Talk:Raw veganism/Archive 1

Archive 1

How is

How is mentioning an outbreak of illness related to veggies related to criticism of raw veganism? Remove?

• I changed it to "Cautions". Wahkeenah 11:41, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I still don't see the relevance, in particular mentioning an outbreak at taco bell restaurants as a caution for raw veganism is absurd.
    • The relevance is that raw vegetables, just like raw meat, are risky to consume without proper preparation. And FYI, I like raw vegetables better than cooked. But they must be thoroughly washed. Wahkeenah 13:12, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
      • Although not recommended by the Vegan Society, I believe eating "dirty carrots" (i.e. lightly washed raw organic carrots, with surface deposits of soil) once a week is a good source of vitamin B12 (it is the one I use). Part of the problem is we are now eating food which is too sanitized, such as the food industry cleaning fruit and vegetables with chlorine baths (chlorine is also carcinogenic). As for E.coli and the raw organic spinach story in the US, this is interesting. Normally fruit and vegetables would naturally filter out harmful bacteria from the soil. As I see it, the problem lies either with the weak genetic make up of the spinach, the unusually high bacteria content of the animal manure used, or the low immunity of the infected humans. nirvana2013 09:49, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Duplicated information

This page is almost entirely duplicated information from Raw food diet. I tried making it redirect there, but this change was reverted due to lack of consensus. I don't know who is supposed to agree, all Wikipedia users? Administrators? How does one attempt to arrive at consensus, and when do you decide that consensus is reached? At 2 people? 10 people? Keithkml 22:05, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

They are similar but not the same. The raw food diet includes animal products such as milk, and raw veganism does not. Perhaps raw foodism needs to become a disambiguation page directing to the different types of raw food diets i.e. those containing meat, those containing milk and those containing solely plant matter. Also just for the record, the duplicated information on the raw food diet article was copied from this article, rather than vica-verca. nirvana2013 22:20, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

A link about eating raw eggs, for example, should include the first Rocky film. :) Wahkeenah 00:27, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I think it would be more appropriate to delete Raw veganism and add a section to Raw food diet describing different versions. If it's not deleted, at least the parts which are duplicated from Raw food diet can be removed. Keithkml 01:43, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I believe the raw food diet is a specific diet (see list of diets) which can include animal products, so to merge raw veganism into that article would be incorrect. A merge would only be correct if the raw food diet article is first moved to either raw food diets (i.e. plural, there are different types) or raw foodism (my personal preference), which are generic titles. Raw veganism would require its own section on raw foodism as, if this were to take place, raw vegans generally disassociate themselves with other raw foodists that eat meat or drink milk (see Woody Harrelson on The Independent article [1]). Raw foodists are either:

• Omnivore (includes raw fish and/or meat)
• Vegetarian (includes unpasteurised milk and/or cheese)
• Vegan

nirvana2013 11:16, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree that raw food diet could have a better name. I added a section to it listing some diets and people will probably add to it. In a Venn diagram of raw foodism and veganism, raw veganism is the overlap. There's not enough interesting information on raw veganism to warrant its own page, so now that veganism is mentioned on raw food diet, raw veganism is no longer necessary. Keithkml 03:57, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Raw Vegetarianism in Chinese Eyes of 1970s

I remember reading the now deceased Chinese foodie Kan Yi-ching writing about "Western vegetarianism" in a book collated in Hong Kong in 1984. The article sounded quite 1970s-ish in tone but I remember the remarks were quite crude and unflattering to say the least. "Those Chinese students who have studied in the West and who had witnessed Western strict vegetarianism [raw vegetarianism] came back and reported that they 'felt like being a goat eating grass as everything was so flavourless and eaten raw.". I haven't got the book handy here, but maybe I will provide a quote aftering gaining access to the quote. --JNZ 02:36, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Good on you! Go ahead, it's a good idea. --122.107.170.190 (talk) 06:11, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Degenerative Diseases

There is an unsourced claim that humans have the most degenerative diseases. I think it would be more accurate to say that humans have the most known degenerative diseases, which makes sense because human diseases are the most studied and treated. I believe this statement should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.89.240.23 (talk) 07:42, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

controversies

Is it okay to say that claims in the controversies are simply ridiculous?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Artturi Laitakari (talk • contribs) 10:19, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

As long as you do it in an encyclopedic way and preferably back it up with references (btw I personally agree with you). --58.175.81.103 (talk) 10:30, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

The associated picture.

