OK, first of all, let's examine BYV's notion that since all human cultures eat (some) cooked-food and that that implies that we need it or have to have it. This is a false conclusion as the only way one could conclude that cooked-food is essential/necessary for human health and that raw food is unnecessary or toxic is if we could encounter a human culture that only ate cooked-food and no raw food whatsoever (no such culture exists, to my knowledge as all humans need to eat raw fruit for vitamin C etc., and the Eskimos on their 99% meat diets would eat some of their meats raw, also for the vitamin C among other nutrients) . I should also point out that since all non-human species do not cook their foods and thrive in that state, that humans don't need to cook their food, either.
There has not been an all Vegan Civilization either, but that's not stopping them from believing meat is necessary in Man's diet. Many claim to be thriving as you do. I don't think BYV's conclusion is false by any means. I think merely, it is their own conclusion and not yours.
Re BYV's mention of Maillard molecules in stored, raw food:- This is an exaggeration as the Maillard molecules in raw food are never anywhere near as high as those in cooked-foods.
After reading Jeff Novick's list, it appears your comment might not be true. Unless you can fins a different list- which I wouldn't mind seeing by the way. The raw Avocado was more than a boiled potato. Obviously it might be good to track down the origin of that list.
One problem is your claims are wide-spread and I don't think you can make such statements because so many people are eating so many different types of food- cooked and raw. Not everyone eats SAD. How many people eating a whole foods traditional God forbid Weston Price-ish diet have been studied recently?
The claim that cooking either reduces or doesn't affect the allergenicity of food seems to be misguided. Here's a relevant quotation from the Wikipedia entry for AGEs:- Advanced Gycation End Products. This article is backed up by a reference to a study:- "AGEs may be less, or more, reactive than the initial sugars they were formed from. Foods may be up to 200 times more immunoreactive after cooking". This would seem to imply that allergenicity is worse as regards cooked-foods than the raw version.
Which foods though? Some foods shouldn't be eaten raw. Maybe some foods shouldn't be cooked or, too much. Lord, what if some foods can be cooked without incident? Are there any? Are we still talking grilling and all the nasty cooking methods or are we still talking 'boiling'?
The only genuine statement that BYV makes here is that eating some raw food (10% apparently) along with the cooked-food minimises the leukocytosis reaction. But since most people nowadays in the Western world don't automatically eat raw and cooked food at the same meal, this is meaningless.
This is hardly meaningless if one eats 30-50% raw/cooked. And how can you make the blanket statement that 'MOST' people don't eat raw and cooked at the same meal... ehh, okay don't answer that... but it is not meaningless! If people are uneducated about the issue, of course they won't know what they are doing is wrong. And why is that? Because, ehh OH FRAK! It's complicated. This Family raises that Family- God help me like the Bear said- Acculturation is a mighty force. And if you have read him, you'll know he says most will fail because of Acculturation. I detest people who tell people they will fail. It is not constructive. It is very possible that there are people eating raw and cooked and many are over at McDougall... and with out the meat heh heh.
Okay I'll be honest and say I read ¾ of the way down the page before collapsing from brain bleed exhaustion. I commend your rebuttal! I really do! Obviously it comes from the heart. But because there are so many variables that have not been tested, I still say nothing has been
proven. In fact,
some things may have been proven, but they should be listed and believe me the list will go on forever as I mentioned about the endless phone number possibilites.
As you now know, I do believe some cooking methods
ARE dangerous. I am a believer in much of what you say :thumbs up:
For me to believe I would need to see studies regarding various meats in stews, soups and broths. I would need studies on various vegetables the same. Bone broths studied. I have not found these studies, Also how raw vs cooked AGEs affect the human body. Meaning a boiled potato in water vs an apple.
Let me ask you a question. If you have blood work done, do you believe the results- that you're okay within a certain range? If you believe them why? And if you can believe that certain numbers are okay- I mean over having a sttaight flat-line of 0, why would it be difficult to believe that certain numbers- say an AGE 17 of a boiled potato, might be within an acceptable range?
Do you believe the Cholesterol Myth? If you do, on so such information, why would it be a difficult leap to believe not all AGE levels are dangerous to human life, when most of the world has a different view on cholesterol.
What you've shown me does not tilt the balance away from soups broths with any concrete measure. It doesn't favor it for sure.
I do appreciate your input however.
Best wishes,
Avalon
Show Posts
God forbid someone other than the people here at Raw Paleo should have the strength to balance raw and cooked foods beyond 10%. Hell, very few people eat Raw Paleo! Do you have any idea how what you say sounds?
and I left the scene myself. Still pop in once in a while to cause some trouble 
by Dr. Graham but he's a chiro right? Maybe?
