What is raw food? In English, because it sounds better, raw food is a dangerous dietary fad disguised as a healthy eating pattern. Its claims are false and the risks to food hygiene are high.
There is an old Latin aphorism that literally says, Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur. It means, more or less, that it doesn’t matter what you say, but if you express it in Latin it will have much more depth or sound more important. Today it is no longer the case – Latin is currently a dead language – but we do have several examples of this reflection in English. It seems that the fact of speaking using anglicisms makes our message more powerful, especially if we move in the field of health. And as an example, the case of raw-foodism, which said like this is sure to be able to dazzle many more people in our environment than if instead of using this expression, its literal (unofficial) translation were used: crudivorismo.
Under either name lies a proposal that, far from being modern and having some kind of health utility, turns out to be anachronistic, retrograde, and even dangerous.
What is the raw-food diet, raw foodism or raw foodism?
The so-called raw-food diet, raw-foodism, crudivorism or raw food diet is exactly what it suggests at first glance: a dietary pattern that only allows eating raw products. That is, its production or preparation has not involved any culinary technique that involves heating it above a certain temperature (always quite low): some sources place this limit at 40 ºC and others at 48 ºC.
In this context, you cannot choose foods that have been treated with pesticides (what can I say about genetically modified foods ) or, of course, those that have been subjected to pasteurization processes. More than anything because this technique involves reaching, at least, 65 ºC. In addition, and given the origin of ultra-processed products, these would also be prohibited, not by definition, but as an unavoidable consequence of their nature.
What foods does the raw food diet include?
While it is true that most followers of raw foodism are vegetarians or vegans, there are also omnivorous profiles. These would be the different types within the raw foodist movement and the foods that are characteristic of each option:
- Raw Vegan Diet: This is usually the most common option. It limits your food choices to foods that are both raw and vegan (not of animal origin).
- Raw vegetarian diet: Like other vegetarian diets, this type excludes meat, fish, and poultry, but may allow —depending on each case— eggs, dairy products, or both.
- Omnivorous raw diet: In this less common option, you can eat all types of foods of plant and animal origin, including meat of any origin and fish, and is therefore the variant that poses the most risks in the area of food safety.
Supposed benefits of raw food or raw foodism
Honestly, at this point, my opinion is that it should be its proponents who should answer this question and, of course, defend it, something that, as we will see later, is complicated, if not impossible.
In any case, those sources of information that defend its use argue that cooking processes destroy the “natural” enzymes in foods; enzymes that in turn would be essential for the normal functioning of our body.
Along the same lines, they argue that heating food when cooking also implies the loss of nutrients. In short, it is argued that eating raw food leads to a greater and more sincere “connection” with nature. So much so that the limiting temperature, which food cannot exceed before eating it, is none other than that which cannot be reached by direct exposure to sunlight.
Dangers and criticisms of raw food in the light of science
There are several reasons to discourage following this dietary pattern:
Denaturation of enzymes: in the kitchen or in the stomach
First, but not most important, it is worth dismantling their most basic argument. Yes, it is true that cooking destroys any enzymes that may be present in the food we eat, but it ignores the fact that we do not need these enzymes at all, so it does not matter if they are denatured or not. What we do need are the amino acids that make up the proteins in the food we eat. And yes, it is true that these enzymes they refer to are always of a protein nature, but it is not necessary for us to ingest them “functional”, because what is used are their constituent amino acids, not the functionality that they may have had at a given time in the organism of origin before becoming food. In addition, the followers of raw foodism forget that however these enzymes are ingested – cooked or not – when they reach the stomach, they will be denatured no matter what, since, I insist, this process that we call digestion is necessary to be able to absorb the amino acids that make them up.
Loss of nutrients
The second, along the lines of the above, is that certain culinary processes imply a certain loss of some nutrients (it will depend on the food we consider and the culinary technology applied) but in the same way, these processes also facilitate the accessibility of other nutrients. So in this case and although it could be concluded that in relation to the balance of nutrients, it would be worth “what is eaten is what is served”, it is more than proven that cooking food opens the door to more nutrients than it closes. So much so that there are numerous publications that point out that the fact of cooking food may be one of the causes that has most facilitated the evolutionary growth of the human being in relation to other primates. In short: cooking food objectively increases the digestibility of food, hence its use, and therefore and without a doubt, it has been revealed as a key process in the evolution of Homo sapiens.
Calorie and nutrient deficit
The third reason is that most raw food diets are deficient in both calories and nutrients. Remember that the fact that we cannot cook food means that grain and legume seeds would have to be consumed as such, raw (at most, in the form of flour). In these circumstances, seeds (or their flours) contain a significant amount of antinutrients. Antinutrients are a series of compounds that, when present, limit or prevent the absorption of essential nutrients (typically some vitamins and minerals). The good thing about cooking with heat is that it makes it possible for these antinutrients to disappear when making bread or lentil stew.
Hygienic risks
Finally, and now the most important thing – at least in the short term – is to know that eating raw foods involves assuming some of the most serious hygienic risks. So, beyond promoting health, raw foodism involves the virtual purchase of an infinite number of tickets for that ungrateful lottery of food poisoning. To the point of putting one’s own life at stake. Take note: cooking is one of the best ways to sanitize certain foods, that is, to eliminate those parasites and bacteria that, present in raw foods, could cause a mild, serious, or even transcendental illness. Both pasteurization and sterilization are industrial processes that serve to guarantee food safety. Techniques that are incompatible with raw foodism.
Thus, the supposed advantages of this trend are not such, they do not exist, and at the same time, it means taking a step backward in the scientific advances that have been made since the 19th century in the field of food hygiene and safety.
Furthermore, it cannot be overlooked that, based on the more “authentic” current of raw foodism, the use of food supplements to alleviate possible deficiencies of vitamins and minerals is not permitted either. Something that in the case of vegetarian and vegan options is especially dangerous, more specifically with regard to, at least, vitamin B12.
Why is the raw food diet popular?
If there is one thing that is clear, it is that any aspect of raw foodism is especially restrictive, even more so when we talk about vegan or vegetarian options. Thus, these types of diets have often been proposed within the framework of express weight loss, as a take-and-place strategy, that is, with the worst of the characteristics that usually coincide in weight loss diets. On the one hand, it is difficult to consume a high number of calories following this pattern, and on the other hand, it also dispenses with ultra-processed foods, so it is easy to achieve a negative calorie balance that promotes weight loss. Now, although the caloric premise is something like the philosopher’s stone of weight loss, the key to doing it healthily and in a lasting way is that the new dietary pattern is long-lasting and, of course, safe. Both characteristics are far from being associated with raw foodism.
At this point, and since we have already started by bringing up an aphorism, it would be nice to end with another one. In light of the characteristics of raw foodism, it seems that it is a question of making good on that other saying that when the devil has nothing to do, he kills flies with his tail. And you have to be really bored to propose such dietary stupidity.