Author Topic: tallow v. butter  (Read 25985 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline a87.pal

  • Trapper
  • **
  • Posts: 58
    • View Profile
Re: tallow v. butter
« Reply #25 on: January 06, 2011, 04:30:07 am »
Tyler, just for clarification, are the "major heat created toxins" from cooked meats also all formed during the heating of fats?

I was always under the impression that cooking fat and protein together produced nasty carcinogenic compounds, but I don't think I've ever come across things that show "low heating"(without burning/smoking) and "wet heating" of fats alone or starches alone produce these carcinogens (and if they do, it is at a much lower rate).

Also (as you pointed out) the study I cited does not show spices counteract the major cooked meat toxins, but it does lend evidence to spices counteracting oxidized fats.

Not to be repetitive, but, again, I do believe raw is best. This thread is supposed to be more about comparing the risks of cooking grass fed animal fats (not cooking meat, though I am aware there are bits of meat even in suet) v. the risks of raw butter.

The reason I think making this comparison is useful is because I have noticed many people on the boards have difficulty digesting raw suet and accessing very fatty fresh grass fed meat cuts. The alternatives as I have mentioned before are raw marrow (best), raw grass fed boar/fowl fat, tallow and raw butter. ( I should also add egg yolks to the list, which I previously forgot about) Given availability and storage issues with marrow and pork/fowl fat, this leaves tallow and raw butter (and now also raw egg yolks).
« Last Edit: January 06, 2011, 04:43:57 am by a87.pal »

Offline TylerDurden

  • Global Moderator
  • Mammoth Hunter
  • *****
  • Posts: 17,016
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
    • Raw Paleolithic Diet
Re: tallow v. butter
« Reply #26 on: January 06, 2011, 06:02:31 am »
Tyler, just for clarification, are the "major heat created toxins" from cooked meats also all formed during the heating of fats?

I was always under the impression that cooking fat and protein together produced nasty carcinogenic compounds, but I don't think I've ever come across things that show "low heating"(without burning/smoking) and "wet heating" of fats alone or starches alone produce these carcinogens (and if they do, it is at a much lower rate).
  Incorrect. While there are heat-created toxins formed as a result of combinations of protein and fats or protein and carbohydrates, there are also oxidised fats and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons are also able to be formed solely from fats:- 

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6TG8-40F1PGM-V&_user=10&_coverDate=06%2F16%2F2000&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_origin=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1597623238&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=bfe90452dbb8e7f7901b810bc8ecade9&searchtype=a

also:- "PAHs are one of the most widespread organic pollutants. In addition to their presence in fossil fuels they are also formed by incomplete combustion of carbon-containing fuels such as wood, coal, diesel, fat, tobacco, and incense.[" taken from:-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polycyclic_aromatic_hydrocarbon

Heterocyclic amines, another kind of heat-created toxin, also seem to be present in tallow:-

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9631494


As for scientific studies in general, they commonly mention that the greatest amounts of heat-created toxins are found in cooked animal foods, especially those with high levels of cooked animal fat in them(such as pasteurised butter etc.). Heat-created toxins form in cooked plant foods, of course, just not in as high amounts.

As for the suitability of raw high-quality fats, I can see that this is far more of a RZC dieters problem. A raw omnivore like me just needs to go in for raw, grassfed fatty marrow or  a few raw eggs or  fatty grassfed meats like raw lamb/mutton, along with a bit of raw fruit.
"During the last campaign I knew what was happening. You know, they mocked me for my foreign policy and they laughed at my monetary policy. No more. No more.
" Ron Paul.

Offline a87.pal

  • Trapper
  • **
  • Posts: 58
    • View Profile
Re: tallow v. butter
« Reply #27 on: January 06, 2011, 06:40:57 am »
Again, I'm not so well versed in all this biochem. But I am becoming more convinced by your argument Tyler, though I think i still need more evidence.

I don't have access to the science direct article, and the abstract only mentions plant oils, but I'll take your word for it until my friend sends me a copy of the article. This is, however, your most convincing piece of evidence (though I would like to see if it delineates between wet v. dry heat and low v. high temps: as these do make a significant difference in the reactions that are even possible, not just rates).

The wikipedia entry is unverifiable. If you look at the reference for the quote you mention http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/1467409.stm, it doesn't even mention fats.

and I don't see how the ncbi article is relevant: they examine two groups, one eating cooked beef with low fat and one with high fat. Both groups have high HCA's in their food, yet the high fat group ends up with less cancer. This article, again, doesn't delineate between cooking fat alone and cooking fat with protein.

Also just out of curiosity (because I dont really eat cooked starches) could you point me to some info on how low cooked or wet heated starches produce these compounds? I was always under the impression that lightly processing most vegetables increased their nutritional value. I'm guessing it has something to do with the small amounts of fat and protein they also contain?



Offline lex_rooker

  • Trailblazer
  • Mammoth Hunter
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,231
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: tallow v. butter
« Reply #28 on: January 07, 2011, 09:09:57 am »
 Incorrect. While there are heat-created toxins formed as a result of combinations of protein and fats or protein and carbohydrates, there are also oxidised fats and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons are also able to be formed solely from fats:-  

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6TG8-40F1PGM-V&_user=10&_coverDate=06%2F16%2F2000&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_origin=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1597623238&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=bfe90452dbb8e7f7901b810bc8ecade9&searchtype=a

also:- "PAHs are one of the most widespread organic pollutants. In addition to their presence in fossil fuels they are also formed by incomplete combustion of carbon-containing fuels such as wood, coal, diesel, fat, tobacco, and incense.[" taken from:-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polycyclic_aromatic_hydrocarbon

Heterocyclic amines, another kind of heat-created toxin, also seem to be present in tallow:-

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9631494


As for scientific studies in general, they commonly mention that the greatest amounts of heat-created toxins are found in cooked animal foods, especially those with high levels of cooked animal fat in them(such as pasteurised butter etc.). Heat-created toxins form in cooked plant foods, of course, just not in as high amounts.

As for the suitability of raw high-quality fats, I can see that this is far more of a RZC dieters problem. A raw omnivore like me just needs to go in for raw, grassfed fatty marrow or  a few raw eggs or  fatty grassfed meats like raw lamb/mutton, along with a bit of raw fruit.

