Actually, there are people who do a raw foods diet that includes meat.. two Yahoo groups that are good are RAVF (something like raw animal and vegetable foods) and the Live Foods group (which isn't specifically pro-meat, I don't think, but may include discussion of it).

A common tenet of raw foods groups seems to be that some studies show fewer enzymes are available to aid digestion of a food when it's been cooked. Proteins in particular can denature or change with cooking. Raw eggs and raw cream/milk (which is tasty and available in some states) is part of the way of eating, and a lot of people find energy and other benefits from these things. One would have to make peace with how one felt about the "food safety" of eating uncooked eggs and drinking uncooked (unpasteurized milk). I've done both, and only felt better... you do need to make sure you're careful to get a good supplier, etc.

There are people who are a LOT more adventurous than I'd be with raw meats, but sashimi (sushi without the rice) and very thinly sliced beef carpaccio (aka beef sashimi) are easy ways into it. So are raw eggs in a shake of some sort. Another easy step toward the raw foods direction is to be careful of what fats you intake, to use only cold-pressed oils rather than fats damaged by heating. (If you are going to cook with an oil, check a chart available somewhere on the Web to see which ones are damaged the least by heating.) Another thing one can do is be careful to get fresh vegetables, grass-fed meats, etc., rather than canned, frozen or otherwise prepared things that do often contain synthetic chemicals one wouldn't expect unless one read labels very closely.

I don't eat all raw by any stretch, but I've always favored salads over cooked things, get sashimi whenever I can at reasonable cost, and favor steaks rare.

An adjunct to going all-natural, so to speak, is to consider what you put ON your body as well, as a lot of absorption does occur. (As one person mentioned, if you doubt this, put a piece of garlic in your shoe and see how quickly you start to actually taste garlic.) So lately I've been trying to use skincare products made directly from plants (some brands include Aubrey Organics and Dr. Hauschka) rather than those that contain a lot of added, synthesized things.

That last point, synthesized things vs. as-close-to-a-whole-food-as-possible, is one of debate (as are all things in nutrition, it seems!)... I'm not *certain* that an added synthesized chemical here or there will hurt me, but want to experiment with avoiding them and see how things go. Some theories loosely argue evolutionary precepts, that one's body has, thanks to history, grown familiar with chemicals as encountered when part of a whole thing, like a plant. That is, the liquids, hormones, antioxidants, whatever, go along with the aromatics of the plant, etc. and the body may treat that differently than a lump of some white powder it gets that's made from processing rock but has an identical chemical configuration to some chemical contained in a plant.

Since it's been found that synthesized chemicals do often work in the body, that's a more esoteric point of debate. I doubt it's been studied (much) as to whether there are benefits when a chemical is directly derived from a whole food, or problems that arise when it's not. But it's an interesting theory to experiment with if nothing else. There are some who believe that fresh-from-the-field (or dairy, or henhouse etc.) food has 'energy' the body can readily use vs. processed 'very dead' canned, frozen, dried or cooked foods. That is, not energy in the form of calories, but prana, chi, etc. - a less currently defined kind of available 'life force'... some attempts have been made to photograph that with kirlian photography (which senses what's called a corona discharge, I believe - though the relevance of that's heavily debated).