# Intelligent critique of raw food diets? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 27, 2009, 6:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intelligent-critique-of-raw-food-diets/497780 "2009-05-27T06:45:30Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 6\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Blake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a9a28c/32.png) [@Blake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blake)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2009, 11:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intelligent-critique-of-raw-food-diets/497780/41 "2009-07-02T23:49:30Z")
> [@alterego](#): > > You are reading way to far into my “argument”. No, I’m not. It explicitly and clearly says that a raw food diet is supported by the fact that we are descended from organisms that ate raw foods.That is the bare minimum that anyone can read into “Raw foodists like to talk about what our ancestors ate”. > [@](#): > > It is not an argument for eating raw food. Then why do you bother to mention that raw foodists use this argument? For that matter why mention it all in a discusison of raw food diets if it does nothing whatsoever to support or refute raw food diets? > [@](#): > > It simply says that the argument against eating raw food which is based on raw foodists not getting adequate nutrition is not well founded. There is no mention whatsoever of nutrition in that argument. Evenif there were it changes nothing. Now you are simply arguing that because we are descended from organism that obtained adequate nutrition form raw foods we ought to obtain our nutrition from raw food. It’s still a classic naturalistic fallacy. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2009, 12:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intelligent-critique-of-raw-food-diets/497780/42 "2009-07-03T00:51:06Z")
> [@Blake](#): > > It’s that plants don’t like being eaten. To overcome that most plants produce toxins in large amounts in every organ except the fruit. Lots of leafy vegetables produce oxalates that strip calcium from your blood. Most legumes produce various thiamiases that prevent you from absorbing Vitamin B and so forth. Cooking destroys or at least reduces those poisons. Cooking also makes more calories available so you eat less of those plants. It’s fairly common for raw foodists to suffer nutrient deficiencies. Right, like Spinach- which holds a lot of Iron, but in a form that makes it more or less unavailable to a human. There is also no vegetable source of B-12. Now, here’s the thing- it _is_ good to eat less junk food. But there’s no one thing that defines what makes a food = junk. Is it fewer items on the label? A test that is good, but hardly 100%- Lard has only one ingredient. No odd sounding chemicals or additives? Works sometimes, but carrageenan is seaweed, pretty much an ur-food. There’s no one litmus test. But fruits and veggies are pretty darn safe. So, pretty much everyone agrees that the average American needs to eat _more_ of them. But when Americans do things, they often go too far, and “more of them” does not mean “100% and nothing else”%. Get more fiber, eat more fruits and veggies, exercise more, etc. But moderation. 3oz of red meat is good for you, and a 16oz Porterhouse once in a while is fine for the average guy. But Americans eat too damn much red meat. A Big Mac once a month isn’t going to hurt you either- but two a day plus a jumbo fries and a 32oz Coke will send you to an early grave. Blake is right- a 100% Raw food diet is not optimal for humans- but do eat more fruits and veggies. anyway. Neither is a 100% junk food diet (likely worse)- but do eat less of that stuff, huh? ---
**Author:** ![alterego](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/6bbea6/32.png) [@alterego](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/alterego)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2009, 1:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intelligent-critique-of-raw-food-diets/497780/43 "2009-07-03T01:44:10Z")
> [@Blake](#): > > Now you are simply arguing that because we are descended from organism that obtained adequate nutrition form raw foods we ought to obtain our nutrition from raw food. Sorry, you’re still reading too far into my “argument.” I never claimed that we ought to be eating raw food. Not even a little bit. If you’re looking to pass a turing test, try arguing with Google. “Arguing” with me isn’t any fun. ---
**Author:** ![Blake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a9a28c/32.png) [@Blake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blake)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2009, 4:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intelligent-critique-of-raw-food-diets/497780/44 "2009-07-03T04:07:55Z")
> [@alterego](#): > > Sorry, you’re still reading too far into my “argument.” No, I’m not. It explicitly and clearly says that a raw food diet is supported by the fact that we are descended from organisms that ate raw foods.That is the bare minimum that anyone can read into “Raw foodists like to talk about what our ancestors ate”. > [@](#): > > I never claimed that we ought to be eating raw food. You mentioned that raw foodists use this argument. The argument is a clalsic naturalist fallacy. Therefore your OP contains a classic naturalist fallacy. > [@](#): > > “Arguing” with me isn’t any fun. Not if you are going to be disingenuous, no. However it does serve the purpose of fighting ignorance. The OP contains classic naturalistic fallacy. That is an incontrovertible fact. You haven;t done anything to actually challenge this beyond asserting that it doesn’t exist. ---
**Author:** ![alterego](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/6bbea6/32.png) [@alterego](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/alterego)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2009, 4:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intelligent-critique-of-raw-food-diets/497780/45 "2009-07-03T04:17:12Z")
> [@Blake](#): > > No, I’m not. > > It explicitly and clearly says that a raw food diet is supported by the fact that we are descended from organisms that ate raw foods.That is the bare minimum that anyone can read into “Raw foodists like to talk about what our ancestors ate”. > > You mentioned that raw foodists use this argument. The argument is a clalsic naturalist fallacy. Therefore your OP contains a classic naturalist fallacy. > > Not if you are going to be disingenuous, no. However it does serve the purpose of fighting ignorance. > > The OP contains classic naturalistic fallacy. That is an incontrovertible fact. You haven;t done anything to actually challenge this beyond asserting that it doesn’t exist. Sorry, the argument doesn’t say that we ought to eat raw food. Only that we are capable of getting the nutrients we need from raw food. You lose. ---
**Author:** ![Acid\_Lamp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/d6d6ee/32.png) [@Acid\_Lamp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acid_Lamp)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2009, 1:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intelligent-critique-of-raw-food-diets/497780/46 "2009-07-03T13:54:02Z")
If raw veggies contain less usable calories than cooked ones, then it is a good argument for a raw foods component to be part of any well balanced diet. Most Americans at least could use to consume more veggies, and harder to process foods in general. Certainly it would help fight obesity while allowing a person to feel full. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intelligent-critique-of-raw-food-diets/497780.md?page=2)