I find this whole response rather fascinating.  The first link takes us to an article that tells us that aromatic hydrocarbons (Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons) exist in edible fats and then tells us how they extracted and measured them.   They specifically referenced vegetable oils and agonized over the fact that there currently was no standarized method of measuring and reporting on them which the authors of the study were trying to correct.  No mention was made in the abstract as to whether the oils were cooked or raw so I expect that these nasty little buggers are in raw fats as well as cooked, but this is just my speculation.  Probably best to read the whole study to figure out if there is anything useful here.  If it is only about vegetable oils, no problem for me, I don’t eat them as they are far from paleo.

The second link takes us to a Wikipedia entry telling us that the nasty Polycyclic aromatic Hydrocarbons (PHAs) exists in food “cooked at high temperature” ,(grilled, smoked, and BBQed were specifically mentioned) as well as crude oil, coal and other major food groups.  So now at least we know that these nasty little buggers occur in burned meat and wood smoke used to smoke meats as well.  When it comes to health hazards, however, they admit that it all depends.  Some PAH’s are very toxic and some have no known health effects at all.  No idea which ones are present on those BBQed ribs, but since I don’t know of anyone that has gotten sick, much less died eating smoked fish, grilled steak, or BBQed ribs, where the culprit was singled out to be PAH’s, I tend to think that compared to all the other hazards around us (being struck by lightning or hit by a bus, etc), these are probably rather inconsequential.  Especially since no health risks could be demonstrated when eating grilled or smoked foods, only risks associated with gross environmental pollutants.  Might I suggest that based on this article you might not want to live on top of a toxic waste dump.

The third PubMed link is the most interesting of all.  It tells us well cooked beef has a high heterocyclic amine (HCA) content which appears to be different from PAHs though a PAH by any other name may be as aromatic (to butcher Shakespeare).  Anyway, the abstract says some interesting things.  First, they were looking to prove that eating cooked beef high in HCAs would cause tumors over the long term – long term being 12 weeks.  The abstract says the beef was prepared using a ‘variety of methods’, and of course we have no idea what those methods were, or which method produced which result, but I think we can safely state that not all cooking methods created the same amount of HCA’s or they wouldn’t have needed said variety.  They then stated that the cooked beef was “followed by various dietary regimens as a promotional stimuli”.  Hmmmmm, you mean they tried to create an environment that was known to be conducive to the formation of tumors so that they could blame it on the HCAs?  How could I possibly accuse them of that?  In the very next sentence of the abstract they talk about the fact that “high HCA diets produced tumors in all DMH-treated rats”.  What a surprise, especially since DMH is the well known and very potent carcinogen, dimethylhydrazine.  I guess they couldn’t get the rats to cooperate and produce tumors on HCA’s alone so they had to add some of that “promotional stimuli” to assure a positive outcome.  Finally, the researchers were totally befuddled by the fact that they were thwarted in their attempts to produce tumors, no matter how high the HCA levels, and how much “promotional stimuli” was added when the diet was high in fat.  Now they don’t specifically state which fats were tested, but you can bet that if they had gotten a positive outcome on any fat it would have been shouted to the rafters – especially if it was animal fat.  Now isn’t one of the tenets of a paleo diet to be high in animal fat?

Bottom line, don’t eat burned meat, don’t eat coal, don’t eat crude oil, don’t live on a toxic waste dump, (all containing PAHs), and don’t drink benzene or it’s derivatives (HCA’s).  

Do eat a paleo friendly diet high in animal fat, and go ahead and grill your steaks, BBQ your ribs, and smoke your fish, unless of course, you insist on treating yourself with large doses of DMH or other "tumor promotional stimuli".

Lex
« Last Edit: January 07, 2011, 09:23:07 am by lex_rooker »

Offline miles

  • Mammoth Hunter
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,904
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: tallow v. butter
« Reply #29 on: January 07, 2011, 09:47:15 am »
Ha. I never even clicked Tyler's links(only re: heat created toxins) before let alone read them.

« Last Edit: January 07, 2011, 09:53:21 am by miles »
5-10% off your first purchase at http://www.iherb.com/ with dicount code: KIS978

Offline TylerDurden

  • Global Moderator
  • Mammoth Hunter
  • *****
  • Posts: 17,016
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
    • Raw Paleolithic Diet
Re: tallow v. butter
« Reply #30 on: January 08, 2011, 12:37:36 am »
Ha. I never even clicked Tyler's links(only re: heat created toxins) before let alone read them.

A clear example of mental blindness.

Quote
"Can you explain how this link shows that calories are pointless? It's massive, I tried to skim and find the relevant section but was unable to. " 
taken from:-

http://www.rawpaleoforum.com/general-discussion/how-many-calories-you-eat-per-day/?topicseen
an inevitable comment from Miles to another member's recent rawpaleoforum posting of a link to a certain study, showing a more obvious explanation of why he doesn't like to read any studies I show(just like with any other studies that others show ,they're too complicated/ too difficult for him to understand!)

Now, eventually, onto Lex's prolixity, in the next post:-


"During the last campaign I knew what was happening. You know, they mocked me for my foreign policy and they laughed at my monetary policy. No more. No more.
" Ron Paul.

Offline TylerDurden

  • Global Moderator
  • Mammoth Hunter
  • *****
  • Posts: 17,016
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
    • Raw Paleolithic Diet
Re: tallow v. butter
« Reply #31 on: January 08, 2011, 02:17:35 am »
I find this whole response rather fascinating.  The first link takes us to an article that tells us that aromatic hydrocarbons (Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons) exist in edible fats and then tells us how they extracted and measured them.   They specifically referenced vegetable oils and agonized over the fact that there currently was no standarized method of measuring and reporting on them which the authors of the study were trying to correct.  No mention was made in the abstract as to whether the oils were cooked or raw so I expect that these nasty little buggers are in raw fats as well as cooked, but this is just my speculation.  Probably best to read the whole study to figure out if there is anything useful here.  If it is only about vegetable oils, no problem for me, I don’t eat them as they are far from paleo.

That's just childish. Anybody who had even the slightest clue about polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons(or heat-created toxins in general) would know that they are produced by heat - I suspect a pretense of ignorance here. Now, granted, it is very remotely possible to get raw meats contaminated by infinitely microscopic traces of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons(PAHs) via air-pollution as PAHs are produced  in cigarette-smoke and wildfires, but such incredibly rare contamination via air-pollution is insignificant compared to the large amounts of toxic PAHs generated by cooking/heating.

