Raw Vegetarianism or Cooked Paleo diet?

[Paleo Donk]

I'm trying to get a sense of what the general feeling is for raw foods vs cooked and so I propose the following hypothetical scenario.

Say you had to choose right now for the rest of your life between a completely cooked version of the diet you are following now and and a 100% raw non-animal food diet (RV), which would you choose?

Now the question I am asking for the poll is, that if you would choose the cooked paleo (CP) version then at what point would you change your vote as the percentage of raw animal foods increases as an addition to the RV diet.  Assume that the raw non-animal food diet is high carb, low fat and protein.

For instance, if you vote 25%, then this means that you would choose your 100% cooked paleo food diet over a 100% RV diet and a 90% RV, 10% Animal foods diet. So, I am asking for the point where your vote changes, not your optimal percentage of animal foods, which for most would be 80+ percent.

I realize there are issues stemming from people eating pretty variable amounts of animal foods here but I don't think it will skew the results that much. If you do eat less than 50% of calories from animal foods, please indicate so.

Also, assume that on the cooked paleo diet that fruits would be eaten raw.

[KD]

hey man, I think I get what you are saying, but don't quite get this line

For instance, if you vote 25%, then this means that you would choose your 100% cooked paleo food diet over a 100% RV diet and a 90% RV, 10% Animal foods diet. So, I am asking for the point where your vote changes, not your optimal percentage of animal foods, which for most would be 80+ percent.

you mean if you could eat 25% raw, but the rest cooked paleo, would that be enough and at anything greater you would bail to raw veggie? actually I guess I don't understand at all then. Also does CP included traditional cooked and raw veg?

[Paleo Donk]

you mean if you could eat 25% raw, but the rest cooked paleo, would that be enough and at anything greater you would bail to raw veggie?

No, if you vote 25%, this means that means that you are choosing a diet of 25% animal foods 75% plant matter, all raw, vs your version of what you define to be your optimal diet as it is now, only that it being cooked. Meaning you would prefer your cooked paleo diet vs an all raw diet that contains anything less than 25% animal foods by calories

Your cooked paleo diet does not change for the question it is just the raw foods diet that I want to compare it to that does vary with respect to animal foods.

actually I guess I don't understand at all then. Also does CP included traditional cooked and raw veg?

Sure, throw in raw veggies, like you would eat with salads. I don't this is that important though. Also, assume that the meats are cooked to at least medium. This question isn't supposed to be very technical, just a broad generalization is all I'm getting at.

[TylerDurden]

This isn't really a suitable poll since most of us are raw,low-carb, thus skewing the results . If this poll were given to the RVAF diet-community in general, then most would likely give the 10% cooked animal foods/90% raw plant foods option as most RVAFers are vegan-leaning like Instinctos, eating just a little bit of raw animal foods like raw dairy or raw eggs etc.

As for me, both raw vegan diets and cooked, palaeolithic diets are equally dangerous to my health. With cooked, palaeolithic diets, the harmful effects on my health occur much faster re rapid weight-gain/endless digestive and other rapidly accumulating issues re fatigue etc., but the raw vegan diets eventually cause harm as they don't contain complete foods , thus leading eventually to nutritional deficiencies which cause other problems.

Since I wasn't allowed by the poll to choose a different option to raw vegan diets and cooked, palaeolithic diets, I chose the 10% cooked-palaeodiet/90% raw vegan diet  option. That way, I could get enough nutrients from the cooked animal foods so as to offset any potential nutritional deficiencies caused by 100% raw vegan diets  while also minimising, if only to some extent, the negative effects from cooked animal foods.

Obviously, a completely cooked version of my current diet would be even more disastrous for my health  in the short-term, given my past experiences.

[KD]

that seems opposite to the original question if one doesn't have to make an actual choice but can keep a high percentage of raw animal foods.

without the poll wording
I would probably not go 100% raw veg again for health in any circumstance, choosing even the worst cordian type cooked paleo diet, but would deffinetly choose some percentage of raw animal food with raw veg foods makeing up the remainder OR some cooked meats with raw and cooked plant foods with any percentage raw animal foods.

