Paleo Diet: Raw Paleo Diet and Lifestyle Forum
Raw Paleo Diet Forums => General Discussion => Topic started by: Sully on August 22, 2008, 02:30:31 am
-
Anyone know the digestion times of various raw animal meats & Eggs? Thanks! ;D
-
???anyone???
-
Wouldn't it largely depend on one's individual system?
-
Wouldn't it largely depend on one's individual system?
yeah i thought of that, but I'm just wondering what the average might be...ya know, approximately
-
What digest quicker?...raw nuts, or raw meat???
-
In my experience, raw meat digests much faster than raw nuts (even if soaked/sprouted).
-
IIRC according to Aajonus Vonderplanitz, raw meat is digested in one hour.
-
IIRC according to Aajonus Vonderplanitz, raw meat is digested in one hour.
yes i thougt nuts were slower
-
If raw meat is supposed to be fully digested in one hour, then I'm in big trouble.
Somehow I don't think that is right at all.
-
1 hour seems a bit quick and AV is prone to exaggeration. Maybe a couple of hours but raw meat takes less energy so you don't crash out after eating dinner like with a cooked diet.
-
One thing I can tell you is that a meal of meat and fat will cause a slow rise in BG over about a 3 hour period after which it starts a slow decline. I'm sure that the 3 hours is a combination of digestion of the meal as well as the time it takes for a portion of the resulting amino acids to be converted by the liver into BG, but I expect that it is fairly representative of the overall time to metabolize a meat/fat meal.
Carbs on the other hand, can cause a massive rise in BG within 15 minutes, especially if the carbs are free simple sugars rather than complex carbs that must be released from indigestible fiber. There are even some carbs that require intestinal flora to break down the fiber to release the digestible portion within and this can take many hours (not to mention causing great discomfort in the form of gas etc.). Beans and legumes anyone?
Based on the rise and fall of BG, the digestion time for a meal consisting of meat and fat alone is quite consistent, but a meal of mixed carbohydrate sources appears to be quite variable depending on the source.
Lex
-
what is bg?, blood and glucose?
-
what is bg?, blood and glucose?
It's "blood glucose."
As for nut digestion time vs. meat, nuts definitely take longer. Imo nuts take longer to digest than even cooked food. They are the most concentrated and hard to digest food in the world, the nutrition for a tree to grow is in there and at the same time it's locked down by shell coverings and enzyme inhibitors.
-
The only study that I'm aware of that comes anywhere close to addressing this question is one where they fed four pythons identical amounts of beef, one raw, one cooked, one raw and ground, one cooked and ground. They came to the conclusion that it took less time and energy to consume the meat when it was cooked or ground than when it was raw with even greater reductions when the meat was ground and cooked.
http://lib.bioinfo.pl/pmid:17827047 (http://lib.bioinfo.pl/pmid:17827047)
How applicable this information is to humans is anybody's guess, as is the question of which snake received the most nutritive benefit.
-
The only study that I'm aware of that comes anywhere close to addressing this question is one where they fed four pythons identical amounts of beef, one raw, one cooked, one raw and ground, one cooked and ground. They came to the conclusion that it took less time and energy to consume the meat when it was cooked or ground than when it was raw with even greater reductions when the meat was ground and cooked.
http://lib.bioinfo.pl/pmid:17827047 (http://lib.bioinfo.pl/pmid:17827047)
How applicable this information is to humans is anybody's guess, as is the question of which snake received the most nutritive benefit.
The above study was made by Wrangham, as I recall, who is a notoriously biased,anti-raw chimp behaviourist, and the study has not been corroborated by any other studies.Wrangham's claims re cooked-food leading to bigger brains and his laughable claim that no human can survive for long on a raw food diet, even one including mostly raw meats,shows that he's never once met any Raw Animal Foodist at all. Plus his claim re humans needing to chew raw meats for 5 to 6 hours a day in order to get adequate nutrition is not only absurdly extreme but based on a ridiculous comparison to chimpanzees(who are an entirely different species and who are not as adapted to meat-eating as humans are):-
http://www.rawpaleodiet.com/advent-of-cooking-article/
Here's 2 scientific studies which prove Wrangham dead-wrong and show that raw meat is actually easier to digest:-
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1897402
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3748129
Anyway, Wrangham's pro-cooking views are held in ridicule by most palaeoanthroplogists as he continually makes the same mistake of many amteur scientists:- he makes up a really nice-sounding theory and then looks around for anything whatsoever, no matter how dodgy, to back it up. Real science works by starting with the facts/details of experiments and only then forming a theory from it, rather than the other way round. Well, it's just as well we have someonas dodgy as Wrangham as the main anti-raw proponent, I suppose.
http://www.rawpaleodiet.com/advent-of-cooking-article/
-
Wrangham was one of the authors of the study, but another collaborator was Stephen Secor whose main focus of research has been the digestive system of pythons http://lib.bioinfo.pl/auth:Secor,SM (http://lib.bioinfo.pl/auth:Secor,SM). Because of this I see no reason to doubt the accuracy of the descriptions of times and energy levels of python digestion. The extrapolation to humans at the beginning of the abstract is a lot dodgier, but all of us who've made it this far into the world of interpreting and digesting (pun intended) research should be familiar with how fast and loose many authors are with inserting opinions and conclusions into abstracts that have absolutely nothing to do with the data presented in the paper (e.g. many studies that purport to vilify cholesterol and Saturated fat). I see no reason why snakes can't digest cooked meat more easily than raw while it being the reverse for humans.
I have not read the full studies that you linked to, just the abstracts, but the first one seems to indicate that many plant foods are more easily digestible when cooked (hmm, should we be eating raw meat and cooked plants?) and the only reference to protein digestibility refers to "excessive heat." Without referring to the body of the study I can't know exactly what temperature "excessive heat" refers to or if the damage caused increases linearly or exponentially as temperatures are raised. I don't want to make any assumptions, but based just on this info it is equally as likely that low temperature cooking is beneficial or neutral as it is harmful.
From the second study, I'm really not sure what Volatile Ammonium Bases are or what affect they have on digestion, if any. From a Google search it also appears that these substances have only been measured in fish, not land animals, so the study doesn't necessarily have any bearing whatsoever on the cooking of terrestrial meat. Without knowing what effect VAB's actually have on the human body or digestion of fish I can't say that this study gives us any information on the human digestion of cooked seafood either. Also, the study found similar changes in the fish not only from cooking but from freezing and storing. The freezing and storing is exactly what the Inuit would do, so saying that a change caused by cooking is bad when the same change caused by freezing and storing is neutral or good seems untenable to me.
