Author Topic: To Chew or not to Chew  (Read 15533 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Squall

  • Boar Hunter
  • ***
  • Posts: 102
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
To Chew or not to Chew
« on: September 21, 2008, 12:14:12 am »
I've been reading a lot here about how to eat raw meats and organs, and it seems that the consensus is to just 'bolt' them. From what I've gathered, bolting is a quick process in which food (raw meat) is swallowed with a gulp of water. It seems that the dominant rationale behind this is that our carnivore cousins (wolves, kitties, etc.) do little actual chewing, relying on their teeth to merely rend meat from a carcass and basically swallowing the chunk whole. Therefore, since they are carnivores and we are also carnivores, we should emulate the wolf, giant cat, bear, etc. (Yes, I know bears are omnivores)

But I have some issues with this logic. I will use the wolf as my example carnivore where needed, mainly because it is easy to spell. Mind you that wolf can be substituted for any similar carnivore:

1. Wolves and humans 'bolt' their food differently according to the above paradigm. Whereas a wolf simply tears some flesh from a carcass, cuts it up a little with its teeth, and then swallows it, a human must rely on a glass of water to assist, as well as a knife. Early paleo hunters most likely had knives. Indeed tools might have figured heavily into our evolution by some anthropologist's accounts*. However, its unlikely that they had glasses of water with them. Also unlikely is that they only killed near bodies of water. I find it further unlikely that they would use the blood as a substitute for water that might help them bolt their food down whole, owing again to the fact that they would have had no vessel in which to collect enough blood for drinking.

2. We have teeth and they must've been used for something. In the above point I failed to point out (intentionally) that humans could just opt to swallow their food whole without any liquid assistance. We do (and did) indeed have that option. However, anyone who has tried to swallow anything larger than a small marble realizes how painful and terrifying getting food lodged in your throat can be. It can take minutes to hours before the blockage clears. This leaves our paleo hunter with the option of either chewing his food, or using a flint knife to chop it into tiny chunks that he and his fellow hunters can then swallow whole. Paleo tools of anatomically-modern humans are praised by many anthropologists as being of surprising quality, but I doubt they came as near to the level of precision and efficiency as a sharp, modern fillet knife. Even using the latter on a slab of liver is time consuming owing mainly to the slimy, almost amorphous nature of the organ. It would seem unlikely, then, that our ancestors, using crude tools, would take such pains as to sit down and meticulously cut the prized organs into pieces tiny enough to be swallowed by himself and his mates without any complications to swallowing.

3. Aajonus has pointed out that the ptyalin in human saliva will interfere with meat digestion and recommends chewing as little as possible. Many here also recommend this. But ptyalin is an amylase, and an amylase's job is to begin the conversion of starch into sugar. Ptyalin's job specifically is to accomplish this with the chewing process. Many people (non-RPD) would undoubtedly point to the presence of amylase in saliva as prima facie evidence that man is meant to eat starchy vegetables. Else, they would argue, why would we have this adaptation if it served no use? Its a good argument. Indeed the presence of ptyalin in saliva appears to be a digestive adaptation to eating something starchy, on the basis that the resultant sugars are needed by some metabolic processes. However, it falls short in assuming that only starchy veggies have starch, which many here know to be false, as certain organs (liver) are relatively high in glycogen, an animal starch. The original claim that ptyalin interferes with protein digestion seems rather odd, considering that its job is starch digestion.

Because of the above points, I have to call into question the primacy of bolting our food. I don't necessarily think that its a wrong practice, and it probably does wonders for many early RPD'ers who have trouble chewing raw organs, but I cannot agree that its a natural practice; that is to say: I don't think our ancestors practiced this for any length of time frequently, and therefore nature had no opportunity to specifically select for this practice in our evolution.