I thought you were trying to get at at the importance of raw, and what level of cooking would one rather eat raw veg

[Paleo Donk]

Since I wasn't allowed by the poll to choose a different option to raw vegan diets and cooked, palaeolithic diets, I chose the 10% cooked-palaeodiet/90% raw vegan diet  option.

This is not an option. The options are an all raw diet of some animal foods ranging from 0 - 95+. What percentage of raw animals foods must be a part of the raw foods diet for you to choose it over the cooked diet that you follow now?

Its raw vs cooked here


Myself for example - I think my optimal diet is entirely raw, say 90% animal foods, 10% plant. Now, lets say I am forced to cook all my animal foods so my diet is 90% cooked animal foods and 10% raw plants (call this cooked optimal diet). If I were forced to choose between 100% raw veganism and my cooked optimal diet then I would choose my cooked optimal diet. Now, if I had to choose between 80% raw animal foods, the rest raw plant matter vs my cooked optimal diet, then I would definitely choose the 80% raw animal foods, though I believe it would be slightly below optimal but still all raw which would more than make up for the additional sub-optimal plant matter. Now, where this percentage falls where I would swap choices is unclear to me and why I asked the forum. Hopefully this clears it up.

[invisible]

I'm not sure about the first question. Perhaps RV is better in the short term, but may eventually will become nutrient deficient and while a cooked animal and plant food diet may not produce the best health it will at least keep you going sub-optimally indefinitely. Regarding the poll I would take the 10% animal food 90% plant food which is similar to instinco and wai type diets. I would make sure the the 10% of the diet from animal foods were the most nutrient dense foods like liver and other organs.

[MoonStalkeR]

Definitely cooked paleo diet, especially in the long-term. 1 day on raw vegan would likely be enough for my body to be near-destroyed.

[Paleo Donk]

I brought up this question because I continue to find folks doing relatively well with no animal foods in their diet. This probably comes as no surprise to many people here but for someone like me who thankfully heard the low-carb story first, I am rather shocked at the apparent paradox of living in at least decent health without any animal foods for some length of time.

Take fruitarians for example. If you asked me a year ago how long somebody would last eating nothing but fruit I would never have guessed it to be more than a few years. I think there is something to take away from these types. I think its possible that raw foods whether animal or plant really do have some magic. I wonder how long a pure carnivore like a lion would last on a fruitarian diet... The ability to sustain functioning organs and muscles despite quite low protein intake (perhaps ranging in 5-10% of diet I would guess) for years is pretty remarkable and I suppose a testament to the human body being able to adapt to such a wide range of dietary inputs. Long term starvation studies show that just 25g of protein gets burned per day once sufficiently starved and most of this is simply providing glucose for the body. So, they are at least proving that very low protein diets can keep you functioning.

Its a shame that they won't consider adding just a small amount of animal foods as this could really show drastic improvements to their health. Its so strange that they shun all animal products, even insects which are well known to be consumed by our closest relatives.

Lastly and perhaps most importantly is that I think the amount of time spent in the sun can have a profound impact for those that choose such a low protein diet. Carbohydrate sources away from the tropics are rare to non-existant much of the year and so the only natural place to embark on a fruitarian diet would be in the tropics and so perhaps spending enormous amounts of time outside in the sun can mitigate many of the ill-effects from such a low-protein diet. This kind of thinking can apply to those here. The less sun light you are exposed to perhaps the more animal foods need to be in your diet.

It would be interesting to see how those on this forum who fair poorly on fruits would handle them spending all day outside eating freshly picked fruit in the tropics. I would suspect that there would be an exponential increase in the ability to handle fruit.

[SkinnyDevil]

Not sure i fully understand the question, but...

If I had to choose between 100% cooked paleo and 100% raw vegan, I'd choose raw vegan.

Of course, I'd try to find a way to cheat (hahaha!).

At what point would I switch from cooked meats to raw veg? Hmmm....somewhere below the 50% line.

[invisible]

Not sure i fully understand the question, but...

If I had to choose between 100% cooked paleo and 100% raw vegan, I'd choose raw vegan.

then you would vote 0% in the poll

I will try to rephrase the question: What is the minimum percentage of a raw paleo/food diet that must be animal products for it to be healthier than a cooked paleo diet which includes animal and plant foods in whatever ratio you feel is best?