Vegan Raw Food

[veganblue]

More on vegans and bone density from the BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4389837.stm)

People who follow a raw food vegetarian diet are light in weight but healthy, according to US researchers.

It has been suggested that eating only plant-derived foods that have not been cooked or processed might make bones thinner and prone to fractures.

But a study in Archives of Internal Medicine found although bones were lighter on this diet, turnover rates were normal with no osteoporosis.

The lower bone mass is down to raw food eaters being slim, believe the authors.

More in the link above.

[Seaside]

veganblue, you ask a lot of good questions. I have recently become interested in the idea of a raw diet, and Harvey Diamond's books are what started my search for information. I know intuition isn't scientific, but when I think that humans, who are the only species which treats its food with heat, have so many serious health problems that are not shared by species who eat their foods raw, it makes sense. My degree is in geology, and my specialty is in palaeontology, and 50,000 years, or even 200,000 years, isn't really considered a long enough span of time for an organism to adapt its biological systems so radically. Anthropologists claim that human beings have been around for five million years or so, and for most of that time probably ate raw. Of course, the fact that most unhealthy people who eat cooked foods also eat animal products may cloud the issue as to what is the most natural way to eat.

What has interested me, especially in the area of bone loss, is the need for the body to maintain its blood pH. There is a very narrow range over which the pH of the blood is allowed to fluctuate before death will occur, and the body will rob calcium from the bones to keep the blood pH stable. This is the Catch-22 for consumers of dairy foods. Here in the USA we are told to drink plenty of milk to protect our bones, so why do we have one of the highest rates of osteopororsis in the world? All animal products and grains have an acid reaction in the body, so the calcium must be stolen from bones and teeth to protect the ph of the blood. All vegetables and most fruits have an alkaline reaction in the body, mostly due to their mineral content. If the mineral content is leached away by cooking, this would make these foods more acidic, thus requiring more mineral loss from the bones. Minerals from cooked foods may be more readily absorbed, but there won't be enough to counteract the lowering of blood pH. I think of nutrition as more than what vitamins and minerals are available in different foods. How hard the body has to work with what it is given is also an issue, and though it may be easier to absorb certain nutrients from cooked foods, dealing with foods whose natural structures are fundamentally altered, and completely eliminating the delicate enzymes that exist to aid digestion may ultimately cause more stress in the body than it alleviates. For humans, digestion of foods begins in the mouth, not the stomach, and even if the enzymes naturally occuring in the food are destroyed by the stomach, they may serve an important purpose before they get there. :)

[veganblue]

veganblue, you ask a lot of good questions. I have recently become interested in the idea of a raw diet, and Harvey Diamond's books are what started my search for information. I know intuition isn't scientific, but when I think that humans, who are the only species which treats its food with heat, have so many serious health problems that are not shared by species who eat their foods raw, it makes sense. My degree is in geology, and my specialty is in palaeontology, and 50,000 years, or even 200,000 years, isn't really considered a long enough span of time for an organism to adapt its biological systems so radically.
I have been reading journal articles that suggest that 50,000 years is sufficient and will post the sections if you are interested.

Seperating disease from cooked / raw diets could be very difficult in a historical analysis considering there are so many factors that contribute to disease.

What has interested me, especially in the area of bone loss, is the need for the body to maintain its blood pH. There is a very narrow range over which the pH of the blood is allowed to fluctuate before death will occur, and the body will rob calcium from the bones to keep the blood pH stable. This is the Catch-22 for consumers of dairy foods. Here in the USA we are told to drink plenty of milk to protect our bones, so why do we have one of the highest rates of osteopororsis in the world?
I am under the impression that while milk is high in Calcium, it's not a great source of calcium, especially after pasteurisation and that there are a lot of other factors involved in osteoporosis such as exercise and the increasing trend towards obesity.

All animal products and grains have an acid reaction in the body, so the calcium must be stolen from bones and teeth to protect the ph of the blood. All vegetables and most fruits have an alkaline reaction in the body, mostly due to their mineral content.
I am a little confused by what you are suggesting - the body produces acid in the stomach to provide a pH that makes the protease best able to catalyse the breakup of proteins into amino acids. An acid is a proton donor (hydrogen ion), when the amino acid chains are broken, the 'broken links' need H ions on the ends and the low pH of the stomach provides loads of H ions. This is why amino acids are called acids as when you join them it liberates a H ion - donates a proton which is the definition of an acid. I don't understand where you are thinking the mineral content comes into the equation.

