The Fallacy of
the Benefits of Eating Raw Animal Foods
by Don Bennett, DAS
The info contained on the Raw Animal
Food (RAF) sites is spurious; it is without basis in science. It
simply lacks validity. In my opinion it is perpetuated by those
who prefer to eat meat, cheese, milk, etc. It flies
in the face of biology, anatomy, and physiology. It is a shining
example of human nature; we can make incorrect choices thanks to
free will. The firmly held beliefs of those who eat raw animal foods
do not reflect reality.
As to the spuriousness of RAF eating,
this from odomnet.com/live-food/faq.htm...
"Fruit: As this [the RAF] diet is
primarily an animal based diet that is high in protein and fats,
carbohydrates tend to adversely effect blood sugar since they don't
have much fat to slow them down. Fruit is a wonderful food, but
you don't need to eat much of it. As a general rule, it is a good
idea when eating fruit to have a raw fat with it to slow down the
rate of the sugar hitting your blood stream. Raw fats with fruit
seems to have a very different effect than raw fruits alone, in
maintaining health. You can have raw, no-salt-added cheeses, or
cream, or eggs in a egg and fruit smoothie, for some examples."
In the real world, eating fats with
fruits does hold up sugar from leaving the bloodstream and
entering cells, but this is an adverse reaction, and not
one to be desired. This leads to chronic, sustained high levels
of blood sugar, which in turn can promote candidiasis blooms, higher
than normal weight, and can lead to a diagnosis of Type 2 Diabetes.
I'm very sensitive when it comes to blood sugar level changes, and
if I eat sweet fruit alone, I have no problems (contrary to what
the RAF eaters say), and have plenty of energy with no abnormally
high (or low) blood sugar levels. If I were to eat fruit with fat
however, I'd get lethargic, a good indication of a blood sugar level
problem. And even if you eat sweet fruit alone, if you eat too much
fat at any time of the day, it will interfere with that sugar
being taken up by the cells, resulting in high blood sugar (and
hungry cells). There has been so much credible research showing
that when the fat content of your diet rises above 10% (as a percentage
of total calories) your health will suffer for it at some point.
It surely won't happen just after you start eating a RAF diet, but
let's check back with these folks decades down the road. None of
us will have access to a time machine, so if we discover 30 years
from now that the path we chose didn't work for us like we thought
it would, we can't go back and try something different. This is
why we need to use logic, sound reasoning, and common sense, without
any personal biases or preferences, when considering what diet to
embrace, because the "do whatever works for you" philosophy
can't show you what did or didn't work, for decades.
Another example of their lack of credible
"Veggies: Contrary to popular diet
advice these days, vegetables are not considered important on this
diet because this diet is naturally cleansing and the digestive
tract of a human is not set up for the cellulose in vegetables."
The nutrients contained in green leafy
veggies (minerals for the most part) are essential to human health,
and I'd rather get them first hand from the plants themselves, rather
than second hand from animals who have eaten plants. And it is the
cellulose in vegetables that accomplishes the beneficial cleansing.
To say that meat is cleansing to the human body is like saying that
pouring garbage all over your living room is cleansing to the living
room. Sure, the living room will eventually be spotless, but that's
because the garbage necessitated a thorough cleansing. Wouldn't
it have been better to simply do regular primary cleansing (with
plant fiber), rather than pollute the living room (with dead flesh)
to invoke a secondary cleansing reaction? And animal flesh has no
fiber, and fiber is something that is needed by our gut, a fact
long settled and not subject to debate. But green leafy vegetables
are not a good source of fuel, and that's where the natural sugars
of fruit come in. And fruit also has the distinction of being a
great source of vitamins (if you don't cook them).
The RAF folks are correct that it's
the cooking of edible substances that does great harm. But there's
no way that a person will be healthier eating a raw animal based
diet over a raw plant based diet. You can't argue with nature. Well,
you can, but it's fruitless. (No pun intended) Fact: We're designed
to covet sweet things... that's the purpose of the taste buds that
are coded for sweetness that are appropriately located at the front
of our tongue. Animal flesh isn't sweet... unless you blend in some
Medjool dates in a Vita-Mix.
It's a shame these folks participate
in "I believe what I want to believe" rather than in "I believe
The health benefits experienced by
folks going from the Standard American Diet diet to a RAF diet are
due in part to the lack of cooking, and also to any other healthy
changes they make. Those I know who then adopted a raw plant-based
diet found further improvement. That says it all in my book.
For further info, read
So Much for the Hunter/gatherer Theory
High Protein Diets are Great for Losing Weight?
the Atkins Diet
Atkins "Nightmare" Diet
Yields Surprises about Early Human Diets
How to Have the BEST Odds of Avoiding Degenerative
here's a great video debunking the "Paleo Diet"
|Natural Law: Law
which so necessarily agrees with the nature and state of man,
that without observing its maxims, the peace and happiness of
a society can never be created or preserved. Knowledge of natural
law may be attained merely by the light of reason; from the
facts, and of their essential agreeableness with the constitution
of human nature. - Gifis, Steven H., Dictionary
of Legal Terms, Barron's 1983