Paleo Diet: Raw Paleo Diet and Lifestyle Forum
Raw Paleo Diet Forums => General Discussion => Topic started by: a87.pal on February 26, 2013, 03:58:43 am
-
Hi guys,
I got thinking about how I personally consider things like jerky and "cold pressed" (under 120F) coconut oil raw. But really they are not.
Obviously there are physical transformations that occur at higher temperatures (and durations). Can someone summarize where the 120F number comes from (if I even got it right)? Additionally, are there any significant changes at lower temperatures?
-
There's a big difference between 'wet' heat and 'dry' heat, i.e., the difference between being dipped in water of a certain temperature versus being surrounded by air of that same temperature. Dry heat can go quite a bit higher without really "cooking" the food.
The strictest purists would say that any food heated in wet heat above 104 F is cooked. In reality, though, a great deal depends on heating time. Just because the outside of something gets up to a specific temperature doesn't mean the middle of the object has reached that temperature.
-
104° F = 40° C (when will you Americans stop to use antediluvian units and switch to the worldwide used metric system?) ;)
0° C to 40° C is the temperature at which living things usually function properly. Food having been heated to 50° C or 60° C is not cooked, but has been overheated to the point that some organic molecules will have been subject to significant damage, thus becoming more or less noxious depending on the kind of molecules and the kind of random damage.
So, it's important that the whole food, outer parts included, had not been heated over 40° C, roughly. There is certainly a tolerance up to which living processes can still operate satisfactorily, perhaps up to 43 - 45° C, but it's safer to keep a safety margin.
The point is not to eat some (inside) parts of the stuff raw, but to avoid all overheated molecules because these can potentially be noxious and some certainly are.
-
This makes sense as most mammals thermoregulate between 24C to 40C. So I guess ~40C would be the limit for truly raw.
You mentioned that up to 60C (you can sous-vide a steak) is still not considered cooked, but certain molecules become noxious. Any guidelines here, like the upper limit before proteins and fats start generating noxious substances -- for use when drying?
-
Iguana is right. Most rawists view 40° Celsius/104° Fahrenheit to be the upper limit, above which foods are considered "non-raw".
Enzymes start getting denatured/destroyed after 40 degrees Celsius, so it is not a good idea to heat foods above that point. Anyway, dehydration can be practiced at temperatures below 40° Celsius.
-
I understand that getting active enzymes has benefits, but I was unaware that denatured proteins/enzymes were detrimental to health. I thought it was only the other compounds like PAH's and HCA's that were problematic, and that these required higher temperatures before they started to generate.
I monitored my last batch of jerky and noticed temperatures around 55C. I could obviously change things to keep temperatures below 40C, but I like my current set up and want to get a better idea if I am actually setting myself up for certain problems.
-
I use the $10 Jerky Dryer, instructions from Lex Rooker can be found here: http://www.traditionaltx.us/images/JerkyDrierInstructions.pdf (http://www.traditionaltx.us/images/JerkyDrierInstructions.pdf). I use an aquarium heater instead of a light bulb so that I don't get bothered by the light. I have mine set up so that it dries by convection at around 90 degrees F, so I'm not using a 100-watt heat source.
-
Hi guys,
I got thinking about how I personally consider things like jerky and "cold pressed" (under 120F) coconut oil raw. But really they are not.
Define jerky. Mine is lean meat dried at temperature below 40C.
Obviously there are physical transformations that occur at higher temperatures (and durations). Can someone summarize where the 120F number comes from (if I even got it right)? Additionally, are there any significant changes at lower temperatures?
The physical transformations occur at different temperature depending on what you refer to.
Fro instance, there are only two parts to a paleolithic diet, and while meat is no longer raw at temperatures above 104F, there is no change in tallow until above 300F.
Define tallow: rendered beef fat.
Define render: separated fat (or fatty acids) from indigestible connective tissue.
Define beef fat: combined fatty acids and INDIGESTIBLE PROTEINS.
I seems useful to define these terms, as previous "discussion" without definition has led to confusion and ill feeling.
-
I understand that getting active enzymes has benefits, but I was unaware that denatured proteins/enzymes were detrimental to health. I thought it was only the other compounds like PAH's and HCA's that were problematic, and that these required higher temperatures before they started to generate.