Would just like to point out that the associate picture doesn't depict a meal suitable for vegans, as it contains noodles - and noodles/pasta are made using eggs. I'd change the picture my self, but I don't have any pictures of Raw Vegan foods. Hanii (talk) 22:00, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

It isn't real pasta - it's zucchini (courgette) "spiralised" to imitate the texture of pasta. --58.175.83.103 (talk) 04:02, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Also, even if it were real pasta, only some types of pasta contain eggs. Many types of pasta are made just from flour and water. They are generally cooked though, which would make them unsuitable for this article. sorsoup (talk) 13:22, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

The pictures doesn't look raw, and as is noted above the zucchini noodles are easily mistaken for regular cooked noodles. The article/picture should make the cuisine easily recognizably different than it's cooked counterpart and it doesn't seem to be doing that. I believe a new picture is in order. There are much better pictures already in Wikimedia commons depicting the same dish, Raw Zucchini Spaghetti, but obviously raw and in higher definition. chofer9 talk —Preceding undated comment added 19:19, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

B12

All vegans know about B12 - this is not controversial and should not be under this heading - it is misleading. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.66.127.81 (talk) 21:58, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

There is B12 in cacao butter

People who eat meat and cooked food have in 50& case B12 lack too ! People who eat cacao butter can not suffer from Vit. B12 lack ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.227.244.217 (talk) 09:44, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

vitamin b12

i read on the internet somewhere a while ago that vitamin B12 can be found in food grown in humanure. now i can't find it. Username 1 (talk) 20:40, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

ok. the guy's name was james halsted and was working with Iranian vegans who did not get V. B12 Def. and discovered they were using humanure to grow there food. Username 1 (talk) 15:47, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

note that the b12 is not left over from the food remains of non-vegans, but from the bacteria in the large intestines in vegans before it is excreted. Also on the internet i found a study in which scientist cured vitamin b12 def. in vegans by giving them concentrated doses of their own fecal matter (gross), which proves there is enough b12 in the feces but that perhaps only barely enough b12 survives the second time through. Username 1 (talk) 20:57, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

There is Vitamin B12 in Chlorella. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.226.90.178 (talk) 15:04, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

References

No scientific evidence?

This site offers some citations, supposedly proving that a raw foods diet can be healthy. This article, however, says there is no evidence. There's a lot of interesting "evidence" in the above link. I think maybe this article needs some revision? Andral (talk) 05:21, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

heavily biased pro-cooking sentences needing to be removed

Here is the relevant sentence or two that needs to be deleted fast:-

"The evidence for health benefits of raw veganism is purely anecdotal. There is no body of scientific evidence to support the claims that raw food is healthier than cooked food. Cooking food makes digestion much easier on the digestive tract and there is evidence that the additional simple carbohydrates gained as a result are likely to have assisted in the advanced development of the human brain.[1]"

I previously deleted those 2 sentences as they violated wikipedia guidelines. For one thing, the above sentences are hopelessly false. There are actually some studies of raw vegan diets which show some improvements in health(eg:-(from raw foodism wikipedia page) "Other medical studies on raw food diets have shown some positive and negative health outcomes. According to one medical trial, "long-term consumption of a 70% raw-plant-food diet is associated with favorable serum LDL cholesterol and triglycerides but also with elevated plasma homocysteine and low serum HDL cholesterol" as well as vitamin B₁₂ deficiency. Another study from Germany found that a "long-term strict raw food diet is associated with favourable plasma beta-carotene and low plasma lycopene concentrations". A study mentioned benefits of a raw vegan diet for lowering obesity and hypertension A study has also shown reduced fibromyalgia symptoms for those on a raw vegan diet as well as reduced symptoms of rheumatoid arthritis, according to another study.

