![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
How is mentioning an outbreak of illness related to veggies related to criticism of raw veganism? Remove?
This page is almost entirely duplicated information from Raw food diet. I tried making it redirect there, but this change was reverted due to lack of consensus. I don't know who is supposed to agree, all Wikipedia users? Administrators? How does one attempt to arrive at consensus, and when do you decide that consensus is reached? At 2 people? 10 people? Keithkml 22:05, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
I remember reading the now deceased Chinese foodie Kan Yi-ching writing about "Western vegetarianism" in a book collated in Hong Kong in 1984. The article sounded quite 1970s-ish in tone but I remember the remarks were quite crude and unflattering to say the least. "Those Chinese students who have studied in the West and who had witnessed Western strict vegetarianism [raw vegetarianism] came back and reported that they 'felt like being a goat eating grass as everything was so flavourless and eaten raw.". I haven't got the book handy here, but maybe I will provide a quote aftering gaining access to the quote. -- JNZ 02:36, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
There is an unsourced claim that humans have the most degenerative diseases. I think it would be more accurate to say that humans have the most known degenerative diseases, which makes sense because human diseases are the most studied and treated. I believe this statement should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.89.240.23 ( talk) 07:42, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
Is it okay to say that claims in the controversies are simply ridiculous?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Artturi Laitakari ( talk • contribs) 10:19, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
Would just like to point out that the associate picture doesn't depict a meal suitable for vegans, as it contains noodles - and noodles/pasta are made using eggs. I'd change the picture my self, but I don't have any pictures of Raw Vegan foods. Hanii ( talk) 22:00, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
All vegans know about B12 - this is not controversial and should not be under this heading - it is misleading. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.66.127.81 ( talk) 21:58, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
People who eat meat and cooked food have in 50& case B12 lack too ! People who eat cacao butter can not suffer from Vit. B12 lack ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.227.244.217 ( talk) 09:44, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
i read on the internet somewhere a while ago that vitamin B12 can be found in food grown in humanure. now i can't find it. Username 1 ( talk) 20:40, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
There is Vitamin B12 in Chlorella. [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.226.90.178 ( talk) 15:04, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
References
This site offers some citations, supposedly proving that a raw foods diet can be healthy. This article, however, says there is no evidence. There's a lot of interesting "evidence" in the above link. I think maybe this article needs some revision? Andral ( talk) 05:21, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
Here is the relevant sentence or two that needs to be deleted fast:-
"The evidence for health benefits of raw veganism is purely anecdotal. There is no body of scientific evidence to support the claims that raw food is healthier than cooked food. Cooking food makes digestion much easier on the digestive tract and there is evidence that the additional simple carbohydrates gained as a result are likely to have assisted in the advanced development of the human brain.[1]"
I previously deleted those 2 sentences as they violated wikipedia guidelines. For one thing, the above sentences are hopelessly false. There are actually some studies of raw vegan diets which show some improvements in health(eg:-(from raw foodism wikipedia page) "Other medical studies on raw food diets have shown some positive and negative health outcomes.
[1] According to one medical trial, "long-term consumption of a 70% raw-plant-food diet is associated with favorable serum
LDL cholesterol and
triglycerides but also with elevated plasma
homocysteine and low serum
HDL cholesterol" as well as
vitamin B12 deficiency.
[2] Another study from Germany found that a "long-term strict raw food diet is associated with favourable plasma beta-carotene and low plasma
lycopene concentrations".
[3] A study mentioned benefits of a raw vegan diet for lowering obesity and hypertension
[4] A study has also shown reduced
fibromyalgia symptoms for those on a
raw vegan diet
[5] as well as reduced symptoms of
rheumatoid arthritis, according to another study.
[6]
German research in 2003 showed significant benefits in reducing breast cancer risk when large amounts of raw vegetable matter are included in the diet. The authors attribute some of this effect to heat-labile phytonutrients. [7]")
Then there is this sentence:-"Cooking food makes digestion much easier on the digestive tract and there is evidence that the additional simple carbohydrates gained as a result are likely to have assisted in the advanced development of the human brain.[1]"
The above sentence is also hopelessly false and misleading. For one thing, food-science is too new for people to make such idle blanket statements. Secondly, there are some studies showing how cooking in some cases actually makes digestion MORE difficult, not less(eg:-(from raw foodism wikipedia page)"Frying chickpeas, oven-heating winged beans, or roasting cereals at 200–280 °C (392–536 °F) reduces protein digestibility.