Denatured enzymes/proteins are not as dangerous as PAHs/HCAs/AGEs/NSAs. It just means that they make digestion more difficult for the body as it has to make more effort. The trouble is that forcing the body to make more enzymes and work harder to digest the relevant food means that the body's enzyme-creating organs get worn out quicker. That's why old people on cooked diets benefit so much from adding extra enzyme supplements to their diet.
I am not sure when PAHs and the rest start getting created. But, obviously, they start appearing well before 100°C, as boiling creates a certain amount.
Here's some more detailed info on enzymes:-
http://www.westonaprice.org/nutrition-greats/edward-howell (http://www.westonaprice.org/nutrition-greats/edward-howell)
-
The physical transformations occur at different temperature depending on what you refer to.
Fro instance, there are only two parts to a paleolithic diet, and while meat is no longer raw at temperatures above 104F, there is no change in tallow until above 300F.
The above claim is , of course, utter nonsense. Cooking oxidises fats which are then harmful to the body. The 300F figure is purely arbitrary, and is likely a lame attempt on William's part to refer to the smoke-point of tallow. In actual fact, cooking oxidises fats at much lower temperatures than that.
Tallow is useful as a component of biodiesel, candles and soap. It is harmful as a food-source.
-
Denatured enzymes/proteins are not as dangerous as PAHs/HCAs/AGEs/NSAs.
AFAIK, that’s far from being proved, Tyler. Experiments done by GCB in the 60’s on mice fed with food heated to various temperature showed that heating to “low” temperature (50 to 70° C) appeared to be more troublesome than thorough cooking! Here is what he say about that in http://www.reocities.com/HotSprings/7627/ggraw_eat2.html. (http://www.reocities.com/HotSprings/7627/ggraw_eat2.html.) You really have to read that book, we are still waiting for your review!
As far as blanched vegetables are concerned, that is, vegetables that have been heated to temperatures of 60 to 80°C for varying periods of time, things aren’t as simple as they look. It is usually thought that the less altered a food, the less toxic it is. Now, the validity of such a proportional rule is far from being proven. The most dangerous by-products are not necessarily produced at high temperatures. If you want to make sure that you aren’t affected by those cooked substances, it might be best to char everything you cook in your oven. Pure carbon is definitely non-toxic!
As I was saying, it isn’t known whether molecules that have been slightly damaged are more dangerous that those having undergone complete alteration. The body will identify the latter more readily, whereas the former will play surreptitious tricks with our immunity.
And it is precisely the dissolution of food molecules, or their pre-digestion if you prefer, that is achieved through cooking, and, at the same time, a great many parasitic molecules show up, especially in whatever parts of food that have borne the brunt of very high temperatures, i.e. bread crusts, charred spots on grilled or fried meat, etc. In the parts less conspicuously affected, there are fewer of these molecules, but the production of “Maillard’s molecules” (proteins + sugars), for example, is already underway at moderate temperatures, without any visible browning to the food occurring to indicate the presence of these molecules.
Scientists must feel a bit uneasy about not having raised this important matter before now, especially since they are, supposedly, responsible for world health. Every time I’ve tried to broach the subject, I’ve had to put up with viciously aggressive reactions, that were quite irrational, from my point of view, even from scientists who were apparently open to ditching traditional diets.
I have heard things like, for instance, “It is probable that mucus in the gut contains enzymes that can break down ‘Maillard’s molecules.’ Indicting cooked food would be an unwarranted scientific extrapolation; it’s better to stick with well-known dietary rules and cook meat and fish as required, without overdoing it.” That is what was printed in the Swiss Cancer Research Journal at one point.
See also http://www.rawpaleodietforum.com/instinctoanopsology/who-has-read-gc-burger%27s-first-book/msg98397/#msg98397 (http://www.rawpaleodietforum.com/instinctoanopsology/who-has-read-gc-burger%27s-first-book/msg98397/#msg98397)and following posts.
Hmmm… I keep repeating the same thing over and over again…
-
Well, I see it as logical that the more heat is applied, the worse the damage is. Still, maybe...
The Internet and modern lifestyles make us very lazy. I still have to reorganise rawpaleodiet.com when I have the time, and then I will do a GCB review. Sort of necessary as he is more in line with rawpalaeo ideas than even Aajonus.
