While it has been demonstrated earlier in this paper that cooked food (and more particularly, food cooked at high temperature) contains some harmful substances, raw foods, too, may contain a certain number of toxic substances. Measuring what differences there may be between the two is not something that can be easily calculated at present; but it is far more likely that numerous other factors are sufficient to explain the majority of the improvements attributed to raw food besides the fact it is uncooked.

By going raw, one is not simply ceasing to cook their food, but changing the amounts, types, and proportions of foods and nutrients in a profound way at the same time, which in and of itself is not necessarily dependent on going raw. A raw-food diet is just one way among others to achieve this. Some of the relevant factors here are:

• Character of fats. Raw-fooders usually eat less saturated fat and more unsaturated fats than the average American, which is beneficial for the blood cholesterol profile. Even instinctive eaters--who are often concerned about eating leaner cuts of meat to begin with--still tend to eat even less meat than the average American, which might cut their fat consumption even more. (Especially when starting their raw diet, many people are reluctant to try raw meat at the beginning.) Raw-fooders who follow instinctive eating also eat more fish (high in omega-3s). The fats that raw-fooders in general eat, even when they eat relatively high amounts of fats, often come from avocados and nuts, and thus predominate in unsaturated fats.

  Trans-fatty acids (margarines and hydrogenated oils)--a widespread ingredient in many of the processed foods the average American eats freely of--are completely eliminated in raw diets. These fats are known to interfere with omega-3 absorption, and also are now coming to be recognized as perhaps the most disease-promoting of any of the fats.

• Phytochemicals and antioxidants. Quite obviously a raw diet, particularly a vegetarian one (except perhaps for certain exceptions such as the macrobiotic diet), is going to be high in fruits and vegetables. Consequently, regardless of whether the diet is raw or not, a diet which predominates in fruits and vegetables will be high in phytochemicals, antioxidants, and other related health-promoting, disease-preventing substances currently receiving wide study in the nutritional community.

• Fiber. The average American diet is very low in fiber. Raw-food diets will automatically be high in both soluble and insoluble fiber because of the inclusion of vegetables, fruits, nuts, etc. Soluble fiber is known to lower cholesterol. Insoluble fiber improves bowel movements and is protective against colon cancer. Note again, however, that a diet similar to a raw diet in terms of the array of foods eaten, but with some of them cooked, may well be lower in fiber than an all-raw diet, but still much higher in fiber than the average American diet. Raw diets are just one way that higher levels of fiber can be achieved.

• Absence of added salt. With very few exceptions (perhaps a little sea salt here and there for a small minority), raw-fooders add no salt to their food. Salt is thought to increase blood pressure (although it's controversial), and is also associated with asthma, stomach and nasopharyngeal cancer, calcium loss, and increased stroke mortality independent of the effect on blood pressure.

• Near or total avoidance of certain potential "problem" foods. Grains, which were not a part of the human diet for its 2-million-year history until the last 10,000 years, and can be tolerated raw only with difficulty, are avoided or minimized by raw-fooders. This may be significant, since recent Paleolithic diet research is implicating grains in promoting hyperinsulinemia, and in increasing the risk of autoimmune diseases through molecular mimicry. (For more on the issue of hyperinsulinemia/insulin resistance, see Insulin Resistance: The Carnivore Connection Hypothesis of Miller and Colagiuri [1994]. Autoimmunity and molecular mimicry in connection with grains are discussed in The Late Role of Grains and Legumes in the Human Diet, and Biochemical Evidence of their Evolutionary Discordance.)

  While this research is still controversial outside the field of Paleolithic diet research, if corroborated it would indicate that overconsumption of grains could be a significant factor behind some of the diseases of civilization. Grains are completely excluded by instinctos, and minimized by many other raw-fooders. For raw-fooders, grains--if or when they are eaten at all--are generally eaten only in sprouted form (in which case the gluten and phytate content are reduced, but not completely eliminated), and usually eaten in smaller quantities.

  Dairy is another food which was not a part of the human diet until very recently--about 6,000-7,500 years ago [Simoons 1988]--and is avoided by most raw-foodists. (70% of the world's population [Mogelonsky 1995] is still lactose-intolerant after weaning and cannot drink milk without risking digestive distress.) Whole milk is also high in saturated fat, and even low-fat forms of milk may be problematic in terms of autoimmune response.

