All of the food this week was organic and it was all consumed whole (no juicing, no blending, as usual):

4/29 – tomatoes, zucchini, dates.
4/30 – tomatoes, zucchini, dates.
5/1 – tomatoes, zucchini, dates.
5/2 – zucchini, dates.
5/3 – zucchini, dates.
5/4 – zucchini, dates.
5/5 – zucchini, dates.

This is my 4th consecutive and final week addressing the question of “why eat raw?” 

Because raw plant foods lack the harmful chemicals produced when heat is applied to food (summarized two weeks ago), and because raw plants are more likely to contain an optimal mixture of phytochemicals than cooked plants (summarized last week), one would expect that the ingestion of raw plants would be more strongly correlated with a decreased risk of cancer than the ingestion of cooked plants.  This is observed to be the case (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8841165, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15342442). 

But I’m aware of only one study which has directly compared the effectiveness of a raw vegan diet in comparison to a cooked vegan diet.  This study had one group of people eat a raw vegan diet for one week, and a second group of people which consumed the same items but which were cooked in a microwave for two minutes prior to consumption.  The finding was that the vitamin status improved more for the group eating the raw foods than for the group eating the cooked foods (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1482162).   Obviously, this was a very short study lasting only seven days.  Hopefully some longer term studies assessing the health of raw vegans will be performed in the future. 

Over the past three weeks, I’ve done my best to summarize the scientific evidence that a raw vegan diet is superior to a cooked vegan diet.  In short, I think there is solid, but not conclusive, evidence to indicate that a raw vegan diet is the optimal one for human beings.  I’m aware that there are a lot more studies out there pertaining to this topic, and I’ve run across many of them in my preparation for these posts.  What I’ve listed here are the most important studies, in my opinion. 

In case you’d like more information, the best book that I know of on the “science of raw foodism” is “Becoming Raw” by Brenda Davis and Vestanto Melina, two Registered Dietitians (RDs).  Also, I’m aware that Drs. Rick & Karin Dina (chiropractors) teach a series of courses on the “Science of Raw Food Nutrition” (info here http://rawfoodeducation.com/).  I haven’t taken any courses from them, but based on talks I’ve seen of theirs on the web, and also from what they had to say at last year’s Woodstock Fruit Festival, I suspect that their courses on this topic are excellent. 

--------------

My wife is meeting the midwife once every two weeks now.  They met yesterday for her 30-week checkup, and Rose & I came too, as always.  Every time we meet, we spend an hour with her (which is very different than brief time spent with an obstetrician).  Usually we talk about a variety of things (such as what my wife’s been eating, how much she’s been exercising, what’s the best brand of breast pump, etc.), but this time I spent the hour frightening my wife, because I decided to quiz Renee (the midwife) on "shoulder dystocia" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shoulder_dystocia) and "postpartum hemorrhage" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postpartum_hemorrhage).  Renee said she doesn't normally discuss these unlikely possibilities in detail with her patients (to avoid scaring them), and instead she reminds them in a vague way that an out-of-hospital birth has “risks”, without being too specific.  But I wanted to know what exactly she does when these rare things arise, and how that differs from hospital procedure.  I think it was a scary but important conversation.

Statistically, I think these two serious events may be less likely to occur with a midwife than in a typical hospital birth because midwives encourage women to move around during their labor, give birth in a vertical position, and don’t give epidurals.  But, if one of these two things should happen to occur, it would be better to be at the hospital than with a midwife at a birth center. 

-------------

“Ag-gag” legislation is evil: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JFE1ysadH-0. 

-------------

Here’s a nice article summing up many of the dangerous chemicals present in modern society: http://www.alternet.org/you-are-guinea-pig-what-happens-your-body-its-bombarded-toxic-chemicals-your-home?paging=off.  I learned about some of this while I was an undergraduate chemistry student in the late 90s, and have been wary of chemicals ever since (not all chemicals, of course…just those which aren’t normally found in the natural world).  Between the ages of 18 and 22, I spent I lot of time working in chemistry labs (not only was I doing experiments to complete my coursework during the school year, but I also spent the summers of 98, 99,& 2000 working in chemistry labs).  Some of the chemicals I handled were known carcinogens.  I always tried my best to be careful (and wore gloves, washed my hands, etc.), but I’m glad that I haven’t needed to work in that way in recent years. 