-
Ive read some of GCB's work, but, as I remember, his key point is that aside from creating toxins, cooking also perverts our instincts, obscuring our decisions about what and how much to eat.
Its interesting to consider that slightly cooking could be equally as dangerous as fully cooking, just through a different mechanism. Based on the excerpts quoted and Tyler's concerns about enzymes, I'm curious if this is more of an issue with plant matter than with animal matter.
(I'd be surprised if there were significant amounts of proteases and lipases in animal tissue though I suppose it is possible.)
I guess what I really need to do is look into the temperatures when the reactions for PAHs/HCAs/AGEs/NSAs begin.
-
Ive read some of GCB's work, but, as I remember, his key point is that aside from creating toxins, cooking also perverts our instincts, obscuring our decisions about what and how much to eat.
Its interesting to consider that slightly cooking could be equally as dangerous as fully cooking, just through a different mechanism. Based on the excerpts quoted and Tyler's concerns about enzymes, I'm curious if this is more of an issue with plant matter than with animal matter.
(I'd be surprised if there were significant amounts of proteases and lipases in animal tissue though I suppose it is possible.)
I guess what I really need to do is look into the temperatures when the reactions for PAHs/HCAs/AGEs/NSAs begin.
I've seen absolutely no scientific studies that indicate that lighter cooking methods are more dangerous than heavier cooking methods. GCB's study was not peer-reviewed, nor has it been replicated.
-
That's true.
But are there studies indicating that high temperature cooking methods are systematically more dangerous than lower temperature cooking methods?
It's generally assumed that things are more or less linear, but in this case it seems it's not necessarily so.
-
In making tallow... I grind fat and then heat it to 100-105 f. When I error and the temp goes too high, one thing I notice is how difficult it is to clean the glass container I have used to heat the fat in. The fat sticks much more than when it's just heated to 100. That's enough for me to know that something has changed that I don't want to experiment with in my body. I'm interested if anyone else has the same experience with heating fats, and having them stick to utensils?
-
There are very good glues made of protein, which is still in your sticking "fat". Note the definition.
You are right not to experiment by eating cooked fat. Been done, and some of us have suffered enough not to ever eat it again.
OTOH billions have eaten tallow, including the customers of MacDonald's fast food joints, with never a complaint. Not surprising, since all the cells of healthy bodies contain the same kind of fatty acids.
-
That's true.
But are there studies indicating that high temperature cooking methods are systematically more dangerous than lower temperature cooking methods?
I'm afraid there are. I haven't the time to cite them now, but hopefully tomorrow. Remind me. Basically, the higher the cooking temperature, the higher are the amounts of heat-created toxins in the foods. Plus, the studies cite more harmful effects as the amounts of heat-created toxins rise.
-
OTOH billions have eaten tallow, including the customers of MacDonald's fast food joints, with never a complaint. Not surprising, since all the cells of healthy bodies contain the same kind of fatty acids.
Tallow is, of course, cooked, rendered fat and is therefore extremely unhealthy. Many customers of McDonald's have found out, to their cost, that their health had suffered greatly as a result of eating cooked fats.
-
Tallow is, of course, cooked, rendered fat and is therefore extremely unhealthy. Many customers of McDonald's have found out, to their cost, that their health had suffered greatly as a result of eating cooked fats.
We would love to see any credible evidence that supports this remarkable claim.
-
We would love to see any credible evidence that supports this remarkable claim.
Heating any food above 100°C means it's cooked by any reasonable definition. Plus, there is plenty of evidence that MacDonald's offers unhealthy food, so to suggest that a junk-food-store-chain like McDonald's is healthy is moronic. Inventing absurd lies comparing tallow to stone in terms of how it is affected by heat, like you did before, is pathetic. Bear also in mind that you were banned for a month previously for citing such outrageous lies on here.
-
We would love to see any credible evidence that supports this remarkable claim.
Ever seen "Super Size Me?"
A guy eats McDonald's for breakfast, lunch and dinner for 30 days. Before he starts, he gets a physical and is fine.
Before the 30 days is up, he's throwing up and sick. He goes to the doctor, and a few things are wrong with him. The doctor says if he had kept up the experiment he may have died.