German research in 2003 showed significant benefits in reducing breast cancer risk when large amounts of raw vegetable matter are included in the diet. The authors attribute some of this effect to heat-labile phytonutrients.")

Then there is this sentence:-"Cooking food makes digestion much easier on the digestive tract and there is evidence that the additional simple carbohydrates gained as a result are likely to have assisted in the advanced development of the human brain.[1]"

The above sentence is also hopelessly false and misleading. For one thing, food-science is too new for people to make such idle blanket statements. Secondly, there are some studies showing how cooking in some cases actually makes digestion MORE difficult, not less(eg:-(from raw foodism wikipedia page)"Frying chickpeas, oven-heating winged beans, or roasting cereals at 200–280 °C (392–536 °F) reduces protein digestibility.

Another study has shown that meat heated for 10 minutes at 130 °C (266 °F), showed a 1.5% decrease in protein digestibility. Similar heating of hake meat in the presence of potato starch, soy oil, and salt caused a 6% decrease in amino acid content.")

Then there is the Wrangham reference. The use of the word "likely" is highly dishonest as any casual perusal of articles on Wrangham show that Wrangham's ideas about cooking supposedly leading to bigger brains are considered absolutely laughable by the rest of the anthropological community and even Wrangham has admitted that he has no real evidence to support his claims, as shown in the references in the following text(eg:-(from the richard wrangham wikipedia page) "Wrangham's latest work focuses on the role cooking has played in human evolution. He has argued that cooking food is obligatory for humans as a result of biological adaptations and that cooking, in particular the consumption of cooked tubers, explains the increase in hominid brain sizes, smaller teeth and jaws, and decrease in sexual dimorphism that occurred roughly 1.8 million years ago. Critics of Wrangham's cooking theory point to the fact that archaeological evidence suggests that cooking fires began in earnest only 250,000 years ago, when ancient hearths, earthen ovens, burnt animal bones, and flint appear across Europe and the Middle East. In contrast, 2 million years ago the only sign of fire is burnt earth with human remains, which most anthropologists consider mere coincidence rather than evidence of intentional fire. There is also evidence that human brain size has decreased by 8 percent in the last 10000 years, correlated with increased consumption of starchy grains following the invention of agriculture – this contradicts Wrangham's theory, that in an earlier period in human evolution an increased consumption of starchy foods (cooked tubers) led to an increase in brain size. The current mainstream view in anthropology is, instead, that the increase in human brain size was due to a shift away from the consumption of nuts and berries to the consumption of meat.")

I previously deleted those 2 sentences but they were reinstated without a very good reason being given. I have now provided plenty of valid reasons as to why those 2 sentences are unacceptable, not to mention highly biased and simply inaccurate.I will therefore wait a few days and delete those 2 sentences all over again.Loki0115 (no tilde signs on my keyboard).

Loki, if the statement about cooked food leading to brain development has been questioned in legitimate media, mention this and cite it and move on. Quit just deleting it because you don't like what it says.

Additionally, I notice that you keep claiming that there are so many sources to show that there is scientific evidence for raw veganism being beneficial healthwise, but you fail to provide them. The studies you've cited as supposed evidence fail to do this. They all either indicate more health problems than benefits, don't support your claim at all, or both. I don't think that anyone has disputed that there are health benefits to eating your vegetables. However, this is not the same as a raw vegan diet. Drinking water is beneficial to your health too, but wouldn't it sound ridiculous to say that we should consider a diet of nothing but water?

Please provide citations to sources that actually show a lower incidence of disease in people who engage in a raw vegan diet if you wish to remove the statement about the lack of scientific evidence. The studies you mentioned are potentially relevant, but they do not even indicate much less conclusively show that a raw vegan diet is beneficial to people's health.

In any case, none of this content violates Wikipedia guidelines as you claim, and if you challenge this I'd like to hear which guidelines you mean. Your opinion that information is false is not a valid reason to delete information cited from a reliable source or information that you can't provide a valid counterexample to.

