Making intelligent choices
The point that the issue of raw vs. cooked foods is not an easy or black-and-white question has been made in a number of ways by now in this paper. Implicit in the recognition that the issue is not black-and-white is the resulting consideration of trade-offs. In this regard, there are two primary trade-offs to assess when making the decision whether to make certain foods a part of one's diet, and whether to cook them or not, that we'll examine here.
Trade-off #1: Should we cook to neutralize toxins/
improve digestibility of potentially valuable foods?
We have seen that cooking sometimes destroys antinutrients or toxins, so that a food previously toxic becomes edible. However, cooking often leaves some toxins undestroyed, and the result of cooking is that we eat much more of that food than if it were in its raw state. An excess of cassava, for instance, can result in a serious poisoning by cyanogenic glycosides; other examples are numerous, and much could be said against grains. (Antinutrients in grains, such as phytates which bind minerals, can cause rickets and pellegra if grains constitute a large enough portion of the diet. See the site article The Late Role of Grains and Legumes in the Human Diet, and Biochemical Evidence their Evolutionary Discordance for more information and references.)
"Optimal foraging" in the modern supermarket? Cooking proves to be useful for modern hunter-gatherers (and as we have said, would presumably also have been so for prehistoric hunter-gatherers once they had developed the level of acumen necessary to utilize fire) so as to enhance chances of survival. However, nowadays in the twentieth century, with all sorts of imported foods widely available, it may be that cooking loses its importance. On the other hand, the range of foods available in our supermarkets and health-food stores is implicitly intended to be sufficient for people using a stove, but might not be adequate for those who don't, since many of the tubers (i.e., potatoes) and vegetables (turnips, kale, etc.) are barely edible raw; and modern, highly bred fruits are excessively high in sugar compared to their wild counterparts.
So, raw-fooders end up with a diet which differs considerably from what they would be able to obtain under natural conditions (assuming this term has any meaning for humans that all could agree on). So even if "optimal foraging theory" doesn't apply anymore here, cooking and accepting a (very mild) natural toxin load (like solanine from potatoes) might help achieve a more balanced diet and the net result could be positive, as we shall see.
No "perfect" food or set of foods enabling avoidance of all toxins. While it certainly makes sense to limit the consumption of foods that are inedible raw--all other things being equal (an important condition, because sometimes they aren't)--the presence of natural toxins shouldn't be a deterrent, unless they are present in hazardous levels. There is no perfect food. One role of the liver is to eliminate the toxic constituents in order to be able to utilize food sources for nutrients even if they are accompanied by some level of antinutrients or toxins, and the nutrients would be difficult to come by otherwise.
Trade-off #2: Will an all-raw diet require
excessive bulk to obtain sufficient nutrition?
In principle, raw foods can provide all the necessary nutrients (except for the thorny issue of B-12 in vegan diets), especially if a variety of foods is utilized, including sprouts, nuts, organ meats, seaweed. Obviously, there is no black-and-white answer, given the extreme variability of raw-food diets. But while no one claims that cooking is an absolute necessity, in practice, a balanced raw diet is rather difficult to achieve.
Idealism vs. real-world practicalities. Some of the reasons why all-raw diets can be impractical to implement include:
• The calorie problem in strict raw vegan diets. Regarding deficiencies specifically, if raw foods that are more concentrated in protein and fat are avoided or minimized for whatever reason (i.e., nuts, avocados, coconuts, etc.), raw vegetarian diets often lead to emaciation since these foods would otherwise be the main dense-calorie sources in an all-raw diet. (See The Calorie Paradox of Raw Veganism for an in-depth examination of these problems.) Or alternatively, to get sufficient calories, one may instead be forced to eat large quantities of sweet fruit, which can eventually lead to long-term problems with sugar metabolism and/or deficiencies, since, while sweet fruits are high in certain vitamins and minerals (such as vitamin C, B-6, nicotinamide, potassium), they are very low in others (vitamin D, B-12, biotin, calcium; fruits also have a low Ca/Mg ratio). Note that although the levels of some minerals are low in milk, e.g., iron, such minerals are very bioavailable and are readily absorbed.
• Bioavailability concerns can necessitate higher, unsustainable levels of intake. Since nutrients in some cooked foods have better bioavailability or edibility than the raw version (some root vegetables, tubers, grains, etc.), if one avoids such foods just because they are not so palatable raw, one can become forced into eating huge quantities of lower-bioavailable raw foods, which ends up making one's life revolve around food in an unbalanced way. (Again, see The Calorie Paradox of Raw Veganism for the practical problems imposed by the volume of food that can be required.)
• Raw diets often lack nutritional variety under modern conditions because of the relatively narrow range of palatable (raw) foods available in today's supermarkets, which can lead to boredom and/or deficiencies. Despite the fact that modern supermarkets give us foods from all over the world, they are often insipid and tasteless varieties that stand shipping/storage well, but may be unappetizing or otherwise unattractive or inedible to someone as concerned about quality food as a raw-foodist.