----------------

There is evidence that every single telephone call made by and among Americans is recorded and stored: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/may/04/telephone-calls-recorded-fbi-boston. 

---------------

And here’s a great interview with Professor Noam Chomsky on the erosion of civil liberties under Obama: http://www.alternet.org/civil-liberties/noam-chomsky-obamas-attack-civil-liberties-has-gone-way-beyond-imagination?paging=off.  Chomsky is 84 years old.  I wish he could live forever. 

Take care,
Jeff 

Oh, and about fasting, it's dangerous.  People run into trouble sometimes when they fast.  And, I think that the benefits of fasting may be obtained, more safely and more gradually, with lifestyle changes.  I may put together a more detailed critique of fasting later. 

All of the food this week was organic and it was all consumed whole (no juicing, no blending, as usual):

4/15 – tomatoes, zucchini, dates.
4/16 – tomatoes, zucchini, dates.
4/17 – tomatoes, zucchini, dates.
4/18 – zucchini, dates.
4/19 – zucchini, dates.
4/20 – tomatoes, zucchini, dates.
4/21 – tomatoes, zucchini, dates.

I feel like I’m “preaching to the choir” about this “why eat raw” stuff, but I’ll continue to do it anyway.  You might find some of what I say to be helpful in talking to others about your diet. 

Cooking has been associated with the formation of a number of chemicals which are likely harmful to human health.  Naturally, the longer the food is cooked, and the higher the temperature, the more these dangerous compounds are created. 

Acrylamide forms when many foods are heated.  In some foods, a temperature of 70 Celsius (158 F) is sufficient to produce measureable amounts of acrylamide (http://www.ethlife.ethz.ch/archive_articles/070920-acrylamid/index_EN).  Acrylamide is believed to be harmful to humans (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acrylamide#Occurrence_in_food_and_associated_health_risks).   

There is evidence that advanced glycation end products (AGEs) are harmful.  And AGEs are also formed during cooking (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_glycation_end-products).   

Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) are also formed during cooking, and they’re an additional group of chemicals which are harmful to human health (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polycyclic_aromatic_hydrocarbons). 

Heterocyclic amines (HCAs) are found in cooked meat (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heterocyclic_amine_formation_in_meat).  You may guess that cooked vegetables might contain HCAs as well, but it turns out they don’t (http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/cooked-meats).  The HCA formation reaction involves creatine, and creatine is only in muscle.  HCAs increase our risk of a variety of cancers.   

I mention this week, because it’s somewhat relevant to the issue, that one of my three bachelor’s degrees is in chemistry.  I took three quarters of honors organic chemistry at Ohio State during the 97-98 school year (I took a total of five classes of “o-chem” - three lectures & two labs), and I remember learning about the harmful effects of HCAs and PAHs back then.  Both are mentioned in the 4th edition of McMurry, the textbook I used for these courses, and the book still sits on my bookshelf. 

Acrylamides, AGEs, and PAHs are formed when heat is applied to both plant and animal foods.  HCAs, on the other hand, are only found in cooked muscle meat.  The evidence indicates that it’s best to keep our intake of acrylamides, AGEs, PAHs, and HCAs as low as possible.  The best way of accomplishing this seems to be to consume a raw vegan diet. 

I’ve got more to say about the scientific support of raw foodism, and specifically about the harmful effects that heat has on the nutrients found in foods, but I’ll go into that next week. 

--------------

On the Boston Bombings: "I’m safe. You are safe. 99.999999% of the country is safe. But there never is a completely safe, and there never will be…I refuse to give up another right to prevent another 'Boston'…The bomber isn't the only one who wants you to be afraid. Remember that." - John Cole (http://www.balloon-juice.com/2013/04/15/something-else-to-talk-about/?politicss) 

I ran the Boston marathon in 2007.  I do fear that the tragic bombing at this year’s race may be used as an excuse to further erode our civil liberties, as was done after 9/11 (and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev should absolutely be given his Miranda rights).  I wish instead that the bombing could help Americans to have an increase in their understanding.  I’d like my fellow Americans to have more empathy for the victims of bombing overseas, where this is a more regular occurrence, and much of this terrorism is funded with our tax dollars (http://www.propublica.org/article/everything-we-know-so-far-about-drone-strikes).       

