Eating cooked meat leads to lower AGEs serum than eating carbs!!!

[carnivore]

Foods high in fat and/or protein are highest in AGEs, while carbohydrates are low in AGEs. However, eating cooked meat results in lower levels of AGEs in the serum than eating carbs!!

It looks like cooked meat (carnosine and taurine prevent glycation in vitro) is not as harmful as carbs (expecially fructose), and this could explain the many beneficial effects of lowcarb cooked diets on health.


http://inhumanexperiment.blogspot.com/2009/09/eating-meat-or-going-vegan-comparing.html

"One of these studies compared serum levels of AGEs in omnivores and vegetarians"
"Since almost any variation of a vegetarian diet is lower in exogenous AGEs (that is, AGEs formed outside the body) than meat-based diets, the authors expected vegetarians to have higher levels of plasma AGEs. The surprising result of the study was that the vegetarians had higher levels of AGEs – despite consuming much lower amounts of AGEs in their diet. This means that endogenous AGEs (those formed inside the body) played a bigger role than previously thought."

[TylerDurden]

The above mention of a study is completely wrong for the following reasons:-

1) Study after study has shown repeatedly not only that vegetarians have a longer lifespan than people on cooked diets but also that the more cooked meat there is in the diet, the lower the lifespan . So the claim re AGEs and carbs is problematic at best.

2) Here is a study which mentions serious issues with your above mention. I'll give a link and several extremely pertinent paragraphs therefrom:-

http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0306987704002749

"Perhaps surprisingly, foods rich in both protein and fat, and cooked at high heat, tend to be the richest dietary sources of AGEs, whereas low-fat carbohydrate-rich foods tend to be relatively low in AGEs.Conceivably, this reflects the fact that the so-called “AGEs” in the diet are generated primarily, not by glycation reactions, but by interactions between oxidized lipids and protein; such reactions are known to give rise to certain prominent AGEs, such as ?N-carboxymethyl-lysine and methylglyoxal."

and "Thus, a low-AGE content may contribute to the many benefits conferred to diabetics by a genuinely low-fat vegan diet. Nonetheless, the plasma AGE content of healthy vegetarians has been reported to be higher than that of omnivores – suggesting that something about vegetarian diets may promote endogenous AGE production. Some researchers have proposed that the relatively high-fructose content of vegetarian diets may explain this phenomenon, but there so far is no clinical evidence that normal intakes of fructose have an important impact on AGE production. An alternative or additional possibility is that the relatively poor taurine status of vegetarians up-regulates the physiological role of myeloperoxidase-derived oxidants in the generation of AGEs – in which case, taurine supplementation might be expected to suppress elevated AGE production in vegetarians. Thus, a taurine supplemented low-fat vegan diet may be recommended as a strategy for minimizing AGE-mediated complications in diabetics and in patients with renal failure."

In other words an explanation for higher levels of AGEs in vegetarians may have more to do with nutritional deficiencies endemic to those diets than anything else.At any rate, the claim re endogenous AGEs is certainly invalid as they form only a tiny proportion of the vast amounts of AGEs found in cooked foods.

[carnivore]

The above mention of a study is completely wrong for the following reasons:-

1) Study after study has shown repeatedly not only that vegetarians have a longer lifespan than people on cooked diets but also that the more cooked meat there is in the diet, the lower the lifespan . So the claim re AGEs and carbs is problematic at best.

Lifespan is not a good enough criteria of good health for human. Lifespan is influenced by several factors, not only by diet. Vegetarian tend more to avoid unhealthy lifestyle (cigarettes, alcohol, pollution, etc.) and take more care of themselves.

Caloric restriction is a good way to increase lifespan. Maybe vegetarian eat less calories than others, with all that fibers and veggies in their low fat diet.

Anyway, do you have any links on these studies ?

