscious ones, eating raw is a radical idea. We’re socially conditioned to equate a “hot meal” with nourishment, and to embrace cooking as both a means of making food taste its best and also as a means of social unity, of tradition, of culinary creativity. So the thought that preparing our food without heating it is understandably off-putting to most people. Additionally, eating raw excludes most of the foods that most of us are used to eating: processed foods of all kinds, hot grains, pasteurized dairy, cooked animal flesh. I don’t blame you if it seems crazy to you from afar: it once seemed crazy to me, too.
Part of the reason it seemed crazy is because I couldn’t wrap my mind around the science involved. The central claim (which Melanie Thomassian attacks) is that eating raw preserves many of the naturally occurring enzymes that help in digestion of food, and that it also preserves the vitamin content of most foods, which is (and this is true) often reduced by as much as 70% through the cooking process.
As far as I know, there is no solid science to prove the enzyme claim. And so I can’t totally refute Melanie’s disagreement. This said, I found her dismissive and condescending tone sadly indicative of the attitude with which most people view raw foods. Melanie is no different from most people in seeing the raw diet as a fringe movement, unmoored to scientific proof. But, also like most people, she’s clearly never tried the diet for herself.
And this is where science—in my opinion—bows to experience. What I always tell people about raw foods is that you can’t knock ‘em till you’ve tried ‘em. I was dubious about raw foods when I began my journey, too. But the evidence, ultimately, was in the way I felt after eating high raw. My IBS, which had been chronic since my early teens, all but disappeared. I immediately ceased getting symptoms of PMS and menstrual cramps. My seasonal allergies stopped. My moods became more even-keeled. My skin became brighter and rosier, and I had more energy. My cravings for sugar were lessened. This is all really good stuff. So, when it comes to raw eating, I tend to think that the proof is in the pudding. Check out any of the numerous raw foods resources or blogs out there. You’ll meet countless individuals who found, as I did, that seeing is believing.
But I guess it’s a good thing to respond to the science, right? So let’s try:
“However, one of the main problems with the raw food diet is that the philosophy behind it is scientifically flawed, and makes little sense biologically.
Here are some of the outlandish claims raw foodists make:
#1 Cooking food destroys its natural enzymes. While it is true to say that cooking can destroy some of the enzymes, most food enzymes are destroyed, or rendered inactive, by the acidity of the stomach anyway. So, not cooking food doesn’t save it from this fate. The simple fact is that plant enzymes are not needed for human digestion. Your digestive system is highly sophisticated at producing its own enzymes, which are specific to the food you eat. In fact even if the plant enzymes did survive the digestive enzymes, your body will still produce it’s own enzymes.”
OK. There’s an inherent contradiction in calling any claim “outlandish” and then acknowledging it as at least partially true. But setting this aside, there is at least some science to prove that cooking food does destroy enzymes (and vitamins, and minerals). As for Melanie’s faith in our digestive systems, it’s well-intentioned, but not totally sound. Any gastroenterologist will tell you (and a few have told me) that most of our digestive systems have been compromised by decades of eating crap. The standard American diet—full of refined sugar, processed food, excessive protein, hormones, fillers, and antibiotics—has wreaked havoc on our stomachs. And so most of us are less capable of producing those enzymes that the author claims are so readily available.
In a perfect world, yes, all of our digestive systems would run like magic. But (and I say this as someone who has suffered a lifetime of digestive problems), most of us can and would benefit from the experience of eating enzyme rich food in a totally unprocessed state.
“#2 Cooked food is toxic. This is an idiotic theory – if cooked food was toxic, the majority of the population would have been wiped out a long time ago.”
Can’t argue with this one, kids. The claim has always made me raise my eyebrows. But that doesn’t change the fact that my experience eating food has made me feel cleaner, lighter, etc.
#3 White blood cells flood the stomach after eating cooked food Apparently this is because they are trying to fight the poison that has just entered your body.
Under normal circumstances, a healthy body will not experience white blood cells entering the stomach – the stomach is simply not open to the vascular system.
This theory is not supported in any way, shape, or form by the medical literature.”
Again, I have no rebuttal.
#4 Cooked food is unrecognizable to the body. Again this is a complete misunderstanding of the digestive system – it assumes that the digestive system can distinguish between different foods, and their method of cooking. It doesn’t matter whether you eat raw meat, or cooked meat, it is treated just the same. The digestive enzymes break it down, and the resulting molecules are absorbed. Whatever can’t be used will pass right through the body.
