Hi Mike
Thanks for the discussion and I appreciate your input. I think important points are being made and clarified here.
In regard to "evidence"....
We all get to look at the evidence ourselves, evaluate by our own standards, interpret it, draw conclusions as to what it means, and then decide how best to apply it.
Many of us look at similar data and see it differently. For 10 years I sat on a science committee with 12-15 top scientists from around the country who reviewed all the new relevant data each month. It was a mind opening experience to do this and learn to share information and perspectives this way. Anyone of the members could try and make the case for anything from raw foods to Vitamin E, to fasting, to salt, etc etc. But we had some basic rules we followed including... the evidence presented had to be relevant, high quality, recent, peer-reviewed and published. And, of course, we all agreed to how we defined those terms.
However, the problem with the raw food movement is that make many claims that are not accurate or even true nor do they have any evidence for. They make incredible leaps of faith that are not logical. Many years ago, in the early 80's, I was even one of them.
Fortunately, that there have been a few (such as Dr Harris) who have come forward in the last few years and spoken out about this and tried to set the record straight.
Mober wrote: McDougall is 100% vegan diet. You may not be vegan, but #1 . Eat no animal food, is vegan. You can't redefine that.
I don't. I allow Dr McDougall to speak for himself.
At the beginning of every 10 day program, Dr McDougall makes 2 points, which he insists people understand, to fully understand this diet..
1) this is not a vegan diet and he is not a vegan
2) this is a starch based diet.
In addition, I represent myself here and I do not see the McDougall program as a vegan diet.
Maybe it is just semantics.
Mober wrote: I read this board frequently and there are hundreds of discussions on cooking temperatures, toxins, nutrient content. I was particularly concerned when I was baking potatoes every day at 450 degrees. So I read it here.
Just because something is posted in these boards does not mean it is accurate or represents Dr McDougall's and/or my opinion. We have to look at who is posting it here, why and what is their evidence. Many things are posted by distractors with little to any good evidence or just well-meaning people with good intentions, who make valuable contributions but may not understand all the principles of the program.
However, in regard to cooking and toxicity, the effect of cooking on both toxicity and nutrient loss is overstated by the raw food community. Even a potato or sweet potato that is baked at 450 degrees is not toxic nor lacking in nutrients and such foods have been the staple food of many long lived populations. There is a difference between containing toxins (as all fresh raw fruits and vegetables do) and being toxic.
All foods contain toxic or potentially harmful chemicals. Many of these occur naturally in the food and are part of the plants natural defense system. Bruce Ames has published some articles on this, showing just how many toxic chemicals occur naturally in common fruits and veggies. Cooking can actually reduce some of these toxins.
Ames, B. N., Profet, M. and Gold, L. S. (1990) Dietary Pesticides (99.99% All Natural). Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 87, 7777-7781
Ames, B. N. (1990) Natural Carcinogens: They're Found in Many Foods. In: Health & Environment Digest, B. Murdock, ed., pp. 4
So, the real issue is not whether or not a food has any toxic chemical in it, but how much of the toxic chemical is in the food and does it exist at a level that can be toxic to humans. Nicotine occurs in many common vegetables.
N Engl J Med. 1993 Aug 5;329(6):437. The nicotine content of common vegetables.
In regard to cooking and nutrient loss..
Here are charts created from the actual data showing actual nutrient loss
http://www.beyondveg.com/tu-j-l/raw-coo ... d-2f.shtml
http://www.beyondveg.com/tu-j-l/raw-coo ... d-2g.shtml
As you can see it is minimal. And, cooking can actually increase availability and absorption of certain nutrients. In addition, there is no evidence anywhere that this minimal loss from cooking is in anyway responsible for any of the major diseases we die from that are related to lifestyle and diet.
This does not make cooked food "poison" or "dead", which is two of the mantra's of the raw food movement.
And, while less maybe better in many things, this does not make none best.
For clarity, I am posting the comparison of 1000 calories of Sweet Potato vs 1000 calories of a banana. The nutritional analysis is for the "cooked" vs the "raw" forms of the foods so this includes the effects of cooking on these nutrients
Cooked Sweet Potato/ Raw Banana
1000 Calories
Protein | 22.3 g / 12.2 g
Fiber | 36.7 g / 29.2 g
Fat | 1.7 g / 3.7 g
Vitamins (78%)/(51%) (average for the DRI's)
===========================================
Vitamin A |213531.2 IU / 719.1 IU
Folate | 66.7 µg / 224.7 µg
B1 (Thiamine) | 1.2 mg / 0.3 mg
B2 (Riboflavin) | 1.2 mg / 0.8 mg
B3 (Niacin) | 16.5 mg / 7.5 mg
B5 (Pantothenic Acid)| 9.8 mg / 3.8 mg
B6 (Pyridoxine) | 3.2 mg / 4.1 mg
Vitamin C | 217.8 mg / 97.8 mg
Vitamin E | 7.9 mg / 1.1 mg
Vitamin K | 25.6 µg / 5.6 µg
Minerals (73%)/(47%)
===========================================
Calcium | 422.2 mg / 56.2 mg
Copper | 1.8 mg / 0.9 mg
Iron | 7.7 mg / 2.9 mg
Magnesium | 300.0 mg / 303.4 mg
Manganese | 5.5 mg / 3.0 mg
Phosphorus | 600.0 mg / 247.2 mg
Potassium | 5277.7 mg / 4022.5 mg
Selenium | 2.2 µg / 11.2 µg
Sodium | 400.0 mg / 11.2 mg
Zinc | 3.6 mg / 1.7 mg
Saturated fat / .4 gm / 1.3
As we can clearly see, there is a great difference between the two and substituting one for other would have a dramatic impact.
I have absolutely no problem with anyone following a 100% raw diet if they wanted to and have several clients who do. However, for optimal health, their diet must provide the essentials, meet the nutritional requirements of the human body, and avoid any harmful components of the diet.
In Health
Jeff