[8]
Another study has shown that meat heated for 10 minutes at 130 °C (266 °F), showed a 1.5% decrease in protein digestibility. [9] Similar heating of hake meat in the presence of potato starch, soy oil, and salt caused a 6% decrease in amino acid content. [10] [11]")
Then there is the Wrangham reference. The use of the word "likely" is highly dishonest as any casual perusal of articles on Wrangham show that Wrangham's ideas about cooking supposedly leading to bigger brains are considered absolutely laughable by the rest of the anthropological community and even Wrangham has admitted that he has no real evidence to support his claims, as shown in the references in the following text(eg:-(from the richard wrangham wikipedia page) "Wrangham's latest work focuses on the role cooking has played in human evolution. He has argued that cooking food is obligatory for humans as a result of biological adaptations [12] [13] and that cooking, in particular the consumption of cooked tubers, explains the increase in hominid brain sizes, smaller teeth and jaws, and decrease in sexual dimorphism that occurred roughly 1.8 million years ago. [13] [14] Critics of Wrangham's cooking theory point to the fact that archaeological evidence suggests that cooking fires began in earnest only 250,000 years ago, when ancient hearths, earthen ovens, burnt animal bones, and flint appear across Europe and the Middle East. In contrast, 2 million years ago the only sign of fire is burnt earth with human remains, which most anthropologists consider mere coincidence rather than evidence of intentional fire. [15] There is also evidence that human brain size has decreased by 8 percent in the last 10000 years, correlated with increased consumption of starchy grains following the invention of agriculture – this contradicts Wrangham's theory, that in an earlier period in human evolution an increased consumption of starchy foods (cooked tubers) led to an increase in brain size. [16] The current mainstream view in anthropology is, instead, that the increase in human brain size was due to a shift away from the consumption of nuts and berries to the consumption of meat. [17]")
I previously deleted those 2 sentences but they were reinstated without a very good reason being given. I have now provided plenty of valid reasons as to why those 2 sentences are unacceptable, not to mention highly biased and simply inaccurate.I will therefore wait a few days and delete those 2 sentences all over again.Loki0115 (no tilde signs on my keyboard).
This is not a health reason is it? It does not state a health implication, more an abstract piece of evolutionary biology. Muleattack ( talk) 22:46, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
References
pmid15389429
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).{{
cite journal}}
: More than one of |author1=
and |author=
specified (
help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
{{
cite journal}}
: Check date values in: |year=
(
help)
{{
cite book}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |chapterurl=
(
help)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/1542293.stm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.35.242.159 ( talk) 11:46, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Good idea, but can be misleading, as improper nutrition will lead to this, not exclusive to raw veganism. Hawaiisunfun ( talk) 18:22, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
your statement in "health reasons" are about BELIEVING - health reasons should not be about believing but about science - this is very bad, bad style - I wanted to correct it but there is a wikipedia will to keep people in dark on RAW VEGAN HEALTH BENEFITS - SO SAD FOR WIKIPEDIA THAT satanists who love lies and manipulations took over all power by wikipedia - you should send those manipulators to hell - as soon as possible - they have already distroyed our planet... now they keep you in dark over THE RIGHT FOOD - BECAUSE RIGHT FOOD, VEGAN RAW, would restore not only your health but also your spiritual capacities - seeing, feeling, guessing... intuition wake up and you could eliminate these satanists through rightness of thinking , acting, feeling... THIS IS THE MOST IMPORTANT ISSUE - IT MUST BE CORRECTED - YOU MUST FIGHT FOR TRUTH - SEND A COLLABORATOR OF THIS PAGE TO HELL! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.217.24.230 ( talk) 11:47, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
Especially in the research section, it is unclear as to whether the statements made are referring to people who eat a 100% raw diet or those that eat a lower undefined percentage. Muleattack ( talk) 23:19, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
I moving the discussion from my talk page to here since I think is an issue that will present itself over and over in this article.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raw_foodism#Potential_harmful_effects_of_cooked_foods_and_cooking
I am, however, perfectly entitled to remove sourced information when other scientific sources, easily available online,directly contradict the claims. Otherwise, all someone would have to do is cite a source to back up a claim widely known to be incorrect, and insist on it not being removed simply because it comes from a prominent newspaper. In this case, the above claims are also conclusively debunked further down that same wikipedia page, which makes wikipedia into a laughing-stock, unless the sweeping(false) statements are removed(I mean, first one has a statement claiming that there are no known health benefits for raw vegan diets, then in another section of the very same page, one finds references to studies showing certain health benefits on a raw vegan diet etc.). I should add that I am not using my own opinions re this, so this is not original research, I am simply trying to improve the scientific rigor of the article as a whole. In order to do this, I will first have to remove those offending claims and reinsert something along the lines of :- "cooking causes the following possible health problems, plus concerns about food-poisoning,plus info on possible health benefits of cooking. This is going to take some time - a day or so. I trust you will bear with me.