Also, the implications of the theory of bolting over chewing is that the teeth are useless, or almost so. They are either used solely for the chewing of the occasional tuber or wild fruit, or not at all, and are therefore a vestigial organ which refuses to go away. My guess is that more people would believe that the teeth have some use, however limited, rather than believing that they are as useless as the appendix to modern physiologists. And there is some good reason to believe that mankind may have evolved utilizing two different eating styles: bolting meat, and chewing vegetation. However, I find it unlikely that mankind, when initially on the threshold of transitioning from roaming frugivores to hunter-gathering omnivores (and possibly carnivores), found that they needed to invent an entirely new style of eating to accompany their new food source. Those small fruit-eating distant ancestors of ours were accustomed to chewing their primary diet: wild fruits and whatever other nutrient-rich vegetation they ate. When starting to eat other types of food it would be somewhat of a logical fallacy on our part to conclude that all of a sudden, they decided to try a completely radical new form of eating: namely, swallowing without chewing. There is absolutely no reason to believe that they did not just chew the new food the same as the old. Furthermore, if this worked for them, then there is no logical reason to believe that at any point from then forward that all of a sudden they decided that chewing was bad and that swallowing whole was better.

I realize that this is a long post, but the issue of chewing or bolting kinda bothers me. I'm just starting to consume raw liver, and while I can chew it, I find that bolting is easier. However, I'm not completely sold on the idea that it is what I should be doing. Its just easier to do. But consider what could happen: if bolting is not the right way to digest, and it does cause some small problems, then many new RPD-ers would find themselves continually stuck in a rut owing to their dependence on a handicap: i.e., bolting over chewing because its easier and doesn't taste nearly as bad. Then again, it could be the proper way to go, or it just might be one of those things that doesn't matter.

Naturally, I'd like to hear what you guys think.

* I recall a theory stating that our initial evolutionary jump was fueled by the use of tools to liberate marrow and brains from scavenged carcasses. The idea was that large predators rarely had access to these organs, so once everything else was gone, the carcass was left for the scavengers. Proto-human homonids exploited this bounty by chiseling through bone to get ahold of fatty, nutrient-rich marrow and brain tissue.
The fact that an opinion has been widely held is no evidence whatever that it is not utterly absurd.

- Bertrand Russell

Offline TylerDurden

  • Global Moderator
  • Mammoth Hunter
  • *****
  • Posts: 17,016
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
    • Raw Paleolithic Diet
Re: To Chew or not to Chew
« Reply #1 on: September 21, 2008, 01:13:41 am »
You've overlooked a number of obvious points:- First of all, the recommendation re drinking water as well is ONLY for those newbies who can't handle raw organ-meats. Those who are used to eating raw liver etc., don't  really bother with drinking mineral-water, afterwards. I suppose I'll have to make that clear in the relevant thread.

Secondly, modern RPDers only use knives due to concerns re fitting into society etc. I could just as easily tear into my raw meats/organ-meats with my teeth, but this would result in a lot of blood all over the place, which would be most unsightly to non-RPDers. Sure, I could strip down and go naked, but I'd still get blood on my face. As it is, some meats/organ-meats require me to use my teeth, most of the time, rather than a meat-knife(such as my wild-hare carcasses). In the case of raw liver, it would actually be much easier to just use my teeth, as the connective tissue is more difficult to cut with a meat-knife, unless sharpened specially.

Re bolting:- I do chew once or twice before bolting down my raw meats, but I don't need to do any more. This seems typical of other RPDers.

« Last Edit: September 21, 2008, 01:15:44 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 Nicola

  • Shaman
  • *****
  • Posts: 452
  • Gender: Female
    • View Profile
Re: To Chew or not to Chew
« Reply #2 on: September 21, 2008, 03:01:26 am »

Re bolting:- I do chew once or twice before bolting down my raw meats, but I don't need to do any more. This seems typical of other RPDers.


When I mentioned this bolting then nobody will answer to wether they do bolt...It is hard to "believe" what people do and if it really works; that digestion is better one way or the other and I mean metabolisem from the start till the end (stool)!!!

Nicola

Offline TylerDurden

  • Global Moderator
  • Mammoth Hunter
  • *****
  • Posts: 17,016
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
    • Raw Paleolithic Diet
Re: To Chew or not to Chew
« Reply #3 on: September 21, 2008, 03:08:14 am »
When I mentioned this bolting then nobody will answer to wether they do bolt...It is hard to "believe" what people do and if it really works; that digestion is better one way or the other and I mean metabolisem from the start till the end (stool)!!!

Nicola

Look, sometimes I do just bolt it down without any chewing whatsoever - other times I chew once or twice. Big deal.
"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 Nicola

  • Shaman
  • *****
  • Posts: 452
  • Gender: Female
    • View Profile
Re: To Chew or not to Chew
« Reply #4 on: September 21, 2008, 03:26:00 am »
Look, sometimes I do just bolt it down without any chewing whatsoever - other times I chew once or twice. Big deal.