Second :

2) Here is a study which mentions serious issues with your above mention. I'll give a link and several extremely pertinent paragraphs therefrom:-

http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0306987704002749

"Perhaps surprisingly, foods rich in both protein and fat, and cooked at high heat, tend to be the richest dietary sources of AGEs, whereas low-fat carbohydrate-rich foods tend to be relatively low in AGEs.Conceivably, this reflects the fact that the so-called “AGEs” in the diet are generated primarily, not by glycation reactions, but by interactions between oxidized lipids and protein; such reactions are known to give rise to certain prominent AGEs, such as ?N-carboxymethyl-lysine and methylglyoxal."

and "Thus, a low-AGE content may contribute to the many benefits conferred to diabetics by a genuinely low-fat vegan diet. Nonetheless, the plasma AGE content of healthy vegetarians has been reported to be higher than that of omnivores – suggesting that something about vegetarian diets may promote endogenous AGE production. Some researchers have proposed that the relatively high-fructose content of vegetarian diets may explain this phenomenon, but there so far is no clinical evidence that normal intakes of fructose have an important impact on AGE production. An alternative or additional possibility is that the relatively poor taurine status of vegetarians up-regulates the physiological role of myeloperoxidase-derived oxidants in the generation of AGEs – in which case, taurine supplementation might be expected to suppress elevated AGE production in vegetarians. Thus, a taurine supplemented low-fat vegan diet may be recommended as a strategy for minimizing AGE-mediated complications in diabetics and in patients with renal failure."

In other words an explanation for higher levels of AGEs in vegetarians may have more to do with nutritional deficiencies endemic to those diets than anything else.

Indeed : The nutritional deficiencies suffered by vegetarians are caused by a lack of animal products, even cooked!
It simply means that vegetarians who want to reduce their serum AGEs should eat (cooked) meat and less carbs!

At any rate, the claim re endogenous AGEs is certainly invalid as they form only a tiny proportion of the vast amounts of AGEs found in cooked foods.

The comparison of quantity is not relevant : you can't compare the amount of AGEs in ingested cooked food (that only a portion is absorbed : 30% ?) and what is constantly created  into the body, in the blood and cells!

Ingested AGEs in cooked food are one cause of damages, and endogenous AGEs caused by poor blood glucose management (hyperglycemia) is another. No reason to minimize one or the other.

http://209.209.34.25/webdocs/Glycation%20Page/Glycation%20Page.htm

[TylerDurden]

Lifespan is not a good enough criteria of good health for human. Lifespan is influenced by several factors, not only by diet. Vegetarian tend more to avoid unhealthy lifestyle (cigarettes, alcohol, pollution, etc.) and take more care of themselves.

This claim(from cooked low carbers) has actually long been discredited as the 3 main reasons vegetarians/vegans give  for turning to plant foods are:- concern for animal rights, ethical concerns re harm done to the environment and taste reasons( many just don't like the taste of meats).Plus most of the innumerable studies I've mentioned which show that vegetarians  live longer do do actually control for healthy activities like exercise or unhealthy activities such as smoking, so those are taken into account too(eg:-

http://www.healingcancernaturally.com/vegetarians-live-longer.html

)

Caloric restriction is a good way to increase lifespan. Maybe vegetarian eat less calories than others, with all that fibers and veggies in their low fat diet.

I very much doubt that, given mine and many others' experience on raw fruitarian/vegan diets. I would, for example, get huge appetites for fruit and veg while doing raw vegan./fruitarian or cooked vegetarian(hay diet)) because eating plant foods didn't satisfy my appetite as much as animal foods did.

Anyway, do you have any links on these studies ?

Here's a standard sample:-(oh and  in exchange please show me
 any studies showing a higher lifespan for cooked low carbers, that is if you can!LOL!)

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10479226

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1892297

http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/abstract/31/10/S191

http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/78/3/526S?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&fulltext=vegetarian+longevity&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=0&sortspec=relevance&resourcetype=HWCIT

The last study also references multiple other studies which also show that decreasing the amounts of cooked meat in the diet leads to a lower mortality rate.

