I know several proponents of a diet consisting primarily of raw foods. The idea behind this is that humans aren’t meant to eat cooked foods and by eating raw foods (mostly fruits, vegetables, and sprouted grains), one releases enzymes that aid in digestion. Without these enzymes, supposedly, toxins will build up in the body, you’ll eat more than you need to try to counteract your poor nutrition, and all of it will lead to degenerative diseases. One of the more interesting arguments I’ve heard is that menstruation is a sign of toxicity and eating a raw diet will cease menstruation, as a sign of one’s good health. :dubious:
While I can see some benefits to cutting down on processed foods and eating more fruits and vegetables is generally a healthy dietary choice, my knowledge of digestion and how one absorbs nutrients doesn’t jive with how it’s being explained in regards to raw diets. I’m aware of the dangers of trying to feed children on this diet, how certain nutrients would be lacking, and the fact that amenorrhea isn’t actually a good thing, but it’s the underlying concept here that I’m really curious about.
Are there any real, measurable benefits to a person from the enzymes in raw food?
Yup, however there are a few enzymes that’ll survive a trip through the stomach. Mostly proteases, such as pepsin, bromelain and papain. Some of these have been sold as digestive aids for over a hundred years: Beemans Gum.
Bear in mind that Nature has no use for you beyond your reproductive lifespan; in prehistoric times, this was probably around the age of thirty or thereabouts. Any chronic illnesses or degeneration that occurs after that has no real bearing on evolutionary fitness, and thus any business about what is good or bad for you in a natural sense needs to apply to people prior to that age.
Any dietary or medical claims that include references to unnamed “toxins” that “build up” in the body, I dismiss as bogus without further consideration. A sure sign of quackery.
That’s just not true. Do you think it is a mere evolutionary accident that people tend to survive far beyond their reproductive years? This happens even in “primitive” cultures that live very close to nature.
The fact is that if sticking around after you finish your final procreation is beneficial, than it is selected for, and we therefore evolve to last a long time. This seems to have happened, and the reasons why are numerous - raising kids, grandkids, passing along knowledge, etc.
This idea that humans are “meant” to eat certain foods is what is bogus. There is some evidence that humans evolved (and their brain size increased) when they started eating meat a lot, but since they were not well equipped to deal with fresh meat, it was meat that was at least slightly high. That is why we age our meats and certainly why we cook them. Although I have no knowledge of this, it wouldn’t at all surprise me to learn that cooked protein is the easiest thing for us to digest (except sugar, but sugar requires no digestion).
True enough. “Toxins” are used in the same way that “energy” is when it comes to these sorts of things: poorly defined and poorly understood by the person proposing the viewpoint.
Thanks for the responses, particularly the link to the article on Quakwatch. I’d already discounted it all as complete hogwash, but having it nicely broken down by an MD works so much better as a rebuttal than, “But I took Biology 101 and this doesn’t make sense.”
Even in “‘primitive’ cultures that live very close to nature”, substantial precedence is given to providing for the sick, injured, and elderly in exchange for their knowledge and wisdom. This is a social convention, not a biological one, and is the same reason that domesticated animals, particularly pets, live substantially longer lives in captivity than they would in the wild. It doesn’t figure into discussions regarding strictly evolutionary biological adaptations and mechanisms. You can make a slight argument that our neoteny from more “primitive” forms allows us to retain a greater ability for self-repair much longer than our primate forbearers, but that’s not a strong arguement. In the wild, outside of society, living as a primitve hunter-gatherer-scavenger in temporate or subtropical regions, you can expect a life of about thirty years or so before you become–in terms of your ability to provide for yourself–more of a burden than a help.
People begin to degenerate in physical fitness (that is, it becomes harder to repair damage and remain fit) at roughly the same time their reproductive abilities decline (early- to mid-thirties). This is no accident; Nature is done with you at this point, and your continued fitness is of no direct reproducttive benefit. That we have trimumphed at using intelligence to adapt and expand our capabilities, including natural longevity, is a tribute to how flexible conceptual intelligence makes us despite our manifest weaknesses.
Can we have a refernce for these claims? Specificallythat there is a significant decline in in physical fitness in the early to mid thirties, that there is a significant decline in the bodies repair mechanisms in the mid thirties, and that there is a significant decline in reproductive abilities in the mid thirties?
None of those statements gel with anyhing else that I have ever read or been told. My understanding is that there is a progressive decline in those attributes from puberty to late middle age, and that only in late middle age is there a significant decline.
And can we have a reference fpr this claim too. This is just extraordinary. Can you name even one single hunter gatherer group where people in the 30-40 age bracket are not net food suppliers? If not then how did you come up with this extraordinary claim?
Even if you aren’t supplying food yourself, you can babysit, freeing their mothers up to go out and get food. You can be repairing tools/traps/whatever, fixing dwellings, and generally make yourself useful enough to be fed.
In addition to warnings about bodily toxins tripping one’s skeptic-o-meter, claims for the supposed wondrous benefits of raw food should do the same. Where’s the evidence that eating raw instead of cooked food causes “degenerative diseases”?
If you really want health benefits, some raw food advocates will tell you to drink raw milk, which can result in transmission of tuberculosis.
If by sugar you mean sucrose, then it is a disaccharide composed of the simple sugars glucose and fructose. By definition it must be digested to be useful, and the digestion of sucrose consists of splitting it into its two component simpler sugars.
The other natural sugars are also disaccharides. Dextrose is glucose plus glucose. Lactose is glucose plus galactose. All must be digested by enzymes that specialize in their breakdown.
In short, it’s hard to find a natural sugar that does not require digestion. Even the simple sugar mannose cannot be used directly.
Which is why I advocate that my diabetic patients who are on hypoglycemic agents (insulin, glipizide/glyburide) carry glucose tablets for when their blood glucose crashes. It raises blood glucose much faster than a glass of OJ or a bagel, or even a bunch of honey, as it doesn’t need digestion, just absorption.
Neat! Most diabetics I know do carry glucose tabs, but I never got curious enough to ask why - just assumed it was something diabetics knew that didn’t necessarily concern me. I HAVE given orange juice to someone having a diabetic emergency though (I was directed to do so by a first aid staffer.) This is good to know. Thanks, QtM.
Yep. That’s why I carefully said hard to find rather than impossible to find. But even honey is composed of about 10% complex sugars so it too requires some digestion.
Surely if men can reproduce to quite an old age then those who are both virile and long-living will be selected for, simply as a result of having more offspring? Or not?