--Robhd 06:04, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

With regards to this sentence - "and there is evidence that the additional simple carbohydrates gained as a result are likely to have assisted in the advanced development of the human brain.)"

This is not a health reason is it? It does not state a health implication, more an abstract piece of evolutionary biology. Muleattack (talk) 22:46, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

References

Infant dies via parents following diet

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/1542293.stm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.35.242.159 (talk) 11:46, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Good idea, but can be misleading, as improper nutrition will lead to this, not exclusive to raw veganism. Hawaiisunfun (talk) 18:22, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Style of "health reasons"

your statement in "health reasons" are about BELIEVING - health reasons should not be about believing but about science - this is very bad, bad style - I wanted to correct it but there is a wikipedia will to keep people in dark on RAW VEGAN HEALTH BENEFITS - SO SAD FOR WIKIPEDIA THAT satanists who love lies and manipulations took over all power by wikipedia - you should send those manipulators to hell - as soon as possible - they have already distroyed our planet... now they keep you in dark over THE RIGHT FOOD - BECAUSE RIGHT FOOD, VEGAN RAW, would restore not only your health but also your spiritual capacities - seeing, feeling, guessing... intuition wake up and you could eliminate these satanists through rightness of thinking , acting, feeling... THIS IS THE MOST IMPORTANT ISSUE - IT MUST BE CORRECTED - YOU MUST FIGHT FOR TRUTH - SEND A COLLABORATOR OF THIS PAGE TO HELL! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.217.24.230 (talk) 11:47, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

As one of the contributors insisting we keep the information about complete lack of vitamin b12 in vegetables and the resulting neurodegenerative diseases, I invite you to improve the content of the article with reliable sources. The sources we currently have say that raw vegans "believe" it is healthy for various reasons. We do not have reliable sources stating that what they believe is true. If you can provide reliable sources, please do. Failing that, I guess you could just ... um ... send me to hell. - SummerPhD (talk) 15:14, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Need better clarification of when statements are referring to 100% raw or otherwise.

Especially in the research section, it is unclear as to whether the statements made are referring to people who eat a 100% raw diet or those that eat a lower undefined percentage. Muleattack (talk) 23:19, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Removal of sourced text

I moving the discussion from my talk page to here since I think is an issue that will present itself over and over in this article.

I have an objection to your reinserting some dodgy claims made by someone else in the raw veganism section which I deleted. First of all, the fact that the original statements came from a Scientific American article does not validate the statement per se - after all, there are plenty of journals which make mistakes or even publish false data etc. In the case of the relevant statements, the claim that cooking makes (by implication ALL) foods more digestible is easily disproven when one actually reads the literature on heat-created toxins in cooked foods plus studies showing that many foods, such as raw meats etc., are made LESS digestible after being cooked:-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raw_foodism#Potential_harmful_effects_of_cooked_foods_and_cooking

The only thing that is likely correct is the claim that cooking makes vegetables more digestible, but then it is irresponsible, indeed fraudulent, for Scientific American to suggest that all foods are made more digestible. Then there is this claim:- "the evidence for health benefits of a raw vegan diet is purely anecdotal". I mean, the raw foodism page cites a few studies showing benefits for those on a raw vegan diet, so that claim is an outright falsehood, plus further studies further down the raw veganism page also show some health benefits for a raw vegan diet. Then the above link I gave with its multiple scientific data showing that cooked food is, usually,more harmful than raw food, also shows that the following claim("There is also no body of scientific evidence to support the claims that raw food is healthier than cooked food") is also dead wrong, to put it very mildly. I will add some more stuff re this, altering the statements to show the exact opposite, but will add numerous refs to counter the nonsense peddled by Scientific American. But the point is that no source is above reproach; just because it comes from Scientific American or the New York Times etc. does not make it valid. Loki0115 (talk) 08:44, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

I've actually asked to comment my edits on the talkpage of the article, so I'll copy this discussion there. I don't have an agenda and if you can bring reliable sources that support your POV, you are welcome to insert them alongside the results of the study/studies published on Scientific American. As I wrote in the edit summary, you can't remove sourced information just because in your opinion is not correct. I'd advise you to read here, WP:INDEPENDENT, and here.--Dia^ (talk) 10:25, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