I don't mean you; what about all the others. I know that all works for you - my parents and many other "normal" people say "every thing is o.k." but then I notice that they have problems, but they are "normal" problems.

I do try, but I would like the whole story to work from top to bottom, doing sport and resting - not just "wayting" for the next meal; I don't just oder or jump into a car for food...I go for it under my own steam!

What about eating raw in a restaurant (social)? Bolt vs. chew...

Offline TylerDurden

  • Global Moderator
  • Mammoth Hunter
  • *****
  • Posts: 17,016
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
    • Raw Paleolithic Diet
Re: To Chew or not to Chew
« Reply #5 on: September 21, 2008, 03:37:37 am »
I don't mean you; what about all the others. I know that all works for you - my parents and many other "normal" people say "every thing is o.k." but then I notice that they have problems, but they are "normal" problems.

I do try, but I would like the whole story to work from top to bottom, doing sport and resting - not just "wayting" for the next meal; I don't just oder or jump into a car for food...I go for it under my own steam!

What about eating raw in a restaurant (social)? Bolt vs. chew...
I still bolt my raw fish down in sashimi restaurants.
"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.

Satya

  • Guest
Re: To Chew or not to Chew
« Reply #6 on: September 21, 2008, 05:50:19 am »
Excellent post, Squall.  Very good points to consider.  (I chew most everything, btw).

Also, the implications of the theory of bolting over chewing is that the teeth are useless, or almost so. They are either used solely for the chewing of the occasional tuber or wild fruit, or not at all, and are therefore a vestigial organ which refuses to go away. My guess is that more people would believe that the teeth have some use, however limited, rather than believing that they are as useless as the appendix to modern physiologists. And there is some good reason to believe that mankind may have evolved utilizing two different eating styles: bolting meat, and chewing vegetation. However, I find it unlikely that mankind, when initially on the threshold of transitioning from roaming frugivores to hunter-gathering omnivores (and possibly carnivores), found that they needed to invent an entirely new style of eating to accompany their new food source. Those small fruit-eating distant ancestors of ours were accustomed to chewing their primary diet: wild fruits and whatever other nutrient-rich vegetation they ate. When starting to eat other types of food it would be somewhat of a logical fallacy on our part to conclude that all of a sudden, they decided to try a completely radical new form of eating: namely, swallowing without chewing. There is absolutely no reason to believe that they did not just chew the new food the same as the old. Furthermore, if this worked for them, then there is no logical reason to believe that at any point from then forward that all of a sudden they decided that chewing was bad and that swallowing whole was better.

Anthropologists state unequivocally that the teeth are solely formed in terms of diet.  In fact, many rpders have pointed out that bad teeth are the result of cooked food in our diet recently.  And I can go along with that.  But if 1) the paleo diet is based even partially on animal foods (and most would say it is a good 65%), and 2) we still have omnivorous teeth IN SPITE of our prolific tool use, then chewing is definitely the way to go in general, historically ... at least for chewy type foods (of which liver is not).

That's all I have time for now, but thanks for the thoughtful post.  Can anyone bolt jerky???
« Last Edit: September 21, 2008, 05:53:34 am by Satya »

Offline goodsamaritan

  • Administrator
  • Mammoth Hunter
  • *****
  • Posts: 8,729
  • Gender: Male
  • Geek Healer Truth Seeker Pro-Natal Pro-Life
    • View Profile
    • Filipino Services Inc.
Re: To Chew or not to Chew
« Reply #7 on: September 21, 2008, 06:21:09 am »
I chew my food just enough to swallow it.
I enjoy the taste of my food.
It's real food when it tastes great pure without condiments... some wisdom I learned from natural hygiene.
Linux Geek, Web Developer, Email Provider, Businessman, Engineer, REAL Free Healer, Pro-Life, Pro-Family, Truther, Ripple-XRP Fan

I'm the network administrator.
My business: Website Dev & Hosting and Email Server Provider,
My blogs: Cure Manual, My Health Blog, Eczema Cure & Psoriasis Cure

Offline boxcarguy07

  • Chief
  • *****
  • Posts: 736
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: To Chew or not to Chew
« Reply #8 on: September 21, 2008, 06:21:22 am »
I'm sure I could bolt just about anything.
Back in my pill taking days I would be able to swallow a very large amount of pills all at once.