Also, I  referenced that study re edible vegetable oils simply to illustrate that PAHs are even produced in isolated fats by heat. Case proven. Since animal fats are not known to be  magically protected against the formation of toxins, it is rather dishonest to suggest that tallow or other animal fats are  somehow  uniquely immune.

Indeed, this link shows that polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons can indeed be produced from fat:-

http://books.google.at/books?id=FFg88IaReBwC&pg=PA144&lpg=PA144&dq=Polycyclic+aromatic+hydrocarbons+are+also+produced+from+animal+fat&source=bl&ots=niNgn3uJrk&sig=Ldcz5LqaDpen58M1IwI5YoFsmWI&hl=de&ei=Ez0nTZ7WOYas8gPkj8yOAw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6&ved=0CD4Q6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=Polycyclic%20aromatic%20hydrocarbons%20are%20also%20produced%20from%20animal%20fat&f=false

So, Lex's 1st point is debunked.
Quote
The second link takes us to a Wikipedia entry telling us that the nasty Polycyclic aromatic  Hydrocarbons (PHAs) exists in food “cooked at high temperature” ,(grilled, smoked, and BBQed were specifically mentioned) as well as crude oil, coal and other major food groups.  So now at least we know that these nasty little buggers occur in burned meat and wood smoke used to smoke meats as well.  When it comes to health hazards, however, they admit that it all depends.  Some PAH’s are very toxic and some have no known health effects at all.  No idea which ones are present on those BBQed ribs, but since I don’t know of anyone that has gotten sick, much less died eating smoked fish, grilled steak, or BBQed ribs, where the culprit was singled out to be PAH’s, I tend to think that compared to all the other hazards around us (being struck by lightning or hit by a bus, etc), these are probably rather inconsequential.  Especially since no health risks could be demonstrated when eating grilled or smoked foods, only risks associated with gross environmental pollutants.  Might I suggest that based on this article you might not want to live on top of a toxic waste dump.

Very foolish remark, of course, the above quoted claims. First of all, people do not die immediately after eating specific foods, no one ever suggested otherwise, that's just your absurd invention/exaggeration. The whole point re those studies on polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons is that they contribute heavily to diseases like cancer etc. Also, it is moronic to suggest that something that is a well-known harmful industrial pollutant (like PAHs are) cannot be also harmful when produced by cooking foods, given the plentiful scientific evidence showing the harm done by PAHs in cooked foods/cooked meats:-

To give some idea of PAH exposure via food and negative health-effects:-

"4. The main source of exposure to PAHs for the adult is food, which contributed to more than 90% of total exposure.1,2 However for smokers, significant contribution of PAHs exposure may be attributed to cigarette smoking. The additional intake of one of the PAHs, benzo[a]pyrene, for a person smoking 20 cigarettes per day was estimated to be 210 ng, which is in the same order of magnitude of the mean intake from food (the mean benzo[a]pyrene intake from food was about 110 ng per day).2,3 Other minor routes of exposure to PAHs are inhalation of polluted ambient and indoor air, ingestion of house dust, and dermal absorption from contaminated soil and water.1 " so, PAH intake comes 90 percent from (cooked) foods, not via air-pollution. Now, granted, microscopic amounts of PAHS even contaminate raw foods via air-pollution, but the primary intake of high amounts of PAHs comes only from cooking, according to the article further down.

http://www.cfs.gov.hk/english/programme/programme_rafs/programme_rafs_fc_01_06_pah.html

There are enough studies demonstrating that PAHS are harmful to human health, for it to be rather foolish to pretend that the PAHs in foods are somehow all of the nontoxic variety:-

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20388572

(the 1st link mentions benzopyrene, a PAH known to be of the toxic variety).

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8224319

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19440493

http://herkules.oulu.fi/isbn9514270398/html/x203.html

(The above link does not admit that one can reduce one's PAH intake in a number of ways by simply eating foods raw, not smoking either actively or passively, and by avoiding areas of urban air-pollution). And since PAH intake mostly comes into the body via (cooked)food, eating one's food raw makes a hell of a lot more sense.

Oh, and on a side-note,  here's an obvious study:-

http://carcin.oxfordjournals.org/content/13/4/519.short

 which shows that caloric restriction allows PAHs to be detoxed out of the body faster:-

http://carcin.oxfordjournals.org/content/13/4/519.short

Makes sense, since reducing the intake of cooked/processed foods would naturally give the body fewer toxins per day so that it could deal with them more effectively.





Quote
[edit] " taken from:- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polycyclic_aromatic_hydrocarbon

The third PubMed link is the most interesting of all.  It tells us well cooked beef has a high heterocyclic amine (HCA) content which appears to be different from PAHs though a PAH by any other name may be as aromatic (to butcher Shakespeare).
Irelevant comment, pure obfuscation.
Quote
Anyway, the abstract says some interesting things.  First, they were looking to prove that eating cooked beef high in HCAs would cause tumors over the long term – long term being 12 weeks.  The abstract says the beef was prepared using a ‘variety of methods’, and of course we have no idea what those methods were, or which method produced which result, but I think we can safely state that not all cooking methods created the same amount of HCA’s or they wouldn’t have needed said variety.
Correct(!). HCAs are formed in fewer amounts if the meat is marinated, for example. But to suggest by implication, that "fewer HCAs" in a particular food means that the food is healthy would, of course, be wholly misleading and dishonest. All one could state, with any honesty, is that some forms of cooking produce fewer HCAs, and are therefore "less worse/less unhealthy" than other forms of cooking.

 
Quote
They then stated that the cooked beef was “followed by various dietary regimens as a promotional stimuli”.  Hmmmmm, you mean they tried to create an environment that was known to be conducive to the formation of tumors so that they could blame it on the HCAs?  How could I possibly accuse them of that?



Quote
In the very next sentence of the abstract they talk about the fact that “high HCA diets produced tumors in all DMH-treated rats”.  What a surprise, especially since DMH is the well known and very potent carcinogen, dimethylhydrazine.