I am, however, perfectly entitled to remove sourced information when other scientific sources, easily available online,directly contradict the claims. Otherwise, all someone would have to do is cite a source to back up a claim widely known to be incorrect, and insist on it not being removed simply because it comes from a prominent newspaper. In this case, the above claims are also conclusively debunked further down that same wikipedia page, which makes wikipedia into a laughing-stock, unless the sweeping(false) statements are removed(I mean, first one has a statement claiming that there are no known health benefits for raw vegan diets, then in another section of the very same page, one finds references to studies showing certain health benefits on a raw vegan diet etc.). I should add that I am not using my own opinions re this, so this is not original research, I am simply trying to improve the scientific rigor of the article as a whole. In order to do this, I will first have to remove those offending claims and reinsert something along the lines of :- "cooking causes the following possible health problems, plus concerns about food-poisoning,plus info on possible health benefits of cooking. This is going to take some time - a day or so. I trust you will bear with me.Loki0115 (talk) 16:50, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, you're not entitled to do any such thing. If there is other reliable but contradictory scientific information, you may report both sets of findings but you are not entitled to make deletions. You can provide evidence of a consensus amongst experts in that field that the original findings were incorrect. For instance, if the New York Times reports that eating glass is good for you, the appropriate way to write the entry would be to say that the New York times once said this, but that Dr. X and Dr. Y have written articles in the Journal of the American Medical Association saying that the New York Times didn't know what they were talking about. The New York Times may have been wrong, but that's for the experts to say. Not you. Besides, incorrect information that has come from sources that are usually deemed reliable is important to mention. Myths don't get debunked by people removing all references to them. Please, Loki, quit deleting material just because you don't agree with it. You're entitled to an opinion, but you're not entitled to erasing everything else. It's really taxing on the rest of us to fix things after you mess them up.

Robhd (talk) 09:25, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I removed a claim that raw food creates methane which rots causing environmental damage, as cooked foods also rot and create methane, and are left in landfill sites in far greater amounts than raw foods:-

http://www.hungersolutions.org/newsroom/tons-food-waste-crams-landfills-adds-methane-gas

Loki0115 (talk) 17:44, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Loki, I was the author of the material regarding spoilage and methane production. You can expect your deletion to be undone in due time. Unfortunately, there have been intermediate edits and I can't use the undo button to fix your indiscriminate deletion of material that you obviously don't comprehend. Both raw and cooked food can rot, but raw food rots more easily because cooking kills bacteria that cause spoilage. When your raw food spoils and my cooked food doesn't, your raw food produces greenhouse gases and mine doesn't because mine doesn't rot--I eat it. Is that really so difficult to comprehend? The entry didn't say that cooked food doesn't rot. It said that raw food rots more easily. This is yet another example of you deleting content simply because it doesn't support your point of view. Thanks for the citation, though. It doesn't mention the words "raw" or "cooked" anywhere, but it does say that spoiled food produces methane, which supports MY point--not yours. Maybe I'll use it when I restore the content. Robhd (talk) 00:16, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I am afraid that you have clearly been making some wrong conclusions. Firstly, yes, it's true that cooking kills bacteria, but this is only temporary - as soon as some cooked food is left in the rubbish, it will start collecting bacteria and eventually rot, just like with raw food.Plus, a LOT more cooked food is left to rot in rubbish-sites than raw foods, since most humans are on largely-cooked diets, so any impact of methane caused by rotting food is much worse as regards rotting cooked foods. Then there's the absurd statement that "your" cooked food doesn't rot, you "eat it". Most raw foodists either eat their raw foods as fresh as possible or, in the case of raw meats, put them in the freezer and then thaw them and eat them straightaway, at a later stage, with no rotting involved. Come to think of it, since rawists generally eat unprocessed foods, they usually end up eating the whole, raw food, whereas cooked-food-eaters usually leave all sorts of things uneaten in wrappers such as sauces etc. which they then put in the rubbish.