And by pills I mean vitamins/herbs/etc.... (or do I???  :P)

coconinoz

  • Guest
Re: To Chew or not to Chew
« Reply #9 on: September 22, 2008, 08:37:14 am »

wow, fabulous, this is a real eye opener, a great learning experience

i had thought that the recommendation of bolting + mineral water in lieu of the regular human eating style -- which involves mincing w/ knife or teeth, chewing, salivating each morsel before swallowing -- was based on some unknown to me scientific or traditional evidence; now i realize it was anecdotal
i don't know how widespread this practice currently is among raw meat eaters worldwide

a newbie raw meat eater may have a little difficulty digesting the new food, whether bolted or chewed/salvated, until the digestive system becomes adapted
indeed, i tend to think that bolting fairly large chunks could only help if it resulted in most of the meat moving through the digestive tract unprocessed, thereby diminishing the digestive work load

not every single person on earth experiences eating (be it their chosen food or anything in sight) as an unavoidable chore or waste of time

incidentally, here's my own experience with high meat:
~ i tried it for a couple of months
~ i never got around to liking it, but wanted to believe it was advantageous for all raw paleo eaters/devotees/experts/connoisseurs in the know
~ in the us -- so i was told by a sales person at both a meat & a fish shops -- all meat for lawful retail sale is devoid of blood, oftentimes pre-frozen (by usda regulation, liver is always previously or currently frozen), & always thoroughly washed at least with chlorinated water (if not also with detergents or who knows what) >> is it high-meatable at all?
~ eventually i found apparently reliable scientific info which convinced me, at least for the time being, that meat fermentations are deleterious


Satya

  • Guest
Re: To Chew or not to Chew
« Reply #10 on: September 22, 2008, 09:06:13 am »
3. Aajonus has pointed out that the ptyalin in human saliva will interfere with meat digestion and recommends chewing as little as possible. Many here also recommend this. But ptyalin is an amylase, and an amylase's job is to begin the conversion of starch into sugar. Ptyalin's job specifically is to accomplish this with the chewing process. Many people (non-RPD) would undoubtedly point to the presence of amylase in saliva as prima facie evidence that man is meant to eat starchy vegetables. Else, they would argue, why would we have this adaptation if it served no use? Its a good argument. Indeed the presence of ptyalin in saliva appears to be a digestive adaptation to eating something starchy, on the basis that the resultant sugars are needed by some metabolic processes. However, it falls short in assuming that only starchy veggies have starch, which many here know to be false, as certain organs (liver) are relatively high in glycogen, an animal starch. The original claim that ptyalin interferes with protein digestion seems rather odd, considering that its job is starch digestion.

This is another good morsel to chew on (pun intended).  Really and truly, Squall, you have come up with some serious food for thought.  What thinkest thou, you carnivores of the realm, of the amylase that is waiting for action in your salivary glands right now?  Yes, we can eat zero carb, but should we?  Maybe.  Orientals have a larger pancreas according to Sally Fallon, due to such an onslaught of rice for such a long period of time.  I wonder, do Inuits or other mainly carnivorous eaters produce as much amylase?  If so, why?  Glycogen?  Perhaps.  None of these secretions should "interfere with meat digestion though, right?

Offline Raw Kyle

  • Global Moderator
  • Mammoth Hunter
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,701
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: To Chew or not to Chew
« Reply #11 on: September 22, 2008, 09:26:54 am »
I'll have to research the biochemistry but ptyalin may very well chemically interfere with the digestive action of other enzymes based on pH or other chemistry factors.

Offline Squall

  • Boar Hunter
  • ***
  • Posts: 102
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: To Chew or not to Chew
« Reply #12 on: September 22, 2008, 09:49:53 am »
incidentally, here's my own experience with high meat:
~ i tried it for a couple of months
~ i never got around to liking it, but wanted to believe it was advantageous for all raw paleo eaters/devotees/experts/connoisseurs in the know
~ in the us -- so i was told by a sales person at both a meat & a fish shops -- all meat for lawful retail sale is devoid of blood, oftentimes pre-frozen (by usda regulation, liver is always previously or currently frozen), & always thoroughly washed at least with chlorinated water (if not also with detergents or who knows what) >> is it high-meatable at all?
~ eventually i found apparently reliable scientific info which convinced me, at least for the time being, that meat fermentations are deleterious

I've yet to create high meat, but from what I've learned on here liver doesn't end up being so much high "meat" as it ends up being a high soup ... if you can picture a fermented soup of dissolved organ parts (and now picture the smell). It would be high in bacteria but I'm not sure even the inuit could stomach that. Someone should dare Aajonus to drink some of that on Ripley's Believe or Not lol.

