Talk:Raw foodism/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Images Issue

eewwwww, the images in this article were so gross that I just lost my appitite, and as the user below me says the images should be typical of a raw food diet, the typical raw food diet dosen't include animal food, so instead of including all the really gross stuff like whale blubber, cheese with maggots, raw horse meat, and gross pickled eggs, maybe show more typical raw foods, props to the sprouts and muesli, amybe show some nut based foods, and such, this article is supposed to show an unbiased view of raw foodism, and I don't feel that the immages selected present that view.70.69.35.144 (talk) 20:44, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

This is absolutely shocking. Someone has arbitrarily deleted all the images without mentioning it here. I can only assume that this is because there's no real justification for it. While there may be a wikipedia policy against too many images being used(never heard of it, IMO), it's certainly essential that some images are kept to explain each particular wikipedia page, where appropriate - I don't expect images to be used for a wikipedia page on something wholly abstract, such as a page on egalitarianism, say,, but raw food diets are all about raw foods, so that there should be typical -image-examples of raw foods on such diets.Loki0115 (talk) 21:36, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Some newby, User:SandyGeorgia, just bulk deleted a bunch of stuff, obviously a nice piece of Wikipedia:Wikilawyering and a good example of what's wrong with wikipedia. I'm reverting. 75.14.214.73 (talk) 21:56, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Incidently, the alleged "stacking problem" claimed by SandyGeorgia is solved by the use of Template:FixBunching. 75.14.214.73 (talk) 22:08, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

It could be SandyGeorgia has an error in their browser setup, but they should fix their own browser, rather then attempt to make wikipedia conform to their browser setup, certainly just deleting images isn't the answer. SandyGeorgia owes us an explanation. 75.15.207.156 (talk) 03:14, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

First, the images weren't deleted; they were commented out with a request that you fix them. Second, please see WP:NOT. Third, please see WP:ACCESSIBILITY and WP:MOS#Images. Fourth, take care with calling me a newbie, pls, thank you. Fifth, interesting amount of IPs on this article. Sixth, unwatched; no need to contact me again as I'm not inclined to spend time on articles that are in dire need of cleanup work but that show little evidence of collaborative effort. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:28, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, I for one am pleased that there is a lot more collaborative effort than a few months before. The info re food-poisoning was in dire need of expansion among many other issues - 1 sentence wasn't enough. The wp:not link didn't seem to be relevant, it only banned images that didn't have text underneath them. I'm pretty sure all had some basic description of some sort(?). I agree, though, that if there were any issues re images making the page difficult to view etc., that they should be addressed. There are 9 images on the cooked-palaeolithic page, some of them placed on the left, some on the right. Perhaps someone could do something similiar, here. I unfortunately don't have a clue how to get this done. Apologies, anyway, for accusing previous poster of outright deletion- should have checked history notes and edited file.Loki0115 (talk) 13:02, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

The images have already been fixed with Template:FixBunching. Problem solved. 75.15.193.158 (talk) 19:17, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia is an experienced editor, especially for science-related articles and we should listen and learn from her suggestions. The article was 'ridiculously overlinked'...true. There is no need to link 'fruit', but 'paleodiet' could be linked. We have way too many pictures. Browse other articles to compare. --—CynRN ^(Talk) 01:56, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Sandy is also a major volunteer with the Featured Articles process. Her particular task is to make sure that articles comply with the Manual of Style. If she says something about style isues, then we can safely assume that she's right. Especially since the article now has so many images, a gallery might look very nice. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:17, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree that fruit should not be linked to, but, IMO, the cooked paleolithic diet page has 9 images(roughly same as ours?) and has an endless series of links(much like many other pages), so I don't think the raw foodism page is over-the-top by contrast - could the images be downsized, perhaps? Loki0115 (talk) 10:03, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree that SandyGeorgia is an established editor and the advice given was very valuable and unfortunately ignored. Please take the advice given though, before this editor decided not to return above. I also agree with CynRN and WhatamIdoing comments, a cleaner article is better, too many pictures gobbed together, in my opinion plus more refs are needed. I tried for awhile to research to get the refs but someone was always changing what I went looking for so I stopped. --CrohnieGal^Talk 12:46, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. But what no. of images is then acceptable? And which sections haven't enough refs? Loki0115 (talk) 15:00, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand the accusations that this article has too many images, there certainly is plenty of text to go with the images and we are in the age of multimedia, images attract readers. As for references, if someone feels a statement requires a reference, add the Template:cn tag to it, like this:. And of course it goes without saying that major changes should be discussed here first to reach consensus, see wikipedia policy Wikipedia:Consensus, rather than just boldly making unilateral changes. Or alternately, feel free to make bold moves, see Wikipedia:Be bold, but don't be surprised if someone then boldly reverts your bold move and suggests you raise the topic on talk first to reach consensus. Thank you for your time. 68.123.72.112 (talk) 18:51, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Crohnie, There are 130 refs in this article. How many do you think it should have? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:30, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Since SandyGeorgia prefers galleries, I was bold and made a gallery out of the images, see what people think. If nobody likes it, it can be easily reverted. Per wikipedia style, there's supposed to be some image in the upper right, I selected the first image for that purpose. 68.123.72.112 (talk) 19:37, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I should warn editors that just any old internet link does not necessarily count as a Wikipedia:Reliable references, so if someone contests an unsupported link to a blog page, that may be the reason why. 68.123.72.112 (talk) 19:40, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

