It looks like you're new to The Community. If you'd like to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Login Here Signup Here Signup using FacebookI've been "high raw" for almost three years now (with long bouts of being 100%) and have seen amazing benefits. Having seen these benefits, I try to educate some of my friends about raw when they ask about it.
Recently, this one "friend of a friend" who has a Masters in biology asked me several questions about raw foods and wanted recommendations to books on raw. I gave them to her a week or so ago. Anyway, a few minutes ago I got an email from her that stated: "The raw food movement is mislead about the role of live enzymes in our diet. Enzymes are proteins and are digested by the stomach just like other proteins, so they're unable to do all of the great stuff raw foodists *think* they do."
Anyway, I'm positive I've come across this explanation before, but don't really remember the answer to this question... and don't want to mislead her. Can someone explain this to me?
Thanks!
Jen
Comments
I think she is saying that there are no benefits of eating raw foods. That eating proteins and enzymes from raw foods is the same as processed, cooked foods.
She doesnt know what she is talking about.
She sais "Enzymes are proteins and digested by the stomach just like other proteins."
What are 'other proteins?' does she refer to cooked, acidic, life-threatening proteins?
Recommend her to try eating a raw diet and she will notice a difference.
Apparently she misunderstands why raw-foodist think raw food is better. Yes, cooking kills enzymes. Yes, enzymes aid in digestion. But, the biggest problem (in my opinion) is that cooking changes the chemical sstructure of protien and most fats into poison! It renders fiber virtually useless and depletes vitamin, minerals, anti-oxidants and other micronutrients! Didn't she read that?! To me, it seems she is focussing on the one thing she can misconstrue.
Yes lyn she is focusing on her knowledge of biology instead of a more holistic point of view which she won't be able to find in her biology. weren't there, like, tests and research that proved enzymes actually aren't killed by stomach acid? I have to research that more.
Even biologists acknowlege the importance of vitamins and minerals, dont they? If she doesnt the intelligence has been educated right out of her!
Perhaps it would take a chemist to understand the protein and fats...
This may be a moot point, but from my physiology class this semester, I learned that proteins, ie enzymes do not start breaking down till the last third of the stomach. Obviously, the enzymes would aid in digestion of carbohydrates in the first part of the stomach digestion
Eh i hate when scientists make stupid statements that they are basing off of what things look like. Plenty of times they have done tests to see if they could replace the natural diet of certain animals and insects with diets that contain "the exact same nutrients" but were created in a lab and in the end they all had some illness or in some cases died.
Jminar777,
Your friend is looking at the scientific explainations that some raw foodists give for their theory that raw diet is good. I personally believe that high raw is very healthy, but probably not for some of the reasons given by some of the raw food movement: Focusing on raw foods fills you up with fruits and veggies that have many minerals and vitamins we need. It ALSO keeps you from loading up on food with not as much nutritional value- breads, cookies, cakes, pasta and other high calorie foods.
I think (just my opinion) much of the "raw" benefits we see are not only from what we eat, but also from what we don't eat. Though I don't believe a little indulgence in these foods will kill you- eating MOSTLY these foods is (literally) slowly killing many people.
I don't find the enzyme explaination to be a really reliable one. It has been my understanding that enzymes in our food are broken down in the stomach (as your friend of a friend stated). We produce our own enzymes for digestion, and also stomach acids and such. I won't say that enzymes in plants and fruits might not help- but I have thought of that explaination for going raw to be a bit wanting scientifically. Possibly the enzymes in raw foods are beneficial when you are chewing the food in your mouth (before it hits the stomach) though.
My opinion- your friend of a friend may be correct. She did NOT say that raw food diets are bad- just that the scientific claims are.
I think the point that may be missed is that just because the enzyme theory does not hold much water, doesn't mean there are not health benefits to eating raw. It may be as simple as the fact that you are eating high water content, vitamin and mineral rich foods, and not junk food.
My guess- the books that you recommended to her focused on the enzyme theory, and the cooked food is poison idea. If they did, she truly is just being honest with you as a biologist and pointed out theories in the books that are questionable science.
"The raw food movement is mislead about the role of live enzymes in our diet. Enzymes are proteins and are digested by the stomach just like other proteins, so they're unable to do all of the great stuff raw foodists *think* they do." - was your quote from the lady.
I could be wrong- but I think most doctors and nutritionists would agree that a high amount of raw fruits and veggies are healthy. The main parting of ways is when it comes to the belief that one should ONLY eat raw foods (nothing cooked). And many times that belief is based on the enzyme theory or the "cooked food is bad" idea. Both of those ideas can be called questionable scientifically. That does not prove raw diets (even 100% raw) are bad. Just those two theories.
IF you are eating raw, and your health is improving- then it works for you. But, I think we need to be honest and open enough to question are beliefs. A lot of the "theory" behind raw foodism presented in books and on the internet IS pretty shoddy science. Sorry to say it, but it is.
I would agree with some of the other posters who sited the presence of vitamins and minerals, and having tried a raw diet and found they felt better for it. If you had a discussion with this lady about those things she and you could probably agree on them. But as a biologist, she probably had a hard time getting past the questionable science.
Personally- I would concede to her on the enzyme point and explain to her why YOU have found raw food to be helpful: the vitamins, the nutrient rich food, lack of processed sugar, etc.
If you want to truly look into her claims:
You can ask her for some good sources to read up on where she got her data. Being a biologist she should be ready to support her claims with a reliable source. If you don't want to go that route, I can recommend you to a site that does a critical evaluation of both the the enzyme theory and the cooked food is bad idea:
http://www.beyondveg.com/tu-j-l/raw-cooked/raw-cooked-2b.shtml#enzymes
This site isn't for the easily offended vegetarian/vegan/raw foodists. I am a vegetarian, and generally try to eat high raw. Many of the contributors of the site are vegetarian/vegan or high raw themselves (though by many of the topics you may not realize it). I don't agree with all their opinion pieces.
But, their articles site sources (and reliable ones). Check out their critique of the enzyme debate and then you may also go further if you wish, and actually look up their sources and decide for yourself.