Quote
I guess they couldn’t get the rats to cooperate and produce tumors on HCA’s alone so they had to add some of that “promotional stimuli” to assure a positive outcome. Why? Rats and mice have almost no spontaneous colon cancer. To test diets and agents which could prevent cancer, one needs animals with tumors. This is why rodents are given a carcinogen. Finally, the researchers were totally befuddled by the fact that they were thwarted in their attempts to produce tumors, no matter how high the HCA levels, and how much “promotional stimuli” was added when the diet was high in fat.  Now they don’t specifically state which fats were tested, but you can bet that if they had gotten a positive outcome on any fat it would have been shouted to the rafters – especially if it was animal fat.  Now isn’t one of the tenets of a paleo diet to be high in animal fat?

So, since rats have negligible, spontaneous colon cancer on any diet, the only way to determine a viable comparison with humans(who do get colon cancer) is to give them a cancer-causing chemical, and then practice various methods such as caloric restriction or adding in or removing toxic HCAs so as to see if these various methods increase or decrease the frequency or severity of the cancer. Rather logical, actually, in view of the current difficulty of getting humans to undergo long-term dietary experiments - I do rather wish the authorities would allow humans to be experimented on rather than animals so that science could advance at a faster rate. Perhaps we could introduce some sort of law allowing prisoners to cut their sentences  by a number of years if they are willing to undergo such dietary etc. experiments. At any rate, that study was a poor one, I'll admit, but the rest  online re AGEs/PAHs etc.  are rather damning in total, I'm afraid.

Quote
Bottom line, don’t eat burned meat, don’t eat coal, don’t eat crude oil, don’t live on a toxic waste dump, (all containing PAHs), and don’t drink benzene or it’s derivatives (HCA’s).
Wrong, as I pointed out  in previous segments re studies, most of the intake of such nasty chemicals comes NOT from toxic waste-dumps and the like, but mostly from eating cooked foods(and to smoking cigarettes, to a lesser extent, if one is a smoker). So, best to avoid all cooked foods, and eat plenty of raw meat, high in raw fat, but avoid those barbecues, Mcdonald's etc. etc.


[/quote]
"During the last campaign I knew what was happening. You know, they mocked me for my foreign policy and they laughed at my monetary policy. No more. No more.
" Ron Paul.

Offline ys

  • Mammoth Hunter
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,323
    • View Profile
Re: tallow v. butter
« Reply #32 on: January 08, 2011, 02:47:21 am »
Quote
The whole point re those studies on polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons is that they contribute heavily to diseases like cancer etc.

That's just your personal assumption that is hugely exaggerated.  And you have no proof, only hypothesis.  There are millions of people who eat cooked food all their lives and live up to 90-100 years without such degenerative diseases.

The contribution of some level is probably there, but not to "heavily" degree.

And another thing, there are no records what-so-ever that show life expectancy of raw paleo eaters is superior.
Unless we see such records everything you say is pure speculation.

Offline TylerDurden

  • Global Moderator
  • Mammoth Hunter
  • *****
  • Posts: 17,016
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
    • Raw Paleolithic Diet
Re: tallow v. butter
« Reply #33 on: January 08, 2011, 04:08:54 am »
That's just your personal assumption that is hugely exaggerated.  And you have no proof, only hypothesis.  There are millions of people who eat cooked food all their lives and live up to 90-100 years without such degenerative diseases.

The contribution of some level is probably there, but not to "heavily" degree.

And another thing, there are no records what-so-ever that show life expectancy of raw paleo eaters is superior.
Unless we see such records everything you say is pure speculation.
Not at all. Like I said, the info on the negative effect of heat-created toxins on human cells is already well established. One doesn't need decades-long studies to confirm that, as in vitro studies of the effect of  heat-created toxins on human tissue-cells already confirm this. Now, granted, not everybody who eats cooked foods gets cancer, so, obviously, there are other factors as well(such as caloric restriction, excercise-levels, stress etc. to name several I have mentioned already in the past). But that isn't quite what those studies said; what they actually stated was that conditions like cancer, or heart-disease or arthritis or diabetes are more likely to occur if one takes in a lot of heat-created toxins(slightly greater or much greater depending on things like dosage/processing etc.). Nothing wrong with stating that as enough studies confirm that. Now, while Lex is partially right in stating that it is what one eats that is important(though, of course, that will vary from person to person re their needs as plenty of us can't tolerate zero-carb , for example), Lex conveniently ignores the point that people tend to suffer more healthwise as foods get ever more processed - an idea started by Weston-Price and which scientists are continuing to demonstrate via numerous studies.

As for life-expectancy of rawpalaeodieters, that's meaningless as a comment as life-expectancy  involves numerous other  factors that are wholly unrelated to diet, such as exposure to stress levels, IQ etc.- richer people live longer than poorer people, regardless of diet , genetics etc.


To give a vague example of what I mean, take Weston-Price's hunter-gatherers.  The healthiest among them ate at least some raw foods along with the cooked foods they ate. They also practised caloric restriction and Intermittent Fasting due to feast-and-famine cycles dependent on things like weather, seasonal migrations etc. etc., and CR is known to reduce levels of heat-created toxins like AGEs in the human body. They also exercised a great deal because they had to(exercise is also known to reduce levels of AGEs in the body). They also ate foods which were minimally processed by comparison to modern times. Now, a number of pro-cooked-advocates  have used such examples to state flatly, that since these HGs ate cooked foods and were a bit healthier than modern settled humans, that therefore cooked foods were all harmless. But that, of course, is based on a false premise as there are many other factors which made the diets of Hunter-Gatherers " less worse" than they actually were. Plus, the diets of HGs, while incorporating some cooked foods, were nothing like the highly processed cooked  diet of modern times re frying/microwaving etc.

On a side-note , I have just recently met 2 very old relatives of mine with the usual old-age-related conditions which are hastened by intake of heat-created toxins via cooked foods - 1 is left with only 1 leg. They are still alive, many decades after they would otherwise have died, only because one of them is a former nurse and because they get round-the-clock care, take endless pills every day, and have artificial knees etc. Not exactly an endorsement of cooked food diets leading to a long life, really.


« Last Edit: January 08, 2011, 08:20:17 am by TylerDurden »
"During the last campaign I knew what was happening. You know, they mocked me for my foreign policy and they laughed at my monetary policy. No more. No more.
" Ron Paul.

