![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
I was just linked to this by a person who started following me on twitter. I have a few misgivings about it.
First, the suggestion that eating cooked food raises your white blood cell count, indicating your body is fighting an infection. I've studied vaccines enough to know that an immune system that is never tested isn't going to work very well; that is, getting white blood cells to do something is far better than leaving them to do nothing. Which makes me wonder: is a raw diet actually worse for the immune system because it doesn't give it any exercise? (This is even assuming that that information is true - I'm not convinced yet.)
Second, the idea that all toxic bi-products of anything must immediately be bad. I'm not buying it. Our bodies have ways of getting rid of stuff that is toxic to us after it enters the body. I'll only be concerned about toxic bi-products when studies are done to show that they don't get broken down and turned into something else, or eliminated, by my body. Showing that I'm getting the toxins isn't enough; I need to know if I'm keeping them.
Third, genetic mutations are normal. They're not some rare occurrence to be avoided. They're part of what the body does, and the overwhelming majority do not lead to bad health outcomes like aggressive cancers. So when you tell me that eating cooked food causes genetic mutations, I'm likely to tell you that if your cells aren't mutating at all, there's something wrong with them.
Now, I can see the benefits of a vegetarian diet and I agree that it would be healthier. I can even see the benefits of a vegan diet for at least some people, though I haven't done the research to find out if it would be good for everyone, and I'm not particularly interested in it. But raw food? If it's toxic, then I'll continue to live with the toxins that the vast, vast majority of society has managed to do all right on for thousands of years. I'm not scared enough of the outcomes listed to consider that drastic a change to my lifestyle.
First, the suggestion that eating cooked food raises your white blood cell count, indicating your body is fighting an infection. I've studied vaccines enough to know that an immune system that is never tested isn't going to work very well; that is, getting white blood cells to do something is far better than leaving them to do nothing. Which makes me wonder: is a raw diet actually worse for the immune system because it doesn't give it any exercise? (This is even assuming that that information is true - I'm not convinced yet.)
Second, the idea that all toxic bi-products of anything must immediately be bad. I'm not buying it. Our bodies have ways of getting rid of stuff that is toxic to us after it enters the body. I'll only be concerned about toxic bi-products when studies are done to show that they don't get broken down and turned into something else, or eliminated, by my body. Showing that I'm getting the toxins isn't enough; I need to know if I'm keeping them.
Third, genetic mutations are normal. They're not some rare occurrence to be avoided. They're part of what the body does, and the overwhelming majority do not lead to bad health outcomes like aggressive cancers. So when you tell me that eating cooked food causes genetic mutations, I'm likely to tell you that if your cells aren't mutating at all, there's something wrong with them.
Now, I can see the benefits of a vegetarian diet and I agree that it would be healthier. I can even see the benefits of a vegan diet for at least some people, though I haven't done the research to find out if it would be good for everyone, and I'm not particularly interested in it. But raw food? If it's toxic, then I'll continue to live with the toxins that the vast, vast majority of society has managed to do all right on for thousands of years. I'm not scared enough of the outcomes listed to consider that drastic a change to my lifestyle.
