Raw vs Cooked

A place to get your questions answered from McDougall staff dietitian, Jeff Novick, MS, RDN.

Moderators: JeffN, carolve, Heather McDougall

Raw vs Cooked

Postby Johnnyzen » Mon Apr 21, 2008 5:18 pm

What is a good ratio of raw and cooked food per day? Is an all raw diet optimal? What is your opinion of Macrobiotics? Thanks. John
Johnnyzen
 
Posts: 11
Joined: Mon Apr 21, 2008 5:15 pm

Re: Raw vs Cooked

Postby JeffN » Mon Apr 21, 2008 5:42 pm

Johnnyzen wrote:What is a good ratio of raw and cooked food per day? Is an all raw diet optimal? What is your opinion of Macrobiotics? Thanks. John


Hi John

You can read my comments on the raw diet here

http://www.drmcdougall.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=5725

A Macrobiotic diet is a great improvement over the typical American diet but not as healthy as the diet recommended here. Most of the popularity is based on anecdotal evidence. In fact, one of the reasons it became famous was a MD named Anthony Sattilaro, wrote a book called, Recalled by Life in 1982, saying the diet cured his cancer. In another book he wrote, Living Well Naturally (1984), he said that his doctors had pronounced him in a state of permanent remission. But he died of his disease a few years later.

There is no real published evidence proving its effectiveness.

In Health
Jeff
User avatar
JeffN
 
Posts: 9412
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2008 5:56 am

Postby boardn10 » Tue Apr 22, 2008 9:57 am

I thikn the biggest problem are amino acids like Glutamine which should be raw such as in spinach. Wiht this in mind, how does anyone get protein from eating meat, eggs, etc if cooking kills protein.
boardn10
 
Posts: 727
Joined: Wed Sep 19, 2007 8:23 pm

Postby Coleslaw » Wed Apr 23, 2008 9:11 am

Actually, it is the Oxalic Acid that is a problem when greens are cooked.
According to Norman Walker D. Sc. from his book, "Fresh vegetable and fruit juices", he states, "As to the oxalic acid itself, when converted into an inorganic acid by cooking or processing the food, it often results in causing inorganic oxalic acid crystals to form in the kidneys.....The most abundant supply of organic oxalic acid is found in fresh raw spinach, Swiss chard, beet greens, turnip and mustard greens, kale and collards, and the broad-leafed French sorrel".
Raw foodists thus believe we should eat our greens raw. The Raw family started up the green smoothies. www.rawfamily.com .

From the Rave Diet book by, Mike Anderson. He says that (pg.24) Anthony Sattilaro, MD, who at the age of 46 contracted prostate cancer that had spread throughout his body, found out about the Macrobiotic diet and through desperation went on this diet, which basically was an Asian peasant's diet. He remained cancer free for 10 years. But, he started eating chicken and fish again and his cancer returned. "Despite ten years of being declared free of cancer following his change in diet, his medical mind was still not totally convinced the diet had made the difference. As a result, he continued eating chicken and fish, was forced to resume taking his narcotic painkillers and soon the cancer killed him".

Dr. McDougall has a good write up about raw food vegetarians from one of his favorite five. "Raw Food Vegetarians Have Strong Bones and Better Health", http://www.drmcdougall.com/misc/2005nl/ ... pufive.htm , from his April 2005 newsletter. At the end of the article he says, "I do encourage people to add plenty of uncooked fruits, and green and yellow vegetables, to their diet, and I often take advantage of the fact that raw vegetables encourage greater weight loss, and lower insulin and blood sugar levels than can be achieved with cooked foods".
"Nothing feels as good as feeling good feels" by David Wolfe
Coleslaw
 
Posts: 156
Joined: Wed Dec 20, 2006 5:47 pm
Location: Yakima, WA

Postby Johnnyzen » Wed Apr 23, 2008 9:57 am

Thanks for posting that McDoughall artical on raw goods.I have gone between raw and cooked for many years. I ate all raw after a fast of 21 days for 6 weeks, and felt good, but lost a lot of weight. I now mix raw and cooked. Most vegans I know who are the healthiest eat both, and are not too dogmatic. Mygoal now is to get the fat down. It is difficult to eat a low fat all raw diet, as recommended by Dr. Doug graham, who advocates this, but it is very high in fruit and "mono" eating.
Johnnyzen
 
