Navigation bar--use text links at bottom of page.

(Looking at the Science on Raw vs. Cooked Foods--continued, Part 3B)


What kind of combined raw/cooked diet?
Making intelligent choices


The point that the issue of raw vs. cooked foods is not an easy or black-and-white question has been made in a number of ways by now in this paper. Implicit in the recognition that the issue is not black-and-white is the resulting consideration of trade-offs. In this regard, there are two primary trade-offs to assess when making the decision whether to make certain foods a part of one's diet, and whether to cook them or not, that we'll examine here.


Trade-off #1: Should we cook to neutralize toxins/
improve digestibility of potentially valuable foods?

We have seen that cooking sometimes destroys antinutrients or toxins, so that a food previously toxic becomes edible. However, cooking often leaves some toxins undestroyed, and the result of cooking is that we eat much more of that food than if it were in its raw state. An excess of cassava, for instance, can result in a serious poisoning by cyanogenic glycosides; other examples are numerous, and much could be said against grains. (Antinutrients in grains, such as phytates which bind minerals, can cause rickets and pellegra if grains constitute a large enough portion of the diet. See the site article The Late Role of Grains and Legumes in the Human Diet, and Biochemical Evidence their Evolutionary Discordance for more information and references.)

"Optimal foraging" in the modern supermarket? Cooking proves to be useful for modern hunter-gatherers (and as we have said, would presumably also have been so for prehistoric hunter-gatherers once they had developed the level of acumen necessary to utilize fire) so as to enhance chances of survival. However, nowadays in the twentieth century, with all sorts of imported foods widely available, it may be that cooking loses its importance. On the other hand, the range of foods available in our supermarkets and health-food stores is implicitly intended to be sufficient for people using a stove, but might not be adequate for those who don't, since many of the tubers (i.e., potatoes) and vegetables (turnips, kale, etc.) are barely edible raw; and modern, highly bred fruits are excessively high in sugar compared to their wild counterparts.

So, raw-fooders end up with a diet which differs considerably from what they would be able to obtain under natural conditions (assuming this term has any meaning for humans that all could agree on). So even if "optimal foraging theory" doesn't apply anymore here, cooking and accepting a (very mild) natural toxin load (like solanine from potatoes) might help achieve a more balanced diet and the net result could be positive, as we shall see.

No "perfect" food or set of foods enabling avoidance of all toxins. While it certainly makes sense to limit the consumption of foods that are inedible raw--all other things being equal (an important condition, because sometimes they aren't)--the presence of natural toxins shouldn't be a deterrent, unless they are present in hazardous levels. There is no perfect food. One role of the liver is to eliminate the toxic constituents in order to be able to utilize food sources for nutrients even if they are accompanied by some level of antinutrients or toxins, and the nutrients would be difficult to come by otherwise.


Trade-off #2: Will an all-raw diet require
excessive bulk to obtain sufficient nutrition?

In principle, raw foods can provide all the necessary nutrients (except for the thorny issue of B-12 in vegan diets), especially if a variety of foods is utilized, including sprouts, nuts, organ meats, seaweed. Obviously, there is no black-and-white answer, given the extreme variability of raw-food diets. But while no one claims that cooking is an absolute necessity, in practice, a balanced raw diet is rather difficult to achieve.

Idealism vs. real-world practicalities. Some of the reasons why all-raw diets can be impractical to implement include:

Important distinction to be made between less-than-100%-raw diets vs. SAD/SWD. In closing this section, we emphasize once again that there is a huge difference between predominantly raw diets, including some gently cooked items (no processing, no salt, no sauces, no frying or use of vegetable oil in cooking) and the "standard American (cooked) diet" (SAD), alternatively also called the "standard Western diet" (SWD).

Misrepresentations by extremists. One of the more inexcusable, often tacitly implied misrepresentations in the typical extremist raw-foodist rationale is the tendency to indiscriminately lump in most any cooked-food diet with the SAD. Or to irrationally claim one doesn't get the bulk of the benefits unless one achieves the magic 100%-raw number, whereupon the benefits suddenly manifest themselves. On the contrary, it is possible to get most, if not all, the benefits that raw-food confers if one eats a predominantly raw rather than all-raw diet, without suffering from the inconveniences and potential nutritional downsides.



How is the balance of nutrients one obtains
affected by eating partially cooked?


Let's compare a few foods. We give the mineral composition for standard 100-gram portions. (Notes: dates are dried, with 22.5% moisture; broccoli is boiled, without salt, drained; potatoes are boiled, without skin.)