Offline a87.pal

  • Trapper
  • **
  • Posts: 58
    • View Profile
Re: tallow v. butter
« Reply #34 on: January 08, 2011, 04:47:20 am »
Tyler, I hate that this thread has emerged into an attack on your evidence and explanations, because we (the attackers) are not supplying as much evidence as you are to back up our claims.

I wanted to use this post to summarize a few points from each side of the argument, but I quickly realized that I couldn't even verbalize what you were arguing.

Are you arguing that: cooking of any type will ALWAYS speed up the "aging"/"deterioration" process (i.e. rate of cancer, heart disease, neurological and muscle disorders)?

In either case, please specify in your next post to prevent this conversation from becoming pointless. Are there particular types of cooking that are safer than others? which are the worst? when might it be beneficial? Have all these deterioration processes been documented (I am only aware of digestive and GI track cancer from cooked paleo diet)?

And just to be specific, I am arguing that lightly cooking fats high in waxy esters and sat fat, with moderate mono fat, and very low poly fat (in the presence of antioxidants) will cause negligible toxins (though still a few, which the body can easily handle through fasting and high fat diets). And also that the beta oxidation metabolic pathway (promoted in ketosis) is prepared to handle the oxidized fats (not the PAHs) from cooking.

Your first article about PAHs only mentions plant oils, which are unstable even at low temperatures (probably, why plants are also high in antioxidants). I mean flax seed oil has been known to spontaneously catch on fire: http://www.naturalhandyman.com/iip/infpai/inflinspontaneouscombust.html. Just because we as humans combine fats from plants and animals into one category does not mean they behave the same way.

I "think" others here are arguing that lightly cooking (searing, steaming, boiling/poaching, slow cooking) meat in the presence of spices/antioxidants and eating with fiber/salad [a paleo-diet] will not speed up the deterioration process (except perhaps GI and digestive cancers, which were probably because of those people did not do cooked paleo with enough fiber and spices, or just not enough excersize/water) (note that in the long run i think fiber is bad, but can be useful to heal a cancerous gut by promoting certain regulatory microorganisms)

Again, this whole spices thing is my own CRAZY idea. Never really proven.

But I have seen a few studies confirming it, and a lot of human accounts. The spices cannot deal with PAHs once they have been formed. But they can lower the rate of oxidation, which in turn lowers the rate of PAH creation (I think?). Also, all the studies indicate that you really have to pour on the spices to see considerable effect, which could lead to buildup of other plant nasties. However, turmeric and ginger are one of the few spices with almost no reported symptoms (i think?), compared to things like pepper, curry, or other seed/leaf based spices.
« Last Edit: January 08, 2011, 05:09:31 am by a87.pal »

Offline turkish

  • Buffalo Hunter
  • ***
  • Posts: 148
    • View Profile
Re: tallow v. butter
« Reply #35 on: January 08, 2011, 04:52:20 am »
a87.pal,
 why do you say "pour on spice to see considerable effect"?

Basically what i understand you are saying "spices are need them in huge quantities". where did this come from?

Offline a87.pal

  • Trapper
  • **
  • Posts: 58
    • View Profile
Re: tallow v. butter
« Reply #36 on: January 08, 2011, 05:04:57 am »
If you look in this article: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2854897/ at table 1 where they show the composition of the cooked burgers: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2854897/table/tbl1/

you see they added 11.25 g of spices (composed of http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2854897/table/tbl2/) per 250 g raw burger (a bit over 1/2 a pound).

This achieved a 71% decrease in the malondialdehyde content.

11.25 g of spices is a lot for me, but it may not be that much for you.

Offline turkish

  • Buffalo Hunter
  • ***
  • Posts: 148
    • View Profile
Re: tallow v. butter
« Reply #37 on: January 08, 2011, 05:20:59 am »
We do a lot of indian cooking and we have come to realize that Quality of spices matters!

Of course we have not done any quantitative analysis in our kitchen, i am not sure if the researchers are aware of that.

Crappy spices dont work medicinally at all, my wife uses spices as medcine, she can easily tell them apart.

Offline ys

  • Mammoth Hunter
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,323
    • View Profile
Re: tallow v. butter
« Reply #38 on: January 08, 2011, 05:28:12 am »
Quote
As for life-expectancy of rawpalaeodieters, that's meaningless as a comment as life-expectancy  involves numerous other  factors that are wholly unrelated to diet, such as exposure to stress levels, IQ etc.- richer people live longer than poorer people, regardless of diet , genetics etc.

i thought long life expectancy without disease is the meaning of this diet.  at least that what it means to me and why i am here.  if it meaningless, then the whole diet thing is meaningless too.

Offline turkish

  • Buffalo Hunter
  • ***
  • Posts: 148
    • View Profile
Re: tallow v. butter
« Reply #39 on: January 08, 2011, 05:35:24 am »
i thought long life expectancy without disease is the meaning of this diet.  at least that what it means to me and why i am here.  if it meaningless, then the whole diet thing is meaningless too.

i am not sure if these life expectancy numbers take quality of life into account, which again can be subjective.

Offline a87.pal

  • Trapper
  • **
  • Posts: 58
    • View Profile
Re: tallow v. butter
« Reply #40 on: January 08, 2011, 05:37:38 am »
We do a lot of indian cooking and we have come to realize that Quality of spices matters!

Of course we have not done any quantitative analysis in our kitchen, i am not sure if the researchers are aware of that.

Crappy spices dont work medicinally at all, my wife uses spices as medcine, she can easily tell them apart.

fresh, organic spices may be good for very specific medicinal purposes due to other chemicals in them.

these chemicals probably have very little antioxidant properties though. As far as ORAC capacity goes, I have only seen that dried always has a significant amount more per gram (water weight). However, in the future we will probably find out this is a flawed metric.

In any case, if you look at the composition of the spice mix, you see the two most potent antioxidants, cinnamon and oregano make up about 30% of the 11.3 g mix. I bet they could have just used a 4 gram mix of only oregano and gotten the same result. This is much more reasonable and closer to what I ask my parents to add to my cooked food when I'm at home.

Offline CHK91

  • Elder
  • ****
  • Posts: 351
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: tallow v. butter
« Reply #41 on: January 08, 2011, 05:37:47 am »
i am not sure if these life expectancy numbers take quality of life into account, which again can be subjective.