Loki0115 (
talk) 16:50, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
Robhd ( talk) 09:25, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
I removed a claim that raw food creates methane which rots causing environmental damage, as cooked foods also rot and create methane, and are left in landfill sites in far greater amounts than raw foods:-
http://www.hungersolutions.org/newsroom/tons-food-waste-crams-landfills-adds-methane-gas
Loki0115 ( talk) 17:44, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
Loki, I was the author of the material regarding spoilage and methane production. You can expect your deletion to be undone in due time. Unfortunately, there have been intermediate edits and I can't use the undo button to fix your indiscriminate deletion of material that you obviously don't comprehend. Both raw and cooked food can rot, but raw food rots more easily because cooking kills bacteria that cause spoilage. When your raw food spoils and my cooked food doesn't, your raw food produces greenhouse gases and mine doesn't because mine doesn't rot--I eat it. Is that really so difficult to comprehend? The entry didn't say that cooked food doesn't rot. It said that raw food rots more easily. This is yet another example of you deleting content simply because it doesn't support your point of view. Thanks for the citation, though. It doesn't mention the words "raw" or "cooked" anywhere, but it does say that spoiled food produces methane, which supports MY point--not yours. Maybe I'll use it when I restore the content. Robhd ( talk) 00:16, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
I am afraid that you have clearly been making some wrong conclusions. Firstly, yes, it's true that cooking kills bacteria, but this is only temporary - as soon as some cooked food is left in the rubbish, it will start collecting bacteria and eventually rot, just like with raw food.Plus, a LOT more cooked food is left to rot in rubbish-sites than raw foods, since most humans are on largely-cooked diets, so any impact of methane caused by rotting food is much worse as regards rotting cooked foods. Then there's the absurd statement that "your" cooked food doesn't rot, you "eat it". Most raw foodists either eat their raw foods as fresh as possible or, in the case of raw meats, put them in the freezer and then thaw them and eat them straightaway, at a later stage, with no rotting involved. Come to think of it, since rawists generally eat unprocessed foods, they usually end up eating the whole, raw food, whereas cooked-food-eaters usually leave all sorts of things uneaten in wrappers such as sauces etc. which they then put in the rubbish.
The clincher, though, is this article:-
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=10455948
which points out that "Dirty brown clouds created by millions of cooking fires in Asia contribute as much to global warming as greenhouse gas emissions and are a major factor in the melting of the Himalayan glaciers, say scientists. " taken from:-
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=10455948
So the above article completely debunks your notion that methane from raw foods is "worse" than the impact caused by cooking. Ergo, the environmental impact of cooking is indeed harmful. I also note that no ref was used to back up your prior claims. Loki0115 ( talk) 08:58, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
The Scientific American article, as a source, is laughably weak:- In its claim that cooking always improves raw foods, it cites just one lousy study which claims that lycopene is increased by cooking, yet reluctantly admits to one other study showing high levels of beta-carotene in raw vegans. Then there is the claim that cooking increases the number of antioxidants, but reluctantly admits that this only applies to boiling or steaming - so frying and other forms of cooking would not have this effect, indeed the exact opposite. It then admits that deep frying causes creation of multiple free-radicals and that vitamin C, a key nutrient, is loweredered through cooking. Hardly a blanket support for cooking's benefits. The article then goes into some further detail of some other benefits and disadvantages of cooking, and concludes with a statement that the science behind cooked foods is too complicated so as to draw a firm conclusion. So, the very ref cited by the pro-cooked statements does not even endorse those 2 statements at all re raw foods providing no health benefits except anecdotal evidence, or the absurd claim that cooking always improves raw foods. So those statements directly violate wikipedia policy. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=raw-veggies-are-healthier
Loki0115 ( talk) 18:03, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
I don't mind, per se, in a few statements from the article being made( such as the claim that lycopene is increased by cooking, so long as it's not also mentioned elsewhere in the article already), along with the studies showing negative effects of cooking. Loki0115 ( talk) 18:03, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
Your above claims are, of course, completely incorrect. I already showed evidence that showed that the pro-cooking claims made were dead wrong. Clearly, you hadn't got around to reading the link I provided re this, which was studded with numerous scientific references about the loss of nutrients caused by cooking etc.(not forgetting the fact that other scientific references further down the raw veganism page already debunked those very claims as well!):-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raw_foodism#Potential_harmful_effects_of_cooked_foods_and_cooking
As for the SA article, you do, at least, agree with me that the overly dogmatic statements made in favour of cooking were not really supported by the article, which means I was dead right in removing them after all. I agree that the ending of the SA article wasn't dogmatic at all, but the beginning was a little misleading. Some of the minor statements in the SA article (re lycopene?) I think have already been made further down the page. Well, I will spend today and possibly tomorrow in a bit by bit incorporation of tidbits re pros and cons of cooking re specific substances etc. Loki0115 ( talk) 09:44, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
This sentence let me wonder, don't raw foodists use refrigerators? "Some scientists have suggested that solar refrigeration may some day provide the negligible environmental impact that raw vegans so desire, but point out that chlorofluorocarbon compounds necessary at present for effective refrigeration are damaging to the earth's ozone layer." If it is so, I feel that that it should be mentioned in the lead.-- Dia^ ( talk) 11:11, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
Some rawists use refrigerators, some don't, in the latter case either for financial reasons or out of a desire to go "back to the land", so to speak. Loki0115 ( talk) 07:24, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
No wikipedia-appropriate stuff re freezing, I'm afraid, afaik. It is, after all, a matter of personal taste among rawists. But, afaik, the environmental impact of refrigerators, per se, is nowhere near as big as the impact of cooking with wood, as the latter effect of wood/cooking has been described by scientists in an article/ref I provided as being as harmful as the impact of all greenhouse gases in total. Loki0115 ( talk) 14:00, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
Then there's the comment about cooked food. Not so. Indeed, it is routinely recommended by the FDA etc. not to re-heat cooked foods as it seems to encourage food-poisoning. Even eating cooked foods after they have been stored with raw foods is often not recommended by the government authorities for similiar reasons. As for the issue of refrigeration, most people leave most cooked foods in the fridge or freezer. It's mainly totally insulated things like cans which are not.
