Talk:Raw foodism/Archive 2: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 02:44, 23 July 2017

This is an archive of past discussions about Raw foodism. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Vandalism Removal

Although disagreeing with the validity of such a diet I am sure that the word 'penis' does not belong half way down the section on it's own. As such I have gelded this article and removed it's penis. I couldn't be bothered to sign in to do it but thought I'd better announce it here in case somebody reverted my edit and brought the penis back. 194.223.81.88 (talk) 11:26, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Enzymes

I've done a little work on the criticism of enzymes section, listing the scientific objections a little more clearly and explaining why the enzyme theory goes against current knowledge of biochemistry. I've made the bold claim that there is no (good) evidence that exogenous plant enzymes can contribute to digestion in humans under normal conditions - I personally can't find anything in respectable journals, but maybe I'm just not looking hard enough, so if anybody has some evidence (not anecdotal) then feel free to list it.

I've also tidied up the strange claim about bromolain and superoxide dismutase, which appears to have been put in by somebody who didn't understand the scientific objection (of course these two enzymes can be absorbed ... after they're digested :-). Cheers!

--62.69.37.177 (talk) 19:35, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Some bad science, weak links, food religion

Many "good" links were removed from this page. I can put some back but why bother if someone else will just delete them?

The many refs to teeth and dentistry are astoundingly bad science here. The human oral structures are optimized for speech, and impacted by evolution driven by culture, tool use, and cooking. And yes, if desired I can back this up with cites to peer-reviewed research.

Raw foodism is effectively a "food religion" for its adherents. Pretty sad.

Research26 (talk) 20:33, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I added a counterpoint in the lead section to balance out the article a bit. Research26, if you have relevant sources, please put them back. I'll put this article on my watchlist. Thanks. --Phenylalanine (talk) 19:50, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

article name and terminology

'Tis odd rawism redirects here instead of vice-versa, and that the name here is used in the article. Rawism is more succinct, as 'Hindusim' is more succinct than 'Hindu religionism.' 'Rawism,' besides food, could apply to water that does not have ORME removed (ORME is also in food,) or air that has enough negative ions.Dchmelik (talk) 06:43, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Raw wiki

You are invited to help edit our raw wiki web site Raw.Wikia.com. Thanks for your consideration! User:Dandelion (talk|contribs) 23:55, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Supercharge Me

I've marked Supercharge Me as potentially needing to be deleted for non-notability. Maybe better off just merging it in to this article? Lot49a (talk) 23:12, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Re: Notability - Google search today yields approx. 11,000 results for "Supercharge Me!". Majority appear to be from independent sources.--Mem411 (talk) 13:35, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Logic absent

"Raw foods contain enzymes which aid digestion, meaning that the body's own enzymes may work unimpeded in regulating the body's metabolic processes, and heating food above 110-120 degrees Fahrenheit degrades or destroys these enzymes in food."

There is absolutely no logical link between the first part of that sentence and the part concerning body's own enzymes (putting "meaning" in there does not create one).
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.242.255.83 (talk) 08:06, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I found that most of the anti-raw/pro-coooking info was presented as fact when, actually, even Wrangham has admitted that he still needs more evidence to support his claims re cooking being invented millions of years ago -plus, I thought it was also important to point out that Wrangham's views are not held by the majority of archaeologists/anthropologists, and that Wrangham is only a chimp behaviourist by degree/profession not an archaeologist. I therefore corrected it to make clear it's only a claim much like raw-foodism, and also added some much-needed links to support the pro-raw-foodist version re theory/evidence, as a counter-balance, in order to correct an obvious bias in the original Wikipedia article. Loki0115 (talk) 11:13, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, although the last user made changes days ago, his information is 5 years out of date. Evidence of ancient cooking has been found. Wrangham has published a new paper on the subject, based on this evidence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.126.85.108 (talk) 05:30, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

The previous poster has made a claim that my information was "5 years out of date" without providing a reference, but I presume he's referring to Wrangham's article "Cooking as a biological trait" which merely rehashes all of Wrangham's previous claims, again with no clear evidence re the advent of cooking(that is, archaeologists, even today, openly agree that no one can be sure when cooking was invented).Plus, again it should be noted that Wranghma is merely speculating about a field(palaeoanthropology) in which he is not a specialist in - he is, in fact, a chimp behaviourist by profession, judging from the CV that's easily found on Google.

Also, the previous poster has made the following statement which is completely illogical and entirely irrelevant to my previous main point (about how the decrease in brain-size by 8% in the Neolithic completely debunks Wrangham's claims that eating cooked starchy food such as tubers increases human brain-size)), namely:-"However, since the Neolithic era started too recently for any significant changes in human genetics, that argument seems to have little merit." I pointed out elsewhere in the article that Dr Weston-Price has shown that consuming cooked and processed food leads to long-term deterioration over the generations, with no reference to genetic changes at all. Besides, the whole point of Wrangham's argument is that an environmental effect(ie eating cooked-starches),NOT a genetic one, led to the formation of larger human brains, so, by the same token, the fact that a specific environmental, non-genetic effect(ie eating larger amounts of cooked-starches since the Neolithic) led to a decrease by 8% of the average human brain, means that Wrangham's ideas (linking cooked-starchy foods and higher intelligence)are debunked. I have therefore removed the relevant addendum, due to its irrelevance.Loki0115 (talk) 20:28, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

re my above statement. It should be noted that the new science of epigenetics has pointed out how a bad diet by one's parents can lead to health-problems/diseases in their offspring:- http://epigenome.eu/en/2,5,129

so this shows that genetic adaptation to foods is not the only aspect of diet.Loki0115 (talk) 21:32, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

"It has been pointed out as well that wild animals have very low incidences of malocclusion,[47], by comparison to humans. Since wild animals eat raw food, but humans eat mostly cooked, this might actually indicate that cooking food leads to poor dental health, rather than any evolutionary explanation."
Also, since wild animals are typically covered in fur, but humans are mostly not, this might actually indicate that being furrier leads to better dental health, right? Come on. I won't remove these sentences myself, as I have no way to remove this ridiculous "argument" without coming across as unbiased (and I _do_ think that actual scientific research, showing _both_ sides, is sorely needed in this section), but I recommend their removal by someone with a greater interest in this article than myself. 98.210.141.1 (talk) 19:22, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

The argument by the above poster is totally irrelevant to my previous points made on the wikipedia page:- after all wild animals are definitely not all "typically covered in fur" in the first place! I realise that he is trying to make fun of my previous point re all wild animals in general having much lower rates of malocclusion than humans, but the fact is that I have, unlike the previous poster, provided scientific references backing up this point completely, and I also noted that Weston-Price, a prominent nutritionist(and dentist), had directly linked the deterioration in dental health in the human population to the increased consumption of cooked and processed foods(and the increased avoidance of raw animal foods)- also backed up by a reference. So my point is a perfectly valid one to make, in light of Weston-Price's work. Rather than trying to remove my perfectly valid explanation of cooked-food leading to deterioration in human health, posters such as the above should simply add scientific references backing other possible explanations for the deterioration in human dental health, so as to be unbiased.Loki0115 (talk) 11:57, 20

July 2008 (UTC)

As regards the red herring provided by the other person re that fur-comment, I should mention that modern dentistry is perfectly well aware that the consumption of low-quality foods like sugar or refined/processed foods leads to poor dental health, so it's rather difficult to claim that poor dental health is not linked to diet to a very large extent. Also, I'd personally referred to Dr Weston-Price, the well-known nutritionist and dentist, who'd noted a significant deterioration in dental health among those native-tribes who'd abandoned traditional foods(which had included some raw animal foods).Loki0115 (talk) 12:50, 20 July 2008 (UTC)http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Raw_foodism&action=edit&section=8

No, you've missed my point entirely. I was tired, however, when writing that, and so my cynicism may have covered the point which I believed was so obvious. I'll try to follow the civility guideline more closely here.

I'll put the original point I was making aside for a paragraph to point out that you haven't "provided scientific references backing up this point completely." Your reference in that paragraph leads to a secondary source with no link to the original. This is fine for Wikipedia -- but this is all observational research, something that the media in general misunderstands. Experimental research is needed to back up the sentence I poked fun at to begin with, which brings me to my original point. (I care about this particular point much more, so if you pick only one of these paragraphs to respond to, make it the next one, please.)

Regarding your "after all wild animals are definitely not all "typically covered in fur" in the first place!", of course they're not. I was afraid whoever read that would come back with that as a retort. I understand that poor dental health has been linked to modern diet, and if you notice, I made no claims to the contrary. But please, please understand the basic truth that correlation does not imply causation. It is responsible to say, for example, that "cooking food has been linked to poor dental health." It is irresponsible to assert, based on this, that "cooking food leads to poor dental health."

This is not a semantics war, and this is not nit-picking. It is a very real logical fallacy which is present in this article. 98.210.141.1 (talk) 17:56, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I see, that's more reasonable. I'll see what I can do to change it to a more reasonable wordage Loki0115 (talk) 20:31, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

CLEAN UP

I'm going to remove all instances of original research (WP:Original research) and unreliable sources (WP:Reliable source) from this article. Many references will have to be removed. I'm open to discussing these matters if necessary. --Phenylalanine (talk) 03:10, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Please cite which parts of the Raw Foodism article you're concerned aboutLoki0115 (talk) 09:47, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Loki0115, please avoid using the word "claim" in the article (see WP:Words to avoid). Also, see WP:Lead: the intro is not supposed to be as detailed as the body of the article. One or two short sentences are sufficient to describe the controversy regarding the health effects of the diet in the lead. Also, read WP:NPOV. --Phenylalanine (talk) 11:07, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid I was copying the same style used by a previous poster who duplicated some text, so I did the same. I should mention that before I first added in various references, Wrangham's claims were (wrongly) represented as absolute fact, whereas his views are not held by most others in the field(see references). I'll see about shortening the intro.Loki0115 (talk) 13:23, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, why is the word "claim" wrong? I used it, as much of palaeoanthropology hasn't been proven to any real extent with many theories being just vague guesses based on inconclusive evidence. Therefore, using the word "claim" is a good way to refer to someone's views without misrepresenting them as fact(sorry, I'll read the guidelines - I'm new with all this). Also, the big problem for me is that someone(obviously biased) deliberately inserted info re Wrangham in the intro, whereas Wrangham should, IMO, be mentioned only in the Criticism section, not the Intro, as Wrangham is not relevant as regards describing the raw diet as such. That's why I felt I had to add the counter-points.Loki0115 (talk) 13:42, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

re the above:- Would it be OK if I removed the whole pro-Wrangham/anti-Wrangham comments from the Intro so that it's only in the criticism section? Just read the words not to use, and was surprised to find so many that are frowned upon()eg:- contend) - will have to be more careful in futureLoki0115 (talk) 13:50, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