  Indeed, there is increasing evidence that exposure of infants to cow's milk protein can cause Type I (insulin-dependent) diabetes mellitus, characterized by beta-cells (cells of the pancreas that synthesize insulin) being attacked by antibodies to milk protein. Similarly, a relationship between autoimmunity and coronary heart disease was discovered a long time ago [Davies et al. 1969]. It has also now been shown that antibodies to the protein xanthine oxidase in cow's milk cross-react with and attack the membranes of arterial endothelial cells (the layer of cells lining the inside of arteries) [Bruder et al. 1984]. Since lesions to these cells are also characteristic of the first stage of atherosclerosis, the role of an autoimmune response in cardiovascular disease seems increasingly likely.

• Elimination of processed foods. Refined sugar and refined flour can be harmful for several reasons, including having a high glycemic index and a low vitamin content. Also, simply by default, their presence in the diet crowds out other more highly nutritious foods.

  Any potential harm that might come from artificial preservatives, colorings, flavorings, or pesticides and fungicides, is avoided or minimized, since most raw-food eaters eat at least partially organic, and the synthetic chemical load thereby lowered.

• Increased attention to other diet and health factors. People who switch to a raw-food diet often pay attention to other aspects of a healthier lifestyle, such as:
  • Drinking water rather than soft drinks or alcohol.
    
  • Trying to live less stressful, more "natural" lives.
    
  • Getting more sleep.
    
  • Exercising regularly.
    
  • Trying not to overeat. (Although this may backfire on more extreme raw diets and lead to binge-eating.)
    
  • Avoidance of prescription drugs in favor of natural healing methods, which reduces the potential for physiological impairment due to the cumulative side-effects of long-term drug use.

The subtle influence of creeping fanaticism in biasing perception. Raw-food diets are among the most extreme ones, in the sense that they are not very accepted socially. Although not all raw-food eaters will admit it, a total raw-food diet is not an easy diet for most people to sustain. Few "reasonable" people will come overnight from hamburger and Coke to eating 100% raw, certified organic food, without having a high motivation to the point that an almost religious faith in the diet has taken place, sometimes to the point of reaching fanaticism or zealotry.

Nevertheless, we believe the itemized list of reasons above is sufficient to explain most cases of improvement on raw food. But leaving that aside here, it is worth mentioning that the stories one hears cannot simply be taken at face value without a certain amount of probing and cross-checking where possible.

When "bad" symptoms are seen as good things. The rationale behind a raw-food diet (and some other alternative diets) is somewhat unique in being able to consciously acknowledge symptoms that other people would call bad, yet at the same time blithely reinterpret them as good ("detoxification," etc.). In other words, symptoms and conditions that most who are on conventional (non-raw) diets would describe (or define) as "illness" are labeled as "detox" when they occur on a raw diet. Some raw-fooders have not been "ill" or "sick" for "years," but have frequent "detox episodes." This is a type of self-deception that is far too common in the raw community, and is also a form of denial of reality. Some of the raw "experts" actively encourage this denial, by using "detox" as the first line of defense when problems arise on the diets they promote.

The point here is that one needs to be skeptical and ask questions when trying to assess just how well someone (perhaps oneself) is doing on a raw-food diet. There are a number of potential signs and symptoms one can utilize in attempting to help gauge this. For more information on this topic elsewhere on the site, see The Psychology of Idealistic Diets, particularly the subsection on Symptoms of "Failure to Thrive" on Raw and/or Vegetarian Diets.

Effects of reintroducing some cooked food after a long raw period

We would like to offer a much different explanation. As discussed briefly elsewhere on the site (see Does strict fruitarianism accelerate B-12 deficiency? partway down on the linked page) the reason may instead be digestion that has been seriously weakened by a prolonged period on a diet too high in fruits.

Long-term overconsumption of fruit may lead to sluggish bowel function. Ronald Cridland, M.D., a natural hygiene practitioner with lengthy experience caring for natural hygiene patients on raw-food diets, addressed this issue in a brief (question-and-answer) response published in the American Natural Hygiene Society's Health Science magazine ("Tired of Singing the Cooked-Food Blues" [Cridland 1998]):

There is a tendency for a person on a diet of all raw foods to overeat on fruits, causing a potentially harmful high-sugar diet, which tends to be deficient in vitamins and minerals. (...)

(...) Sugar is fairly stimulating and gives a false sense of high energy. I have seen many patients try to subsist on a high-fruit diet, and many feel quite well for about two years, despite some initial weight loss. But after that, they begin to experience low energy, immune problems, skin problems, and fatigue. Many of these patients are sleep-deprived. Because of the stimulating effect of a high-sugar diet, they mistakenly feel they can get by on much less sleep. Consequently, they experience the symptoms of sleep deprivation, which include fatigue, poor immune function, allergies, depression, and sluggish bowels.

