i've gotten chicken from two sources near me. one is great. definitely not heated. the other one was pretty horrible. you could tell the chicken had been heated beforehand and it tasted awful. the skin had a different texture and color too. the good chicken has nearly white skin that's still very elastic and slimy. i need to ask them how they de-feather. anyways, it's worth it to try and find a good source in my opinion.

Grassfed suet is more yellow than grainfed in my experience. Lex has also noted this. If you melt it you can see the yellow more easily. Grassfed also has less connective-type material (it's like sticky netting) and more pure fat.

Aajonus has a different perspective on which cooked foods are the most unhealthy than what we usually see here.

Good link, I'll post it.

As far as wild animals are concerned, I routinely eat raw wild game that's been recently shot by hunters, without parasite issues. I still find shotgun pellets in the corpse when I start eating it.

That was pretty much my story. I first developed mild acne in my senior year in high school. It became worse over the next few years until it was cystic acne that was frequently rather painful. The dermatologists had me take antibiotics like tetracycline and erythromycin, topical treatments like retin-A, and eventually a round of Accutane. None of it did the job. The Accutane was the only thing that cleared most of the acne, but only while I was taking it. The day after I stopped taking it the acne started coming back. My acne greatly improved when I cut dairy and gluten out of my diet--especially the gluten--but the zits didn't clear up completely until age 45 when I adopted a mostly-raw carnivorous diet. Now I only get them if I eat any more than a smidgeon of carbs or go too long without showering, and even then I just get a couple tiny, painless ones, like when I first started breaking out.

I just don't get wtf they're talking about, he's standing there eating that stuff and they're talking about risks. Certainly begs the question.

One person occasionally even asks me what the causes are of her health problems, and the solutions, but she doesn't really mean it, because if I start talking about possible solutions she just gets angry. I think that she too just wants to be consoled.

I don't see how caloric restriction can benefit the body in ways other than speeding up the removal of toxins.

For one thing, caloric restriction is very harmful in and of itself, with people doing long-term serious caloric restriction suffering from severe muscle-weakness/issues and general fatigue/ill-health , which would not help prolong lifespan in and of itself, quite the contrary. For example, lifespan/aging has been directly correlated to the extent of muscle in the body(in other words, the more developed the muscles are through exercise, the lower the risk re mortality). So, IMO, the issue re lowering AGEs and other heat-created toxins seems more relevant than the claimed more efficient use of nutrients.

Just google online for scientific studies which focus on "low AGE diets". There are several which show that reducing AGE-levels improves symptoms and scientists do seem to acknowledge that caloric restriction(which is effectively the same as "eating less cooked food" given the study's focus on a cooked diet) lowers AGE-levels(eg:-

http://content.karger.com/produktedb/produkte.asp?typ=fulltext&file=000217817

)

Granted no study has yet compared raw+ caloric restriction with cooked+caloric restriction etc.