Talk:Raw foodism/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 7

Wrangham in the lead

The OR issues aside, I have a particular problem with this edit:

Richard Wrangham, a primate researcher, has argued, controversially, that cooking is obligatory for humans, as a result of biological adaptations to cooked foods.

was changed to:

Richard Wrangham, a primate researcher, has argued, controversially, that cooking foods led to an increase in human brain-size.

In my opinion, the original sentence was more on-topic and relevant in the lead than the new version. If I knew nothing about raw foodism, I wouldn't understand the relevance of mentioning in the lead that Wrangham believes "that cooking foods led to an increase in human brain-size."

--Phenylalanine (talk) 15:39, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't actually think that Wrangham needs to be mentioned in the lead at all. Why elevate Wrangham's evolution-based argument? It would be one thing if the lead included pro-raw evolutionary claims. If you want to present a criticism in the lead, why not use infectious disease? Food poisoning is definitely easier for the general reader to understand than Wrangham's claim. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:50, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree that Wrangham doesn't need to be in the lead, but I restored the original meaning to make it more relevant.--—CynRN ^(Talk) 06:37, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Per WP:LEAD, the lead should be a summary of the article, including the most important points presented therein. Since we have a separate section on controversies, we should at least point out that Raw foodism has been criticized. --Phenylalanine (talk) 13:45, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, we all agree that a bit about criticism should eventually go back into the lead. But perhaps it would be best to develop the criticism section first. It's kind of hard to summarize something that barely exists -- and presumably there are rather more criticisms than just Wrangham's one idea. Are you willing to expand that section? Food poisoning is easy to substantiate, and I see information about suspected teeth problems and vitamin deficiencies scattered throughout the text already. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:48, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Tribes

I disagree with Cyn's comment re raw-food-eating tribes eating raw as it's best for their environment, they simply eat raw food due to tradition and do not have a pro-raw-foodist/anti-cooked-foodist philosophy - wouldn't the Nenets in Siberia want to cook their meats instead, because of the cold? Yet they eat them mostly raw. Also, the reason why most people turn to raw-foods is generally not out of interest in a belief-system but because they are trying to recover their health(it would be very difficult to persuade people to switch from junk-food diets to diets consisting lots of raw-animal-foods, given current view among society re the dangers of bacteria/parasites, unless there was a predominant health-motive. Most would happily eat loads of Twinkies if it turned out that that would cure them instead.

I meant that the Nenets and the Inuits and the like have adapted to their environment in the best way they can, and tradition followed. IOW, over the years they learned that raw meat retained a vital element (vitamin C) that they needed and traditions were established...all very intuitive.

It still doesn't compute. If they were merely adapting to their environment, they should be cooking their foods because of the extreme cold requiring the consumption of heated, cooked-foods.This is one explanation given by some for the advent of cooking. However, when there is NO satisfactory explanation given for a given raw diet in a specific environment, then the only possible conclusion can be that raw foods were eaten by those tribes out of tradition. I might add that vitamin C is not necessarily 100% destroyed by cooking(see online references re Stefansson's Bellevue(cooked, all-animal-food) experiment:-

http://www.biblelife.org/stefansson1.htm (and parts 2 and 3).

Also, of course, the Eskimoes, Inuit, Nenets etc. all ate raw berries and organ-meats(liver, even if cooked, contains vitamin C).

Loki, please remember to sign your talk page statements.

There's more to "adapting to their environment" than temperature. If you are in a fuel-poor region, you might eat substantially less cooked food as a means of conserving fuel for heating. Also, if it's refrigerator-cold outside (or colder), then the risk of food poisoning drops substantially, so you might have less motivation for cooking as a means of killing microorganisms. Not cooking could easily be an adaptation to this environment. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:53, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

---

I agree that many of the stories on the web talk about illness and how raw foodism was tried as a 'last resort' and then the subject becomes a believer in the raw food diet. Some of the leaders in the movement started that way. However, it's evident from the links I've provided that it's a philosophy as well.--—CynRN ^(Talk) 19:42, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Some think of it as a philosophy, but the majority view it merely as a diet of last-resort for health-reasons, given modern phobias re raw meats etc. It wouldn't make sense for large numbers of people to try raw animal food diets, for any other reason.

Re Wrangham:- I should point out that the words "many anthropologists" and "most other anthropologists" or "a lot of anthropologists" tend to be mentioned as opposing Wrangham in the more prominent articles featuring Wrangham's works:-

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

http://www.hno.harvard.edu/gazette/2002/06.13/01-cooking.html

The first link you give says we controlled fire 500,000 years ago. The second one says 250,000 to 500,000 years ago. Yes, the two links say "most researchers" and "most anthropologists" but they seem to agree on an older date than 250,000 years ago. Just being a stickler, here. :) --—CynRN ^(Talk) 19:42, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the general agreement is that fire was controlled "for warmth" c.400,000 to 500,000 years ago, with "cooking with fire", as an innovation, being only introduced c.250,000 to 300,000 years ago. That's why there's only a vague generalisation given. But nothing older than 500,000 years ago for fire(for whatever use) is considered as remotely credible, given that there is no credible evidence for it. I could provide other references re the 250,000-300,000 year-date for cooking, if necessary. It's common knowledge, after all.Loki0115 (talk) 18:15, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

If early man controlled fire for warmth, it is logical that he would have started BBQing right about the same time.--—CynRN ^(Talk) 15:50, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Re comment "but it needs to be explained in a way so readers understand that it is not an accepted reason to avoid cooked foods. I'm willing to bet 'most nutritionists' would not agree that cooked food is to be avoided because of toxins, but I do not have references. It's just that the toxin hypothesis is considered 'fringe'":-

I'm afraid this is based on a misunderstanding. If you look at the various articles online, you will find that most responsible nutritionists actually recommend against many/most types of cooking such as baking/frying( http://www.lordsday.org/fryed_foods.htm ) , microwaving ( http://chetday.com/microwave.html ), broiling/grilling( http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8499202/ ) etc. etc.. These sites recommending against various types of cooking are all over the Net, and the majority of those sites are not centred around Raw-Foodism in any way, they just suggest ways to reduce the toxins in cooked-foods, either by special preparation (eg:- http://www.fitnessandfreebies.com/food/articles/carcinogens.html ) or by avoiding/limiting that type of cooked-food entirely. So, it is clear from the above(and any decent Googling) that toxins in cooked-foods are an established fact among mainstream nutritionists, not merely a fringe-belief among raw-foodists. The only difference in that regard is that nutritionists supporting cooked-food diets don't mind recommending lightly-cooked foods(such as steaming/boiling/simmering/poaching) as they claim that the toxins in those lightly-cooked foods are negligible by comparison to the larger amounts of toxins found in more heavily-cooked foods such as fried foods - whereas raw-food diet nutritionists claim that these toxins in lightly-cooked foods still cause some harm.

I would also suggest that the current posters search for studies dealing with Advanced Glycation Endproducts or Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons or Nitrosamines or Heterocyclic amines, as there are numerous online scientific studies(on pubmed etc.) firmly establishing the harmful effect of these toxins in cooked-foods.

Loki, some of the refs are legitimate re. high heat grilling, with RDs as authors, but some are suspect. The microwave article seems to be cobbling unrelated studies together to 'blacken' microwaving. While fried foods are pretty well agreed on as being less than healthy food, the reliability of the "fried food, is it safe" article is in question with no references. We've known about carcinogens from grilling for some time. Again, I don't think we'll find many mainstream nutritionists writing about the dangers of cooked foods besides the problem of improper grilling. Wikipedia should rely on mainstream science and clearly delineate when a belief is controversial, much like how we deal with Wrangham's theory.--—CynRN ^(Talk) 17:10, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I can easily provide more wikipedia-friendly references criticising toxins caused by certain types of cooking, such as acrylamide etc, as they're all over the Web. Same goes for dangers of microwaving. For example:-

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1557249

http://www.defendingscience.org/case_studies/upload/EPA_Diacetyl_Study.pdf

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1200/is_n17_v141/ai_12100730

As I stated above, almost every type of cooking has some form of scientific study delineating the dangers of eating that kind of cooked-food. There is only a dearth of studies focusing on lightly-cooked foods(ie "boiling/steaming/poaching"), so the vast majority of nutritionists out there are recommending against cooking too much, and recommend cooking less, thus supporting raw-foodist claims that the less you cook your food, the healthier it is. The only difference is that raw-foodists claim that raw-food is even healthier than lightly-cooked food. Therefore, the notion that there are toxins in cooked-foods is not so much a belief as a scientific fact.

Two of these studies are on human breast milk (breaking down the IgA by microwaving) and the other is on emissions released from a bag of microwaved popcorn with relevance to workers in a microwave popcorn factory. We can't extrapolate to say 'nutritionists recommend against microwaving'. Sure, nutritionists say 'don't overcook vegetables' and 'be careful when grilling' but that is a far cry from 'nutritionists supporting raw food claims'. --—CynRN ^(Talk) 15:45, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I rather like the idea of the food-poisoning reference replacing Wrangham. This actually makes a stronger argument against raw-food-diets than Wrangham as more people are aware of the former whereas Wrangham is considered "fringe" by human evolutionists, even in their own field. I do think that any food-poisoning mention should be backed by references to scientific studies showing food-poisoning from raw-foods.Loki0115 (talk) 12:36, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Umm, has everyone, by now, agreed to remove Wrangham from the intro, and to remove the Pottenger study mention re raw food diet for cats(not humans)? If so, I'll remove both within a couple of days.Loki0115 (talk) 14:58, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I think that we have full agreement on both of those. After the criticism section gets expanded, we'll probably add a sentence or two from the critics back into the introduction (probably at the end of the introduction), but Wrangham can be removed. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:30, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, this is to report that I've removed the Wrangham thread and shifted the pottenger thread to the raw feedinmg section.Loki0115 (talk) 09:04, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Beyondveg.com

I noticed that one reference for the Pottenger Cat study in the "Raw Feeding" wikipedia page was from the beyondveg.com site. On the raw-foodism page, beyondveg.com was listed as being a site conflicting with original research rules.Can I remove it, therefore? Loki0115 (talk) 09:15, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Original research is all about how you use a source. Is says nothing about the source itself.

To say that a scientist once concluded that cats thrive best on a diet of exclusively raw meat is not original research. To say that a feline diet has any connection at all to humans, however, is (unless, of course, you have a reliable source that clearly makes that claim for you). WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:54, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Out of place in raw food movement

These sentences seem out of place under Raw food movement: "The Nenet tribe of Siberia currently practice a diet consisting of mostly raw meats/organ-meats and raw berries"[16] "Those Eskimoes still following their traditional diet eat a partially-raw diet, including raw meats/organ-meats and aged raw foods in the form of caribou and fish, among other foods"[17]. These are cultures eating a large proportion raw food, not part of a "movement". Tribes that follow raw food diets are useful for studying health effects, but the mention is out of place in this section. If we develop a "meat raw food" section, maybe this can go there--—CynRN ^(Talk) 07:07, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I second that. --Phenylalanine (talk) 10:08, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I was thinking about moving them to the "History" section. That would expand that section beyond modern-history-among-white-people, which is what it pretty much is right now. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:39, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I think "History" needs some work. I have read more succinct histories on the web about the subject and I think this section could be streamlined. Adding the Nenets seems logical but "History" should be about the history of this movement. Did the raw foodists use the Nenets and Inuits to popularize the diet? I know they are part of the argument that the diet is healthy and so on, but are they part of the history of the "raw food movement"?--—CynRN ^(Talk) 07:07, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Technically speaking, the Inuit diet is always acclaimed as the reason for starting a raw animal food diet.Just a thought.Loki0115 (talk) 20:34, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

More clarity in lead

I don't think there is any agreement on merging this article with Raw veganism yet, but after reading comments over there, I am thinking there needs be a clarification early on in the lead that there are several main groups: raw vegans, raw vegetarians and raw omnivores. I think I can find plenty of refs saying that raw veganism is an older and more widespread movement and that should be emphasized. The raw vegans are diametrically opposed to animal products and this needs to be made clear. The second sentence talks about all the things a raw foodist can eat, implying 'all raw foodists' which isn't the case, of course. --—CynRN ^(Talk) 21:03, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

It would be a very bad idea, IMO, to include, in the Intro, specific data on the allowed/forbidden foods/history in raw veganism, as that would create too mjuch clutter, and give undue weight to raw veganism as a diet. This should only be included in a separate paragraph(s) in the diet-descriptions section under "Raw Veganism". The intro for raw-foodism should address all raw diets, in general, giving numerous examples of raw foods, as it is, right now. Because Raw Veganism has been around for longer with more history etc., that's why I thought it best for it to have its own raw veganism page. I don't actually disagree, any more, with its being merged with the raw foodism page, but raw veganism should be only specifically referred to, in detail, in the raw diet description section, with an explanation re its dominance in rawism etc.