His is extreme, most people who eat fast food don't eat it for 3 meals a day. But it shows that the food isn't healthy.
-
Ever seen "Super Size Me?"
A guy eats McDonald's for breakfast, lunch and dinner for 30 days. Before he starts, he gets a physical and is fine.
Before the 30 days is up, he's throwing up and sick. He goes to the doctor, and a few things are wrong with him. The doctor says if he had kept up the experiment he may have died.
His is extreme, most people who eat fast food don't eat it for 3 meals a day. But it shows that the food isn't healthy.
Plus he agreed to every UP-size offer. That is why it was called "Super Size Me".
But that is not what William was referring to.
William was referring to this statement:
>> "Tallow is, of course, cooked, rendered fat and is therefore extremely unhealthy."
I seem to remember William having much success with tallow and pemmican?
-
I seem to remember William having much success with tallow and pemmican?
Tallow is probably one of the healthiest of the cooked fats there are.
Cooked vegetable oils are extremely detrimental to health, while cooked animal fats aren't as bad. It's been claimed the reason is animal fats have more saturated fats so they're more likely to stay stable/unchanged by heating. While vegetable oils, being high in unsaturated fats, change/degrade rapidly in high heat.
-
Tallow is probably one of the healthiest of the cooked fats there are.
Cooked vegetable oils are extremely detrimental to health, while cooked animal fats aren't as bad. It's been claimed the reason is animal fats have more saturated fats so they're more likely to stay stable/unchanged by heating. While vegetable oils, being high in unsaturated fats, change/degrade rapidly in high heat.
The above is, of course, a load of rubbish. In actual fact, it has been repeatedly mentioned that cooked animal fats, like pasteurised butter for example, contain much higher levels of heat-created toxins in them than any other types of foods.
Tallow is one of the unhealthiest types of animal fats around. The vast number of scientific studies damning cooked saturated fats like tallow etc., have, however, erroneously cited the saturated fats as being the cause, whereas the truth is that the vast amounts of heat-created toxins generated by cooking the saturated fats are the real culprits. Raw saturated fat is, by contrast, very healthy.
-
I would take note if Tallow worked wonders for William's heart problem... did I remember correctly, William?
Just take note of it.
Whatever he did was so much better than what he was previously on.
Maybe we can just agree that
vegetable oils are crap
tallow is better (as per William's experience)
raw fat is best
-
The above is, of course, a load of rubbish. In actual fact, it has been repeatedly mentioned that cooked animal fats, like pasteurised butter for example, contain much higher levels of heat-created toxins in them than any other types of foods.
Tallow is one of the unhealthiest types of animal fats around. The vast number of scientific studies damning cooked saturated fats like tallow etc., have, however, erroneously cited the saturated fats as being the cause, whereas the truth is that the vast amounts of heat-created toxins generated by cooking the saturated fats are the real culprits. Raw saturated fat is, by contrast, very healthy.
Although I've seen a lot of talk on this forum specifically damning cooked saturated fats and promoting them when raw. I've never seen any REAL scientific evidence to support that specifically raw saturated fats are fine and cooked are very damaging.
I personally think saturated fat is fine, and is a necessary energy and building block.
But when you look at the time BEFORE vegetable oils, heart disease (among other illnesses) were rare. Once vegetable oils were introduced and animal fats removed, the epidemics began.
-
vegetable oils are crap
tallow is better (as per William's experience)
raw fat is best
That would be dishonest. Vegetable oils are very heavily processed, far more so than tallow. It would be better and more truthful to state that vegetable oils and tallow are the worst foods, that lightly-cooked foods are "less worse", and that raw foods and raw fats are best.
-
Although I've seen a lot of talk on this forum specifically damning cooked saturated fats and promoting them when raw. I've never seen any REAL scientific evidence to support that specifically raw saturated fats are fine and cooked are very damaging.
Not true. There is currently a vast amount of reliable scientific evidence to show that cooked saturated fats are harmful. The ONLY reason why there are no studies showing that RAW saturated fats are harmless is because almost no studies at all have been done on raw animal foods. That's all.
But when you look at the time BEFORE vegetable oils, heart disease (among other illnesses) were rare. Once vegetable oils were introduced and animal fats removed, the epidemics began.