-
Freezing or storing food doesn't do anywhere near as much damage as heat. You have to freeze/store for absolutely ages before the damage becomes similiar(see beyondveg.com 's ridiculous anti-raw "thesis" where 30 days' storage is cited etc.). As regards the study re pythons, anyone can make up statistics for a particular study, making the facts fit the theories one wants.
As regards the Oste study, it makes it clear that heating above 100 degrees Centigrade decreases meat-digestibility. As regards heating above 40 degrees Celsius, when enzymes, and eventually, bacteria, start getting destroyed, it would be pretty difficult to argue that there wasn't a linear rate of harm done to food via heating. I mean, surely well-charred meat)with a proven higher amount of toxins in them, such as PAHs, would be far less digestible by comparison to lightly-cooked- or raw-foods?
And, of course, Wrangham totally ignores the whole issue of toxins in cooked-foods, which is a most inconvenient subject for him.
Obviously, more scientific data is needed, but it's becoming more and more difficult to defend cooked-diets when pet-owners find that their pets digest raw meats(on a prey-model diet) far better than the cooked-scraps or processed nutritional supplements they got before. And, brilliantly, all those vets who warned against the supposed "dangers of raw diets" are now looking very stupid, indeed, in the wake of all those recent Chinese pet-food-contamination-scares.
As regards the issue of vegetables being supposedly "improved" by cooking re removing antinutrients, this is a moot point. Many nutritionists claim that small amounts of such raw vegetables contain "phytonutrients" which, in small amounts, are beneficial, whereas they would be harmful in much larger amounts(and called "antinutrients", then). Plus, of course, cooking creates toxins in vegetables such as AGEs(advanced glycation endproducts), thus making cooked-veg worse than raw veg, overall.
In any case, the whole python-issue is killed off by the famous , more definitive Pottenger study which(along with numerous anecdotal reports from raw-feeding pet-owners) showed that cats fed on cooked diets suffer from numerous health-problems, which worsen over the generations. The only argument that anti-rawists can convincingly come up with against this study is that "adding artificial taurine supplements" to cooked-pet-food made everything (supposedly) OK - what they can't argue is that heat destroys taurine, which is essential for cats - so only artificially-supplemented cooked-diets can even compete(albeit with serious damage for cats in the long-term, via AGEs, HCAs etc.).
-
I agree that cats are a closer surrogate to humans than snakes are, but, AFAIK, the Pottenger studies tell us nothing about the amount of time that it takes for food to be digested and so both studies provide us with useful information.
Wrangham's name is on the python paper but I have no clue how much work he actually did on the project. It is very common in academia for supervisors who have done no or little work to have their names put on papers above their subordinates. I do not know if that is what happened in this case or not. How is it that you are aware that he was "intimately involved?" If you're basing that on anything other than the position of his name in the citation I'd love to see it.
As per what I know of the Oste study (mainly what is reported by Beyondveg), it is perfectly plausible, absent evidence to the contrary, that enzymes and some nutrients are destroyed at 40 degrees Celsius but that no significant changes to the digestability of the protein take place until temperatures of close to 100 Celsius are reached. Just because charred, well done meat is significantly less digestible than raw does not require that meat cooked rare be at all less digestible than raw (yes, some nutrients are destroyed, but that is entirely a separate question.)
As per the creation of AGE's and other toxins, in all things it is the dose that creates the poison. While these substances are arguably detrimental in large quantities and probably never beneficial it is still an assumption to believe that in small quantities the body is incapable of dealing with them without lasting harm. Dr. Eades has pointed out that no evidence exists that the consumption of AGE's in ones diet causes any increase of AGE's to be stored or formed in the body. I don't know if he's right, but I haven't seen any evidence to contradict him. This point on AGE's seems applicable to both vegetables and meat. Your other point on phytonutrients versus antinutrients seems to me to be a question solely of quantity consumed without regards for preparation method.
-
In his book, Experiments and observations on the gastric juice, and the physiology of digestion (http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&id=mDUNKixCsb8C&dq=WILLIAM+BEAUMONT+Experiments+and+Observations+on+the+Gastric+Juice&printsec=frontcover&source=web&ots=sS76rQ4oHZ&sig=8UF0mpyM2HBGjLMMTvLEcnyCnhM&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=2&ct=result#PPP1,M1)
Dr. William Beaumont experiments on the victim of a gunshot wound who has been left with on open stomach. I haven't re-read this but I do believe that, according to this, cooked meat does seem to digest faster than raw meat but neither digest as fast as plant matter, at least so far as the stomach is concerned. He also found that digestion outside the body was slower, if I remember correctly. This is only one person though.
-
In his book, Experiments and observations on the gastric juice, and the physiology of digestion (http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&id=mDUNKixCsb8C&dq=WILLIAM+BEAUMONT+Experiments+and+Observations+on+the+Gastric+Juice&printsec=frontcover&source=web&ots=sS76rQ4oHZ&sig=8UF0mpyM2HBGjLMMTvLEcnyCnhM&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=2&ct=result#PPP1,M1)
Dr. William Beaumont experiments on the victim of a gunshot wound who has been left with on open stomach. I haven't re-read this but I do believe that, according to this, cooked meat does seem to digest faster than raw meat but neither digest as fast as plant matter, at least so far as the stomach is concerned. He also found that digestion outside the body was slower, if I remember correctly. This is only one person though.
Google will only let me look at so much of the book, and I've reached my limit -[ but it seems that you are correct.
-
He did have a compromised stomach. My own experience has been that cooked food and neolithic carbs drive my stomach acid up. This probably causes faster digestion but may be a defense mechanism to something the body sees as "foreign" being ingested. I have no way of telling how much faster or slower my digestion is now but I sure can attest to the fact that it's much better than it was on SAD.
-
In my personal timings, assuming I do not stuff myself with food and observe digestion of food eaten one kind at a time, this is my observation:
raw ripe fruit: 20 minutes
raw meat such as beef or tuna: 60 minutes
If I stuff myself with too much raw meat, it can take 4 hours.
Lesson for myself is not to stuff myself with too much food in one sitting. It seems my digestive capacity only goes for so much food eaten at one sitting.
It is worse when I stuff myself with cooked meat, I get so so so sleepy.
-
Wrangham's name is on the python paper but I have no clue how much work he actually did on the project. It is very common in academia for supervisors who have done no or little work to have their names put on papers above their subordinates. I do not know if that is what happened in this case or not. How is it that you are aware that he was "intimately involved?" If you're basing that on anything other than the position of his name in the citation I'd love to see it.