I personally have never once heard of raw vegetarians as a raw-food diet description, there are either raw vegans, raw omnivores(with varying raw animal food intake of between 10-90%), and those following a raw version of a palaeolithic diet, and those doing a 100% raw animal food diet. Raw vegans eating just raw dairy and raw eggs still either call themselves raw vegans or raw-omnivores(if they eat lots of raw animal foods), despite eating only a little raw animal food - after a quick google under "raw vegetarianism", it seems I'm right. Perhaps we could include "raw vegetarianism" under "Raw Veganism"Loki0115 (talk) 10:37, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

One other thing, whatamidoing, there is a subsection of rawists who follow a raw version of the palaeolithic diet. A while back, I was not allowed to include a mention of this sort of diet, as I was unable to provide a specific reference(the several references I could find were to personal websites covering that diet). I compromised by including a newspaper reference to "raw meat diets" which is another term used by raw-animal-foodists to describe such a diet. I did previously include a reference, a seemingly public(?) website which wasn't oriented towards raw-foods specifically, which mentioned raw paleolithic diets in passing, I'm curious as to why it wasn't allowed:- http://www.newtreatments.org/diet.php

At any rate, is it OK for me to include a reference/paragraph in the diet description section for those doing a "raw , paleolithic diet", even if I'm not able to provide wikipedia-friendly references for it?Loki0115 (talk) 10:37, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I want to know what Phenylalanine thinks, but I think it needs to be clear in the lead that there are distinct types of 'raw foodists' and that the vegans are more prominant. 'Raw foodist' means raw vegan in most articles about rawists I've seen. Not to diminish raw meat eaters, but that is reality. I think I could provide many refs for this. The lists of which foods allowed and so forth does not need to be in the lead more than 'unprocessed' vegetables, fruit, seeds, raw meat, etc...not a whole long list of foods.--—CynRN ^(Talk) 18:52, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I should add that the raw vegans simply appropriated the term "raw foodist" for themselves, ages ago, which is why raw-meat-eaters(palaeo-oriented) took to calling themselves "raw palaeolithic dieters", instead. However, due to a mass transfer of people from Raw Vegan diets in the last few years(due to nutritional deficiencies), the term "raw foodist" is increasingly being used in the sense of "raw omnivore", instead, and it's more factually-correct for describing raw food diets, in general. I don't mind raw veganism being cited as the most popular diet, but it would be wrong, currently, to use the term "raw foodism" to mean "raw veganism".Loki0115 (talk) 21:00, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Loki, I don't know why you haven't heard of raw vegetarians. Raw vegans seem pretty obvious. Raw meat eaters are quite rare. But raw milk and raw cheese is easy to come by -- heck, butter is available in every grocery store -- and has a much lower "gross" level than raw meat. I'd be astonished if there weren't more people that refuse to eat raw meat but are perfectly happy with a little unpasteurized cheese compared to the very small number of people that regularly eat raw meat. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:58, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid you're quite mistaken. As I pointed out with that other reference on the raw foodism page, there are at least something like 20,000 Primal Dieters in North America alone, all of whom eat lots of raw meat(the staple of their diet) as part of their diet(a very large number of Primal-Dieters also eat bacteria-rich rotting meat after the first year or so, as well, as it's recommended very heavily by their guru and is an old Eskimo-food used for enhancing one's health. You may not agree with that 20,000 figure, having never met a raw-animal-foodist in person, but I correspond with enough people online to know that there's at least that number of people doing this Primal Diet in the US/Canada, given all the regular raw-animal-food-diet meetups set up between members in California etc..Then there are all the other types of raw-meat diets such as people doing raw versions of the Palaeolithic Diet. And this doesn't include the masses of people doing partially-raw diets(for example, many people who follow the Weston-Price diet eat a large number of raw-animal-foods such as raw liver/raw fish etc. etc., and there are those tribes I mentioned which eat some or most of their meats raw or aged. This also doesn't take into account the multitude of non-rawists who happily eat lots of steak-tartare, beef carpaccio, sashimi(raw fish), sushi(raw fish plus cooked-rice), raw oysters etc. etc. Also, of course,many Raw Vegans/Fruitarians are turning in increasing numbers to raw animal foods due to deficiencies incurred on 100% plant-food diets(as outlined in Shazzie's blog).

Still, I'm not opposed to the mention of Raw Vegetarianism as a separate mention, it's just that people who eat raw plant-foods and raw dairy/raw eggs, usually prefer to call themselves "raw omnivores" instead.But this is merely from my own anecdotal experience as a former Raw Vegan/Fruitarian. Another unsigned comment by .Loki0115 (talk)

Please sign your talk page comments. Even if there really are 20,000 raw meat eaters at any given moment, that's just one out of every 26,000 people in North America. I think that 1:26,000 qualifies as quite rare by any definition. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:11, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, the 20,000 figure is just for the Primal Dieters. Those eating significant amounts of raw animal food in their diet, including the tradition-diet-eating Eskimoes and raw animal foodists not from the Primal Diet would no doubt multiply the figures by a significant factor to at least, say, 1 in 4,000, or, likely, more frequent than that. But that's by the by. I'm happy enough that RAF diets are at least mentioned, here. Loki0115 (talk) 14:47, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

We need to portray what's out there as accurately as possible. Most refs seem to equate raw foodism with raw veganism.

This is a clumsy sentence, can we improve it? "Vegans usually equate Raw foodism or a raw food diet with raw veganism in which only unprocessed plant foods are eaten, but raw animal products are also a traditional option for non-vegans"--—CynRN ^(Talk) 02:10, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

The above definition by Cyn is 100% inaccurate. Raw-Animal-Foodists do NOT refer to themselves as "raw non-vegans"! The true definition of "Raw Foodism" is the original one used before on wikipedia:- "

Raw foodism is a lifestyle promoting the consumption of uncooked, unprocessed, and often organic foods as a large percentage of the diet. ... "

Similiar online definitions:-" My definition of a raw foodist is someone who eats at least 75% raw, live food."

Simply put, it's semantically-incorrect(and poor english) to state the above sentence""Vegans usually equate Raw foodism or a raw food diet with raw veganism in which only unprocessed plant foods are eaten, but raw animal products are also a traditional option for non-vegans". First of all, it implies that that the few who do eat raw animal foods only eat small amounts of them, by comparison to the raw plant-foods in their diet - yet there are communities of raw-animal-foodists who don't eat any raw plant-food at all, just raw meats/organ-meats and nothing else, and, indeed, most Raw-Animal-Foodists(such as Primal Dieters/Raw Palaeolithic Dieters etc.), given dietary guidelines from their gurus, actually eat far more raw animal foods than they do raw plant-foods. In short, I very strongly disagree with the suggested sentence and would like to push for it be removed/replaced.

How about a sentence

stating:- "Raw Vegans are the most prominent community among Raw-Foodists, but there are other groups devoted to raw vegetarian or raw animal food diets."

The definition of "raw food diets", in terms of basic English, does not refer to "Raw Plant-Foods", in and of itself, just "raw foods" in general. Extrapolating from that, especially when raw omnivores and raw carnivores also use the term "raw-foodist" to describe themselves and their particular diet-style, is completely erroneous.

Here's a more logical definition of raw food diets from the web:-

"Firstly, it is important to start with a working definition of the raw food diet. In general, it means consuming food, drinks, and supplements that have not been heated above about 115 degrees Fahrenheit (46 degrees Celsius). This temperature usually varies about plus or minus 10 degrees depending on who you talk to, but the idea is that around this temperature, certain food enzymes start breaking down" taken from:-

http://www.naturaw.com/raw-food-diet.htmlLoki0115 (talk) 11:52, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

This is what your ref (above) says about the raw food diet usually considered to be the raw vegan variety with a useful mention of 'raw vegetarians'. Nobody is saying that 'raw paleolithic' is not valid community...but these diets seem to have come on the scene later than the raw vegan and are not as well known. It also has stuff about microbes...

" The diet usually consists of raw fruits, vegetables, nuts, seeds, grains, shoots, sprouts, super foods such as algae, sea vegetables, bee pollen, honey, etc. Most people on the diet tend to be vegan (no animal products), or vegetarian (some animal products). Animal products strengthen the electrical properties of the body while vegetable products strengthen the magnetic properties of the body. Raw animal products can include dairy, eggs, fish, meats, insects, etc. There tends to be higher microbe and parasitic content in raw animal products so people consuming those products must be made aware of that and take that into account in handling and consuming raw animal products. Depending on the situation, sometimes some cooking is desirable if the environment in which you are eating is overrun with viruses, bacteria, microbes, parasites, etc. Cooking actually helped humanity explore and populate the planet."--—CynRN ^(Talk) 16:28, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Re "raw Palaeolithic diet":- This is a perfectly valid diet-community, IMO. Here's two examples of webpages which describe it, as a type of raw-foodism:-

http://www.rawpaleodiet.org/rvaf-overview.html

http://www.rawpaleo.com/Loki0115 (talk) 12:03, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Here is the current sentence in the lead:

"Raw foodism or a raw food diet is usually equated with raw veganism in which only unprocessed plant foods are eaten[2], but raw animal products are also an option for non-vegans"

It needs to get the point across that there are two main divisions in raw foodism, vegan and meat eating. How about:

"Raw foodism or a raw food diet is usually equated with raw veganism in which only unprocessed plant foods are eaten[2], but other raw foodists emphasize raw meat and other animal products(insert ref)."--—CynRN ^(Talk) 16:40, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Well it sounds like a good start at least towards being more descriptive. Unless others disagree, I say go for it! --CrohnieGal^Talk 16:45, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I dislike the term "equated". It implies that the two terms are completely interchangeable, which they haven't been for the last 20 years or more, at the least, - indeed, many raw vegan sites no longer simply state that they are "raw foodists" but have to now quailify/clarify themselves by making it clear that they are NOT promoting raw animal foods in any way - this is because, otherwise, they get new forum-members coming in etc who assume "raw-foodism" means "all raw foods" not just raw plant-foods, and thereby annoy the squeamish raw vegans with posts about preparing raw animal foods. Here's websites referring to raw food diets which are raw omnivorous:-

http://www.karlloren.com/human-raw-meat-diet.htm

Here's the clincher, a standard online scientific reference:-" Raw food diets may include raw fruits, raw vegetables, raw nuts, raw seeds, raw unpasteurized dairy products such as raw milk, raw meat, raw eggs, and raw honey.." taken from:-

http://www.sciencedaily.com/articles/r/raw_food_diet.htm

My point is that the notion of "raw foodism" only equated to raw veganism, in those far-off years where 99% of all rawists were Raw Vegan - this was not because "raw food" meant "raw vegan" as such, but simply by default because most rawists happened to be "Raw Vegan" at the time, it was assumed that "raw-foodist" meant "Raw Vegan", since no other sizeable community was around. However, nowadays, the term "raw foodist" means more than just "raw vegan" because there are ever-larger communities of raw omnivores/carnivores who call themselves by that same label. Surely, it's enough to just state that the majority of raw foodists are raw vegan - otherwise, I reckon there's too much weight given to raw veganism as a sort of cited "default" raw foodism, perhaps violating NPOV in favour of a "mainstream(raw vegan) POV"-plus, it confuses people, as there should be 1 primary definition of a term, not two.Loki0115 (talk) 17:49, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

The ref re. Loren looks like a blog. The ref from Science Daily is not much more than a blurb. It actually refers readers to Wikipedia...kind of circular, no? Anyway, we should get your idea across: that raw foodists used to be vegan but there is an upcoming raw animal products movement, now.