The main point, anyway, by the raw vegans is that if people using wood-fires in the developing world were all to turn to raw vegan diets and stop cooking, that the environment would benefit, which is a perfectly valid point. Crucially, it is also a standard raw foodist belief, and must therefore be included. Indeed, I think, eventually, I will have to include a raw vegan beliefs section, just like other movements have. Loki0115 ( talk) 17:00, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
Again, not true - in the days before refrigeration, they had an endless number of alternatives to preserve food other than recooking their foods. They were able to dehydrate their raw meats to make dried beef jerky, or simply rot their meats like the Inuit did with their muktuk/aka rotting whalemeat which they might or might not store in the ice, then pemmican, which is partially-raw-meat, partially-cooked meat, could be stored forever, and so on and so forth...
As for the issue of motivations, these are obviously a major reason for joining such diets, so need to be included. In the case of raw veganism, the issue of environmental purity/non-pollution of raw foods is both a major motivation to become a raw vegan as well as a belief. It also ties in, to some extent, with the notion of not harming animals, as they are part of the environment as well. Loki0115 ( talk) 21:02, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
Just to clarify, I undid your previous attempt to delete the environmental reasons section. This was because you said that it was unreferences when giving your reasons. But the fact is that the first half of that section was indeed referenced(line 2- see below). It was only the 2nd half(starting from "Some scientists") , concerning refrigeration claims, that was not referenced, so you should delete that, but not the first referenced half, especially since that very reference on line 2 debunks the claim in the 2nd half.
"Some are raw vegans because they are concerned about the detrimental effect that the burning of wood or fossil fuels for cooking causes to the environment[1] although alternative solutions like solar cooking are available. Some scientists have suggested that solar refrigeration may some day provide the negligible environmental impact that raw vegans so desire, but point out that chlorofluorocarbon compounds necessary at present for effective refrigeration are damaging to the earth's ozone layer. Loki0115 ( talk) 08:35, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
That is not logical and somewhat pedantic. The point is that raw foodists believe that cooking encourages global warming and destroys the environment through wiping out forests. Plus, the link given is way more scientific and high-grade than any article in which raw foodists specifically state a belief that raw food diets avoid global warming. However, here is one such:-
http://www.mcl.unisonplus.net/rawfooddiets.htm Loki0115 ( talk) 16:51, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
As a wiki contributing editor, I just wanted to tell everyone who has helped on this page that the end result is shaping up to be very objective and helpful. Thank you all! I know to some of you, who feel very passionately about helping others with their diets, that it can be frustrating when others are deleting things, conforming to wikipedia standards, but please remember that following these standards helps to make your points more powerful. Documentation and research are good. Rawk on. --Insightfullysaid ( talk) 13:39, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
On wikipedia there is excellent page about raw foodism [1] , what is purpose of Raw veganism page? also whole part of Motivation content is written very subjectively without any references or encyclopedic value. Motivation for eating raw food are many, some of article outside wikipedia discuss potential raw foodist habit as possible psychological disorder, it may not be but anyway this kind of content shouldn't be on Wikipedia if its not verify and if does not reflect objectively reasons for raw veganism or foodism ( I still dont understand difference between those two terms ).
It would be useful to have an explanation of this number. 48° C = 118° F seems to have some sort of iconic status -- where does it come from? Interestingly, the raw foodism article uses different temperatures -- 40 °C (104 °F) to 46 °C (115 °F). -- Macrakis ( talk) 21:44, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
I would like to see a section on the history of the movement its early proponents and the context that it came up in. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:A601:566:9C00:B17F:32F7:FC6B:E723 ( talk) 20:05, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
This edit is based on weak sources and original research, WP:OR. Planveg appears to have a conflict of interest, WP:COI (interpreted by choice of username) and is POV-pushing ( WP:NPOV), having reached WP:3RR. Please discuss on the Talk page first as requested, or you will be reported to admin. -- Zefr ( talk) 15:46, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
How is mentioning an outbreak of illness related to veggies related to criticism of raw veganism? Remove?