Indeed the nutritional deficiencies suffered by vegetarians are caused by a lack of animal products, even cooked!
It simply means that vegetarians who want to reduce their serum AGEs should eat (cooked) meat and less carbs!

If they did eat cooked meat then they'd get rid of the nutritional deficiencies but they'd also get an increased load of AGEs/ALEs and other heat-created toxins from all the cooked animal fats they'd then take in, thus negating any beneficial effect. Interestingly, a lot of studies show that while a diet high in cooked meat is very harmful, a diet low in cooked meat, while negating potential nutritional deficiencies that occur on a mostly vegan diet, is far healthier(and less deadly) than a diet high in cooked meats.

The comparison of quantity is not relevant : you can't compare the amount of AGEs in ingested cooked food (that only a portion is absorbed : 30% ?) and what is constantly created  into the body, in the blood and cells!

Of course, I can(and should)  compare them. For one thing, as Wrangham himself admitted in a recent radio interview, the amounts of AGEs ingested via cooked food are far greater in amounts than the tiny trace amounts of AGEs that occur naturally in the body, Therefore the fact that 30% of the AGEs in foods are consumed is irrelevant as it still makes the AGEs in cooked foods far more of a problem than the tiny traces of endogenous AGEs in the body. Plus this doesn't even take into account the fact that there are multiple other types of heat-created toxins such as heterocyclic amines and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons(which also greatly affect mortality) which are definitely not naturally produced within the human body but which are ingested by humans via cooked foods in sizeable amounts.

[Raw Kyle]

If they did eat cooked meat then they'd get rid of the nutritional deficiencies but they'd also get an increased load of AGEs/ALEs and other heat-created toxins from all the cooked animal fats they'd then take in, thus negating any beneficial effect.

You're saying taking in some heat created toxins negates the benefits of overcoming nutritional deficiencies? AGE's = very slow damage to the body, maybe none at all as there haven't been any studies to actually show people consuming them vs. not consuming them and measuring the supposed damage to their tissues over time. Nutritional deficiencies = much quicker damage, depending on what nutrient you're talking about it could cause permanent mental and physical damage (especially for developing children) and death in months. To say this is negated by some AGE's/ALE's is insanity.

[Raw Kyle]

I just feel that the lack of imagination in these arguments is starting to get to me.

Tyler, have you ever considered that the toxins in cooked meat might only cause negative effects in the body in the presence of carbs? Or any other of a million possibilities? I'm not surprised that modern "scientists" haven't thought of these things, but someone who is in alternative health circles should be able to look at these pathetic studies everyone keeps trumping out and see how they look at a pathetically small part of the whole.

Off the top of my head I could come up with dozens of scenarios as to why the studies you keep talking about point to higher mortality rates for meat eaters or those who eat a lot of cooked meat, scenarios that have nothing to do with what would be happening in the body of a paleo and/or zero carb cooked meat eater.

The constant back and forth with this "cooked meat is bad" vs. "cooked meat is better than high carb cooked" is really cramping style.

[carnivore]

This claim(from cooked low carbers) has actually long been discredited as the 3 main reasons vegetarians/vegans give  for turning to plant foods are:- concern for animal rights, ethical concerns re harm done to the environment and taste reasons( many just don't like the taste of meats).Plus most of the innumerable studies I've mentioned which show that vegetarians  live longer do do actually control for healthy activities like exercise or unhealthy activities such as smoking, so those are taken into account too(eg:-

http://www.healingcancernaturally.com/vegetarians-live-longer.html

From your link :
"Comparing these three categories, occasional meat consumers seem to have opted for the healthiest diet, i.e. the observed lowered mortality risk cannot be attributed to complete abstention from meat and fish."

Meat, even cooked, has definitely a positive effect on health!