"Raw foodism or a raw food diet has traditionally meant raw veganism in which only unprocessed plant foods are eaten[2], but increasingly, another group of raw foodists are eating diets of raw meat and other animal products." Does this capture your point?

(I took the liberty of indenting your comments, Loki) --—CynRN ^(Talk) 18:19, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

That's fine.I have no problems with that.THe old wikipedia entry, by the way, referred to "raw foodism being merely "raw, unprocessed foods", judging from a google. The karl loren page is run by a guy specialising in selling various products/consults etc., not merely a blog, but a resource-website.Loki0115 (talk) 20:40, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Raw meat eating

Am in the process of adding info to the raw-meat-eating section as instructed. I'm including only general info, of the sort that mirrors the kind of info given in the raw vegetable-eating section. I still strongly disagree with including mention of raw vegetarianism(and raw dairy) in the above general history section, unless the idea is to eventually include all information on the various raw subtypes in that section, rather than in the diet-description sections below - as it stands now, if the history section is supposed to be generalised, then any mention of raw dairy should be put in the raw-meat-eating section(I'm replacing the mention of raw-meat-eating with "raw animal food diets"). If the intention is to provide detailed info in the history section such as the dairy/raw vegetarianism mention, then I will move the Primal Diet info to the above history section, as well.Loki0115 (talk) 11:19, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Looks good so far! I just noticed a paragraph in Preparation talking about organic, grass fed beef. Doesn't that belong under Raw meat diets?--—CynRN ^(Talk) 19:15, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

The above paragraph re grassfed meats is meant to be used to counter the usual argument that eating raw meats is dangerous due to bacteria, it should therefore be placed next to whichever section/sentence which refers to the dangers of bacteria, therefore.Loki0115 (talk) 20:54, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments on cooking obligatory

I have a serious problem with the above inserted comment in the criticism section:- "The possibility that cooking is obligatory is supported by calculations suggesting that a diet of raw food could not supply sufficient calories for a normal hunter–gatherer lifestyle. In particular, many plant foods are too fiber-rich when raw, while most raw meat appears too tough to allow easy chewing".

First of all, many raw-animal-foodists don't bother with any significant chewing, they more or less just bolt it down like most carnivores such as dogs do, so the reference re chewing is somewhat out-of-place.Also, as I pointed out, Arctic tribes such as the Nenets have eaten a diet of mostly-raw animal foods for 1,000s of years without any problems re digestion or inability to obtain enough calories. Plus, in those days without freezers, much of the raw animal food eaten would have been aged, raw meat, which is particularly soft- and the Eskimos etc. all ate plenty of rotting fish etc - one reason why many RAFers eat such aged meats. I'm wondering if I could include the Nenets reference as a counterpoint. Is that OK?Loki0115 (talk) 12:16, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Studies on cooked foods

So, what about the inclusion of studies done on toxins in cooked foods?Loki0115 (talk) 12:53, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

For now, let's just have it as one reason for rawists following the diet, i.e. their belief that this is so. For claims like this (people are unhealthy because of the toxins in the cooked food they eat), very reliable references will be needed.--—CynRN ^(Talk) 19:03, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, the only objection to those studies was that they were original research or that some of the the studies weren't valid. I think the first argument has been countered already as it's too strict, and the 2nd one is easily countered with references to solid scientific studies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Loki0115 (talk • contribs) 20:51, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Original research is about how Wikipedia editors use the refs, not about what the author of the ref did. (WP:PRIMARY is the relevant concern about what the author of the ref wrote.)

Have you found a good ref that shows that cooked-toxins are an important consideration for people on a raw food diet? Any magazine article will do here. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:49, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by a good ref, but references to toxins in cooked-foods is present in most raw-foodist websites(eg:-

http://www.living-foods.com/articles/rawfreshproduce.html

http://www.watershed.net/raw-foods.aspx

Mercola is a doctor and nutritionist, one of the most popular on the web, and recommends a raw food diet on his main website, discussing the toxins in cooked-foods):-

articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2002/05/22/cooked-food-part-one.aspx

Here's an article, which should do, citing raw-foodist beliefs re toxins in cooked foods, it's a hostile one:-

http://ca.lifestyle.yahoo.com/health-fitness/articles/diet/eatingwell/20621 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Loki0115 (talk • contribs) 11:09, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Loki, I see you have worked up a whole section on Toxins in cooked foods. I appreciate your effort, but I question whether this is too much for the Raw foodism article. Maybe Toxins in Cooked food deserves it's own Wikipedia article. A little can be mentioned here, but the bulk of the arguments can be somewhere else. I don't know if the idea of toxins in cooked food is that central to the raw foodist philosophy as opposed to the 'live foods impart vitality' belief that I see on all the websites.--—CynRN ^(Talk) 17:18, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but the belief that there are toxins in cooked-foods is absolutely central to raw-foodist-beliefs,(eg:-

http://www.bioperfection.com/health/raw/raw.htm

http://www.living-foods.com/articles/rawfreshproduce.html

http://ridfibromyalgia.blogspot.com/2007/01/benefits-of-raw-food.html

http://www.vegansociety.com/food/raw_food.php

http://www.cleanse.net/index.asp?PageAction=Custom&ID=23 )

and appears almost everywhere in rawist circles. If we exclude that, then there's no point in doing a raw-foodism page , other than the very minor notion that live, raw foods contain some form of "bioenergy" that "dead cooked-foods" don't have. The basic primary tenet of raw-foodism, above all else, is that "cooked-foods are poison" due to to the "toxins in cooked-foods". Without that belief, there's really no point in eating a raw food diet at all, as the bioenergy in raw foods issue, unlike the toxins in cooked-foods concept, hasn't been proven at all.Loki0115 (talk) 19:42, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

The only alternative would be to do a wikinfo-style approach, by doing both a pro-raw-foodism page and an anti-raw-foodism page, but this is not wikipedia's style. Another factor is that the anti-raw argument is now many tens of lines long, what with all the guff re food-poisoning. Therefore, according to wikipedia standards, the pro-raw info should, at the very least, be similiar in length. Even with the toxins in cooked food info, the anti-raw stuff is slightly larger, last I checked.Loki0115 (talk) 19:42, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Loki, you are right...two opposing raw food articles would be ridiculous. The trouble here is that the raw food movement is inarguably not 'mainstream' among nutritionists. Wikipedia needs to reflect the mainstream view, while allowing the raw food advocates to explain their postition. Wikipedia is supposed to be encyclopedic, not turn into a soapbox for alternate views.--—CynRN ^(Talk) 20:31, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia already reflects the mainstream anti-raw view in most other non-raw-related article on food, and also there is the Criticism section for mainstream views to be expressed fully(eg:- food-poisoning). I recall another poster/contributor to wikipedia mentioning recently how regretful it was that the original idea of NPOV, the neutral point of view, was being ignored, and that contributors only wanted to express the mainstream view. I disagree with that, both should be represented fully. First of all, the scientific studies which I cited which describe the toxins in cooked foods are all mainstream(that is, the relevant toxins, advanced glycation ndproducts, nitrosamines, polycylic aromatic hydrocarbons, heterocyclic amines and acrylamide, have all been mentioned routinely in government papers, scientific studies and mainstream newspaper articles(remember the c.2003 acrylamide scare in the media?), so it's extremely difficult to argue that these toxins in cooked-foods are not considered a "mainstream" belief, in any way. Secondly, the issue of toxins in cooked-foods is so central to raw-foodism that nobody would bother going raw, if they didn't believe fully in the concept that "cooked-food is poison". They simply can't be excluded, without making the whole raw-foodism article pointless re providing any real information.Loki0115 (talk) 20:48, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

As regards reflecting mainstream views, isn't the issue of food-poisoning re bacteria/parasites the central issue in the mainstream anti-raw view? Since that is already being covered extensively in the criticism section, I really don't see how the mainstream view is not being covered in detail - the only other one is the notion that raw vegan diets are deficient in certain vitamins, which is also fully covered already in the article. There really are no other anti-raw mainstream views, to speak of. Loki0115 (talk) 21:31, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Reliability of blogs

Re comment on raw foodism page:- "Increasing numbers of long-term raw vegans believe that to sustain the diet daily inclusion of superfoods and/or supplements are necessary, particularly for children and mothers. Many raw vegan children have been shown to have problems with tooth decay which is believed to be a result of vitamin D deficiency[citation needed], however this may simply be miseducation as vitamin D2 comes from plant sources and vitamin D3 can be manufactured by the human body upon exposure to sunlight." The above reference to raw vegans and tooth-decay should have a legitimate reference to a scientific study of raw vegans, otherwise it needs to be removed.

I agree that blogs are not reliable. If we can find comments in a magazine article by a registered dietician, that would be a good reference, IMHO.--—CynRN ^(Talk) 18:46, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Re "There are people strongly opposed to raw foodism, for example in this blog mothers are encouraged either to supplement or include raw dairy products or other raw animal foods to avoid irrevocable damage to their children's health.[10]":- First of all, note number 10 refers to a mere personal blog, which is not allowed by Wikipedia, AFAIK, so it should be removed. Secondly, that particular blog refers to a famous pro-Raw Vegan guru, called "Shazzie", who is most definitely NOT "opposed to raw-foodism", she is merely conceding the point that children on raw vegan diets MUST eat some raw animal foods, as well, or suffer healthwise. I will consider removing both of the above mentions, within 7(?) days, unless my points are answered.Loki0115 (talk) 13:04, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

How does one go about including pictures of raw animal foods on this page, I tried uploading once but it didn't work, perhaps it needed resizing? I'd like to include a photo of a Thai food("bplaa raa"), which is aged, raw fish:-

http://eatingasia.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/pla_raa_1.jpgLoki0115 (talk) 13:12, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

The instructions are at WP:UPI. Note that the front page of the blog specifies the copyright status: "EatingAsia's text and photos are published under a Creative Commons 2.0 license." You will need that information to get the licensing tag correct.

Wrangham redux

Also re Wrangham mention:- The comment re Wrangham stating that consumption of cooked-foods may be oligatory for humans because no other culture has ever been without some cooked-food in its diet. This is a totally illogical premise, IMO. I could just as well equally state that "no culture on Earth has ever been without some raw food in its diet, thus proving that raw food-consumption is obligatory by humans. I will await comments re this, before deleting it.Loki0115 (talk) 13:26, 3 September 2008 (UTC)Loki0115 (talk) 18:15, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Why don't we try to organize the article before we get into the details of criticisms? There is probably too much on Wrangham here. There are plenty of good refs for critiques on raw food diets out there without using Wrangham. I believe Wrangham's hypothesis is fascinating, but this article should first explain the different varieties of raw food diets in a logical way.--—CynRN ^(Talk) 18:59, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

How many pictures?

An IP keeps adding more pictures, may I suggest picking one or two and putting them near the topic where they are being discussed, then having them set up like they are? They seem to be just taking space with no connection to any content near them. --CrohnieGal^Talk 20:07, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Pics are important. As they say, a picture is worth a thousand words, at least in today's multimedia world. 68.123.64.94 (talk) 20:17, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Some possible sources

These major media stories might be useful:

• "Totally Uncooked" at The New York Times
• "Raw foods go mainstream" at The Seattle Post-Intelligencer
• "Could a raw-food diet have an impact on cancer survival?" at The Dallas Morning News

This website has a long list of raw-food related newspaper articles

Additionally, the CDC still worries about raw milk and raw cheese, and NYT says that interstate sales are banned in the US and tells a little history.