Cridland suggests that the high fiber content of a raw diet, in this context, can be a confounding factor (perceptually) that prevents recognition of the sluggish bowels that can eventually occur on long-time (high-sugar) raw diets. He suggests fasting to provide rest for the digestive system, and claims that ~2 years on a vegan diet, plus adequate sleep each night, will help the system to return to normal.

Of course, other individuals coming off of an all-raw-food diet, especially one that was not overly high in fruits, may have had the opposite problem: low energy all along from a diet predominating in low-calorie-dense foods. Such individuals often find that the extra calories they get from more dense cooked foods improve their energy and feeling of well-being in fairly short order.

Some people will claim, of course, that at least three, or maybe even five or six, raw generations are necessary to become truly healthy; and if you feel better when eating a diet that includes some cooked foods, it's because cooked foods are blocking the detoxification process. There is apparently no limit to denial! :-)

• Vitamin and mineral content in raw vs. cooked foods. The vitamin content of raw foods is higher than cooked foods, though by relatively modest amounts that appear to range from (roughly) 10-25% greater in most cases. The difference in mineral content between raw and cooked foods appears to be negligible. (Cooking itself does not appear to compromise mineral content. However, when water is used in cooking, there may be a small amount of leaching of minerals into the water.)

• Cooking can increase bioavailability of some nutrients. As discussed in earlier sections, conservative cooking greatly increases the bioavailability/digestibility of starch. Bioavailability of beta-carotene can be very low from raw vegetables such as carrots, but is improved by steaming. Some proteins are better assimilated after cooking, although digestibility of others may be negatively impacted somewhat. Cooking also neutralizes many antinutrients and thereby may increase the bioavailability of a number of minerals (e.g., zinc, iron) in many plant foods.

• Cooking creates some toxins, neutralizes others. All plants contain at least some amount of "nature's pesticides." There is no such thing as a toxin-free diet. Within a normal range of consumption, toxins resulting from conservative cooking techniques can be safely handled by the body's normal mechanisms, and do not seem to increase the incidence of degenerative diseases.

• There are no known all-raw or, apparently, with the possible lone exception of a few Inuit groups, even predominantly raw cultures on the planet, including the healthiest traditional cultures, and including the most primitive of hunter-gatherers. Note: The Inuit ("Eskimos"), to whom legend has often attributed the eating of all of their meat raw, were found upon early or first contacts by the noted explorer Stefansson and other fellow explorers to eat some fat (i.e., blubber) raw; and some groups ate large amounts (though not all) meat raw; but other groups cooked much if not most of their meat.

• Use of fire goes back tens if not hundreds of thousands of years into prehistory. The most reliable evidence suggests that fire was initially controlled by humans (for warmth and protection against predators) approximately 400,000-500,000 years ago, with widespread cooking having been practiced for at least the last 40,000 years, possibly longer.

• Substituting cooked starches for overly high fruit consumption improves the diet. Including cooked vegetables and/or starches considerably improves the nutrient profile of a (vegetarian) raw-food diet that predominates in fruits, which although abundant in phytochemicals and in certain select vitamins (C, B-6, nicotinamide, potassium), are on the whole low in vitamins and minerals overall (particularly vitamin D, B-12, biotin, calcium), and high in sugar.

• Long-term success on all-raw vegan diets is rare. While increasing the percentage of raw-food in the diet appears to improve the health of people who have been eating the standard Western diet, few people, even the most enthusiastic of adherents, have been able to maintain an all-raw-food diet over the long term, and for more than simply social pressures. Among those who have, there is a high prevalence of emaciation.

• Most people who eat vegetarian diets maintain better health over the long term when including a portion of cooked foods compared to going all-raw.

--Jean-Louis Tu

Before writing to Beyond Veg contributors, please be aware of our
email policy about what types of email we can and cannot respond to.

RETURN TO BEGINNING OF ARTICLE

SEE REFERENCE LIST

SEE TABLE OF CONTENTS FOR: PART 1 PART 2 PART 3

GO TO PART 1 - Is Cooked Food "Toxic"?

GO TO PART 2 - Does Cooked Food Contain Less Nutrition?

GO TO PART 3 - Discussion: 100% Raw vs. Predominantly Raw

Back to Research-Based Appraisals of Alternative Diet Lore