No, "the lead serves both as an introduction to the article below and as a short, independent summary of the important aspects of the article's topic. The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any notable controversies that may exist. The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic according to reliable, published sources. While consideration should be given to creating interest in reading more of the article, the lead nonetheless must not "tease" the reader by hinting at—but not explaining—important facts that will appear later in the article. The lead should contain up to four paragraphs, should be carefully sourced as appropriate, and should be written in a clear, accessible style so as to invite a reading of the full article." (WP:Lead) --Phenylalanine (talk) 22:07, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough - Well, I've provided 2 sentences in the Intro, not 4. So that should be fine. I still heavily disagree re the idea of providing hostile viewpoints in the Intro as I view those as being more relevant to the Criticism section - Still , I've included the full data in the Criticism section.Loki0115(sorry, can't currently find the right symbols!) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Loki0115 (talk • contribs) 22:31, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I removed unreliable references (WP:RS) from the diet table. To be notable, a diet must receive reliable media coverage, that means widely publicized newspapers, magazines, academic journals, etc., but NOT advertisement & personal websites. I will give the editors of the article ONE WEEK to find reliable sources to verify the notability of those diets. If after that period has elapsed, no reliable sources have been provided, I will delete the diets which I have tagged: the "Primal diet", "Raw Paleolithic Diet", "Wai diet" and "The Garden Diet" and the "Low-fat 80 10 10 diet".--Phenylalanine (talk) 22:53, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/6055506.stm Will this help? I'm new to Wikipedia but don't want to see the reliance and importance of raw animal foods that humans have historically depended on for health and nourishment dismissed from this resource.TreytonP (talk) 09:18, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

You need a source that specifically uses the names of the above dietary programs ("Raw paleolithic diet", "Primal diet", etc.). BUT, if you can find a source that specifically states that intuits are "raw foodists" and eat a "living foods diet", please include it. --Phenylalanine (talk) 09:38, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

The creator of the Primal Diet is Aajonus Vonderplanitz, who's been featured in various radio-interviews, and magazine articles. He and his Primal Diet have been mentioned by other people such as in the folliowing book(read excerpt:-)

http://meatalovestory.com/excerpt.html Y

A family following the raw-meat-heavy "Primal Diet" was the subject of an episode of the Reality TV-series Wifeswap on American Television:-

http://www.tv.com/wife-swap/haigwood-hess-webb/episode/977102/summary.html N

Here's an interview of Aajonus Vonderplanitz which appeared in the Natural Health M2M magazine:-

http://www.angelfire.com/ny2/bass/aajonus.html N

Here's reference to a radio-interview of Aajonus Vonderplanitz:-

http://www.modavox.com/news/june_0507a.asp N

). Aajonus Vonderplanitz has published two books already "We Want To Live" and "The Recipe for Living Without Disease", both available on www.amazon.com and elsewhere.

. Doug Graham of the 80/10/10 diet has published a book available on amazon.com , unsuprisingly called the "80/10/10" diet. Here's a youtube excerpt of a TV-interview of Doug Graham and his 80/10/10 raw diet, proving notability:-

http://youtube.com/watch?v=3AJ0TseveNI N

(I'll come back and provide further references but most of the above should easily be acceptable).Loki0115 (talk) 09:58, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Here's an online article mentioning the Raw, Palaeolithic Diet:- http://www.articlesbase.com/nutrition-articles/raw-food-diet-different-types-and-their-health-benefits-473578.html N

More articles referring to raw, palaeolithic diets. Here's a Washington Post article about the Nenets(a Siberian tribe) who eat a raw, palaeolithic diet(ie mostly raw meats, raw fish and raw berries):- http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/13/AR2008051300583.html?sid=ST2008051302252 N

There's also a wikipedia entry for the "Inuit" which states(what can be found anywhere online) that their diet consisted of a high level of raw meats/raw organ-meats:- "In particular, he found that adequate vitamin C could be obtained from items in the Inuit's traditional diet of raw meat such as Ringed Seal liver and whale skin. While there was considerable skepticism when he reported these findings, they have been borne out in recent studies.[16]" taken from:-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inuit N

The old,traditional Inuit diet is in fact a raw palaeolithic diet as it consisted of significant amounts of raw meats and raw organ-meats, and contains no non-Palaeo foods - which would be a requirement for being a "Raw, Palaeolithic Diet"(or "RPD" for short).

Here's a standard Info-page describing the Raw,Palaeolithic Diet as well as the Wai Diet. The Info-page is unaffiliated as such as regards diet, it merely lists them as standard well-known diets:-

http://www.newtreatments.org/diet.php N

(I'll post any of the above as notes as soon as you OK them). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Loki0115 (talk • contribs) 14:04, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Since a standard Info-page on AGEs was considered unacceptable, despite it being seemingly non-partisan, I decided to, instead, include the link to the standard Wikipedia page on Advanced Glycation Endproducts, which provides much the same info, anyway.Loki0115 (talk) 15:26, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Ooops, Somehow I managed to leave some dotted lines in the text which I don't know how to remove. I'll check back later to see what I can doLoki0115 (talk) 15:27, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I crossed out the unacceptable sources, and check marked the one source I think is acceptable as a reference for the Primal Diet. (For further information, please see WP:RS and WP:ATT.) --Phenylalanine (talk) 02:28, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

re the above reviews of my online references to the Primal Diet:- The interview of aajonus was by a Natural Health magazine, so it should be valid(neither the interviewer nor the magazine were Primal-dieters, being Natural Hygiene-oriented instead). it seems as though you're asking for articles about those diets but only as long as they appear on sites which have nothing whatsoever to do with diet at all - somewhat contradictory ¬¬¬¬

Here's yet another interview of Aajonus, featured in an article on the anti-raw www.beyondveg.com website:-

http://www.beyondveg.com/nieft-k/rvw/rvw-we-want-to-live.shtml N

Another review of the Primal-Diet creator Aajonus Vonderplanitz's books(not sure if this is OK, but posting anyway as the article is neither too pro- or anti-raw, unlike the previous one which is somewhat biased):-

http://www.ralphmoss.com/Vonderplanitz.html N

Here's a standard description of Raw-Animal-Food Diets:-

http://www.rawpaleodiet.org/rvaf-overview.html N

Here's an Independent on Sunday(a British newspaper) article on raw-meat diets(otherwise known in the raw-meat-eating community as "Raw-Animal-Food Diets" or as "Raw Palaeolithic Diets" etc.(see the rawpaleodiet.org website mentioned earlier for the different terms used for diets including raw meats):-

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-wellbeing/health-news/the-raw-meat-diet-do-you-have-the-stomach-for-the-latest-celebrity-food-fad-493908.html ¬¬¬¬ (Loki0115) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Loki0115 (talk • contribs) 13:20, 26 July 2008 (UTC) N

Also, here's an article that appeared in the Los Angeles Times in 2001(as made clear at the bottom of the page), which is an interview of Aajonus and describes the Primal Diet:-

http://www.karlloren.com/Diabetes/p33.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by Loki0115 (talk • contribs) 13:25, 26 July 2008 (UTC) N

- - Phenylaline, I just realised that you diverted virtually the entire list of studies on toxins in cooked-foods to the "Meat" wikipedia section. The studies on AGEs/PAHs/Nitrosamines/HCAs etc. do not exclusively focus on meat(AGEs are implicated mostly in cooked carbs, after all). So this is a somewhat inappropriate(!), as the studies in question focused on toxins created by cooking in general, not just meat. ¬¬¬¬ (Loki0115)

Also, you failed to notice that you transferred to the "Meat" wikipedia section a reference to a study showing the harmful effects of eating cooked-dairy on rats in a particular scientific study(what relevance does dairy have to do with meat?)

Again, you removed the reference to the studies showing the hamrful effects of microwaving foods. If you look at the reference(number 28 in the Wikipedia "Meat" section), you'll see that the studies mentioned show harmful effects for all kinds of microwaved-foods, such as dairy, grains, vegetables etc - not just for microwaved-meat. So, this is COMPLETELY out of place in the Meat section, and only relevant to the Raw Foodism section.

Re AGEs:- I had made it clear that AGEs existed in all cooked-foods, including cooked-carbs, not just cooked-meats. Here's a study(among many others) which shows that cooked-carbs can cause harmful AGEs(advanced glycation endproducts):-

http://jn.nutrition.org/cgi/content/abstract/130/5/1247

On top of this, you transferred to the Wikipedia meat section a mention of a study showing the health-benefits of a raw vegan diet, also completely irrelevant to the meat section.

Nitrosamines, which you also removed mention of from the raw foodism section, are present in other foods, not just meats(for example they are in beer and milk:- http://lpi.oregonstate.edu/f-w00/nitrosamine.html

Similiarly, PAHs(Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons) are also found in all kinds of foods heated to high temperatures, not just with meats:-

http://ec.europa.eu/food/fs/sc/scf/out154_en.pdf

In short, references to various scientific studies have been provided(though many, many more can be provided if you ask) - plus, some of the toxins mentioned, such as Advanced Glycation En dproducts and Nitrosamines are already referenced elsewhere on Wikipedia(with additional references), so it's clear that the references are backed up by solid sources. So, verifiability is easily covered, and as far as original research is concerned, there are too many scientific studies covering the subject of toxins in cooked-foods for this to be a valid concern.¬¬¬¬ (Loki0115).

I'll start the whole subsection again, providing further references to a multitude of scientific studies on the subject of toxins in cooked-foods in general, in light of my above concerns. I would also advise eliminating most of the scientific references to toxins in cooked-foods which have been transferred to the "Meat" section, as almost all of them are either irrelevant to the issue of cooked-meat, as they cover entirely different cooked foods, or cover cooked-foods in general, not just meat -plus, not only is the data not relevant, but transferring such data solely to the "Meat" page for wikipedia would ultimately lead to a pro-raw-vegan-bias in the "Meat" section, even if completely unintentional. ¬¬¬¬ (Loki0115)

I'll provide here further links re studies showing toxins such as AGEs in cooked foods other than meats. After that, I do think that those other studies should be put back in their place in the raw-foodism section.

 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Loki0115 (talk • contribs) 14:10, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia takes some getting used to

Loki, thank you for your efforts to improve the "Raw foodism" article, but I don't think you understand exactly how Wikipedia works. I've been here almost 10 months, and there are still aspects of wikipedia that baffle me. One thing I do know is how to spot original research when I see it. Trust me, I learned the hard way when I got an article that I worked on "sustainable eating" removed on the grounds that it was original research. Basically, if the wikipedia article's title or a synonym of that title does not appear in a source you want to use to verify material, the source should not be used per WP:OR. The way to proceed to build a Wikipedia article is to look for reliable sources that specifically use the terms which correspond to the wikipedia article's title or synonyms of that title (e.g. "raw foodism", "living foods diet", "rawism", "raw foods diet", "raw vegan diet", "raw foodists"... BUT NOT "raw foods", "raw meat", "raw veggies", "uncooked food", etc. etc). I know, it's very restrictive (and sometimes, you have to exclude useful and interesting information), but that's the policy. See for yourelf: Wikipedia:No original research. That's the reason I removed (and moved) the material and sources I removed. Also, regarding the links you have provided, I crossed them all out – except one – since those sources that I crossed out do not reliably show that the Primal diet (Primal-Diet created by Aajonus Vonderplanitz) is notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia. To be notable, by Wikipedia's standards, a diet must receive reliable media coverage, that means serious and reliable newspapers, magazines, academic journals, notable books, etc., BUT NOT unreliable, promotional and/or agenda-driven online magazines and newsletters, and agend-driven, promotional and/or personal websites (note that these sites can be used to (to describe the diet) as secondary sources once the diet has been showed to be notable by the above standards). --Phenylalanine (talk) 21:17, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

You also ignored the article about raw-meat diets in the Independent on Sunday - The Independent and its sister newspaper The Independent on Sunday are among the biggest newspapers(circulation-wise) in the United Kingdom(ie not mere regional ones or a tabloid), so hardly merit exclusion and they specifically mention raw-meat diets(if you wish I can simply reword the term "Raw Palaeolithic Diet" as "Raw Meat Diet" as both terms are used for the same thing) - you can't simply discount a newspaper article because it's UK one.¬¬¬¬

Sure, "raw Meat Diet" would be fine and properly verified by the Independent article. Good find.