As usual, media stories are primarily useful for non-scientific facts -- but this article needs a lot of that information. One of these (I forget which) says that health concerns is the primary motivation for adopting this diet; we can certainly use that in this article. Another talks about a raw-vegetarian restaurant (no meat, but uses honey), and another (or did I forget to grab the URL for that?) says that a quarter of the infectious disease outbreaks in the 1930s were due to unpasteurized milk. I'll bet that something similar is available at United States raw milk debate if I didn't. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:06, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't mind inclusion of references to bacterial outbreaks due to raw dairy, but I do think it's acceptable to also refer to any articles debunking such claims/media-scares. For example, it's been argued that those outbreaks are largely due to the relevant cattle being fed on grain, not grass(grass is their natural diet and grain-feeding encoruages growth of E-coli). Is that acceptable? Loki0115 (talk) 10:54, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I think it would be fine to say something like "Public health agencies warn of the dangers of food poisoning,^{[ref][ref][ref]} but proponents say that the risk is lower in grass-fed animals.^{[ref][ref][ref]}" WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:22, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Fine. I'll include the relevant paragraph(already in the article) once the whole food-poisoning references have been fleshed out.Loki0115 (talk) 20:37, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Unprocessed

I see several assertions in the article and on this page that raw foods must be "unprocessed" to count. This is clearly false, because deliberately rotting your meat by inoculating it with fecal bacteria is a form of processing. So does pickling -- as in the pickled herring and kimchi in the photos. So does fermenting alcoholic drinks, such as wine, which many raw foodists accept. These discrepancies need to be cleared up, either by removing all of one side or the other as an error, or by removing "unprocessed" from the lead and explaining that there is significant diversity on this point. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:27, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Good point! What about substituting 'uncooked' for unprocessed? --—CynRN ^(Talk) 08:40, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid that the above view is HIGHLY incorrect. First of all, it is extremely rare for raw-foodists to accept that fermenting alcoholic drinks is OK for rawists, normally alcohol is banned totally etc.)- the only exception is some partially-raw diets such as Weston-Price who recommend some alcoholic drinks made from dairy(like the mongols used). Fully-raw/mostly-raw-foodists do not recommend it, except those who allow the occasional "banned" food.

Secondly, I dispute the notion that allowing meat to rot is a form of processing. The Eskimos would leave meat rotting in the ground before eating, just as some carnivores do.Would you say that carnivores are "processing" their meats in this way - of course not!!! In short, fermentation is simply letting Nature do its work.Loki0115 (talk) 10:32, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Our reliable sources say that wine is accepted by some raw foodists. Where there are differences of opinion, we present them as different interpretations, not as "HIGHLY incorrect". This is not the Orthodox views of raw foodism as determined by one editor article.

Furthermore, the normal definition of "processed food" is quite expansive. If you peel or slice your raw carrots before eating them, then they are processed. You may believe that this is not "processed enough to count", but the fact is that the common definition includes peeling and slicing raw vegetables.

Freezing is another form of food processing. I looked at half a dozen raw-foods cookbooks (ISBN 9780060793555, ISBN 9781570671753, ISBN 9781556436130, ISBN 9780061176180, ISBN 9781591200604, ISBN 9781600940002), and every one of them approves of freezing foods (at least in certain circumstances). While "unprocessed" might have some special definition in the raw foods world (you are invited to provide a reliable source), from the perspective of the general reader, this statement is misleading at best. In short, the definition of "unprocessed" that you've asserted here has not been proven to be anything more than your personal POV, and it is directly contradicted by a number of published sources. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:35, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

The reason why I stated "HIGHLY" was because I've been doing years on Raw vegan and subsequent raw animal food diets without ever once hearing that alcohol was allowed, in fact I came across repeated mentions that it was forbidden unless you were doing only a partially-raw diet with some cooked-foods/junk-food etc. I apologise if it came across wrong.

In the case of wine, it's almost always heated or adulterated with suplhites so is not acceptable to rawism. A quick check shows we're both right and wrong(eg:- from a raw foods foods FAQ:-

"18. Is wine raw? Some are, but wine contains alcohol, which is not good raw or cooked."

taken from:- http://www.rawguru.com/rawfoodfaq.html

"Alcohol is out, but organic wine lives within the raw food guidelines." taken from:-

http://rawfoodsdiet.wetpaint.com/page/Raw+Foods+Diet+Drink+and+Smoothie+Recipes?t=anon

"Wine - Wine can be raw, but while it may have some health benefits - I say drink FRESH made grape juice instead. Exclude wine from the raw food diet. Alcohol does kill brain cells." taken from:- http://www.living-foods.com/articles/rawornot.html

In conclusion, it seems that, on a technical level, some wine is raw and so technically qualifies as a "raw food", but is not considered a suitabkle food-item due to the toxic nature of alcohol.

The definition that all raw-foodists use to describe processed-foods is shown here:- "How can you tell if something is a raw/living food?

Most foods that have not been processed in any way, shape or form are raw and living foods (until cooked). Processed foods (canned, bottled or prepackaged) are most often adulterated, (changed from their original state) by heating, additives, preservatives, colorings, salt, and sugar. taken from:-

http://www.living-foods.com/faq.html

I agree that any alteration to a food, no matter how tiny, such as knives, preparing raw foods with other foods as a recipe etc. could be seen by some as a "process", but this is taking the legal definition so far, as to make the word "unprocessed" mean almost nothing at all. However, since this is the raw-foodism page and raw-foodists "believe" in "unprocessed foods" according to their definition, their definition of "unprocessed" should, at the very least, be included in the Beliefs section, if not elsewhere.("processed" being defined here as "frozen/heated/smoked/containing additives/chemicals/dried/canned/

Re freezing:- I can state, for certain, that freezing is, actually, frowned upon by most Raw-Animal-Foodists, and by many Raw Vegans.Freezing is generally viewed as a last resort, for when you need to store raw foods for long periods, but, even then, frozen foods are generally viewed as inferior to fresh, raw produce and raw foods are preferred when possible(eg:- "

http://www.rawfoodexplained.com/selection-and-storage-of-foods-part-i/does-freezing-harm-foods.html

"It has been found out that sometimes freezing, processing and cooking food destroys vitamins and essential minerals and makes the food difficult to digest. " taken from:-

http://www.rawfoodstips.com/rawfoodeating.php

"Heating (or freezing) food degrades or destroys these enzymes in food" taken from:- http://www.experiencefestival.com/a/Raw_food_diet_-_Beliefs_and_research/id/1725087

"Freezing food alters, damages, or destroys all enzymes as well as many vitamins. " taken from:-

http://www.life-enthusiast.com/index/Articles/Vonderplanitz/New_Theory_of_Disease:_Food_Safety

In short, freezing is accepted by some if only as a slightly lesser food to raw, frowned on by others, and forbidden by other raw gurus.

I could go on, but I think I've made my point. This is why I added an extra comment to the note re freezing in the beliefs section to show that freezing is frowned upon generally by raw-foodists, with raw foods being preferred unless that latter option is unavailable.Loki0115 (talk) 19:29, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

The fact is that some accept it and some don't. There's diversity on the point. So we say there's diversity on the point, not that it's wrong/bad/rejected/cooked.

If our reliable sources have an overall trend, then we can reflect the overall trend: "Wine is not cooked,^[ref] and so it is a raw food, although many raw foodists reject all alcoholic drinks as being unhealthy even if raw^[ref]", for example, or "Frozen foods are a matter of debate in the raw foods community.^[ref] Freezing is not cooking, but some consider it a destructive form of processing,^[ref] or accept it only when no alternatives exist^[ref]", or whatever seems to be the actual case.

This article needs to have a place for all the raw foods diets, from the most liberal to the most extreme. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:46, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I see what you mean. All I'm trying to point out is that every philosophy has a definite set of rules(such as raw-foodism banning alcohol/frowning on freezing) but there are always people who are going to be more lax re some of these rules, even though they follow a raw diet in all other ways. Similiarly, someone might call themselves a Christian, frown on murder etc., yet happily commit adultery, that doesn't mean that they are following a different variety of Christianity, it just means they're not as strict in their beliefs as the Christian commandments dictate. Sort of like an eater of a cooked-Palaeolithic diet who still eats a little dairy, but still considers himself a "paleolithicdieter", despite that.

All that said, as long as I'm allowed to put qualifiers, such as the ones you've stated, then that's OK.Loki0115 (talk) 12:42, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Errors in text

I just had to remove the unnecessary reference to "oats" in the raw animal foods section description. This is wholly inappropriate as oats are not eaten by raw-animal-foodists, only by those doing semi-cooked diets like Weston-Price or raw vegans, raw animal foodists avoid raw oats like the plague. Also, added in mention of raw eggs, which were left out.

I'm extremely dubious re mention of pemmican and gravlax. Pemmican is usually based on cooked- or smoked-meats, and only a very few raw-animal-foodists eat it, but even they just use a dehydrator and dry the pemmican up to 100 degrees fahrenheit, no further.I vote for its removal as it's a heated, not genuinely raw food, unless someone can find a reference to genuine raw pemmican. Same goes for gravlax which I believe is "smoked salmon" - smoked meats are banned, outright, on raw-food diets. I'll await opinions, before removing those references, though.Loki0115 (talk) 10:32, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

You need reliable sources to justify that. Are you familiar with cold smoking techniques? Cold smoked meat never gets any warmer than human body temperature and is considered uncooked by all sources. Cold smoking is essentially partial dehydration with flavoring. (A person concerned about carcinogenic chemicals in the smoke would still avoid it, but not because of its cooked/uncooked status.)

Gravlax is not smoked. It is cured with salt and sugar. If pickled kimchi is "unprocessed" and "uncooked", then so is gravlax. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:40, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I object to the gravlax and pemmican being included as they are not considered part of the raw food lifestyle, per se...more like local ways to preserve food.--—CynRN ^(Talk) 20:35, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree that cold-smoking may not involve serious heating, but all smoked meats will contain carcinogens(such as nitrosamines(also present in cooked-foods):-

My point is, as I stated above, that raw-foodism isn't merely about going in for raw foods and avoiding cooked-foods, it's also about avoiding processed foods, such as smoked meats, additive-ridden food even if raw etc. Sugar isn't generally allowed on raw-food diets(eg:- "Unfortunately almost all the traditional summer foods have been sweetened by cane sugar, which does not meet the raw food diet guidelines for better living " taken from:-

(wikipedia spamblocker blocked the page, but it can be foudn again easily by googling the quoted words). "15.No Refined Sugar" taken from a guideline to Aajonus's Primal Diet:-

http://www.karlloren.com/Diabetes/p32.htm

(Note that alcohol is banned as well in the above Primal Diet-oriented website).

Now I come to think of it,I do know of some rawists who have "cheated" the guidelines, so to speak, with smoked meats, so I suppose it's OK, though I do think a (mild)qualifier could be made that cold-smoked meats/sugar-cured/salt-cured meats are frowned upon by "some" in the RAF community. Is that OK? Loki0115 (talk) 20:04, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd rephrase it to something that sounds more formal ("While cold-smoked foods are not cooked, they are rejected by many some rawists as being unhealthy in other ways", or something like that. It needs a source. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:48, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, I'll see about putting in sources for the above references.Loki0115 (talk) 12:44, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I took the smoked meat out of 'beliefs' and put it under the 'raw animal food' section. I'm trying to group things together logically. --—CynRN ^(Talk) 07:00, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Intro/criticism

I think it's about time for someone to add in the references re food-poisoning (from raw foods) in the intro. Just a reference to food-poisoning outbreaks involving consumption of raw animal foods, IMO. I don't think anyone can cite food-poisoning from raw plant-foods? In a day or two, I'll start adding in those references re studies showing toxins in cooked-foods.