I very much doubt that, given mine and many others' experience on raw fruitarian/vegan diets. I would, for example, get huge appetites for fruit and veg while doing raw vegan./fruitarian or cooked vegetarian(hay diet)) because eating plant foods didn't satisfy my appetite as much as animal foods did.

Precisely : fruitarian/veg diets are not satisfying because of the low calories. That would explain why they lived longer (if this claim is true)
No huge appetites on a ZeroCarb diet.

Here's a standard sample:-(oh and  in exchange please show me
 any studies showing a higher lifespan for cooked low carbers, that is if you can!LOL!)

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10479226

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1892297

http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/abstract/31/10/S191

http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/78/3/526S?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&fulltext=vegetarian+longevity&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=0&sortspec=relevance&resourcetype=HWCIT

The last study also references multiple other studies which also show that decreasing the amounts of cooked meat in the diet leads to a lower mortality rate.

Oups,I forgot that saturated fat and cholesterol are the culprits, and fibers are protective!
 

If they did eat cooked meat then they'd get rid of the nutritional deficiencies but they'd also get an increased load of AGEs/ALEs and other heat-created toxins from all the cooked animal fats they'd then take in, thus negating any beneficial effect.

The article I provided said precisely the opposite !

[invisible]

seen an article maybe this one a year or so ago, but lost it thx for it. Additional evidence to the mountain already existing against carbs.

[invisible]

Lifespan is not a good enough criteria of good health for human. Lifespan is influenced by several factors, not only by diet. Vegetarian tend more to avoid unhealthy lifestyle (cigarettes, alcohol, pollution, etc.) and take more care of themselves.

Caloric restriction is a good way to increase lifespan. Maybe vegetarian eat less calories than others, with all that fibers and veggies in their low fat diet.

Anyway, do you have any links on these studies ?

there aren't any studies directly relevant to this topic. All comparative studies are done comparing vegetarians with SAD. Everything I have read from Tyler on this topic is always about loosely controlled observational studies on people eating typical western diets.

No studies are done about the lifespan of low carbers because people haven't been doing it long enough mainstream wise. All we do know is that low carb even when cooked lowers insulin, metabolism, blood sugar and thyroid which are all signs of longer lifespan.

[TylerDurden]

You're saying taking in some heat created toxins negates the benefits of overcoming nutritional deficiencies? AGE's = very slow damage to the body, maybe none at all as there haven't been any studies to actually show people consuming them vs. not consuming them and measuring the supposed damage to their tissues over time.

But that's just the point, there have been quite a number of studies specifically studying the specific harm done by AGEs to body tissues(including studies done one low-AGE diets which show a significant reduction not only in the amounts of AGEs in the body, but also a reduction in the negative symptoms caused by AGEs.

 

Nutritional deficiencies = much quicker damage, depending on what nutrient you're talking about it could cause permanent mental and physical damage (especially for developing children) and death in months. To say this is negated by some AGE's/ALE's is insanity.

I simply meant that negating nutritional deficiencies by adding in cooked meats may mean short-term health benefit re nutrients removing a potential nutritional deficiency from past vegan diets but it also means long-term megative health as cooked meats provide far greater amounts of AGEs/ALEs than any other type of cooked foods.

[TylerDurden]

Tyler, have you ever considered that the toxins in cooked meat might only cause negative effects in the body in the presence of carbs?

I have considered it and that theory simply  doesn't compute. For one thing, study after study shows a direct link between a higher consumption of cooked animal foods and a rise in health-problems and risk of mortality so that it's clear that decreasing the amounts of carbs doesn't seem to reduce aging effects. Plus, AGEs do not simply form via glycation and carbs but via ALEs/lipid peroxides as well.Plus, as I pointed out before, cooked animal foods produce far higher levels of these ALEs by comparison to AGEs found in other cooked foods.
[/quote]

[TylerDurden]

From your link :
"Comparing these three categories, occasional meat consumers seem to have opted for the healthiest diet, i.e. the observed lowered mortality risk cannot be attributed to complete abstention from meat and fish."