Also I believe Tyler said that he's tried using frozen meat for high meat and that he did not get the same effect. I would imagine the quality (grass-fed vs. grain-fed) might also play into it, but I'm no expert. Good high meats might actually be the result of being highly selective amongst the various options.

When I start making high meat, I'd like to chew as much of it as possible, although I won't hesitate to bolt it if my gag reflex starts clicking in!

I'm curious. Did you suffer any negative effects while consuming high meat coco?
The fact that an opinion has been widely held is no evidence whatever that it is not utterly absurd.

- Bertrand Russell

Offline boxcarguy07

  • Chief
  • *****
  • Posts: 736
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: To Chew or not to Chew
« Reply #13 on: September 22, 2008, 09:54:19 am »

~ in the us -- so i was told by a sales person at both a meat & a fish shops -- all meat for lawful retail sale is devoid of blood, oftentimes pre-frozen (by usda regulation, liver is always previously or currently frozen), & always thoroughly washed at least with chlorinated water (if not also with detergents or who knows what) >> is it high-meatable at all?
~ eventually i found apparently reliable scientific info which convinced me, at least for the time being, that meat fermentations are deleterious



Is this true? Anyone else? I don't want to be eating anything washed with chlorine...

And do you have a source for the second point?

Satya

  • Guest
Re: To Chew or not to Chew
« Reply #14 on: September 22, 2008, 10:17:58 am »
Is this true? Anyone else? I don't want to be eating anything washed with chlorine...

I don't think so.  I am buying most of my meat retail from a USDA inspected farm.  I'll call and ask my main farm family.  Perhaps this is true in factory farm situations, I dunno; but be careful of blanket statements, y'all.  Let's go for fact and not sensationalism, eh?  Please quote and cite the USDA regs when making these types of claims.  Research claims.  Share the info.
« Last Edit: September 22, 2008, 10:23:41 am by Satya »

Offline Squall

  • Boar Hunter
  • ***
  • Posts: 102
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: To Chew or not to Chew
« Reply #15 on: September 22, 2008, 10:48:34 am »
I'll have to research the biochemistry but ptyalin may very well chemically interfere with the digestive action of other enzymes based on pH or other chemistry factors.

I was gonna post some stuff that I thought might help you from wikipedia when I stumbled on some contradictory information.

The following was taken from the Amylase entry under ?-Amylase on that site:

Quote
In animals, it is a major digestive enzyme and its optimum pH is 6.7-7.0.

The following was taken from the Alpha-Amylase entry, under Salivary Amylase (ptyalin)

Quote
Optimum pH - 8.3

Thought that was funny. If I get the inclination I'll check the discussion pages to see if anyone noticed that or if there are any plans to synchronize some entries. Maybe biochemistry isn't well represented on wikipedia?
The fact that an opinion has been widely held is no evidence whatever that it is not utterly absurd.

- Bertrand Russell

Offline TylerDurden

  • Global Moderator
  • Mammoth Hunter
  • *****
  • Posts: 17,016
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
    • Raw Paleolithic Diet
Re: To Chew or not to Chew
« Reply #16 on: September 22, 2008, 05:06:05 pm »
I've yet to create high meat, but from what I've learned on here liver doesn't end up being so much high "meat" as it ends up being a high soup ... if you can picture a fermented soup of dissolved organ parts (and now picture the smell). It would be high in bacteria but I'm not sure even the inuit could stomach that. Someone should dare Aajonus to drink some of that on Ripley's Believe or Not lol.

The Inuit preferred to eat rotting fish rather than rotting liver. The rotting fish was one of their most favourite foods. 