Ideally, we need a raw vegan to help merge the raw veganism wikipedia page with ours so as to add more info re raw vegans.Loki0115 (talk) 11:33, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, yes, if anyone could address/fix my 2nd point in the "reliability of blogs" section abovein the talk page. that would be greatLoki0115 (talk) 11:47, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Food poisoning from raw plants? Sure, it happens all the time. A dead child from unpasteurized Odwalla brand juice. Spinach in both 2006 and 2007. Jalapeños this summer. See List of United States foodborne illness outbreaks for a long, long list, many of which involve raw plants. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:51, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Good lord, I had no idea. All the media-scares re raw foods tend to focus on raw meats and raw dairy.Loki0115 (talk) 19:36, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Phenylalanine had a point a few days ago about not including food poisoning in regard to raw dairy and raw food in general when we don't have articles relating 'raw foodism' and 'food poisoning'. If we try to put them together, he says we are engaging in Wikipedia: Original Research There may be some articles out there relating the two ideas, where we find some raw foodists getting sick, that would be OK to use. --—CynRN ^(Talk) 21:20, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that this is OR (and Phen's proposal to update WP:NOR to reflect his overly strict preference was rejected, despite several revisions and strong perseverance on his point). There is solid evidence that raw plants can carry disease. There's even evidence that many of Odwalla's customers specifically thought it was healthier because it was unpasteurized/raw. (BTW, a similar outbreak had happened in apple juice a few years before, and hundreds of people were sick and another person died from unpasteurized Sun Orchard orange juice a couple of years later: Odwalla's experience is not exactly an anomaly.)

The fact that a person eats primarily raw foods does not exempt them from the same risks run by people that only sometimes eat raw foods. These are real, documentable, and obviously applicable risks. It is not necessary for a government agency to say "Anyone that eats raw milk -- and by that, we specifically include people that are eating raw milk as part of a raw food diet -- could get food poisoning from it." "Anyone" means "anyone", not "anyone except those not specifically mentioned." Rawists are people, too. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:19, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I personally agree that whatamidoing is right in including references to food-poisoning from raw foods among raw-foodists. Technically, this is indeed OR, in every way, and inappropriate as what is applicable to SAD-/cooked-eaters who eat a little raw foods is not necessarily relevant to raw-foodists who eat lots of raw foods - for example, raw-foodists have several explanations for why outbreaks re food-poisoning are almost unheard of in their community:- 1) rawists make strenuous efforts to buy only high-quality grassfed organic-raised meats/plants(or meats from wild animals etc.) so do not get the problems that followers of cooked-diets get from eating undercooked, intensively-farmed low-quality grainfed meats.2) rawists, by definition, are better adapted to eating raw than cooked-SAD-eaters, simply because their body has got more used to digesting raw foods over months/years, and 3)a large number of food-poisoning epidemics actually result from SAD-eaters eating canned, cooked/preheated foods after the latter have deteriorated; 4) rawists claim, as a primary belief, that "the environment is more important than the so-called "pathogen", so that if a person's body is "healthy"(ie from a raw diet), they will be far less likely to incur bacterial-outbreaks than someone who is "unhealthy"(ie on a cooked-diet). I'm just giving the above ideas as examples of alternatives, not as the "FACTS", to show how it might well be OR. That said, there does need to be some sort of serious counter-argument to the raw-foodist claim, and epidemic-style food-poisoning from raw foods is a cherished belief-system of the mainstream, so should be included. So, by all means cite examples of food-poisoning from raw foods - however, I do think it should be made clear whether the recipients of the food-poisoning outbtreaks were rawists or not.And should any articles be found describing actual food-poisoning outbreaks among rawists, then those should be given more prominence than any articles about non-rawists incurring food-poisoning from some raw foods.Loki0115 (talk) 13:39, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the fact that rawists spend so much time and effort to debunk food poisoning claims is, in itself, proof that such criticisms exist. We're not trying to prove that the critics are right; we're just saying that raw foodism is criticized on the grounds of food poisoning. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:14, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Hardly! The only reason raw-animal-foodists debunk such media-scares, is because almost every single (biased) article in the media about raw foods, especially articles about raw meat diets, contains endless(unsupported) paragraphs about how eating raw meat will kill you(re salmonella etc.) and we get annoyed given that no such bacterial-outbreaks/parasitical-infestations etc. exist in our community, despite all the media-hysteria - if there had been anything remotely significant, it would have been reported in the (somewhat hostile)media, long ago(such as those stories about raw vegans and their children) - for that matter, very few people would continue a raw animal food diet if the raw diet forums all had members screaming about how they were all dying from bacteria etc(LOL!). So, I'm all in favour of the anti-raw side referring to something that doesn't actually exist as a problem in the raw-food community.Loki0115 (talk) 16:32, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I noticed the ref for 'grass fed cattle have less E coli' didn't work so I went looking for a working references. I found this study which refutes the idea that grass fed cattle are more resistant to E coli:http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=91480--—CynRN ^(Talk) 17:30, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Err, the website you linked to, was a dud page/broken link. I managed to select the right letters and found the right link, but now I find that the study you referenced only concerned ("low-quality timothy grass HAY", not high-quality grass. So, it's invalid, it seems.Loki0115 (talk) 19:55, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Regardless, I provided several links in favour of the notion that e coli is not an issue for grassfed meats, so I'm not too bothered with 1 against, should you find one.Loki0115 (talk) 19:55, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about the broken link. Here is a nice summary. The notion that grass fed cattle are more resistant to E coli is not a slam dunk.. http://www.marlerblog.com/2008/08/articles/lawyer-oped/grassfed-vs-grainfed-beef-and-the-holy-grail-a-literature-review/ --—CynRN ^(Talk) 20:44, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

And, from veterinarian epidemiologist Renter: "In Renter et al., 2003, he and his colleagues found E. coli O157 in 2.48% of fecal samples from rangeland cattle in Kansas and Nebraska, similar to a rate found in previous studies of "confined" (=feedlot) cattle. They also tested several hundred samples from wildlife, including coyotes, whitetailed deer, raccoons, and possums. In wildlife, the pathogen was only found in one possum sample."--—CynRN ^(Talk) 20:49, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Loki, you just proved my point. Rawists spend a lot of time "debunking" the mainstream criticism of food poisoning. Why do they do this? Because the mainstream view of raw foodism (especially raw animal products) harps continually on the theme of food poisoning.

If this mainstream criticism didn't exist, presumably the rawsists wouldn't spend so much time on this point. The fact that rawists have to spend (waste) so much energy on this single issue is proof that non-rawists criticize this diet on grounds of food poisoning. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:26, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Raw Vegans children raw dairy

I changed the words, deleting the reference to "there are some who oppose raw-foodism", as it was referring to Shazzie who is most definitely a pro-raw vegan, even if she's recommending that children of raw vegans eat some raw animal food as well. The paragraph in question needs a reference for the dental erosion and raw vegans link claim, and preferably a better wikipedia-friendly source than that blog.Though, I entirely agree with that blog's sentiments, mind you.Loki0115 (talk) 14:55, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I have some problems with the Vit D and teeth thing. I think there are more verifiable problems with a raw food diet and children. I also agree with WhatamIdoing that maybe we need a separate section for children and raw food.--—CynRN ^(Talk) 06:57, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, unless you can provide more solid wikipedia-friendly references, I really think that that paragraph has to go. The reference to children is a bit dodgy, but if a relevant newspaper article can be found, it should be given it's own small section.Loki0115 (talk) 19:26, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Wrangham

To go back to another delayed topic, now that others have been settled. Wrangham claims that "no human tribes have ever gone without at least some cooked-food in the past", to justify his stance that coooked-food is obigatory for humans. This is based on a false-logic. I could just as easily state that "no tribe of humans has ever been without at least some raw food in their diet, thus proving that raw food is obligatory for humans. Unless, there's a solid reference by Wrangham to a tribe which followed a 100% cooked diet, with no raw food whatsoever, his claim is factually-incorrect.

Then there's Wrangham's claim that raw-foodists simply cannot survive on a diet of 100% raw food. He purports that raw meat is not easy to chew and therefore by implication, indigestible), yet most RAFers report not needing to chew raw food and just bolt down their raw meats like carnivores(such as dogs) do. OK, this is anecdotal and so probably doesn't count wikipedia-style, but it's a bit ridiculous for Wrangham to claim that humans cannot survive on raw-food diets, when there are so many doing just that, for decades(eg:- The Nenet tribe from Siberia, who eat almost completely raw).Loki0115 (talk) 16:18, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Wrangham makes the claim; we report the claim. That you personally disagree with him is unimportant. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:10, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, I suppose I'll have to accept that, despite the fact that Richard Wrangham has about the same credentials as I have,as regards human evolution(ie none whatsoever!)- he's only a mere chimp behaviourist, after all. Still, his methodology is so dodgy(he doesn't even give his references re his claim that raw foodists experience lethargy etc. and has, without a doubt, never studied raw-animal-foodists in any way, that I'm happy that he's mentioned rather than someone else, as Wrangham's ideas are more easily refutable and ridiculous in their own right.Loki0115 (talk) 20:34, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Uh, Wrangham is a professor of biological anthropology who teaches human and primate evolution at Harvard, and has published extensively on these subjects!.http://209.85.141.104/search?q=cache:duTeMfxBntUJ:www.fas.harvard.edu/~bioanth/Acrobatfiles/wrangham_cv_2005.pdf+wrangham+education&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us

Mere chimp behaviourist, I think not! That said, his arguments do not need to have much prominence here in this article, which has enough to do to try and explain all the permutations of raw foodism.--—CynRN ^(Talk) 06:09, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I can only go by what anthropologists think of him:- "In the 10 years since coming on his theory, Wrangham has stacked up considerable evidence to support it, yet many archaeologists, paleontologists and anthropologists argue that he is just plain wrong. Wrangham is a chimp researcher, the skeptics point out, not a specialist in human evolution. He is out of his league. Furthermore, archaeological data does not support the use of controlled fire during the period Wrangham’s theory requires it to." taken from:-

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

If you look at Wrangham's CV, you'll notice that it's almost completely weighted towards study of chimpanzee behaviour and other animals, not humans(this is likely why he makes unwarranted assumptions about humans, based on observation of chimpanzees, despite the fact that they're an entirely different species):-

http://www.discoverlife.org/who/CV/Wrangham,_Richard.html

But I agree that he did some basic study at University re anthropology, but he's no genuine specialist in human anthropology.Loki0115 (talk) 10:05, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

75%

won't argue re this point, but the 75%+raw figure to describe a raw-foodist is arbitrary to me. I've come across people doing 50% or 60% raw who call themselves raw-foodists.Just an observation. Well, I suppose they could come under "partially-raw", I suppose.Loki0115 (talk) 15:50, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Of course it's arbitrary. But that's what our reliable sources say. If we can find a reliable source that mentions other standards, then we can certainly add that. What I think is important here is the fact that the normal "raw foodist" eats up to 25% cooked food. I suspect that our general reader will assume that all raw foodists only eat raw foods with no exceptions. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:58, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, here's a source, a Raw Foodism FAQ, which gives a 60%+ figure for a raw-foodist:-

"And the last point I want to make is that I want to give a definition of RAW FOODIST: I define a RAW FOODIST as someone who eats mostly raw, more than 60% percent of his/her diet." taken from:-

http://www.rawguru.com/i3.html

Loki0115 (talk) 20:31, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Shall we make the sentence in the lead say 60-75% raw and include your ref? It's all about Verifiability. Your background and knowledge are important but we must have references. Again, a blog is OK for a reference to tell us what 'some raw foodists think', but if the article tries to make specific claims about the benefits of raw foods without that qualifier, then we have to use more reliable references.--—CynRN ^(Talk) 21:19, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

After looking at the ref. I see that it's basically one guy's opinion that eating over 60% raw qualifies one as a rawist. Are there more refs for this?--—CynRN ^(Talk) 21:24, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

"Some rawists think..." is a reasonable way to present that. We have multiple refs for the 75%; adding a half-sentence or so to indicate diversity of opinion (and citing this source, or other similar sources) is fine. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:48, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Here's another reference mentioning the 60% raw food point:- http://www.dnronline.com/flavor_details.php?AID=10611&CHID=40

Loki0115 (talk) 09:52, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Food poisoning

I've added information on food poisoning related to raw food. I excluded sources that seemed to think that the raw food would be cooked before consumption (i.e., bacteria testing in commercial slaughterhouses). WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:51, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Given that the anti-raw side has now finally been expanded quite a bit(wrangham/food-poisoning), I do think it's appropriate for me to now include references to scientific studies on toxins in cooked-foods, as a counterpoint. I'l see about including more references and studies, as time goes by.Loki0115 (talk) 10:35, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

CYN, I've decided you are absolutely right and have included the info re grassfed meats and E-Coli in the raw-meat-diet general-info section. There should be separate pro-raw and anti-raw sections, so as to make things more readable and coherent.Loki0115 (talk) 14:51, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Paragraph in Recent Research

"Studies on raw human milk showed that human infants absorbed human raw milk much better than heated(pasteurised) human milk[60],[61].