Not saying that raw paleo will shorten lifespan at all, but I would much rather prefer a short, happy, disease-free life compared to a long one with chronic conditions which would be absolute torture.
All I want is the truth... Just gimme some truth.
"I wanna be the minority."

Offline turkish

  • Buffalo Hunter
  • ***
  • Posts: 148
    • View Profile
Re: tallow v. butter
« Reply #42 on: January 08, 2011, 05:40:21 am »
Not saying that raw paleo will shorten lifespan at all, but I would much rather prefer a short, happy, disease-free life compared to a long one with chronic conditions which would be absolute torture.

completely agree with you there.

Offline miles

  • Mammoth Hunter
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,904
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: tallow v. butter
« Reply #43 on: January 08, 2011, 06:13:38 am »
Quote
Insert Quote
Quote from: miles on Yesterday at 03:47:15 PM
"Ha. I never even clicked Tyler's links(only re: heat created toxins) before let alone read them."

A clear example of mental blindness.

Quote
"Can you explain how this link shows that calories are pointless? It's massive, I tried to skim and find the relevant section but was unable to. "
taken from:-

http://www.rawpaleoforum.com/general-discussion/how-many-calories-you-eat-per-day/?topicseen
an inevitable comment from Miles to another member's recent rawpaleoforum posting of a link to a certain study, showing a more obvious explanation of why he doesn't like to read any studies I show(just like with any other studies that others show ,they're too complicated/ too difficult for him to understand!)

I didn't find your links complicated/difficult, I just wasn't interested enough to open them. I've read stuff about heat-created toxins before, and none of the things you've been saying have disagreed with what I've already heard, so I've been happy enough just reading what you've had to say and felt no need to check your links... I've never engaged in any discussions on heat-created toxins or felt the need to brush up on the facts, and there's only so much I can do in a day.

And that thing about calories... Did you really read that entire link yourself? I was only interested to see what it was suggesting made calories pointless. I skimmed and read sections but couldn't find anything relevant to the statement that 'calories are pointless', and instead of me reading through the whole thing to find a small relevant section(or not) I decided to ask the person who posted it..

Edit: I've read lots of the studies to which you and others have linked, including those relating to heat-created toxins from you as I'm now remembering. It's just that you have to post the same response to so many different people asking about heat-created toxins, and I've been here for over a year and seen the same response to the same questions, from you, so many times that I just don't bother opening the links contained in that specific response any more. After reading Lex's post I still didn't open them, his comments on your links were just amusing.
« Last Edit: January 08, 2011, 06:45:58 am by miles »
5-10% off your first purchase at http://www.iherb.com/ with dicount code: KIS978

Offline TylerDurden

  • Global Moderator
  • Mammoth Hunter
  • *****
  • Posts: 17,016
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
    • Raw Paleolithic Diet
Re: tallow v. butter
« Reply #44 on: January 08, 2011, 06:28:11 am »


I wanted to use this post to summarize a few points from each side of the argument, but I quickly realized that I couldn't even verbalize what you were arguing.

Are you arguing that: cooking of any type will ALWAYS speed up the "aging"/"deterioration" process (i.e. rate of cancer, heart disease, neurological and muscle disorders)?
Yes. But, of course, the rate of deterioration will depend on amounts/percentages of cooked foods in the diet, and if consumption of cooked foods was very slight indeed or only involved very slightly cooked foods, and other things were practised such as caloric restriction then, deterioration might well be zero, in the end.

Quote
In either case, please specify in your next post to prevent this conversation from becoming pointless. Are there particular types of cooking that are safer than others? which are the worst? when might it be beneficial? Have all these deterioration processes been documented (I am only aware of digestive and GI track cancer from cooked paleo diet)?
  Yes, they have been variously documented, although food-science has a long way to go before things like the destruction of enzymes via cooking and the like are fully explored. Basically, boiling in water and steaming are the least worst types of cooking, with frying/grilling the worst. Microwaving seems to have mixed effects, some much worse, some much less worse than other kinds of cooking.

Cooking is beneficial in terms of removing antinutrient levels in things like grains and vegetables/legumes.  However, this benefit is cancelled out by the fact that cooking also leads to the destruction of nutrients  in most foods via heat plus the addition of heat-created toxins. Cooking also destroys the enzymes in raw foods and all the bacteria as well.

Cooking could also be said to reduce the risk of parasites, but RVAFers(even Lex at one point, in the past!) have stated that parasites on a RVAF diet are very rare, and pretty much harmless.

Here is a short resume of the negative effects of cooked foods, with references within:-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raw_foodism#Potential_harmful_effects_of_cooked_foods_and_cooking
 Obviously, there is a huge amount of data on the subject, and only careful perusal of pubmed can reveal all the various 1,000s of  studies done on heat-created toxins. I am eventually planning to do a more careful essay on the subject within the next 3 months.


Quote
And just to be specific, I am arguing that lightly cooking fats high in waxy esters and sat fat, with moderate mono fat, and very low poly fat (in the presence of antioxidants) will cause negligible toxins (though still a few, which the body can easily handle through fasting and high fat diets). And also that the beta oxidation metabolic pathway (promoted in ketosis) is prepared to handle the oxidized fats (not the PAHs) from cooking.

There is, currrently, no scientific evidence whatsoever to suggest that being in ketosis protects one from oxidised fats or any other type of toxin. Granted, one can argue that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence as ketosis is so little understood within food-science as yet, but there is no anecdotal evidence either - I mean, the Inuit lived on diets consisting partially of raw meats, so one could easily argue that any better health on their part was due to raw-meat consumption rather than ketosis as such. Plus, people on cooked ketogenic diets appear to have a high risk of suffering  from a large number of unpleasant side-effects(eg:- kidney stones)(although 1 or 2 effects are beneficial, such as with regard to epileptics), so this ketosis-preventing-oxidisation-of-fats theory is very unlikely.

As for the notion that PUFAs are harmful, these are,IMO, highly dubious notions championed by the likes of Ray Peat etc. Ray Peat did really dodgy stuff, such as pretending that PUFAs were harmful by linking to a study which showed that dogs fed wholly or mostly on PUFA-rich fish-oils suffered healthwise. Not only are fish-oils virtually always highly processed, but dogs do not consume fish-oils in nature, they consume raw fish at best.Similiarly, anti-PUFA campaigners routinely point to studies on vegetable-oils which are mostly heavily refined and processed a lot from the original solid, raw product and then compare them to only lightly-cooked meats, which is not a fair comparison.

