Raw meat and poo

[Nicola]

I was interested why Charles eats his meat cooked...

http://www.livinlowcarbdiscussion.com/showthread.php?tid=367&page=last

I only eat cooked meat, never raw, because Stefansson said the Inuit rarely ate raw meat. When he and Andersen undertook the year-long experiment at Bellevue, Stefansson ate his sirloin medium-well and Andersen, medium rare. When I've eaten undercooked meat, it always results in diarrhea -- or seriously loose stools. When I have it medium to medium-well, everything is fine. My bowel movements are generally every other day.

I have mentioned loose stools and thought that I was drinking to much water or it was the fat. Raw meat is better for me when I eat it (feels better) but that about the diarrhea or loose stools is the result of this "better feeling". Perhaps just eating once a day may also play a part in the whole picture?

So what do all you raw meat eaters say to raw meat vs. cooked meat and poo?

My father calls the raw meat and fat an eating disorder...which is very hurting for me.

Nicola

[avalon]

I don't know know about the poo, but-

http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/heterocyclic-amines

The researchers found that those who ate their beef medium-well or well-done had more than three times the risk of stomach cancer than those who ate their beef rare or medium-rare.

If and when I do eat meat, it's rare to raw because I like it moist, not dry. And because of the Cancer risk.

[akaikumo]

What's the longest you've eaten raw meat at one time?

Interesting that the article talks about microwaving lowering the cancer risk. Anyone have any opinions on microwaving? I've avoided it recently, because I assumed it wasn't good for you.

[Raw Kyle]

I would never microwave over a different cooking method, that's insane. It's basically intense irradiation of food, which is on the nono list for organic standards that most people think are so important. Crazy powerful radiation can be done without on your food I think.

My stools have been loose a few times, recently I ate a whole bunch of raw fish and that happened. But I don't remember this happening with the beef I usually eat.

[xylothrill]

I was interested why Charles eats his meat cooked...

http://www.livinlowcarbdiscussion.com/showthread.php?tid=367&page=last

I only eat cooked meat, never raw, because Stefansson said the Inuit rarely ate raw meat. When he and Andersen undertook the year-long experiment at Bellevue, Stefansson ate his sirloin medium-well and Andersen, medium rare. When I've eaten undercooked meat, it always results in diarrhea -- or seriously loose stools. When I have it medium to medium-well, everything is fine. My bowel movements are generally every other day.

I have mentioned loose stools and thought that I was drinking to much water or it was the fat. Raw meat is better for me when I eat it (feels better) but that about the diarrhea or loose stools is the result of this "better feeling". Perhaps just eating once a day may also play a part in the whole picture?

So what do all you raw meat eaters say to raw meat vs. cooked meat and poo?

My father calls the raw meat and fat an eating disorder...which is very hurting for me.

Nicola

Even on SAD, I couldn't eat meat over medium rare. Cooked meat takes longer to digest and Charles does have to take vitamin supplements. Any change in diet will change your digestion until the body adapts. Did he say how long he gave the raw meat? The only problem I had the first time RAF was constipation but now is fine. And I believe that was due to eating too much.

I disagree that the Inuit rarely ate raw meat. Eating some sort of animal everyday is "often" to me, not "rarely." They also had had contact with westerners before so there's no telling how much of their cooking habits had already been influenced by the time Stefansson lived among them. Where did they get their cooking pots?

Craig

[goodsamaritan]

Lately I have been experiencing cramps in my insides, lots of air(?) when I eat a cooked meat meal. 

Now I'm scared to eat a cooked meat meal. 

I don't know if my digestive flora have changed.

I wonder if this is what Geoff used to experience.

[xylothrill]

Lately I have been experiencing cramps in my insides, lots of air(?) when I eat a cooked meat meal. 

Now I'm scared to eat a cooked meat meal. 

I don't know if my digestive flora have changed.

I wonder if this is what Geoff used to experience.

That could well be it! It's past my bedtime or I'd try to find more on the subject. Here's a tentative observation from what looks to be a vegan site. It seems that cooked meat, as well as all cooked food, requires putrefactive bacteria to increase in the colon.

Dr Garten observed that putrefactive bacteria in the colon increased not only with the eating of meat but also with the degree of heat used in cooking all food, and with this increase so also did the odiferousness of the stool increase along with the appearance of aches and pains. He said:

    "It could only be deduced that certain agents in the diet were either missing or had been altered by the heat. The respective protein content of the vegetarian diet had also been found to be indicative of changes in the intestinal flora, legumes such as beans, lentils, peas etc. equally contributing to the display of putrefactive changes."

