A review of the scientific literature for raw food risk and benefits. 1. Dental erosions in subjects living on a raw food diet. www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov 2. Consequences of a long-term raw food diet on body weight and menstruation: results of a questionnaire survey. www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov 3. Low bone mass in subjects on a long-term raw vegetarian diet. www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov 4. Thermal stability of organophosphorus pesticide triazophos and its relevance in the assessment of risk to the consumer of triazophos residues in food. www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov 5. By how much does fruit and vegetable consumption reduce the risk of ischaemic heart disease? www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov 6. Long-term consumption of a raw food diet is associated with favorable serum LDL cholesterol and triglycerides but also with elevated plasma homocysteine and low serum HDL cholesterol in humans. www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov 7. Mortality in vegetarians and nonvegetarians: detailed findings from a collaborative analysis of 5 prospective studies. www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov 8. Detection of IgE, IgG, IgA and IgM antibodies against raw and processed food antigens. www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov 9. Effects of a raw food diet on hypertension and obesity. www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov 10. Antioxidant status in long-term adherents to a strict uncooked vegan diet. www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov 11. Effects of eating an uncooked vegetable diet for 1 week. www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov 12. Uncooked, lactobacilli-rich, vegan food and rheumatoid arthritis. www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
Raw Food Pt 2
Posted on 22 November 2010
27 Responses to “Raw Food Pt 2”
Leave a Reply
Top Products
| Waterpik Ultra Water Flosser |
 |
Overall Rating: |
| List Price: $59.99 |
| Amazon Price: $44.99 |
| C.E.T. Enzymatic Oral Hygiene Chews for Petite Dogs, 30 Chews |
 |
Overall Rating: |
| List Price: $12.99 |
| Amazon Price: $6.96 |
| SE 5 Pc Probe Set, Size 5 1/2"-6" |
 |
Overall Rating: |
| List Price: $3.00 |
| Amazon Price: $4.41 |
| Petrodex Dog Dental Care Kit, Beef Toothpaste with 2 Toothbrushes |
 |
Overall Rating: |
| List Price: $9.99 |
| Amazon Price: $4.38 |
| Everything is Marketing: The Ultimate Strategy for Dental Practice Growth |
 |
Overall Rating: |
| List Price: $9.95 |
| Amazon Price: View Sale Price |
in short, raw food sucks
wtf? they don’t cook their legumes?
Excellent videos. very excellent advice and debunking.
jeez this is like creaitonism almost, only even DUMBER.
You’re talking about the people that fuck up.
lol long term problems. As if things don’t degrade over time.
greetings from denmark great vid! =)
Ani Phyo has been on so many talk show about raw food recipe and lets every one know that they are super aproved by the FDA. Know i really feel that raw food are the best for you as in fruit and veg, I love all the great point you have list. I do like raw food diet maybe 50 or 75 percent and add the others food a couple time a week.
@tubeexcellence
When choosing a control population, it’s important to be aware of what comparison is to be made. Here, the comparison is to a general population. Larger populations will have less stochastic sampling effects, but we are not looking for rare events, or all outcomes, so a smaller population can still be quite effective.
You are welcome to discuss the design with the authors. It’s published in a reputable journal, and has been cited by at least 2 review papers on the topic.
@tubeexcellence
Yes. Larger populations have more statistical power. However, when the effect has a significance of p<0.001, there’s not much benefit to increased populations. They might have picked up more rare endpoints, but the main association would remain the same.
@tubeexcellence
I’m not sure you understand the statement. The correlation between raw food diet and dental erosion was clearly demonstrated (p<0.001). What they didn’t find was that dietary macro- and micronutrient intake were correlated. In other words, both groups got the same amount of calcium, for example.
It was the abrasive, acidic nature of the diet, not it’s absorbed nutrient content, that was causing the erosion.
@tubeexcellence
Again, the quality of the data here was pretty strong. There were non-overlapping error bars between the groups, and the populations were adequate to detect the single endpoint of the study. I would love to see more data.
All people have some impact wear on their teeth. “Extreme” describes conditions on the far end of a tailed distribution.
Since the vast majority of people are non-raw non-vegans, they cannot be an extreme in a dietary fiber distribution.
@tubeexcellence
Many organic acids (COOH) and esters are heat-labile, and undergo a loss of acidity at higher temps. This includes the active form of Vitamin C (ascorbic acid). That’s why cooked foods are depleted of Vitamin C relative to uncooked forms. You may observed that tart cherries are less tart after cooking.
I’d be interested to see a citation on the alkalinity of raw vegan foods.
@tubeexcellence
A. I really encourage you to follow the link and obtain the full text free article so you can answer your own questions.
B. Yes, they were comparing whether the teeth of raw vegans more closely matched acid-eroded or fiber-eroded teeth. The short conclusion was both, but primarily acid eroded. In the figure, they were grouping into acid and fiber eroded pictures, and the tooth you see shows characteristic acid erosion features.
@tubeexcellence
If you will look in the upper right of that image, you will see the citation that this picture is pulled from. As I noted before, the link was in the description. The article is available to the general public from the PubMed link.
This is the only study on raw vegan and tooth impact damage I could find, other than some brief mentions in other, similar papers and books on dentistry referencing quite old papers not indexed.
@tubeexcellence
There is not enough data to do more than propose a correlation. In the study, 37.2% had at least one eroded tooth. I’ve had the article linked for anyone interested in seeing the original paper. “Some” is as specific as I think you can be given the quality of the data. I would hate to generalize that “37% of raw foodists have dental impact damage” from this one study.
@tubeexcellence
Good point. I should have said dental erosion. I meant “decay” in the more general sense of teeth getting worse over time, not the specific action of bacteria on enamel.