Posts: 11
Joined: Mon Apr 21, 2008 5:15 pm

Postby Suebee » Wed Apr 23, 2008 11:23 am

I don't see how Doug's diet can be right--fruit sugar is not good for the colon and who on earth survived eating that much fruit??? It's ridiculous. Not even gorillas eat this way. On Pacific Islands where they have lots of fruit, they did not eat just fruit. It's not balanced. One of the reasons macrobiotics has healed many people with cancer, including Christina Pirello, a PBS cooking chef, is that its highly restrictive of fat, sugar. The basic low-fat, low-protein, no animal food diet has only whole foods in the beginning if you are fighting cancer. She overcame her own viscious, aggressive leukemia by eating this way for a year and a half.
Suebee
 
Posts: 288
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:10 am

Postby dlb » Wed Apr 23, 2008 11:34 am

Suebee wrote:fruit sugar is not good for the colon


Can you explain what you mean here? Are you talking about all fruit sugar, a lot of fruit sugar?

Thanks,
Donna
dlb
 
Posts: 1451
Joined: Mon Dec 24, 2007 8:07 am
Location: Amelia Island, FL

Raw vs Cooked

Postby JeffN » Wed Apr 23, 2008 11:28 pm

Coleslaw wrote:Actually, it is the Oxalic Acid that is a problem when greens are cooked.
According to Norman Walker D. Sc. from his book, "Fresh vegetable and fruit juices", he states, "As to the oxalic acid itself, when converted into an inorganic acid by cooking or processing the food, it often results in causing inorganic oxalic acid crystals to form in the kidneys.....The most abundant supply of organic oxalic acid is found in fresh raw spinach, Swiss chard, beet greens, turnip and mustard greens, kale and collards, and the broad-leafed French sorrel".
Raw foodists thus believe we should eat our greens raw. The Raw family started up the green smoothies. http://www.rawfamily.com .

From the Rave Diet book by, Mike Anderson. He says that (pg.24) Anthony Sattilaro, MD, who at the age of 46 contracted prostate cancer that had spread throughout his body, found out about the Macrobiotic diet and through desperation went on this diet, which basically was an Asian peasant's diet. He remained cancer free for 10 years. But, he started eating chicken and fish again and his cancer returned. "Despite ten years of being declared free of cancer following his change in diet, his medical mind was still not totally convinced the diet had made the difference. As a result, he continued eating chicken and fish, was forced to resume taking his narcotic painkillers and soon the cancer killed him".


Many early health advocates (like Paul Bragg, Normal Walker, Herbert Shelton) had lots of great ideas, and were pioneers. Many of their ideas turned out to be right and have now been validated. However, some have not held up under careful scrutiny and better science, though it seems that many of these ideas still get promoted.

Some studies have looked very carefully at calcium availability and absorption and have found that the calcium in cooked leafy greens is weel absorbed and utilized.

In the following studies,

CM Weaver and KL Plawecki
Dietary calcium: adequacy of a vegetarian diet
Am J Clin Nutr 1994 59: 1238S-1241S.

RP Heaney and CM Weaver.
Calcium absorption from kale.
Am J C/in Nutr l990;5 1:656-7.

The found the following absorption rates...

Kale 59%
Bok Choy 54%
Water Cress 67%
Mustard Greens 58%
Broccoli 52%
Turnip greens 52%
Chinese Cabbage 54%
Brussels Sprouts 64%
Green Cabbage 65%
Kohlrabi 67%
Spinach 5%

As you can see, even in some of the high oxalic acid ones, the rates were high. The only one that tested very low was spinach at 5%.

While many may make the claim, I know of no actual documented verifiable cases or reports of anyone being "cured" of cancer on a macrobiotic (or any other) diet. If anyone knows of an actual documented case, I would love to see the info on it.

In Health
Jeff
User avatar
JeffN
 
Posts: 9412
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2008 5:56 am

Postby JeffN » Wed Apr 23, 2008 11:35 pm

If anyone has some verifiable documentation of why eating fruit (and the natural sugar in it) is bad for the colon, I would love to see it, as I do not know of any. Fruit is a healthy food and loaded with vitamins, minerals and other beneficial compounds.

There are populations that have lived on a "near" 80/10/10 diet around the world, and I have posted the data on several of them in these forums These include the ancestral diets of the elder Okinawans pre 1950, the Tarahumara and Pima Indians of Mexico, the Papau of New Guinea, and the elder Hawaiians diet. However, in all cases the main food was either sweet potato, or another starchy vegetable (corn, beans, rice, etc) that accounted for up to 70% of their intake. None of them lived on raw diets, high fruits diets, or vegan diets.

