Sushi unhealthier than you may think

[TylerDurden]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/food/article-3945670/How-healthy-sushi-snack-Lunch-boxes-High-Street-chains-contain-calories-BIG-MAC-sugar-biscuits.html

I used to buy sushi on occasion  from Japanese stores in London as I did not have a problem with rice at the time and I deliberately selected the dishes with raw not cooked seafood. However, even there, the quality was not high.  Nowadays, most sushi stores in Austria offer 1 big sashimi dish so I take that on rare occasions. Of course, the farmed salmon is very dodgy and unhealthy, but since I very rarely go in for even the sashimi, it's not an issue.

[dariorpl]

Sushi rice is always made with sugar and cooked vinegar. Stay away from it. Sashimi is almost always if not always frozen, and it's mostly farmed GMO salmon that's full of antibiotics and other toxins, at least in western countries. Stay away from it. I used to eat it every day, then when I started on this diet I realized that if not for the soy sauce and fake wasabi that I mixed it with, raw salmon was actually not tasty at all. Plus you're paying tons of money for just a very tiny amount of fish. You can probably buy 25-50 times as much fresh fish meat for the same money, even if you buy the fish that is already cleaned and cut into stakes so that all you have to do is slice it. The only reason to eat it is if you're out with people who won't appreciate your more standard meals and you have to get something to eat.

That said, I heard that in Japan they use mostly fresh, wild caught fish, and that pink salmon isn't really all that popular. So that's a different story.

[TylerDurden]

I live most of the year in a landlocked country, Austria, where almost all the fish/shellfish is imported and almost all of it is prefrozen, and hideously expensive(unnecessarily so). I recall one Viennese  outlet that sells genuinely raw caviar from a local  biological fish-farm  and that costs even more than the usual. My only luck is that we have a few discount supermarkets in Vienna where I can buy prefrozen wild fish  at decent prices like I used to in the UK, in London. I am not bothered by prefrozen meats. There is none of the damage caused by cooking. Enzymes might get a little denatured but that's all.

We in Austria also have ruinously expensive clothes because the Austrians feel a suicidal urge to pay  fees to foreign workers that are way  more generous than fair-trade  equivalents in the UK. Fortunately, it is easy to get round this by ordering far cheaper  clothes from Germany instead.

[dariorpl]

It's probably a minimum wage law that forces austrian clothing producers to overpay unskilled workers. However, I wonder why you can't just walk into a store and buy clothes that were imported from Germany. Maybe the store would have to pay tariffs to import clothes, but you as an individual buying small amounts don't?

Either way, it's either internal socialism or protectionism (which is a form of socialism) causing these problems, or both.

While we're at it, it's probably stupid govt laws that require fish to be frozen in order to be imported into Austria, also. It's likely also other stupid govt laws that make fish so expensive by causing big costs to importers in one form or another.

Regarding freezing, AV claimed that 75% of the nutrients are damaged after freezing and thawing meats, and that in his experiments with animals, those that ate only frozen meats developed plenty of skin disorders including mange, whereas those which were fed the same meats fresh didn't. Furthermore, he said that while raw butter was very helpful in curing these skin disorders, that fresh butter cured them around 4 times faster than frozen and thawed butter.

I personally find that meats that have been frozen and thawed seem to have a lot less taste to them, and seem a lot more bland, especially red meats. But I'm not experienced enough to be able to claim this with certainty. I'm sure others here with more experience can tell the difference between fresh and frozen meat without any doubts. I'm not at that level yet.

[TylerDurden]

It's probably a minimum wage law that forces austrian clothing producers to overpay unskilled workers. However, I wonder why you can't just walk into a store and buy clothes that were imported from Germany. Maybe the store would have to pay tariffs to import clothes, but you as an individual buying small amounts don't?

  I gather there is some form of  open agreement rather than the law, but no import taxes. Hofer, a discount supermarket offers clothes that are dirt-cheap, and they are hated by Austrian Lefties for this.

While we're at it, it's probably stupid govt laws that require fish to be frozen in order to be imported into Austria, also. It's likely also other stupid govt laws that make fish so expensive by causing big costs to importers in one form or another.

Actually, I have recently seen a couple of fish restaurants offering quite cheap seafood so I suspect that there is some cartel involved.

Regarding freezing, AV claimed that 75% of the nutrients are damaged after freezing and thawing meats, and that in his experiments with animals, those that ate only frozen meats developed plenty of skin disorders including mange, whereas those which were fed the same meats fresh didn't. Furthermore, he said that while raw butter was very helpful in curing these skin disorders, that fresh butter cured them around 4 times faster than frozen and thawed butter.

When I read AV's books years ago, he cited 25% damage to the enzymes, that was all. I do not believe in any of his laboratory claims since he could never produce them due to all sorts of bogus excuses.

I personally find that meats that have been frozen and thawed seem to have a lot less taste to them, and seem a lot more bland, especially red meats. But I'm not experienced enough to be able to claim this with certainty. I'm sure others here with more experience can tell the difference between fresh and frozen meat without any doubts. I'm not at that level yet.