Re liquid soup:- In that famous wifeswap tv series episode about an American family on a raw animal food diet, they were shown to eat high-meat in the form of a liquid soup(I think it had been aged for c.4 months).
« Last Edit: September 22, 2008, 07:09:30 pm 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 Nicola

  • Shaman
  • *****
  • Posts: 452
  • Gender: Female
    • View Profile
Re: To Chew or not to Chew
« Reply #17 on: September 22, 2008, 07:28:31 pm »
I asked "the bear" about chewing and bolting of raw meat:

Not a problem if you like the taste of raw meat, I personally like my
meat seared a bit on the outside.  Since I have all my teeth, a bit
of a chew brings out all those delightful flavours food has, of
course meat is only digested after it reaches the stomach.
 
Nice to see that some people besides myself actually do not expect
their food to provide entertainment.   "I could never eat only meat-
I'd be bored to death" is a common response to my way of eating.


Nicola

Offline TylerDurden

  • Global Moderator
  • Mammoth Hunter
  • *****
  • Posts: 17,016
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
    • Raw Paleolithic Diet
Re: To Chew or not to Chew
« Reply #18 on: September 22, 2008, 10:12:11 pm »
A few people seem to be under the misconception that bolting food down means you're not interested in the food. On the contrary, I  am interested in and like the food I eat, I just don't see the need to obsess over it, re the issue of chewing.  I found, early on in my diet, that only minimal chewing was required, if at all, re my digestion, and that chewing each bite for ages did not improve things at all - so why bother. On those rare occasions when I eat cooked-food, I do make an effort to chew, for obvious reasons, though.





"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 Nicola

  • Shaman
  • *****
  • Posts: 452
  • Gender: Female
    • View Profile
Re: To Chew or not to Chew
« Reply #19 on: September 22, 2008, 11:13:31 pm »
A few people seem to be under the misconception that bolting food down means you're not interested in the food. On the contrary, I  am interested in and like the food I eat, I just don't see the need to obsess over it, re the issue of chewing.  I found, early on in my diet, that only minimal chewing was required, if at all, re my digestion, and that chewing each bite for ages did not improve things at all - so why bother. On those rare occasions when I eat cooked-food, I do make an effort to chew, for obvious reasons, though.


You know I did try bolting some of the leg of mutton that I was eating; it got stuck in my thought and I had to make myself perk it up (that took quite a while and I thought I had to die!). I also found quite a bit of mutton undigested in my stool; all this upset me very much!
« Last Edit: September 23, 2008, 07:36:14 pm by Nicola »

Offline wodgina

  • Global Moderator
  • Mammoth Hunter
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,304
  • Opportunistic Carnivore
    • View Profile
Re: To Chew or not to Chew
« Reply #20 on: September 23, 2008, 07:13:51 am »
I don't think so.  I am buying most of my meat retail from a USDA inspected farm.  I'll call and ask my main farm family.  Perhaps this is true in factory farm situations, I dunno; but be careful of blanket statements, y'all.  Let's go for fact and not sensationalism, eh?  Please quote and cite the USDA regs when making these types of claims.  Research claims.  Share the info.

When I was a student I worked in a chicken factory, Once the chickens were gutted, defeathered and ready for sizing they went through a huge Vat for a couple of minutes it stunk of chlorine and was pretty disgusting. The chickens that went to KFC/Nando's went through an  injecting machine where hundreds of syringe like needles injected a sugary/salty mixture deep inside the carcass. That was an eye opener.

Beats me why we have pityalin if we are mainly carnivores, is this a carry over from our frugivore days? or do we produce less once we eat an all meat diet?

Does it really interfere with protein digestion? It could be for glycogen?

Do dogs/cats/bears produce pityalin?

I love to chew my raw meat for taste but some times I bolt the chunks that are too chewy or I'm in a hurry.

Can dogs choke? or is that only in animals which have narrowed palates from poor nutrition?
« Last Edit: September 23, 2008, 07:49:33 am by wodgina6722 »
“Integrity has no need of rules.”

Albert Camus

Offline Raw Kyle

  • Global Moderator
  • Mammoth Hunter
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,701
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: To Chew or not to Chew
« Reply #21 on: September 23, 2008, 08:21:50 am »
I think it's reasonable to imagine how ptyalin made it's way into the gene pool so much. Imagine when grain agriculture took over, societies that used it were more viable in war making, soon all but the most remote had to engage in it. Then some kind of famine in other food stores, maybe people stopped hunting and thought they could rely totally on grains, or the poor people and soldiers were forced to eat it, at any rate if all of a sudden other food stuffs traditionally used were gone or nearly gone the people who could survive better on grains (ones with ptyalin production) would have an obvious advantage. Something like that could change the gene pool immensely in a couple of generations.