Part 10 of 10
Let’s see if I get this right… the control group was almost half the size and already receiving dental care? Are we to believe that all “western diets” would provide the same results? Then why would we assume the same for a sampling of ONLY 130 people to represent all raw foodist and all raw food diets?
Part 9 of 10
E) From the studies abstract (ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9831783) “Nevertheless, the results showed that a raw food diet bears an increased risk of dental erosion compared to conventional nutrition.” “As a control 76 sex- and age-matched patients from our clinic were randomly selected.” So the control group was half as small and selected from a thier pre-existing dental patients.
Part 8 of 10
I find it odd (incomplete) that you make no mention of what the study actually said about “poor nutrition”. Let me quote the abstract of the study, “Within the raw food group no significant correlation was found between nutrition or oral health data and the prevalence of erosions.” Maybe you are confused as to what this means “no significant correlation was found between nutrition”?
Part 7 of 10
D) “This paper from Germany proposes that the extreme dental erosions are the result of acidity plus abrasiveness and poor nutrition.” 1 study that “proposes” qualifying as “solid evidence”? Does the study actually say “extreme”, or was that your unscientific overemphasis? “Extreme compared to what? What is the standard to which “extreme” is measured? Maybe the “average western diet” is extreme in soft processed foods that lack roughage and require far less mastication?
Part 6 of 10
C) “Raw foods contain a lot of acids and a lot of excess Vitamin C” True yet more true is that the majority of raw foods are alkaline. No correlation to Vitamin C is made yet it seem you want to make it implied.
Part 5 of 10
IV) “A German study of long term raw foodist showed significant increase in tooth erosion”
A) Where is this only one study? What were the parameters? How many subjects? How where the subjects chosen?
B) Did anyone read this at minute 1:30 “Acidic Diet (raw food group)” Interesting that the Acidic Diet is the emphasis and raw food in parenthesis. Does that mean the emphasis was on choosing only raw foodist that were on an acidic diet? Why did it not just say ‘Raw Food Group’?
Part 4 of 10
III) “Here’s a picture of impact damage to a molar” Hmmm a picture shown without noting if the picture was derived from the study. Since A) you do not say specifically it is an image from the study and B) it is only one image – singular proof (seems to be your theme throughout the video) Can you 1) provide proof this is an image from the study? 2) Provide verifiable multi-study proof that “tooth decay” is of a high percentage in the raw vegan diet?
Part 3 of 10
II) “some long term raw foodist apparently have very bad teeth” Some? You base your first arguments on “some” and “apparently”? These term seem more suited for your “junk science” category.
Localizing fruit, vegetable consumption doesn’t necessarily solve environmental, health issues, study suggests http://www.sciencedaily.com/release... rel=”nofollow”
These findings, combined with the lack of convincing evidence for histamine-releasing properties of IgG4 in humans, and lack of any controlled studies on the diagnostic value of IgG4 testing in food allergy, do not provide any basis for the hypothesis that food-specific IgG4 should be attributed with an effector role in food hypersensitivity.
We are still waiting for confirmation from the notes from Holford's recent talk at the Allergy and Gluten Free Show. However, it looks like Holford mentioned a well-known IgG testing service on several occasions as well as selling out the test-kits at the back of the room. tbc but, there are rumours that he claimed:
*he was working in allergy clinics back in 1980
*most food allergies can be reversed and can be unlearned
*he has treated “thousands and thousands of people with allergies” .
Most pertinently for the IgG test, Holford said:
*as a clinician he finds that IgG accounts for more food reactions
*IgG doesn't have IgE histamine reaction or Mast cell degranulation
*IgG is the “new kid on the block although there is 15 years of research now”
*”[S]ome critics have said that “Everyone has IgG reactions you just develop it to any food you eat”. That is nonsense. If your body's healthy you do not develop IgG reactions to foods.”
Now, he was using 'reactions' and 'antibodies' quite loosely but even so, that last one is remarkable. One of the significant issues with Holford's talks seems to be that he puts up slides of tremendously complex processes, with the technical vocabulary, and sometimes uses that vocabulary which rather loses his audience. And then he uses everyday terms so loosely that it is difficult to discern what he is trying to say. But I would hope that even he realises that the general population does produce IgG antibodies in response to eating foodstuffs.
We'll write more on this but suspect that Holford would argue that he is discussing a non-histamine mechanism so this is irrelevant. Plus, the authors seem to hedge their bets by referring to “(imminent) food allergy or intolerance” in their conclusion.
The position paper (pdf) says:
Positive IgG4 tests to foods therefore do not indicate the presence of food allergy, but are probably reflecting prolonged exposure to food components…
[T]he presence of IgG4 antibodies against food antigens should probably be interpreted as a result of antigen exposure, rather than of disease, and their presence will, if anything, presumably rather be beneficial than detrimental to the individual…
Food-specific IgG4 does not indicate (imminent) food allergy or intolerance, but rather a physiological response of the immune system after exposition to food components. Therefore, testing of IgG4 to foods is considered as irrelevant for the laboratory work-up of food allergy or intolerance and should not be performed in case of food-related complaints. [pp. 795-6]
Bearing in mind that the industry would try to confuse consumers by highlighting that this paper is about: IgG4, sometimes RAST rather than ELISA and refers to 'imminent' rather than the delayed reactions that nutritionistas etc. talk about, I would prefer it if the authors had issued a more unambiguous conclusion but that is neither here nor there. For those who are looking for wiggle room (or prefer to ignore such studies), the wiggle is there. And, let us recall, Holford is the man who prefers his anecdote of 2 people to a systematic review of 230,000+.
Edit to add in link to position paper.]]>