This page is almost entirely duplicated information from Raw food diet. I tried making it redirect there, but this change was reverted due to lack of consensus. I don't know who is supposed to agree, all Wikipedia users? Administrators? How does one attempt to arrive at consensus, and when do you decide that consensus is reached? At 2 people? 10 people? Keithkml 22:05, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
I remember reading the now deceased Chinese foodie Kan Yi-ching writing about "Western vegetarianism" in a book collated in Hong Kong in 1984. The article sounded quite 1970s-ish in tone but I remember the remarks were quite crude and unflattering to say the least. "Those Chinese students who have studied in the West and who had witnessed Western strict vegetarianism [raw vegetarianism] came back and reported that they 'felt like being a goat eating grass as everything was so flavourless and eaten raw.". I haven't got the book handy here, but maybe I will provide a quote aftering gaining access to the quote. -- JNZ 02:36, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
There is an unsourced claim that humans have the most degenerative diseases. I think it would be more accurate to say that humans have the most known degenerative diseases, which makes sense because human diseases are the most studied and treated. I believe this statement should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.89.240.23 ( talk) 07:42, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
Is it okay to say that claims in the controversies are simply ridiculous?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Artturi Laitakari ( talk • contribs) 10:19, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
Would just like to point out that the associate picture doesn't depict a meal suitable for vegans, as it contains noodles - and noodles/pasta are made using eggs. I'd change the picture my self, but I don't have any pictures of Raw Vegan foods. Hanii ( talk) 22:00, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
All vegans know about B12 - this is not controversial and should not be under this heading - it is misleading. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.66.127.81 ( talk) 21:58, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
People who eat meat and cooked food have in 50& case B12 lack too ! People who eat cacao butter can not suffer from Vit. B12 lack ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.227.244.217 ( talk) 09:44, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
i read on the internet somewhere a while ago that vitamin B12 can be found in food grown in humanure. now i can't find it. Username 1 ( talk) 20:40, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
There is Vitamin B12 in Chlorella. [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.226.90.178 ( talk) 15:04, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
References
This site offers some citations, supposedly proving that a raw foods diet can be healthy. This article, however, says there is no evidence. There's a lot of interesting "evidence" in the above link. I think maybe this article needs some revision? Andral ( talk) 05:21, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
Here is the relevant sentence or two that needs to be deleted fast:-
"The evidence for health benefits of raw veganism is purely anecdotal. There is no body of scientific evidence to support the claims that raw food is healthier than cooked food. Cooking food makes digestion much easier on the digestive tract and there is evidence that the additional simple carbohydrates gained as a result are likely to have assisted in the advanced development of the human brain.[1]"
I previously deleted those 2 sentences as they violated wikipedia guidelines. For one thing, the above sentences are hopelessly false. There are actually some studies of raw vegan diets which show some improvements in health(eg:-(from raw foodism wikipedia page) "Other medical studies on raw food diets have shown some positive and negative health outcomes.
[1] According to one medical trial, "long-term consumption of a 70% raw-plant-food diet is associated with favorable serum
LDL cholesterol and
triglycerides but also with elevated plasma
homocysteine and low serum
HDL cholesterol" as well as
vitamin B12 deficiency.
[2] Another study from Germany found that a "long-term strict raw food diet is associated with favourable plasma beta-carotene and low plasma
lycopene concentrations".
[3] A study mentioned benefits of a raw vegan diet for lowering obesity and hypertension
[4] A study has also shown reduced
fibromyalgia symptoms for those on a
raw vegan diet
[5] as well as reduced symptoms of
rheumatoid arthritis, according to another study.
[6]
German research in 2003 showed significant benefits in reducing breast cancer risk when large amounts of raw vegetable matter are included in the diet. The authors attribute some of this effect to heat-labile phytonutrients. [7]")
Then there is this sentence:-"Cooking food makes digestion much easier on the digestive tract and there is evidence that the additional simple carbohydrates gained as a result are likely to have assisted in the advanced development of the human brain.[1]"
The above sentence is also hopelessly false and misleading. For one thing, food-science is too new for people to make such idle blanket statements. Secondly, there are some studies showing how cooking in some cases actually makes digestion MORE difficult, not less(eg:-(from raw foodism wikipedia page)"Frying chickpeas, oven-heating winged beans, or roasting cereals at 200–280 °C (392–536 °F) reduces protein digestibility.