Some of the anti-PUFA extremists have even gone as far as claiming that PUFAs(in this case it was omega-3s) are so bad for you that one must eat grainfed meats instead of grassfed meats, at all times(or in Ray Peat's case, I believe he recommended coconut oil). This is clearly ridiculous as studies have shown that (richer in PUFA)grassfed meats are much healthier for one, having more nutrients etc.

Interesting point re the antioxidants. Past pro-cooked-food-advocates in the past just used rather tired, old arguments I'd seen countless times before - this is entirely new. The only trouble is that for all the various types of toxins to be reduced(not just oxidised fats), one would have to do all sorts of complicated things(such as boiling lightly  in water as that reduces AGEs) etc. It would take hours to prepare such cooked foods! Plus, I am extremely sceptical about the notion of pouring large, sufficient amounts of turmeric onto raw meat/fat before it was cooked. I  doubt that such an extra load of spices can be good for the body, in the long-term. In other words, you'd be exchanging one kind of problem(oxidised fats) for another kind.

Oh, and increasing the fat-content of a diet would make things worse as cooked animal fat has more heat-created toxins formed within it via cooking than, say, cooked lean meats.



Quote
Your first article about PAHs only mentions plant oils, which are unstable even at low temperatures (probably, why plants are also high in antioxidants). I mean flax seed oil has been known to spontaneously catch on fire: http://www.naturalhandyman.com/iip/infpai/inflinspontaneouscombust.html. Just because we as humans combine fats from plants and animals into one category does not mean they behave the same way.

Well, I previously provided a link to show that PAHs can be formed directly from burning/cooking fat:-

http://books.google.at/books?id=FFg88IaReBwC&pg=PA144&lpg=PA144&dq=Polycyclic+aromatic+hydrocarbons+are+also+produced+from+animal+fat&source=bl&ots=niNgn3uJrk&sig=Ldcz5LqaDpen58M1IwI5YoFsmWI&hl=de&ei=Ez0nTZ7WOYas8gPkj8yOAw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6&ved=0CD4Q6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=Polycyclic%20aromatic%20hydrocarbons%20are%20also%20produced%20from%20animal%20fat&f=false

The basic point is that not even isolated fats like tallow are immune to the formation of a number of different heat-created toxins. Indeed the fact that the foods highest in cooked animal fats(eg:- pasteurised butter) are also the ones with the highest levels of AGEs/advanced glycation end products in them, is rather indicative of the point I made before.

Quote
I "think" others here are arguing that lightly cooking (searing, steaming, boiling/poaching, slow cooking) meat in the presence of spices/antioxidants and eating with fiber/salad [a paleo-diet] will not speed up the deterioration process (except perhaps GI and digestive cancers, which were probably because of those people did not do cooked paleo with enough fiber and spices, or just not enough excersize/water) (note that in the long run i think fiber is bad, but can be useful to heal a cancerous gut by promoting certain regulatory microorganisms)
  Actually, Lex is totally against the notion of salad consumption in the amounts presumably needed to build up antioxidant levels; he views an all-meat diet or, at best, VLC, to be a (supposedly) "better" option, even if cooked.


Quote
Again, this whole spices thing is my own CRAZY idea. Never really proven.

But I have seen a few studies confirming it, and a lot of human accounts. The spices cannot deal with PAHs once they have been formed. But they can lower the rate of oxidation, which in turn lowers the rate of PAH creation (I think?). Also, all the studies indicate that you really have to pour on the spices to see considerable effect, which could lead to buildup of other plant nasties. However, turmeric and ginger are one of the few spices with almost no reported symptoms (i think?), compared to things like pepper, curry, or other seed/leaf based spices.
I was puzzled as to your notion that PAHs were prevented/lowered by a lowering in the rate of oxidation, since the formation of the  PAHs seemed far more complex. Here is a study which had focused on the formation of PAHs in oxygen-deficient conditions, and found they mostly actually increased in amounts in such conditions:-

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6TC7-44NKXT1-1&_user=10&_coverDate=05%2F31%2F2002&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_origin=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1599880529&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=62e3e9ce8f0a9efd8e6bad40800a2561&searchtype=a

« Last Edit: January 08, 2011, 08:03:32 am by TylerDurden »
"During the last campaign I knew what was happening. You know, they mocked me for my foreign policy and they laughed at my monetary policy. No more. No more.
" Ron Paul.

Offline TylerDurden

  • Global Moderator
  • Mammoth Hunter
  • *****
  • Posts: 17,016
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
    • Raw Paleolithic Diet
Re: tallow v. butter
« Reply #45 on: January 08, 2011, 06:41:43 am »
i thought long life expectancy without disease is the meaning of this diet.  at least that what it means to me and why i am here.  if it meaningless, then the whole diet thing is meaningless too.
Rawpaleoforum has never suggested that diet was the sole path to a long life, or even the sole answer to health. That would be physically impossible as some things are better(eg:- immediate surgery for people who've had life-threatening car-crashes as that prolongs life more in such  cases). A rawpalaeodiet can guarantee a high-quality life - of course, one can say "what if one lives in an area of excessive pollution such as what happened in Minamata Bay re heavy-mercury-poisoning) but those are outliers, that hardly ever happen. Oh, and there are always non-dietary methods which can also improve health to some extent indirectly - massage, for example or chiropractic or exercise or similiar.

Given that cooked foods are so often associated with  increases in the symptoms of age-related conditions in particular, it is a reasonable assumption that people on rawpalaeodiets will have a lower biological age than their similiarly-chronologically-aged cooked-food-eating contemporaries. (On an anecdotal level, some American RVAFers have told me that RVAFers at raw food gatherings commonly look c. 10 years younger than SAD-eating people of the same chronological age).

Of course, as the RVAF diet movement grows older, it will be interesting to see how our lifespans correspond to SAD-dieters. Scientists seem adamant that 125 years is an upper limit, but who knows?
« Last Edit: January 08, 2011, 07:07:03 am by TylerDurden »
"During the last campaign I knew what was happening. You know, they mocked me for my foreign policy and they laughed at my monetary policy. No more. No more.
" Ron Paul.

