The science behind why raw meat doesn't clog arteries/cause cancer/etc.

[macgeek2005]

Hello,

I guess I'm essentially a raw paleo dieter. I avoid whatever seems to be dubious in terms of health, and that leaves me with 100% organic, raw food, including meat, eggs, milk, fish, etc.

I eat raw organic grass fed beef, confident that by not being cooked at all, there is just no way that it could result in clogged arteries, cancer, or whatever else cooked meat can cause over years of consumption.

Is there some real validated science behind this idea though? I just want to verify completely, for my peace of mind. I mean, it seems as though when the fat in the meat gets heated, it essentially becomes burnt, and hardens when cooling down, and therefore clogs arteries and stuff, but I assume there's a more concrete, in depth, scientific explanation for why meat is a health hazard when cooked, and incredibly healthy when uncooked.

Thanks!

[cherimoya_kid]

There are some studies on it, but I'm not the best person to point you to them, or argue their merits.  I have a three-fold approach to it, and I may be wrong, so don't take my word as gospel--




1. ----Our body chemistry is entirely raw, so no cooked molecules are created or used internally. They are foreign.  This has been true for every species on this planet, until about 100-250 thousand years ago, when humans started cooking some of their food.  As such, it makes sense that our bodies would be MUCH better able to recognize and easily handle raw foods.  Why would something that we've been eating for hundreds of thousands of years (raw meat/fat) be disease-causing?  We have evolved to eat it, just like chimps have evolved to eat fruit, and dolphins have to eat fish.

2.--- Meat is the only food available in very northern/cold areas, versus the tropics.   Animal fat is a very warming food, generally, and eating locally and in season makes evolutionary sense.  As well, humans have probably been eating at least some fruit for a long time, tropical fruit, specifically.  As such, it makes sense to moderate the eating of meat/fat in warmer weather/climates.  Granted, there are African groups like the Masai who eat very little carbs/fruits, but they are the exception.  Common sense would tell you that eating more carbs/fruit in warmer weather/climates is probably a safer bet. 

3.--- Saturated fats liquefy at higher temperatures, and don't have a precise melting point.  If you're worried about clogged arteries, then it makes sense to avoid eating them in extremely large amounts, especially in colder weather.  Saturated fats of both types, animal and plant, are more common in warm weather/climates, anyway, which refers back to my earlier point about eating locally and in season.







All of these have to be balanced with whatever you find works best for your health.  We're empiricists around here, anyway, at least when it comes to diet, so results ALWAYS get favored status over theory in this forum.  Learn the science, do your thinking, but ultimately you should pay attention to your own health, including blood tests and other objective measures of health. 

I had a bad lipid profile on my blood work about 2.5 years ago, when I was eating very low carb, lots of fats, and I got scared and starting eating more fruit and less fat.  My next blood test was a lot better, too.  However, I was eating a lot of coconut oil and raw bacon, as well as some raw sausage, and I have a sneaking suspicion that the bacon and sausage were not from pigs eating a healthy diet.  So, whatever. 

I now get most of my animal fat/protein from wild seafood, anyway, which is guaranteed to be high in nutrition. I also do eat fruit in moderation, still.   YMMV, though. 

Most of us do eat somewhere roughly in the middle between raw vegan and raw ZC.  We don't have many longtime extremists on that spectrum here, because most people don't find the extremes workable, long-term.  THAT'S useful info, too, for what it's worth.

Good luck, and feel free to ask more questions.

[goodsamaritan]

Is there some real validated science behind this idea though?

Depends on who is funding the "science."

Depends on what you believe is real validated science.

My method of validation is I cure people and the testimonials of people who are cured.  There's the science right there when I save people's lives.

[macgeek2005]

Stories of people being healed with raw meat count as good evidence to me. I just want any and all evidence that anybody has about raw meat not having any bad health side effects. If an entire society or tribe ate lots of raw meat for hundreds of years and never had heart disease, heart attacks, clogged arteries, etc, then that would count as good evidence to me.

[eveheart]

In addition to my own anecdotal information, which is a work in progress with excellent results so far, I like information that focuses on ancestral health - archaeological evidence of the absence of disease in paleolithic peoples. You can start by finding some links on our forum here: http://www.rawpaleodietforum.com/general-discussion/ancestral-health-symposium-t5015/

[macgeek2005]

Thanks.

Yeah, for me, even seeing a Lion eating a whole Zebra, and seeing that lions don't have heart disease or artery clogging issues, is great evidence in favor of uncooked meat being perfectly fine to eat in all ways. I just want to be 100% certain.

[TylerDurden]

Here's some references to scientific studies showing how bad cooking is, how it increases cancer risk etc.:-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raw_foodism#Potential_harmful_effects_of_cooked_foods_and_cooking

There are 1000s of other such studies done on advanced glycation end products and similiar heat-derived toxins. Just search for them on pubmed.

[cherimoya_kid]

Thanks.

Yeah, for me, even seeing a Lion eating a whole Zebra, and seeing that lions don't have heart disease or artery clogging issues, is great evidence in favor of uncooked meat being perfectly fine to eat in all ways. I just want to be 100% certain.

From what I've read, even chimps get atherosclerosis in old age, and they eat their ideal diet, which includes very little meat.  I think it's more about balance.  Extremes are rarely safe.  Raw veganism is a proven unsafe extreme, and I'd say that raw zero-carb is probably also not ideal, although it definitely is useful for some people in the short-term, and maybe even some long-term, like Lex Rooker.

[TylerDurden]

From what I've read, even chimps get atherosclerosis in old age, and they eat their ideal diet, which includes very little meat.  I think it's more about balance.  Extremes are rarely safe.  Raw veganism is a proven unsafe extreme, and I'd say that raw zero-carb is probably also not ideal, although it definitely is useful for some people in the short-term, and maybe even some long-term, like Lex Rooker.

  Atherosclerosis is, however, made much, much worse by the addition of advanced glycation end products(a heat-derived toxin) into the human diet.

[Dorothy]

My thoughts often return to contemplating the importance of what is not being eaten when thinking about why something is being eaten has a certain affect. I think about how much of the replacement's good affects might actually be due to the exclusion. Most people only look at the inclusions. Same goes for eating only fruit as it does for eating only meat and every similar scenario. When this kind of exclusionary eating is done often the affects are only attributed to what is being eaten and little attention given to what affects eradicating all the other foods might have.

People that eat raw animal fat are not usually eating canola oil and hfcs for instance.

Eating raw meat does not usually only exclude cooked meat but the stuff that in America it often fried in.

Again - just thoughts.