--Phenylalanine (talk) 15:35, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

As regards the issue re scientific studies re the effects of cooked-foods, fair enough - but then they should be put in the "Cooking" section of wikipedia, not the "Meat" section - as, otherwise, Wikipedia then becomes biased towards the Raw-Vegan viewpoint(and, like I said, most of those scientific studies I references concerned cooked-foods as a whole, not just meats, so are not relevant in the Meat section).

I agree with you. I copied the material to the "cooking" article and removed the unrelated info from the "meat" article. Good point. --Phenylalanine (talk) 15:35, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Re the Wrangham/tubers debunking sentence which you've now also removed:- That was a perfectly valid statement, especially since it appears in a site (beyondveg.com) which happens to be anti-raw in its general outlook(!)

"Beyondveg.com" does not comply with WP:RS for the purpose of verifying contentious material.--Phenylalanine (talk) 15:35, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Ah well, I understand that Wikipedia may have certain restrictions, it's just that I always viewed it as a way to include all (verifiable) aspect of human knowledge - still, there's always Google Knol, wikinfo,anarchopedia with different guidelines etc.Loki0115 (talk) 10:25, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia IS the place to include all verifiable aspects of human knowledge... in a way that complies with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Wikipedia is not censored. --Phenylalanine (talk) 15:35, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Comment

I wish to point out that the current Raw Foodism page is full of bias against raw foodism. This ought to be a balanced article, yet Richard Wrangham, a mere specialist in chimp behaviour and not even an anthropologist or archaeologist, is effectively given far more weight than the majority of archaeologists/anthropologists who actually hold the opposite view that cooking was introduced, c.250,000 years ago. A minority-opinion such as Wrangham's should not be given more weight, as a result, re extra number of references etc.. I also have noticed that the scientific data re the deleterious effects of cooking which was transferred to the cooking wikipedia entry, has been deleted.

I should also add that the Zhoukoudian Caves reference(500,000 years ago) is seen by most as being inconclusive, with scientists stating that evidence from different eras has been mixed together etc. It is by no means a fact, despite somebody's attempt in the cooking section to promote this view. Loki0115 (talk) 13:14, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok. I restored the detailed criticisms. The material on the deleterious effects of cooking was moved per WP:NOR. None of it has been deleted in the cooking article. --Phenylalanine (talk) 14:29, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Attacks on Wrangham's background rather than on his ideas appear to be ad hominem criticisms and aren't the primary reason his thesis isn't widely accepted, according to the references. The archaeological evidence is the real evidence here, so changed article to reflect that.Czyl (talk) 22:39, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I moved some of the detailed discussion on Wrangham to the criticisms/research section, as this article really should focus on raw foodism in the introduction, not a detailed analysis of one critic's particular line of reasoning. Someone should add a second line in the paragraph about benefits for raw foodism in the intro to maintain balance. Czyl (talk) 22:50, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Reading over the article, I agree that there's not much support given here concerning potential benefits or motivations for a raw food lifestyle. Could someone dig up some sources and evidence? Czyl (talk) 00:16, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

That's exactly what I tried to do. I put forward all sorts of scientific studies showing the toxic effects of cooked-foods in order to explain why people do raw-food-diets. It was, unfortunately removed.Loki0115 (talk) 21:50, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

As regards Czyl's points, it is perfectly valid to point out Wrangham's lack of credentials in the field of palaeoanthropology, as his critics(who are credited, respected anthropologists and archaeologists) have specifically pointed out this lack:-

http://cogweb.ucla.edu/Abstracts/Pennisi_99.html

"Yet he, Michigan's Brace, and most other anthropologists contend that cooking fires began in earnest barely 250,000 years ago, when ancient hearths, earth ovens, burnt animal bones, and flint appear across Europe and the middle East. Back 2 million years ago, the only sign of fire is burnt earth with human remains, which most anthropologists consider coincidence rather than evidence of intentional fire."

The source you have cited here does not attack Wrangham's credentials or expertise, as you claim it does. It attacks the evidence behind his theory. In fact, the article you quote actually writes that Wrangham is an anthropologist. Czyl (talk) 23:58, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Ah, but it does NOT cite Wrangham as an anthrolpogist. When it cites "most other anthrolpogists" it's referring to "Loring Brace, Hilary Bunn", NOT Wrangham. Besides, Wrangham's "credentials" are self-evident, he has a CV online, which shows that he is only a chimp behaviourist, not an expert on human evolution:-

http://www.discoverlife.org/who/CV/Wrangham,_Richard.html

As you can see his entire career is based on chimp beahviour and nothing else.

Another attack on Wrangham's non-crednetials is shown here:-

" yet many archaeologists, paleontologists and anthropologists argue that he is just plain wrong. Wrangham is a chimp researcher, the skeptics point out, not a specialist in human evolution. He is out of his league. Furthermore, archaeological data does not support the use of controlled fire during the period Wrangham’s theory requires it to." taken from:-

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=cooking-up-bigger-brains

This is why I find the reference to cooking 500,000 years ago, to be absurd, as most anthropologists consider 250,000 years ago, to be more accurate a date - the evidence re 500,000 years ago is disputed, whereas there is a general concensus re 250,000 years ago, due to definite evidence - evidence from earlier ages is disputed due to bone-evidence from different eras being mixed up together etc.. As regards the evidence re cooking, there is NO clear evidence as to when exactly cooking was invented, so citing any date at all as proof is, whether Wrangham's idea or anyone else's is, technically, biased.

I also included a direct, obvious refutation of Wrangham's pro-cooked-food ideas(from ana anti-raw website!), but this was not allowed for some strange reason:-

http://www.beyondveg.com/nicholson-w/hb/hb-interview1f.shtml

"Recent tuber-based hypothesis for evolutionary brain expansion fails to address key issues such as DHA and the recent fossil record. As a case in point, there has been one tentative alternative hypothesis put forward recently by primatologist Richard Wrangham et al. [1999] suggesting that perhaps cooked tubers (primarily a starch-based food) provided additional calories/energy that might have supported brain expansion during human evolution.

However, this idea suffers from some serious, apparently fatal flaws, in that the paper failed to mention or address critical pieces of key evidence regarding brain expansion that contradict the thesis. For instance, it overlooks the crucial DHA and/or DHA-substrate adequacy issue just discussed above, which is central to brain development and perhaps the most gaping of the holes. It's further contradicted by the evidence of 8% decrease in human brain size during the last 10,000 years, despite massive increases in starch consumption since the Neolithic revolution which began at about that time. (Whether the starch is from grain or tubers does not essentially matter in this context.) Meat and therefore presumed DHA consumption levels, both positive *and* negative-trending over human evolution, track relatively well not simply with the observed brain size increases during human evolution, but with the Neolithic-era decrease as well, on the other hand. [Eaton 1998]"

The scientific study by Eaton is shown here:-

http://www.cast.uark.edu/local/icaes/conferences/wburg/posters/sboydeaton/eaton.htm

If people agree, I could add(yet again!) the scientific studies on the toxins found in cooked-foods - OK? Loki0115 (talk) 21:50, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

The anti-raw bias as regards the recent changes made by Czyl etc. is appalling. Weston-Price specifically stated in his books that the native tribes he saw only had greater health because they included some raw animal foods in their diet. The recent change falsely gives the impression that Weston-Price favoured cooked-foods over raw foods. The fact is that Weston-Price advocated a partially-raw diet, including raw animal foods, so it's irrelevant to state that he also advocated some cooked-foods - after all, not all raw-foodists advocate a 100% raw diet.Loki0115 (talk) 22:21, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Ah well, I can see that the only way to avoid such blatant bias is to keep correcting such deliberate "errors". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Loki0115 (talk contribs) 21:57, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Another "error" made by others was to cite scientific studies showing nutritional deficiencies among Raw Vegans/Fruitarians, but citing them as raw-foodist studies. In fact, Raw Animal Foodists were not involved in those studies so it should be made clear that the studies only concern Raw Vegans/Fruitarians.Loki0115 (talk) 22:21, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Loki0115, "beyondveg.com" is not a reliable source. If you disagree, you can ask the guys at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine. Also, the article must adhere to WP:NOR. --Phenylalanine (talk) 22:52, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I sincerely agree with you, Loki, that the article does not include enough information about why people choose to pursue a raw-food lifestyle. Please don't give up or feel slighted -- our discussion and your contributions will improve this article. As I stated earlier, we need more information about why people choose to pursue a raw-food diet; we can even include these as a separate "motivations" or "benefits" section.

However, we need to make a distinction between primary research we are assembling ourselves (ie, reasons why we think a raw-food diet is beneficial or evidence we are presenting that a cooked-food diet is toxic) and reporting the opinions of others who are representing particular points of view. Wrangham is mentioned in this article specifically because he is a representative critic of raw food lifestyles. Can we find a notable advocate of raw foodism, and reference the studies that they cite? This would be appropriate to balance the article. I've read many sources indicating that raw foodists tend to be healthier than their cooked-food counterparts so finding a suitable, Wikipedia-reliable source can't be too hard. Czyl (talk) 23:58, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I apologise for my outburst. Well, I have put my unchanged data on other info-sites so I'm less bothered than otherwise. My problem is this:- the Internet is still in its infancy, with much of the needed scientific info I could link to not being available for public use(unless you pay), detailed info on raw-foodist sites is not allowed on wikipedia with only very vague, data-poor articles on raw-foodism in the mainstream papers being allowed, and almost all of the scientific studies I can find which prove the benefits of raw diets focus specifically on the damaging effects of cooked-foods(as in toxins created by heat found in cooked-foods such as AGEs/PAHs/HCAs/NSAs etc.)- and these studies focusing on toxins in cooked-foods are not allowed on this raw-foodism page, which is strange.There are very few studies focusing only on raw-diets, as opposed to the negative aspects of cooked-diets, and the only ones I know of are Raw Vegan/Fruitarian studies, not Raw Animal Food studies. Still, I can always point out that any conclusions re those studies cannot possibly be applied to Raw-Animal-Foodists as they do a quite different type of diet, re nutrients.