In Health
Jeff
User avatar
JeffN
 
Posts: 9412
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2008 5:56 am

Postby Suebee » Thu Apr 24, 2008 6:19 am

I keep forgetting that if I answer on this particular post I have to give documentation via the scientific journals, which in this case I cant. It has more to do with experiential evidence which isn't considered scientific here. Well I case in MY case, I wouldn't be getting enough protein, B vitamins and too much sugar (yes, fruit does contain sugar, however natural) is too much for MY colon, as I have spastic colitis. And I've read on other forums that for people with IBS, fruit sugar can be trigger food along with wheat and dairy. As Jeff said other populations have eaten starches as their basic food source, not fruit, as proclaimed by this man. Vegetables are higher in all nutrients, such as protein and B vitamins. When I belonged to the Natural Hygiene Society I attend one of their conferences and I didn't see healthy people--the women has big bloated stomachs like those kwashiokor children and I wondered if it was all the fruit they ate. One older woman spokeswoman has severe osteoporosis and was all hunched over. As I said, my observations which here don't count for much.
Suebee
 
Posts: 288
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:10 am

Postby Clary » Thu Apr 24, 2008 6:41 am

JeffN wrote:
While many may make the claim, I know of no actual documented verifiable cases or reports of anyone being "cured" of cancer on a macrobiotic (or any other) diet. If anyone knows of an actual documented case, I would love to see the info on it.
In Health
Jeff


Hi Jeff--
I hope you have time to say more about this. I am very interested in this subject.

When you say that there are no actual documented verifiable cases or reports of cancer being cured ("cured" defined as what by the claimants, I wonder? --the symptoms gone? --the body healed? --health restored? --cancer doesn't return? --etc.???) by dietary means (and does that dietary claim include other lifestyle changes by the claimants, I wonder??) are you saying simply that the cases haven't been documented medically, or are you saying you don't think cancer can be cured only by dietary changes, or simply stating that you really would like to see documentation, or?

Do you think "remission" after cancer surgery, chemo, etc. , as a term used by Doctors, is the same as a cure? There seems to be a great reluctance in the practice of medicine to use the term "cured" when it comes to cancer. (Come to think of it, "cured" isn't used about many commom health conditions. --medications are often taken for a lifetime, working on symptoms, but people aren't commonly "cured" of diabetes, high blood pressure, arthritis, etc. --hmmmm :cry: )

When people such as George Malkmus of the Hallelujah Acres program, and Ann Wigmore of the Living Foods (wheatgrass) Foundation, and Lorraine Day, M.D. , and others claim to have had various types of cancer and were healed through dietary means, are you saying you think the claims are not true, or are you saying only that they have not been documented?

Do you personally think that any types of diagnosed cancer can be reversed and the body healed only through dietary and lifestyle changes? I realize so many different factors have to be considered, but hope you will address if you think the possiblility exists to heal from cancer (or not) solely through dietary choices and changes.

Thank you for what you can add from your training and years of experience to this important discussion. :nod:
--Clary
Last edited by Clary on Thu Apr 24, 2008 7:32 am, edited 1 time in total.
"LIFE always begins again." --Edmond Bordeaux Székely
Clary
 
Posts: 2058
Joined: Tue Mar 18, 2008 6:21 pm
Location: Tennessee

Postby Suebee » Thu Apr 24, 2008 7:14 am

The words "no real published evidence" says it all. No, there wouldn't be--it would mean that a study had been done with group A on the diet, group B not on the diet, followed for a number of years by recognized doctors, etc. Usually people who heal themselves of cancer are ALONE and highly motivated. They are not randomly chosen, they do the hard work of finding out what will work for them, etc. Also, there would be plenty of bias against doing such a study as if such a diet worked, it would put plenty of people out of business, but really, the problem is one of motivation and consistent effort. Still, it's all hit and miss, as it depends on the person's own bodily constitution and whether it can overcome cancer, no matter how heroic the efforts. That can't be bottled, prescribed, sold, etc. A diet like macrobiotics can't easily be picked up by read a book or several books, which is why there are classes to learn how to do it correctly. For the average person, it's too difficult. There are a few people walking around today who have been "cured" (if you want to use that word--and I don't like it personally) using a strict healing macrobiotic diet. One quite well known is Christina Pirello, who has her own cooking show on PBS. Christina had acute myelogenous leukemia at age 26 and she is well today at age 51 or 52. That is highly unusual. I'm sure she has medical records to prove it. But "cure" is a bad word because it means cancer is gone, once and for all. I don't think such a thing exists--if you go back to eating all the wrong foods again, like Dr. Satillaro did, then of course, that same diet will cause your cancer AGAIN. There are no magic bullets, magic diets out there that will work for everyone. I think Dr. McDougall's guidelines will help anyone fight their cancer the best way without the difficulties involved in learning a strict macrobiotic diet.
Suebee
 
Posts: 288
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:10 am

Postby JeffN » Thu Apr 24, 2008 7:18 am

Suebee wrote: I keep forgetting that if I answer on this particular post I have to give documentation via the scientific journals, which in this case I cant. It has more to do with experiential evidence which isn't considered scientific here.


