- Joined
- May 29, 2013
- Messages
- 21,005
- Reaction score
- 2
Lololol, the butt hurt in Joesph is strong.
It's true, my butt is hurt. And I think Juno is an idiot. I hope I can still have some quality of life.
Lololol, the butt hurt in Joesph is strong.
How do you get to that?
What is the bioavailability of the raw form of the major sources of calories on the planet, those being rice, potato and wheat? How about beans such as kidney beans which are actually toxic without cooking?
Although i don't eat meat, there have been studies showing that cooking your food actually kills important nutrition and actually make it more harmful. It's actually a lot healthier to eat your meat and vegetables raw. Just to let you know, as the original humans didn't cook there food.
This is true, which I already stated. But, compare your total choices of food. Starches and lentils do not make up much of the total selection of food sources on earth. I would venture to bet there are more different choices of fruits alone than all choices of lentils and starches combined. Would you argue that cooking fruits does not infact have any degredation of nutrient content and quality?
Can I honestly say I believe this? Yes; although I rarely eat raw foods. Am I 100% certain this is right? Absolutely not. But there is science there, and the raw diet has PhD supporters who are much smarter than myself (Masters in Human Science) and anyone else on this board. For everyone to straight up tell this Juno character that he is 100% wrong and science proves him wrong is a one sided, flawed point of view.
Straight up telling people to accept a point of view because of the letters after a persons name isn't acceptable, especially when you suggest that a "raw diet" may be acceptable. I'm not quite sure how best to refute a statement like that, all I know is that it's dangerous, and ineffective, on many different levels.
Juno has presented a flawed argument from the beginning, which is beyond that of a simplistic examination of vitamin content in cooked v raw foods.
Now i can understand if you don't agree with me, but how is raw food dangerous? Not only did we start out eating raw food, but i know plenty of 100% raw foodist that are perfectly healthy and fine. Hell, the guy on the front page said he's been living off raw meat for 5 years now.
This is true, which I already stated. But, compare your total choices of food. Starches and lentils do not make up much of the total selection of food sources on earth. I would venture to bet there are more different choices of fruits alone than all choices of lentils and starches combined. Would you argue that cooking fruits does not infact have any degredation of nutrient content and quality?
How I get to the assumption that vitamin and nutrient content is degraded? The link that I posted showed a 10%-25% loss in vitamins and nutrients in raw vs cooked food using a sample size of hundreds of different sources of food from different food types.
Although it might not be much, a 10%-25% loss of nutrients and vitamins to me is enough to at least consider the thought that when looking at all sources of food on earth, cooked foods might not be as nutrient and vitamin dense as raw ones.
Can I honestly say I believe this? Yes; although I rarely eat raw foods. Am I 100% certain this is right? Absolutely not. But there is science there, and the raw diet has PhD supporters who are much smarter than myself (Masters in Human Science) and anyone else on this board. For everyone to straight up tell this Juno character that he is 100% wrong and science proves him wrong is a one sided, flawed point of view.
Now i can understand if you don't agree with me, but how is raw food dangerous? Not only did we start out eating raw food, but i know plenty of 100% raw foodist that are perfectly healthy and fine. Hell, the guy on the front page said he's been living off raw meat for 5 years now.