If the mineral content is leached away by cooking, this would make these foods more acidic, thus requiring more mineral loss from the bones. Minerals from cooked foods may be more readily absorbed, but there won't be enough to counteract the lowering of blood pH.
Cooking by boiling in water *will* leach some nutrients into the water. Heating doesn't affect the mineral content, but it certainly does affect the shape of the enzymes which can denature. Vitamins are also susceptible to degredation, some more than others. Quick steaming or lightly stirfrying should retain most of the vitamins and liberate others also.

Blood pH is buffered by carbonate ions but primarily can be adjusted by brething more - the carbonic acid (that is the dissolved form of carbondioxide) passes across the lungs as carbondioxide and increases the blood pH. If that is not sufficient, the liver has a large store of caronate ions that are released to mop up the excess hydrogen ions.

The primary mineral found in bones is Calcium, which is also important in muscle contractions - blood pH varies very little and certainly not hugely effected by the difference between a cooked or raw meal.

I would suggest that if you are really interested in the issue of pH in cooked and raw foods then an easy experiment would be to set up a variety of foods raw and cooked and make multiple samples of the pureed specimens. One group should be subjected to a heat source and the other not. I don't recommend boiling unless that is the method you are investigating. A universal pH indicator stick should give a clear result.

I think of nutrition as more than what vitamins and minerals are available in different foods. How hard the body has to work with what it is given is also an issue, and though it may be easier to absorb certain nutrients from cooked foods, dealing with foods whose natural structures are fundamentally altered, and completely eliminating the delicate enzymes that exist to aid digestion may ultimately cause more stress in the body than it alleviates. For humans, digestion of foods begins in the mouth, not the stomach, and even if the enzymes naturally occuring in the food are destroyed by the stomach, they may serve an important purpose before they get there. :)
When enzymes are heated they 'denature', which is to say they unfold. Enzymes work by having a particular shape that allows a specific substrate structure to either be joined or broken up. A denatured protein is still a string of aminoacids - the digestive system does not usually absorb enzymes per se - by animo acids and the cells form them into the amino sequences (proteins or enzymes) they require for metabolic processes.

Enzymes in food are there for the benefit of the food, not our digestion! Many of the enzymes that foods produce are toxic - some we are able to digest - others that will make us sick so we don't eat them. Think of soy for example; raw soy beans will make you sick, they contain the protein tripsin, and enzyme inhibitor and other active enzymes (primarily lipoxygenase) (these accelerate or stop the breakdown of the seed endosperm depending on the growth stage of the seed).

Mouth digestion is primarily the grinding of the food item to increase the surface area and mixing with mucosal secretions containing amalase - an enzyme that converts starches into maltose then glucose. In the stomach, amylase is digested but the glucose can pass across the stomach lining wall. Carbohydrate digestion continues in the small intestine when the pH is brought back up to around neutral. Since the body is programmed to produce the specific enzymes, it is unlikely that any in the food that persist to the stomach actually have a role in digestion other than to be digested.

I hope this has been of some assistance for you in understanding the roll of enyzmes in food compared to in the body, the role of pH in blood and in digestion and the change in mineral content in food after heating.

I advocate eating raw food for the vitamin content! I think tha raw food in your diet is very important. But I would not discourage anyone from eating cooked foods unless they were overcooked or contained loads of heated fats or trans fats. I certainly wouldn't tell anyone that heated foods were toxic sicne that would require a definition of toxic and a molecular hypothesis of why it was damaging or toxic.

Just don't eat raw soybeans! They are toxic! :D

[Seaside]

Posted by veganblue:

I have been reading journal articles that suggest that 50,000 years is sufficient and will post the sections if you are interested.

Yes, I would be, thanks.

Postd by veganblue

Just don't eat raw soybeans! They are toxic!

I know! I became vegan before meat and dairy substitute foods became popular, and I do not rely on soy. It is wonderful for people just starting out who miss their favorite foods, but soy isn't what it is cracked up to be, and it is difficult to digest even when highly processed.

[Seaside]

Posted by veganblue:

Enzymes in food are there for the benefit of the food, not our digestion!

This is true, but that doesn't mean our bodies have not adapted to using them! Organs are present in "food" animals for their own use, not ours, and yet thousands of generations of human beings have adapted to extracting nutrition from the livers, kidneys, and other organs of animals.

The Hermisenda sea slug is a good example of making use of substances that are intended for the animal to which they belong. This sea slug ingests the stinging cells of sea anemones and incorporates them into its own system for self defense. The stinging cells of a sea anemone are present for its own use, but that does not stop the Hermisenda from making use of them too.