The clincher, though, is this article:-

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=10455948

which points out that "Dirty brown clouds created by millions of cooking fires in Asia contribute as much to global warming as greenhouse gas emissions and are a major factor in the melting of the Himalayan glaciers, say scientists. " taken from:-

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=10455948

So the above article completely debunks your notion that methane from raw foods is "worse" than the impact caused by cooking. Ergo, the environmental impact of cooking is indeed harmful. I also note that no ref was used to back up your prior claims.Loki0115 (talk) 08:58, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

The Scientific American article, as a source, is laughably weak:- In its claim that cooking always improves raw foods, it cites just one lousy study which claims that lycopene is increased by cooking, yet reluctantly admits to one other study showing high levels of beta-carotene in raw vegans. Then there is the claim that cooking increases the number of antioxidants, but reluctantly admits that this only applies to boiling or steaming - so frying and other forms of cooking would not have this effect, indeed the exact opposite. It then admits that deep frying causes creation of multiple free-radicals and that vitamin C, a key nutrient, is loweredered through cooking. Hardly a blanket support for cooking's benefits. The article then goes into some further detail of some other benefits and disadvantages of cooking, and concludes with a statement that the science behind cooked foods is too complicated so as to draw a firm conclusion. So, the very ref cited by the pro-cooked statements does not even endorse those 2 statements at all re raw foods providing no health benefits except anecdotal evidence, or the absurd claim that cooking always improves raw foods. So those statements directly violate wikipedia policy.http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=raw-veggies-are-healthier

Loki0115 (talk) 18:03, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't mind, per se, in a few statements from the article being made( such as the claim that lycopene is increased by cooking, so long as it's not also mentioned elsewhere in the article already), along with the studies showing negative effects of cooking.Loki0115 (talk) 18:03, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Now I've read the article. I don't find it "laughably weak", actually I find it very balanced and giving pros and cons for both way to eat food that has been discovered so far. That's is what science is about. You get 100% certainty only in religion and in pseudo-science and than that only from their adepts. But I agree with you that the sentence that linked to the ref didn't reflect the balanced view offered in the article from Scientific American. So the information included in the SA article needs to be incorporated in this article.

Than, to your affirmation: "I am, however, perfectly entitled to remove sourced information when other scientific sources, easily available online,directly contradict the claims." The thing is, you didn't bring even one single new source to the article. You've been just deleting all what you don't like. Nor did you bring any source stating that the removed sentences were false. That is NOT the right way to contribute to Wikipedia. --Dia^ (talk) 19:21, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Your above claims are, of course, completely incorrect. I already showed evidence that showed that the pro-cooking claims made were dead wrong. Clearly, you hadn't got around to reading the link I provided re this, which was studded with numerous scientific references about the loss of nutrients caused by cooking etc.(not forgetting the fact that other scientific references further down the raw veganism page already debunked those very claims as well!):-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raw_foodism#Potential_harmful_effects_of_cooked_foods_and_cooking

As for the SA article, you do, at least, agree with me that the overly dogmatic statements made in favour of cooking were not really supported by the article, which means I was dead right in removing them after all. I agree that the ending of the SA article wasn't dogmatic at all, but the beginning was a little misleading. Some of the minor statements in the SA article (re lycopene?) I think have already been made further down the page. Well, I will spend today and possibly tomorrow in a bit by bit incorporation of tidbits re pros and cons of cooking re specific substances etc.Loki0115 (talk) 09:44, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Refrigeration

This sentence let me wonder, don't raw foodists use refrigerators? "Some scientists have suggested that solar refrigeration may some day provide the negligible environmental impact that raw vegans so desire, but point out that chlorofluorocarbon compounds necessary at present for effective refrigeration are damaging to the earth's ozone layer." If it is so, I feel that that it should be mentioned in the lead.--Dia^ (talk) 11:11, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Some rawists use refrigerators, some don't, in the latter case either for financial reasons or out of a desire to go "back to the land", so to speak.Loki0115 (talk) 07:24, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Have you got any references? And at the moment the section is under "Environmental reasons". From what you write it seems that either is a money issue or a "spiritual" one. --Dia^ (talk) 08:01, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