This is just quibbling. The fact is that Wrangham is the one who's been interviewed concerning this paper, not Conklin-Britton or any of the others, so he must have been intimately involved in the whole process - scientists who claim credit for work they haven't done tend to get blacklisted, so it's a career-killer for them to to do so. Granted, you may claim that Wrangham set the conditions/requirements of the test and some junior scientist did the actual experiment, but, even so, that means that Wrangham still had a major influence on the experiment, one way or another. So, really, it's up to you to prove that Wrangham had no control or influence over the various cooked-food studies he cites, despite his writing about it, being the main one interviewed about it etc.
As per what I know of the Oste study (mainly what is reported by Beyondveg), it is perfectly plausible, absent evidence to the contrary, that enzymes and some nutrients are destroyed at 40 degrees Celsius but that no significant changes to the digestability of the protein take place until temperatures of close to 100 Celsius are reached. Just because charred, well done meat is significantly less digestible than raw does not require that meat cooked rare be at all less digestible than raw (yes, some nutrients are destroyed, but that is entirely a separate question.)
This is a mere technicality. Here's another study which proves my point:-
http://jn.nutrition.org/cgi/reprint/7/4/367.pdf
The above is a comparison between raw meat and 3 types of cooking at various temperatures, 1 of which involved cooking at 66-75 degrees Celsius for a period. All 3 cooking-methods showed a decrease in nutritive value and a clear drop in digestibility of meats after heating:-
"By the criterion of growth promoted among young rats(table 3), quite parallele differences are deduced. The raw meat is superior to all the cooked products, since each gram of raw meat protein eaten produced 0.78+/- 0.7 gm greater gain(i rats) than did that auto-claved 1 hour, 0.17 +/- 0.6 more than the boiled and 0.14 +/- 0.06 more than that autoclaved 7 minutes.
The other aspect is that since enzymes start getting destroyed at c.40 degrees Celsius, digetibility of meat is reduced. Yes, I know, that pro-cooked-advocates deny the uses of enzymes in raw food, but given the above facts re digestibility of protein being reduced at only slightly higher temperatures, it's clear that they are quite wrong.
As per the creation of AGE's and other toxins, in all things it is the dose that creates the poison. While these substances are arguably detrimental in large quantities and probably never beneficial it is still an assumption to believe that in small quantities the body is incapable of dealing with them without lasting harm. Dr. Eades has pointed out that no evidence exists that the consumption of AGE's in ones diet causes any increase of AGE's to be stored or formed in the body. I don't know if he's right, but I haven't seen any evidence to contradict him. This point on AGE's seems applicable to both vegetables and meat. Your other point on phytonutrients versus antinutrients seems to me to be a question solely of quantity consumed without regards for preparation method.
As regards AGEs, Eades is merely expressing an opinion, based on no real data. All the studies show, unequivocally, that the more AGEs you ingest via cooked-food, the worse your health becomes(eg:-
http://www.circ.ahajournals.org/cgi/content/full/110/3/285
)
The very fact that it takes time for people to get diseased from the accumulation of AGEs implies, by definition, that the AGEs are stored in the body until a critical point is reached. So, Eades is clearly wrong. Besides, there are plenty of studies focusing on the formation and accumulation of AGEs in tissue:-
http://www.jleukbio.org/cgi/content/full/71/3/433
http://www.springerlink.com/content/rwm8p2pyb4kj3q5w/
As regards the toxicity of AGEs, yes, of course,it's all a matter of degree - boiling is better than frying which is better than microwaving etc., but raw is far better than any cooking-method, on an overall level. I am not suggesting that AGEs are as toxic as cyanide but they are clearly a cause of physical degeneration of the human body as a result of eating cooked-foods. It is true, that extremely microscopic traces of AGEs can be found even in raw foods, which the human body can easily handle, but the amounts of AGEs in cooked-/processed foods is so much greater, by comparison, that the body is not equipped on an evolutionary level to deal with those much higher amounts. To argue that humans are adapted to the amounts of AGEs we consume(ever since the invention of cooking), you would have to prove, unequivocably, that we need to eat AGEs in order to live(that is, if you support Wrangham's and others' claim that cooked food is "better/healthier" for humans than any raw food) or(if you believe that there's no real difference between raw and cooked food) you have to prove that the human body can tolerate the amounts of AGEs present in cooked-foods - something which has been disproven by numerous scientific studies, detailing the links between AGEs and diabetes/macular degeneration etc. etc.:-
http://www.rawpaleoforum.com/important-info-for-newbies/info-on-toxins-in-cooked-foods/
Re phytonutrients:- Heating reduces phytonutrient levels. But, yes, it's a matter of how many there are:- too many, and they cause harm, too few and there's no benefit(unless one believes the zero-carbers, that is).
-
T. Colin Campbell, whose name appears second on Diet, Life-style and Mortality in China: A Study of the Characteristics of 65 Chinese Counties is certainly the most well known figure associated with this study. He is the one who's been interviewed concerning it and has been promoting it. I think that we can agree that in doing so he has greatly distorted the findings of that large and comprehensive epidemiolgical paper. I think that it is fair to criticize Campbell and his interpretations of the study, particularly that work of propaganda/fiction that he published as "The China Study" but I have come across no one who has impugned the data from or execution of the original study (other than the normal limitations of epidemiological research, of course, and that some of the questions were poorly worded). The fact that he has been misusing and perverting the data to his own end does not mean that the original data is flawed.
I think that this is analogous to Wrangham. We can accept the data of the python study without having to accept any of Wrangham's far-fetched conclusions. It would be a career-killer for Stephen Secor, who has studied and published more about the digestion of pythons than anyone else, to publish research that could be so easily falsifiable by anyone else who is willing to do the experiment. I do not claim that Wrangham set the conditions and that some junior scientist did the work. As reported by Science and Health journalist Rachael Gorman, http://www.rachaelgorman.com/article_full.php?article_stamp=1202161241 (http://www.rachaelgorman.com/article_full.php?article_stamp=1202161241), Wrangham sought out Secor because he already had experience studying the evolutionary design of the digestive system. Yes, the research found what Wrangham wanted it to find and he uses it to prop up his theories, but I don't think that that indicates the data to be erroneous any more than I think that the data actually supports his theory. As I've said before, I find it very hard to believe that the snake data in isolation tells us anything meaningful about the human digestive tract. I also don't think that this study tells us anything about the quality of the nutrition that the snake is absorbing. It just tells us that the snake can absorb cooked food more quickly and with less energy than it can raw food.
This is a mere technicality. Here's another study which proves my point:-
http://jn.nutrition.org/cgi/reprint/7/4/367.pdf
The above is a comparison between raw meat and 3 types of cooking at various temperatures, 1 of which involved cooking at 66-75 degrees Celsius for a period. All 3 cooking-methods showed a decrease in nutritive value and a clear drop in digestibility of meats after heating:-
"By the criterion of growth promoted among young rats(table 3), quite parallele differences are deduced. The raw meat is superior to all the cooked products, since each gram of raw meat protein eaten produced 0.78+/- 0.7 gm greater gain(i rats) than did that auto-claved 1 hour, 0.17 +/- 0.6 more than the boiled and 0.14 +/- 0.06 more than that autoclaved 7 minutes.