Increasing numbers of long-term raw vegans believe that to sustain the diet daily inclusion of superfoods and/or supplements are necessary, particularly for children and mothers. Many raw vegan children have been shown to have problems with tooth decay which is believed to be a result of vitamin D deficiency[citation needed], however this may simply be miseducation as vitamin D2 comes from plant sources and vitamin D3 can be manufactured by the human body upon exposure to sunlight. In this blog, mothers are encouraged either to supplement or include raw dairy products or other raw animal foods in their childrens' diets in order to avoid irrevocable damage to their children's health"

I'll get rid of this. Claims like this should be verified. --—CynRN ^(Talk) 16:23, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

The above paragraph really has to be deleted. It derives from a page which doesn't provide any studies to back up the quoted comments above - plus, the recommendation to eat raw animal foods is irrelevant in a section devoted to "recent (scientific) research", it should be put in a "Notes and cautions" section or whatever, if at all, given that the reference is just a blog):-

http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2008/04/29/2230592.htm?site=science/greatmomentsinscience

The same website has been used to provide another(unreferenced claim in the raw-foodism page, under "nutritonal deficiencies":-

"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."

There are plenty of websites which describe how cooking removes toxins from (non-Palaeo) raw foods such as grains, so I'm sure a far better website(or rather scientific study) can be found to provide much the same information.Loki0115 (talk) 11:02, 7 September 2008 (UT

Don't delete "some nutrients in cooked food, are more available". This is information that can be verified. --—CynRN ^(Talk) 16:23, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

The article the claim comes from cites quite a few references regarding the point of food being more digestible when cooked. Take a look. --—CynRN ^(Talk) 17:22, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the above article referred to, doesn't provide a single reference for "cooked foods being more digestible than raw". I'm perfectly well aware that there are a few(viz raw grains being more digestible than cooked grains), but the article cited is so rabidly anti-raw and so free of any references in this particular instance, that it's not a valid choice for inclusion. Here's a webpage, which cites certain studies which prove that some raw foods(eg:- grains) are better eaten cooked than raw(and which might be referenced in wikipedia):-

http://www.beyondveg.com/tu-j-l/raw-cooked/raw-cooked-2a.shtml

(It will have to be made clear that these are non-Palaeo foods, as it would be misleading to suggest that cooked meat, say, was more digestible than raw meats -in fact, raw meats are more digestible, according to www.beyondveg.com).Loki0115 (talk) 19:25, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

The well-referenced article that talks about nutrients in cooked food being more available is "Cooking as a biological trait" by Wrangham. I don't know how to link the existing ref to the phrase: 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.."--—CynRN ^(Talk) 16:29, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure that other sources could be found, if necessary. It's more relevant for grains than for animal products, however. There are also a few plants that are poisonous if eaten raw, but acceptable if cooked. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:42, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Using Wrangham as a reference for the statement that cooking makes things more bioavailable is rather dodgy, given his anti-raw approach. I already know of a number of books etc. showing that raw meats are actually better digested than (lightly)-cooked-meats(the difference is slight something like 1%, I believe?), and will put them up when I have the time, to contrast Wrangham's sole contribution, either in the criticism section or elsewhere.

Wrangham seems to be more 'pro-cooking' than 'anti-raw'. I think he may be against a dogmatic assumption that we all ate 100% raw food up until 250,000 years ago considering that the biggest change in our physical makeup occurred 1.8+/- mill years ago. He seems to be against the assumption that 100% raw food is the best for our health. His paper includes references to back up his statements about 'husks breaking down' and so forth.--—CynRN ^(Talk) 19:32, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

"Husks" would be a reference to grains, hudging from the word. Trouble is that only raw vegans eat raw grains, and, in most cases, these are sprouted grains(which have their antinutrients significantly lowered). Raw animal foodists avoid grains like the plague, raw or cooked.Loki0115 (talk) 20:01, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with whatamidoing that the only easily-proven/well-referenced) point re benefits of cooking is that cooking makes grains, legumes and beans far more digestible in cooked-form than raw. This is something that I can hardly refute, as it's common knowledge, with numerous scientific papers attesting to that, unlike the claim that cooking renders all foods more digestible, which is unsupported. You would therefore be actually better off with referring only to those 3 foods being better digested in cooked-form, and removing the Wrangham sentence completely!Loki0115 (talk) 10:45, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, I've added in the studies showing better digestibility for raw meats.Loki0115 (talk) 12:27, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it's not just grains and beans that are better cooked. It's difficult to get all the calories an average person needs from a raw vegan diet (which seems to be the bulk of the rawists). I've run across several mentions of this by nutritionists. Cooking concentrates food, so it is easier to get enough energy. Lycopene is more available in cooked tomatoes and there are other phytonutrients that benefit by cooking. There is some evidence that cooked starch is good for diabetics. And then there is the psychological factor...that cooking makes some foods taste better!

The raw meat diet is so drastically different from the raw vegan that we have to be very clear in this article when we are talking about one or the other.--—CynRN ^(Talk) 19:32, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid that the only reason why some cooked-foods taste better than raw (to those starting the diet) is due to lifelong habits(though addictive opioids in some cooked-foods are another, lesser reason). We RAFers actually get to prefer the taste of raw foods of whatever variety once we start getting into it after a year or so(and many report stealing pieces of raw meats as very young children, without feeling nauseous etc.). But, since the article is providing info to people who are most likely to be non-rawists, it's valid for them - mind you, a similiar argument could be made that unhealthy junk-foods with flavour-enhancing chemicals "taste" better than (so-called) "healthy" cooked foods - I rather doubt, though, that that argument would be allowed on the wikipedia entry for junk-foods!

I've also heard that raw animal foods actually contain more calories than cooked animal foods. I'll have to take some time to find that reference, though. The idea is that while cooking removes the water-content, so that it looks as though calories are higher weight for weight, the actual energy-density of cooked-meats shows a loss visd-avis the raw version. Loki0115 (talk) 20:01, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Furhmann/Food Preparation

There's a paragraph about Fuhrmann in the food-preparation section which was misleading. It stated that Fuhrman was of the opinion that it might not be possible to get enough vitamin D and B12 on a raw diet. Given that vitamin B12 and vitamin D are plentiful in raw animal foods(though not raw plant-foods), I had to change the term "raw diet" in that paragraph to a "raw vegetarian diet as Fuhrman used raw plant-food with some raw eggs(eggs are part of vegetarian diet as is dairy). I will also add in raw eggs for the raw vegetarian diet description, as well.Loki0115 (talk) 13:18, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

That's fine to add 'vegetarian'. Actually 'vegan' is more accurate. --—CynRN ^(Talk) 16:25, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

No, "raw vegetarian" is more accurate. Fuhrmann did, after all, feed his own children on raw eggs, which are not a raw plant-food. But, I agree that raw eggs likely contain some vitamin B12, so raw vegan, would be more accurate as a warning against too low vitamin B12 levelsLoki0115 (talk) 18:39, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Vitamin B12 comes only from animal sources, where as Vitamin D can be obtained from plant sources and humans can manufacture it in their skin from exposure to UV rays. 75.0.9.183 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 19:12, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Life Extension Magazine March 2006 Vitamin D: "Vitamin D occurs in nature in two main forms: vitamin D2, or ergocalciferol, and vitamin D3, or cholecalciferol. While vitamin D2 is obtained from plant sources, vitamin D3 can either be obtained through animal sources or synthesized in the skin when its precursor molecule absorbs light energy from ultraviolet B rays. Vitamin D can refer to either D2 or D3. In the liver, both are converted into 25-hydroxyvitamin D, the primary circulating form of vitamin D. Conversion into its active form, 1,25-dihydroxyvitamin D, occurs in the kidney." 75.0.9.183 (talk) 19:26, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Food safety concerns

The article need not describe every single food safety issue associated with the consumption of specific raw foods, as it seems the article is heading in that direction. We should do some research on the net and look for sources that make the connection between Raw foodism and the food safety issues, and add the food safety concerns mentioned there, preferably with a wikilink to a separate article about "raw foods" or "food safety", where the the food safety concerns can be detailed. My two cents. --Phenylalanine (talk) 14:21, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Of course, there is lots of data on food borne illness and raw food, but it should be in the context of the 'raw food' philosophy. People who buy raw juice, like Odwalla, don't always subscribe to the raw food philosophy(so info about the danger of raw juice is not relevant), but people who go to the trouble to lease a cow for raw milk are more in that category and illness from that practice is notable.--—CynRN ^(Talk) 16:29, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

You're still faced with the problem that bacterial outbreaks/parasitic infestations etc.are nonexistent in the raw-food community, as regards reported by the media etc.Better to just include info re raw foods bacterial outbreaks among eaters of cooked-food diets. This is very weak, and completely irrelevant to raw-foodists as a community, but it's the best one can do.Loki0115 (talk) 19:17, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

No, what makes food poisoning relevant is the fact that this is a mainstream criticism of this diet. The critics do not have to be demonstrably right to get their points included.

In fact, no matter what the subject, everybody believes that their critics overlook critical factors, make erroneous assumptions, make sweeping generalizations, and so forth. A mainstream criticism of raw food diets is "you're going to get food poisoning". The mainstream view may well be entirely wrong, but that's their view, and so we include it. Sushi eaters hear the same thing, despite years of evidence and tens of millions of people that eat it. That doesn't change the fact that sushi is criticized as unsafe: See Sushi#Health_risks. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:40, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, I see your point. I don't mind the inclusion of mainstream beliefs as long as the central beliefs of rawists are also mentioned.Loki0115 (talk) 09:22, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Question

How does one find out exactly what changes some other poster has made? All I can do right now is to look at the notes in the history section and search the whole wikipedia raw foodism page to tell what's now different.Loki0115 (talk) 19:59, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Click on "last" in the "history" window (see example below):

(cur) (last) 19:17, 7 September 2008 Loki0115 (Talk | contribs) (173,974 bytes) (undo)

--Phenylalanine (talk) 20:17, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

See Help:Page history. 75.0.9.183 (talk) 19:03, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Toxicity of cooked foods

I appreciate Loki's work on the toxicity in cooked foods section, but it's too much weight for this particular aspect. See Wikipedia:UNDUEWEIGHT "Undue weight applies to more than just viewpoints. Just as giving undue weight to a viewpoint is not neutral, so is giving undue weight to other verifiable and sourced statements. An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements."