Many claim that. The best option is to just chill all raw animal food. Chilling just means storing at between 2 to 4 degrees Celsius, so there is no actual freezing but the meats are storable long-term.

[dariorpl]

When I read AV's books years ago, he cited 25% damage to the enzymes, that was all.

"Freezing, like cooking, destroys nutrients. The colder foods get, the more nutrients are destroyed. Therefore it is always healthier to eat foods that have never been frozen. The nutrients in meat are especially harmed by freezing. The protein in raw meat that has been frozen is only 25% utilizable in the human body, whereas in fresh raw meat, the protein is nearly 100% utilizable." -We Want To Live, p188

Chilling just means storing at between 2 to 4 degrees Celsius, so there is no actual freezing but the meats are storable long-term.

Yeah, I think that's the best compromise we should come to. Obviously the healthiest would be to eat fresh meat warm straight from the kill, like predators in the wild do. But due to convenience issues, it's best to refrigerate it.

[TylerDurden]

Ah, so that's where I got the 25% figure from. Unfortunately, I once read a detailed scientific essay on the harm done to foods by freezing, and the general concensus was that only the enzymes get slightly damaged, and that nutrient loss happens swiftly once thawing starts so that it is best to eat it as soon as it is thawed.

[ys]

Can you give us a link to that scientific essay?
I've found no credible study or lab results that can confirm freezing destroying nutrients (different from juice leak from thawing) .

Also, I've found no evidence meat contains any enzymes.  Enzymes are part of the digestive organs and freshly butchered meat by itself is sterile of any enzymes.

[TylerDurden]

Can you give us a link to that scientific essay?
I've found no credible study or lab results that can confirm freezing destroying nutrients (different from juice leak from thawing) .

Sadly, the essay in question was removed after a few years, c.2009 or so. It was extremely convincing, though, and I cited it on the rawpaloediet yahoo group, and it had  endless scientific references, mathematical diagrams etc.,  unlike the pro-raw websites or Aajonus' claims. I know how bad this sounds, but it was one damned good essay...I just wish the Internet could be stored in perpetuity.....

Also, I've found no evidence meat contains any enzymes.  Enzymes are part of the digestive organs and freshly butchered meat by itself is sterile of any enzymes.

I am 99% certain you are wrong in this. For example, butchers hang their meats in chilled rooms(2 to 4 degrees Celsius) for 2 to 4 weeks  after slaughter  in order to allow the enzymes in the meats to predigest the meat and make it taste way better.

[dariorpl]

I just wish the Internet could be stored in perpetuity.....

It is. Google, as well as government agencies store most if not all of what's ever been done online, both in publicly accessed websites as well as in sites that are protected by passwords, or in private communications. Google even allowed everyone to take a look at what the internet was like back in 2001, before 9/11, I think it was done in 2011 or something, but they only allowed it for 1 day iirc. You could look up any website that was online back then and searchable with Google, and you could look at exactly what it was like on the date they chose. That means they've got a record going at least that far back. Btw, I think there are good chances that google, facebook and others are partly government funded spy agencies. Either way, there are powerful people who have everything stored, they're just not going to let you access it.

Back to the nutrient destruction thing, there are also plenty of scientists who claim that cooking doesn't do any significant nutrient damage, and they even claim that it enhances nutrient utilization and absorption. That doesn't mean I believe AV must have been right, but all I'm saying is that I would want to look at the study with a skeptical mind.

For example, butchers hang their meats in chilled rooms(2 to 4 degrees Celsius) for 2 to 4 weeks  after slaughter  in order to allow the enzymes in the meats to predigest the meat and make it taste way better.

I thought this was only done with beef, and that it had something to do with drying it a bit or something?

[TylerDurden]

No, the intent is to let the enzymes predigest the meats and make them softer and tastier.

Pro-cooking scientists actually do very poor justifications for eating cooked foods. Usually, in such pro-cooking articles,  one has some idiot nutritionist who "insists" that the harm done by light  cooking isn't all that bad compared to fried/well-cooked foods, and that therefore light cooking is completely harmless. This is not a logical sequitur at all. They then  cite a few products  which have one or two compounds enhanced by cooking(eg:- lycopene) without determining even how bioavailable the cooked products is, if at all. Then they cite all those unhealthy, non-palaeo foods like grains, which are indeed improved by cooking to a partial extent, but which are  also toxic foods not designed to be eaten by humans.

The point being that pro-cooking evidence is very shaky on a scientific level, whereas there is now a huge mass of scientific data on the harm done by cooked foods on human health.

[dariorpl]

I agree with everything you said. And likewise I would be skeptical of scientists who claimed that freezing (which can be seen of as the opposite of cooking) is also harmless. Cooking is exposing the foods to extremely high temperatures, whereas freezing exposes them to extremely low temperatures. Both create changes in the food at the cellular level that are irreversible. Freezing and thawing actually blows up the food at a cellular level, as the ice crystals form and expand and they burst open the cells.