I do not think that this study proves your point any more than the Oste one does. The Morgan Kern study is a comparison of raw meat along with 3 samples cooked in different ways. One sample was boiled until an internal temperature of 84C was reached. The second was autoclaved at 15 pounds of pressure for 7 minutes, giving a temperature of 84C. The last was autoclaved at 15lbs of pressure for 1 hour. The authors did not measure the temperature of this sample, but admit that it probably exceeded 85C. 84C is equivilent to 183F and is far beyond well done. At no time did the authors of this study examine lightly cooked meat.
The reference to a sample cooked from 66-77C is not from this study but is mentioned as the author discusses all previous studies done in this area of research. This number came from the work of Jarawussa in '29. Jarawussa's study found absolutely zero difference in biological value when comparing the raw substance with the cooked. I say substance instead of meat because Jarawussa used a mixture of "100 gm. of meat, treated in one of the ways given above, with 40gm. of potatoes, 20 gm. of cabbage and 10 gm. of carrots." Even if the Jarawussa study had only looked at meat and had come to a conclusion that the raw meat showed a difference in biological value it still wouldn't tell us anything about cooking meats to Rare (46-51C). 66C (151F) is considered medium rare by the USDA, but any chef in a kitchen will tell you that their numbers are wacky and that 66C is more Medium to Medium-Well.
The other aspect is that since enzymes start getting destroyed at c.40 degrees Celsius, digetibility of meat is reduced. Yes, I know, that pro-cooked-advocates deny the uses of enzymes in raw food, but given the above facts re digestibility of protein being reduced at only slightly higher temperatures, it's clear that they are quite wrong.
If by "the above facts re protein digestibility being reduced" you are referring to the Oste, Morgan and Jarawussa studies and not something else that I've overlooked then I hope that I have demonstrated that they do not tell us anything about what happens between, say, 40C and 60C. The question about whether enzyme rich foods actually benefit us or if the enzymes are all broken down into basic amino acids in the stomach seems to be still up in the air. It is still possible that the enzymes are deactivated at 40C but that there is no change in protein digestibility until 58C, to pick a random number.
The issue of the AGE's is more complicated and one where I will have to spend much more time reading through the references that you have provided before I feel that I'll be able to comment intelligently.
On phytonutrients and plants it seems that if too many cause harm and too few give no benefit then cooking which, depending on the method chosen and how it is executed, reduces but generally does not eliminate these compounds and which, according to Oste, makes the plants more digestible might be the preferred way to prepare and consume them.
-
T. Colin Campbell, whose name appears second on Diet, Life-style and Mortality in China: A Study of the Characteristics of 65 Chinese Counties is certainly the most well known figure associated with this study. He is the one who's been interviewed concerning it and has been promoting it. I think that we can agree that in doing so he has greatly distorted the findings of that large and comprehensive epidemiolgical paper. I think that it is fair to criticize Campbell and his interpretations of the study, particularly that work of propaganda/fiction that he published as "The China Study" but I have come across no one who has impugned the data from or execution of the original study (other than the normal limitations of epidemiological research, of course, and that some of the questions were poorly worded). The fact that he has been misusing and perverting the data to his own end does not mean that the original data is flawed.
This might interest you, as it exposes flaws in The China Study conclusions:
http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com/China-Study.html
-
This might interest you, as it exposes flaws in The China Study conclusions:
http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com/China-Study.html
Yes, I think that Masterjohn supports my contention perfectly, as it uses the data from the original monolith, Diet, Life-style and Mortality in China: A Study of the Characteristics of 65 Chinese Counties to disprove the distortions and lies that Campbell puts forth in his commercial book The China Study.
-
I think that this is analogous to Wrangham. We can accept the data of the python study without having to accept any of Wrangham's far-fetched conclusions. It would be a career-killer for Stephen Secor, who has studied and published more about the digestion of pythons than anyone else, to publish research that could be so easily falsifiable by anyone else who is willing to do the experiment. I do not claim that Wrangham set the conditions and that some junior scientist did the work. As reported by Science and Health journalist Rachael Gorman, http://www.rachaelgorman.com/article_full.php?article_stamp=1202161241 (http://www.rachaelgorman.com/article_full.php?article_stamp=1202161241), Wrangham sought out Secor because he already had experience studying the evolutionary design of the digestive system. Yes, the research found what Wrangham wanted it to find and he uses it to prop up his theories, but I don't think that that indicates the data to be erroneous any more than I think that the data actually supports his theory. As I've said before, I find it very hard to believe that the snake data in isolation tells us anything meaningful about the human digestive tract. I also don't think that this study tells us anything about the quality of the nutrition that the snake is absorbing. It just tells us that the snake can absorb cooked food more quickly and with less energy than it can raw food.
Even if Wrangham wasn't remotely responsible for that python experiment(highly unlikely as stealing others' credit would be damaging), there is also the point that 1 lone study, such as this, is never accepted as likely by scientists unless there are at least a large number of other studies confirming the same result. This is partly because there are so many scientists like Wrangham, who start off with what seems like a nice theory, and then try to set up an experiment where they manipulate the facts to fit the theory, rather than what should happen which is to work out some facts and build a theory from them. The studies on the deleterious effects of heat on food may not be 100% comprehensive on all aspects, as food-science is such a new field, but the amount of data re the harm done to food by heat comes from so many different scientific papers on AGEs, HCAs etc. etc. that it can no longer be dismissed.
As regards the whole issue of AGEs in less-heated foods, claiming that they're only in small amounts is irrelevant as the amounts are still way, way above the microscopic amounts of AGEs in raw foods. Plus, there are also other toxins such as heterocyclic amines, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and nitrosamines. So, over a lifetime, it's inevitable that these build up over time, especially given the known tendency for the human body to store (and form) AGEs in itself. Here's a standard table showing 22 KUs of AGEs for boiled beef, yet only 0.05 KUs of AGEs for raw mother's milk:-
http://www.newcastleyoga.com.au/links/Food%20AGEs%20text.pdf
As you can see from the table, even boiling foods increases AGEs considerably by comparison to raw foods, so that boiling or lightly-cooking foods may be less worse than frying or baking foods, but it certainly still does harm, judging from this and other studies.