Hmmm. Raw food is the consumption of vegetables, fruits, nuts and seeds in their living, uncooked, unpasteurized state. Is it SO crazy to suggest that the body has an easier time recognizing unprocessed food (whole plants, nuts, and fruits) than it does cooked grains, pasteurized dairy, and the like? Call me a lunatic, but this seems like common sense to me. Wouldn’t an apple or a walnut be more digestible (which is some of what raw foodists mean when they say “recognizable”) than processed food, full of soy isolates, chemical flavorings and colorings? How about meat/eggs/dairy that have been suffused with hormones, fillers, and antibiotics? To me, this one is a no brainer. Of course raw food is more easily assimilated into our bodies—not to mention a whole lot healthier—than food that has been processed.
#5 Raw food is more “natural.” Raw foodists claim this is one of the most natural diets around, however you need to ask yourself why such a “natural” diet runs the risks of being deficient in B12, zinc, iron, and omega-3 fatty acids, amongst other things?”
With regards to raw foods being more natural, see the response to #4.
As for the possibility of deficiencies in the raw food diet, this is where I take most issue with Melanie’s piece. To claim that the raw foods diet is unnatural because it can, if followed carelessly, result in nutritional deficiency, is ridiculous. ANY diet—from omnivorism to veganism to raw foodism—can leave you with deficiencies if you’re sloppy, underfed, or not thinking about nutrition. Of course you can end up with low zinc, iron, or fatty acids eating raw foods; you can also end up lacking those things just as easily eating cooked and omnivorous foods. Case in point: I was anemic and deficient in B vitamins for four years—and these were my early, pescatarian years, when I was still eating fish, dairy, and eggs. It was after I began life as a vegan that my anemia and deficiencies disappeared. I attribute this to the increase in greens that a raw diet encourages, as well as the addition of such a wide array of vegetables to my daily meals.
Because regardless of what anyone says, it’s undeniable that veggies remain the most nutrient rich foods out there. And if those veggies happen to have retained most of their vitamin content from being uncooked, so much the better! It always amuses me when a co-worker who is munching on an insipid turkey sandwich accuses me of not eating enough lunch. As if my enormous salad, stuffed with veggies, avocadoes, and nuts, is less nutritious than her sad little assembly of lunchmeat, topped with a single slice of tomato and lettuce. Or when I’m asked accusatorily: “what will you feed your children?” Assuming I raise them mostly or wholly vegan, I will have much less reason to worry about the vitamins they’re getting than the many Americans who are stuffing their kids with chips and lunchmeats and dairy products full of hormones and chemicals.
OK, I’ll get off the soapbox. My point is that people, even nutritionists, are mighty quick to point fingers at raw foodists for not getting enough nutrients, when in fact it’s the majority of the cooked-food-eating, soda-guzzling, and omnivorous population that’s not getting enough of what they need from unprocessed, plant based whole foods. And it’s unfair for raw foodism (or other diets seen as highly “restrictive”) to be criticized as long as its followers are eating with consciousness and awareness of their dietary needs. Potential pitfalls of the diet result from the approach of the person eating it—not the diet itself. And in my experience, raw foodists are among the most nutrition-savvy and health-minded people I know—people who are certain to get the nutrients they need.
As for Steve Pavlina’s experience: first of all, this quote is taken out of context. Steve admits that many of his attempts at eating raw have been hindered by lack of education or by the fact that he made his food prep overly complicated and exhausting. The blog also details all of the benefits he ultimately stumbled on (Steve is mostly raw today). This aside, my own raw foods transition was nothing like it. I did experience some mild detox symptoms, but they very quickly gave way to euphoria and boundless energy. Each body is different.
Sure, it’s silly to get extreme or restrictive with any diet. Which is why I make room in mine for cooked root veggies, steamed veggies, and dark chocolate. This means that I can enjoy the benefit of, say, the added lycopene that a cooked tomato offers (though I should also note that this is one of the rare examples of a food that is more nutrient-rich post-cooking), and all of the benefits of raw food, too. I find that a very high raw diet (90% or so) works for me, but I think that focusing on a number is silly: the main thing is to incorporate more raw, unprocessed food into every day life. Remember: the proof is in the pudding. Before you imagine that eating raw will be too crazy, or too hard, give it a shot. You might be surprised at how good you feel. And isn’t well-being all the evidence we need?