This is just nonsense. First of all, I seriously doubt you can provide reliable figures from the Middle Ages in Europe, for example, given that medical records were so sparse and medicine such an unreliable science at the time. Secondly, there was a much lower lifespan in those days so that people died from a thousand other illnesses long before they ever got to an age where they could start getting heart-disease.
-
That's all. This is just nonsense. First of all, I seriously doubt you can provide reliable figures from the Middle Ages in Europe, for example, given that medical records were so sparse and medicine such an unreliable science at the time. Secondly, there was a much lower lifespan in those days so that people died from a thousand other illnesses long before they ever got to an age where they could start getting heart-disease.
I'm actually referring to just prior to the introduction of vegetable oils - around the early 1900's.
And here's a relatively reliable, well documented example of proof.
http://www.westonaprice.org/know-your-fats/skinny-on-fats (http://www.westonaprice.org/know-your-fats/skinny-on-fats)
"Before 1920 coronary heart disease was rare in America; so rare that when a young internist named Paul Dudley White introduced the German electrocardiograph to his colleagues at Harvard University, they advised him to concentrate on a more profitable branch of medicine. The new machine revealed the presence of arterial blockages, thus permitting early diagnosis of coronary heart disease. But in those days clogged arteries were a medical rarity, and White had to search for patients who could benefit from his new technology. During the next forty years, however, the incidence of coronary heart disease rose dramatically, so much so that by the mid fifties heart disease was the leading cause of death among Americans. Today heart disease causes at least 40% of all US deaths. If, as we have been told, heart disease results from the consumption of saturated fats, one would expect to find a corresponding increase in animal fat in the American diet. Actually, the reverse is true. During the sixty-year period from 1910 to 1970, the proportion of traditional animal fat in the American diet declined from 83% to 62%, and butter consumption plummeted from eighteen pounds per person per year to four. During the past eighty years, dietary cholesterol intake has increased only 1%. During the same period the percentage of dietary vegetable oils in the form of margarine, shortening and refined oils increased about 400% while the consumption of sugar and processed foods increased about 60%."
-
All the above shows that people became more likely to get heart-disease as they became more obese as a result of eating more foods in modern times, and particularly as a result of eating more refined/processed foods. Nothing more.
Incidentally, there are a number of studies showing that Mediterranean Diets(which include lots of vegetable oils) were much healthier than SAD diets. So, again, it's more a question of how processed the foods in a diet are.
-
This thread was meant to determine if food introduced to very low heat <60C would lead to dietary problems.
The issues with tallow and cooking in general was pretty thoroughly discussed here: http://www.rawpaleodietforum.com/hot-topics/tallow-v-butter/ (http://www.rawpaleodietforum.com/hot-topics/tallow-v-butter/)
-
This thread was meant to determine if food introduced to very low heat <60C would lead to dietary problems.
The issues with tallow and cooking in general was pretty thoroughly discussed here: http://www.rawpaleodietforum.com/hot-topics/tallow-v-butter/ (http://www.rawpaleodietforum.com/hot-topics/tallow-v-butter/)
Yep, as I had pointed out in that thread, it was better to get hold of other raw fat such as raw marrow, raw leg of lamb etc. if one couldn't handle raw suet, instead of choosing between nasty cooked tallow or raw butter(unless one had no issues with raw dairy at all, of course).
Iguana's point re very mildly-cooked foods being in some ways worse than more-cooked foods is interesting, but it clashes with scientific data. For example:-
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2920582/ (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2920582/)
-
if one couldn't handle raw suet
Raw suet sucks! The fat from the cuts of meat is where it's at. I can eat it all day, by itself.
-
Although I've seen a lot of talk on this forum specifically damning cooked saturated fats and promoting them when raw. I've never seen any REAL scientific evidence to support that specifically raw saturated fats are fine and cooked are very damaging.
I personally think saturated fat is fine, and is a necessary energy and building block.
But when you look at the time BEFORE vegetable oils, heart disease (among other illnesses) were rare. Once vegetable oils were introduced and animal fats removed, the epidemics began.
In my opinion and experience in healing sick people, you need raw saturated fats to cleanse livers and wipe out infections. Their cooked versions cannot do that.
-
I would take note if Tallow worked wonders for William's heart problem... did I remember correctly, William?
Just take note of it.