[8]
Another study has shown that meat heated for 10 minutes at 130 °C (266 °F), showed a 1.5% decrease in protein digestibility. [9] Similar heating of hake meat in the presence of potato starch, soy oil, and salt caused a 6% decrease in amino acid content. [10] [11]")
Then there is the Wrangham reference. The use of the word "likely" is highly dishonest as any casual perusal of articles on Wrangham show that Wrangham's ideas about cooking supposedly leading to bigger brains are considered absolutely laughable by the rest of the anthropological community and even Wrangham has admitted that he has no real evidence to support his claims, as shown in the references in the following text(eg:-(from the richard wrangham wikipedia page) "Wrangham's latest work focuses on the role cooking has played in human evolution. He has argued that cooking food is obligatory for humans as a result of biological adaptations [12] [13] and that cooking, in particular the consumption of cooked tubers, explains the increase in hominid brain sizes, smaller teeth and jaws, and decrease in sexual dimorphism that occurred roughly 1.8 million years ago. [13] [14] Critics of Wrangham's cooking theory point to the fact that archaeological evidence suggests that cooking fires began in earnest only 250,000 years ago, when ancient hearths, earthen ovens, burnt animal bones, and flint appear across Europe and the Middle East. In contrast, 2 million years ago the only sign of fire is burnt earth with human remains, which most anthropologists consider mere coincidence rather than evidence of intentional fire. [15] There is also evidence that human brain size has decreased by 8 percent in the last 10000 years, correlated with increased consumption of starchy grains following the invention of agriculture – this contradicts Wrangham's theory, that in an earlier period in human evolution an increased consumption of starchy foods (cooked tubers) led to an increase in brain size. [16] The current mainstream view in anthropology is, instead, that the increase in human brain size was due to a shift away from the consumption of nuts and berries to the consumption of meat. [17]")
I previously deleted those 2 sentences but they were reinstated without a very good reason being given. I have now provided plenty of valid reasons as to why those 2 sentences are unacceptable, not to mention highly biased and simply inaccurate.I will therefore wait a few days and delete those 2 sentences all over again.Loki0115 (no tilde signs on my keyboard).
This is not a health reason is it? It does not state a health implication, more an abstract piece of evolutionary biology. Muleattack ( talk) 22:46, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
References
pmid15389429
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).{{
cite journal}}
: More than one of |author1=
and |author=
specified (
help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
{{
cite journal}}
: Check date values in: |year=
(
help)
{{
cite book}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |chapterurl=
(
help)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/1542293.stm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.35.242.159 ( talk) 11:46, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Good idea, but can be misleading, as improper nutrition will lead to this, not exclusive to raw veganism. Hawaiisunfun ( talk) 18:22, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
your statement in "health reasons" are about BELIEVING - health reasons should not be about believing but about science - this is very bad, bad style - I wanted to correct it but there is a wikipedia will to keep people in dark on RAW VEGAN HEALTH BENEFITS - SO SAD FOR WIKIPEDIA THAT satanists who love lies and manipulations took over all power by wikipedia - you should send those manipulators to hell - as soon as possible - they have already distroyed our planet... now they keep you in dark over THE RIGHT FOOD - BECAUSE RIGHT FOOD, VEGAN RAW, would restore not only your health but also your spiritual capacities - seeing, feeling, guessing... intuition wake up and you could eliminate these satanists through rightness of thinking , acting, feeling... THIS IS THE MOST IMPORTANT ISSUE - IT MUST BE CORRECTED - YOU MUST FIGHT FOR TRUTH - SEND A COLLABORATOR OF THIS PAGE TO HELL! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.217.24.230 ( talk) 11:47, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
Especially in the research section, it is unclear as to whether the statements made are referring to people who eat a 100% raw diet or those that eat a lower undefined percentage. Muleattack ( talk) 23:19, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
I moving the discussion from my talk page to here since I think is an issue that will present itself over and over in this article.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raw_foodism#Potential_harmful_effects_of_cooked_foods_and_cooking
I am, however, perfectly entitled to remove sourced information when other scientific sources, easily available online,directly contradict the claims. Otherwise, all someone would have to do is cite a source to back up a claim widely known to be incorrect, and insist on it not being removed simply because it comes from a prominent newspaper. In this case, the above claims are also conclusively debunked further down that same wikipedia page, which makes wikipedia into a laughing-stock, unless the sweeping(false) statements are removed(I mean, first one has a statement claiming that there are no known health benefits for raw vegan diets, then in another section of the very same page, one finds references to studies showing certain health benefits on a raw vegan diet etc.). I should add that I am not using my own opinions re this, so this is not original research, I am simply trying to improve the scientific rigor of the article as a whole. In order to do this, I will first have to remove those offending claims and reinsert something along the lines of :- "cooking causes the following possible health problems, plus concerns about food-poisoning,plus info on possible health benefits of cooking. This is going to take some time - a day or so. I trust you will bear with me.