The obvious response to this is “but the difference is that drone attacks are not meant to hurt civilians whereas the Boston bombs directly targeted innocents”.  My reply then goes like this:

an innocent person dead = an innocent person dead. 

They should be mourned the same. 

Or in a way, the drone strike victims should be mourned more, because we have some control over that.  There is little we can do to prevent crazy people randomly setting off bombs.  But theoretically, the US government responds to shifts in public opinion, and so we can help to stop the drone strikes.  We share more responsibility for events we can affect…like stopping our own crimes.

And besides, the "double tap" strikes do target first-responders, who will be innocent in many cases (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/outrage-at-cias-deadly-double-tap-drone-attacks-8174771.html, http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jan/24/un-examine-uk-afghanistan-drone-strikes, http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/aug/20/us-drones-strikes-target-rescuers-pakistan).     

Drone strikes also violate the sovereignty of these nations.  Launching an attack against a country that we aren’t at war with is a war crime (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_crime).  How would Americans feel if Chinese drones killed Americans on US soil, even if they said they were killing “extremists”?  The death of innocents overseas understandably tends to create a tremendous degree of anger in these nations, whether intentional or not, and this feeling creates more people willing to commit acts of violence against the aggressors.  The evidence indicates that US foreign policy creates terrorists. 

------------------

The US is also partially to blame for the unrest in Venezuela this week following their presidential election.  The electoral council in Venezuela ruled out a recount because the vote wasn’t that close.  However, the Obama administration’s refusal to recognize the winner of their democratic election has had a destabilizing effect on the country.  The US is emboldening the opposition.  Russia, China, and many South American countries have already congratulated the winner of the election.  The US is demanding that Venezuela conduct a full recount, however a full recount never occurred in the US Presidential election of 2000, which was a much closer vote than what Venezuela just had.  Seven people have died in the unrest (http://news.antiwar.com/2013/04/16/venezuela-president-elect-blames-us-as-protests-kill-seven/).     

Take care,
Jeff 

All of the food this week was organic and it was all consumed whole (no juicing, no blending, as usual):

4/8 – tomatoes, zucchini, dates.
4/9 – tomatoes, zucchini, dates.
4/10 – zucchini, dates.
4/11 – zucchini, dates.
4/12 – zucchini, dates.
4/13 – tomatoes, zucchini, dates.
4/14 – tomatoes, zucchini, dates.

I’m 100% raw vegan, and have been so for the past 5 1/2 years.  But why?  After all, I grew up on the Standard American Diet, really enjoyed eating that food, and never had any major health problems.  Initially, I changed my diet in the hope that it would lead to improvements in my exercise (specifically running) performance.  And, it did.  But now, I haven’t run a race in years.  And this diet is obviously socially isolating.  Why continue to eat this way? 

Why stay vegan?  Three answers: for the animals, for the environment, and for my own personal health.  The evidence backing up these reasons is vast, and there is an extensive literature on all three of these subjects.  So, I’m not going to dwell on it. 

But why stay raw?  Here are some reasons:

- I feel great when I eat this way!  I’ve noticed that there has been a gradual increase in my overall happiness throughout my adult life.  This may or may not be partially a result of my diet, but I’m hesitant to make major changes to it since I feel so well now.   

- Eating uncooked whole plant foods has been the majority of what our ancestors have eaten for most of our evolutionary past.  Anthropological evidence (mostly dental) indicates that fruits and vegetables predominated in the diet of early hominids, and that grains and cooking extensively are relatively recent additions to the human diet.  Humans are the only species on Earth that cooks their food.  And, humans are one of the great apes.  The vast majority of the diet of the other great apes consists of raw plant foods (http://www.clemetzoo.com/apetag/aboutApes.html).     