I suggest that there is too much detail and quantity on the toxicity subject. What about making another Wikipedia article called Toxicity of cooked foods? --—CynRN ^(Talk) 22:47, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with CynRN that we don't need this amount of detail in the "Toxicity of cooked foods" section. There is a section titled "Cooking#Potential harmful health effects" in the cooking article. In my opinion, the detailed information in the "Toxicity of cooked foods" section should be moved over there and summarized in this article. Also, the heading "Toxicity of cooked foods" should be changed to "Potential harmful health effects of cooking". --Phenylalanine (talk) 00:39, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I think the toxicity stuff should be moved over to the cooking article. It is important to state that raw foodists 'believe' that cooked food has dangerous toxins. A little more of that could go in the 'Beliefs' section if the 'Toxicity' section can be pruned. --—CynRN ^(Talk) 03:04, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

As it appears to be a major motivating factor for some rawists, I think that this issue should be addressed with a substantial paragraph, not just a sentence. It might be more relevant to the raw meat diet than to a raw vegan diet; if that's true, then it could be mentioned briefly in the general section and more details be provided in a subsection that details raw meat issues. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:42, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

The argument re "undue weight" for the pro-raw argument is somewhat surprising, given that the anti-raw argument has c.44 lines from (including) recent research section down to wrangham downwards for the anti-raw argument, and roughly c.35 for the pro-raw side - counting lines with 1 word in either case)) - the whole point of wikipedia is to provide NPOV, and give each side their due, not just give the mainstream POV, and remove all other views because there are no more mainstream anti-raw points to be made. I agree that the title "toxins in cooked foods" should be changed to "potential harmful effects of cooked foods"(I'll change it now), but the issue of toxins in cooked-foods is so central to the concept of raw food diets, that it would be pointless to move it from the raw-foodist page). The argument that "most" raw-foodists are "only" interested in the idea that raw-food contains "bioenergy" is misguided, as the latter view is actually only held by a small number of raw-foodists, such as Leslie Kenton and one or two other authors, and is hardly mentioned in raw foodist forums that I frequent, given that no proof exists for that idea, whatsoever. Given that toxins in cooked-foods,(eg:- acrylamide, advanced glycation endproducts etc.), have been mentioned in the media, on numerous occasions, one cannot argue they merely constitute a "belief", to be mentioned in passing. The point I'm trying to make is that "toxins in cooked foods" is also a part of the mainstream POV, as, otherwise, why are there numerous websites out there which are not remotely raw-foodist-oriented, but which give intructions/recommendations as to how to reduce the amounts of toxins in cooked-foods:-

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0ZRQ/is_11_10/ai_n21107823

http://www.stopagingnow.com/news/news_flashes/4612/The-Anti-Cancer-Barbecue

http://www.fitnessandfreebies.com/food/articles/carcinogens.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1021464/Adding-rosemary-steak-help-prevent-cancer.html

Quiet aside from the above, most nutritionists recommend cooking less, avoiding frying/grilling in favour of steamed/poached or raw foods like fruit/veg, so, again, such nutritonists' views merely reflect part of the mainstream POV.

I have no problem with making a slightly more compact set of paragraphs, but removing any of the particular toxins mentioned or other info would be wrong, as they are featured elsewhere on wikipedia and are common knowledge in scientific circles and the media.

I should add that the issue of toxins in cooked-foods is central to all raw diets, not just raw animal food diets(eg:-

http://www.thegardendiet.com/science/ http://www.rawfoodlife.com/Articles___Research/Science_of_Raw_v__Cooked/science_of_raw_v__cooked.htmhttp://www.living-foods.com/articles/cooked.html http://www.purerawcafe.com/philosophy.htm http://www.burningbodyfat.com/raw-foods-vs-cooked-foods.html http://www.therawfoodschool.com/benefits.asp etc. etc. etc.) Loki0115 (talk) 11:06, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, I can live with the paragraph on potential negatives, etc, but Loki, you must understand that Wikipedia does not have to give the same weight to viewpoints that are not mainstream. The raw foodists are a tiny minority of folks, passionate and secure in their beliefs to be sure, but not mainstream. The fact that there are literally thousands of websites promoting raw foodism (with cited studies and so forth) means nothing. When you look at the 'anti-vaccination' issue, if you didn't know any better, you could be overwhelmed by the number of anti-vax websites and find it very difficult to find reliable information that actually reflects current scientific consensus. I propose an opening sentence in the toxins paragraph to the effect that this is controversial, if I can find a reference.--—CynRN ^(Talk) 16:46, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I think we need to look at Wikipedia:Fringe theories to decide how to present both sides. According to Jimbo Wales:

[...] Usually, mainstream and minority views are treated in the main article, with the mainstream view typically getting a bit more ink, but the minority view presented in such a fashion that both sides could agree to it. Singular views can be moved to a separate page and identified (disclaimed) as such, or in some cases omitted altogether. [1]

Articles which cover controversial, disputed, or discounted ideas in detail should document (with reliable sources) the current level of their acceptance among the relevant academic community. If proper attribution cannot be found among reliable sources of an idea's standing, it should be assumed that the idea has not received consideration or acceptance; ideas should not be portrayed as accepted unless such claims can be documented in reliable sources. However, a lack of consideration or acceptance does not necessarily imply rejection either; ideas should not be portrayed as rejected or labeled with pejoratives such as pseudoscience unless such claims can be documented in reliable sources.--—CynRN ^(Talk) 17:00, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I have no problem with the anti-raw side being projected in full, with more emphasis on it, but this has already been done,judging from numerous anti-raw cautions re nutritional deficiencies/food-poisoning etc. spread across the whole raw foodism page, and greater length being given to anti-raw arguments - the only concerns that the mainstream have against raw-foodism is the issue of bacteria/parasites(ie food-poisoning) and the issue of nutritional deficiencies among raw vegans/fruitarians, both of which are already fully detailed in the article - other than that the mainstream simply doesn't seem to have any other anti-raw concerns, last I checked, though I'd be happy for any such new issues to be added in, should they exist. But even if there may be no further adequate anti-raw arguments to make, that isn't sufficient grounds, IMO, for the removal of studies backing the central tenet-belief of raw-foodism, re toxins in cooked-foods.

Also, the fact is that the issue of toxins in cooked-foods is an established part of mainstream POV, mentioned routinely in non-rawist circles like mainstream newspapers, scientific journals etc.(both types of which I've provided previously, incidentally), such studies therefore cannot remotely be labelled "fringe" in any way, as that would be rather misleading.I mean, toxins in cooked-foods, such as heterocyclic amines, are mentioned in the well-known New Scientist magazine, for example, about the most famous (mainstream)Science magazine around:-

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn6895

Another consideration is that any notable wikipedia subject deserved at the very least to have its primary views explained. Not including the "potential harmful effects of cooked-foods"(I've changed the original)section), and just including a link to the cooking section, would be like writing a page about Communism and covering Stalin, Marx,Trotsky as well as Lenin, all in just one sentence.Also, the word "potential" in the title is enough, IMO, to make clear that the section below isn't to be seen as gospel, it merely delineates scientific studies and the links that those studies have made. I could understand a disqualifier being necessary if that section contained overblown phrases like "cooked-food is poison", "we believe that cooked-meat kills", or whatever but the studies listed are pretty standard, references which anyone can find on the web after a quick Googling, and the toxins, such as acrylamide/AGEs, are already common knowledge in the mainstream, anyway. Still, all that said, writing a line stating "these studies are controversial is way better than the alternatives. Loki0115 (talk) 19:47, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

No, of course the point needs to be covered. My issue is that some concerns about toxins in cooked food is mainstream and some appears to be very tangential, i.e. a test tube finding that some chemical interacts with something else, or a study on rats exposed to huge amounts of the substance. I think an opening paragraph explaining this is in order.

While some potential harmful effects in cooked food are accepted by nutritionists, others are controversial...etc." I'll think more about it tomorrow.--—CynRN ^(Talk) 08:18, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Ah, that's better. I agree that the study on rats is a bit absurd and out-of-place in the toxins/cooked-food section as it should relate to humans - I don't mind its removal. However, all the other types of toxins are too well-documented in the media(newspaper articles, government-organisations, scientific journals etc.(polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, for example, while present in cooked-foods, are also noted as a nasty pollutant as part of inorganic substances derived from industrial waste etc.) And all of these toxins are so well-known in the mainstream, that most of them are already covered by separate Wikipedia entries of their own. There are so many 100s of studies done on toxins created by heat/cooking that it's difficult to list them as "controversial" when the general public already accepts that frying/baking is bad precisely because of the excessive amounts of toxins created by such processes.

Howevever, if something is labelled as "controversial", I would at least expect a proper reference backing this viewpoint as being from the mainstream.

As regards the fringe-accusation for raw diets, that's inaccurate. First of all, raw food diets are so well-known now worldwide, that there have been scientific studies done on raw-foodists and on raw foods in general, so it's notable. And it cannot be considered "fringe" in the way that real fringe-subjects, such as the Apolllo Moon-landings/UFOs are, as there are large raw-food movements worldwide(eg:- Rohkost movement in Germany, the raw food community in California, plus the numerous books and newspaper articles on the subject, and not to mention the numerous raw gurus(mentioned on the raw foodism page), each with their own particular followings, organised meetups:- http://www.rawfoodplanet.com/

Plus, as an obvious indication of the popularity of raw food diets, raw food restaurants have sprung up in numerous locations around the world.

And, given that mainstream nutritionists and scientist routinely recommend that the public eat lots of raw fruit and veg a day, it would be inaccurate to suggest that raw-foods are viewed with total suspicion.Loki0115 (talk) 10:35, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I would say 100% of nutritionists recommend hearty portions of raw fruits and vegetables. No question about that. What percent of RDs would advocate 75-100% of food be eaten raw? I doubt surveys exist, all we have are 'this nutritionist' or 'that RD' writing an article on raw food diets and recommending caution.--—CynRN ^(Talk) 19:45, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Part of the trouble with your above comment is that it's a litle misleading. The primary reasons why a number of nutritionists recommend caution is that a) they mistakenly think of raw-food diets as being only 100% plant-foods and are understandably concerned re falling vitamin B12 levels etc., and b) these nutritonists view raw meats as a deadly poison, due to the bacteria/parasites issue, so they never mention raw-food-diets in the context of raw animal foods. The point is that the bacteria/parasites issue has already been covered in the raw foodism article, and since nutritionists all vary in individual ways, some nutritionists like Aajonus recommend raw meats, others recommend a cooked-low-carb diet or a standard, balanced diet etc., it's not really valid to cite what you think nutritionists' views are, as a whole.There are too many differences of opinion.And like I said, it's not nutrionists who determine whether a diet is notable or accepted or not, but scientific journals, and, most importantly, the general public. The existence of raw-food restaurants in many areas implies, in and of itself, that raw foods are an acceptable form of diet among the generla public.Loki0115 (talk) 20:12, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

The argument that raw foodism is "fringe" is further undermined by the fact that it's referred to as one of the 7 most popular diets on the web ina news article:-

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/5847.php Loki0115 (talk) 20:48, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Dubious

From "Beliefs":

Cooking in oil does not produce trans fats. The cooking oil might contain trans fats, but non-trans oils are very common. Raw milk and raw meat, on the other hand, frequently contain small amounts of trans fats (which are a naturally occurring kind of fat, after all).

