What is the best diet for weight loss?

The raw food diet is the best way to lose weight

Question: What is the best diet for weight loss?
Position‹6 of 6: Weight loss doesn't come from nutrient measurements
Argument1 of 2›: The raw food diet is the best way to lose weight

Eating raw food is the best way to maintain food's nutritional density.

The argument

Raw food diets are the best weight loss method. In this diet, the only food allowed is high in fiber and low in fat, sodium, and calories, making it very likely that those who try it will lose weight. However, this type of diet is not only the best way to lose weight but also the healthiest way to live. When food is cooked, the enzymes and nutrients that our bodies need are lost. These enzymes are essential to health because they help process food and help combat disease. Additionally, the cool temperature of raw food can help fight inflammation. Lastly, testimonials from people on a raw food diet state that it can also help you feel more alive and even require less sleep. Some raw food enthusiasts also believe that cooking food not only releases harmful--and even toxic--chemicals but also removes priceless life energy from the food.

Context

A raw food diet consists of uncooked foods or those cooked to a low temperature (below 104F or 40C). The foods allowed in this diet are raw fruits, vegetables, seeds, sprouted grains, and unpasteurized eggs, meat, and dairy. Other variants of this diet include the raw vegan diet, which is entirely plant-based.

Premises

[P1]Raw food is naturally high in fiber and low in fat, sodium, and calories, which reliably produces weight loss. [P2] Cooking destroys enzymes and nutrients essential for digestion and disease resistance, while raw food preserves them and reduces inflammation. [P3] People on raw food diets report increased vitality and overall improved health, suggesting the diet's benefits extend beyond simple calorie counting. [C] Therefore, the raw food diet is the best way to lose weight and the approach doesn't depend on nutrient measurements.

Counter-arguments

Raw food diets may appear good at first, but there is a large potential for negative consequences, and they are not as healthy as advocates claim. For one, properly cooking food removes the risk of food-borne illness and subsequent food poisoning, a possibility that is not available to raw food diet practitioners. Also, cooking actually makes some foods digestible and releases more nutrients than are available in their raw state; cooked tomatoes, for example, offer five times the amount of the antioxidant lycopene compared to when they are consumed uncooked. As for enzymes, it is true that these are largely destroyed with cooking, but the enzymes available in raw food are mostly destroyed by humans' stomach acid and have a negligible benefit on the digestive process. Lastly, raw food diets, especially the raw vegan diet, are deficient in many necessary vitamins and minerals, such as vitamin B-12. So while it is true that some raw foods are healthier, nutritionists largely recommend eating a mix of raw and cooked foods to get the most nutrients possible. Another challenge presented by raw food diets is that they are hard to maintain over time because they are both demanding and expensive. These diets are highly restrictive and prohibit cooking, cooked foods, and often processed foods as well. Some who have tried a raw diet, such as actress Megan Fox, had to quit not just because of the restrictions that these diets demand but also because of excessive weight loss. Additionally, many raw recipes require a blender or dehydrator, which are extra expenses that practitioners of these diets must consider. Overall, there is a reason why raw food diets are referred to as "fad" diets. They are simply not sustainable long-term.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P2] The nutritional claim runs the wrong way in several cases: cooking makes some foods more digestible and releases more of their nutrients, with cooked tomatoes offering several times the lycopene of raw ones, and while cooking does destroy enzymes, the counter notes that enzymes in raw food are largely broken down by stomach acid and contribute negligibly to digestion. Raw diets, particularly raw vegan ones, are also deficient in nutrients including vitamin B-12, and cooking removes the risk of food-borne illness that raw practice leaves in place. [Rejecting P3] Reported vitality does not establish the diet as best, since the counter treats these regimes as fad diets that are hard to sustain — highly restrictive, demanding, and expensive given the blenders and dehydrators many recipes require — and notes practitioners who abandoned them, including for excessive weight loss. [Rejecting C] The recommendation nutritionists actually give, on the counter's account, is a mix of raw and cooked food to maximise available nutrients, which is incompatible with treating an all-raw diet as the best approach.

The argument

Context

Premises

Counter-arguments

Rejecting the premises

Further reading