I'm afraid you've tripped up re this. You've shown that as long as there is only a little cooked meat, then there is greatly reduced potential for nutritional deficiencies and that as long as the nutritional deficiency issue is covered, then  the less cooked meat the better re health.

Precisely : fruitarian/veg diets are not satisfying because of the low calories. That would explain why they lived longer (if this claim is true)
No huge appetites on a ZeroCarb diet.

 At the least you can't realistically claim that caloric restriction is a factor behind the benefits gained on low-meat diets or vegetarian diets. It's absurd, though, that you seem , after claiming wrongly that caloric restriction was the real reason for vegetarian longevity, that you're now claiming that increased eating/appetite for low-calorie food led to vegetarian longevity. Contradiction, here, to say the least!

The article I provided said precisely the opposite !

It may claim the opposite(and go against the innumerable other scientific studies claiming the opposite that cooked animal foods provide far more AGEs/ALEs than any other type of cooked foods.

[TylerDurden]

No studies are done about the lifespan of low carbers because people haven't been doing it long enough mainstream wise. All we do know is that low carb even when cooked lowers insulin, metabolism, blood sugar and thyroid which are all signs of longer lifespan.

That's not actually true. Fascination with low carb diets have been around for many decades ever since Banting(19th century). And there are a number of studies done on ketogenic/all-animal food diets, denoting many side-effects such as kidney-stones etc.

I can accept that low-carb diets can provide short-term health-benefits(after all modern diets are so highly processed that any reduction in processing inevitably must bring some health-benefits) but the fact is that studies show repeatedly that there are many varied health problems re ischaemic heart disease etc.which are directly linked to a higher consumption of cooked animal foods(AND a higher consumption of AGE/ALE-rich foods).

What I find more interesting is that studies done on diets low in meats seem to show greater health benefits than studies comparing the health/mortality of people either on vegetarian diets or diets much higher in cooked meats.

*Incidentally, for those people claiming bias re my utterings, I find it amusing that they are all too biased to really acknowledge  the nature of  the harmful ALEs in cooked foods(advanced  lipoxidation end products), formed by cooked fats modifying proteins without the need for carbs/glucose.*

[TylerDurden]

*addendum* It occured to me that even though AGEs and ALEs are often routinely lumped together by many people to form the overall term  "AGEs", the zero-carbers routinely just focus on the AGEs subcomponent and totally ignore the effects of  the ALEs. It occurred to me that perhaps the scientists on that study on high levels of AGEs in vegetarians, also made that same error - if so, of they chose to ignore the advanced  lipoxidation end products, then their study is hopelessly compromised.

[carnivore]

I'm afraid you've tripped up re this. You've shown that as long as there is only a little cooked meat, then there is greatly reduced potential for nutritional deficiencies and that as long as the nutritional deficiency issue is covered, then  the less cooked meat the better re health.

Meat, cooked or raw, seems to be required for good health, especially for vegetarian. That's what you've shown with this study.

At the least you can't realistically claim that caloric restriction is a factor behind the benefits gained on low-meat diets or vegetarian diets. It's absurd, though, that you seem , after claiming wrongly that caloric restriction was the real reason for vegetarian longevity, that you're now claiming that increased eating/appetite for low-calorie food led to vegetarian longevity. Contradiction, here, to say the least!

You did not understand what I said. My point is that the low calorie diet of vegetarian could be an explanation for their possible longer longevity (and the insatiable appetite you talked about). 

It may claim the opposite(and go against the innumerable other scientific studies claiming the opposite that cooked animal foods provide far more AGEs/ALEs than any other type of cooked foods.

This study simply claims that the amount of AGEs in food is not the only factor to take into account.

[TylerDurden]

Meat, cooked or raw, seems to be required for good health, especially for vegetarian. That's what you've shown with this study.