The reason why dairy hasn't made it into the gene pool is because that was never really a sole food source for the world like grains must have been at one point so there was no reason. If it happened again that people could only access grains for food for extended periods you would have those with higher expression of the ptyalin making enzyme fair better and this would be represented in the next generation.

The only chink in that idea is tribes that seem to have been non-grain eaters forever. I would be very interested in seeing their ptyalin production vs. Asian or European peoples (very high grain eaters historically).

Satya

  • Guest
Re: To Chew or not to Chew
« Reply #22 on: September 23, 2008, 10:41:04 pm »
When I was a student I worked in a chicken factory, Once the chickens were gutted, defeathered and ready for sizing they went through a huge Vat for a couple of minutes it stunk of chlorine and was pretty disgusting. The chickens that went to KFC/Nando's went through an  injecting machine where hundreds of syringe like needles injected a sugary/salty mixture deep inside the carcass. That was an eye opener.

I talked with my rancher this morning.  She has a USDA inspected operation.  She says that the USDA handbook is just huge.  And no, they do not chlorinate any food in their operation.  She said basically (and I am paraphrasing):

 'See, this is the problem of the factory farm model, where you have 5,000 head of cattle going through a facility in one day.  They put all the organs in a big vat and sanitize them.  If they didn't, you'd get food borne illness outbreaks.  When you buy your meat closer to home, from smaller operators, you just don't have these kinds of food safety issues.'

She also wondered why anyone in their right minds would eat factory animal livers.  So buy local, buy small.  Raise your own if you can.

And btw, I didn't mean to stifle speech or anything.  Make all the claims you want folks.  But I am not so gullible to accept anything that is not backed up with some sort of evidence.  And evidence was mentioned as being found, but it was never shared here.  Obviously, even anecdotes are fine, else, how many of us would eat raw food? 
« Last Edit: September 23, 2008, 10:47:23 pm by Satya »

Offline Roselene

  • Deer Hunter
  • ***
  • Posts: 86
    • View Profile
    • I like We Want 2 Live.
Re: To Chew or not to Chew
« Reply #23 on: July 03, 2009, 08:22:19 pm »
~ in the us -- so i was told by a sales person at both a meat & a fish shops -- all meat for lawful retail sale is devoid of blood, oftentimes pre-frozen (by usda regulation, liver is always previously or currently frozen), & always thoroughly washed at least with chlorinated water (if not also with detergents or who knows what) >> is it high-meatable at all?

    If this is true, I have to consider better buying the whole organ next time.  That's disgusting.  How dare they bleach our food.  I mean I know they bleach neolithic foods including carrots, but this is too far, and the scallops thing.

    I haven't minded chewing liver.  The rest of the meat I finally realized is easier to bolt.  It is hard to find liver sometimes that isn't precooked and such.  I just avoid it if it's processed in any way.  I have an order coming next week.  I'm going to call them and ask about chlorine.  Can they do this to buffalo too?

Offline sanilbd

  • Forager
  • *
  • Posts: 3
    • View Profile
Re: To Chew or not to Chew
« Reply #24 on: July 16, 2009, 06:55:18 am »
Aajonus has pointed out that the ptyalin in human saliva will interfere with meat digestion and recommends chewing as little as possible. Many here also recommend this. But ptyalin is an amylase, and an amylase's job is to begin the conversion of starch into sugar. Ptyalin's job specifically is to accomplish this with the chewing process. Many people (non-RPD) would undoubtedly point to the presence of amylase in saliva as prima facie evidence that man is meant to eat starchy vegetables. Else, they would argue, why would we have this adaptation if it served no use? Its a good argument. Indeed the presence of ptyalin in saliva appears to be a digestive adaptation to eating something starchy, on the basis that the resultant sugars are needed by some metabolic processes. However, it falls short in assuming that only starchy veggies have starch, which many here know to be false, as certain organs (liver) are relatively high in glycogen, an animal starch. The original claim that ptyalin interferes with protein digestion seems rather odd, considering that its job is starch digestion.

 

SMF spam blocked by CleanTalk