Information icon.svg Nominations and campaigning for the RationalWiki 2021 Moderator Election are completed. Voting is live now, until 17:00 UTC, 30 November!

Talk:Raw foodism

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Icon food.svg

This Food woo related article has been awarded BRONZE status for quality. It's getting there, but could be better with improvement. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.

This page is automatically archived by Archiver
Archives for this talk page: <1>

The dangers of uncooked food[edit]

Can include poisoning, 'assorted diseases, worms and other unpleasant beasties' - and having to devote much of your time to eating to get sufficient nutrients.

If due caution is taken, how viable is raw foodism? Deficiency in certain vitamins (particularly the B group) seems the most obvious.

What does "There is no convincing evidence currently available to fully evaluate raw foodism" actually mean?[edit]

Considering that plenty of small scale studies have found raw food diets, especially vegan raw food diets, to be at best severely deficient in calories, incl. one Dutch case where a mother's dogmatic adherence to raw food veganism led to an investigation of her fitness to take care of her son, as the lack of calories stunted his growth, among other things (surprise, surprise, one nutty website claims this is a good thing). So, in what sense is there "no convincing evidence currently available to fully evaluate raw foodism"? There is evidence enough to suggest that a raw food diet is probably not a good idea and that a raw food vegan diet is a pretty terrible idea. Considering the reports of undernourishment etc., it's hardly necessary to wait for large scale, controlled, double blinded tests to "fully evaluate" the various claims of the wonders of a raw food diet. Such tests will likely only determine exactly how bad such a diet is and why, not to lend any credence to the central tenets of raw foodism (which is based on a nonsensical view of human prehistory anyway).

And then there's this horror story of really demented raw foodism resulting in the death of an infant which was being fed a blended raw food diet, rather than breast feeding or infant formula. ScepticWombat (talk) 11:45, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Your attempt to assimilate vegans to raw-foodisnm is fallacious. Raw-foodisnm is much more varied thatn "raw veganism" as it includes animal food (raw fish, raw meat, raw eggs, etc.) (talk) 15:15, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
You baby "horror" example is just as fallacious becasue the raw food approach to babies is MOTHER fkng MILK, not formulas of any kind. (talk) 15:17, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
A No True Scotsman from our persistent anti-vaxxer BoN; I'm Jack's complete lack of surprise... Also, heating your food to a sufficient temperature (e.g. pasteurisation) is an excellent way to deal with pathogens rather than a raw food approach which is essentially to cross your fingers and hope you don't get infected. Damn, now I'm starting to argue with a raw food anti-vaxxer; should really know better. ScepticWombat (talk) 15:52, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
Furthermore, mother's milk is not an adequate solution if the mother herself is vitamin B12-deficient from prolonged veganism. Bongolian (talk) 17:53, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
Ah, but as our clever BoN shrewdly highlighted, Real Raw FoodersTM are completely separate from vegans and it's only the dastardly editors at RW who are deliberately conflating the two due to further RW's sinister anti-raw food ideology. Check mate! ScepticWombat (talk) 20:13, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Evidence of raw food as a healthier diet.[edit]

The amateurish pamphet claims: ...There is no evidence that pre-fire humans were any healthier or long-lived than humans after the discovery of fire.... This lack of evidence is extremely easy to overcome by comparing the general health of raw-foodism practicioners to that of the general population. Wat's been done in relation clearly points towards a better health: Raw versus Cooked Vegetables and Cancer Risk "...Although more of the studies showed a statistically significant inverse relationship between raw vegetables and cancer than either cooked or total vegetables, the literature is too varied to compare definitively. " (talk) 15:12, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Let me re-bold that for you;
"...Although more of the studies showed a statistically significant inverse relationship between raw vegetables and cancer than either cooked or total vegetables, the literature is too varied to compare definitively." Reverend Black Percy (talk) 15:20, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
Nice try, but the provisional and statistically significant data is positive for raw food, contrary to yor ideology-only rebuffing of the same. (talk) 15:25, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
Your ideology is clear when you post something that directly contradicts you in a clear statement and think it means something completely different. I can't believe you would do so and expect to be taken seriously. That was bafflingly dumb to post something yourself that contradicts your beliefs while trying to argue it means something opposite. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 15:52, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
It really is rather comical - the normal mode of cherry picking is to atleast over-emphasize a study that supports the claim being argued for. In this case, a study was literally cherry picked which contradicted the claim being argued for. That's a new level of... something. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 18:44, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
It's like watching a perpetual masochism machine where he makes outlandish claims, provides delusional stupidity to support it, then gets frustrated to the point of rage when people see through it in seconds. I can't think of a more disheartening life. I would feel sorry for him if those informing him about reality we're around trying to help as he insults and rages at them. The sad part about diseases like this is that they often get worse over time. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 14:32, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
Allright, let me quote directly from that one random meta-analysis you yourself horked up above here. No quote mining - it states clearly, under "Some caveats" in Methods (that is, a section that ultimately limits the scientific reach of the study findings and its conclusions);
"When assessing this literature, it is important to recognize that none of these studies set out to directly compare the effects of the same vegetables eaten in their raw versus cooked state. In fact, among the studies that listed the specific vegetables, there was little or no overlap in the types of vegetables in the raw versus cooked categories. In addition, individual researchers often evaluated the same vegetables in each of their studies, but the components of the raw and cooked categories differed greatly among researchers. Finally, the portion sizes usually were determined by dividing the subjects into quantiles of intake. Thus, the amount of raw vegetable intake within each quantile was often very different from that of cooked vegetables in the same quantile. Similarly, the quantity of raw and cooked vegetables consumed often differed greatly between studies."
The study makers also make it very clear that eating vegatables, cooked or not, is very healthy compared to not doing so - and we agree perfectly with that point, as it is scientifically sound and proven. It's not like the pont we're trying to make here at RW is that it's a myth that vegetables are healthier than processed food. What we're saying, however, is that - like the study you yourself cite - there's no firm basis whatsoever for thinking that "raw foodism" is superior to your health in any way. What "ideology" would that be, as you call it in your puffing accusation? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 18:44, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
I guess it's an ideology to have a realistic fact based nuanced view of reality. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 14:26, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Life expectancy graph[edit]

I would like to sort of protest the life expectancy graph in the opening quote "Raw foods were here first, and we were doing FINE!", which shows life expectancy exploding in the 20th century. This seems to me largely irrelevant - people did not start cooking in the 20th century. People were also cooking during the rest of the time period portrayed.

On talk pages, please sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking on the sign button: SigButt.png on the toolbar above the edit panel. You can also indent successive talk page comments using one more colon (:) for each line. Thank you.
And of course it's not as simple as that - that's the point we're making. We're placing the graph inside the quote from the insane raw foodist, and the insane raw foodist literally claims the following math: "1) Raw foods were here first. 2) We were doing FINE! 3) Cooked foods came along. 4) Now we're about to DIE!".
All of which is assholian, fallacious, untrue, highly relevant and incredibly funny. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 15:24, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
Besides, we already make the point on where cooked food actually enters into this in the article. So you can relax. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 15:26, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

The quote at the top is similar to a Marxist theory I heard in history class[edit]

You guys know that theory? Bad emotions of workers make bad products for consumers? — Unsigned, by: Kyle / talk / contribs 23:02, 19 March 2018