True enough re reliable refs! For the health claims, like "potential harm of cooked food" the references should be peer reviewed articles out of reliable journals. For "Beliefs" or something about the raw food movement, a lesser quality ref can be used, I would think. I don't think every little change needs to be hashed out. However, if there was something I thought needed to be cut out or deleted, I would want to discuss it here first, as I would hope other editors would do...unless they are very experienced editors who probably know what they are doing!--—CynRN ^(Talk) 23:19, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

The number of refs is already something like 130 - the cooked palaeolithic diet page has something like 140 references, so I don't think there's any need for dozens more references, really. Perhaps people could point out which sections/paragraphs require more refs? Loki0115 (talk) 13:36, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced table

I moved the table just now, and the Wiki software is displaying it at the very bottom of the page. Doubtless there's a formatting problem. However, I'd really like the table itself to entirely disappear -- with all the information being turned into readable prose in the ==Raw food diets== section. I'm not exactly sure which of the remaining ones should go into the existing main categories vs. getting their own subsection. If someone could finish that merge-to-text process off, then I won't have to figure out what I've done to the table formatting. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:32, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't see why not add the different diets to the sections they belong in. I am not sure the founder's names and all that detail need to be included. --—CynRN ^(Talk) 23:37, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I fixed the table, which was faulty. I noticed that some of the raw diets(80/10/10) diet and "garden diet" were removed. I'd like to know from whoever did it, what the rationale was behind this - (unless it was just a simple error such as whatamidoing described). I think it's a given that Fruitarianism(excluded in the table) should be mentioned in the Raw Vegan(renamed raw plant-food?) section. It seems to have its own wikipedia page, by the way:-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fruitarianism

Re including details of gurus:- it is absolutely essential that the gurus' names etc. are included, with some detail on dietary guidelines and any (notable) unusual details about the diet. It's a fact that most diets are entirely personality-driven, with one guru/expert at the top, at all times, so that it's impossible to separate the guru from the diet - sort of like mentioning Roman Catholicism without mentioning the Pope. Loki0115 (talk) 10:17, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, for now, I'll try to include all Primal Diet information in the Raw animal foods section. Hope that's OK with everyone. Then, I'll laboriously get rid of the primal diet info on the table. Also, in which section does the Instincto Diet go as it covers both plant-foods and animal foods - technically, most instinctos eat mostly raw plant-foods and only a little raw animal food(10%?) - perhaps they could be described under a general "raw foodism" subgroup?Loki0115 (talk) 10:22, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Correction needed

The reference in the current table to jason mraz as an adherent of raw-foodism as a subgroup is misleading. In his blog:-

http://freshnessfactorfivethousand.blogspot.com/2008/06/travel-tip-3-bring-big-fucking-knife.html

jason only mentions eating raw plant-foods. There's no mention of raw animal foods, which seems to mean that jason is using the raw-foodist label to mean raw veganism.

Do people want to merge the (raw)fruitarianism page as well, with the raw foodism article? I mean if raw veganism is included, then fruitarianism should as well, I suppose.Loki0115 (talk) 10:52, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Fruitarianism

Fruitarianism is here under Raw veganism and linked to the fruitarianism page. I think that's fine as it is. --—CynRN ^(Talk) 16:51, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, if people don't think Fruitarianism should be merged with the Raw Foodism page, then, obviously, it would be inappropriate for anyone to only merge the raw-veganism page with the raw foodism page without doing the same with the fruitarian page, so the raw veganism page should stay as it is.Come to think of it, just a thought, but some people here have been complaining that the raw foodism article is becoming bloated, so why not have a separate page for raw animal food diets, with more specific information on the primal diet or whatever being held there? Loki0115 (talk) 17:48, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I have been thinking that this would be a good idea. The few studies out there about raw foodism are nearly all concerning raw veganism. Most raw foodists are vegans. The meat eaters seem quite different and deserve their own article. Go for it! --—CynRN ^(Talk) 04:01, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