No, the various studies show that a LOW intake of cooked meat is necessary for health, and that it is better than a vegetarian diet. There are also  rather a large number of studies directly showing that a high intake of cooked meat is harmful as well.

You did not understand what I said. My point is that the low calorie diet of vegetarian could be an explanation for their possible longer longevity (and the insatiable appetite you talked about). 

Oh, I see you seem to be thinking, more or less, of Stefansson's claim re all-meat diets causing more rapid aging. That can hardly be a good thing. And while caloric restriction is not necesarily a vegetarian characteristic, it's not necessarily a characteristic of all vegetarians to eat as much as I did on 100% raw vegan/fruitarian(after all, vegetarians also routinely eat eggs and dairy).

This study simply claims that the amount of AGEs in food is not the only factor to take into account.

Perhaps. I would agree that a lower blood sugar level reduces AGE formation somewhat, but there's still the serious question of advanced glycation end products which don't require carbs, just (cooked)protein and(cooked) fat to form - and cooked meats produce far more of them in food than the amounts of AGEs formed in low-AGE carby foods. It seems that study may have neglected that - given the wealth of data linking health problems to higher intakes of cooked meat,there may well  be   be some other explanation(eg:- vegetarians have higher AGE levels but are better protected from them via some mechanism, or that advanced lipoxidation end products are more lethal than AGEs, by comparison.

[Raw Kyle]

I have considered it and that theory simply  doesn't compute. For one thing, study after study shows a direct link between a higher consumption of cooked animal foods and a rise in health-problems and risk of mortality so that it's clear that decreasing the amounts of carbs doesn't seem to reduce aging effects. Plus, AGEs do not simply form via glycation and carbs but via ALEs/lipid peroxides as well.Plus, as I pointed out before, cooked animal foods produce far higher levels of these ALEs by comparison to AGEs found in other cooked foods.

I don't want to sound insulting, but I don't believe you've read these studies fully and with a critical eye. Most times when you quote a study someone finds a caveat that makes it sound less concrete, and then you fall back on "so many other studies" but I wonder which ones are concrete in their findings? Which ones have you fully read?

[Raw Kyle]

To be clear, I believe that raw foods are vastly superior to cooked foods for health. But I think the evidence strongly, and I mean clearly and strongly and without doubt, point to most modern "diseases of civilization" coming about after the neolithic revolution, not after cooking meat began. I think it's very counter productive to keep arguing back and forth about the merits or problems with cooked meat. And by counter productive I mean it's got to be discouraging for new members who might still be including cooked meats in their diet, people coming from a cooked paleolithic type diet, to see someone saying that is less healthy than the garbage vegetarians are eating today.

[TylerDurden]

I don't want to sound insulting, but I don't believe you've read these studies fully and with a critical eye. Most times when you quote a study someone finds a caveat that makes it sound less concrete, and then you fall back on "so many other studies" but I wonder which ones are concrete in their findings? Which ones have you fully read?

Look, almost every decent study will have a caveat somewhere in it. As I pointed out to Paleophil, a truly competent scientist will never state something as a fact and will prefer to wait until there are a decent number of other studies backing the evidence. The point I'm making is that scientific conclusions are determined by the quantity of studies backing 1 finding or another. When large numbers of studies prove 1 finding(cooked meat is harmful) but there are only a tiny handful backing another finding(the claim that cooked meat is supposedly healthy), one can make a reasonable conclusion re probabilities that the finding backed by a much larger number of studies is the right one. The alternative is to cite endless conspiracy theories, which is ridiculous.

And, yes, I do often check the full scientific results if available online, time permitting. Unfortunately, much of the palaeoarchaeological studies can only be accessed if one pays(which I resent), so those are out of reach.

[TylerDurden]

To be clear, I believe that raw foods are vastly superior to cooked foods for health. But I think the evidence strongly, and I mean clearly and strongly and without doubt, point to most modern "diseases of civilization" coming about after the neolithic revolution, not after cooking meat began.