Unlike many of the foods vegans make use of, fruits, which include many of the foods people think of as vegetables, like tomatoes, peppers, squash, etc. are designed by the plant expressly to be eaten by animals. The enzymes do enable digestion of the pulp, allowing the seed to pass through the system and be deposited with a ready supply of manure by the bowel movement of the animal, which aids in the propagation of new plants. The ultimate goal for the plant is to reproduce itself, and it does so with the aid of the animal "middleman". This also explains why seeds are so much more difficult to digest, because they are protected from digestion by a different set of enzymes. Soaking and sprouting remove these enzymes just as well as cooking does. In fact, people would get a lot less gas from their beans if the soaked them well before they cooked them! :D

[veganblue]

Yes, I would be, thanks.




Review: ‘Cooking as a biological trait’
Richard Wrangham*, NancyLou Conklin-Brittain Department of Anthropology, Harvard University, Peabody Museum, 11 Divinity Avenue, Cambridge, MA 02138, USA Received 28 June 2002; received in revised form 16 January 2003; accepted 17 January 2003

Current evidence, however, does not support the notion of cooking as being too recent to have had evolutionary effects. The typical duration of a speciation event is considered to be 15 000–25 000 years, and mammalian species can evolve in as little as 5000 years (Gould, 2002). Human biology
is also known to be capable of rapid adaptation (e.g. to malaria, Durham, 1991) and specifically in response to a change in diet. Thus populations
with a high frequency of genes responsible for lactose absorption (LA) in adults are those with a history of dairying. Populations are estimated to
have adapted biologically to milk-drinking in 5000 years or less (i.e. LA genes increased from 5 to 70% of population, Aoki, 1991; Cavalli-Sforza et al., 1994). These points suggest that for cooking to have been practiced too recently to have had evolutionary effects, it must have been adopted
less than 5000 years ago.
Article continued...
Other evidence points to the control of fire by hominids even earlier, such as 400 000–600 000years ago in Vertesszolos, Hungary (Kretzoi and Dobosi, 1990), more than 1 million years ago in Swartkrans, South Africa (Brain, 1993), and 1.6 million years ago at Koobi Fora, Kenya (Rowlett, 2000) (see Straus, 1989). The oldest date suggested for the adoption of cooking is 1.9 million years ago (Wrangham et al., 1999), a time that marks the origin of the modern human body form (Homoergaster), a rise in dietary quality, and a shift
towards a human pattern of life-history (Leonard and Robertson, 1997; Aiello and Key, 2002; O’Connell et al., 2002). The hypothesis of such an early date for the adoption of cooking is inferred from biological evidence, and awaits archeological scrutiny (Brace, 2002). Thus the precise date when cooking was adopted is unknown. Nevertheless, cooking is clearly ancient compared to the time required for biological adaptation to occur.


... but soy isn't what it is cracked up to be, and it is difficult to digest even when highly processed.

Whaaat! You don't like soy!!! :eek: I think it's great stuff in the kitchen and immensely versatile. I would be interested in what comparisons were made in researching the digestibility of soy, if you could find the quote. :)

[veganblue]

This is true, but that doesn't mean our bodies have not adapted to using them! Organs are present in "food" animals for their own use, not ours, and yet thousands of generations of human beings have adapted to extracting nutrition from the livers, kidneys, and other organs of animals.

The material in animals is very similiar to the material we are made of - this is how we can utilise that material.


The Hermisenda sea slug is a good example of making use of substances that are intended for the animal to which they belong. This sea slug ingests the stinging cells of sea anemones and incorporates them into its own system for self defense. The stinging cells of a sea anemone are present for its own use, but that does not stop the Hermisenda from making use of them too.

That's a fascinating example! Thanks! I may see if I can research it and put it into my essay on 'Evolution by natural selection' that we have been set at Uni. It is an example of co-evolution, where one organism has evolved to take advantage of the products of another. Very specific in this case and seemingly essential to the survival of the sea slug but while it is analogous to using something specific from a seperate organism as in the use of enzymes, it doesn't transfer in the sense that the slug is taking in organs (the stinging cells which it cannot produce itself) while enzymes are found in the food - some of the same ones may also be produced by the consuming organism.