Hi Suebee

It is not that your experience doesn't count.

One of the main issues that almost everyone complains about when you talk to them about nutrition & health, is that they say they are so confused because of all the conflicting information. I am sure you can understand.

All I am trying to do is help everyone see why that confusion exists and how to get past it.

One of the reasons it exists is because we have so many people saying so many things without really having any real "evidence" supporting what they say.

Yes, your experience counts, but what about the guy who says he cured his cancer eating raw meat? and the gal who says she cured her arthritis eating cheese? And the farmer who says he was abducted by aliens & they cured his brain tumor? And the women who says she has not eaten in years & lives on air? And the guy who says he lives on 100% raw fruit? And the mother who says her child died from a vegan diet? Do those all count equally? And equally apply to everyone? Or do they not apply equally or at all? How do you choose?

Without a system to evaluate all these claims for accuracy, they all count (or don't count) equally.

Science is not the opposition to experience. Science is the attempt to understand, explain & validate experience.

That is the purpose of controlled studies. To try and separate these issues out so we know what is real & what isn't. It is not opposed to experience, but the friend & companion to experience.

As I said in another post on this.

"Testimonials are great, but they should be supported by science because the internet is full of people offering testimonials on everything, including pure quackery. Star McDougallers are great, but it is the science behind their stories that is the most important as it helps us understand why it works. Their stories support the science and do not displace it."

So if we want to see the confusion cleared up, we have to do our part in helping sort through the "claims" that are true & the "claims" that are not true.

they way we do that, is called science, or the scientific method.

You (like most everyone) use it all the time whether you are aware of it or not. It is how you ( and most everyone else) come to almost any decision you make' consciously or not. You weigh & measure options & alternatives & experiences and weigh the evidence for each & make your conclusions based on the best info .

So, I appreciate your experience & it does count. But lets also try & validate these experiences everyone has so we can help "end the confusion".

Suebee wrote: When I belonged to the Natural Hygiene Society I attend one of their conferences and I didn't see healthy people--the women has big bloated stomachs like those kwashiokor children and I wondered if it was all the fruit they ate. One older woman spokeswoman has severe osteoporosis and was all hunched over. As I said, my observations which here don't count for much.


Again they do. But lets put this in perspective.

Your experience is based on one conference.

As VP of the Natural Hygiene Association for the last 10 years, and having attended dozens of conferences & met and interviewed 1000s of members, let me help explain your "experience."

Natural Hygiene is a very strict form of living. Most of the members who come to it are drawn there because of their long standing battles with diseases & ill health. And usually after many years of failure with traditional medicine. Many times, the illness and poor health you see is not the result of Natural Hygiene but the reason they were drawn to it.

Of course, you do occasionally see someone, as in all things (just like here with the McD diet), who wants to do things differently and not follow recommendations, and they may have a negative experience. For example, not taking B12 if they are a vegan. If the Hygiene Assoc &/or Dr McD recommends it but someone doesn't do it, and suffers some nerve damage, is it the fault of the member or of the organization?

If you wanted to meet my clients, you can meet many who have overcome serious disease &/or health issues and are dynamos & pictures of health. But you might meet a few who don't appear as successful. You might meet "Jane" (not her real name) who has worked with me for 2 yrs. She is currently 298 lbs & may not look the picture of health. But 2 years ago she was 500 lbs, on disability, ate no healthy food, & never exercised & was one many medications, including those for emotional health. she now includes more healthy food then ever, exercise 3-5x a week, and is working. This is the first time in her adult life she is under 300, off most all medications & feeling the best ever. she has a long way to go but has come such a long way. But if you saw her at a conference you (& others) might think she is a failure because of her appearance and her weight.

;)


One of my concerns over the 30 years I have been associated with the "natural health " movement is the large number of people who have been hurt, not by following a "natural hygiene" diet or a McDougall or Vegan diet, but those who got hurt by following misinformation, almost always based on what someone said with no evidence to support it.