- A raw vegan diet may be even better for the environment than a cooked vegan diet.  After all, raw fooders are not consuming the Earth’s resources in cooking their food.  Furthermore, I’ve heard the argument that an acre of fruit orchard can yield more calories than an acre of grain, although obviously this varies somewhat with the specific fruit & grain.  In addition, while grain crops lead to depletion of topsoil, orchards pull their nutrients from deep down in the subsoil, which may aid in nutrient recycling.  Also, trees protect the soil from erosion.  Fruit trees also last for decades, unlike grain crops, and thus tend to be less labor intensive.  However, I don’t consider the environmental argument for a raw diet to be really persuasive, because for most of us not living in the tropics, we are burning fossil fuels in transporting our fruit.  On a cooked vegan diet, more local fare can be consumed (However I think I do pretty well eating mostly local fruit.  In the summer I eat California peaches, California zucchini, and California tomatoes.  In the fall I eat California persimmons, California pomegranates, California grapes, California zucchini, and California tomatoes.  In the winter / spring I eat California dates, Mexican zucchini, Mexican tomatoes, and a few pineapples from further away…usually Costa Rica).  So, in comparing the environmental costs of a cooked vs. raw vegan diet, which one wins? It’s not clear. It would actually require some sort of calculation to determine which habit uses the least resources for the average consumer (and this calculation hasn’t been done, to my knowledge).   So what's the moral? Well, I think it is that, while environmental arguments work great in converting people to veganism, they may not work as well in convincing them to become raw fooders.  In my opinion, the stronger argument is that raw food is the more natural choice. Humans are natural fruit eaters; they are appealing as is, off the tree. Grains are very unappealing (and essentially inedible) to humans in their raw natural state.  By and large, raw grains are bird food.  And tubers?  Is it instinctive for humans to look under the ground for food?  Nope.  We’re closely related to monkeys, not moles. 

- I’ve found it easier to maintain an ideal body weight by eating raw vegan foods.  I love to eat, and as a raw vegan I can eat as much as I want without unwanted weight gain.  I know a couple long-term cooked food vegans from The Gentle Barn, the farm animal sanctuary, who are vegan for ethical reasons, and who are obese.  It is definitely possible to be a fat & unhealthy vegan if you’re diet consists of soda, French fries, potato chips, and vegan desserts.  When you go raw vegan, you are automatically removing from your diet the vast majority of the unhealthy vegan fare which is out there.   

- I love fruit.  The tastes, colors, and smells of fruit appeal to me much more than grains, tubers, or other cooked vegan food (which generally aren’t pleasurable to eat unless salt and other condiments are added).       

- I’ve always disliked cooking and other food preparation.  This is seriously a reason for me.  Don’t expect me to be teaching any classes on food prep at the Woodstock Fruit Festival anytime soon, because I detest that stuff.  The entirety of my food prep consists of using a knife to cut the fruit into bite size pieces before I eat it (unless it’s already bite-sized, like grapes, cherry tomatoes, or dates).  In general, raw foods in their natural state are less calorically dense than prepared cooked foods (but there are exceptions, like nuts & seeds…which I think are especially important for growing children eating a raw vegan diet).  In addition, unblended raw foods generally require more chewing than cooked foods.  These two observations lead to the fact that more time is spent eating on a raw diet than on a cooked-food diet, in general, unless the raw foods are put in a blender.  However, raw fooders spend a lot less time on food prep, and so the time factor may even out in the end.  But, if you’re a person who enjoys time spent eating more than time spent on food prep, a raw diet may make sense for you. 

- And last, but not least, there is some science indicating that a raw vegan diet is superior to a cooked vegan diet in regards to human health.  The evidence on this is less compelling than is the scientific evidence backing up the superiority of a vegan diet (when being compared to an omnivorous one), but it’s still enough for me to stay raw, so I’ll go into it a bit next week. 

Any other reasons for going raw that you can think of? 

--------------

I heard about Harley getting his youtube channel deleted.  Although I don’t agree with him on everything, I consider this deletion to be a bad thing.  I’m a staunch supporter of free speech.  You can sign a petition here to help get him reinstated: http://www.change.org/petitions/youtube-please-re-instate-youtube-channel. 

--------------

Women may be better off without bras, according to this new study: http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2013-04/every-bra-youve-ever-encountered-has-been-complete-lie. 

--------------

This is how wars are sold: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AnsPG5FSjZA.

I commented a few weeks ago about how Americans seem to be more afraid of Iran than North Korea, despite the fact that North Korea is the greater current threat.  In that comment, I attributed it to one word: “oil”.  Naturally, there is more to it than that (http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2013/04/why-do-we-laugh-at-north-korea-but-fear-iran/274680/). 

Take care,
Jeff 

Thanks Roberta.  Yeah, Rose is pretty cute.  It's a joy to have her in my life. 