• Binge-eating due to unmet needs or caged desires. If such boredom and lack of variety is an issue, periodic binge-eating on non-raw or processed foods can become a problem because of the decrease in range of taste pleasures one may experience on such an all-raw diet. Despite what the more zealous 100%-raw-food advocates may often claim, some people find the all-raw diet to be not nearly as appetizing as "advertised." This can be true even after a lengthy period of adjustment to eating raw. It can also be just as true even when eating a raw diet composed of high-quality organic produce.
• Sacrifices in other important areas of one's life. One can attempt to avoid the problem of insipid supermarket produce by seeking out sources of tastier, higher-quality organic or farmers' market foods, or participating in CSA's (Community Supported Agriculture cooperatives), for example, where one works on the farm in exchange for a take of the food. However, these avenues take more time or money than some people have, and may also force one's life to become more centered around getting food than they would like, and create social isolation from others not "into" the same thing. (Others, of course, enjoy all this.)
• Social isolation can be a particular problem if one insists on eating all-raw all the time: bringing your own food to parties, or declining invitations to restaurants or family get-togethers can have a negative impact on your social life.
• Excessive mental preoccupation. In favor of eating some cooked food, a less extreme diet can help to think in a less extreme way, and thus gain mental balance. Some readers might not like the term "extreme," which has negative connotations. By "extreme," we simply mean "very different from what is commonly practiced by other humans." Extreme difference or originality can be a sign of genius, or of mental imbalance, or neither. We are not claiming that all people eating 100% raw are imbalanced; in fact, some are successful. But it is a fact of experience that excessive preoccupation with dietary purity often results in fanatical attitudes, or in ways of thinking that can spoil your life. (For instance, see the article Health Food Junkie on this site, by Steven Bratman.)
Important distinction to be made between less-than-100%-raw diets vs. SAD/SWD. In closing this section, we emphasize once again that there is a huge difference between predominantly raw diets, including some gently cooked items (no processing, no salt, no sauces, no frying or use of vegetable oil in cooking) and the "standard American (cooked) diet" (SAD), alternatively also called the "standard Western diet" (SWD).
Misrepresentations by extremists. One of the more inexcusable, often tacitly implied misrepresentations in the typical extremist raw-foodist rationale is the tendency to indiscriminately lump in most any cooked-food diet with the SAD. Or to irrationally claim one doesn't get the bulk of the benefits unless one achieves the magic 100%-raw number, whereupon the benefits suddenly manifest themselves. On the contrary, it is possible to get most, if not all, the benefits that raw-food confers if one eats a predominantly raw rather than all-raw diet, without suffering from the inconveniences and potential nutritional downsides.
The point that the issue of raw vs. cooked foods is not an easy or black-and-white question has been made in a number of ways by now in this paper. Implicit in the recognition that the issue is not black-and-white is the resulting consideration of trade-offs. In this regard, there are two primary trade-offs to assess when making the decision whether to make certain foods a part of one's diet, and whether to cook them or not, that we'll examine here.
Trade-off #1: Should we cook to neutralize toxins/
improve digestibility of potentially valuable foods?
We have seen that cooking sometimes destroys antinutrients or toxins, so that a food previously toxic becomes edible. However, cooking often leaves some toxins undestroyed, and the result of cooking is that we eat much more of that food than if it were in its raw state. An excess of cassava, for instance, can result in a serious poisoning by cyanogenic glycosides; other examples are numerous, and much could be said against grains. (Antinutrients in grains, such as phytates which bind minerals, can cause rickets and pellegra if grains constitute a large enough portion of the diet. See the site article The Late Role of Grains and Legumes in the Human Diet, and Biochemical Evidence their Evolutionary Discordance for more information and references.)
"Optimal foraging" in the modern supermarket? Cooking proves to be useful for modern hunter-gatherers (and as we have said, would presumably also have been so for prehistoric hunter-gatherers once they had developed the level of acumen necessary to utilize fire) so as to enhance chances of survival. However, nowadays in the twentieth century, with all sorts of imported foods widely available, it may be that cooking loses its importance. On the other hand, the range of foods available in our supermarkets and health-food stores is implicitly intended to be sufficient for people using a stove, but might not be adequate for those who don't, since many of the tubers (i.e., potatoes) and vegetables (turnips, kale, etc.) are barely edible raw; and modern, highly bred fruits are excessively high in sugar compared to their wild counterparts.
So, raw-fooders end up with a diet which differs considerably from what they would be able to obtain under natural conditions (assuming this term has any meaning for humans that all could agree on). So even if "optimal foraging theory" doesn't apply anymore here, cooking and accepting a (very mild) natural toxin load (like solanine from potatoes) might help achieve a more balanced diet and the net result could be positive, as we shall see.
No "perfect" food or set of foods enabling avoidance of all toxins. While it certainly makes sense to limit the consumption of foods that are inedible raw--all other things being equal (an important condition, because sometimes they aren't)--the presence of natural toxins shouldn't be a deterrent, unless they are present in hazardous levels. There is no perfect food. One role of the liver is to eliminate the toxic constituents in order to be able to utilize food sources for nutrients even if they are accompanied by some level of antinutrients or toxins, and the nutrients would be difficult to come by otherwise.