No wikipedia-appropriate stuff re freezing, I'm afraid, afaik. It is, after all, a matter of personal taste among rawists. But, afaik, the environmental impact of refrigerators, per se, is nowhere near as big as the impact of cooking with wood, as the latter effect of wood/cooking has been described by scientists in an article/ref I provided as being as harmful as the impact of all greenhouse gases in total.Loki0115 (talk) 14:00, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

As far as I understood the majority of raw vegetarian are in the industrialized West and the study cited in the article is about the smoke provoked by cooking with wood in "India and other developing nations". I'd say not very pertinent. And much of the same goes for refrigeration: the majority of fresh food need to be kept refrigerated. With cooked food you can just heat it up again to kill the bacteria. As it is at the moment imo, the section needs to go. Provide some rationale and sources and it can be reinstated. --Dia^ (talk) 14:54, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

First of all, it is highly disputable that the majority of raw vegetarians are in the industrialised West, since India, in particular, and many other developing nations, have a millenia-strong tradition of veganism, with more vegans living in India than anywhere else in the world. Given that raw foodist forums now have people from all over the world participating, not just in the West, it would be more reasonable to assume that there are plenty of raw vegans in India etc., therefore, albeit only a tiny minority of the cooked-vegan populations there.

Then there's the comment about cooked food. Not so. Indeed, it is routinely recommended by the FDA etc. not to re-heat cooked foods as it seems to encourage food-poisoning. Even eating cooked foods after they have been stored with raw foods is often not recommended by the government authorities for similiar reasons. As for the issue of refrigeration, most people leave most cooked foods in the fridge or freezer. It's mainly totally insulated things like cans which are not.

The main point, anyway, by the raw vegans is that if people using wood-fires in the developing world were all to turn to raw vegan diets and stop cooking, that the environment would benefit, which is a perfectly valid point. Crucially, it is also a standard raw foodist belief, and must therefore be included. Indeed, I think, eventually, I will have to include a raw vegan beliefs section, just like other movements have.Loki0115 (talk) 17:00, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, I can assure you than mankind has been on this planet just a bit longer than refrigerators and reheating was the only solution available to avoid waste leftovers. There are no harmful bacteria in food that can remain active at 100°C. The problem can present itself if the food is just warmed up instead to be brought to the boil. Back to the subject, raw veganism is a personal choice, the section is about the motivations for this personal choice, so your explanation is not pertinent.--Dia^ (talk) 17:28, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Again, not true - in the days before refrigeration, they had an endless number of alternatives to preserve food other than recooking their foods. They were able to dehydrate their raw meats to make dried beef jerky, or simply rot their meats like the Inuit did with their muktuk/aka rotting whalemeat which they might or might not store in the ice, then pemmican, which is partially-raw-meat, partially-cooked meat, could be stored forever, and so on and so forth...

As for the issue of motivations, these are obviously a major reason for joining such diets, so need to be included. In the case of raw veganism, the issue of environmental purity/non-pollution of raw foods is both a major motivation to become a raw vegan as well as a belief. It also ties in, to some extent, with the notion of not harming animals, as they are part of the environment as well.Loki0115 (talk) 21:02, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Today freezing --> yesterday dried food

today refrigerating --> yesterday reheating

For the rest, as I've already said, I don't have an agenda. Bring some reliable sources and it's fine. --Dia^ (talk) 17:16, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I undid your previous attempt to delete the environmental reasons section. This was because you said that it was unreferences when giving your reasons. But the fact is that the first half of that section was indeed referenced(line 2- see below). It was only the 2nd half(starting from "Some scientists") , concerning refrigeration claims, that was not referenced, so you should delete that, but not the first referenced half, especially since that very reference on line 2 debunks the claim in the 2nd half.