Loki0115 (
talk) 16:50, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
Robhd ( talk) 09:25, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
I removed a claim that raw food creates methane which rots causing environmental damage, as cooked foods also rot and create methane, and are left in landfill sites in far greater amounts than raw foods:-
http://www.hungersolutions.org/newsroom/tons-food-waste-crams-landfills-adds-methane-gas
Loki0115 ( talk) 17:44, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
Loki, I was the author of the material regarding spoilage and methane production. You can expect your deletion to be undone in due time. Unfortunately, there have been intermediate edits and I can't use the undo button to fix your indiscriminate deletion of material that you obviously don't comprehend. Both raw and cooked food can rot, but raw food rots more easily because cooking kills bacteria that cause spoilage. When your raw food spoils and my cooked food doesn't, your raw food produces greenhouse gases and mine doesn't because mine doesn't rot--I eat it. Is that really so difficult to comprehend? The entry didn't say that cooked food doesn't rot. It said that raw food rots more easily. This is yet another example of you deleting content simply because it doesn't support your point of view. Thanks for the citation, though. It doesn't mention the words "raw" or "cooked" anywhere, but it does say that spoiled food produces methane, which supports MY point--not yours. Maybe I'll use it when I restore the content. Robhd ( talk) 00:16, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
I am afraid that you have clearly been making some wrong conclusions. Firstly, yes, it's true that cooking kills bacteria, but this is only temporary - as soon as some cooked food is left in the rubbish, it will start collecting bacteria and eventually rot, just like with raw food.Plus, a LOT more cooked food is left to rot in rubbish-sites than raw foods, since most humans are on largely-cooked diets, so any impact of methane caused by rotting food is much worse as regards rotting cooked foods. Then there's the absurd statement that "your" cooked food doesn't rot, you "eat it". Most raw foodists either eat their raw foods as fresh as possible or, in the case of raw meats, put them in the freezer and then thaw them and eat them straightaway, at a later stage, with no rotting involved. Come to think of it, since rawists generally eat unprocessed foods, they usually end up eating the whole, raw food, whereas cooked-food-eaters usually leave all sorts of things uneaten in wrappers such as sauces etc. which they then put in the rubbish.
The clincher, though, is this article:-
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=10455948
which points out that "Dirty brown clouds created by millions of cooking fires in Asia contribute as much to global warming as greenhouse gas emissions and are a major factor in the melting of the Himalayan glaciers, say scientists. " taken from:-
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=10455948
So the above article completely debunks your notion that methane from raw foods is "worse" than the impact caused by cooking. Ergo, the environmental impact of cooking is indeed harmful. I also note that no ref was used to back up your prior claims. Loki0115 ( talk) 08:58, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
The Scientific American article, as a source, is laughably weak:- In its claim that cooking always improves raw foods, it cites just one lousy study which claims that lycopene is increased by cooking, yet reluctantly admits to one other study showing high levels of beta-carotene in raw vegans. Then there is the claim that cooking increases the number of antioxidants, but reluctantly admits that this only applies to boiling or steaming - so frying and other forms of cooking would not have this effect, indeed the exact opposite. It then admits that deep frying causes creation of multiple free-radicals and that vitamin C, a key nutrient, is loweredered through cooking. Hardly a blanket support for cooking's benefits. The article then goes into some further detail of some other benefits and disadvantages of cooking, and concludes with a statement that the science behind cooked foods is too complicated so as to draw a firm conclusion. So, the very ref cited by the pro-cooked statements does not even endorse those 2 statements at all re raw foods providing no health benefits except anecdotal evidence, or the absurd claim that cooking always improves raw foods. So those statements directly violate wikipedia policy. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=raw-veggies-are-healthier
Loki0115 ( talk) 18:03, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
I don't mind, per se, in a few statements from the article being made( such as the claim that lycopene is increased by cooking, so long as it's not also mentioned elsewhere in the article already), along with the studies showing negative effects of cooking. Loki0115 ( talk) 18:03, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
Your above claims are, of course, completely incorrect. I already showed evidence that showed that the pro-cooking claims made were dead wrong. Clearly, you hadn't got around to reading the link I provided re this, which was studded with numerous scientific references about the loss of nutrients caused by cooking etc.(not forgetting the fact that other scientific references further down the raw veganism page already debunked those very claims as well!):-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raw_foodism#Potential_harmful_effects_of_cooked_foods_and_cooking
As for the SA article, you do, at least, agree with me that the overly dogmatic statements made in favour of cooking were not really supported by the article, which means I was dead right in removing them after all. I agree that the ending of the SA article wasn't dogmatic at all, but the beginning was a little misleading. Some of the minor statements in the SA article (re lycopene?) I think have already been made further down the page. Well, I will spend today and possibly tomorrow in a bit by bit incorporation of tidbits re pros and cons of cooking re specific substances etc. Loki0115 ( talk) 09:44, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
This sentence let me wonder, don't raw foodists use refrigerators? "Some scientists have suggested that solar refrigeration may some day provide the negligible environmental impact that raw vegans so desire, but point out that chlorofluorocarbon compounds necessary at present for effective refrigeration are damaging to the earth's ozone layer." If it is so, I feel that that it should be mentioned in the lead.-- Dia^ ( talk) 11:11, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
Some rawists use refrigerators, some don't, in the latter case either for financial reasons or out of a desire to go "back to the land", so to speak. Loki0115 ( talk) 07:24, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
No wikipedia-appropriate stuff re freezing, I'm afraid, afaik. It is, after all, a matter of personal taste among rawists. But, afaik, the environmental impact of refrigerators, per se, is nowhere near as big as the impact of cooking with wood, as the latter effect of wood/cooking has been described by scientists in an article/ref I provided as being as harmful as the impact of all greenhouse gases in total. Loki0115 ( talk) 14:00, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
Then there's the comment about cooked food. Not so. Indeed, it is routinely recommended by the FDA etc. not to re-heat cooked foods as it seems to encourage food-poisoning. Even eating cooked foods after they have been stored with raw foods is often not recommended by the government authorities for similiar reasons. As for the issue of refrigeration, most people leave most cooked foods in the fridge or freezer. It's mainly totally insulated things like cans which are not.
