Re: Zero-carb trials re well-done meats

[Nicola]

I just have the feeling, that we are all full of shit and I don't know if eating raw, cooked, pemmican or, or, or... will ever give a normal human picture. I notice that both sides raw or cooked end up having cramps, loose bowel movements...now is it that people get clogged up and the raw meat makes them go (extra volume, acids?) or is the cooked meat better sitting in the colon but then again those eating raw meat have that sitting and those eating pemmican will have pemmican sitting in the bowels?


http://forum.zeroinginonhealth.com/showthread.php?tid=37&page=217


It's just a theory of mine, but it just seems to make sense. For instance, I didn't have any cramping at all last week and have been sailing along. Yesterday, there was a chuck roast cooking in the oven. I took it out too early and cut a slice off the edge of it. Unfortunately, I didn't stop with that slice. I got another piece that wasn't quite done yet. I had diarrhea last night, complete with stomach pain. It was swift and severe. And then last night, when I got into bed, I had some toe cramps. This morning, no cramps (even with flexing and standing on tip toes) and no more stomach distress.


Many are eating well cooked meat and believe to digest this better (no bloat, I don't know about the rest at the other end).

Nicola

[TylerDurden]

Nicola, in future, keep any anti-raw ramblings to the hot topics forum, where I've now put your post. The original thread was an old one, and concerned merely a topic I started in order to find out if ZCers had done many years eating heavily-cooked meats, as it related to an issue Stefansson raised.Your post wasn't relevant to the prior discussion.

[Paleo Donk]

Just a random thought, but most of the people who have changed to zc were quite sickly before and have been on horrible diets for 40+ years and this might completely change the game versus those who are much younger. From the 50+ zc thread it seems that there is a huge difference in how the body reacts to zc and how long it takes to adapt. Lex is a good example, he continued to spill ketones even after 4+ years of zc when switching to the higher fat regime. I am probably on the exact opposite spectrum and stopped spilling ketones after a month or so. I went zc when I was 27 for several months and adapted almost instantaneously within a couple weeks. I actually don't remember having any negative symptoms except a relatively small urge to eat carbs the first 3-4 days.

I ate cooked foods at first and then slowly started switching to raw again without any negative symptoms. Luckily, I've been fairly healthy and lean my entire life except for the fact that I have always felt tired. It could easily be that my age and relative health were a huge factor in the transitioning process to zc and then to raw.

I think a lot of the issues will take a lot more time to clear up. Virtually no one has gone for an extended time eating cooked zc in this age and it might take 5-10+ years to get the observations we need. Basically the observations now might not mean all that much.

[van]

Nicola,  don't know if you can get it where you live, but just watched 'Food Inc.'.    Most of Charles' followers eat the same kind of meat depicted in this movie.  Thus I still hold the idea that they may very well need to cook their meat to destroy the pathogens in the meat they are eating.  If you can get the movie,  pay attention to the scene where the processor is making hamburger, and where they bring in the cows to kill/process covered in their own feces, and notice the next steps.  Also the scene where they speak about and demonstrate the differences in the intestinal flora of a cows digestive system eating grass versus grains.   Charles wrote that he has been to a feed lot, yet purports that he heard that the cows are only there eating grain for a couple of weeks. That told me enough about whether or not he actually went to one.   Once you really look at the facts surrounding eating beef fattened in feed lots and the ramifications from that, you might have a better understanding of the confusion that exists between Charles' forum and this one. 

[Paleo Donk]

I also agree that the difference between pasture-fed beef and grain-fed walmart meat could be huge, and most likely is enormous when taken through the course of 40+ years. I just don't understand those that are choosing to go zc do not go the extra step to go pasture-fed.  Sure there might not be a difference but why risk it, if you are eating only meat for the rest of your life.

Cost wise its definitely more expensive, say at most ~$10 more per day so about 4k more per year or 200k over the course of a lifetime but I still think its a small sacrifice and still probably cheaper than a SAD.

[DeadRamones]

Maybe they need time to adjust to raw meat. And like one of the posters replied. They most likely came from destructive health backgrounds.

That zero carb site is to cult like for my preference. They do provide some good info at times, but they are harsh to each other when new dieters ask questions(there is no search function to my knowledge), forum members post an antagonistic point or when someone cheats. I'm not doubting their health, just their etiquette.

[William]

I just have the feeling, that we are all full of shit and I don't know if eating raw, cooked, pemmican or, or, or... will ever give a normal human picture. I notice that both sides raw or cooked end up having cramps, loose bowel movements...now is it that people get clogged up and the raw meat makes them go (extra volume, acids?) or is the cooked meat better sitting in the colon but then again those eating raw meat have that sitting and those eating pemmican will have pemmican sitting in the bowels?

  NIcola, are you reading my mind? I could write a learned paper on my "everyone is full of shit, no exceptions" theory.

I never got loose on raw, just less frequent movements. Frequent or loose means to me that I have eaten something that the body is rejecting, and I try to heed that message.
Pemmicaneers do not have pemmican sitting in our bowels, as it is the most thoroughly digested food - almost nothing to eliminate.


http://forum.zeroinginonhealth.com/showthread.php?tid=37&page=217

It's just a theory of mine, but it just seems to make sense. For instance, I didn't have any cramping at all last week and have been sailing along. Yesterday, there was a chuck roast cooking in the oven. I took it out too early and cut a slice off the edge of it. Unfortunately, I didn't stop with that slice. I got another piece that wasn't quite done yet. I had diarrhea last night, complete with stomach pain. It was swift and severe. And then last night, when I got into bed, I had some toe cramps. This morning, no cramps (even with flexing and standing on tip toes) and no more stomach distress.