Re beyondveg.com:- The beyondveg.com article was citing a specific scientific paper,by including a note to the bibilography section of beyondveg.com. I suppose I can get round the pro-Wrangham bias by citing that paper directly. I will also state that Wrangham is a chimp behaviourist and not an anthropologist as that is vital information(though I won't belabour the point, unnecessarily, thsi time)- I mean, Wikipedia is supposed to give more weight to those scientists who are specialists in their field - otherwise, absolutely anybody could give an oceanographer's worthless opinion on Space Science, or a dolphin-expert's useless opinion on desert-dwelling creatures etc.

I also insist on changing the current references to Weston-Price as those are a distortion of what Weston-Price and his followers promoted(ie a partially-raw diet).

I'll try adding stuff in a couple of days.Loki0115 (talk) 16:57, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Revert recent research edit

Loki0115, I reverted one of your edits because it was factually incorrect. One of the studies "Koebnick C, Strassner C, Hoffmann I, Leitzmann C. Consequences of a long-term raw food diet on body weight and menstruation: results of a questionnaire survey. Ann Nutr Metab. 1999;43(2):69-79. PMID 10436305" does examine raw omnivorous diets, see 4. "Cooking as a biological trait" (Effects of a raw-food diet) pp37-38. Also, there is no indication that "Ganss C, Schlechtriemen M, Klimek J. Dental erosions in subjects living on a raw food diet. Caries Res. 1999;33(1):74-80. PMID 9831783" only studies subjects following a raw vegan diet. --Phenylalanine (talk) 21:23, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid you're mistaken. All current studies have been on Raw Vegan/Fruitarian diets(that's why they mention common nutritional deficiencies common to those following cooked-vegan/vegetarian diets. I am well aware that the studies' few paragraphs refer to raw-food diets, but it's a fact that, until very recently, the term "raw-food-diet" specifically only referred to Raw Vegan or Raw Fruitarian diets, because 99% of raw-foodists were Raw Vegan/Fruitarian - so scientists and nutritionists routinely use the term "raw food diet" to automatically mean Raw Vegan/Fruitarian, in their papers. Raw Animal Food diets are much more recent in origin than Raw-Vegan/Fruitarian diets, so people, mostly, still refer to Raw Vegan/Fruitarian diets as generic "raw food diets". This is slowly changing as people are turning to raw animal food diets in greater numbers, so the term "raw-foodist" in a few decades will likely mean "raw omnivore". Anyway, this has been my concern, before, as the term "Raw Paleolithic Diet(ers)" is far more commonly used by Raw-Animal-Foodists to describe themselves so as to distinguish themselves from the term "Raw-Foodist" which is usually a term describing Raw Vegans/Fruitarians. Unfortunately, I wasn't allowed to use this term of rawpaleodiet, even though it's in common use in the community.

Anyway, I am willing to bet that you cannot find one single scientific dietary study, in the next 7 days, specifically mentioning the consumption of specific raw meats by humans as part of an overall Raw-Foodist study. If you can't, then that just proves my point and I'll feel justified to reinsert the same sort of comment you removed. If you think about it, this makes sense. Given the usual hysterical phobias re bacteria/parasites, most scientific establishments would be way too terrified of the possibility of being sued, so wouldn't dare feed their subjects on raw animal foods.Loki0115 (talk) 10:05, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Incidentally, an obvious clue that at least one of the studies focuses on raw veganism is the fact that large amounts of citrus fruit were eaten by the test-subjects:-

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9831783

"The median intake of fruit was 62% (minimum 25%, maximum 96%) of the total, corresponding to an average consumption of 9.5 kg of fruit (minimum 1.5, maximum 23.7) per week" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Loki0115 (talk • contribs) 10:08, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

One thing that is very dodgy re citing the above study is that the dental erosion is clearly due to eating vast amounts of fruit(sugars are known to cause dental erosion, as proven in many studies), so this has nothing to do with the food being raw but with the food being fruit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Loki0115 (talk • contribs) 10:13, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Loki0115, there is no evidence that "Ganss C, Schlechtriemen M, Klimek J. Dental erosions in subjects living on a raw food diet. Caries Res. 1999;33(1):74-80. PMID 9831783" only examines a "raw vegan diet", although I accept that it's possible that the researchers were only studying raw vegan diets. Please see 4. "Cooking as a biological trait" (Effects of a raw-food diet) pp37-38. This proves that at least one of the studies "Koebnick C, Strassner C, Hoffmann I, Leitzmann C. Consequences of a long-term raw food diet on body weight and menstruation: results of a questionnaire survey. Ann Nutr Metab. 1999;43(2):69-79. PMID 10436305" does examine raw omnivorous diets. --Phenylalanine (talk) 16:05, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Re the above study:- The only raw-food movement in germany is the "Rohkost" movement(similiar to Instincto). It's almost entirely Raw Vegan/Fruitarian-oriented, except for a very small minority who include very small amounts of raw animal-foods(usually raw dairy and raw eggs, very rarely raw meats), generally only 10% of the diet. As regards the above study, it lumped together Raw Vegans and raw-meat-eaters into the same study and didn't differentiate between them - so it rather proves my point. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Loki0115 (talk • contribs) 19:09, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

"Some studies have indicated detrimental health effects stemming from a raw food diet". This sentence was changed to "Some studies have indicated detrimental health effects stemming from a raw vegan food diet." As shown above, this is factually incorrect. --Phenylalanine (talk) 19:21, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

useful data for the article

Christopher Wanjek, Live Science's "Bad Medicine Columnist" says on one level "the raw diet has much going for it [but on] another level, this is just whacked." He disputes claims that a 100% uncooked diet is more natural because our human ancestors ate roasted grasshoppers or other small critters caught in forest fires and brushfires. "Another main claim by raw food advocates is that heat (from cooking) destroys enzymes in the food. Enzymes are proteins that serve as catalysts for specific biochemical reactions in the body. There are indeed many forms of enzymes. There are plant enzymes, digestive enzymes and metabolic enzymes, for example. And, yes, heat can destroy enzymes. But plant enzymes, which raw dieters wish to preserve, are largely mashed up with other proteins and rendered useless by acids in the stomach. Not cooking them doesn't save them from this fate. Anyway, the plant enzymes were for the plants. They helped with the plants' growth, and they are responsible for the wilting and decomposition of plants after they are harvested. They are not needed for human digestion. Human digestive enzymes are used for human digestion. Raw foods certainly aren't safer than cooked food, as some claim. Most commercial chicken and a good deal of beef and pork, sadly, are loaded with bacteria and parasites."^[1]

WAS 4.250 (talk) 21:48, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Potential danger raw dairy

I would like to include some data regarding the inherent bacterial contamination of raw milk products. Even in the "cow leasing" programs, outbreaks have happened. This danger should be included in the article. What do you think? ^[2]--—CynRN ^(Talk) 23:03, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I think it's a good idea, but the info should be verified by sources which use the article title ("Raw foodism") or similar terms ("Raw foodist", "rawism", raw food diet"...[terms referring to aspects of the raw food movement]) in their terminology to avoid breaching the no original research policy. Thanks. --Phenylalanine (talk) 21:54, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Raw dairy is very popular these day. Why restrict our sources to "Raw foodism" vs "Raw milk" or "raw dairy"? --—CynRN ^(Talk) 04:25, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

If the sources discuss "Raw milk" or "raw dairy" in the context of raw foodism (which means the sources must use terms like "raw foodist", "rawism", raw food diet", etc. in their terminology), they are perfectly fine, if not, I'm affraid they don't belong in the article per WP:NOR. --Phenylalanine (talk) 04:48, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

If some raw foodists advocate raw dairy and raw dairy has inherent danger, (many studies about this), why must we have Rawism or some such in the title of the source? It's not OR, just common sense. There aren't that many studies on Rawism, it's a bit "fringe".--—CynRN ^(Talk) 05:18, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Rawism or some such doesn't necessarily have to be in the title of the source, as long as such a term is used in the source text. Raw dairy and raw dairy must be explicitely mentioned in relation to raw foodism. Or else you're breaching WP:NOR. --Phenylalanine (talk) 05:25, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Meaningful differences in nutritional value between pasteurized and unpasteurized milk have not been demonstrated, and other purported benefits of raw milk consumption have not been substantiated. Conversely, the role of unpasteurized dairy products in the transmission of infectious diseases has been established repeatedly. To effectively counsel patients attracted by the health claims made for raw milk, practicing physicians must understand both the rationale used by proponents of raw milk and the magnitude of the risk involved in drinking raw milk. This talks about health claims made for raw milk. ^[3] --—CynRN ^(Talk) 07:19, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

And then this is from Ref #18 in the article: Some followers of the diet also consume raw meat and dairy products, although most follow a vegan regimen, as animal products normally need to be cooked in order to be safe for consumption. (Dairy products are pasteurized, eggs are cooked to avoid salmonella, and many meats need to be cooked in order to avoid parasites or diseases.)--—CynRN ^(Talk) 07:23, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Relevance of raw food for cats?

I can certainly get behind a raw food diet for a carnivore, like a cat, but what does that have to do with humans? I propose deleting that sentence. --—CynRN ^(Talk) 19:47, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Which sentence? --Phenylalanine (talk) 21:57, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

It's in history, decribing Pottenger's work with cats. Now I see that it is in a historical context. IMO, it was a mistake to use cat studies to promote raw foodism, but I guess it should stay in the article.--—CynRN ^(Talk) 04:23, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Pottenger's work with cats belongs in "Raw feeding", not this article. The info should be moved to the "Raw feeding" article. Thanks for pointing that out. --Phenylalanine (talk) 04:52, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

More emphasis on preponderance of vegan in lead?