Look, the evidence re Neolithic times is indeed clear-cut but that is solely because we have more archaeological evidence the closer we go to our present day, that's all(ironically, many palaeoists here, despite that, like to defend Weston-Price who heavily championed Neolithic diets).
As I pointed out, despite, inevitably, much less archaeological evidence in general from earlier palaeolithic times, there is now increasing data to show that cooked foods(including cooked meats) led to a rise in schizophrenia and other related conditions, so it is simply a question of not having enough data yet, that's all.

 There are other aspects such as that palaeo tribes went in for caloric restriction, undoubtedly ate some raw animal foods, and practised more daily exercise than any population since - all these factors would have helped to reduce some of the negative effects of cooked foods. So it would be misleading to suggest that cooked meat is healthy, per se.

I think it's very counter productive to keep arguing back and forth about the merits or problems with cooked meat. And by counter productive I mean it's got to be discouraging for new members who might still be including cooked meats in their diet, people coming from a cooked paleolithic type diet, to see someone saying that is less healthy than the garbage vegetarians are eating today.

I have a similiar concern. A majority of people new to raw diets deliberately chose those diets because they experienced serious ill-effects from cooked foods( usually including cooked meat) and also because they didn't get most or all of the health benefits they needed/required when trying cooked diets such as the cooked-palaeolithic diet. I'm just 1 example in that cooked palaeo was utterly useless to me(causing me a LOT of pain), but going vegetarian and then raw vegan/fruitarian initially helped remove some of my symptoms(though eventual nutritional deficiencies on raw vegan/fruitarian fouled things up eventually).

 Plus, it is dangerously misleading to claim that cooked meat is healthy given the number of studies damning cooked animal foods, and it also heavily discourages people from trying raw meats, which are difficult enough for newbies to get used to, in the first place. So, it makes much more sense to point out that it is no big deal re not eating 100% raw as most of us have to make social compromises every now and then(because so few other people eat raw) but that, preferably, one should avoid cooked meat and go for raw (grassfed) meat whenever one has the opportunity.


Admittedly, I would prefer studies comparing cooked low carbers versus SAD-eaters. It will take time for that to happen(as so many quit cooked low carb after a short while  for various reasons! Contrast this with vegetarians who often practise their diet the whole of their lives).

The claim re vegetarians eating garbage is quite apt(quite a number(but not necessarily the majority) eat meat-substitutes or tofu/soy) but it is also heavily misleading to suggest that cooked low carbers eat a healthier diet. Cooked low carb diets, like I said, mostly involve dairy(even Stefansson recommends it), many peddle processed supplements such as candy bars(or even artificial sweeteners) and most will recommend grainfed, commercially-raised meats.

Also, the number of people following crappy cooked low carb diets like the Optimal Diet or Atkins or whatever, far exceeds the very limited number of people following a cooked palaeo diet, so it is misleading to single out the cooked palaeolithic diet as being representative of cooked low carb diets as a whole.

I'm not per se bothered with claims that the cooked palaeolithic diet is healthier(in the long run) than a vegetarian diet due to the issue of long-term nutritional deficiencies. But I draw the line at spurious claims that cooked meat is healthy or the absurd notion that cooked low carb diets in general are healthy.

[carnivore]

Look, almost every decent study will have a caveat somewhere in it. As I pointed out to Paleophil, a truly competent scientist will never state something as a fact and will prefer to wait until there are a decent number of other studies backing the evidence. The point I'm making is that scientific conclusions are determined by the quantity of studies backing 1 finding or another. When large numbers of studies prove 1 finding(cooked meat is harmful) but there are only a tiny handful backing another finding(the claim that cooked meat is supposedly healthy), one can make a reasonable conclusion re probabilities that the finding backed by a much larger number of studies is the right one. The alternative is to cite endless conspiracy theories, which is ridiculous.

And, yes, I do often check the full scientific results if available online, time permitting. Unfortunately, much of the palaeoarchaeological studies can only be accessed if one pays(which I resent), so those are out of reach.

