I think you guys are just privileging a cool hypothesis a neuroscientist is making about gastroenterology. It's pretty weird and frustrating how many objections this single point is getting, given that just like I already said, it's very testable.

Most raw food diets strongly recommend juicing, blending, mixing, etc. which are essentially pre-digestion.

So is chewing and it works just fine.

Furthermore, they're also generally billed as "weight loss diets," allowing sedentary people to lose weight without exercising -- the calorie total might be in the 1000-1500 range.

Who's doing the billing? Are these people fat to begin with? Where are you getting these numbers from and do they really have anything to do with the foodstuff being raw?

Cooking greatly increases how many things you can eat, what's safe to eat, and how many calories you can fit into your stomach.

Most foods you can make safe by cooking do not comprise a great deal of what people eat. Some of them could be unsafe raw just because human GI tracts are used to cooked food by now. Also, most foods don't significantly shrink when you cook them.

Cooking might decrease nutrient absorption by 5-10%,but when you can eat 50-100% more, it's a fine trade.

Again, where are you getting these numbers from?