From: http://chestofbooks.com/health/natural-cure/Ross-Horne/Health-and-Survival-in-the-21st-Century/The-Pros-and-Cons-of-Raw-Food.html

[avalon]

Where did they get their cooking pots?

They brought them with them.  I'm sorry, I'll be serious... it was the Aliens.

[TylerDurden]

Lately I have been experiencing cramps in my insides, lots of air(?) when I eat a cooked meat meal. 

Now I'm scared to eat a cooked meat meal. 

I don't know if my digestive flora have changed.

I wonder if this is what Geoff used to experience.

In the first  days after switching to rawpalaeo, I had (2-3) days of constant very green, loose diarrhea, due to toxins leaving the body - I had occasional constipation(such as when I ate raw dairy, to which it turns out I'm allergic), or diarrhea(after eating some dodgy fruits from a supermarket), but these incidences were extremely infrequent and very minor, by comparison to the regular stomach-aches, constipation and vomiting etc., that I suffered when eating cooked-animal-food diets . After that transition to mostly raw,  usually whenever I ate the occasional cooked-food, I'd have a sluggish digestion, lots of gas developing etc., stools would be larger than if I ate the same amount raw(due, no doubt, to less effective  absorption by the body). My digestion has improved over the years, so that I no longer get vast stomach-aches from eating the occasional cooked animal food, but I still get many minor  side-effects of sorts, depending on the toxicity of the cooked-food.

[Kristelle]

Craig,

Charles doesn't take any vitamin supplements.

[xylothrill]

Craig,

Charles doesn't take any vitamin supplements.

Indeed you are correct Kristelle!
I could have sworn that on the old forum, when he first started the ZC path, that he was taking supplements. I shall ask him.

http://www.livinlowcarbdiscussion.com/showthread.php?tid=334&pid=11573#pid11573
Could be, but I think it has more to do with the body's changeover from not having to deal with glucose and the well-known adaptation period that all must go through. Dr. Stephen Phinney's studies on cyclists also bear this out and show that it doesn't matter who you are or what type of condition you're in, this adaptation period will happen and it's anywhere from two weeks to two months. I don't take any supplements whatsoever. I endured the first two weeks and woke up one day and felt as good as I ever felt.

Our bodies attempt to anticipate what we're planning to do and insulin is secreted in anticipation of our meals. Now that there is no glucose (or much less than before) the insulin secretions are felt more acutely since the role of insulin is to remove all nutrients from the bloodstream allowing the muscles the opportunity to deal with the glucose. Many think they are experiencing hypoglycemia during this time because it's a powerful reaction. However, research shows that it's really hyperinsulinemia and it takes time for the body to become conditioned to secrete less insulin and mobilize fat for longer periods of time. This is an adjustment and it takes some time.

[TylerDurden]

Stefansson wanted to promote a cooked-meat diet minus organ-meats because he knew that people were squeamish about organ-meats and raw meats so that it would be difficult for it to be opoular among the public. So, understandably, he was heavily biased when he claimed, erroneously, that the Inuit didn't eat lots of raw meat. In fact, it's well-known that not only did the Inuit eat lots of raw meat, especially the organs, but they also ate plenty of aged/fermented raw fish which they stored in the ice and which was among their most favourite foods.

Here's a typical example of the kind of raw-meat-heavy diet that Arctic tribes often consumed:-

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2008/05/13/ST2008051302252.html

[xylothrill]

I don't know how he does it eating cooked meat, fat, and no organs or supplements.  I'm not advocating it but I'm not calling him a liar either. Even raw carnivorous RAF-ers who eat organs get accused of not getting "what they need" and here I find myself doing just that to him without realizing how hypocritical I was being.

This is the reply I got from Charles:

Craig Wrote:
Charles, you've been the topic of a few conversations on our Raw Paleo Diet Forum.

That's scary! I'd check it out, but I just can't find the time. For now, I'm just stuck on this forum! Smile

Craig Wrote:
I could have sworn that you said you took supplements on the old forum. I was quickly corrected. I see you don't now. Was that a false memory? If not, how long have you been without supplements?

I stopped taking my multivitamin last summer at some point; but before zero-carb. It was probably when I read GCBC the first time. There was enough there to demonstrate that they weren't needed but it was probably even before that.

Craig Wrote:
Eating cooked meat and fat, without organs seems to me that it'd be very difficult to get everything you need.

We've discussed this at length over here. The whole idea of "everything you need" is quite subjective and no one has proven that any supplementation is needed once you remove the dietary ingredients that cause you to lose nutrients.