Offline TylerDurden

  • Global Moderator
  • Mammoth Hunter
  • *****
  • Posts: 17,016
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
    • Raw Paleolithic Diet
Re: tallow v. butter
« Reply #46 on: January 08, 2011, 06:47:07 am »
I didn't find your links complicated/difficult, I just wasn't interested enough to open them. I've read stuff about heat-created toxins before, and none of the things you've been saying have disagreed with what I've already heard, so I've been happy enough just reading what you've had to say and felt no need to check your links... I've never engaged in any discussions on heat-created toxins or felt the need to brush up on the facts, and there's only so much I can do in a day.

And that thing about calories... Did you really read that entire link yourself? I was only interested to see what it was suggesting made calories pointless. I skimmed and read sections but couldn't find anything relevant to the statement that 'calories are pointless', and instead of me reading through the whole thing to find a small relevant section(or not) I decided to ask the person who posted it..


Granted, we are all time-poor these days. Such links waste a lot of my time, too.

As for the calories study, I thought it was fairly straightforward. But then, I previously had read some exchanges on another forum(fasting yahoo group?) where the subject of calories was discussed, with several people pointing out some criticisms of using calories as a viable system of measurement, and how it was biased in favour of vegetarians/vegans.
"During the last campaign I knew what was happening. You know, they mocked me for my foreign policy and they laughed at my monetary policy. No more. No more.
" Ron Paul.

Offline ys

  • Mammoth Hunter
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,323
    • View Profile
Re: tallow v. butter
« Reply #47 on: January 08, 2011, 08:16:46 am »
Quote
Given that cooked foods are so often associated with  increases in the symptoms of age-related conditions in particular

Tyler, you are hilarious.  age-related conditions?? like what?  wrinkles? grey hair? can't jump up and down anymore? it's called aging or getting old. it's normal. it's what people do.

Quote
Of course, as the RVAF diet movement grows older, it will be interesting to see how our lifespans correspond to SAD-dieters. Scientists seem adamant that 125 years is an upper limit, but who knows?

125 as average or maximum?  currently 122 is the limit for human following cooked diet.

Offline TylerDurden

  • Global Moderator
  • Mammoth Hunter
  • *****
  • Posts: 17,016
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
    • Raw Paleolithic Diet
Re: tallow v. butter
« Reply #48 on: January 08, 2011, 08:29:06 am »
Tyler, you are hilarious.  age-related conditions?? like what?  wrinkles? grey hair? can't jump up and down anymore? it's called aging or getting old. it's normal. it's what people do.
  I was specifically referring to age-related conditions like atherosclerosis, arthritis etc.  I was, of course, despite your absurd implication above,  not remotely suggesting that a rawpalaeodiet could give us immortality or eternal youth, I merely meant that NOT eating cooked foods would mean we would deteriorate at a slower rate than on a cooked food diet. How slow one deteriorates depends on the quality of diet(how much raw etc.) plus things like exercise and the like.
Quote
125 as average or maximum?  currently 122 is the limit for human following cooked diet.
  The 125 figure was  quoted by scientists who were suggesting that human telomeres in cells prevented anyone becoming older than 125, under any circumstances. That 122 figure is presumably just quoting Jeanne Calment's age when she died as the oldest woman on Earth at the time, but it is quite possible that others might  have lived a bit longer than her - after all, it was only recently that records could be accurate enough to verify her claim beyond doubt.
"During the last campaign I knew what was happening. You know, they mocked me for my foreign policy and they laughed at my monetary policy. No more. No more.
" Ron Paul.

Offline lex_rooker

  • Trailblazer
  • Mammoth Hunter
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,231
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: tallow v. butter
« Reply #49 on: January 08, 2011, 09:42:33 am »
Tyler, I never said most of the things you implied that I said and then say you’ve debunked.  I only said:  The first study says only that PAH’s exist and they can be measured.  The Wikipedea entry told us what PAH’s are and where they can be found.  Both of these are what is so.  But they are also, so what?  We know they exist, we know what and where they are, and we can accurately measure them.  We just can’t show they cause any significant problem in the diet – unless you cheat and add other known carcinogens to give them a boost, or raise the level to hundreds or thousands of times what would be found in real food.  This was clearly demonstrated in the PubMed article where they didn’t even mention PAH’s but rather HCA’s and was a study expressly made to link these HCAs to tumor formation.  Even the abstract admits that the only way they could get tumors to form was with a “regimen of promotional stimuli” in both humans and rats.  Sort of like running a study to prove that water will kill you and then preparing it as tea containing a variety of ‘promotional stimuli’, like hemlock, to make sure you get a positive outcome. 

I’ve read countless studies of this type and not one shows a definitive link between any illness and cooking of food.  Most are right up there with the cholesterol hysteria where the official reports are misleading or where they artificially manipulated the environment to create the desired outcome just as they did in the PubMed study you referenced.  The only surprise for me was that the manipulation was made so obvious in the PubMed abstract.  Usually it is buried deep in study data and requires that you pay to receive the full report to find it.

I eat most of my food raw because no other animal cooks its food so it makes sense to me that we are probably better off if we don’t either.  It is from an ideological point of view, not because there is any hard evidence that it causes major health problems.  I do enjoy grilled steaks and BBQ’d ribs several times a month when eating out, and I always eat the cooked turkey, ham, or whatever meat is served at family functions and holidays and thoroughly enjoy it.

My point was to show that many studies referenced as proving how bad something is, do nothing more than demonstrate that it exists, can be measured, and in some forms can be dangerous, yet are not relevant to the context of the issue for which it is offered as proof.  Such is the case with your first two links.

Other studies are more egregious in that they set out to prove a specific cause and effect relationship, and then purposely manipulate the environment to create the desired outcome just as they did in the PubMed example.

I never accept stuff like this at face value.  I always dig deep to find the real story and usually find that the truth is far different than the title, headlines, and summary would lead you to believe.  I suggest everyone take the same approach and do their own research and critical analysis rather than just accepting evidence provided by others (including me) without question.

We now return you to your original program “Tallow vs Butter”, brought to you by a87.pal…
Lex   

 

SMF spam blocked by CleanTalk