Raw food diet: As a way of life, simply not so hot
This Chicago Tribune article takes a look at the raw food lifestyle. The author decides it’s not for her:
But raw, which is supposed to encourage a simple life and a return to nature, is just too complicated for its own good. It’s great in theory but has strayed seriously from its roots. Not only are pricey appliances like a juicer, dehydrator and blender helpful if you want to eat more than lettuce, but it’s also a labor- and time-intensive lifestyle that requires soaking and sprouting various foods and recognizing deadly herbs.
I think Charlie Trotter, author of Raw has it right:
“There’s nothing wrong with mixing a little raw and cooked food,” Trotter said during a cooking demonstration. “I just want great food. And by the way, I want to live to eat another day.”
4 Responses
Levi
14|Jun|2004 1I don’t know a whole lot about the raw food movement, but my take on it is this: raw foodists want to “get back to nature” by eating foods in as pure a form as possible, it seems, without the processing (cooking) in modern technology. But why animal foods are left out of this I’m not exactly sure. Why are there not two camps of raw foodists, one vegetarian and one not? After all, meat and fish was (and still is by some) eaten raw. It’s not like they are exclusive of each other.
I did read something that frightens me a bit about the potentially cultish nature of some raw foodists:
http://www.chetday.com/billings.html
But I gather that all groups have their fringe elements and that the raw food movement is no better or worse than other groups…
muckdog
14|Jun|2004 2I can’t get too energized by the move to eat only raw veggies, or only veggies that are in season, or any of the other fine-tuning of a healthy lifestyle.
Ryan
15|Jun|2004 3Levi — The argument I’ve heard for eating raw is that cooking destroys beneficial enzymes. In certain cases, yes, the nutritional value of some foods decreases when cooked. On the flip side, though, certain foods release nutrients when cooked, so a 100% raw diet is most likely not “optimal.”
The way I view it is that eating raw is generally a good thing, but certainly not necessary for healthful living. I’m more interested in from a culinary standpoint, seeing what expert raw chefs can make. At the same time, it’s kind of interesting to look from the outside-in at what’s generally considered a fringe movement within the veg* community. If people want to eat primarily raw, fine by me… but obsessing over purity and minor details can only be detrimental in the long-term.
Gary
23|Jun|2004 4It is quite interesting reading about the Restaurants available in California that the stars frequent for raw food. It would be great just to pick up your food like the stars
Leave a reply
Search
Support Our Sponsor
Wanna be a sponsor? Drop me a line.
Hopefully-targeted Ads
Active Entries
Random Nifty Book