Whatever he did was so much better than what he was previously on.
Maybe we can just agree that
vegetable oils are crap
tallow is better (as per William's experience)
raw fat is best
Yes, that's right.
The authority on the difference is the book "Fats that Heal, Fats that Kill" by Udo Erasmus PhD, where he shows that seed oils are processed at temperatures over 400F, and they are not heat tolerant anyway, so are poisonous.
Raw fat might be best for those who can cope with the connective tissue in it, indigestible for me.
-
try marrow. no connective tissue there.
maybe I also have fatter beef than the ones you get and I get pure fat with no connective tissue in them.
-
you can slice the connective tissue away from the fat or vice versa... do it all the time. But I also have a meat grinder with small sieve that grinds it all, fat and connective tissue into paste that I then heat at 100 f in a bowl of water for about a half hour. A lot of it melts into a golden yellow melted butter like delight. IN fact I just finished about 2/3 cup. Nothing better. I suspect that connective tissue is good for something in our bodies.
-
Man you get tallow on your french fries?!?!?!? WHERE!!!!!!!??????
In America it's all fried in corn/cotton/rape seed oils. Lard and tallow or peanut fried foods are extravagancies here.
In my personal experience, cooked animal fats are way better and healthier than vegetable oils. When I started cooking with butter instead of olive oil, I lost weight, felt better and had way more energy. I don't think most vegetable oils are even utilized by the body.
I have to say in the case of meat that light cooking is worse than full cooking. When meat is lightly cooked it basically turns into leather and is indigestible. Only after cooking for a while does it start to break down in structure and again become chewable/digestible.
If meat isn't cooked right it is one of the least pleasant of things to eat.
-
I have to say in the case of meat that light cooking is worse than full cooking. When meat is lightly cooked it basically turns into leather and is indigestible. Only after cooking for a while does it start to break down in structure and again become chewable/digestible.
If meat isn't cooked right it is one of the least pleasant of things to eat.
Not mine and most others' experience. Most people find that the more one cooks the meat, the more it turns into indigestible, blackened leather-like material. By contrast, most of us find that lightly-cooked meat is much easier to digest.
-
Not mine and most others' experience. Most people find that the more one cooks the meat, the more it turns into indigestible, blackened leather-like material. By contrast, most of us find that lightly-cooked meat is much easier to digest.
leather like? as soon as the meat is subjected to heat it becomes tough, but if it is slow cooked for a long time it starts to fall apart. It only will get tougher if you are cooking at too high a heat.
-
leather like? as soon as the meat is subjected to heat it becomes tough, but if it is slow cooked for a long time it starts to fall apart. It only will get tougher if you are cooking at too high a heat.
Rubbish. It does NOT become tough, especially since cooking only starts affecting the outer layers, with the inner layers remaining raw. Obviously, once it becomes "well-done", the whole meat becomes blackened, indigestible, rubbish. Obviously, even slow-cooking for long periods will also make the meat indigestible, too.
-
Case to case basis with cooking, guys.
-
Man you get tallow on your french fries?!?!?!? WHERE!!!!!!!??????
In America it's all fried in corn/cotton/rape seed oils. Lard and tallow or peanut fried foods are extravagancies here.
In my personal experience, cooked animal fats are way better and healthier than vegetable oils. When I started cooking with butter instead of olive oil, I lost weight, felt better and had way more energy. I don't think most vegetable oils are even utilized by the body.
I have to say in the case of meat that light cooking is worse than full cooking. When meat is lightly cooked it basically turns into leather and is indigestible. Only after cooking for a while does it start to break down in structure and again become chewable/digestible.
If meat isn't cooked right it is one of the least pleasant of things to eat.
MacDonald's was forced to stop cooking its french fries in tallow, I assume by the seed oil (healthy fat! Ha!) pushers. Or maybe by brainwashed customers.
-
I used to get suet that was chalky and disgusting. The suet I get from my current butcher is creamy and delicious. Its one of my favorite fats right now. The connective tissue doesnt bother me at all. Usually i Just bite the fat off the connective tissue but sometimes I eat a bit of it as well. No problems there.
AAjonus says raw vegetable oils are used by the body as solvents rather than nutritiion. They are good for cleaning the body but not as a food. Coconut oil is a good food he says however.