Which meat is it ok to eat raw?

[johnnyboi]

Does it have to be grass fed or is lower quality ok too?
Are there some specific meats that should not be eater raw, like I hear chicken and pork maybe?
Is eaten organs raw ok?
What if the meat was frozen?
How do I know if there is something wrong with the meat?
And what are the possible side effects if there is, can one die?

Sorry, I am new to this, many questions...

[TylerDurden]

Strictly speaking, one should aim for high-quality raw meat since they contain higher, better nutrients. So grassfed raw meats are better, raw wild game/raw wildcaught seafood is best of all. AV said to avoid the raw organs from factory-farmed raw meats. Otherwise fine. Prefrozen meat is less worse but better than factory-farmed raw meats. You might get parasites(highly, highly unlikely) but there are many drugs which easily kill parasites.

[johnnyboi]

Strictly speaking, one should aim for high-quality raw meat since they contain higher, better nutrients. So grassfed raw meats are better, raw wild game/raw wildcaught seafood is best of all. AV said to avoid the raw organs from factory-farmed raw meats. Otherwise fine. Prefrozen meat is less worse but better than cooked, factory-farmed raw meats. You might get parasites(highly, highly unlikely) but there are many drugs which easily kill parasites.

This sentence is confusing, "cooked, factory-farmed raw meats"?? You mean raw meat that has been frozen is better or worse than one that hasn't been?

AV also said parasites are actually symbiotic and good for us.

So far i have eaten some raw pork 3 days ago (before i found it might be dangerous), didn't get any ill effects yet, about to try beef.

[TylerDurden]

Yes, sorry, I should not have said "cooked".

[madnomad]

If you have access to it, raw wild game is preferable to beef/sheep for some. I started out eating mostly raw lamb organs with some muscle meat/marrow fat from beef and lamb but haven't had any for months as I much prefer the taste of wild meat and it's also much cheaper where I live. Also the fat on wild game is far superior in taste/nutrition IMO.

[dariorpl]

Unless it has a very particular kind of toxin that is destroyed or altered and rendered less harmful by cooking (usually made in a lab and put there on purpose to discourage raw eating)... If it's not ok to eat raw, then cooking it will only mask the symptoms, but maximize the damage.

For example, AV did experiments with raw and cooked swordfish fed to cats and dogs. Swordfish is high in mercury.

The cats and dogs were mixed and separated into two groups at random. Mercury levels were measured in the fish by weight content, and then all feces and urine for each animal were collected, and had their mercury levels measured.

By calculating how much mercury each animal ingested and how much it excreted, one can roughly calculate how much mercury was absorbed and accumulated as toxicity in the body of the animal.

In the group fed raw, 88-92% of mercury was eliminated within the 7 days the study lasted (last two days were water fasting days). In the group fed cooked, only 8-12% was excreted.

Furthermore, by analyzing in detail the excretions of each group, it was noticed that cholesterol bubbles encapsulated the mercury in the raw group, but not in the cooked group. What likely happened is that this natural bond was broken by the cooking process, leading to all that toxicity being absorbed and stored rather than discarded or eliminated.

[lucied]

Hello,
This is an old thread but I am interested to read the paper in which is described the study you cite in your comment. Would you have a link for getting or reading this paper?
Thanks in advance.
Lucie

For example, AV did experiments with raw and cooked swordfish fed to cats and dogs. Swordfish is high in mercury.

The cats and dogs were mixed and separated into two groups at random. Mercury levels were measured in the fish by weight content, and then all feces and urine for each animal were collected, and had their mercury levels measured.

By calculating how much mercury each animal ingested and how much it excreted, one can roughly calculate how much mercury was absorbed and accumulated as toxicity in the body of the animal.

In the group fed raw, 88-92% of mercury was eliminated within the 7 days the study lasted (last two days were water fasting days). In the group fed cooked, only 8-12% was excreted.

Furthermore, by analyzing in detail the excretions of each group, it was noticed that cholesterol bubbles encapsulated the mercury in the raw group, but not in the cooked group. What likely happened is that this natural bond was broken by the cooking process, leading to all that toxicity being absorbed and stored rather than discarded or eliminated.

[Phenix]

Hello Lucie.

This is an old thread but I am interested to read the paper in which is described the study you cite in your comment. Would you have a link for getting or reading this paper?

You will hardly get any paper about these experiences (if they ever took place), because if the cited "AV" is Aajonus Vonderplanitz (official name : John Richard Swigart), he was not a scientist, just a self-declared nutritionist (with no academic background)...