I am not sure the quantity of studies determined their validity. For example, you have unlimited studies to "prove" that saturate fat and cholesterol are bad, and much less studies that say the opposite. Yet it looks like the much larger studies are wrong.

Cooked meat is indisputably inferior to raw meat, but I am not convinced that it is an unhealthy food for vegetarian or people who can't swallow raw meat.
Better eat cooked meat than no meat !

[TylerDurden]

I am not sure the quantity of studies determined their validity. For example, you have unlimited studies to "prove" that saturate fat and cholesterol are bad, and much less studies that say the opposite. Yet it looks like the much larger studies are wrong.

As I pointed out, the studies damning saturated fats weren't really damning saturated fats per se but the glycotoxins present in cooked animal foods(which just happen to be quite high in cooked saturated fats). In other words, the results of all those  studies weren't wrong in themselves, it was just that the scientists had their definitions wrong:-

"given the prominence of this type of food in the human diet, the deleterious effects of high-(saturated)fat foods may be in part due to the high content in glycotoxins, above and beyond those due to oxidized fatty acid derivatives." The glycotoxins, as he called them, are more commonly called AGE!"  taken from:-

http://www.pnas.org/content/94/12/6474.long

I am not sure the quantity of studies determined their validity. For example, you have unlimited studies to "prove" that saturate fat and cholesterol are bad, and much less studies that say the opposite. Yet it looks like the much larger studies are wrong.

Better eat cooked meat than no meat !

Better to eat a diet low in cooked meat than a diet high in cooked meat!

[Cthulhu]

As I pointed out, the studies damning saturated fats weren't really damning saturated fats per se but the glycotoxins present in cooked animal foods(which just happen to be quite high in cooked saturated fats). In other words, the results of all those  studies weren't wrong in themselves, it was just that the scientists had their definitions wrong:-

"given the prominence of this type of food in the human diet, the deleterious effects of high-(saturated)fat foods may be in part due to the high content in glycotoxins, above and beyond those due to oxidized fatty acid derivatives." The glycotoxins, as he called them, are more commonly called AGE!"  taken from:-

http://www.pnas.org/content/94/12/6474.long
 Better to eat a diet low in cooked meat than a diet high in cooked meat!

Exactly. And there is also the problem with oxidized cholesterol that is related to highly-cooked animal food diets. To say that cooked animal products are healthy, while ignoring all of the toxins that are created in cooked animal food is just, I believe, pure insanity. After all, you can't trade one poison for another and expect good health.

[Raw Kyle]

I think the word "toxins" has been destroyed in it's meaning as thoroughly as the word "natural."

"A toxin (Greek: ?, toxikon) is a poisonous substance produced by living cells or organisms.[1][2] (Although technically man is a living organism, man-made substances created by artificial processes usually aren't considered toxins by this definition.)"

So by Wiki's definition all those chemicals in cooked food would not even be called toxins.

My understand of a toxin is that it is a substance that is more expensive for the body to get rid of versus what benefits it gets. You build up enough toxins, and then it reaches a deadly dose where it then could be called a poison. So a toxic dose would be general negative effects, not deadly, or at least not acutely.

Furthermore, every substance, including water and protein and fat, has a toxic and poisonous dose. So to call something a "toxin" is a rather silly description, as one molecule would not be a toxic dose of anything, and a certain number of molecules would be a toxic dose of anything.

More clear to me is to take the long term effects of something on health, rather than pick apart it's chemical properties and call this or that molecule a toxin, which again by both definition (wiki's and mine from biology) cooked food chemicals are not toxins. I would be much more interested in reading a study about the long term negative health effects of cooked meats that somehow demonstrates that the same population eating either raw meats or no meats at all did not get these effects. A very hard study to do.

[William]

I've always considered that "toxin" is a politically correct word for poison, and poison is anything that can make us ill (even if only one cell) or dead.