As we learned in GCBC, deficiency diseases come as a result of carbohydrate-rich diets, not meat diets. Although it's difficult to determine the source of calcium and other nutrients in the Inuit diet, analyzations of bones consistently showed no deficiencies whatsoever as we've seen in Stefansson's books, specifically, Not by Bread Alone. This indicates that there is much more going on with our bodies then we currently understand.

Some Inuit ate caribou and gnawed bones (although none ate them all year and some went years between eating caribou), but some Inuit never ate caribou and only ate seal and whale meat. They each had perfect teeth and no deficiency diseases. That's enough for me!

Regards, and Welcome back to our forum!

Charles
http://www.livinlowcarbdiscussion.com/showthread.php?tid=334&pid=18504#pid18504

[avalon]

As we learned in GCBC, deficiency diseases come as a result of carbohydrate-rich diets, not meat diets.

What bothers me about that line, and he wrote a similar one recently, is once again the real culprits aren't mentioned. To make a blanket statement implicating carbohydrates in general is wrong. Everyone agrees, Taubes, Eades, McDougall, Ornish across the board that it's 'refined' and 'processed' carbs that are the evil-doers. And, and forgive me- yes, the Inuit and their health are renowned. However their longevity has been questioned. With the general belief that they don't live as long- because of the harsh conditions, or diet or both I don't know. With a possible 10 year difference. I once had the thought that perhaps living on such a high protein diet makes the candle burn twice as bright but half as long. I know some dispute their ages. I've not come across such information and would welcome a link if anyone has one. And, one BIG problem using the Inuit diet as an example, who is eating Seal and Whale meat and Blubber? Because I think that is where they were getting most of their nutrients.

Seal meat and especially blubber, are also very high in Vitamins E, A, D and selenium. Recently, researchers have concluded that these inherent antioxidants are very big reasons why Inuits are free of CVD while other mostly fish eating populations are still prone to this disease. Fish oils alone will not do the same as will seal oil.

http://www.naturalnews.com/022868.html

As a Diet Explorer, and I think it's safe to say we all are in our various Fleets and Armadas  it WILL be very exciting to see where we all are in our 80s and 90s and hopefully beyond.

Best wishes,
Avalon

[Raw Kyle]

Good thoughts Avalon.

[xylothrill]

Those are good some VERY good points Avalon. Keep in mind that Charles didn't write that in this Raw Paleo Forum. I got his permission to post it here. He's from a low carb forum.

I agree that all carbs aren't created equal. He did say "carbohydrate-rich diets." To me, even paleo carbs can be "rich" if eaten to excess. I could eat an entire raw blueberry pie for lunch. Would that be paleo?

I do agree about seeing where we'll all be in our 90's and 100's.   

[boxcarguy07]

If I age as well as Jack LaLanne I'll be extremely happy... not that he's raw paleo or anything, but still I'd consider him an extremely healthy individual.

[TylerDurden]

The one thing that neither Charles nor Stefansson seem to have noticed, other than the raw-meat-eating aspect  is that the Inuit also ate plenty of organ-meats(according to numerous sources such as  Weston-Price etc.)  but also they ate from a wide variety of animals - whether caribou, elk etc.  for land-mammals or various different seal, fish or whale species for seacoast-dwelling Eskimos. Does Charles just eat cooked beef 95%+ of the time, like Lex, or does he eat other meats like mutton, goat etc.?

[Kristelle]

Stefansson wrote in his book, The Land of the Fat, the following:

"The second provision, that you must eat the whole beast, has, in my
experience and observation, still less foundation than the first
provision, if that be possible. Both Eskimos and northern forest
Indians, and whites who live with them, have a clear mental picture
of each animal they butcher, dividing the carcass then or later so
that certain parts go uniformly to the dog team, the rest to the
family. These divisions of the carcass vary from one species of
animal to another but do not vary within the species, unless slightly
by season.

The way in which Eskimos divide, for instance, a caribou between men
and dogs has been described with some detail; here the fact is
emphasized that the organ commonly spoken of as richest in vitamins,
the liver, is nearly always given to the dogs—as are the sweetbreads
and, indeed, all things from the body cavity except the heart and
kidneys. The kidneys are usually given to children, somewhat as if
they were candy. So far as I know the Eskimos of northern Alaska and
northwestern Canada, and the forest Indians just to the south of
them, the only condition under which they ate nearly or quite the
whole caribou was in time of famine. Ceasing to give the dogs the
parts which normally are theirs was that stage of a famine which
immediately preceded the killing and eating of the dogs themselves.