"Some are raw vegans because they are concerned about the detrimental effect that the burning of wood or fossil fuels for cooking causes to the environment[1] although alternative solutions like solar cooking are available. Some scientists have suggested that solar refrigeration may some day provide the negligible environmental impact that raw vegans so desire, but point out that chlorofluorocarbon compounds necessary at present for effective refrigeration are damaging to the earth's ozone layer.Loki0115 (talk) 08:35, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

You need to bring a reference from a reliable source that states that raw foodist chooses to eat row food because that causes damage to the environment. The reference given says that cooking fires in Asia cause damage to the environment. And please, do not do another revert having discussed the matter here. Have a look to WP:BURDEN.--Dia^ (talk) 11:32, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

That is not logical and somewhat pedantic. The point is that raw foodists believe that cooking encourages global warming and destroys the environment through wiping out forests. Plus, the link given is way more scientific and high-grade than any article in which raw foodists specifically state a belief that raw food diets avoid global warming. However, here is one such:-

http://www.mcl.unisonplus.net/rawfooddiets.htm Loki0115 (talk) 16:51, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

I've added a section trying to be as fair as possible. Have a look. --Dia^ (talk) 20:52, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

General Discussion.

As a wiki contributing editor, I just wanted to tell everyone who has helped on this page that the end result is shaping up to be very objective and helpful. Thank you all! I know to some of you, who feel very passionately about helping others with their diets, that it can be frustrating when others are deleting things, conforming to wikipedia standards, but please remember that following these standards helps to make your points more powerful. Documentation and research are good. Rawk on. --Insightfullysaid (talk) 13:39, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Discussion about motivation to be vegan

On wikipedia there is excellent page about raw foodism , what is purpose of Raw veganism page? also whole part of Motivation content is written very subjectively without any references or encyclopedic value. Motivation for eating raw food are many, some of article outside wikipedia discuss potential raw foodist habit as possible psychological disorder, it may not be but anyway this kind of content shouldn't be on Wikipedia if its not verify and if does not reflect objectively reasons for raw veganism or foodism ( I still dont understand difference between those two terms ).

StefanRu (talk) 06:12, 11 August 2014 (UTC) StefanRu

References

48 degrees Celsius

It would be useful to have an explanation of this number. 48° C = 118° F seems to have some sort of iconic status -- where does it come from? Interestingly, the raw foodism article uses different temperatures -- 40 °C (104 °F) to 46 °C (115 °F). --Macrakis (talk) 21:44, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

History of Raw Veganism

I would like to see a section on the history of the movement its early proponents and the context that it came up in. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:A601:566:9C00:B17F:32F7:FC6B:E723 (talk) 20:05, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Major genre changes without valid sources

This edit is based on weak sources and original research, WP:OR. Planveg appears to have a conflict of interest, WP:COI (interpreted by choice of username) and is POV-pushing (WP:NPOV), having reached WP:3RR. Please discuss on the Talk page first as requested, or you will be reported to admin. --Zefr (talk) 15:46, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

What, are you hi? There was no change of genre and the sources are valid. Those are all peer reviewed articles. How specifically do you think you know what you're talking about here? I cited what I was talking about. You didn't. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Planveg (talk • contribs) 15:58, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

First, Planveg, be careful about disrespecting other editors with claims of being "hi" (sic), as this violates WP:CIVIL. Second, remember to sign and timestamp your talk page comments. Concerning the Research section that you edited:

1. This edit removes outdated primary research that has not been confirmed by WP:MEDRS reviews.
2. This edit removes your opinion apparently that cooking is necessary for human evolution, digestion, or cognition. There is no review literature or meta-analysis of completed clinical trials that comes to these conclusions, indicating failure of WP:V. Also note that your references are incorrectly formatted. PubMed Central is not a source, but rather a listing service. When citing journals, the "cite journal" template is needed, WP:CIT. Here is a citation tool that may help you format sources correctly for the encyclopedia. Also note that Wikipedia does not cite itself (your use of the Toxoplasmosis article).
3. This edit retained most of your additions and reorganized the content with subsections, reformatted the references with the correct template, and focused the content to its sources.

Please work constructively without engaging in edit warring. You had 3 reverts yesterday within 13 minutes that put you (and me) in WP:3RR territory where getting blocked is the next step. --Zefr (talk) 17:35, 16 December 2018 (UTC)