Acne Q & A Archive: Cooked versus raw

Back to Main forum index
Back to Current forum index

Author	Topic: Cooked versus raw
Jean 10-30-2002 07:35 AM	This is not about acne, this is about diet in general. I thought that these information could add to our knowledge. Check: http://www.beyondveg.com/tu-j-l/raw-cooked/raw-cooked-1b.shtml
Wai 10-30-2002 02:26 PM	he, he: quote: The point of the above is that there is no reason to fear Maillard molecules excessively, since they are produced naturally inside our body Yes, our body also produces some beta-carbolines, but how can they reason that therefore all artificil beta-carbolines are therefore not harmful for us either? And because our body produces sterols, sterols from foods cannot be bad for us??? Yes, our body produces some sterols, but oxysterols can be VERY bad for us. Yes, our body can produce some fats, but how can they think that trans fatty acids therefore cannot be bad for us?
Jean 10-31-2002 10:04 AM	Wai, You should read the whole study. It's a 100 pages' one.
RRM 10-31-2002 10:32 AM	So, any news in it? what parts are most interesting to you?
benzapp 11-01-2002 11:41 PM	With a diet such as this, and the important medical questions it raises, one can definitely take the claim that no 100% conclusive evidence exists that these substances are dangerous. Coming from someone with far more training in statistics than biochemistry, I can tell you that epidemiology is a notoriously difficult study. While there is no conclusive evidence cooked food is dangerous, there is absolutely NO evidence that it is beneficial. Only custom lends itself as evidence. I think think that from a rational standpoint, the simple reality is we do not know. What we can say with absolutely certainty that it was human intelligence that predated the discovery of fire. It only makes sense, as it takes a high degree of intelligence to harnass fire for the purpose of cooking. Through some basic logic, one can easily come to the conclusion that eating a raw diet is the lesser of two evils. There is no proof cooked food is bad, but it is more likely to be bad simply because we have not evolved to consume that food. Also, as a side note. I don't know if you live in America, but your post would make me think not. The United States is so full of hideous persons, the very essence of humanity has started to crumble before my eyes. There are whole regions the size of whole european countries where masses of people are monsterous in their appearences, fat beyond belief, and slothful in the extreme. Diet does have an effect, of that there is no doubt. One thing is for sure, eating this diet will not turn you into a monster. We live in a sick world today, and there are many causes. Lets just try and eliminate one of them.
Scott 11-02-2002 08:37 AM	quote: Originally posted by Ben_Zapp: With a diet such as this, and the important medical questions it raises, one can definitely take the claim that no 100% conclusive evidence exists that these substances are dangerous... While there is no conclusive evidence cooked food is dangerous, there is absolutely NO evidence that it is beneficial... Hi Ben, I think one of the great things about this diet is that it has the potential to raise awareness about the dangers of cooked food. If science can follow Wai's lead and demonstrate a correlation between coooked food and acne, they will likely begin to ask the question: what are the other health problems that we can associate with a cooked-food diet? I am currently trying to persuade some dermatologic researchers to test Wai's hypotheses in a more controlled fashion. Once we get science's attention, I can't imagine it will be too difficult to prove/disprove one way or the other. I'm happy to say that I'm currently wearing the evidence of the diet's repeatability--clear skin.
Jean 11-02-2002 09:39 AM	The fact that wai's diet is very effective on acne doesn't prove it is beneficial in general. I think (it's a belief based on my own experience) that some predominantly raw diets can provide a better health condition in general at a lower cost, in term of eforts. I've personaly tried to integrate some recent scientific consensus to my diet. For instance, I prefer to eat reasonable amouint of steam cooked food rather that tiny portion of junk food (munch-food as wai says). I believe that fruits, some vegetables, some nuts and diverse concentrated food are very beneficial. Avoiding food intolerance is also something crucial. Eating large amount of a fruit your body doesn't tolerate will counterbalance the effect of a fruit-based diet. I'm quite certain for example that supplementing my diet with omega-3 has brought me a lot. I've noticed that I can't stay in shape without cheese. Don't ask me why is that, I simply methodically noticed it. The elimination diet is precious if one wants to chose foods that are beneficial. Human biochemistry is extremely complex and variable. Therefore, I think that very restricive diet aproach can be detrimental in the long run. I think that Wai's diet is basicaly a miracle acne cure diet and only that. Nobody knows why it works. It simply works. The scientific arguments are not very convincing. The study which a gave you the link earlier brings solid evidence that what I say is true. I don't want to adapt to a diet, I prefer to adapt a diet to myself.
