Talk:Raw foodism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Raw foodism article.
Article policies
Archives: 1
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
To-do: edit · history · watch · refresh

Here are some tasks you can do:
    Archive
    Archives


    Contents

    [edit] Vandalism Removal

    Although disagreeing with the validity of such a diet I am sure that the word 'penis' does not belong half way down the section on it's own. As such I have gelded this article and removed it's penis. I couldn't be bothered to sign in to do it but thought I'd better announce it here in case somebody reverted my edit and brought the penis back. 194.223.81.88 (talk) 11:26, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

    [edit] Enzymes

    I've done a little work on the criticism of enzymes section, listing the scientific objections a little more clearly and explaining why the enzyme theory goes against current knowledge of biochemistry. I've made the bold claim that there is no (good) evidence that exogenous plant enzymes can contribute to digestion in humans under normal conditions - I personally can't find anything in respectable journals, but maybe I'm just not looking hard enough, so if anybody has some evidence (not anecdotal) then feel free to list it.

    I've also tidied up the strange claim about bromolain and superoxide dismutase, which appears to have been put in by somebody who didn't understand the scientific objection (of course these two enzymes can be absorbed ... after they're digested :-). Cheers!

    --62.69.37.177 (talk) 19:35, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

    [edit] Advertisement

    This article reads like one huge advertisement and seriosuly needs some NPOV work. It is filled with pseudoscience, lack of references to certificable research, lack of criticism, and is incoherent and poorly written in many parts. The article makes many bold claims with no facts, just speculation and hypothesis and is filled with words like "may", "could", "might" and so forth. Needs some work.

    Here are just a few specifics from the first third of the article:

    -Lack of citations on nearly every sentence that makes a bold claim
    -Claim of enzymes in food having a purpose, without explaining what these enzymes catalyze and why it would be beneficial to human health.
    -Unreferenced citation and weasel words, example "Raw foodism is widely practiced."
    -More references for animal/plant enzymes being beneficial to humans. Once again, what do these enzymes catalyze and why does it help us?
    -Bold claim that eaten bacteria are helpful. Which bacteria are helpful? What about harmful bacteria? If the food you eat has helpful bacteria, then what prevents people from eating food-borne illness bacteria?
    -Unusual lack of talking about food-borne illness, especially in raw meat. How is food uncontaminated? Is it washed with alcohol and hydrogen peroxide? Is it just left contaminated?
    -Poor references to humans being the only species that cook their food and eat cooked food. For one, other species lack the intelligence to cook food. Secondly, racoons, dogs, cats, birds, bacteria, and countless species will gladly feast on a roasted turkey.
    -Dental argument is flawed. Pet cats and dogs that eat raw meat still need to have their teeth taken care of. There is no reason (or cited reason) for why cooking food would affect dental health, in humans or other animals.

    This article needs some serious help.

    SabarCont 07:12, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

    [edit] Some bad science, weak links, food religion

    Many "good" links were removed from this page. I can put some back but why bother if someone else will just delete them?

    The many refs to teeth and dentistry are astoundingly bad science here. The human oral structures are optimized for speech, and impacted by evolution driven by culture, tool use, and cooking. And yes, if desired I can back this up with cites to peer-reviewed research.

    Raw foodism is effectively a "food religion" for its adherents. Pretty sad.

    Research26 (talk) 20:33, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

    I added a counterpoint in the lead section to balance out the article a bit. Research26, if you have relevant sources, please put them back. I'll put this article on my watchlist. Thanks. --Phenylalanine (talk) 19:50, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

    [edit] article name and terminology

    'Tis odd rawism redirects here instead of vice-versa, and that the name here is used in the article. Rawism is more succinct, as 'Hindusim' is more succinct than 'Hindu religionism.' 'Rawism,' besides food, could apply to water that does not have ORME removed (ORME is also in food,) or air that has enough negative ions.Dchmelik (talk) 06:43, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

    [edit] Raw wiki

    You are invited to help edit our raw wiki web site Raw.Wikia.com. Thanks for your consideration! User:Dandelion (talk|contribs) 23:55, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

    [edit] Supercharge Me

    I've marked Supercharge Me as potentially needing to be deleted for non-notability. Maybe better off just merging it in to this article? Lot49a (talk) 23:12, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

    Re: Notability - Google search today yields approx. 11,000 results for "Supercharge Me!". Majority appear to be from independent sources.--Mem411 (talk) 13:35, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

    [edit] Logic absent

    "Raw foods contain enzymes which aid digestion, meaning that the body's own enzymes may work unimpeded in regulating the body's metabolic processes, and heating food above 110-120 degrees Fahrenheit degrades or destroys these enzymes in food."

    There is absolutely no logical link between the first part of that sentence and the part concerning body's own enzymes (putting "meaning" in there does not create one).
    —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.242.255.83 (talk) 08:06, 30 May 2008 (UTC)