Most all the refs I have been looking at re. raw foodism emphasize veganism and actively discourage animal foods, even bee pollen, in some cases. I understand there are those that include raw meat/dairy, but it's not the norm. Can we make the lead reflect this important point? In the lead, one might conclude that raw foodists have that long list of foods to choose from, whereas most stick to the plant sources. --—CynRN ^(Talk) 21:45, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Wrangham/weston price

I removed 1 dud wrangham reference - nothing came up in the notes, nor was there a proper journal entry or similiar. Also removed a wrangham reference re primates supposedly preferring cooked-foods, as this has no relevance to evolution or a human diet - chimps and gorillas are, after all, not apemen, and certainly not humans. Plus, there are plenty of other reasons why chimps/gorillas might prefer cooked-foods, other than taste, such as addiction to the opioids in cooked-/processed foods etc. Loki0115 (talk) 16:50, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree that what apes like to eat is irrelevant, but there is evidence that humans used fire way way back in the mists of time (1.7 million years ago), which I've added. The new evidence comes from burned stone tools. Humans were undoubtedly cooking and eating, but the details (recipes) are hard to find!--—CynRN ^(Talk) 22:41, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

The "evidence" you cite is considered inconclusive, I'[m afraid, by the majority of palaeoanthropologists, who view 250,000 years ago as the most reliable timeline for the advent of cooked-foods:-

" Yet he, Michigan's Brace, and most other anthropologists contend that cooking fires began in earnest barely 250,000 years ago, when ancient hearths, earth ovens, burnt animal bones, and flint appear across Europe and the middle East. Back 2 million years ago, the only sign of fire is burnt earth with human remains, which most anthropologists consider coincidence rather than evidence of intentional fire. " taken from:- http://cogweb.ucla.edu/Abstracts/Pennisi_99.html

Only Wrangham and a tiny handful of others have suggested that cooking was invented from earlier times, and because of the likelihood of contamination of evidence from different, much later eras and the fact that wildfires were pretty common in areas such as East Africa, this claim is considered largely debunked. In short, feel free to cite it as a claim, but it's simply a minority view, with Wrangham actually admitting in 1 article that he still didn't have enough evidence for his theories.Loki0115 (talk) 09:33, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I altered the Weston-Price info as the previous author had inserted rather misleading information. He had claimed that the Weston-Price diet was a cooked diet but, in fact, it is a partially-raw diet, which incorporates hefty amounts of raw dairy in it - indeed the latter is the most popular food on the diet, in terms of promotion. And since Weston-Price, in his books, repeatedly stated that the healthiest tribes, of all those he visited, all incorporated some form of raw animal food in their diets, it is important to point out that he viewed raw animal foods favourably.Loki0115 (talk) 17:28, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I also removed a duplicated sentence re studies on raw food diets in the introduction. It's already listed elsewhere in the article, under research, where it should be put anyway.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Loki0115 (talk • contribs) 19:17, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Also added in a reference, in the beliefs section, to the hygiene hypothesis as it's part of the belief-system of most Raw Animal Foodists.Loki0115 (talk) 20:40, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Clean up

I removed newly added content that I consider to be original research and restored important information in the lead per WP:LEAD (from "01:22, 25 August 2008" to "02:20, 25 August 2008") (see edit summaries for rationale). This is not an article about raw foods, but about raw foodism. But an article dealing specifically with raw foods can be created and the deleted studies can be moved there. That raw foods article can then be wikilinked in this article. Feel free to seek a third opinion. --Phenylalanine (talk) 02:28, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

The following deleted material could be included in the raw foods article:

"A scientific review showed clear benefits re cancer-reduction for inclusion of fruits and vegetables in the diet, especially in the raw form.^[4]"

"There is a study on children living on farms that showed benefits for raw-dairy-consumption, as regards significantly reduced allergy-rates, partially attributable to consumption of raw dairy by these farm-children, in terms of lowered rates of asthma, hay-fever, and atopic sensitisation. However, the study's authors do not recommend the consumption of raw milk since it may contain pathogens such as salmonella or enterohaemorrhagic E coli and its consumption may have serious health risks ^[5] ^[6]"

Hmmmm, every time my contributions get knifed/deleted by someone, it feels almost tantamount to rape. Ah well, no matter:- first of all, I think you may have too quickly removed the reference I gave backing up the fact that human brain-size decreased in the Neolithic, without reading it. The new reference I added was COMPLETELY different from the last one, citing hard scientific studies within the text, re notes. I'll try again, citing the studies themselves, which I do feel justified to expect this time to stay, as they are factual, not based on opinions. It's all very well claiming that Wrangham's ideas should be allowed in the raw-foodism section(I would strongly disagree with this as Wrangham is focusing on the supposed benefits of cooked-foods so should be put in the Cooking section, if at all - I'll want third-party arbitration re this point, as I consider the wrangham reference to be inappropriate. For now, though, I'll just add the scientific studies debunking wrangham's notion re brain-size, as a counter-point.Loki0115 (talk) 09:43, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I definitely want 3rd-party arbitration for the issue re those deleted studies on specific raw foods. The fact is that a separate section for raw-foods is absurd, as "raw" and "cooked" are merely states/descriptions related to heating/not-heating foods, not a general category in themselves. It also would be a double-standard as there are now references to studies in the "Cooking" section which focus on the harmful effects of cooking specific individual cooked-foods such as muscle-meats or cooked sucrose, which is hardly a take on cooked-foods in general. And, besides, raw foodism is the belief that raw foods are superior, so citing studies showing benefits for individual raw foods is perfectly acceptable, since raw-foodism is split into numerous completely different camps, which promote widely different foods. To delete those studies which focus only on specific raw foods and not on (very vague) references to raw-foods in general, would automatically be a direct bias in favour of the subgroup of raw-foodists who are "Raw Omnivores/Raw Foodists", thus making it impossible for advocates of other raw-foodist subgroups such as Primal Dieters or Sproutarians or whatever to put equal weight on current and future studies focusing specifically on raw foods allowed by their own particular dietary community.

I also would like 3rd-party arbitration re my inclusion of the reference to the Wikipedia "Cooking" article for finding studies on toxins found in cooked-foods, as this was deleted. On the contrary, the cooking article is directly relevant to the issue of raw foodism, as raw-foodism is, technically, anti-cooked in theory.

There was a somewhat dubious reference in the criticism of Wrangham , further down, where someone had written "some archaeologists oppose Wrangham....". In fact, the very article which was the reference to this statement, stated very clearly that "most other anthropologists oppose Wrangham..." To change that wording from "many" to "some" is therefore definitely misleading/factually incorrect, at best(I've changed the wording, accordingly):- http://cogweb.ucla.edu/Abstracts/Pennisi_99.html

I tried to save my current efforts, but it was blocked by a new edit, while I was halfway through. I duly rewrote everything since the editor(phenylalanine) hadn't seemed to have checked the whole of my current effort(not sure, when he edited, timewise?). I checked the history and it said something about original research, yet this "original research" is replicated across several studies, so is not represented in only 1 scientific paper. Not sure why deletion was required. Please explain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Loki0115 (talk • contribs) 11:32, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Loki0115, the rationale for my deletion is presented in the edit summary. The sources for the material added don't discuss raw foodism and the sentence that was reworded does not give Wragram's position on the validity of raw foodism. The previous sentence, was, in my opinion, more appropriate for the lead. Let's bring this matter to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine for third opinion. --Phenylalanine (talk) 11:42, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Fine, I agree. I'll check that talk-page out. Loki0115 (talk) 11:49, 25 August 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Loki0115 (talk • contribs) 11:48, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Done. --Phenylalanine (talk) 12:17, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I've decided to post the argument I just put over there, here as well, as it's more coherent, IMO:-

"== Raw Foodism ==

OK, I'm having three major or minor points of contention with an editor, who checks the Raw Foodism page. He contends the following:- that Richard Wrangham, who is known for his various papers/articles about his claims about cooked-food-consumption in the Early Palaeolithic leading to bigger human brains, should be mentioned in the Raw Foodism wikipedia page. I pointed out that Richard Wrangham should only be mentioned in the Cooking section of wikipedia, given that his main thesis is on the effect of cooking.

The editor's view is that Wrangham's pro-cooking claims are relevant to the raw foodism wikipedia page. On the other hand, the editor insisted that the info I wrote, earlier, mentioning studies showing the harmful effects of cooked-foods, be moved entirely to the Cooking section, because he claimed these studies were irrelevant to the issue of raw-foodism(it was duly moved by him). IMO, it seems to me that, in the interests of fairness/avoiding bias), either both the Wrangham-references and any studies on the harmful effects of cooked-foods should be moved to the "Cooking" page of wikipedia, or that both should be allowed to be included in the Raw Foodism page of wikipedia.

Also, I referenced an article , near the bottom of the raw foodism page which mentioned that "most other anthropologists" opposed Wrangham's claims re cooked-foods, and used those same words on the raw-foodism page. This was changed(by the editor?) into "some archaeologists" oppose Wrangham..."etc. The latter sentence "Some archaeologists oppose" did not appear in the original text. Here is the original text with the excerpted paragraph:-

"Yet he, Michigan's Brace, and most other anthropologists contend that cooking fires began in earnest barely 250,000 years ago, when ancient hearths, earth ovens, burnt animal bones, and flint appear across Europe and the middle East. Back 2 million years ago, the only sign of fire is burnt earth with human remains, which most anthropologists consider coincidence rather than evidence of intentional fire."

Here's the referenced article:-

http://cogweb.ucla.edu/Abstracts/Pennisi_99.html

It seems to me that stating "some archaeologists" is quite inaccurate as "most other anthropologists" are cited in the above article as opposing Wrangham's claims. For now, I've changed back the text to what I want.

Should the decision go against me, I would like to make a claim for a link to the cooking section, put in the raw foodism wikipedia page under "recent research", mentioning that that's the link to use to find studies detailing the list of toxins in cooked-foods.*

Also, the editor refused to accept some studies I listed focusing on the benefits of raw dairy foods. His opinion was that any such studies, focusing on specific raw foods, as opposed to studies focusing on raw foods in general, should be included, instead, in a separate, general wikipedia page for "Raw Foods", as he viewed such specific studies as irrelevant to the subject of raw-foodism as a philosophy. I strongly disagree with this opinion for the following reasons:- 1) there is no wikipedia page for "cooked foods" in general, just for "cooking" as a process, so why should there be one for "raw foods"? - forcing the creation of such a separate "raw foods" page would therefore be unbalanced re objectivity. 2) It also would be a double-standard as there are now references to studies in the "Cooking" section which focus on the harmful effects of cooking specific individual cooked-foods such as muscle-meats or cooked sucrose, which is hardly a take on cooked-foods in general. And, besides, raw foodism is the belief that raw foods are superior, so citing studies showing benefits for individual raw foods is perfectly acceptable, since raw-foodism is split into numerous completely different camps, which promote widely different foods. To delete(or move) those studies which focus only on consumption of specific raw foods and not to remove the references to studies on raw-foods in general, would automatically be a direct bias, on that raw foodism page, in favour of the subgroup of raw-foodists who are "Raw Omnivores/Raw Foodists", thus making it impossible for advocates of other raw-foodist subgroups such as Primal Dieters or Sproutarians or whatever to put their own contrasting info re current and future studies detailing the health benefits of individual raw foods allowed by their own particular dietary community.Loki0115 (talk) 12:39, 25 August 2008 (UTC)" Loki0115 (talk) 12:43, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I just wanted to explain that I was the culprit who changed your wording re. "most archeologists". There is recent evidence that stone tools were subjected to fire...fire that is dated to 1.7 million years ago, indicating that humans have controlled fire for far longer than 250,000 years. However, changing the wording from the ref. is unacceptable and I apologize.

I support your inclusion of the raw dairy information, but if the reference article includes negative info re. raw dairy, that should go in, too.

I apologize for 'gumming up the works' by editing close to the time you were editing.--—CynRN ^(Talk) 16:20, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

The claim re the 1.7 million year figure is just that, not fact. Part of the problem is that evidence from different eras has been mixed up in the same areas(at least that's one claim), but also the actual evidence from 250,000 to 300,000 years ago is so tiny(and inconclusive), by comparison to the far more common evidence re cooking from 250,000 years ago, that most anthropologists do not view such older claims as being remotely realistic - they think that if fire for cooking was invented that evidence would have to be much more common. The rarity of finds older than 500,000 years ago points to natural wildfires as a more likely cause. - you see hearths are required evidence for cooking, and they just didn't appear until 300,000 years ago at the earliest. What is accepted is that fire for warmth was invented c.500,000 years ago, with cooking being only invented much later at 250-300,000 years ago. Thanks for your support re raw dairy. I do agree that any data criticising raw dairy should also be included. Loki0115 (talk) 19:33, 25 August 2008 (UTC) Loki

Hi Loki, Well, I'm new to this topic, so I defer to you for now. I do find it very interesting. In my limited research I have seen refs for longer than 250,000. I don't know about 'most anthropologists', as I am not that well versed in the literature. I do believe absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, and our smaller teeth and smaller guts make me think we've been 'cookin' for a long time, but I'm not going to be stubborn about it! Cheers, --—CynRN ^(Talk) 00:06, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Third opinion

I am responding to the notes left by Phenylalanine and Loki0115 at WT:MED. I have no connection to or particular interest in raw foodism, and therefore have neither a conflict of interest nor particular expertise in the subject. I have a few comments for the editors now, and the rest will have to wait, as I'm out of time for today. First, I want to address an issue of editor behavior:

Loki is clearly passionately invested in this subject and might know more about the benefits (as perceived by proponents) than any other editor here. Raw foodism is almost the only article that this editor works on. However, several comments ("Hmmmm, every time my contributions get knifed/deleted by someone, it feels almost tantamount to rape") suggest to me that this editor may not ultimately find Wikipedia a congenial home. This is a wiki, and there's a reason that the edit page says, If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed for profit by others, do not submit it. At some point in the near future, Loki may want to carefully consider whether his/her talents are really suitable for a collaborative editing environment, the practical implications of his/her non-WP:OWNership of this article, and the benefits of making a reasonable effort to avoid comments that might discourage other editors' participation in the future. This is not a reprimand -- just a practical statement that wiki editing isn't good for everyone's serenity, and if your life is better without it, then you should choose a better life over a better article.

As for article issues (which I consider of much, much more importance), in no particular order:

I'm not convinced that Wrangham needs to be mentioned in the lead.
There are a lot of statements that require citations. I expect that many of these will be easy to source, so proponents are encouraged to get busy and do so. I've marked a handful of statements in the ==History== as an example. Presumably much of the rest of the article would benefit from similar work.
Hearths are not required for cooking. Today, many thousands of poor families do their daily cooking over a wood fire surrounded by couple of rocks (usually three), which we would not consider to be a hearth. Nomadic people and travelers have cooked foods for millennia, and used no hearths to do so. I seriously doubt that anyone can reliably differentiate "some big rocks used for cooking one day" from "some big rocks used to keep the campfire from spreading one day". Furthermore, most people consider solar cooking to be a form of cooking, and that method goes back at least several millennia -- and the sun itself, and therefore the potential for its use (accidental or not) is many, many millions of years old, if we are to believe the experts. So the perceived absence of properly constructed hearths is not proof that cooking was not done.
Specific foods studies. In general, I think the inclusion of a representative sample of specific food studies is acceptable, so long as the metes and bounds of the studies are clear to the average reader. However, I question these specific sources, and occasionally their presentation.
- For example, the "farm milk" in PMID 11597666 is not the same thing as "raw milk". See how this term is used here: "About half of the parents who told researchers that their child regularly drank farm milk said that they did not boil the milk before giving it to them. The protective results were the same, regardless of whether milk was boiled or not."^[7] Boiled milk is still farm milk, but it is certainly not raw milk. (This ref, BTW, better complies with WP:RS than the NaturalMatters.net website, and you should definitely find the newer and larger study that only partly confirms the results [eczema not being confirmed, if memory serves].)
- To give another example: PMID 8841165 in J Am Diet Assoc publishes something by two people from the World Cancer Research Fund -- but you wouldn't know from that study that the organization has a reputation for being biased in this area. It's like citing the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine on the health risks of drinking milk while ignoring the fact that the organization is financially supported by People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals and always advocates veganism. They might be right, but they are not an unbiased source of information. Furthermore, the description here is misleading: it fails to note, for example, that the protective effect is only found for certain cancers of the digestive tract plus lung cancer, and it overstates the actual conclusion of the authors as "clear benefits" to eating vegetables. What really matters for this article is the difference between the benefit of eating a certain amount of raw veggies, compared to eating the same amount of cooked veggies -- and although I didn't look it up today, my impression is that the advantage of eating raw veggies is small.
I could go either way on the "toxins in cooked foods" issue. It's largely unimportant to history: Given the short average lifespan, and the many decades that it takes for the cooked-food toxins to do any clinical damage, it's seriously unlikely to have had any impact on the average prehistoric person. However, it might be a concern that motivates current adherents. If the source is a solid scientific review and directly addresses raw food diets (as opposed to, say, noting that acrylamide exists in baked and fried goods and may be harmful; it doesn't exist in boiled foods and therefore isn't a good argument for a raw food diet), then I would be inclined to include it.

I'll try to address the remaining issues tomorrow (or Friday). Must run for now, WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:44, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Talk page references

^ livescience article "The Raw Food Diet: A Raw Deal" published July 4, 2006
^ https://www.neha.org/position_papers/position_raw_milk.htm
^ PMID: 6481912 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6481912?ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DiscoveryPanel.Pubmed_Discovery_RA&linkpos=2&log$=relatedarticles&logdbfrom=pubmed
^ http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8841165
^ http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11597666
^ http://www.naturalmatters.net/newsview.asp?news=3124
^ http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/05/070510093349.htm

Comments

Thanks for weighing in, WhatamIdong! I agree on all your above points. I just read a reliable source re. the 'no hearths needed' point. Evidence of those fires and bones would have been ephemeral. I hadn't thought about solar cooking, but it's very likely early humans did practice it. Anthropologists seem to be saying that humans have evolved in a way that indicates we had moved beyond raw food toward more calorie condensed food a very long time ago: small teeth, small guts, large brains. Phytoliths may show that ancient camp fires cooked food plants going back 1.6 or so million years, but it must remain conjecture for now. Human physical traits are more compelling for this argument.--—CynRN ^(Talk) 00:36, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Some articles about ancient cooking and evolution of man: "The earliest direct evidence of fire use, in the form of charred animal bones dating to between 1 million and 1.5 million years ago, has been uncovered in a South African cave, report two anthropologists" ^[1], . "The first definite controlled fires in the archaeological record date from about 300,000 to 400,000 years ago." ^[2]

"To find the drastic bodily transformations that they thought must have resulted from a steep improvement in nutrition, the researchers had to go back 1.9 million years, when humanity's ancestors shifted from being small-brained, jut-jawed australopithecines to being cortically enhanced, small-faced and modestly dentitioned Homo erectus, the immediate predecessors to modern humans"^[3]--—CynRN ^(Talk) 00:50, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I just checked out the Paleo diet Wiki and found even more excellent refs re. ancient fire and cooking. Great article, by the way, Phenyl!--—CynRN ^(Talk) 06:41, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

First of all, I should reference the third party's comments:-

1) My own comments re "rape":- They were meant to be humorous. I'm concerned a little re recent accusations of bias elsewhere about Wikipedia re the cooked, paleolithic diet page, which is why I exaggerated things a little.

Re comment on my only editing raw foodism page:- The fact is that I only have so much free time for editing wikipedia, and there are no others among the editors interested in the pro-raw-foodism side of the argument, with almost all focusing on the anti-raw aspect. So, I stick to the raw-foodism page so as to provide a counter-point and avoid bias in general.

2)Re hearths/wrangham:- Maybe, but "most anthropologists" don't see it that way, viewing only hearths as being definitve evidence of any kind. I agree that the Wrangham reference should be removed completely, in which case the "hearths" mention could be deleted as well. Perhaps we could just have something referenced re "most anthropologists" viewing 250,000 years ago as being the most commonly-accepted date, with one source citing refs as early as 1.8-2.3 million years ago(with a reference to a wrangham study, not mentioning wrangham in the raw-foodism text itself) ) and other raw-foodists refs/notes citing dates for cooking as late as 40,000 or 10,000 years ago.

I'll see about including more relevant pro-raw dairy studies. I DO think that any studies which focus on the harsher aspects of cooking where boiled food isn't an issue(eg:- acrylamide) should be mentioned, at the very least, in the Cooking section.*I should mention that there's a strong misunderstanding here - acrylamide is a type of AGE(advanced glycation endproduct=AGE). AGEs are found in all varieties of cooked-foods, even if the subset, acrylamide, is only found in non-boiled cooked-foods(to date).Loki0115 (talk) 20:11, 28 August 2008 (UTC) Loki0115

I've included a reference to a study confirming that raw human milk is better absorbed by human infants than pasteurised human milk. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Loki0115 (talk • contribs) 20:24, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

The only point left, for my purposes, is the issue of toxins in cooked-foods. IMO, this is directly relevant towards the issue of raw-foodism and should be included in the raw-foodism section. However, if the decision goes against me, there really should be a reference made to the cooking section of wikipedia for those interested in the topic of tocins in cooked-foods, as it's directly relevant.Loki0115 (talk) 20:34, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Can't find a wikipedia-friendly reference re the raw-foodists in California, but it's a fact that most(90%) of rawists are found there. It is the mecca of alternative-health after all.Loki0115 (talk) 20:41, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

1) Humor's a dicey thing on a talk page. It's certainly tripped me up before.

2) I like the idea of presenting a range of dates for cooking, with a note that there's some disagreement. The exact details are not a hugely important point for the topic, and presumably different places developed cooking at different times, or with different foods.

I think it's perfectly reasonable to include the "toxins in cooked foods" in at least the context of it being a motivation for some adherents. Any pro-rawism magazine should be able to provide a good source for that. (The fact that some rawists believe cooked food to contain toxins is not exactly a scientific issue, and therefore doesn't require a scientific source.) If we want to add it in a more science-of-cooking way, then we need to have better sources. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:26, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

More opinion

The last item in the lists above (I think: correct me if wrong) is the Wrangham controversy.

In general, I think that Wrangham's views should be confined to the ==Criticism== section. As the primary question that the general reader will have is "What's this?", the lead and early parts of the article should focus fairly tightly on a general description of rawism, and rather less on evolutionary theory and the difficulties of identifying old campfires. It would also help if Wrangham's complaints are introduced with some reference to the typical rawist's view of human evolution (i.e., presumably a rawist thinks the human frame better adapted to raw foods than to cooked foods). As it stands, the reader is left wondering why this matters (especially if the reader is aware that individuals cannot evolve and therefore the individual choice of cooked food or raw food has no evolutionary implications for the size of that individual's brain).

The ==Criticism== section should begin with a general sentence about most scientists not agreeing with the proponents of rawism. It might be appropriate to mention the well-known infectious risks involved in eating raw meat and raw milk here. Some of potential problems (like poor teeth, from the sounds of it) could also be mentioned in this section.

Things you didn't ask about, but I suggest anyway:

I'd move the ==History== section down (perhaps next to ==Raw food movement==, perhaps merged into the same section). My point is to let the reader learn more about rawism before getting to all of the names and dates.
The information about nutrition (which is mostly children's nutrition) could be collected in a subsection of ==Raw food diets==. It's a little strange to have a paragraph on planning a balanced diet in the middle of food prep, and another at the end of ==History==. If preferred, the section could be titled ==Children==.
It would be nice to have a good, long paragraph (or two, even) about each of the subtypes instead of that table.
I wish we had an idea of how many rawists exist, or how many years people stick with the diet before changing, or some other information like that.
The "beliefs" section might benefit from being expanded and turned into paragraphs instead of a list. I might also add the belief that cooking creates toxins in the cooked foods and that the human body is better adapted to raw foods as two other beliefs that seem to be more or less common.

I will keep this page on my watch list at least through the end of the weekend. Please let me know if you have questions or if I missed a previous request. Hope this helps, WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:26, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Proposed merge

CynRN noticed that we also have a Raw veganism page, which I think could be profitably merged into this page. The non-duplicative information there would make a nice paragraph on this for the ==Diets== section. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:36, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Original research issues

"Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought. This includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position. This means that Wikipedia is not the place to publish your own opinions, experiences, or arguments. Citing sources and avoiding original research are inextricably linked: to demonstrate that you are not presenting original research, you must cite reliable sources that provide information directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the information as it is presented." (WP:NOR)

In the context of this article, that means that any source which presents research on the health effects of particular raw or cooked foods or diets without mentioning the raw food movement or philosophy should not be included in this article in accordance with Wikipedia's policy on "original research", since the topic of the article is raw foodism, a term referring not only to a set of dietary practices, but also to a philosophy, a set of beliefs. In the context of an article such as "cooking", "raw food" or raw food diets, such research (respectively, research on cooking, raw food and raw food diets) is perfectly acceptable, however, in the "Raw foodism" article, if you use such a source to verify the statement that study "X" found that raw or cooked food/diet "Y" had an effect "Z" on humans, you are presenting a statement that the source does not make in relation to (i.e. as an argument pro or contra) the raw foodism philosophy/lifestyle—i.e. in the "Raw foodism" article, this statement constitutes an unpublished argument relating to this dietary concept. Raw foodism is a belief system and, at the same time, a set of dietary practices. Using nutritional research focusing of specific aspects related to these dietary habits (raw foods, cooked foods, raw food diets, etc.) to discuss the merits of raw foodism, a specific term which encompasses both the philosophy and the dietary patterns, is exactly why it's original research. I see a fundamental difference between descriptive article names, such as "raw food diet" and article titles that correspond to specific terms such as "Raw foodism". In the case of the "raw food diet", it is not necessary to define the expression in the article lead, the expression being quite clear, while "Raw foodism" appears to be more specialized, it being necessary to define the term in the article lead. In the case of descriptive article titles, any sources and material about the topic should be acceptable in my opinion (when the article name is unusual, one or two sources using the exact article title in their terminology should be sufficient). For articles with specific titles, sources using the article name in their terminology (or synonyms of the article title specified in that article) are necessary in my opinion. For example, in the article "Raw foodism", I could examine how the term is defined in expert sources and see that some raw foodists avoid drinking boiled milk and I could use nutritional research papers employing the term "boiled milk", but not "Raw foodism" (or synonyms thereof). This in my opinion would constitute original research. --Phenylalanine (talk) 01:14, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Phen, I think your definition of OR is far, far to strict here. If we turn up a magazine article, or a book, or some other reliable source that asserts that a common belief among rawists is that raw food is healthier than cooked food, then it's not "original research" to name some studies on the relative healthiness of cooked veggies compared to raw veggies, or (for the counter-claims by critics) that raw milk is a hospitable home for zillions of potentially vicious bacteria. We're not synthesizing anything by making a statement like "Rawists say that foods such as (name a vegetable, and cite a decent study) are healthier eaten raw than cooked (cite a reliable source for what rawists say)": we're providing examples: they do actually believe this, and they do in fact use (and misuse) many scientific studies on this subject. There's nothing novel, analytical, or synthesizing in such a statement. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:06, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

The way I look at it is like this: If an imaginary nutritional researcher with omniscient knowledge and memory of all statements on raw foodism published in reliable sources looked at this article and said to himself, oh, I never thought of that aspect/research/evidence regarding Raw foodism before, then it constitutes original research. This may seem overly strict for articles on nutrition, but perhaps less so for articles in highly specialized fields, such as quantum mechanics. Nevertheless, we cannot have double-standards regarding OR. Take a look at my proposal at Wikipedia talk:No original research#Proposed text addition to the policy. Thank you very much for help! --Phenylalanine (talk) 13:02, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but no. In practice, you seem to be limiting "reliable sources" to "mainstream scientific and medical sources". This is just a (small) subset of reliable sources for this topic. For example, you'd never expect any scientific paper to explain the beliefs of rawists -- but these should be included in this article, even if there's no PubMed-listed journal article to support them.

Keep in mind that no source is ever "inherently" reliable. Reliability can only be assessed in the context of what the source needs to support. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:18, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Convenience split

Re whatamidoing's recent comments:- I agree, there already was/is a sentence making claims for 2.3 million(wrangham) for cooking to 10,000 years ago(which many rawists claim). There were previous attempts to make Wrangham's claims seem to be fact when, in truth, they were only claims, and one should not be too focused on one or the other, given that most claims re cooking-dates are fraught by the very limited evidence found in the Palaeolithic(not just for fire/cooking- all such ancient Paleo evidence is limited). I do think it should be made clear in a separate sentence that most current anthropologists view 250,000 years ago as the more accurate date - a strong reference(s) for this should be easy to find.

There is a whole, reliable section already in the cooking section of wikipedia, which provides scientifically-reliable sources on the toxins found in cooked-foods(some of the toxins in cooked-foods have their own wikipedia pages, as of long ago).It's listed under the following paragraph:-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cooking#Health_effects

The belief of rawists that there are toxins in cooked-foods is such a basic element of rawism that it would be damaging to the article, info-wise, if there was no mention of toxins in coked-foods. Either studies should be mentioned in the rawism-page under a "recent research" paragraph or the belief should be stated in the raw-food-beliefs section followed by a link to the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cooking#Health_effects page, which has all the relevant scientifically rigorous dat on toxins in cooked foods.

Re my wikipedia contributions:- I forgot to mention that I've once edited the robert sheckley page and the saturated fat page , and maybe 1 or 2 others I can't remember. I get the impression that it might be considered slightly inappropriate to focus just on one page?

. I agree with whatamidoing that wrangham's claims should only be referred to in the criticism section, not the intro, as that's the only relevant place for it. This seems only logical. Also, whatamidoing makes an excellent point that wrangham's claims re bigger brains are not really relevant to issues re health-concerns of raw-foodist diets.

Re numbers of raw-foodists/how long they stay raw. This is going to be very difficult to provide as exact figures are unavailable, only rumours - the guru aajonus vonderplanitz, for example, estimates a total of 20,000 raw-meat-eating Primal Dieters in the entire US, as a conservative estimate, but he can only go by estimates based on the numbers of people he meets at Primal Diet gatherings in different States etc., and would be considered biased as he's the primal diet guru. As for how long rawists stay on the diet, that's just the same as with other diets(ie from just 1 meal to the rest of a persons' entire life after going raw, depending on their choices). Some raw-animal-foodists, such as the Nenet tribe of Siberia, eat a raw-food diet(mostly raw meats/organs , some raw berries, rarely boiled meats) for their entire lives:-

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/13/AR2008051300583.html?sid=ST2008051302252

I do agree that 1 or 2 paragraphs should be given to each subtype of raw diet, as that provides so much more useful information, but, unfortunately, overly strong wikipedia-friendly references are usually required. Even providing references for some of the above diets was extremely difficult as only newspaper articles were allowed, for some reason. This causes problems as there are many 100s of 1000s of people doing these various diets, with 100s of websites providing general info, but, unsurprisingly, almost all the info on raw-food-diets of any kind is found on raw-foodist websites, which I understand are not accepted for wikipedia.

Of course, if it IS allowed to provide very basic information without references, then I could fill that in. Would it be acceptable to state, for example, the name/location of the relevant guru of the diet, the main diet foods, common dietary practices relevant to that diet(eg:- eating rotting meat for example), without needing a reference?

Re phenylaline's recent point:- I'm afraid his comments are based on a false premise. There is, really, no such thing as "raw-foodism" as a belief, in much the same way that there is no such thing as "Cooked-Foodism" as a belief.Technically, a "raw-foodist" is just someone who eats a diet of mostly raw foods. Some tribes, such as the Nenets, eat a mostly raw diet, but do not have any "raw-foodist" beliefs, as such, they just eat that way out of tradition or convenience. Strictly speaking, the "Raw Foodism" wikipedia page should be renamed "Raw Food Diets", in order to be accurate. There is also the question of substantial bias involved if we have a separate wikipedia page for raw foods and 1 for "Raw Foodism" - after all, we don't have an equivalent wikipedia page entry for "cooked-foodism" or a wikipedia page for cooked-foods, just a "Cooking" wikipedia page. I have yet to come across one single person on a modern, junk-food diet, who refers to himself/herself as a "cooked-foodist".Loki0115 (talk) 12:29, 29 August 2008 (UTC) Is it acceptable to mention native tribes who ate/eat partially-raw diets?(with references, of course). Also, re the above:- If one takes the unlikely view that raw-foodism is a belief, then one has to accept the fact that one of the raw-foodist "beliefs" is that toxins are found in cooked-foods - from that assumption, it's not appropriate to forbid mention of studies backing that core-belief, even if it focuses on cooked-foods. After all, there are a multitude of subjects that are , to some extent, defined by their opposites(eg:- darkness is the absence of light etc.)Loki0115 (talk) 13:14, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

One other thing:- I don't think that it's wise to merge the raw veganism page into the raw foodism page. Raw Vegans form the majority of raw-foodists, so far, so they deserve their own wikipedia page. Strictly speaking, given the mass of info online re raw veganism, its wikipedia page should be much longer than it currently is.Loki0115 (talk) 13:14, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Cooking#Health effects is seriously incomplete. It doesn't mention, for example, that if you die of a bacterial infection when you're three, then you have zero risk of getting colon cancer in your geriatric years. I do not recommend simply copying it. Leaving that aside, however, I agree that if the "toxins in cooked foods" belief can be substantiated as a significant aspect of motivation/belief/etc, then that fact should be mentioned. If it's a major issue among either proponents or detractors, then it must be mentioned. I'd prefer it in the "beliefs" section, myself. (It might be possible to rename ==Beliefs== to something more general, like ==Overview== or ==General principles==, if desired). Ideally, we'd have a good general source about rawism that happens to mention scientific studies on several specific foods.
I think that reading WP:SPA will provide you with a general notion of the, um, frowned-upon-ness of editing primarily a single article. People who only edit one article/one small area tend to be motivated by knowing that they alone hold the Truth.™ Consequently, they are out to Right Great Wrongs™ in a world that has Sadly Rejected the Cause™ when it's Perfectly Obvious to Anyone™ with the proper education and open mind that adoption of this minority view would Solve All the World's Problems.™^[4] Wikipedia seems to have more trouble with SPAs than with general editors. However, working on a single page is permitted, and it's not exactly uncommon among newer editors (you have to start somewhere). But yes, branch out: there are millions of articles. Surely there's another one that will interest you. (Hometown? Favorite food? Childhood hero?)
If we can only get a (probably) biased person's estimate, then we can use that—but we state it clearly, hewing as closely to the original source as reasonable (watching for copyvio problems): "The leading proponent of Diet Variant X, Joe Smith, says that zillions of people follow this diet full-time or part-time" instead of "Zillions of people follow this diet." The reader can then adjust the numbers according to his/her interpretation. (If you're me, you'd probably halve the number, and if you're my brother, you'd probably divide by a thousand—but the point is that we provide the context and leave that adjustment up the reader.)
You might want to read the actual rules for reliable sources. Newspapers are not the only proper source. Properly published books are another good option. Websites may be all right. It really depends on how you're using the source. The less controversial the information, the less exalted the source needs to be. We need good science sources for scientific claims, but if we just want a description of "Diet Variant X", and there's a popular book on your shelf that's all about "Diet Variant X", or a widely accepted description at the website for a major organization, "International Society for Advancing Diet Variant X", then we can certainly use that. Personal websites and blogs, however, are always regarded with distinct suspicion. Also, it's better to name a weak source than to have no source.
I don't support separate Raw foods diet and Raw foodism pages. Wikipedia articles are named after the most common name, and defining article content according to amateur etymology is discouraged. Whatever title is chosen, the term should be defined by reliable sources.
Yes, if you can ref a traditional ethnic group that primarily or exclusively eats raw foods, then that can be included as an example of people that eat raw foods.
Whether or not there are more raw vegans than raw non-vegans is unimportant. It's not a popularity contest. There's very little information in Raw veganism that isn't already, or shouldn't already, be in this article. The Wikipedia approach is to have one decent article, and if/when information specifically about raw veganism ever gets to be too large to handle gracefully on this page, then it can be split again. The page will still exist, after all (complete with it's history); we'd just move the information here, and have that page redirect to this one. As a first step, it would be reasonable to swipe information from that article to fill in the missing information here.

--WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:50, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Re only focusing on 1 wikipedia page:- I really don't have the time to alter other wikipedia sites, except perhaps once a month or so, at the most. I only volunteered for doing this page, not out of a desire to preach as such, but because virtually none of the past contributors/editors were raw-foodists. I suppose I'll have to compromise by editing occasionally some of the more obscure wikipedia pages which are, mercifully, rarely if ever checked/reviewed. That way, I won't be doubling etc. my time spent editing wikipedia.

My only concern is that any criticisms should be kept in the criticism page . In the case of the health-effects article, I would think that it would be appropriate to write some sentences or two on the dangers of bacteria and parasites(as long as I'm allowed to provide a balancing sentence or two with link/reference(s) backing rawists' claims that bacteria and parasites may be healthy in some cases(eg:- the hygiene hypothesis theory, backed up references to various studies on the benefits of bacteria/parasites) - I think there's already an unreferenced sentence, somewhere, on the raw-foodism page referring to the dangers of bacteria/parasites? Other than that, presumably, is it acceptable for the rest of the paragraphs on the toxins in cooking to be moved over to the raw-foodism page, intact? The references mostly cover toxins found in cooked-foods in general, rather than specific foods.

Re books by raw diet authors:- I'll put them forward on the page and see how they get accepted. Some of the books(non-raw vegan diets), in previous editings ages ago, were considered inappropriate because they were not best-sellers. For example, would this book be acceptable as a reference to the Primal Diet, even though it's no.233,000 or so in the ranks?:-

http://www.amazon.com/Recipe-Living-Without-Disease/dp/1889356840/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1220105535&sr=8-2

I'll now include that reference to the Nenets and perhaps the Eskimoes who also ate hefty amounts of raw meats/organ-meats(and rotting/aged raw fish etc.). I don't think anyone would have a problem with it as the washington post is a reliable newspaper.

Fine, I accept your raw vegan points. I suppose if someone starts adding too much raw vegan data it could eventually be given another wikipedia page, but you're right, for now, it's probably unnecessary.

I'll also include that Primal Diet reference on the wikipedia page re aajonus' primal diet (reportedly) having 20,000 members. This can be moved to the appropriate seciton, as applicable, later.Loki0115 (talk) 14:31, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Loki, I am pretty sure 'rawism' or 'raw foodism' is a philosophy or way of life. Rawists have a set of beliefs (that are off the beaten path) and it takes a bit of dedication to follow the diet. I have friends who travel the country teaching the diet who have a TV show, as well, so I am familiar with the mindset. Rawists are distinct from tribes who eat raw foods because it's a choice, not the best adaptation to their environment. However, I am open to including studies from populations that eat raw food.
Also, I have a problem with the dogmatic assertion that 'most anthropologists' believe something, unless backed up by multiple refererences. This phrase comes from one article. But really, Wrangham's views and the whole 'when cooking began' question is a bit peripheral to this article and shouldn't be given too much space.
The belief in deleterious toxins in cooked foods should be developed as one the tenets of 'rawism', but it needs to be explained in a way so readers understand that it is not an accepted reason to avoid cooked foods. I'm willing to bet 'most nutritionists' would not agree that cooked food is to be avoided because of toxins, but I do not have references. It's just that the toxin hypothesis is considered 'fringe'.--—CynRN ^(Talk) 16:55, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Cyn, it doesn't matter whether you or I think that rawism is a philosophy or something else: we must have a reliable source that says that. Can you ask your friends to recommend a book that would tell us? Is there a big association of raw foods people somewhere? WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:18, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Sources

Here are three sources that clearly explain that raw foodism is a philosophy. The first is about a book on raw foodism:

Raw food is not just a diet. It is a revolutionary philosophy. A revolution is a fundamental change in the way of thinking about something. The raw food movement changes the way we look at food, therefore, it is a revolution. Philosophy is an interpretation of the way things fit together. The raw food movement looks at the way food, living, treatment of the earth, our treatment of each other, and our quest for physical, spiritual, and mental health all fit together. Therefore, it is also a philosophy.^[5]
RAW-FOOD PHILOSOPHY

The cornerstone of the "rawist" philosophy is simple: Nature is perfect. Proponents say that raw foods are nutritionally complete, and that cooking food is not only unnatural, but detrimental to its nutritional content.^[6]

Although raw food is a diet plan, it is also a philosophy. Living food, living body. Dead food, dead body. Now, if you don't embrace the living food philosophy, you probably won't want to become a 100% raw foodist.^[7]--—CynRN ^(Talk) 04:48, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Cyn, the first two are great sources. The book's website lists some of the "leaders" in the raw foods movement, which could be really useful for figuring out whether this book or that book is widely accepted. The second one is even better: a bona fide magazine article on raw foods published by Vegetarian Times. I'm sure that it contains facts that we should have in this article (for example, that ≥75% raw foods is generally considered enough to call yourself a raw food adherent), or that it supports facts that we already have here without any supporting reference.

Looking at the comments and links you provided, I think it would be fair to say that this article covers both "a diet" and "a philosophy". We should consider writing a paragraph that describes the distinction. Would you like to do that? I think it would fit well into a re-worked (and perhaps re-titled) Beliefs section. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:48, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I would enjoy writing about the philosophy aspect for the beliefs section, with help from other editors, of course.--—CynRN ^(Talk) 16:53, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

That sounds great. Presumably we should present both sides: "Raw veganism is just a diet, nothing more." There certainly seems to be some diversity of opinion and approaches. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:17, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I have been repeatedly told that www.beyondveg.com violates reliable source. Therefore if it's included, then any other website that debunks beyondveg.com's ideas should be included as well. Though it would be best to avoid including both, I suppose.

Except in the most extreme cases, it's not really possible to determine the reliability of any source without considering how it is used. As proof that some people think it's "just a diet", BeyondVeg.com is acceptable. (There might, of course, be other, even better sources for this statement, but it's acceptable.) As proof of some scientific fact, it's not acceptable. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:39, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Loki, It doesn't matter if a book made a bestseller list. It does matter if the book is actually on the subject (non-raw cookbooks having so little to say about raw food diets). It matters if the book was self-published (I can't tell for this one). It also matters if the book is relatively popular in its specific genre. So if this book is very popular among raw-meat-eaters, and you want to describe raw-meat-eating, then that's good. The fact that any kind of raw-meat-eating book is remarkably unpopular among all the other book buyers is unimportant. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:53, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I'll look at the standard wikipedia info-pages you gave me , now. In the meantime, I'm rather curious:- Exactly, how is this arbitration supposed to be normally carried out, wikipedia-style? I guess one can come to a concensus with all members eventually agreeing on what's OK/ whats' not. But if the sides are irreconciliable, does one put it to a democratic vote, or are there senior Wikipedians who get more than 1 vote each, as opposed to newbies who only get 1 vote? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Loki0115 (talk • contribs) 14:59, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Ideally, we'll be able to hammer out something that everyone can live with, at least more or less. I don't at this moment see any reason why that won't happen here. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:18, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Re-open

Consumption of raw food is not a narrow topic which need constrain our use of sources. Most everyone consumes raw food and we have commonplace folk wisdom on the topic such as an apple a day keeps the doctor away. I favour moving the article to the title Raw food so that our treatment may be comprehensive and not overly concerned with particular sects or factions. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:38, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

The trouble is that there is no equivalent general "cooked-food" section, so changing it to a raw-food page would lead to bias. Secondly, raw food movements such as the raw vegan movement have been steadily appearing in the media, so they merit more than just a paragraph or two, on a wikipedia page devoted vaguely to raw foods in general. Another point is that mainstream-advice, such as to eat a raw apple a day, is a world away from a raw-foodist recommending people to eat aged, raw meat. Just not the same thing.Loki0115 (talk) 16:49, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

The equivalent general page on cooked food is cooking which contains similar material on the health implications. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:18, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid "Cooking" is not an equivalent page. Cooking describes a process(cooking) and its effects on food, there is no equivalent "rawing" or whatever, or a "cooked-foods" page. At any rate, raw foodism is interconnected with the concept of raw-foods that it would be impractical to separate the two. Deleting the wikipedia page on raw foodism and replacing it with "raw foods" would not be possible as raw food diets are already an established fact, having been mentioned in the media, numerous times, and need to be included in their own right.Loki0115 (talk) 20:33, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd support renaming it to something like Raw food diet, which is a little more expansive than Raw foodism (and also a little less patronizing: raw foodism smacks of "it's just another -ism"). I'd also support leaving it here. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:17, 8 September 2008

(UTC)

I agree. "Raw Foodism" is a patronising term - eaters of cooked-diets don't get to be called "cooked-fooidtss" after all.Loki0115 (talk) 09:26, 8 September 2008 (UTC)