*One important point:- fats are especially affected by heat, in terms of producing AGEs, so this confirms Aajonus' point that the best food raw is the worst food cooked*
]
Since the studies show that amounts of AGEs and other toxins rise inexorably , on a linear level, as temperatures get ever higher, it becomes more and more difficult to argue that there is no change in the digestibility of foods once the content of foods starts getting changed(ie enzymes getting destroyed at 40 degrees celsius).
As for the issue of phytonutrients, it doesn't really matter whether cooking destroys the phytonutrients(deemed bad by SAD-dieters, and good by zero-carbers) as the process of cooking itself creates further toxins, thus negating any supposed benefits re removing antinutrients.
-
On the Secor/Wrangham python study I think that we'll have to just agree to disagree. As I see it, I think that the study gives us a limited amount of information about python digestion times and the energy required and you think that it gives us no information at all. Either way, I think that we can agree that the results are practically irrelevant to humans.
As for the Goldberg study on AGE formulation I contend that, like the other studies mentioned thus far, it does not actually tell us anything about meat that is cooked only to bleau or to rare. To start, it does not give us a true control by not telling us how many AGE's are in raw beef. It may be similar to the raw breast milk, but there is no law saying that it needs to be. Second, while they state that they boiled the meat for 1 hour they do not tell us what the final internal temperature of the meat is. We cannot duplicate the experiment ourselves, cooking meat for an hour and then measuring the temperature, because they do not tell us the mass of the beef, a factor that could have a significant impact on the final internal temperature. Speaking just from limited experience, I have never had a pot roast (the closest thing to true boiled beef that I've ever consumed) that has not been cooked to well done. The sample probably never made it all the way to 100C, but how close, who knows?
Just as there is no enzyme damage at 38C but there is at 40C it remains possible, based on the data presented so far, that there is no significant AGE formation or reduction in digestibility in food heated to (to pull hypothetical numbers out of a hat) 58C but that they do show up at 60C and start increasing rapidly after that.
The data on the fats I find a little more confusing. Did they actually cook them at all, or are they just measuring them as purchased from the supermarket? If the latter then the butter numbers probably tell us something quite interesting about pasteurization. I'm also curious about the olive oil. I wonder what type they used. If they did not heat them at all then I would expect there to certainly be a difference between cold-pressed extra virgin and the heat extracted, second press Pure olive oil garbage. If they did not heat the fats in any way themselves and they did use good quality fats (both assumptions that we can't confirm from this paper) then it actually tells us nothing about AV's claim that the best food raw is the worst cooked. The AGE's might be endogenous to the fats themselves.
I don't understand what you mean when you say that destroying phytonutrients by cooking plant matter is deemed good by zero-carbers. Since zero-carbers don't consume plant matter why would they have an opinion on whether or not cooking it is a good thing? As for whether the creation of toxins is worse than the destruction of anti-nutrients I think that this would be dependent upon both the quantity of the substances created and destroyed and the relative effects that these substances have on the body. Without knowing the levels of the various substances and their effects I don't think that we can say with certainty which method of ingestion is ultimately better.
-
As for the Goldberg study on AGE formulation I contend that, like the other studies mentioned thus far, it does not actually tell us anything about meat that is cooked only to bleau or to rare. To start, it does not give us a true control by not telling us how many AGE's are in raw beef. It may be similar to the raw breast milk, but there is no law saying that it needs to be.
The report I cited is the most comprehensive report on AGEs-content in foods, and they did actually heat the foods, themselves(they state, for example, that the increase in AGEs was directly tied to the increase in temperature, and that heat-increase was the most relevant factor behind AGE-formation).
While that particular excerpt from the report didn't include a dozen other tables showing AGE-content, the limited data on that 1st table does make it perfectly clear that raw foods, consistently, have negligible AGE-values(0.05/0.13/0.01 etc.) while even just boiling beef etc. vastly increases the amounts of AGEs - so it's not realistic to claim that there would be little difference between raw and boiled-beef, in terms of AGE-content.
Just as there is no enzyme damage at 38C but there is at 40C it remains possible, based on the data presented so far, that there is no significant AGE formation or reduction in digestibility in food heated to (to pull hypothetical numbers out of a hat) 58C but that they do show up at 60C and start increasing rapidly after that.
While it is possible, it is extremely unlikely as the food already is being damaged at 40 degrees, in terms of enzymes, so one would expect other kinds of damage to appear at the same time as well, albeit in much smaller amounts than if cooked at 120 degrees, say.
The data on the fats I find a little more confusing. Did they actually cook them at all, or are they just measuring them as purchased from the supermarket? If the latter then the butter numbers probably tell us something quite interesting about pasteurization. I'm also curious about the olive oil. I wonder what type they used. If they did not heat them at all then I would expect there to certainly be a difference between cold-pressed extra virgin and the heat extracted, second press Pure olive oil garbage. If they did not heat the fats in any way themselves and they did use good quality fats (both assumptions that we can't confirm from this paper) then it actually tells us nothing about AV's claim that the best food raw is the worst cooked. The AGE's might be endogenous to the fats themselves.
It's clear from the fact that they are comparing different types of heat-treatment and the fact that they repeatedly report heating a number of foods, during the experiment, that they did cook all the foods. It is true that AGEs are formed in tiny microscopic amounts in food(and even in the human body), but every study, so far, has pointed out that the biggest, source of AGEs, by far, is from heated foods. I have yet to come across 1 single mention of a raw, unprocessed food with high amounts of AGEs in it.
I don't understand what you mean when you say that destroying phytonutrients by cooking plant matter is deemed good by zero-carbers. Since zero-carbers don't consume plant matter why would they have an opinion on whether or not cooking it is a good thing? As for whether the creation of toxins is worse than the destruction of anti-nutrients I think that this would be dependent upon both the quantity of the substances created and destroyed and the relative effects that these substances have on the body. Without knowing the levels of the various substances and their effects I don't think that we can say with certainty which method of ingestion is ultimately better.
Well, I meant low-carbers as well.And even some so-called zero-carbers occasionally eat some plant-food on certain unavoidable social occasions.As far as comparing the creation of toxins such as AGEs and the removal of antinutrients, I would say it's pretty clear that the creation of toxins would be much worse. After all, toxins such as AGEs are known to be a major cause behind diabetes- and age-related diseases, whereas all that antinutrients do is block the absorption/uptake of the nutrients in the food in question as well as any other foods eaten at the same time. Granted, if one were eating some very nutritionally-deficient diet(such as the tuber-rich diets in some parts of Africa), then antinutrients would be a more serious issue, but not on a standard Western diet.