Unlike many of the foods vegans make use of, fruits, which include many of the foods people think of as vegetables, like tomatoes, peppers, squash, etc. are designed by the plant expressly to be eaten by animals. The enzymes do enable digestion of the pulp, allowing the seed to pass through the system and be deposited with a ready supply of manure by the bowel movement of the animal, which aids in the propagation of new plants. The ultimate goal for the plant is to reproduce itself, and it does so with the aid of the animal "middleman". This also explains why seeds are so much more difficult to digest, because they are protected from digestion by a different set of enzymes. Soaking and sprouting remove these enzymes just as well as cooking does. In fact, people would get a lot less gas from their beans if the soaked them well before they cooked them! :D

I hate being pedantic but when talking about domesticated foods you need to remember that great big tomatoes are an anomoly that hasbeen capitalised by human agriculture. The angiosperm plant carries it's seed in a fruiting body that in some cases developes into an attractant for dispersers - animals (this includes all multicellular organisms that are motile). The enzymes within the fruiting body are there to synchronously announce the development of the seed as being ready for dispersal, by 'ripening' the fruit. The enzymes start to breakdown the body of the fruit (compare a green tomato interior to a fully ripe one - the fleshy mass within turns to liquid to aid dispersal) and the sugars promote the attractivness of the reward. Plants set loads of seeds to enhance the chances of dispersal to good locations and the possibility of setting a new generation.

This is repeating what you have said and know but with a mildly different emphasis. Yes, plants attract dispersal agents with the promise of food, but the sucessful plant will offer the most attractive food, therefore any plant that has fruit that is best for the disperser, will be found in greater abundance than one that does not.
I am still making the distinction that the enzymes in plant fruits are there for the breakdown of the fruit before consumption, not during. Seeds that survive digestion are coated with a tough seed coat that in some cases requires digestion in order to germinate. Anything that has lost it's seed coat in 'transit' will not germinate - but that is where the enymes are; they don't have a role in preventing consumption or protecting the seed from digestion except sacrificially. If the animal gets a sore gut from eating the seed - it is less likely to eat that variety again, which indicates that that animal is not a good disperser for that plant.

Soaking is a very good idea when cooking beans, as you suggested, and in several changes of water since there are some metabolic byproducts released into the water that also can have... unpleasant results :D

[Seaside]

Posted by veganblue:


Whaaat! You don't like soy!!!

Oh no, I happen to love tempeh! But I cannot overdo soy foods, as soy contains thyroid hormone depressants, and low thyroid function runs in my family. And I don't think it is wise for men to overconsume soy, since it is full of plant based estrogens. They do make very effective natural estrogen supplements for women out of soy, and its probably not a good idea for men to get their own hormones unbalanced. I'm not against moderate use of soy, I just don't think that sticking to soy based imitations of your favorite animal products is the best use of soy. It has become a big, overmarketed item in the USA, and I am always suspicious of big money motivations for marketing new products. Of course, I realize that it is hard for some people in the transition to veganism to give up all those fun things to eat, and they have their place in most diets, but for me, only a little place! :)

(I can't find my references on the digestibility of soy protein. I couldn't squeeze my whole library onto the houseboat, so I think they may be in storage.)

[veganblue]

I cannot overdo soy foods, as soy contains thyroid hormone depressants, and low thyroid function runs in my family. And I don't think it is wise for men to overconsume soy, since it is full of plant based estrogens. They do make very effective natural estrogen supplements for women out of soy, and its probably not a good idea for men to get their own hormones unbalanced. I'm not against moderate use of soy, I just don't think that sticking to soy based imitations of your favorite animal products is the best use of soy. It has become a big, overmarketed item in the USA, and I am always suspicious of big money motivations for marketing new products. Of course, I realize that it is hard for some people in the transition to veganism to give up all those fun things to eat, and they have their place in most diets, but for me, only a little place! :)

(I can't find my references on the digestibility of soy protein. I couldn't squeeze my whole library onto the houseboat, so I think they may be in storage.)


I don't know about the oestrogen effect on men but am absolutely certain that I could find a plethora of information in journals about it but will have to search tonight after uni. I am primarily interested since I eat a large amount of soy products - but limited to tempeh, tofu, soy sauce, soy grits, soy milk, soy flour, lecithin, and tinned or green frozen soy beans.... er ok - so maybe it's not that limited...which is why I should be concerned. I am sure that boobs are nice on women but I really don't have any use for them. Apparently saw palmetto (herb extract) has testosterone analogies? Maybe I can used it to counteract the oestrogen? :)

I really don't care if big business gets onboard with promoting good foods - it they are producing alternatives to the meat fare then that has to be good for the animals! I don't *like* meat susbtitutes; freaks me out a bit and just fuels those odd nightmares where you think "Oh crap, what was that I just ate - it feels like meat..." erk yukko. Nevertheless I will still eat it around meat eaters wehn we go to places that have it to prove it's not a bad thing to eat.

Wow - you live on a houseboat - it sounds kinda exciting :)

[Seaside]

Posted by veganblue:

I am sure that boobs are nice on women but I really don't have any use for them.

:D :D :D

I've never looked into plant based testosterone supplements. If you become truly concrened, it is best to have your levels tested before supplementing. I don't rely heavily on standard medicine, unless my bones are broken, but I would get tested for hormone balance. Although a little natural herbal supplementation probably wouldn't hurt.

