Raw Garlic: Health Food or Toxin?
When I recently released Savory Raw Dressings and Sauces: http://www.raw-food-health.net/Savory-Raw-Dressings-And-Sauces.html I got a lot of questions about why I refused to add garlic to my recipes.
It's a vegetable, after all, so people generally figure it has to be harmless.
The side effects go far beyond the stinky breath, however, and most of the beneficial health claims are not well supported.
Read about raw garlic, and why you might want to reconsider its use, here: http://www.raw-food-health.net/Raw-Garlic.html
Hope you enjoy.
Lol it isnt a toxin, there are many decently designed studies which supports garlics health properties.
This is the same stuff i see on other health forums people saying garlic, onions are toxins, its just laughable especially when there's no information to support such wild statements other than many self appointed "raw gurus" and there made up information.
Yes garlic can have side effects for some, so can many other fruits and vegetables. One side effect of raw broccoli or other vegetables containing goitrogens is that they interfere with thyroid function. Does that make them toxins and drug like vegetables also. Just because something has side effects doesnt mean it automatically has become a drug, garlic is a vegetable and always will be, like many other fruits and vegetables it happens to have health benefits through the compounds/phytonutrients they contain, its really not that hard to understand.
On that different note many raw gurus try to make out anything with "medicinal" properties is a drug or a symptom suppressor i find that notion funny as all fruits and vegetables alter the bodys chemistry through there nutrients and phytonutrient content. So if you using a papaya to fight cancer or prevent it is papaya a drug too. Or maybe a yam for its fiber content to treat constipation.
EDIT: A quick search on Pubmed yields multiple studies showing you the health benefits of garlic, many of them showing great results in those with heart disease.
pl, there are studies which purport everything. I don't really care about the garlic issue, but if you are going to rag on this post, at least read the article cited. The article cites many sources and non-rv clinical literature so it is not just "made up information". You obviously didn't even look at it so your response is somewhat irresponsible. I like your posts but don't be guilty of what you are supposedly against.
I was meaning the whole garlic/onion is a toxin in particular but i did read the article and i dont agree with the whole skewed view that because garlic has side effects that it is comparable to a drug.
Much that all drugs = poison, anything that changes the physiology of the body can be considered a drug. Most healthy foods have proven health benefits so that would make them drugs too with this view.
I just dont agree with that view overall thats all. Lots of foods also have side effects like i mentioned the goitrogens in cruciferous vegetables. Even water can have side effects.
I know the article cites some scientific literature, but in a very skewed and manipulated way such as with the blood thinning and antibiotic properties.
Garlic is not the only food to have anti-biotic and bacteria killing properties, take raspberries for example they have been shown to have potent anti-bacterial and antimicrobial properties. Do we need to start avoiding raspberries now too?
Andrew has a great writing style though, one that is very easy to read and has done some good articles. I just dont favor for the whole garlic/onion are toxins/drugs theory.
I happen to agree with you about the garlic issue, however I am more concerned about your presentation of the article's information than the article's presentation of garlic. Just because you don't agree with the information or even how the information was derived doesn't mean you can say "its just laughable especially when there's no information to support such wild statements other than many self appointed "raw gurus" and there made up information."
What the article said about garlic may be "skewed", but what you said about the article is downright incorrect and dangerous in the promotion of scientific and unbiased thinking.
Aside from that, I don't think the author is saying that the antibacterial property itself is bad, but rather, that the cause of it (allicin) is bad. After a quick search, I don't think the source of raspberries antibacterial properties is allicin (if it does have such a property). Also, the antibacterial property of lemon juice is the low pH of its juice. So, it seems your point there is flawed. Better to come from a different angle. Either prove that allicin is healthful to the body or perhaps try to dismantle some of the other claims.
The anti-microbial action of raspberries isnt from allicin its from other compounds such as ellagic acid, same outcome though and the way i read the article was what i picked up on it that killing of bacteria isnt necessarily a good thing. Which partially i do agree with, but in the articles sense it was being used to put garlic in a bad light. I was merely showing that those who are proponents of the garlic/onions are drugs theory, that many of the fruits they love also have similar anti-microbial properties. I didnt mention lemon juice, i mentioned raspberries, i dont see how the angle was flawed, these articles that diss on garlic for its anti-microbial properties, fail to see that other fruits and vegetables also have potent anti-bacterial/fungal properties. For some reason it is considered a sinister property when it comes from garlic/onions but of no issue when from a fruit such as raspberries. About proving garlic/allicins health benefits, bear in mind allicin is only one of the active components of garlic, a 2 second search at various online journals or even google shows many robust studies with no underlying motivations with impressive results for garlics health benefits.
Same with the blood thinning properties of garlic, which for most can be a benefit and yeah i agree for some blood thinning foods should be avoided. Again the article pinpoints this property and compares it to a drug and a poison. What about the other foods that are touted by the same people such as strawberries and other high salicylate containing foods which also naturally thin the blood?
Again the laughable comment wasn't really directed at the article but the theory in general. I dont see how in anyway thats dangerous or downright incorrect. Which is why i find it laughable that people are comparing vegetables such as garlic and onions to powerful drugs, toxins or other wild statements with no real basis when viewed in a proper light. Which to myself is dangerous and incorrect. I have nothing against unbiased and open minded thinking but you have to view it in context and hopefully with something to back it up. I could pinpoint kale which has shown to regularly induce anemia in cattle, sheeps and goats and produce an article in a negative light about kale, but it wouldn't mean much in proper context. Would you eat a green such as kale when it regularly induces anemia in animals, could shut down your thyroid gland via the goitrogen content and contains oxalate's which may irritate and cause kidney problems in some. By the way i love kale im just showing how any healthy food can be viewed in a negative light with a different spin, similar to what the article and theory in general has done.
This viewpoint has came about partially because garlic and to a lesser degree onions are often in news articles about latest studies on this and that health benefit. But when you look at scientific journals broccoli, spinach, insert fruit/vegetable are no less studied for there great health benefits. Why is one i.e garlic/onion considered a horrible drug but the other considered an amazing food. You have wild statements from others saying well garlic smell is so pungent that alone should tell you its a toxin and other crazy statements, again i find that laughable as it has no scientific basis whatsoever and statements like that gain following and can be dangerous.
Just my view point of course which im entitled too and i feel i do back up what i mean above. Again i have enjoyed many of Andrews articles on raw food but just not this one.