Many are eating well cooked meat and believe to digest this better (no bloat, I don't know about the rest at the other end).

Nicola

Different microbes exist at different temperatures, and I have had the same reaction to partly cooked meat, but also notice it did not taste right, so that while raw is now OK, and medium was OK, rare was not acceptable to my innards. It's been a very long time since I could eat well done.
Most of the time people seem to ignore the variations in meat; write as if it is all the same. Really, meat must vary in characteristics according time of year, fodder, water, electromagnetic influence, phase of the moon, etc. and so forth. I suspect that this is why jerky and pemmican are more easily digested than raw.

Well cooked also drives off the water which retains the unfavourable energy patterns, but at the price of creating toxins. Young people can cope with these toxins, old folks not.

[djr_81]

I also agree that the difference between pasture-fed beef and grain-fed walmart meat could be huge, and most likely is enormous when taken through the course of 40+ years. I just don't understand those that are choosing to go zc do not go the extra step to go pasture-fed.  Sure there might not be a difference but why risk it, if you are eating only meat for the rest of your life.

Cost wise its definitely more expensive, say at most ~$10 more per day so about 4k more per year or 200k over the course of a lifetime but I still think its a small sacrifice and still probably cheaper than a SAD.

Because most of them are doing it for weight loss as opposed to health problems.
The cooked Wal-Mart meats promote the weight loss they're looking for so they see no need to go beyond the grain-fed.
American consumerism really does boil down to quantity over quality, especially when it comes to food. There will be the far and few between who opt out for the grass-fed but most let their dollar dictate what they'll put into their body and damn the consequences. I used to think this way too, I'm sure many of us on here did, but eventually you realize your body deserves the best you can give it.
FWIW, I spend less than $100 a week for all of my food (and it's brand new fatty grass-fed chuck meat) so it's not purely a cost thing. It's also a convenience thing; people are lazy and don't want to do the legwork to find good deals (and support local ).

Nicola; why do you troll the forums agitating people with contradictory (and often times hypocritical) views? You aggressively dispute raw here and then advocate it on Charles' site. I know here everyone's been nothing but civil about the questions, debate does foster progress, but you just seem to be trying to get a rise out of someone IMHO.

[goodsamaritan]

Need to clear up with the new readers that raw zero carb is a variant of raw paleo.  And that humans as a species has always been omnivorous to survive.  No one who is practicing zero carb today has been zero carb all their lives.  So they are still omnivorous when they started.  And most started on SAD, which just twists everything.

My take on all this is to have a broad range of tools at your disposal to be healthy and use as needed.  If your body feels it needs veggies, do it, if your body feels like it needs fruit do it, if your body feels like going on a fast, do it.

As for the raw meat vs cooked meat debate, I have never experienced feeling sick due to eating raw meat.  Not yet in almost 2 years.  When I had intestinal inflammation due to eating non paleo food I tried many different manners of solving my intestinal inflammation and found my use of fully cooked pork as a medicine which I used to heal my inflammation for just 2 days.

I did my cooked meat experiment and I failed with it.  Raw meat just feels better for my body.  From time to time for socials I will consume cooked meat, but I just keep going with raw meat because raw meat just feels so much better.

I'm always trying to steer clear of dogma or bias, I just stick with what works and so far so good raw meat is just tops.

I must declare that I'm on raw paleo the omnivorous kind and for me raw meat just rocks a whole lot better than cooked meat.

[DeadRamones]

Goodsamaritan, great post.

[PaleoPhil]

Need to clear up with the new readers that raw zero carb is a variant of raw paleo.  And that humans as a species has always been omnivorous to survive. ....

Maybe, maybe not. The scientific meaning of omnivorous and carnivorous has to do more with physiology than what one happens to be eating. For example, the scientific classification for giant pandas is carnivore, yet 99% of their diet is bamboo. Also, there is disagreement over how much of the hominid diet was fauna vs. flora at various times in the past and the fauna part often gets underestimated because fish and other seafood, insects, eggs, lizards, grubs, etc. tend to get undercounted when it comes to dietary analyses. For example, the proportions of HG diets that are usually quoted come from Richard B. Lee's research in which he underestimated the meat proportion because he failed to account for fish. Eaton and Cordain corrected this with their own research, but Lee's erroneous calculations still get quoted more often. Plus, the pro-plant foods wing tends to state flora vs. fauna numbers in terms of volume or weight instead of % calories or nutrients, which is more meaningful and more clearly shows the importance of fauna in the natural human diet.

Most carnivores eat some plant foods, as has been shown here with a video of coyotes eating berries. So the fact that humans can eat some plant foods does not make us omnivores. It's not clear to me whether humans are omnivores or carnivores. Currently I lean to the latter interpretation.

[goodsamaritan]

I only state the obvious personal observation that currently today and in the recent past, all of us today and our recent ancestors are omnivores.  We all grew up and eat both plants, fruits and animals.

There are some documented raw vegan and raw fruitarian children since birth, that's curious.

Would also like to see documented zero carbers / carnivorous children since birth as well.  Maybe some of you ZC practicioners will have children soon enough.

[PaleoPhil]

Right, so you're focusing on what is eaten rather than physiology. I suppose the scientific way to express that might be "Homo sapiens had to eat like an omnivore to survive at various times and places in its history--especially within the last ten thousand years."

Whereas whether humans are physiologically carnivores or omnivores is still a matter of debate in scientific circles. Granted, the majority side with the omnivore hypothesis, but more have been shifting to carnivore lately, as the old man-the-hunter hypothesis is currently undergoing a renaissance, albeit in a more sophisticated form. Still, the pendulum could swing back as more evidence arises, so I'm keeping an open mind.