My concern in marketing is when they decide "Hey, there is a growing market for products that are animal free! Let's find the cheapest item we can and start adding all kinds of stuff to it to make it palatable and sell it as fast as we can" without researching whether it is good for people or not. So far people seem to do well on soy products, which is good for the vegan movement. If people got sick off them, but were unable to give them up, it wouldn't look so good to be a vegan to all those non-vegans who seem to be waiting for us all to just wither up and blow away!


Wow - you live on a houseboat - it sounds kinda exciting

It hasn't been that long, and I'm still getting used to it. It's very different from living on dry land, that's for sure!

[veganblue]

My concern in marketing is when they decide "Hey, there is a growing market for products that are animal free! Let's find the cheapest item we can and start adding all kinds of stuff to it to make it palatable and sell it as fast as we can" without researching whether it is good for people or not. So far people seem to do well on soy products, which is good for the vegan movement. If people got sick off them, but were unable to give them up, it wouldn't look so good to be a vegan to all those non-vegans who seem to be waiting for us all to just wither up and blow away!

My rule of thumb is the more it is processed, (or cooked) the less likely it is going to be good for you.

I don't like precooked food in packets but prefer my flour, dry pasta, soymilk, tempeh and spice mixes to not be in the cupboard 'in the raw form' so to speak. Convenience food takes on a new meaning when you consider that having to grind flour from grain is very inconvenient if you want pasta in 20 minutes :D

[Seaside]

Posted by veganblue:

My rule of thumb is the more it is processed, (or cooked) the less likely it is going to be good for you.

An excellent rule of thumb! :)

[eve]

On frederic patenaude's website there's plenty of guidance on rawfoods. Recently he had recipes for Green Smoothies, which proved popular with his readers. Today, in his newsletter there's a link to the green smoothies info:
http://www.fredericpatenaude.com/green_smoothies.html

[Seaside]

Thank you, Eve!

When I became vegan I didn't care so much about my health, but I think it needs a little improving now, and I have read promising things about raw foods.

[eve]

The latest issue of the Pure Health & Nutrition E-Zine, Frédéric Patenaude is out. Whether you are a vegetarian, a vegan, a raw foodist, or just someone interested in finding out more about diet and nutrition, you will find lots of food for thought and practical advice. http://www.fredericpatenaude.com/purehealth/041705.html

To subscribe to this e-zine, go to: http://www.fredericpatenaude.com/newsletter.html

[Roxy]

Thanks for that Eve. Loads of information there!

[vegetous]

I hear there is a restaurant in New York called Raw, where they only serve raw food. That's interesting.

[eve]

Couldn't find the previous vegan raw posts through the 'Search', but this is such a good website, so here it is: http://www.eatraw.com/

[eve]

Here's another :D http://www.rawfoodchef.com/

[adam antichrist]

I saw on this and another thread something about the toxicity of raw potato. I haven't got it in me to read all ten pages here :)
If it has already been posted, sorry, but can someone restate what it is about spuds that is toic when raw? Cheers.

[cedarblue]

I saw on this and another thread something about the toxicity of raw potato. I haven't got it in me to read all ten pages here :)
If it has already been posted, sorry, but can someone restate what it is about spuds that is toic when raw? Cheers.



this one confuses me too adam! i thought spuds were toxiv when raw but im sure i have a juicing book that says regular & sweet pots can be juiced??

*makes mental note to investigate issue* :cool:

[eve]

I've only read that raw potatoes are toxic when green - so don't even cook them! :)

[adam antichrist]

Yeah I knew that one... but if green ones can be toxic when cooked perhaps they can be toxic when raw if green or otherwise?

Speaking of toxic raw food, I was learning about Java Ash trees today, which occur in the tropical rainforests of Northern Australia. These produce a large apricot like fruit which when eaten produce....

Cyanide!

My favourite of all non-heavy metal toxins.

They contain an enzyme which reacts with a glycocyano molecule (I think this is what it is... the notes aren't yet available) forming hydrogen cyanide (HCN), the same gas used at Auswitz. However, similar toxins exist in cassava which can be made safe to eat if prepared properly, inducing the formation of HCN which is released, and when complete the food is safe.

Talk about living food!

[eve]

In the upcoming issue of Vegan Forum there are some interesting articles on raw food. Should be out by end of August.

[adam antichrist]

In the upcoming issue of Vegan Forum there are some interesting articles on raw food. Should be out by end of August.

Is that a Freudian slip Eve? I"m guessing you meant Vegan Voice...
:D