The point behind merging in Raw veganism is largely because it is a very short article and nearly every single sentence needs to be here anyway because it is the dominant form of raw food diet. Fruitarianism, by contrast, is already a moderate size article, and most of what's there does not need to be here. I have no objection to a separate article for raw animal diets, so long as there's really enough reliably sourced information to make it much longer than what we need to have here. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:21, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that Fruitarianism is merely a less popular subset of raw Veganism(Raw Vegans eat raw fruit after all as well as raw veg), so I think it would be a bit strange to merge the larger raw veganism page but not the Fruitarianism page. The only reason why the Raw Veganism page isn't longer is because there hasn't been anyone, knowledgeable about raw veganism who is much interested in the page, IMO. Given that the Raw Vegan movement is the most popular of the raw-food-diets, it potentially has far more info to write about than any of the other diets, therefore.Loki0115 (talk) 09:35, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I'll see about doing a page on Raw Animal Food diets. I won't delete duplicated info from the raw-foodism page until it's completed, as I'm not even sure if it merits a whole page on its own. I'll just have to write it over a long period of time, and get feedback from others.Loki0115 (talk) 09:35, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Exactly, at what point(how many lines?) does an article become long enough for it to be reliably included as a new wikipedia page without being incorporated into other pages? Loki0115 (talk) 09:46, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

It's not just an issue of length, but anything less than ten sentences is always considered a stub and likely to be merged in.

The important consideration is the amount of information that is in the "specialized" article and that should not be included in the main article. In the case of Raw veganism, the difference between what's in that article and what should be in Raw foodism is essentially zero. There's no point in having a separate article if every single sentence (or nearly every sentence) is duplicated in the main article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:01, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Instinctive Eating/Anopsology

There's already a page on Anopsology, online, which I will include in the Raw Animal Food section for now. Since it already has its own web-page, I will use roughly the same number of words as is used on the raw foodism page to describe fruitarianism, which also has its own web-page. Instincto/anopsology is a mostly raw plant-food diet but some members eat raw meats - difficult to know where to place it - perhaps under a "raw-foodism" category? Loki0115 (talk) 15:55, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

That's a new one on me! I think if raw meat is eaten and that is allowed as a tenet of the belief, that they would go under the 'raw animal product' diet section. The schism seems wide between the vegans and non-vegans. --—CynRN ^(Talk) 16:20, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I think you're right. I've just mentioned Anopsology in passing as one of the diets. Anyone wanting to know more, just has to click on that link, just like with Fruitarianism.Loki0115 (talk) 17:14, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I think that approach is fine...just a mention and a link. I've been finding some articles that talk about the 'rarity' of the raw food diets and also the difficulty of getting enough calories: http://seattlepi.com/food/361074_rawfood30.html

and http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4389837.stm Very interesting reading up on Anopsology, by the way! Fringy, indeed. --—CynRN ^(Talk) 17:18, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Some think "Caloric restriction" is an advantage. 64.149.83.244 (talk) 18:48, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

That's true, caloric restriction studies on the fasting page, mention positive results(also intermittent fasting). At any rate, it should be made clear that such concern re calories should only reference raw vegan diets as diets consisting of sufficient raw animal foods would easily provide enough calories - and besides,all such articles re calories/raw foods refer to raw vegan diets. Loki0115 (talk) 21:41, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Anopsology isn't fringy at all. It's big in France and Germany(called "Rohkost" there). There's also a presence in the US, though most follow the Primal Diet, these days, or something similiar.

As regards rarity of raw foodism in general, I have my doubts. There are just too many raw-food-gurus, each with their own following. Even Aajonus makes conservative claims of 20,000 (raw-meat-eating)Primal Dieters in North America alone, and given his financial success(he lives in Malibu, and jets all over the world), I have no reason to doubt him. Raw Vegans must number far more in the US/Canada, than all raw-meat-eaters together, including Primal dieters.Plus, the very fact of the plenty of media-articles on the subject implies that it's more popular than those 2 articles might suggest.Loki0115 (talk) 21:47, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Also, this article points out how popular raw food diets are:-

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/5847.php Loki0115 (talk) 21:49, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

The article you cite here talks about the "popularity" of diets...it could be read as "what are the new fad diets?". There is growing interest in the 'raw' concept but there are no figures on how many people follow it. 20,000 people is not a large percentage of the country. From the BBC article: "Dr Stephen Walsh, nutrition spokesperson for the Vegan Society... stressed that raw food vegetarians account for only a minority of people who are vegan and vegetarian, and that some might find it difficult to get enough calories to maintain a healthy weight eating only raw foods."

And "A spokeswoman from the Vegetarian Society said Raw foods can and should be included within this 'balance' but it is not advisable to embark on an exclusively raw food diet without proper research and expert advice".

