One thing I find difficult here is that lots of people seem to go raw paleo, before just going paleo, so they seem to attribute the +'s to rawpaleo, when the things they notice they'd get on cooked meat paleo too(ofc, rawpaleo, if done right probably has the potential to be much better than cooked but most people probably wouldn't notice the differences attributed to the meat being raw unless they'd already been for a while on cooked meat). So either they think 'You win some you lose some' and accept the rough with the smooth, losing their problems from grain/legume/dairy/salt intolerances and replacing them with others.. Or they think to go back to their SMD... One reason why it's hard for me to take info from here.
People can't think, and give me balanced answers/responses about things to do with rawpaleo/raw meat, when they only have the SMD to compare it to. They'll come up with all sorts of reasons in their head as to why they have the negative effects, because surely it must be good with the positives they've also experienced... This will cause a sort of defensiveness too.
I am quite confident that rawpaleo, probably almost all meat, with VLC is much better than to have cooked meat. However, if someone doesn't take the step of first going with cooked meat(unless they are 'lucky' enough to get it right straight away) then they will not be able to identify what is due to raw and what is due to more generally 'paleo'. Severe problems being caused from eating the wrong raw animal food, they won't take note of, since to them it's minor compared to what they had with the SMD.
One of the key principles of paleo anyway, is to only eat food which in its' natural state, could be eaten raw. A cashew(nut), for example, although 'fine'(on the face of things) to eat raw in abundance from a plastic packet, would be virtually impossible to obtain edibly, in its' natural state(therefore it should not be assumed that we are suitably adapted to handle all its' constituents). Conversely, meat, in its' most natural state would be perfectly edible raw. However, if there are less-natural methods of raising, 'extracting', carving, storing, delivering etc of the meat, it may not be safe to eat raw; therefore you'd cook it to allow for anything that could've gone wrong. The closer you are to eating an animal which has grown up and lived in an environment which it evolved naturally over a lengthy period of time to exist in, and would've been available to humans as prey, and the closer your methods of killing it and eating it are to how a 'wild-human' would've done it, the less likely anything could go wrong, and the less need there may be for compensatory measures(e.g. cooking).
Is cooking bad? I would say almost certainly, yes. Can some meat be worse to have raw than cooked? Even that I do not know. However, are there things that many raw-meat eaters here do, regards to their consumption of raw meat, which, if they'd first tried cooked, they'd realise weren't right. Probably yes.
Topic: food poisoning AGAIN (Read 23316 times)