Scott 11-03-2002 09:34 AM	quote: Originally posted by Jean: The fact that wai's diet is very effective on acne doesn't prove it is beneficial in general. Very true. I'm simply saying that eventually, if it is proven in a controlled, scientific setting that cooked food causes acne, the next natural question for researchers to ask will be: for what other conditions is cooked food a culprit? quote: Avoiding food intolerance is also something crucial. Eating large amount of a fruit your body doesn't tolerate will counterbalance the effect of a fruit-based diet. Yes, that certainly makes sense to me. quote: I think that very restricive diet aproach can be detrimental in the long run. Possibly, but there hasn't been enough research (if any) to make this claim one way or the other. quote: The scientific arguments are not very convincing. How so? What specifically fails to convince you? quote: I think that Wai's diet is basicaly a miracle acne cure diet and only that. Nobody knows why it works. It simply works. I couldn't disagree more. If it works, which you agree it does, then it works for a reason. Science simply has yet to pinpoint the exact mechanism. I believe that Wai may have found this mechanism: Heating/freezing food alters the molecular structure of amino acids. (Science has verified this.) Our digestive system is incapable of fully digesting these mutated proteins. (Science has noted that most of our food seems to go undigested. Why?) Protein in the skin creates water retention. (Sure, this correlation is not inconsistent with science.) Water retention pinches follicles, causing acne. (Sure, why not? Science hasn't been able to locate the culprit for blocked 'sebum canals.' It needs to examine this possibility.) Michaelsson wrote an article entitled 'Diet and Acne' (1981). This paper is generally used by pharmaceuticals to claim that there is no correlation between acne and diet. But if they read the article closely, they would see that Michaelsson actually claims that fasting or strict vegan/vegetarian diets do have some effect on acne. This does not conflict with Wai's findings. Those who are fasting or eating vegan/vegetarian diets are unlikely (or less likely) to consume large quantities of prepared foods. Other articles, like Rosenberg's "Acne Diet Reconsidered" (1981), have noted that acne only seems to exist among "civilized" peoples. Once hunters-gatherers begin to "civilize," they suddenly develop cases of acne. Wai's hypothesis fits with these observations, too. Again, "civilized" people consume much greater portions of prepared food. I could go on and on, but the bottom line is this: the pharmaceuticals want to bewilder us about the causes of acne--it is in their financial interests to muddy the picture--but acne is not just some random, incomprehensible curse upon humanity. I have personally reviewed a lot of the key dermatologic literature, and I can assure you that a pattern emerges. There is rhyme and reason to acne. If Wai's diet works, which it does, then it is because it rationally acknowledges this pattern, not because it is magical or miraculous. References: Michaelsson, Gerd. Diet and Acne. Nutrition Reviews, 1981. Rosenberg, EW. Acne Diet Reconsidered. Archives of Dermatology, 1981.
Scott 11-03-2002 09:36 AM	oops, maybe RRM can reform my abuse of quotation code?
RRM 11-03-2002 02:27 PM	done!
RRM 11-03-2002 02:43 PM	quote: Jean wrote: I think that very restricive diet aproach can be detrimental in the long run. Not if you take up all required nutrients, right?
Scott 11-03-2002 03:01 PM	Thanks for the fix, RRM!
Jean 11-03-2002 04:31 PM	Who knows how will the body react in 50 years to a very rich fructose, rich fat, very rich (even raw) cholesterol, low protein and calcium diet? The fact that some food are altered by heating or frozing doesn't mean they are no digested. Who knows if these "altered" foods don't trigger hormonal responses causing acne rather than the altered proteins themselves? And if it were some new compounds due to cooking that were triggering acne but weren't that harmfull in general?
RRM 11-06-2002 01:48 PM	quote: And if it were some new compounds due to cooking that were triggering acne but weren't that harmfull in general? It is a FACT that cooking creates substances with mutagenic properties. It is also a FACT that substances with mutagenic properties destroy cells. (just as they destroy enzymes and bacteria) Whether this actually leads to specific diseases such as cancer, or dementia, depends on what cells are destroyed (specific brain cells), and on whether specific cell DNA is affected, specifically affecting the production of growth inhibitors (cancer). So, indeed, not all cooked food eaters will get cancer or dementia, but the more cooked foods you eat, the higher the risks are. quote: Who knows how will the body react in 50 years to a very... low... calcium diet? Already 1.6 million years ago, humans were over 6 feet tall. Originally, during our evolution into tall animals that stand up straight, and long after, the human diet WAS a low-calcium diet. Why? Because we naturally did not consume any dairy products (cattle was kept since maximally ten thousand years) or beans. (cooking is used since maximally a few hundred thousand years)