• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Raw Foodists

TheDon

Student
Joined
Jun 19, 2007
Messages
49
So last night I'm settling down to watch The Daily Show on More4 (British digital channel that provides a refuge from the incessant Big Brother coverage on the other channel 4 stations), but find it's been replaced by a documentary on people who only eat raw fruit and vegetables. The remote's out of arm's reach, so I decide to watch anyway.

There was a couple who started on the diet after trying an 'enema holiday', and now have twice-daily enemas as well as eating only raw, unprocessed fruit and vegetables. Leaving aside the fact that squirting coffee up your poop-chute every morning is hardly natural, my skepty-sense started tingling when he also revealed that he had to wear various devices which blocked electromagnetic radiation for his job in a mixing studio. The devices operated on quantum mechanics, he said, but sadly didn't have time to go into how they worked.

They also featured a mother of two who only fed her children raw fruit and veg. The children were schooled at home (presumably so they wouldn't any other types of food at school), and had virtually no friends, since they couldn't go to another kids house for dinner, etc. She claimed that cooked or processed foods were 'poisonous', since cooking them 'altered the molecular structure' of the food, and destroyed enzymes, which the body needed.

I have a smattering of physics, so I know the EM blocking doo-dad is nonsensical, along with the alteration of molecular structure, but my biology is a bit rusty. Am I right in thinking that the enzyme claim is so much loose-stool water because the enzymes in, say, a carrot are completely useless for a human? Are there any health risks for a growing child fed only raw fruit and veg? If so, is this child abuse?

I was also a bit concerned that all the nonsense claims on the program went unchallenged, with no scientific viewpoint countering the many false claims (and I've only scratched the surface here) made in the show. It may have been that the show's producers were trusting the audience's intelligence to recognize when an utterance such as 'when we eat only raw food our cells are literally evolving' were a load of arse-gravy.

Although I have to admit, the quantum-mechanics-EM-blocking-amulet wearing guy did look good for his age. But if a raw food diet leads to me flouncing around in sandals and a white shirt open to the navel, I think I'd rather die young and fat, quite frankly.
Anyone else see it? It may be on 4od, I can't check from work.
 
How do these people define "raw"? Looking through so-called raw food recipes, I note that nearly all of them involve blending/chopping/juicing stuff in a food processor; some recipes even call for the food to be "dehydrated" (their term) in the bottom of a warm oven for several hours.The results may be delicious and healthy, but I wouldn't call any of it unprocessed or even wholly raw. Call this diet "less processed" if you like, but that sounds like you're eating regular food, doesn't it?
The rest is total woo of course. The EM-blocking blocking stuff is at at least harmless (except to peoples' bank accounts) but nobody can keep up twice-daily - or even once-daily - colonics without suffering losses of vitamins and nutrients, not to mention useful gut flora. I'm willing to bet that the amulet-wearing couple havn't been irrigating themselves for all that long, and that they won't look half as good in another couple of years.
 
Last edited:
They also featured a mother of two who only fed her children raw fruit and veg. The children were schooled at home (presumably so they wouldn't any other types of food at school), and had virtually no friends, since they couldn't go to another kids house for dinner, etc. She claimed that cooked or processed foods were 'poisonous', since cooking them 'altered the molecular structure' of the food, and destroyed enzymes, which the body needed.

Well it will do things like denature the proteans, so it will do things to the structure of the proteans.

But this is not a bad thing as it makes them more digestible.

For example take field corn. It has a lot of niacin in it, but if you do not soak it in an alkali for a while to process it, your body can not absorb that and you get pellagra.

And you don't need enzymes from your food, as they are proteans they will likely just get digested(denatured and processed) in your stomach.
 
The devices operated on quantum mechanics, he said, but sadly didn't have time to go into how they worked.

This means that you can tell when it's turned on, and you can tell when it's calibrated properly, but due to the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle you can't tell both these things at the same time.

Rendering it useless, of course.
 
Cooking will break down many proteins. Enzymes are proteins. And there are many different enzymes. some beneficial, some not so beneficial. Frinstance, some enzymes break down polysacharides into sugars, these are in sprouted foods- like malted barley (beer). Quite beneficial. But other foods have other proteins- like raw peanuts which have a tripsin inhibitor , making them very hard to digest. So roasted peanuts are lots better for you. Raw soybeans are also considered poisonous. Many foods we eat are poisonous without processing- canola oil is another. Cashews too.

I've heard that the human body has 4,000 different enzymes. Probably almost that many in meat? And who knows which ones of that great number are beneficial?

I guess eating varieties of food is a good thing. Varieties of cooking methods ought to be included. Including raw meat.
 
One of my weirder cases on What's The Harm concerns a raw foodist yoga instructor from Chicago who was named Sedef Olcer. Not only did she insist on eating raw food, but she insisted on gathering it herself even though she lived in an urban environment.

She misidentified a plant one day, and put it in a smoothie. (She thought it was mullein, which is used as an herbal remedy. It was actually foxglove, which is the source of the poison digitalis). She poisoned herself and died in a hospital.
 
One of my weirder cases on What's The Harm concerns a raw foodist yoga instructor from Chicago who was named Sedef Olcer. Not only did she insist on eating raw food, but she insisted on gathering it herself even though she lived in an urban environment.

She misidentified a plant one day, and put it in a smoothie. (She thought it was mullein, which is used as an herbal remedy. It was actually foxglove, which is the source of the poison digitalis). She poisoned herself and died in a hospital.


Ouch - that sucks. Would this qualify for a Darwin Award?

ETA: So much for the "natural must be better" fallacy :rolleyes:
 
Ouch - that sucks. Would this qualify for a Darwin Award?

ETA: So much for the "natural must be better" fallacy :rolleyes:

Reminds me of an Al Murray Pub Landlord line: (to pregnant audience member)
"You going for a natural birth sweetheart? Yeah? Smallpox is natural, know what I'm saying?"
 
How do these people define "raw"? Looking through so-called raw food recipes, I note that nearly all of them involve blending/chopping/juicing stuff in a food processor; some recipes even call for the food to be "dehydrated" (their term) in the bottom of a warm oven for several hours.The results may be delicious and healthy, but I wouldn't call any of it unprocessed or even wholly raw. Call this diet "less processed" if you like, but that sounds like you're eating regular food, doesn't it?
Sounds "more processed" to me. Can someone explain how juicers are natural? No? I thought not. Personally, I think raw-foodists are trying to one-up the vegans: "Yeah? Not only do I not consume animal products in any form, I don't even cook my food! So there! Niener niener niener." (Actually, I planning on raw food tonight because it's over 100 out there and I don't want to turn on the oven or stove, so it's salad time)
 

Back
Top Bottom