I'm not saying I know for a fact that freezing is worse than scientists think. Just that it very well might be.

[ys]

I am 99% certain you are wrong in this. For example, butchers hang their meats in chilled rooms(2 to 4 degrees Celsius) for 2 to 4 weeks  after slaughter  in order to allow the enzymes in the meats to predigest the meat and make it taste way better.

There are definitely no enzymes in fresh meat since it is sterile of any enzymes and bacteria.

When exposed to outside elements (knife, table, hands, mold spores in the air) it starts the process of decomposing and fermentation.  All enzymes have been studied extensively and each has its own specific name.  Can you name at least one that's inside uncut muscle meat as you claim?  I'd be very surprised if you can name one.

[Iguana]

Obviously the healthiest would be to eat fresh meat warm straight from the kill, like predators in the wild do. But due to convenience issues, it's best to refrigerate it.

Aged meat is much better to us, fresh meat being generally not attractive. Seems we are somewhere between the predators and the scavengers. 

[TylerDurden]

There are definitely no enzymes in fresh meat since it is sterile of any enzymes and bacteria.

I am no  food-scientist nor is anyone here. However, given that our bodies are said to be full of bacteria and that gut bacteria are essential to human health etc., your claims re sterility  need rather more evidence. Here is some food for thought:- https://www.sciencenews.org/blog/gory-details/urine-not-sterile-and-neither-rest-you

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/foodsafe-list/YZqBhCjlcyI

[dariorpl]

Aged meat is much better to us, fresh meat being generally not attractive. Seems we are somewhere between the predators and the scavengers.

That's certainly a possibility I'm willing to consider. For me personally, fresh meat tastes a lot better than aged meat, and I'll often gorge on fresh meat but eat much smaller amounts when it's aged. Although it's quite possible that aged meat is an acquired taste.

[TylerDurden]

I actually far prefer the taste of raw, aged meats than raw, fresh meats. Most people, in the days before the refrigerator,  preferred to let  their meats hang for a bit before eating them so as to improve the taste. Admittedly, they overused the salt in order to slow down the aging process.Anyway, for obvious social reasons, I can only eat raw, aged meats on rarish occasions.

[ys]

However, given that our bodies are said to be full of bacteria and that gut bacteria are essential to human health etc., your claims re sterility  need rather more evidence.

It is not that simple.

Bacteria only exist on the surface.  That includes mouth, stomach, intestines, and vagina.  All these are considered surface since out body topologically is a hollow tube.  But inside the flesh of a healthy body there is absolutely no bacteria whatsoever.  Ask any doctor.  All bacteria in the bloodstream will induce immune response until all bacteria is destroyed or person dies.  There are no such thing as beneficial bacteria in the bloodstream.

and it had  endless scientific references, mathematical diagrams etc.

I don't think there is a need for scientific stuff.  It should be fairly simple.  Measure nutrients before freezing and after, just like they measure it when they compare nutrient loss cooked vs raw.

[ys]

Aged meat is much better to us, fresh meat being generally not attractive. Seems we are somewhere between the predators and the scavengers.

I find that fresh meat is easier to digest.  Aged meat sometimes gets too concentrated due to water loss.

[ys]

And speaking of sushi, tuna appears red because it is treated with carbon monoxide to prevent oxidizing and retain red color.
Not sure if it is bad or simply benign.

Also, shrimp is most likely farmed as well as other fresh water fish.

[Iguana]

Bacteria only exist on the surface.  That includes mouth, stomach, intestines, and vagina.  All these are considered surface since out body topologically is a hollow tube.  But inside the flesh of a healthy body there is absolutely no bacteria whatsoever.  Ask any doctor.  All bacteria in the bloodstream will induce immune response until all bacteria is destroyed or person dies.  There are no such thing as beneficial bacteria in the bloodstream.

Yes, I also see it that way.

[TylerDurden]

I don't think there is a need for scientific stuff.  It should be fairly simple.  Measure nutrients before freezing and after, just like they measure it when they compare nutrient loss cooked vs raw.

Not so easy. For example, shortly after thawing, the same nutrient-levels exist, it is just that the ice-crystals broke the cell-membranes so that the nutrients more swiftly deteriorate after thawing. Also, even the brain has been shown to harbour bacteria, along with viruses etc.

[TylerDurden]

Blood-sterility seems to be another myth:-

http://www.rense.com/general77/dblooder.htm

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC154583/

[dariorpl]

I think AV claimed that blood and tissue sterility was a total myth and that bacteria were necessary for over 99% of the body's functions.

[ys]

Blood-sterility seems to be another myth

This is not a proof.  It is deficient on so many levels.
Pubmed is saying say found something that MIGHT resemble bacteria.  In other words they have no idea what they found.

Bacteria is fairly big object and there are modern tools available to turn bacteria inside out.
These so-called 'bacteria' have not been named nor classified.  Pubmed article is 15 years old.  I would think if it is in fact was bacteria it would have been named, classified, and studied in great detail.

According to Wiki there are no bacteria in the blood.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bacteremia