SAMPLE FOODS IN A MOSTLY-RAW VEGAN DIET
(nutrient values in mg per 100g portion)


Chemical abbreviations for the elements listed in the table are:
Ca = calcium, Fe = iron, Mg = magnesium, P = phosphorus, K = potassium,
Na = sodium, Zn = zinc, Cu = copper, Mn = manganese.

FOOD

Minerals (mg per 100 grams)

Ca

Fe

Mg

P

K

Na

Zn

Cu

Mn

Grapes

14

.3

5

10

191

2

.04

.04

.72

Avocado

11

1.0

39

41

599

10

.42

.26

.23

Dates

32

1.1

35

40

652

3

.29

.29

.30

Broccoli

48

.9

25

66

325

27

.40

.04

.23

Romaine

36

1.1

6

45

290

8

.25

.04

.64

Potato

8

.3

20

40

328

5

.27

.17

.14

Of course, not all minerals are equally important, the most important ones being calcium, magnesium, iron, and zinc. Some copper deficiencies sometimes occur.

Now, let's examine the composition for 100-calorie portions rather than weight. (Analysis by energy--calories--makes more sense when comparing foods eaten largely for their energy content, like avocados or potatoes.)

SAMPLE FOODS IN A MOSTLY-RAW VEGAN DIET
(nutrient values in mg per 100 calories)


Chemical abbreviations for the elements listed in the table are:
Ca = calcium, Fe = iron, Mg = magnesium, P = phosphorus, K = potassium,
Na = sodium, Zn = zinc, Cu = copper, Mn = manganese.

FOOD

Minerals (mg per 100 calories)

Ca

Fe

Mg

P

K

Na

Zn

Cu

Mn

Grapes

21

.44

7.5

15

290

3

.06

.06

1.1

Avocado

6.8

.62

24

25

372

6.2

.26

.16

.14

Dates

12

.43

13

14

230

1.1

.10

.10

.11

Broccoli

170

3

86

210

1,000

94

1.4

.15

.79

Romaine

260

7.8

43

320

2,100

57

1.8

.26

4.5

Potato

9.6

.37

24

48

400

6

.32

.20

.17

Including some cooked food may diversify the diet and reduce narrow dependencies. We see that among the most dense foods calorie-wise (avocado, dates, and potatoes), avocados and potatoes are approximately equivalent as to mineral richness per 100 calories and beat dates on most points. Further, potatoes are well-digested and can therefore advantageously replace dates as a source of carbohydrates, allowing one to reduce the sugar load and excessive fruit intake. They also allow one to reduce avocado consumption: "addiction" to avocados is rather common, especially among raw vegans.

In fairness, perhaps we should not label this dependence on avocados an "addiction," since it may well be that one quite naturally, if unconsciously, turns to avocados for calories and/or fat in the diet when it is otherwise low in these. And one can argue that such an addiction is not so big a deal. (Better to be "addicted" to avocados rather than, say, marijuana, of course.) Nevertheless, (over)eating the same thing every day is unlikely to be a very healthful practice (either physically or psychologically).

Utilizing some cooked food to supply dense calories can help resolve the high-volume intake problem. Sweet fruits like grapes might constitute a reasonably good source of energy, but are less concentrated than dates, avocados and potatoes, and therefore cannot supply the bulk of calories unless an unreasonable volume is ingested, potentially resulting in flatulence, bloating, and/or watery stools. People on high-fruit diets will rarely admit that such things happen--but talk to enough ex-fruitarians and you'll find that they can, and if they do, tend to worsen over time.

We also note that green vegetables are an excellent source of minerals, and induce a low glycemic response. However, few would be willing or able to chew and swallow one pound of raw broccoli every day (think about the mountain gorilla who spends 40% of the day chewing); therefore, some cooking allows one to increase mineral intake from such foods even if some modest amount is lost from the cooking itself.

Is "what's possible" necessarily optimal or most practical? Note: sprouts and animal foods were not included in the table above for comparison. However, our intention is not to prove that boiled potatoes are necessary; in fact, they are not if the sources of nutrients are diversified enough, and if most of the calories are supplied by non-fruit foods. The point of the above table is simply to demonstrate that some diets, which are 100% raw and high in fruit, can be improved by the addition of some cooked foods.

GO TO NEXT PART OF ARTICLE

(How Diversifying the Diet with Animal Foods Affects Nutrient Levels)

Return to beginning of article

SEE REFERENCE LIST


SEE TABLE OF CONTENTS FOR: PART 1 PART 2 PART 3

GO TO PART 1 - Is Cooked Food "Toxic"?

GO TO PART 2 - Does Cooked Food Contain Less Nutrition?

GO TO PART 3 - Discussion: 100% Raw vs. Predominantly Raw

Back to Research-Based Appraisals of Alternative Diet Lore

   Beyond Veg home   |   Feedback   |   Links