So far as present knowledge goes, there is in ordinary red meat, or
in ordinary fresh fish, without the eating of anything from the body
cavity, enough Vitamin C, or whatever it is that prevents scurvy, to
maintain optimum health indefinitely, with a cooking to the degree
which we call medium. Certainly this is true if the meat is cooked in
large chunks, as with both Eskimos and northern forest Indians,
rather than in thin slices, which latter style of cooking may, for
all I know, decrease the potency of the scurvy-preventing factor.

There is no intention to deny, of course, that cooking to medium will
somewhat lessen the meat's antiscorbutic value. What is to be said is
only that even with medium cooking there appears to be left over, in
fresh red meat or fresh fish, an abundance if not a superabundance of
all the vitamins and of all the other factors necessary for keeping a
man in top form indefinitely."

From this I infer that, according to Stefansson and his experience,
muscle-meat alone is enough, even if cooked somewhat. The Bear has
also been living on almost exclusively muscle-meat for 47 years and
supports the idea that muscle-meat alone is sufficient.

This to me makes sense because there would not be much organ to eat
per person as one animal contains only one of each and there are many
members in a group. Some would probably not have any organ at all for
many days, if not, months. Some organs would also never be eaten by
anyone, ever, like polar bear liver or caribou lungs. To rely on
something that is more scarce as opposed to muscle-meat which is more
abundant just doesn't make sense to me.

Also...the Inuits would sometimes eat only fish for months on or just seal or caribou. Such was Stefansson's observation. And regardless, they all remained healthy and had strong bones.

[TylerDurden]

The trouble with the above observation is that Stefansson himself admitted
 that he ate plenty of organ-meats(the marrow of which was raw) in the famous Bellevue experiment(ie liver/kidney/brains/marrow etc.) thus totally invalidating his claim that organ-meats weren't needed on zero-carb. And, judging from info re native-tribes/mediaeval royal courts etc., it was usually customary to share the organ-meats, although elders/royalty got first choice, with servants getting the lowest-quality foods(ie only scraps of some organ-meats).

 Even when it's been claimed that Eskimos threw away the organ-meats, it's usually noted in passing that some organ-meats were prized:-

"A delicacy among the North Baffin Inuit is chopped fat and [brains]
mixed with the animal's blood (allupiauoq) in the body cavity before the meat is eaten. Eyeballs
 are sucked but not swallowed."

taken from:-

http://www.answers.com/topic/arctic

Interestingly, most other sources, such as Weston-Price, generally indicate that the Inuit/Eskimos actually did eat all the parts of the animal:-

"The meat of whales, seals, bearded seals, walrus, narwhals, and polar bears is divided and shared according to cultural rules at the end of the hunt among both Arctic and Subarctic groups. Meat and all the edible parts of killed animals is distributed at feasts after large organized hunts." taken from:-

http://www.answers.com/topic/sea-mammals

Other sources claim that the Eskimos/Inuit also ate the stomach-contents of their prey, in addition to the organ-meats.

It's even been mentioned that Ray Peat wrote an article, somewhere, re the Eskimos having eaten the entire animal:-

"Very nice summary. I tend to agree with your assessment that it is
probably not the omega-3s that are so healthful for the Inuit. Ray Peat
wrote an article that began by discussing a western researcher who ate a
diet of what HE thought was a typical Inuit diet - high levels of whale
blubber. The guy ended up with lots of problems. Peat's conclusion is
that the guy ignored/forgot the fact that the Inuit ate the ENTIRE animal -
not just the flesh meat parts - including organ meats, glands, etc"  taken from:-

http://www.newtreatments.org/doc.php/WisdomExperience/52

In short, it does seem highly unlikely, that when virtually all other hunter-gatherer tribes/societies are described as prizing organ-meats over muscle-meats, that the  Eskimos/Inuit should stand out as the sole exception(other than Vegans like Jainites, I suppose).


Re vitamin C(taken from http://www.diseaseproof.com/archives/diet-myths-are-the-inuit-healthy.html  :- As has been pointed out, vitamin C is so easily lost by cooking, BUT if some of the animal-foods are eaten raw, then there is enough vitamin C available(such as in the case of the Inuits who ate plenty of raw animal food, especially raw organ-meats, and Stefansson who ate some raw marrow(and very lightly-cooked animal food as well):-
"In fact, all it takes to ward off scurvy is a daily dose of 10 milligrams, says Karen Fediuk, a consulting dietitian and former graduate student of Harriet Kuhnlein’s who did her master’s thesis on vitamin C. (That’s far less than the U.S. recommended daily allowance of 75 to 90 milligrams—75 for women, 90 for men.) Native foods easily supply those 10 milligrams of scurvy prevention, especially when organ meats—preferably raw—are on the menu. For a study published with Kuhnlein in 2002, Fediuk compared the vitamin C content of 100-gram (3.55-ounce) samples of foods eaten by Inuit women living in the Canadian Arctic: Raw caribou liver supplied almost 24 milligrams, seal brain close to 15 milligrams, and raw kelp more than 28 milligrams. Still higher levels were found in whale skin and muktuk.

