4. Raw Versus Cooked Foods
The Pros and Cons
The arguments in favor of a raw food diet sound very convincing: Food should be left whole and
unprepared. Only then can we benefit from its natural goodness and vitality. With the plenty of vitamins,
minerals and trace elements contained in raw food we will never suffer any deficiencies. We should live
like all the other animals in nature; they don’t prepare their food, cook their vegetables, or bake bread—
the reason why they are so healthy and strong. On the other hand, we destroy most of the essential and
health-promoting nutrients through methods of cooking, preparing, and baking, causing all the vitamin
and mineral deficiencies prevalent today.
The promoters of raw food diets propose that if the general population ate more of the untreated whole
foods, many diseases could be prevented. This could save billions of dollars in treatment costs. Many
chronically ill patients have found sudden relief and improvement, thanks to raw vegetables and soaked
grains.
The initial and sometimes lasting benefits of a raw whole food diet can be so promising that a person
may decide to continue eating solely raw foods, although he may not like their taste. But is it possible that
raw and whole foods, except fruits, which are already “cooked” or ripened by the sun, can actually be
harmful to some of us if eaten on a continual basis? And why does 98 percent of the world’s population
favor prepared and warm foods to raw and cold foods? Have we all forsaken our natural instincts?
Karl Pirlet, Professor of Medicine at the University of Frankfurt, Germany, claims that he has a nearly
endless collection of cases where health was restored to patients after they stopped eating a raw whole
food diet. He found that most of these patients suffered a physical breakdown after several years (in some
cases after 10-20 years) of eating raw whole foods. The effects were varied but were all marked by the
occurrence of sudden aging as seen in a deterioration of joints and arteries. Most patients looked fragile,
felt low in energy, and had excessively bloated stomachs. Their bodies could no longer cope with
breaking down hard grains and raw vegetables; they were literally starving themselves.
So does this mean that raw foods are not good for us? This depends on each person’s constitution and
condition. Young Pitta types with a strong AGNI and plenty of exercise can cope with such a diet for
many years without harmful side effects. But eventually even their digestive system may become
exhausted because of trying to breakdown raw whole grains and raw vegetables.
Many people who start on a raw whole food diet have already suffered from health problems and a
weak AGNI. Unable to break down the high food fiber, the intestinal bacteria start taking over that job
instead. This results in fermentation and putrefaction of the food. The poison, which the bacteria produce
during the fermenting process, greatly stimulates the immune system and helps the body to dispose of it
This strong cleansing reaction initially helps clear the intestines from impacted fecal matter, stops
constipation, and through the intense immune activity releases plenty of energy. The relief from
congestion and constipation and the increased energy and vitality are very noticeable to the person and
strikes him/her as very “positive” signs. This response can even lead to a spontaneous remission of cancer
or the relief of arthritic pains. But eventually the intestines may begin to bloat up like a balloon, unable to
deal with the toxic gases and poisonous compounds. Healthy Pitta types on mostly raw foods may never
get to this stage, but Vata types and Kapha types may suffer ill-effects within days or weeks.
Many nutritionists and dieticians may then give the advice to eat even more fiber because only fiber
can absorb such toxic substances as ammonia, which is very caustic, and protect the intestinal walls
against injury. But it is highly unlikely that a fermenting and putrefying mass of undigested fiber, which
produces ammonia, reabsorbs it in the same “breath.” Nutritional science assumes that the nutritional