Trade-off #2: Will an all-raw diet require
excessive bulk to obtain sufficient nutrition?
In principle, raw foods can provide all the necessary nutrients (except for the thorny issue of B-12 in vegan diets), especially if a variety of foods is utilized, including sprouts, nuts, organ meats, seaweed. Obviously, there is no black-and-white answer, given the extreme variability of raw-food diets. But while no one claims that cooking is an absolute necessity, in practice, a balanced raw diet is rather difficult to achieve.
Idealism vs. real-world practicalities. Some of the reasons why all-raw diets can be impractical to implement include:
• The calorie problem in strict raw vegan diets. Regarding deficiencies specifically, if raw foods that are more concentrated in protein and fat are avoided or minimized for whatever reason (i.e., nuts, avocados, coconuts, etc.), raw vegetarian diets often lead to emaciation since these foods would otherwise be the main dense-calorie sources in an all-raw diet. (See The Calorie Paradox of Raw Veganism for an in-depth examination of these problems.) Or alternatively, to get sufficient calories, one may instead be forced to eat large quantities of sweet fruit, which can eventually lead to long-term problems with sugar metabolism and/or deficiencies, since, while sweet fruits are high in certain vitamins and minerals (such as vitamin C, B-6, nicotinamide, potassium), they are very low in others (vitamin D, B-12, biotin, calcium; fruits also have a low Ca/Mg ratio). Note that although the levels of some minerals are low in milk, e.g., iron, such minerals are very bioavailable and are readily absorbed.
• Bioavailability concerns can necessitate higher, unsustainable levels of intake. Since nutrients in some cooked foods have better bioavailability or edibility than the raw version (some root vegetables, tubers, grains, etc.), if one avoids such foods just because they are not so palatable raw, one can become forced into eating huge quantities of lower-bioavailable raw foods, which ends up making one's life revolve around food in an unbalanced way. (Again, see The Calorie Paradox of Raw Veganism for the practical problems imposed by the volume of food that can be required.)
• Raw diets often lack nutritional variety under modern conditions because of the relatively narrow range of palatable (raw) foods available in today's supermarkets, which can lead to boredom and/or deficiencies. Despite the fact that modern supermarkets give us foods from all over the world, they are often insipid and tasteless varieties that stand shipping/storage well, but may be unappetizing or otherwise unattractive or inedible to someone as concerned about quality food as a raw-foodist.
• Binge-eating due to unmet needs or caged desires. If such boredom and lack of variety is an issue, periodic binge-eating on non-raw or processed foods can become a problem because of the decrease in range of taste pleasures one may experience on such an all-raw diet. Despite what the more zealous 100%-raw-food advocates may often claim, some people find the all-raw diet to be not nearly as appetizing as "advertised." This can be true even after a lengthy period of adjustment to eating raw. It can also be just as true even when eating a raw diet composed of high-quality organic produce.
• Sacrifices in other important areas of one's life. One can attempt to avoid the problem of insipid supermarket produce by seeking out sources of tastier, higher-quality organic or farmers' market foods, or participating in CSA's (Community Supported Agriculture cooperatives), for example, where one works on the farm in exchange for a take of the food. However, these avenues take more time or money than some people have, and may also force one's life to become more centered around getting food than they would like, and create social isolation from others not "into" the same thing. (Others, of course, enjoy all this.)
• Social isolation can be a particular problem if one insists on eating all-raw all the time: bringing your own food to parties, or declining invitations to restaurants or family get-togethers can have a negative impact on your social life.
• Excessive mental preoccupation. In favor of eating some cooked food, a less extreme diet can help to think in a less extreme way, and thus gain mental balance. Some readers might not like the term "extreme," which has negative connotations. By "extreme," we simply mean "very different from what is commonly practiced by other humans." Extreme difference or originality can be a sign of genius, or of mental imbalance, or neither. We are not claiming that all people eating 100% raw are imbalanced; in fact, some are successful. But it is a fact of experience that excessive preoccupation with dietary purity often results in fanatical attitudes, or in ways of thinking that can spoil your life. (For instance, see the article Health Food Junkie on this site, by Steven Bratman.)
Important distinction to be made between less-than-100%-raw diets vs. SAD/SWD. In closing this section, we emphasize once again that there is a huge difference between predominantly raw diets, including some gently cooked items (no processing, no salt, no sauces, no frying or use of vegetable oil in cooking) and the "standard American (cooked) diet" (SAD), alternatively also called the "standard Western diet" (SWD).
Misrepresentations by extremists. One of the more inexcusable, often tacitly implied misrepresentations in the typical extremist raw-foodist rationale is the tendency to indiscriminately lump in most any cooked-food diet with the SAD. Or to irrationally claim one doesn't get the bulk of the benefits unless one achieves the magic 100%-raw number, whereupon the benefits suddenly manifest themselves. On the contrary, it is possible to get most, if not all, the benefits that raw-food confers if one eats a predominantly raw rather than all-raw diet, without suffering from the inconveniences and potential nutritional downsides.
No comments:
Post a Comment