I want to include this concept...especially that raw food vegetarians are a minority of the vegetarian population. --—CynRN ^(Talk) 22:37, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

20,000 only covers the Primal-Dieters, and is a somewhat overly conservative estimate, with the Primal Dieters being only a small subset of the total number of Raw-Animal-Foodists. Worldwide figures for non-raw-meat-eating Raw Vegans are far higher than Raw Animal Foodists in total, given the much greater popularity of the former - so figures for raw-foodists as a whole would be in the millions, worldwide. But this is beside the point. No other diets on wikipedia, AFAIK, (Atkins etc.) focus on the number of people doing the diet as a) it's impossible to estimate the exact(or even rough) total of people doing such diets - and the number of people doing such diets is irrelevant as to whether one should do the diet, or not - by including such a point re stating that raw-foodism is a fringe-view ,that would be implying that "raw food diets" are somehow "bad/evil" because they are "fringe" - being "fringe" isn't something "bad", anyway, and the notability of raw food diets, given numerous raw food restaurants, multiple online forums etc. etc., indicates that they are anything BUT fringe. Loki0115 (talk) 10:31, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Fringe doesn't mean 'bad/evil'! All that needs to be conveyed is that raw foodism has been and still is considered fringe, but that there is a lot of interest in it and that it is growing.

http://calorielab.com/news/2006/07/08/diet-tv-48-hours-looks-at-extreme-and-fringe-weight-loss/

Diet TV: ‘48 Hours’ looks at extreme and fringe weight loss

"This week WE’s 48 Hours investigates extreme and fringe weight loss tactics like liposuction, gastric bypass, and raw food."

http://www.welikeitraw.com/rawfood/2008/02/raw-vs-dunkin.html

"Eating a raw food diet is still considered alternative. On the fringe. People don’t understand it. What is so hard to understand? Food that naturally grows from the earth"

http://www.miaminewtimes.com/2008-06-19/restaurants/raw-deal/

"If vegans are a "Hezbollah-like splinter faction" of the vegetarian movement, as Anthony Bourdain once wrote, then raw foodists would be that group's loopiest fringe."--—CynRN ^(Talk) 19:54, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi--I had a lot of problems with this article, but the heavy content on anopsology and raw meat eaters really skews the perception of raw food. I contribute articles and to forums and blogs and am writing a book on raw foodism and human evolution, and I've done a lot of research, and I've never even heard of anopsology until now. Out of hundreds of posts (maybe thousands) on GoneRaw that I've read (and it's one of the biggest raw food sites), there have maybe one or two mentions of eating raw meat. I think that the raw meat eaters are probably 1 or 2% of the raw foodists. I have loads of books on raw foods and have read many others, and in most cases raw meat eating is not mentioned or perhaps mentioned in passing. Can this thing have its own article?

Thanks! MMMickmastor (talk) 06:57, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure we'd be thrilled to have good, properly sourced information about raw veganism added to this article so that it is more appropriately balanced. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:23, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I disagree re the notion that raw animal foodists are only 1-2% of raw vegan population. The figure seems to be much higher, especailly when one includes raw animal food eating tribes like the Nenets, or weston-price advocates who eat partially-raw diets including raw animal foods like raw dairy or raw liver. Besides, the websites cited are ALL raw-vegan- forums/websites, and most raw vegan forums have strict guidelines which forbid the mention of raw animal foods completely, on pain of expulsion, so it's hardly surprising that raw animal food-posts aren't mentioned as they'd be switftly deleted. That said, it would be a good idea to expand the raw veganism entry and add relevant info(perhaps examples of tribes eating a raw vegan diet or whatever).Loki0115 (talk) 15:15, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Unwarranted deletion

I noticed that the leslie kenton paragraph in the history section was deleted. No real explanation offered, so I'll restore it.Loki0115 (talk) 22:03, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Mercola not reliable site

See this link for list of unreliable sites:

I'll use another reference.Loki0115 (talk) 13:48, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

2 paragraphs need to be deleted

Someone has recently included two rather lengthy paragraphs/sections "raw food workshops" and "UK raw hotspots", which are, IMO, too vague and too lacking in the kind of detail that Wikipedia needs, IMO. I vote for their deletion.Any agree?Loki0115 (talk) 17:12, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I see that these sections keep being reinserted. I agree with you, Loki. These sections lack references and aren't that notable. The article already says that resources are available to those wanting to learn more and "hotspots" could be added in a couple words to the "movement" section, i.e. "interest is growing in California, New York and London" or something like that. We do have an "America-centric" viewpoint here and we could work in something about the raw foodists overseas.--—CynRN ^(Talk) 16:46, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, in that case, I'll delete the 2 paragraphs. I'll add in the UK and Australia as places where interest in raw foodism is growing. That's just 2 extra words, instead of 2 whole, unecessary paragraphs, with no real information in them.Loki0115 (talk) 14:21, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Archiving the talk page

The talk page has become very long, I can archive part of the page if you would like. --Phenylalanine (talk) 01:45, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what archiving means, but if it avoids having to scroll down pages upon pages of text, that's fine, I guess.Loki0115 (talk) 21:16, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

The archives are in the top-right corner of the screen just below the talk page banners. I fixed the archive template to make the archive box more apparent. --Phenylalanine (talk) 00:26, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Citing books

I see that several (inappropriate) refs using Amazon.com were removed. I wonder whether the new links are actually any better, however. Are you aware of the magic word, ISBN? If you add ISBN 1234567890123 (or whatever the number is) to the end of the ref, it will automagically create a link to a page that lists many ways to find the specific book in question. The ISBN is a highly desirable piece of information, and I encourage you to include it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:41, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not really sure what you mean? Do I just include the ISBN number within the segments? Or should I also include the relevant website as well which feature the books?Loki0115 (talk) 21:08, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

At the end of the (normal, proper, full) citation, you type ISBN 9781889356105 (for We want to live). If the "relevant website" is selling the books or is otherwise undesirable, then skip the website. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:59, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

No, you need a normal, proper, full citation, exactly like your English teacher wanted you to use, followed by the ISBN number. It should look something like this:

Aajonus Vonderplanitz (2002). The Recipe for Living Without Disease. Carnelian Bay Castle Press, LLC. ISBN 1-889356-84-0.