As you might guess from its antiscorbutic role, vitamin C is crucial for the synthesis of connective tissue, including the matrix of skin. “Wherever collagen’s made, you can expect vitamin C,” says Kuhnlein. Thick skinned, chewy, and collagen rich, raw muktuk can serve up an impressive 36 milligrams in a 100-gram piece, according to Fediuk’s analyses. “Weight for weight, it’s as good as orange juice,” she says. Traditional Inuit practices like freezing meat and fish and frequently eating them raw, she notes, conserve vitamin C, which is easily cooked off and lost in food processing."

Geoff

[Kristelle]

All good points but...

I still don't think organ meats were a major part of an individual's diet and whether or not they are necessary to optimal health remains to be proven. While some communities (and individuals) may have consumed more organs, I'm sure some groups (and individuals) consumed close to none. Were they less healthy? According to Stefansson, regardless of what he actually consumed on the Bellevue Diet, at least one group of Inuits consumed almost no organ meats or very little and appeared healthy, otherwise he would not have made that claim.  What about the Bear who consumes almost exclusively muscle-meats?

I guess I'll have to wait and see...in the meantime, we'll have to agree to disagree. 

[TylerDurden]

Not only are organ-meats(usually raw) consumed by almost all hunter-gatherers(barring purist vegetarian communities  like the Jainites etc.), making it HIGHLY unlikely that the Inuit avoided all organ-meats, but also The Bear happens to have openly admitted that he incurred throat-cancer, something one would not expect from a truly healthy diet. This was brought up on the other forum by a while ago by a rawpaleodiet member who was previously enthusiastic about The Bear's diet.

[Kristelle]

A truly healthy diet cannot protect us from everything. And besides, how do we know that his diet or lack of something in the diet had anything to do with the cancer...we just don't.

Right now, there is just no evidence in favor of either diet (organless or with organs). I just can't picture individuals eating a whole organ to themselves once, twice or many times every week. A small piece of some preferred organ-meats from time to time, yes! That makes more sense and as such, that tells me that organ meats are not that essential...I see them as more of a treat.

To each their own...that's just my opinion. 

[goodsamaritan]

IMHO,

A cooked, processed food diet based on grains, beans and potatoes is a recipe for disease.

A truly healthy diet will protect us from most diseases, provide a high quality of life, and greatly delay aging.

Yes we DO KNOW... I and thousands of others around the world KNOW that diet has many things to do with cancer or any other incurable disease.

Why... because we have cured our "medically incurable" diseases ourselves and have cured many others of their "medically incurable" diseases.  We the cured and the ones we routinely cure are the evidence.

"Medical" will not accept our evidence because real cures run counter to their business model.  "Medical" is all about money and tons of fear marketing quackery.  They are not interested in cures.  If they were interested, they would pour money to research what we real healers do and write research papers explaining why our methods work... so they can write about our methods in "their" language.  Everything "medical" knows about disease causes is absolutely wrong and false because every disease is "medically incurable"... which means they know nothing.

Real healers are now high tech.  The internet has allowed real healers to publish their work without the "medical" gatekeepers.  Here is a list of some real healers who have written their ideas http://www.curemanual.com/mind-cures-paradigm-shifts

Diet is one big aspect of my cure protocols.

[akaikumo]

I don't know anything, but what I've read in this thread, so this is all musing.  :

I would guess that smaller amounts of organ meats would be consumed with larger amounts of muscle-meats. Wouldn't one kill be used for a while if in a smaller group? and having as much of as much of a kill as possible used to feed a larger one? Either way, you'd be using as much of the animal as you can (I would think.. unless there was some kind of surplus and easy hunting), and thusly consuming more muscle-meat then organ-meat.

So a sort of balance would be reached--organ-meats being in less quantity, but higher nutritional value; muscle-meats being in higher quantity, but lower nutritional value. Both provide energy, and I would think that you would get plenty of nutrients between the muscle-meats and the less-frequent organs.

But today, I would say it comes down to taste and what your body is asking for. Everyone has an individual balance that's optimum for them. It might mean all organ-meats; it might mean high-carbs via non-animal foods. Different ratios fit different people. Experimenting and listening to your body is really the only way to find out what fits your genetics and lifestyle.

All musing though, I don't know much about ANY of this