-
The stated purpose of the "article was to determine the AGE content of commonly consumed foods and to evaluate the effects of various methods of food preparation on AGE production." From the start this clearly leaves them the ability to present data on both heated and non-heated foods. In table 1 they clearly provide the details on when some of the substances have been cooked and what method was used, e.g. beef broiledx 15 min, Egg yolk boiled, chicken breast broiledx15 min, tofu raw. While they do specify some of the foods as raw the majority of the foods on the table are not given any qualifier or information identifying what heating was done to them. This is the case with the olive oil and the butter. It is also the case with the human breast milk. No more information is given on the status of whether the breast milk was heated than is given about whether the olive oil was heated, yet you come to the conclusion that the milk was raw while the olive oil was not. Is there information somewhere else that does describe a difference? I went and looked for the tables 2.6 that they keep on their website but was unwilling to pay the $25 that they charge for 24 hrs access. I never claimed that there would be little difference between raw beef and boiled beef, but as we are not given (in table 1, at least) the value for raw beef we have no way of saying, other than making an unfounded assumption or finding outside information, that the values for raw beef are anywhere near the same range as those for raw milk (assuming that the milk actually is raw).
I have been unable to find data for the AGE content of raw beef, but this study
http://cjasn.asnjournals.org/cgi/content/full/1/6/1293 (http://cjasn.asnjournals.org/cgi/content/full/1/6/1293)
gives data for raw and cooked skinless chicken breast. While they don't use the same units of measurement they find that a raw breast has 692 AGE kilounits raw and 1011 AGE kilounits boiled, 5245 AGE kilounits broiled. While it is an increase from raw to boiled it is only a 46% increase. If we can extrapolate the percentages back to the values of Goldberg article and assume that the percentages for chicken are similar to those for beef (a big if, I know, but it seems reasonable to me as an approximation until better data is found) then the beef which has a value of 22 kU/g when boiled would have a measurement of about 15 kU/g when raw, far higher than the data given for the (possibly) raw milk. I find it a safer comparison to just extrapolate the numbers from chicken to chicken. To get from the broiled data in the chicken study (5245) to the broiled data in the Goldberg study (58) we divide by 90. Using this same factor on the raw chicken data we get a hypothetical 11 kU/g of AGE's Goldbergs scale. This is far, far higher than the data for the carbohydrate containing foods. It's even higher then is present in the tuna that has been roasted for 40 minutes at 177C (6 kU/g). Raw chicken has almost twice as many AGE's per gram than heavily overcooked tuna.
I do not question their conclusions that heat-increase is the most relevant factor in the increase of AGE's but as this study does not mention lightly cooked meats then we still know nothing about the relative levels of AGE content for rare meats or at what point the increase starts in earnest.
While it is possible, it is extremely unlikely as the food already is being damaged at 40 degrees, in terms of enzymes, so one would expect other kinds of damage to appear at the same time as well, albeit in much smaller amounts than if cooked at 120 degrees, say.
If the type of damage that causes the decrease in digestibility is a very similar chemical reaction to that which destroys the enzymes then you are correct that we should expect to see it appearing at about the same temperature. However, if it is a different type of reaction then it is very reasonable to expect the amount of heat that is needed as a catalyst to be different. As I know nothing about the type of reaction that takes place I prefer to not make any assumptions for which I have no supporting data.
-
We have people eating raw meat and fat...some do well, others don't.
On Charles forum people eat meat and fat; cooked...
I asked the Bear and now I would like to hear what others think and believe:
Hi Bear
I like to eat my beaf raw and the fat/marrow too.
Does this digest better than cooked meat? My
stooles are always runny! What about health and
raw meat vs. cooked or heated meat?
There's no accounting for taste.
Too much fat causes loose bowels, since you can;t
absorb without bile, which is limited. Eat a bit
slower and you will know when you have had enough
fat.
Why do you mention that salt is not good for a
fat metabolisme? What does it do?
Salt is a poison, and as litel as one ounce of
meat has all the salt you need. Yes, it
interferes with fat burning, but it doesn't
matter how.
I get to understand, that the human diet should
be raw - animals (carnivors) don't cook food. My
problem is, they don't have runny stooles so
should I be cooking?
I never said that. All I said was that EXCESSIVE
COOKING reduces the nutritional value of food and
destroys some vitamins. I don;t eat raw meat
much, since it is the hujman way to sear it for
enhanced flavour and to sterilize the oputside.
Blood rare or 'bleu' is the go.
We are not the same as 'carnivorous animals', a
term which covers a vast array olf meat-eaters.
Most are carnassal carnivores, such as cats, but
we evolved from insectivores hrough a period of
semi-omnivory, then 4 million years of pure
carvnivore ways, but the use of fire was ther
from the very beginning. Our teeth are those of
the insectivore lineage.
You are in serious trouble, you know. This sort
of constant questioningt indicates
food-obsessikon, and that will prevent you from
edhering to this regime, full stop.
Eat and enjoy your food. DO NOT think or worry
about it. Food should not be a major pat of your
existence, just something you do once or more
times eazch day, and if you have to think then
you are not comfortable and cannot properly enjoy
the act.
Give it away. (either the obsessing OR the
carnivorous lifestyle- they are incompatible).
???
-
Oh I like it when Nicola asks questions. I do not think you are obsessed. Just curious, need to know.
I'm like you too... I ask so many questions... and I keep on self experimenting.
See what works best at what stage and always do something better.
Runny stools are not good. That should only be temporary. If you have problems with fat absorption, I do know the consumption of lecithin supplements at every meal should help you with fat absorption. Also a couple of liver flushes should clear out the liver of debris / stones / etc. Parasites can be a problem if you have a history of isopropyl alcohol pollution in the past. De worming will take care of that. I would bet on liver flushing. Also intermittent fasting.
I do conclude that raw is best because 100% raw is required when people are sick with a terminal illness.
Of course there is more to healing than diet. Raw is the cleanest food. IMHO.
-
On Charles forum you get to know that on this forum people are way to extream -X.
I have runny stooles from raw meat; that is what comes out runny! Lex has talked about this too and his colon was o.k.
I can not hear this "detox" and cleanse any more; no animal does that! We need a diet that works...
Lex has been a good help; no silly talk >:!
Nicola
-
I can not hear this "detox" and cleanse any more; no animal does that! We need a diet that works...
Lex has been a good help; no silly talk >:!
So you have a problem but seem pretty closed to suggestions.
It's my understanding that animals don't eat the junk that we humans eat for most of our lives (especially as developing children) and so therefore the animals don't have any need for any kind of detox. If someone were to eat raw paleo from birth, they probably wouldn't either, but it's a possibility that someone coming off a typical diet would need something like a detox before reaping the full benefits of their new healthier diet.
That being said, I've never really done any kind of detox or anything like that.