Just the ISBN number by itself isn't very useful to the reader. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:05, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Mycotoxins

Mycotoxins, which are (for example) the proteins in mushrooms that can kill you, has twice been added to a list of infectious disease agents today. I invite its supporters to provide reliable sources demonstrating either or both of the following:

1. that mycotoxins are an agent of infectious disease, similar to bacteria, viruses, fungi, and other parasites, and
2. that the toxicity of these proteins can be significantly or reliably reduced by cooking, despite the experience of anyone that's cooked and eaten poisonous mushrooms (which do remain poisonous despite cooking).

--WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:27, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Judging from online sources, cooking only works on mycotoxins at pretty high temperatures(above 150 degrees Centigrade) and even then only works on some mycotoxins, with less success on other types:-

http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=19891204

Also, from an anti-raw website:-

"From Marth [1990], mycotoxins (toxins produced by molds) are completely destroyed at their melting point, which is generally at high temperatures: 164°C (327°F) for Zearalenone, 170°C (338°F) for Rubratoxia. When roasting peanuts, the toxicity of aflatoxin B1 is reduced by 70%, and that of aflatoxin B2 by 45%. Thus, heat treatment cannot be considered as a satisfactory means to eliminate mycotoxins"

taken from:-

http://www.beyondveg.com/tu-j-l/raw-cooked/raw-cooked-1g.shtml

Many mycotoxins are heat-stable and unaffected by cooking:-

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6TCR-44P6VGR-6&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=7a070c0442672972ba1b13e002f41c9b :Loki0115 (talk) 16:40, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that generally lines up with my impression. What mostly irritates me about this is that the grammar represents mycotoxins as if they were a kind of parasite, which is absurd, instead of merely being redundant with the "fungi" already listed in that sentence. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:49, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Fungi and Mycotoxins are not the same thing, see the wikipedia articles for details. 75.14.212.68 (talk) 17:28, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I know that. But it's still redundant. Here's the first sentence: "Mycotoxin...is a toxin produced by an organism of the fungus kingdom". Fungi -- "organisms of the fungus kingdom" -- are already named in this sentence. So why should we name "fungi" and "the toxins they produce" in the same sentence? WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:53, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Don't forget that this is an encyclopedia. You may know that mycotoxins are produced by fungi, but you should not assume the reader knows that. Mycotoxins are certainly an issue in food, and sometimes cooking reduces them and sometimes it does not. The same goes for fungi. Your claim that mycotoxins should not be mentioned because they are produced by fungi assumes all readers know that, bad assumption to make. 64.149.83.163 (talk) 19:19, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Poorly referenced paragraph

There's a very dubious paragraph, present for some time in the raw-food-criticism section whichI have had numerous concerns about and should, IMO, be removed, as it's not up to wikipedia standards:-

"Some nutrients in cooked foods, are more available to the body than in raw foods. Heating foods normally makes their nutrients more easily digestible by breaking down the husks and skin in the food, bursting open the cells so that the contents are more available, modifying the molecules, breaking down large indigestible molecules into smaller digestible molecules, and finally, breaking down toxins or chemicals in the food"

First of all, the above paragraph is taken, almost wholesale, from a rather unreliable website which looks more like an opinionated blog than a serious unbiased media-source. The article referred to in the above paragraph in question, provides no references whatsoever,for its comments, and makes absurd overgeneralisations, such as the theory that heating foods "normally" makes their nutrients more easily digestible.

Now, I'm well aware that cooking does reduce antinutrients in the case of some specific foods(grains being a perfect example), and wouldn't mind specific foods being singled out in the raw foodism wikipedia article as being better cooked than raw(non-sprouted grains are a brilliant example) - given that I have already provided evidence from other studies showing that some foods are better digested in raw form than in their cooked equivalent, I do think that the same rigorousness should apply to the anti-raw side as well.