The main point, anyway, by the raw vegans is that if people using wood-fires in the developing world were all to turn to raw vegan diets and stop cooking, that the environment would benefit, which is a perfectly valid point. Crucially, it is also a standard raw foodist belief, and must therefore be included. Indeed, I think, eventually, I will have to include a raw vegan beliefs section, just like other movements have. Loki0115 ( talk) 17:00, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
Again, not true - in the days before refrigeration, they had an endless number of alternatives to preserve food other than recooking their foods. They were able to dehydrate their raw meats to make dried beef jerky, or simply rot their meats like the Inuit did with their muktuk/aka rotting whalemeat which they might or might not store in the ice, then pemmican, which is partially-raw-meat, partially-cooked meat, could be stored forever, and so on and so forth...
As for the issue of motivations, these are obviously a major reason for joining such diets, so need to be included. In the case of raw veganism, the issue of environmental purity/non-pollution of raw foods is both a major motivation to become a raw vegan as well as a belief. It also ties in, to some extent, with the notion of not harming animals, as they are part of the environment as well. Loki0115 ( talk) 21:02, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
Just to clarify, I undid your previous attempt to delete the environmental reasons section. This was because you said that it was unreferences when giving your reasons. But the fact is that the first half of that section was indeed referenced(line 2- see below). It was only the 2nd half(starting from "Some scientists") , concerning refrigeration claims, that was not referenced, so you should delete that, but not the first referenced half, especially since that very reference on line 2 debunks the claim in the 2nd half.
"Some are raw vegans because they are concerned about the detrimental effect that the burning of wood or fossil fuels for cooking causes to the environment[1] although alternative solutions like solar cooking are available. Some scientists have suggested that solar refrigeration may some day provide the negligible environmental impact that raw vegans so desire, but point out that chlorofluorocarbon compounds necessary at present for effective refrigeration are damaging to the earth's ozone layer. Loki0115 ( talk) 08:35, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
That is not logical and somewhat pedantic. The point is that raw foodists believe that cooking encourages global warming and destroys the environment through wiping out forests. Plus, the link given is way more scientific and high-grade than any article in which raw foodists specifically state a belief that raw food diets avoid global warming. However, here is one such:-
http://www.mcl.unisonplus.net/rawfooddiets.htm Loki0115 ( talk) 16:51, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
As a wiki contributing editor, I just wanted to tell everyone who has helped on this page that the end result is shaping up to be very objective and helpful. Thank you all! I know to some of you, who feel very passionately about helping others with their diets, that it can be frustrating when others are deleting things, conforming to wikipedia standards, but please remember that following these standards helps to make your points more powerful. Documentation and research are good. Rawk on. --Insightfullysaid ( talk) 13:39, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
On wikipedia there is excellent page about raw foodism [1] , what is purpose of Raw veganism page? also whole part of Motivation content is written very subjectively without any references or encyclopedic value. Motivation for eating raw food are many, some of article outside wikipedia discuss potential raw foodist habit as possible psychological disorder, it may not be but anyway this kind of content shouldn't be on Wikipedia if its not verify and if does not reflect objectively reasons for raw veganism or foodism ( I still dont understand difference between those two terms ).
It would be useful to have an explanation of this number. 48° C = 118° F seems to have some sort of iconic status -- where does it come from? Interestingly, the raw foodism article uses different temperatures -- 40 °C (104 °F) to 46 °C (115 °F). -- Macrakis ( talk) 21:44, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
I would like to see a section on the history of the movement its early proponents and the context that it came up in. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:A601:566:9C00:B17F:32F7:FC6B:E723 ( talk) 20:05, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
This edit is based on weak sources and original research, WP:OR. Planveg appears to have a conflict of interest, WP:COI (interpreted by choice of username) and is POV-pushing ( WP:NPOV), having reached WP:3RR. Please discuss on the Talk page first as requested, or you will be reported to admin. -- Zefr ( talk) 15:46, 15 December 2018 (UTC)