-
Nicola, the fact is that as soon as cooked-food-diet-advocates (very grudgingly) admit that high amounts of cooking generates toxins and makes raw food less digestible etc.(as more and more do), then it becomes ever more difficult to defend the consumption of lightly-cooked-meats, as it's then merely a question of the degree of harm to raw food via heat.
As regards your diet, why not change it? Exchange the suet for some other kind of raw fat(marrow, hide-fat, muscle-meat-fat etc.)
-
... The only argument that anti-rawists can convincingly come up with against this study is that "adding artificial taurine supplements" to cooked-pet-food made everything (supposedly) OK - what they can't argue is that heat destroys taurine, which is essential for cats - so only artificially-supplemented cooked-diets can even compete(albeit with serious damage for cats in the long-term, via AGEs, HCAs etc.).
Do you have studies for artificial-taurine supplementation as opposed to natural taurine in foods in relation to our livers, digestion, nerves and muscles? Of course I prefer to get taurine in and along with whatever sources work best, be they goat milk, marine animals, heart, eye, liver or even rodent if I had too. I'm asking for a person, a resistant vegetarian who I know in my heart needs taurine for very life or at least some quality of it thereof.
-
On Charles forum you get to know that on this forum people are way to extream -X.
Nicola, I think Bear had a pretty good point about not worrying too much about stuff. I wouldn't worry what that forum says about this one or vice-versa. To each their own. While I also ask questions and make adjustments at times, I also try to remember to enjoy life.
I have runny stooles from raw meat; that is what comes out runny! Lex has talked about this too and his colon was o.k.
Was there ever a time when you were eating a certain diet that you did well on and did not get runny stools? Do you think you are eating too much fat or too quickly, as Bear suggested? You know better than anyone what you do best on. Trust yourself, and it's also generally recommended to verify by getting periodic checkups to see what your health stats are.
Lex has been a good help; no silly talk >:!
Nicola
:D I got a kick out of the way you put that, and the grumpy face, and I agree.
-
Do you have studies for artificial-taurine supplementation as opposed to natural taurine in foods in relation to our livers, digestion, nerves and muscles? Of course I prefer to get taurine in and along with whatever sources work best, be they goat milk, marine animals, heart, eye, liver or even rodent if I had too. I'm asking for a person, a resistant vegetarian who I know in my heart needs taurine for very life or at least some quality of it thereof.
There are plenty of studies online re the benefits of taurine supp-lementation, such as found here:-
http://www.bodybuildingforyou.com/supplements-reviews/taurine-supplement-information.htm
Do not assume however that they work in all cases. For example, I had numerous nutritional deficiencies pre-rawpalaeo and supplemented heavily but I just p*ssed them out in myt urine and they didn't help me(of course, I had glandular-related issues which might have prevented absorption or some such)
* Re Nicola's comment:- I have to admit I find this absurd. I mean, technically, we are nowhere near as extreme as the cooked zero-carbers as we eliminate far fewer entire food-groups from our diet than they do, given that most rawists still eat some raw plant foods - other than that, we just don't heat the foods we are given, which is simply a question of not changing the state of the food as opposed to trying a totally new food group.
-
There are plenty of studies online re the benefits of taurine supp-lementation, such as found here:-
http://www.bodybuildingforyou.com/supplements-reviews/taurine-supplement-information.htm
Do not assume however that they work in all cases. For example, I had numerous nutritional deficiencies pre-rawpalaeo and supplemented heavily but I just p*ssed them out in myt urine and they didn't help me(of course, I had glandular-related issues which might have prevented absorption or some such)
Yes, I don't assume that. The person I'm asking for does get some seizures. Also, the link you provides states:
Taurine is high in eggs, dairy products, meats and fish proteins.
While many other sites state that taurine is low in cow milk:
Taurine, an amino acid derivative found in meat and other animal foods (except for milk and milk products), appears to shield the heart from harm. It's best known for empowering bile acids to clear cholesterol from the body. It may also fight cellular troublemakers that can damage the heart. Studies in animals suggest that taurine lowers blood pressure as well--yet another heart-healthy property. Although research has produced conflicting results, taurine may also benefit vision disorders, epilepsy
"DEFICIENCY SIGNS: Deficiency in Vitamins A, E, and D increases Taurine excretion; epilepsy (low Taurine, high Glycine), 50% of epileptics may void Taurine supplements in their urine; heart disease; slowed growth, biochemical aging process; mother's milk is rich in Taurine, formulas and cows milk are not and may be causing infant abnormalities.
So I'm not so sure about what it reads. Apparently it works better for you in food form, and I'm thinking it likely may be similar for this person. They eat all raw food. I just discussed it with them now, and looks like they may be willing to try goat or sheep milk.
Goat milk contained nearly 3 times higher concentrations of free amino acids than cow milk, and nearly two thirds the level in human milk. Only goat and breast milk contained naturally high levels of taurine.
What are the benefits of goat milk?
Goat milk has natural bioactive factors such as nucleotides, taurine and polyamine which help to build up the immune system.
They do have some supplemental taurine, I think it is by NOW. I'm wondering if it will work as well as food for them, or even if using a synthetic form might put any burden on the body of a sick person? Also, what the source of supplemental taurine is. Can it be fabricated out of nothing in a laboratory? If so, they will be happy with this, especially as raw goat milk may be difficult to come by regularly, for someone not owning nor living near goats, and sick.
-
Nicola, I think Bear had a pretty good point about not worrying too much about stuff. I wouldn't worry what that forum says about this one or vice-versa. To each their own. While I also ask questions and make adjustments at times, I also try to remember to enjoy life.
Was there ever a time when you were eating a certain diet that you did well on and did not get runny stools? Do you think you are eating too much fat or too quickly, as Bear suggested? You know better than anyone what you do best on. Trust yourself, and it's also generally recommended to verify by getting periodic checkups to see what your health stats are.
:D I got a kick out of the way you put that, and the grumpy face, and I agree.
Not worry - when others are eating no more than what some guy writes in a book (Van); what happens if he had to leave his car at home and get from A to B on his own legs - eating what Mr. so and so has in his book?
Runny stools - when I eat suet my system does not make me feel sick and have runny stools (this has happend a few times now) in the night (I don't even eat at night because that is just an easy way not to deal with feeling what things really feel like + it just shows me how long it takes for the body to deal with food...many hours) like yellow/oily muscle fat. Now all I can do is have one day on suet and one day on muscle fat...normal people don't have those kind of problems and don't need to eat (dogs) food with ground bones...I am not so shore but like on the zerocarb forum - we like to call this all healing, healthy, detox...normal???