Anyway, I look forward to others providing more rigorous references re the claim that cooked-foods are better digested than raw foods - shouldn't be difficult. I will sooner or later remove the offending paragraph if someone else doesn't replace it with something better in the next 7 days. Loki0115 (talk) 17:21, 19 October 2008 (UTC) Since no one has addressed the above issue, I've deleted the offending paragraph. I suppose I'll have to add in a more accurate paragraph detailing how grains are better digested in cooked-form. I'll do that by next Sunday evening.Loki0115 (talk) 10:07, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Formatting of refs

This bit:

A scientific report by the Nutrition Society describes in detail the loss of nutrients caused by cooking. Here is a table showing typical losses of nutrients as a result of cooking, and here[1] is a scientific report detailing the loss of nutrients and the decrease in the digestibility of meats after cooking.

needs to have its refs cleaned up. WP:EL bans visible links in articles (i.e., making words like "report" and "here" be things you can click to get the information). These need re-worked to be formal, encyclopedic statements, with proper <ref>s. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:47, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Omophagia

Take a look at this article: Omophagia. We definitely need a link to this article on the page. --Phenylalanine (talk) 03:03, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Nutrtional deficiencies

Under the ==Criticism== section, we have a statement that B12 and other nutrients are more easily obtained from animal sources than from vegetable sources. This has been removed twice as being "POV". I have reverted it to match the source, which says,

"If you're going to pick things out of your diet to not eat you're going to suffer deficiencies," says Dawn Jackson Blatner, registered dietitian. She's concerned that following the diet could make it difficult to get adequate amounts of calcium, vitamin D, vitamin B12, iron, zinc and protein: nutrients that are much easier to get if you eat foods from animal sources.

The emphasis is mine. I point out that a criticism section is actually supposed to represent the position of the critics fairly and accurately, and that it must reflect the reliable sources that are supporting it.

I also point out that the amount of trouble involved in popping a synthetic B12 pill is not merely the time it takes to swallow the pill; this is the sort of consumerist fallacy that leaves kids thinking that potatoes spring completely formed and pre-washed from a box in the back room of a grocery store. The raw ingredients have to be produced, the pills have to be manufactured and tested, they have to be shipped, they have to be stocked at the store, bought by the consumer, and transported home -- a lot of hidden work before you get to the quick task of popping a pill. If just swallowing the pill were "all it takes", then you could just as easily get B12 by swallowing a glass of cow or goat milk, or by popping round to your nearest fast food restaurant for a hamburger, because "all it takes" is eating the ready-made product that someone hands to you in a piece of waxed paper.

I'm willing to discuss wording, but the result must conform to the actual views of critics. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:13, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

You did not apply the same standard in comparing the production of B-12 pills with the production of cow or goat milk. Very few people in my society keep cows or goats; most people who consume cow or goat milk must buy it from the store. You said: "The raw ingredients have to be produced, the pills have to be manufactured and tested, they have to be shipped, they have to be stocked at the store, bought by the consumer, and transported home..." Just as much work has to be done in the production of cow or goat milk! An animal has to be inseminated, cared for through gestation, the infant animal must nurse and then be fed and medically monitored through to adulthood. Crops must be grown and fed to the animal as feed. The animal must be milked. The milk must be bottled, treated, tested, and shipped. You have presented a false economy when it comes to milk consumption as relatively "easier" than B-12 pill consumption.

Here is a source which disputes the statement about the relative "ease" of obtaining B-12 from vegan sources: "Achieving an adequate B12 intake is easy and there are several methods to suit individual preferences." Clearly, whether an individual finds it "easy" to obtain B-12 is individual. The statement about the ease of obtaining B-12 from animal sources is POV and must be removed. Whatever404 (talk) 21:08, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I know that milk requires a lot of complex production work. However, the act of consuming it is just as easy as the act of consuming a pill (easier, for some people). Your edit summary sets up the thoroughly false dichotomy of quickly swallowing a pill vs. cooking animal flesh. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:39, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Original research (Human Evolution)

The following text constitutes original research and must be removed. None of the sources make reference to Wrangham's theory:

However, this view is contrasted by the fact that a hunter-gatherer tribe, the Nenets of Siberia, has been following a diet consisting mostly of raw meats, raw organs and raw berries for generations, without issues [...] The particular stance of Wrangham's, re cooking leading to bigger human brains and adaptability to cooked-foods, has been contrasted with several studies showing that average human brain-size has actually decreased in the last 35,000 years by 11%.

--74.14.213.244 (talk) 13:22, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, this is definitely a case of original research and I have removed it. In any case, a Washington Post article is not the same as an actual comprehensive anthropological analysis of the Nenet diet.

I also removed the following claim, which is not backed up by its citations:

"Also most other anthropologists oppose Wrangham, contending that archeological evidence suggests that cooking fires began in earnest only 250,000 years ago, when ancient hearths, earth ovens, burnt animal bones, and flint appear across Europe and the middle East.[2]"

"Most other anthropologists oppose" is a use of weasel words. The claim is not addressed by the citation, which is about the issue of whether tubers per se were important in developing big brains. This is a separate issue from the Wrangham paper cited in the actual Wikipedia article, which addresses whether diets composed solely of raw foods have played a significant role in human evolution.

In contrast to Loki0115's claim on the history page that "paragraph was relevant in that it cited sources/studies which debunked Wrangham's central theory that cooked-food leads to bigger brains," Wrangham's central claim is more about the history of cooking in human evolution and nutrition, not the issue of big brains.