Lets help end the confusion.

Thanks

In Health,
Jeff
Last edited by JeffN on Thu Apr 24, 2008 8:16 am, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
JeffN
 
Posts: 9412
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2008 5:56 am

Postby JeffN » Thu Apr 24, 2008 8:04 am

Suebee wrote:The words "no real published evidence" says it all. No, there wouldn't be--it would mean that a study had been done with group A on the diet, group B not on the diet, followed for a number of years by recognized doctors, etc. Usually people who heal themselves of cancer are ALONE and highly motivated. They are not randomly chosen, they do the hard work of finding out what will work for them, etc. .


The medical literature is full of 10s of 1000s of "case reports" which are published accounts of individual experiences. These are valuable, as again, they are experiences that may point to new areas of understanding. But, all these "case reports" include an valid attempt at the verification of the initial disease, what happened, and the verification of the outcome. This way, others can look towards, or for, the same thing to learn more from it.

Recently, board10, found one such published case report that may be related to his health concern and be of benefit to him.

Suebee wrote:Also, there would be plenty of bias against doing such a study as if such a diet worked, it would put plenty of people out of business, but really, the problem is one of motivation and consistent effort.


I respectfully disagree.

Where was the bias against publishing the Ornish data? Or the McDougall data? or the Esselstyne data or the Goldhammer data, or the over 100 studies at Pritikin over 30 years? Surely they would have shut them down by now but they put out more every year, including many on cancer, including some ongoing trials right now on prostate cancer. All based on diet. No drugs, no surgery, no treatment. Just diet.

We know these program work but no one is stopping the research or the promotion of them. Or putting anyone out of business. Why? Because in spite of knowing how valuable they are, less then 1% of the population follows them. Even after being through the programs and experiencing the benefit, people still don't follow them.

Why would it be any different if we could conclusively prove they "cure" cancer?

Look at how many people still smoke after getting lung cancer or emphysema. Or sit in the sun after getting skin cancer? Look at how many people still eat red meat after getting colon cancer, yet that is one of the strongest relationships between a food and a cancer there is. Even with all the national cancer organizations recommending against red meat, does anyone listen?

In addition, from, The History of Complementary and Alternative Medicine in the US. The Annals of Pharmacotherapy. 2007 July/August, Volume 41

http://www.theannals.com/cgi/content/citation/41/7/1256

Research and Reimbursement

More than 462000 citations have appeared in the CAM section of PubMed from 1966 to today, and the NIH is spending $300 million per year on CAM research


In Health
Jeff
User avatar
JeffN
 
Posts: 9412
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2008 5:56 am

Postby Suebee » Thu Apr 24, 2008 8:26 am

You seem to just pick at certain words I say, not the overall picture. When writing email it's easy to write fast and think later. Guess I better not do that anymore. You didn't comment on the rest of what I wrote. Do you disagree with that too? Do you approve of ANY of it? It's difficult in this venue to say everything correctly, like a scientist would. I reply emotionally a lot of the time, which muddies the situation. I will try to be more balanced in my replies. Yes, there are many studies being done in recent times that back up statements, perhaps because the men publishing the articles have M.D. degrees, which wasn't true in Pritikin's early days. He was vilified then as I recall. Dr. McDougall built on his results as I recall (perhaps incorrectly). Pritikin center had to have a track record of many years and hired medical physicians did they not? But I was trying to point out that there is NO SUCH thing as a cancer cure. Was I inaccurate in making such a statement? There are too many variables involved, both human constitution, food choices that may or may not work for that constitution, emotional elements in the person's life, etc.
Regarding my own involvement over 5 or more years (I don't remember exactly) I didn't see overall health improvements in our own group: two women came down with breast cancer and died, I came down with leukemia, one woman developed Parkinsons and Alzheimer's--I didn't see a good track record with Natural Hygiene/raw food diets. We weren't obese/overweight. I would imagine a huge person who hasn't already died from their obesity might be helped with eating that way as it would indeed help to balance this or someone who was a predominantly heavy animal protein eater in the past (I wasn't). For me it just weakened my own constitution and I have an emotional response and would try to save anyone who thought a predominantly raw food/fruit diet was the BEST diet to choose. I should avoid or at least qualify my comments as being PERSONAL/biased and unscientific.
Suebee
 
Posts: 288
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:10 am

Next

Return to Jeff Novick, RD

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 16 guests



Welcome!

Sign up to receive our regular articles, recipes, and news about upcoming events.