I think my wife is going to take about 3 months off work after the baby is born.  Of course I think that if she could stay off longer that would be better, with the bonding & breastfeeding, and I urge her to take off as long as she thinks she can.  She plans to do what she did with Rose, and that is to pump her breastmilk at work.  Around the time my wife goes back to work is probably going to be about the time her parents from China will come for a visit.  They’ve visited before, but it’s been over a year since their last stay here.  They’ll probably stay for about 3 months, and so the baby may be around 6 months old before it’ll be just Rose, baby, and I in the house during weekdays. 

Roberta,

Thanks for that viewpoint.  I certainly agree that culture plays a big part in defining gender roles.  I don’t see how anyone could deny this after considering the different roles that men & women play in different societies throughout the world, and also thinking about how the niche that women fill has changed throughout US history. 

All of the food this week was organic and it was all consumed whole (no juicing, no blending, as usual):

3/25 – tomatoes, zucchini, dates.
3/26 – tomatoes, zucchini, dates.
3/27 – tomatoes, zucchini, dates.
3/28 – tomatoes, zucchini, dates.
3/29 – zucchini, dates.
3/30 – zucchini, dates.
3/31 – 1 pineapple, zucchini, dates.

Men have the potential to be both the most constructive and the most destructive force in society.  When men do good, they are often very good, and when men do bad, they are often very bad.  Men, more so than women, tend to be outliers.  Men are more likely than women to become both inventors and serial killers.  Consider an issue for which there is a range of opinions within society.  Here is a general observation: the people with extreme opinions are men more often than they are women.  Why would this be the case?  Here’s my thought.  For most of our evolutionary past, humans lived in small groups.  Taking an extreme opinion on a controversial issue can result in social isolation, and perhaps even ostracism from the group.  Because women are the ones which get pregnant, give birth, have done the majority of the childcare in the past, and are physically smaller than men, women are in general somewhat more dependent on the group than men are.  Thus, women today are still less likely than men to take radical positions, because in the past this would have resulted in greater risk for the women than for the men.  I’m not saying that this is necessarily good or bad, but rather that this seems to be the case.  In general, boys don’t listen to authority as well as girls do…this can lead to a doubt in the dogma of their culture, and so this can make boys more likely than girls to seek truth via empiricism rather than from cultural norms, and hence this may be a fundamental reason why boys are more likely to become scientists.  In general, women tend to be less assertive than men, and I think this may often lead them to be less attracted to fields for which there are right & wrong answers.  Of course, even if all of the above is correct, these are just general trends, and female outliers do exist (and I’ll certainly be encouraging my daughter to go into science if she has the interest).  Thoughts?

---------------

Up until two years ago, all revolutions had leadership.  That changed with the Arab Spring.  The reason for this change is clear: it was the result of the rapid distribution of information.  This was made possible with modern technology (mobile devices, twitter, etc.).  This is an age of vast promise. 

But, there cannot be a free society without a free internet.

---------------

Wouldn’t it be great if we could have progress without martyrs?  If we work at it, I truly believe that eventually we can get to the society envisioned by the late Aaron Swartz, but that we’ll get there in fits and starts. 
 
-------------

“Think globally, act locally”.  I’ve always loved this phrase from the environmental movement.  Live according to your ideals, and apply them in your personal life. 

-------------

I went back to the dentist this week for a 6-month check-up.  No cavities.  I’ve had a few cavities since I went completely raw back in 2007, but none recently.  I think the last I had may have been in 2010. 

-------------

This week, for his 60th birthday, Doug Graham put out a video titled “Top 5 Hardest Push Ups In The World ” (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zwz5lhFtXYc).  Doug is significantly more fit than an average 60-year-old.  Nevertheless, as is typical for Doug, he exaggerates in the title of this video.  I can do all of those 5 types of pushups that Doug does in that video.  However, none of these pushups are in the top five in difficulty.  Here’s five harder ones (which I can’t do): One-arm superman pushups on fingertips (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NeQEy3wm_OI&feature=player_detailpage#t=99s), Aztec pushups (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QENTRilu8Zc), Planche pushups (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=flYDTlVxH-s), Straddle planche clap pushups (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vVJcZv6zHV8), 90 degree pushups (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rghpvUUy7bA). 

Humility is a virtue. 

Take care,
Jeff