-Yawar.fiesta (talk)

This point has already been discussed endlessly in previous times(see archives) and an almost identical claim to yours was rejected wholesale, as it wasn't in line with Wikipedia's guidelines. First of all, Wrangham makes 2 points in his overall theory, first of all, that cooked-food led to bigger brains(indeed, judging from online articles it's his most central theme:-

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

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

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=evolving-bigger-brains-th

Given Wrangham's obsession with the above point and the fact that it's cited in the pro-Wrangham argument in that paragraph, it needs to be addressed. Yes, the 2 papers cited don't mention it, but every other mention of Wrangham does(and , indeed, there were earlier citations/references to Wrangham's claims re cooked-food leading to bigger brains, but someone must have removed them).

The point made about "most other anthropologists" in that journal is a perfectly valid one, because that is the majority view of anthropologists as regards Wrangham's theory, and made from a reliable(Wikipedia-friendly) source. It is also pointed out in that article by those anthropologists that most of the evidence indicates that cooking was started only 250,000 years ago or so - yet Wrangham's central point is that cooking was supposedly invented millions of years ago - so Wrangham's unusual claim needs to be addressed. It would also be a double-standard to accept the viewpoint of one single nutritionist as regards the supposed harmlessness of cooked-foods, in order to demonstrate the mainstream view vis-a-vis raw-foodism(as displayed further up the wikipedia raw foodism page in the "potential harmful effects of cooked-foods" section), while ignoring the accepted viewpoint of "most other paleoanthropologists" that cooking was invented at a much later date than Wrangham claims, given current evidence to date(ie very little evidence exists to support the idea that cooking was invented millions of eyars ago, as Wrangham claims, and such evidence is disputed heavily).

As regards the mention of the Nenets as proof of a tribe following a primarily raw-foodist diet, that is necessary to show a contrast to Wrangham's unsupported claims in his papers that no hunter-gatherer tribes have ever managed to survive on raw foods. Plus, according to Wikipedia, an article from a mainstream newspaper such as The Washington Post is considered "notable". it's a bit difficult to argue that an article from The Washington Post is not reliable when Wikipedia itself points out that "The (Washington) Post is generally regarded among the leading daily American newspapers, along with The New York Times, which is known for its general reporting and international coverage, and The Wall Street Journal, which is known for its financial reporting."

Also, there are plenty of studies showing that human brain-size has decreased in the last 11,000 years. This is a central point of palaeoanthropology, and one that Wrangham fails to address.

Given my above points, and the fact that this issue has already been discussed and decided, months ago, via arbitration etc.(see archives), I feel justified in reverting back to the previous Raw Foodism Wikipedia entry.Loki0115 (talk) 12:43, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Lastly, I should add that, contrary to the claim in the hsitory section, there are indeed several citations/references backing the above claims.Loki0115 (talk) 12:47, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

In short, the following two sentences need to be removed essentially because they make no reference to Wrangham and his beliefs regarding raw foodism, which makes the sentences Original research. What you need to do is find sources that mention (1) the health of the Nenets of Siberia as well as (2) the decrease in human brain-size in the last 35,000 years in connection with Wrangham's suggestions re: raw foodism. Otherwise, you're making novel connections not supported by the sources.

• However, this view is contrasted by the fact that a hunter-gatherer tribe, the Nenets of Siberia, has been following a diet consisting mostly of raw meats, raw organs and raw berries for generations, without issues
• The particular stance of Wrangham's, re cooking leading to bigger human brains and adaptability to cooked-foods, has been contrasted with several studies showing that average human brain-size has actually decreased in the last 35,000 years by 11%.

Regarding previous archived discussions on original research, they pertain to the "improper" use of sources that do not refer to the "topic of the article". The issue here concerns the use of sources that do not refer to what it is that they serve to critique. There is no question at all that this is original research. I trust that this material will be removed promptly.

--Thermoproteus (talk) 12:04, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, the Nenet tribe reference can be left in the raw animal food diets as an example of a healthy tribe eating a raw diet - so, I'm less bothered about that, but I guess I agree that it should mention Wrangham or be left otut of the last paragraph concerning Wrangham. I'll try to reword the data behind the decrease in brain-size and cite other anthropologists's criticism in detail - it's mentioned routinely in palaeoanthropology papers so it's rather dishonest for Wrangham to ignore it. There is 1 site which debunks Wrangham's tuber theory directly, but it wasn't allowed, despite the fact that it's an anti-raw website, run by an organisation of people(not a private website), and a scholarly one referencing various scientific studies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Loki0115 (talk • contribs) 19:40, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I have two questions:

• Where in the source is it stated that, "currently, most anthropologists adhere to the theory that it was meat-eating and tool-use, rather than cooking, which led to the increase in human brain-size"?
• Where in the source provided is this statement explicitly connected to Wrangham and his belief? (Quotes please)

--Thermoproteus (talk) 13:14, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