Also, the Carol Alt source doesn't mention acidosis anywhere in it -- and you will need a good source, since Metabolic acidosis is a real disease, and I've never seen "eating cooked food" as a cause. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:39, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I didn't add those references in, someone else did. However, it is mentioned on the Web that cooking creates traces of trans-fats:-

"You can also make your own trans fat (in small amounts) by repeatedly re-heating cooking oil." taken from:-

http://www.tfx.org.uk/page13.html

"Some hydrogenation of oils occurs during cooking, causing normally healthy unsaturated fats like olive oil to convert to trans fats. But in non-industrial settings this process does not occur at appreciable quantities.[7]" taken from:-

http://www.answers.com/topic/cooking-fats

I propose, therefore, that the wording should change to "cooking creates trace amounts of trans-fats, which is factually-correct.Loki0115 (talk) 09:49, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I also didn't put in the reference to metabolic acidosis. However, checking the Internet shows that metabolic acidosis is viewed by Raw Vegans as the result of eating overly acidic cooked-foods and the idea is that raw, alkalinising plant-foods would prevent that condition. Here are some references:-

http://www.vegparadise.com/athlete7.html

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=v-8xz2eiAkMC&pg=PA96&lpg=PA96&dq=raw+foods+metabolic+acidosis+cooked+foods&source=web&ots=sQoq3_0azV&sig=jYfQ1BfHyeta90Uiia2rch9doyY&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=6&ct=result

Most Vegan/Raw Vegan sites, however, mention all types of "acidosis", in general, rather than "metabolic acidosis" in particular:- http://www.selfhealingempowerment.com/articles/unnatural_eq_disease.html Loki0115 (talk) 09:49, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Removing new intro for toxins in cooked-foods section

There is a rather biased first sentence recently introduced in the "potential harmful effects of cooked foods section", which I will remove - (it's not been seemingly discusssed here, either). It cites a vague reference from an unknown nutritionist:-

"Raw foodists claim cooked food is less healthy due to chemicals like acrylamide and heterocyclid amines (HCAs) produced by high heat but "neither the American Cancer Society nor the National Cancer Institute goes so far as to recommend a raw food diet to reduce the risk of cancer from these chemicals"[63" reference= http://www.rawfoodlife.com/Latest_Raw_Food_News/Dallas_Morning_News_4_7_08/dallas_morning_news_4_7_08.html

First of all, against wikipedia rules, the above inserter has not directly quoted the (rather unknown)nutritionist who stated that remark, secondly the reference is from a rather obscure newspaper, thirdly, the remarks by the nutritionist have been reworded so as to make it seem that neither of the two above cancer organisations recommend raw food diets against cancer, when it is merely the nutritionist's claim. Given that governmental cancer organisations routinely recommend fruit and veg as a way to protect against cancer(and fruit is in most cases eaten raw), this is just somewhat dodgy.Loki0115 (talk) 11:15, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi Loki, We can quote the nutritionist and use her name. Here she is in another article. As we have discussed, we need a mainstream outlook to introduce the section, ie, some views on cooked food (HCAs) are mainstream and some (microwaved foods) are not mainstream:

Does Cooking Destroy Food?

Karen Schroeder, MS, RD

Raw foodists believe that cooking not only destroys enzymes, but also renders food toxic. To support this belief, some raw food proponents cite the National Academies of Science 1982 report, Diet, Nutrition, and Cancer, which names acrylamide and heterocyclic amines (HCAs) as possible carcinogens. These chemicals are formed in foods during cooking. However, neither the American Cancer Society (ACS) nor the National Cancer Institute (NCI) goes so far as to recommend a raw food diet to reduce the risk of cancer from these chemicals. Instead, they stress that following a healthful diet—one rich in fruits, vegetables, and whole grains, both raw and cooked—is still the best known way to reduce cancer risk.

Acrylamide has caused cancer in lab rats, but has not been shown to do so in humans. The foods with the highest levels of acrylamide are those that should be limited in a healthful diet anyway, such as potato chips and French fries. Experts see no need to avoid cooked potatoes entirely. Likewise, HCAs, which are formed when meat is cooked to greater than 480° F, may increase cancer risk. However, HCAs can be reduced through minor shifts in cooking methods, rather than significant dietary changes. For example, varying cooking methods; microwaving meat before frying, broiling, or barbecuing; and not making gravy from meat drippings.

https://www.myhospitalwebsite.com/library/webdav/view/Crestwood/apps/HealthGate/Article.aspx?chunkiid=46086--—CynRN ^(Talk) 17:13, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

The trouble with the above is that the American Cancer Society etc. does not necessarily support the idea that raw food diets are bad or good.They are actually undecided, for now, so the above amounts to misrepresentation by a nutritionist who does not represent the american cancer society etc, so her misattributions can't be put on the raw-foodism page.Here's a relevant excerpt from the web:-

"This confirms that there are a variety of compounds within fruits and vegetables that contribute to reducing the risk of cancer. Research like these studies contribute to our knowledge about what the impact of specific nutrients may be on specific types of cancer," said Colleen Doyle, director of nutrition and physical activity for the American Cancer Society. "Cooking leaches out some nutrients but makes others more absorbable. Until we know more in this regard, the bottom-line message for consumers is eat at least five servings of fruits and vegetables each day, raw and/or lightly cooked. Focus on those with the most color, since, in general, fruit and vegetables with the most color have the most cancer-fighting antioxidants and phytochemicals."

taken from:-http://www.healthfinder.gov/news/newsstory.asp?docID=610680

The above comment implies that the american cancer society is still not sure re its position re raw and cooked vegetables, and recommends either "raw fruit and veg" or "minimal cooking". It would be wrong, therefore, to imply like that nutritionist did, that the american cancer society etc. frown on raw foods.Loki0115 (talk) 20:31, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

The acrylamide-cancer link as regards humans has actually been established. Here's an example:-

"The team used a Netherlands study on diet and cancer, in which 120,000 people, and more than 62,000 women, aged 55-70 years, were asked details about their diet. The Dutch researchers used this data to estimate acrylamide intake from foods, and followed up the participants through cancer registries. After 11 years, women who had eaten around 40g of acrylamide a day were twice as likely to develop womb and ovarian cancer as those who'd eaten around 9g a day. There was no increased risk of breast cancer. The team did not look at the effects of acrylamide on men." taken from:- http://www.rsc.org/chemistryworld/News/2007/December/05120703.asp

http://www.foodnavigator.com/Science-Nutrition/Acrylamide-linked-to-higher-kidney-cancer-risk

I'll make sure that any references to acrylamide will contain only human-oriented, not rat-related, studies. I'll do that, tomorrow.Loki0115 (talk) 20:28, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Good, let's have human-oriented studies. I added a lead sentence back into the toxins section with the quote from Schroeder. --—CynRN ^(Talk) 23:00, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but I have to strongly protest against the use of that nutritionist's comments. I don't mind a specific comment on raw food diets by a spokesperson of the Cancer Research Institute(or similiar government- or health-related body)(indeed it's necessary to relfect a mainstream view), but quoting the nutritionist's views of what she thinks the american cancer institute is or ought to be thinking as regards raw food diets, is wholly misleading - it's clear from my above excerpt that the relevant organisation is not committed to any real line vis-a-vis- raw foods,given that they claim they need further research on this issue of raw vs cooked.

It shouldn't be too difficult to find a rather less dodgy comment on raw food diets by a leading scientist or spokesperson working for the american cancer society or any of 1000s government- or health-related bodies, and even in the extreme unlikelihood that you can't find such a reference, you could simply quote the nutritionist's views re raw food diets re acrylamide or whatever without mentioning those organisations, and make it clear that this is her own personal view, rather than the current approach which seems to imply that she's speaking directly on behalf of those organisations, with their support.What do others think?Loki0115 (talk) 08:59, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Loki, I think it's important to present the mainstream view, i.e. 'adding more raw fruits and vegetables is great, but an all raw diet is not recommended by mainstream nutritionists'. Yes, I'm sure I can find a ref...no hurry, now though. Also, the whole article is becoming bloated. For instance, the toxin section could be pared down. The "movement" and "history" sections are too meandering. See Sandy Georgia's comments under 'history' for more suggestions.--—CynRN ^(Talk) 17:59, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Fine, as long as something suitable is found, sooner or later. It can't be difficult to find such a reference re raw food diets from a mainstream orgnaisation - indeed, that kind of statement(adding raw fruits/veg, but raw food diet unnecessary) is standard for such organisations.

The article is definitely not becoming bloated - indeed, if you have a look at the extremely lengthy Paleolithic Diet page, it's quite normal for notable diets to have lots of text devoted to them, especially when they're more than just a fad, and more scientifically-oriented than others - and the cooked-Palaeolithic Diet is actually much less popular than raw food diets. Plus, all the relevant beliefs need to be listed and explained(loss of nutrients/toxins in cooked-foods etc.) as do the concerns re raw foods re bacteria/parasites as well as typical examples, such as the Nenets tribes who follow raw food diets. Loki0115 (talk) 20:02, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

One way to reduce the length of this article is to remove all duplicated material re certain medical conditions. One example is the following paragraph in the Nutritional Deficiencies section, about amenorrhea, even though a study on amenorrhea and raw-foodists is already featured in the Recent research section:-

"A study surveying people practicing raw food diets of varying intensities found that 30% of the women under age 45 had partial to complete amenorrhoea and that "subjects eating high amounts of raw food (> 90%) were affected more frequently than moderate raw food dieters." The study concluded that since many raw food dieters were underweight and exhibited amenorrhoea "a very strict raw food diet cannot be recommended on a long-term basis."[121]" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Loki0115 (talk • contribs) 20:11, 10 September 2008 (UTC) Loki0115 (talk) 20:13, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

One possibility is to avoid leaving so many blank lines between the various statements, whether pro-raw or anti-raw. Loki0115 (talk) 20:29, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

New source for pure/raw foods at ABCnews.com

There's a news story at ABCnews.com today that specifically connects raw foods with both a desire for pure/living/spiritually correct foods and with orthorexia.[1] I think it could support a new paragraph in "Criticisms" (on the prevalence of orthorexia and emotional problems among rawists) and also some items in the beliefs. As a regular news story, it's a stronger reference than somebody's website, so I'm really pleased that this turned up. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:31, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

As long as it's made clear that the article is only about a 100% raw plant-food diet(the article makes very clear in the text that meats are avoided o this diet".Loki0115 (talk) 19:34, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Most rawists are vegans and most of the health studies are of vegans.

I still want to write a Philosophy section, some of this would fit there. The orthorexia part can go in Criticism. Good find. --—CynRN ^(Talk) 19:40, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm a bit nonplussed re this inclusion of an article on "orthorexia" for raw foods. Doing a quick check of atkins/zone diet and other diets on a par with raw-foodism, I notice that none of them have a section in the criticism section about orthorexia, despite the fact that orthorexia exists among all types of diets. I do feel this is a little extreme, therefore, singling out only raw foodism for orthorexia .However, I'm willing to listen to justifications.Loki0115 (talk) 09:21, 10 September 2008 (UTC) 09:20, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

It's because the reliable sources consistently relate orthorexia to raw foodism (and specifically raw veganism, if they happen to get specific). If you can find solid sources that say people on low-carb diets have gotten completely obsessive about eating pure low-carb foods, then that can certainly be proposed at the other articles. We are bound to our reliable sources. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:40, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Orthorxia involves ALL diets, unsurprisingly:-

Atkins:- http://www.eatingdisordershelpguide.com/orthorexia.html

Zone diet, macrobiotics, blood-type diet etc.:- http://abcnews.go.com/Health/Stossel/story?id=5735592&page=1

AHH! Just realised that the last article cited is the very one used to cite orthorexia among raw-foodists(on page 2). So, in other words, the above article is talking about orthorexia among ALl kinds of diets, but it is being wrongly used to imply that orthorexia is preeminent among raw-foodists only. There's a very clear bias, here. I( wish I'd noticed that earlier. This article, therefore, should only be used for the orthorxia page. Ah well! Loki0115 (talk) 19:56, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Not really. That sentence says, "Americans spend millions on diet books hawking things like macrobiotics, the Zone, the Blood-type diet." It does not go on to connect any of these specific diets with orthorexia. It does, however, interview rawist guru Viktoras Kulvinskas and specifically connect rawism with orthorexia. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:28, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Loss of nutrients

Due to other concerns re this page, I completely forgot a rather more important point, the 2dn-most important belief of rawists is that cooking causes a loss of nutrients. I'll need to come up with relevant info re this rather vital point.I'll do that in the next few days-correction - done it now.Loki0115 (talk) 20:34, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

news articles

it might be an idea to include a few more media-articles on raw food diets in the diet descriptions section. I'll do that tomorrow.Loki0115 (talk) 21:02, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and I've included the point in the ntro re some rawists viewing themselves as rawists from 60% raw and above(as well as the 75% raw view). I included two definite references for the 60% raw figure, one more solid than the other, so I hope it's OK.Loki0115 (talk) 10:56, 10 September 2008 (UTC)