Nicola
-
Yes I agree, If I didn't have a car, my calorie content would increase to help fuel my body. You may have missed my point. Rosedale is suggesting to limit meat to the amount the body needs for maintenance and repair, not to fuel the body with calories. He suggests upping the fat content to whatever level is needed for energy needs. If you follow Lex's journal, you'll see how he has lowered his blood sugar levels simply by lowering his protein intake. Exactly in alignment with what Rosedale suggests. Nicola you have a tendency to criticize others for what they are having success with, and yet for the last two years you have consistently shared of your problem by going back and forth from this forum and zc. So rather than criticize, why not investigate for yourself. As far as eating dog food/bones, with some research you'll find primitive peoples eating the entire animal including the bones of fowl, fish, mice and other small rodent types, chewing on rib bones, and the regular consumption of the softer more cancellous bony magnesium rich material immeshed with the marrow at the end of bones, a reported 'staple' found in most uncovered sites. My regular grinding of raw bone into a fine powder works well for me. My hope in mentioning it here is the possibility that in sharing, someone else may find similar appreciation of it's value. Let's all keep an open mind, for we are all searching, and improving our health with diet, as well as other means.
-
My regular grinding of raw bone into a fine powder works well for me. My hope in mentioning it here is the possibility that in sharing, someone else may find similar appreciation of it's value.
I did appreciate your sharing of this information van and, although I have yet to try it, it is my intention to do so. Thanks.
Not worry - when others are eating no more than what some guy writes in a book (Van); what happens if he had to leave his car at home and get from A to B on his own legs - eating what Mr. so and so has in his book?
Runny stools - when I eat suet my system does not make me feel sick and have runny stools (this has happend a few times now) in the night (I don't even eat at night because that is just an easy way not to deal with feeling what things really feel like + it just shows me how long it takes for the body to deal with food...many hours) like yellow/oily muscle fat. Now all I can do is have one day on suet and one day on muscle fat...normal people don't have those kind of problems and don't need to eat (dogs) food with ground bones...I am not so shore but like on the zerocarb forum - we like to call this all healing, healthy, detox...normal???
Nicola
Nicola, I tend to agree with van that many of your posts that I read seem critical of other members. What fuels this animosity for I have seen little evidence of others berating your choices? It is fine to question - as you seem to do constantly - but there are ways of doing so without criticising others particularly when they have invested part of their own valuable time in trying to help/advise you from their own knowledge and experiences. Surely, that is why we're here? To share our experiences and knowledge? Are we not civilised sufficiently to do so in a dignified manner?
Also, as others have mentioned, you seem to me to be forever worrying about the inadequacies of your chosen diet and questioning it's validity here and on other groups. I think PaleoPhil and Bear are right - you need to stop worrying or give up trying to follow this diet altogether. Nobody here is forcing you to eat RAF's Nicola. Maybe you're just not cut out for it and should return to being a 'normal' person?
-
There's another woman on another RAF forum. She for a year was only complaining about her symptoms and each food that didn't help. I asked her privately, and turns out she's feeling better than ever on the RAF diet, but was just so weak to start with and under additional stress from home and work every day.
I just assume that Nicola still being on this forum and still eating this diet means she is getting some benefit to her body by eating the RAF. It may be annoying to see similar complaints over again, but I know this stuff works, and I very much like some links etc that Nicola posted.
Good health to all.
-
I'm not so confident Nicola is benefitting from a RAF diet judging by her posts. Perhaps she can tell us otherwise by providing some positive feedback?
I would also prefer Nicola to remain a participative member of the forum. She does raise valid questions along with providing some interesting links. My concern is primarily for her in that I do not get the impression that she's happy on the diet.
Indeed, good health to all! :)
-
There is more to a happy life than diet and nutrition research. Sometimes some of us including myself are not actively outwardly dealing with some of the other aspects of life.
-
There is more to a happy life than diet and nutrition research. Sometimes some of us including myself are not actively outwardly dealing with some of the other aspects of life.
My point precisely! I get the impression, as do others, that Nicola is obsessing so much about her diet that she's not enjoying other aspects of her life. I may stand corrected as I recall she mentions participating in cycling, running and swimming. You may also be correct in that it is other aspects of her life that she's not dealing with that's causing her to present herself in a negative, critical manner.
Of course, it's up to Nicola to speak about these things (or not). I have no doubt most members here will kindly offer her support irrespectively.
-
Quote from: van on Today at 10:55:05 AM:
My regular grinding of raw bone into a fine powder works well for me. My hope in mentioning it here is the possibility that in sharing, someone else may find similar appreciation of it's value.
Michael wrote: I did appreciate your sharing of this information van and, although I have yet to try it, it is my intention to do so. Thanks.
Yes, me too. It makes sense to me that the minerals from bones would be more bioavailable than most sources. I hope to get a good grinder some day to do this.
Nicola, good luck to you with whatever dietary and life paths you choose. I too enjoy your posts.
-
My point precisely! I get the impression, as do others, that Nicola is obsessing so much about her diet that she's not enjoying other aspects of her life. I may stand corrected as I recall she mentions participating in cycling, running and swimming. You may also be correct in that it is other aspects of her life that she's not dealing with that's causing her to present herself in a negative, critical manner.
Of course, it's up to Nicola to speak about these things (or not). I have no doubt most members here will kindly offer her support irrespectively.
Michael by cycling, running and swimming (or is driving and sitting more paleo) my landscap (intestines) may allow for many different pictures? I look for the positive but that does not mean I don't notice many, many contradictions people make.
Lex did try a higher fat diet and then he reported putting on weight and feeling sluggish. I would also imagine his intestines and many other things should change...now that he is eating more fat again it seems o.k. Why was it different before?
Delfuego mentions just a little watery discharge - Lex does not...then some drink a lot of water and you Michael can not drink more (me too or I would have more watery discharge or perhaps not but I am not forcing myself to drink).
Van, if you feed your daughter and she has had her by book allowed protein would you then force her to eat more fat? - even if she cried "Daddy, more fat makes me feel sick in the tummy and and and!"
Van, how would you sell your food so that people would buy it? Can you tell us all about the positive aspects (body and social life)?
Nicola
-
From:
http://drbass.com/sequential.html
Animal proteins
Egg yolk - 30 min. digestion time
Whole egg - 45 min.
Fish - cod, scrod, flounder, sole seafood - 30 min. digestion time
Fish - salmon, salmon trout, herring, (more fatty fish) - 45 min. to 60 digestion time
Chicken - 1½ to 2 hours digestion time (without skin)
Turkey - 2 to 2 ¼ hours digestion time (without skin)
Beef, lamb - 3 to 4 hours digestion time
Pork - 4½ to 5 hours digestion time
(Editor's notes
Note1: raw animal proteins have much faster digestion times than the above times for cooked/heated animal proteins.
Maybe this explains why I feel better eating egg yolks and fish.