First of all, I think you've got the wrong context. The article isn't about Wrangham, as a whole, it's about raw-foodism, with Wrangham merely being a side-reference to support the notion that "raw-foodism" is somehow "bad". So, it's legitimate to point out that the mainstream view is that meat-consumption(raw meat by implication as it was pre-the advent of cooking) was responsible for human evolution rather than cooking as such.The specific reference merely had a statement stating that the meat-theory was the dominant view, I paraphrased it perhaps differently, so can't find the original statement, admittedly. However, here's another article with the first few sentences illustrating that majority view:-

http://www.iianthropology.org/TinaCoates

It should be noted that there is already a reference to the majority view among anthropologists being in favour of the meat-theory, in an article about Wrangham, already displayed as one of the references in the raw foodism page:-

"Invoking diet to explain the differences between H. erectus and earlier forms such as H. habilis, a species known only from fragmentary fossils, and our more apelike ancestors, the australopithecines, is nothing new. The size difference between males and females in H. erectus is narrower than it is in the australopithecines of half a million years earlier. And the brains of both sexes grew larger while their guts and teeth shrank; the most dramatic changes occurred between specimens assigned to early Homo species and those classed in H. erectus. "There's no other point [in time] when you get such large changes," says Wrangham.

"The traditional dietary explanation, however, is a shift from nuts and berries to meat. Cut marks on animal bones suggest that humans had mastered meat-eating, perhaps by scavenging carcasses, by 1.8 million years ago. Many researchers have assumed that this high-quality food fueled the rise of H. erectus, enabling it to process food with smaller teeth and guts and nourishing larger brains and bodies. And with more food to go around, females began to catch up with males in size. " taken from:-

http://cogweb.ucla.edu/Abstracts/Pennisi_99.html (4th and 5th paragraphs).

I'm open to suggestions, but the fact that meat-eating is the dominant view needs to be made clear as Wrangham's view of cooking and human brain-size/evolution is considered seriously dubious by the majority in his field, given the lack of evidence for his claims.Loki0115 (talk) 14:37, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I strongly suggest that you use the "http://cogweb.ucla.edu/Abstracts/Pennisi_99.html" ref to back up the statement that "currently, most anthropologists adhere to the theory that it was meat-eating and tool-use, rather than cooking, which led to the increase in human brain-size". Also, you might want to replace "currently, most anthropologists adhere to the theory that" perhaps with "The traditional view is that", which sticks more to the source. Secondly, it is NOT legitimate "to point out that the mainstream view is that meat-consumption (raw meat by implication as it was pre-the advent of cooking) was responsible for human evolution rather than cooking as such." This is not an article on human evolution and I don't know of any researcher who argues that because we mostly evolved on raw meet, raw meat is superior to cooked meat. So the statement "currently, most anthropologists adhere to the theory that it was meat-eating and tool-use, rather than cooking, which led to the increase in human brain-size" does not deserve to be mentioned in the article, since the connection with the subject of the article is neither obvious nor supported by the sources. Clearly, this statement serves as a counter-point to Wrangham's claims and as such this connection must be backed up by the sources, which it's not. --Thermoproteus (talk) 16:14, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Statement has been corrected and argument is in line with wikipedia.Loki0115 (talk) 13:01, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Undue weight?

I am not sure why in the research section the same amount of space is given over to 3 papers from the 1930s-1940s as is given over to a survey of many more pieces of research from more recent science. What is is about the 3 papers that makes them especially notable? Would it be appropriate to collapse the three paragraphs into a summary in format similar to the overview of recent research? Lot 49a^talk 15:33, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

A summary would probably be a very good solution. Would you like to do that? WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:40, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I made an attempt at one. I may have cut too much, but all of the sources in that section appeared to be self-published and other non-reliable sources (geocities page, site giving away ebooks etc.) Lot 49a^talk 15:56, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Loki, your attempt to restore this section left all the refs busted. Furthermore, the old prose is verbose, repetitious, and unduly emphasizes trivial details (e.g., the name of the 1936 publication: that's what your ref is for). Please feel free to write what you think is an adequate summary... although, to be candid, I think that the first two paragraphs are adequately summarized in a single, simple sentence very much like what Lot49a wrote recently. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:26, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

First of all, I should add that those 1930s/1940s references ar absolutely crucial to Raw Foodism, as Dr Howell, Dr Weston-Price were both highly influential in setting up the groundwork of the whole Raw Foodism movement. Look at raw foodist science-oriented pages in general, and you'll see endless references to the above. Leaving them out would be like mentioning Communism while only giving 1 short sentence on Lenin. I'll see about writing a more concise number of sentences over the next few days.Loki0115 (talk) 13:32, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Do you have a good ref for Weston-Price being highly influential? I think that maybe if we framed this paragraph in terms of that, then we could get a better sense of why we're mentioning them. So rather than referencing their articles, talk about how important they were.Lot 49a^talk 16:04, 27 December 2008 (UTC)