Raw food is exactly as it says it is: as nature intended. There are some who would mildly warm their food, but never beyond 115°F, the temperature at which it is widely believed that the enzymes within the food become denatured and therefore of reduced value.

 

I don't for one minute advocate that anyone should switch their diet dramatically without first considering in detail how they're going to do it, and whether it's going to be something for the long-term. It naturally tends to be easier in the summer months, when fresh fruit and vegetables are plentiful, but the tricky period is always March and April when one enters what is known as the "hungry gap".

 

I came across this article today, and thought it worth sharing

 

Personally I don't think one should be fixated about percentages of raw within the diet. Just jolly well maximise the quantity as much as possible.

 

One area in which one can look to determine the benefits, is the wild world. We need to remember that they don't have a single cooker, or microwave etc. Yet how many of them are struggling to maintain their body weight and health? Very few, and usually as a result of drought – another man-made threat to their existence! Furthermore, nobody has yet discovered a hospital in the wild world. That doesn't mean the animals don't die, as that is usually aided by predation of the weak. However, you will only find the fittest and healthiest, without obesity or drug intervention.

 

The debate about whether one is healthier, and going to live longer and more fulfilled life by adopting a raw food diet, will probably rage for as long as there are people eating food.

 

There are two people who would give you both sides of the coin. First, Karen Knowler in the supportive corner, giving a complete analysis of why she thinks raw food is such a good thing. 

 

Questioning the validity of 100% raw diets, is Frederic Patenaude. Fred is a major supporter of the raw food diet, but he would consider his blinkers don't stop him from seeing benefits from some other forms of food preparation, and also questioning some of the claims made by those who devoutly follow the raw food approach. 

 

For me, I can't see why one would want to do other than maximise the raw intake. Did nature get it so wrong that we need to cook everything, and heaven forbid that it should be massively overcooked, or worse still microwaved. Neither is a natural process, and the lighter the touch that you can give, the better it will be in most cases from your diet.

 

There hasn't been much scientific investigation into raw foods versus cooked foods. I suppose that's not surprising, as the financial return from being able to process and cook things before presenting them to consumers is enormous, whereas that involved in selling food "truly, as nature intended", would require significantly more funding, and for the food producers to club together to enable it. In reality, that isn't going to happen, as I see it. However, that doesn't mean there aren't countless examples of enormous success being achieved with a raw food diet, and those are hard to ignore.

 

In the end, the answer comes down to doing what you individually are comfortable with. Personally, I choose to maximise the raw ingredients as far as possible, but don't rule out some cooked options, either where practical, or even perhaps necessary. The latter would include the way I was able to preserve the enormous plum harvest this year, where the stones were hard to extract, and required cooking to release them prior to dehydration for long-term storage.