I can understand the position that Mr. Wrangham takes. Certainly, with the ability to cook their meals, primitive humans could spend less time chewing and chewing at bits of raw meat, as well as crunching through nuts, vegetables, etc. A softer food is most certainly an easier food to take in.
However, the point I disagree with the most has to be the first point, that our digestive tracts are able to digest the nutrients from cooked foods more efficiently. First of all, let me use an example given by Arthur M. Baker, M.A., in his article written in 2000 entitled Raw Fresh Produce vs. Cooked Foods for the living foods website: Excessive heat denatures nutrients. Suppose you burn your finger, or even get sunburn on your back. What happens next? The skin dies, of course. The same applies to cooked foods. When heat is used in excess of 300 to 350 degrees Farenheit, one can imagine what is happening to the structure of the organism being cooked.
There is also evidence from researchers in the Netherlands that, " a link [has been found] between acrylamide, a carcinogenic compound found in cooked, and especially burned, carbohydrate rich foods, and increased risk of endometrial and ovarian cancer in postmenopausal women...Acrylamide is found in cigarette smoke and in carbohydrate rich foods that are cooked at a temperature above 120 degrees Centigrade (250 Fahrenheit). " (Source) So, not only are nutrients denatured, or biologically diminished, but extra carcinogenic elements are produced in the cooking process.
Another piece of literature on the subject that I found to be interesting is the topic of enzyme deficiency in cooked foods. An enzyme, as defined by the Biotechnology Industry Organization, is, "A protein catalyst that facilitates specific chemical or metabolic reactions necessary for cell growth and reproduction." So, basically, it is something that helps to metabolize energy sources. The enzymes in our saliva serve the function of breaking down starches and fats at a molecular level before they reach the stomach, and further on, the enzymes in our stomachs break the food down even further to be used as energy. That being said, most, if not all, foods we eat start off with also have their own enzymes and chemicals that aid in energy production.
Brenda Watson, C.N.C., states in her book, The Detox Strategy, that when foods are cooked at tempertures of 325 degrees for grains and 350 degrees for meats, there is a "wholesale enzyme destruction" occurring at the molecular level. This includes any processed foods, even when they are uncooked, because those processed foods have heat applied during the refining process. Because of this enzyme reduction, Watson says, the digestive system has to work harder to process the foods given to it, lessening the efficiency of our systems overall. This forces the metabolic enzymes within our bodies to perform the function that the cooked and processed foods no longer can, instead of doing their natural job of healing within the body.
As for the question of whether the raw food diet is better or worse for us based on the observation that most people experience weight loss when they switch from a primarily processed and cooked food diet to a primarily raw food diet, one has to consider the fact that many people do not lead the most healthful lifestyles possible, which is the most likely cause for disease and ill health among so many--and I don't think that anybody would really contest the fact that fruits are most definitely more healthful than a can of soda or a side of french fries (Also, let's also note that a raw food diet does not have to necessarily be vegan, though it is most common to find that the people following raw food diets also conform to the vegan lifestyle).
And in this respect, if we can make the assertion that the raw food lifestyle is in fact not as healthy as we believe because it causes people to lose weight, then we can also say that any kind of change in lifestyle that causes weight loss is unhealthy, too. But...wait; that doesn't make a whole lot of sense, because don't most people strive to lose weight and gain health in the first place? It is really only unhealthy when extreme measures are taken that cause yo-yo dieting effects and rapid weight loss, a problem that occurs with fad diets and people who are not fully prepared to effectively change their lifestyles for the better, but rather change them for the moment in order to get thin for a high school reunion or a summer at the beach or whatever reason they might have. The ideas encompassing the raw food diet are not to promote "fast and easy weight loss" or to "shrink two sizes in two weeks!" but to encourage an entire lifestyle shift towards a more healthful approach to eating and nutrition.
Now, this is coming mainly from my own personal experience and viewpoint on the issue, however is it not a fact that the rates of obesity in America, if not in most civilized nations excepting a few, have skyrocketed, particularly with the rise in "fast foods" and "fad diets"? When I say fast foods, I do not mean restaurant foods exclusively, but the whole range of foods that are made to be quick, easy and on-the-go, such as the frozen dinners that so many people consume when they're too tired or busy to prepare, or even buy, something that takes a bit more time a preparation, as well as snack foods, diet foods, etc. With so many people being overweight, is it not essential for us to look directly at the cause in order to find a solution? Combined with the rising rates of people with sedentary or only partially active lifestyles, obesity is not doubt the result of a widespread cultural shift towards that which is easy rather than healthful.
And while it is true that many vegans experience problems with their lifestyles due to the lack of nutrients provided only in meats, one does not have to completely eliminate meats in order to live a healthful lifestyle. Even in the case of someone having a diet that is 75% raw and 25% cooked, it is plausible to assume that their health would be far better over someone with little to no raw food intake.
So the question weight loss is, in my opinion, only necessary when the person changing their lifestyle to a more raw food-oriented diet is someone with any kind of underlying health issue that would be adversely affected by a change in diet, or those who have an eating disorder, and only switch to the raw food diet in order to further their weight loss. In the case of an eating-disordered person, I believe that any change in diet that is not supervised by a medical practitioner can be dangerous, even the raw food diet.
Simply, from my own perspective, and from the perspectives of many researchers, a raw food diet is not only healthier, it is more or less the way we are supposed to function. There were many other factors that contributed to the progression of Homo Erectus over the progression of the Neanderthals, which may or may not have to do with whether or not their foods were cooked, but I simply cannot believe that a diet based on cooked or processed foods is in any way more beneficial or healthful than a diet based on more natural, raw components.
