Moderators: JeffN, carolve, Heather McDougall
Mober wrote:But aren't there a lot of clues on raw as well
Mober wrote:I read your posts and clearly you guys rely on studies and examples to point to and I have no dispute. I can also pick up my Canyon Ranch book where they site studies as well and they make the claim to eat food w/ highest nutrient-to-calorie ratio as possible.
Mober wrote:Also these long lived populations typically eat very small amounts of animal products - so obviously McD diet uses some subjectivity to not include those.
Mober wrote:How do you synthesize nutrient loss due to cooking, or even toxicity created by cooking?
All well addressed here in these forum including links to charts/studies showing actual results and numbers. Nutrient loss to cooking is minimal at best. Minerals are heat stable and vitamin loss is minimal.
The raw food community grealty over exaggerates the effects of cooking on nutrients and on toxicity. Cooking also increases availability of some nutrients and kills toxins.
BTW, all fresh raw fruits and veggies have toxins in them also. The foods recommended here and cooked as recommended here do not increase toxicity of the diet. This is also well covered in this forum.
More importantly, we have to realize that most people do not die of nutrient deficiencies anyway, but from excess calories, fat, saturated fat, hydrogenated fat, trans fat, cholesterol, salt and sugars. There are discussions here documenting that even the longest lived people have some mildly deficient diets yet are the longest lived people.
So, nutrient deficiencies and/or is not what is killing people or making them sick.Mober wrote:For someone in the middle that's not trying to be philosophical in the debate, that's what lands me on the raw side.
Mober wrote:So if these populations eat some meat and those populations are the "proof", it is subjective to take meat out of the picture.
Mober wrote:It is also subjective to account for nutrient loss etc. Or not account it for it. It's not weighted as a factor by you for various reasons. You still say vitamin loss is minimal and minimal x a lifetime can be non trivial, however the viewpoint you guys have is it actually is trivial when considering what ails people. You answered my question.
jmygann wrote:If your are importing your food is that sustainable/eco friendly ?
Mober wrote:The raw study mentioned in the link doesn't detail the actual diet.
Mober wrote:Graham himself spends a lot of time ripping typical raw diets for their malnourishment - they are typically more than 50% fat. His key point, if you eat more than 10% fat, you are shorting your carb intake. He also makes a lot of the same argument I have read on this site for example on calcium v. protein and what is really key in getting right balance. Whenever anyone gives input on the right intake of a single nutirent it's not the only variable. It always seems like the raw guys compare bad vegan and McD compares to high fat raw.
Mober wrote:BTW, a big part of say Okinawan diet is calorie restriction.
Mober wrote: If calorie density helped man evolve, why does calorie restriction seem to lengthen life span? I would guess its related to activity level of early man vs. todays lifestyle. But unless these guys in the studies normalize all this input, drawing a conclusion seems real tough.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests