Talk:Raw foodism

Missing information: Destruction or loss of vitamins and other nutrients by cooking. Toxins created by cooking.

There's plenty of information on this article missing or plain wrong. There's plenty of scientific evidence that vitamin C, B1 and other nutrients are destroyed or lost when exposed to high temperatures. Here is an article from harvard university about vitamin B1 that mentions that: https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/vitamin-b1/. Here is an article about vitamin C that also mentions it: https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/vitamin-c/. Here is an article from oxford university about heterocyclic amines, a known carcinogen formed after exposing meat to high temperatures: https://academic.oup.com/jnci/article/91/23/2038/2606704. Otherwise you can just google it and find many other sources of information that will tell the same thing. I've tried adding it to the page but the edit got reverted right away for no plausible reason. Wikieditor1377 (talk) 01:36, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

The sources you mention are not endorsing raw foodism. I recommend that you read WP:MEDRS. Psychologist Guy (talk) 03:01, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

The sources I've mentioned refer specifically to the statements above, i.e., vitamin C, vitamin B1 and heterocyclic amines. It couldn't be more clear. About the references I've used, the first two I've mentioned are harvard university's nutrition source links, backed by numerous book references within. The third from oxford university does the same. They are definitely reliable sources of information. Or are you suggesting otherwise? Wikieditor1377 (talk) 14:41, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Wikieditor1377 is off topic (and possibly soapboxing, WP:SOAP) for insisting on discussion of cooking effects on nutrient contents. This is a better place for that discussion. The article sufficiently mentions the effect of cooking on nutrient content in the Claims section. Zefr (talk) 15:16, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Actually the loss or destruction of water soluble vitamins, specially vitamin c, is a widely known effect cooking has on food and it's missing from the page. So the claim section is basically missing the most widely known scientific information. Nothing off topic there. Wikieditor1377 (talk) 15:35, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

The problem is that the sources you link to do not mention or endorse raw foodism so it is off-topic. Most people eat a mixture of cooked and raw foods. The links you cite say that a specific vitamin (in this case vitamin C or vitamin B1) can be destroyed by high-heat cooking, there is nothing controversial here. Nobody disputes this. The articles you link to are not saying not to all cook foods that contain vitamin c, or eat a diet based on entirely raw foods. Vitamin C is found in citrus and fruits such as orange, lemons or strawberries. Most people don't cook these foods, they eat them raw. You seem to be just cherry-picking pieces of information from these sources but none of them are recommending a diet of entirely raw food. Psychologist Guy (talk) 15:58, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

The effect that exposure to heat has on vitamins and other nutrients in terms of destruction, loss, bioavailability or formation of other substances is clearly within the topic since it's the main basic idea behind raw foodism. Also the references I've used were specific to the statements they follow, as they should be, i.e., destruction or loss of vitamin C and B1 and the other about heterocyclic amines. They are not references to texts on different parts of the page, which would be clearly incorrect. If you observe again, there are a number of references on the page that don't mention raw foodism at all such as references 36 to 45 and others that deal with a range of topics written on the page such as foodborne illness. Wikieditor1377 (talk) 17:59, 31 October 2020 (UTC)