Any evidence that might refute this viewpoint is most readily accepted and encouraged.
-Megan
Megan, I looked up Brenda Watson -- I was intrigued by what you quoted by her, I had not thought specifically about the destruction of natural enzymes during heating. Below is from her website:
ReplyDelete"However, because a large part of the Standard American Diet (SAD) consists of cooked and heavily processed foods, most of those natural enzymes have been destroyed."
Ignoring for now her equating "a large part" with "most" and the fact that she's trying to hawk an enzyme supplement, wouldn't the problem with enzyme degradation be resolved if only a part of our diet was cooked? As I quoted earlier, a large part (67%) of chimps' diets is made up of fruits, blossoms, and insects, neither of which would need to be cooked. Raw plant matter (leaves, seeds) and meat are much tougher, but they comprise barely more than a quarter of a chimp's diet. Might not the nutritional value earned from cooking a quarter of the food outweigh the destruction of that many enzymes?
"[T]he point I disagree with the most has to be the first point, that our digestive tracts are able to digest the nutrients from cooked foods more efficiently. ... Excessive heat denatures nutrients. Suppose you burn your finger, or even get sunburn on your back. What happens next? The skin dies, of course. The same applies to cooked foods. When heat is used in excess of 300 to 350 degrees Farenheit, one can imagine what is happening to the structure of the organism being cooked."
I don't disagree that cooking food breaks up complex nutrients; it's a process of adding energy in the form of heat, which breaks chemical bonds and forms compounds that are more energetically stable and arguably less complex. I believe that is what Wrangham means by saying our digestive tracts absorb nutrients more easily from food that's cooked than raw; simpler types of molecules are more easily digestible by our gut, since the energy required to break down molecules into a simpler form doesn't come from our bodies.
"a link [has been found] between acrylamide, a carcinogenic compound found in cooked, and especially burned, carbohydrate rich foods .... So, not only are nutrients denatured, or biologically diminished, but extra carcinogenic elements are produced in the cooking process."
The most carbohydrate-rich raw foods I can think of that primitive man would have been eating regularly are the fruits of a plant, and those are typically eaten raw after they've ripened (so I don't see why they would have cooked it). Pears, an incredibly sweet fruit, have on average 25g carbohydrates per fruit, whereas the amount of carbs present in a serving of french fries is upwards of 50g. Fast foods such as french fries are cooked with a ton of oil, which is made almost entirely of hydrocarbons. However Wrangham does not make mention of *processing* the food with oils or spices, merely the act of heating the food, so the point about acrylamide found in burned carb-rich foods is moot.
(continued from above)
ReplyDelete"if we can make the assertion that the raw food lifestyle is in fact not as healthy as we believe because it causes people to lose weight, then we can also say that any kind of change in lifestyle that causes weight loss is unhealthy, too. But...wait; that doesn't make a whole lot of sense, because don't most people strive to lose weight and gain health in the first place?"
A loss in weight does not equal a gain in health. Of course there is a problem with obesity, or people who are eating "too much of a good thing" that is, sugar and fat -- but many thin people are not healthy, either. If your body weight is appropriate for your body size (a BMI below 18.5 or above 24.9 is "not ideal").
I agree that a healthy diet would have to include just the right amount of nutritive foods that keeps your weight at exactly the same spot, all other factors constant, and that when people switch from eating crap to food that's actually good for them, they're likely to lose some weight, and that's not necessarily a bad thing. But it is a mistake to equate thinness with health.
"it not a fact that the rates of obesity in America, if not in most civilized nations excepting a few, have skyrocketed, particularly with the rise in "fast foods" and "fad diets"?"
I never meant to imply by the statement "cooked food is healthier for you" that *all* cooked food is healthier for you. I imagine Wrangham's definition of "cooked food" as referring solely to the same exact food that a wild primate would eat. In other words, he isn't promoting Kraft Easy Mac as a healthy diet choice -- he's simply claiming that we are able to get more nutrients out of (e.g.) a cooked fish than if we ate the same fish raw.
"Simply, from my own perspective, and from the perspectives of many researchers, a raw food diet is not only healthier, it is more or less the way we are supposed to function. ... I simply cannot believe that a diet based on cooked or processed foods is in any way more beneficial or healthful than a diet based on more natural, raw components."
Can you give us a link to some of those "many researchers"? And again, Wrangham never said anything about *processed foods* being healthy -- he is referring solely to foods found in the wild that have been heated up for a while, i.e. cooked.
Alright, yes. I do realize that Wrangham was not necessarily referring to processed foods, and yes, perhaps the invention of fire and the idea to cook food was our evolutionary turning point, but as Robin pointed out in class, there is no way to be certain. It could be that the idea to cook our food was not the turning point, but rather a by-product of an evolutionary turning point (like Robin said, opposable thumbs, the ability to stand upright, a sudden mutation in genetic structure that caused a larger brain to be formed, etc.)
ReplyDeleteMy main point was to address the idea of cooked foods being intrinsically degenerative to some point, even thought to contribute to many digestive problems, as well as other health issues (http://www.healthy.net/scr/Article.aspx?Id=848) and my position is that instead of helping humans along in their evolutionary journey, perhaps cooked foods have only been an evolutionary downfall in the long run.
And as far as having more time to create tools and use our "big brains" more effectively because we were not spending our time chewing and digesting seems a little far-fetched; would it not take just as much energy to gather the supplies necessary for fire, as well as to build the actual fire itself and keep it going, as it would to simply tear the meat from the bone and chew? Maybe it would even take less time to simply chew the raw meat as opposed to building a fire with which to cook it? Unfortunately, of course, we may never know.