NADH enzymes in raw foods help prevent age-related decline

[TylerDurden]

"The optimum intake of NADH levels occurs when we eat raw meat or fish, as our stomach gastric acids degrades NADH in greater amounts than if the food was cooked (which incidentally also destroys most of the NADH present in food anyway)."

and "Of the two cell types that contain NADH, plant and animal, animal cells contain higher concentrations of NADH because animals need more energy than plants for movement. Vegetables and fruits contain lower levels of NADH than is found in meat, poultry, or fish. Because of the low volumes of NADH from plant cells, a vegetarian will have a much lower intake of NADH than those on a meat-eating diet. It is a well-known condition for vegetarians to develop NADH deficiency over time."

taken from:-


http://www.antiaging-systems.com/111-nadh

[TylerDurden]

It seems that the only ones, other than us RVAFers, who are interested in the science behind heat-created toxins are those enthusiasts  interested in life-extension/immortality. Trouble is, most of these fools seem to be mainly interested in artificial chemicals which destroy some of these heat-created toxins rather than raw foods themselves. Perhaps it might be an idea for me or others to visit any life-extension forums and mention this diet in passing.

[Josh]

I have done. I used to hang out on one. The response was 'parasites are no fun blah blah'.

I would have expected more inquiry given that it solves their most bitterly contested debate as to whether to eat cooked animal fat and take the toxins, or eat a high carb diet and take glycation.

I remember there was one guy who used to make his own jerky and eat that before I got into raw paleo. Maybe he hangs out on here.

[Josh]

It's actually a more general point about promoting the forum. I take it the policy is that we can link and recommend it to as many people as we like then?

[TylerDurden]

It's actually a more general point about promoting the forum. I take it the policy is that we can link and recommend it to as many people as we like then?

  Absolutely. I myself intend to use it for my forthcoming essay on the dangers of cooking on rawpaleodiet.com

[PaleoPhil]

Vegetarians respond that NADH itself is not processed efficiently by the body, which the article excerpt posted above indicates with: "[the stomach] incidentally also destroys most of the NADH present in food anyway." So they claim that one has to take supplemental forms of NADH to get any significant bioavailable amount. However, that didn't make sense to me, given that the info that Dorothy at the Giveittomeraw forum provided indicated that NADH is essential to humans in numerous ways and given that supplement pills are a recent invention. If it's true that NADH is essential, then our ancestors would not have survived if there wasn't a way for them to obtain enough of it from natural foods either directly or from the precursors to make NADH in the body, so I searched further to find out what those precursors are.

It turns out that NADH is made from niacin (vitamin B3) and tryptophan:

Nicotinamide Adenine Dinucleotide Nadh
"NADH Food Sources: NADH formation requires niacin (vitamin B3) and tryptophan, therefore an adequate supply of this vitamin and amino acid is necessary." (NADH Introduction, 2003, http://www.supplementnews.org/wiki/nicotinamide_adenine_dinucleotide_nadh)

So what are the food sources of niacin and tryptophan?

Foods rich in niacin (vitamin B3; http://www.whfoods.com/genpage.php?tname=nutrient&dbid=83) :
Chicken breast, roasted
Tuna, yellowfin
Salmon, chinook
Calf's liver, braised
Turkey
Halibut, baked/broiled
Lamb loin, roasted
Venison
Crimini mushrooms, raw
Sardines

Foods rich in tryptophan (http://www.whfoods.com/genpage.php?tname=nutrient&dbid=103):
Chicken breast, roasted
Turkey
Tuna, yellowfin
Soybeans, cooked
Beef tenderloin, lean
Lamb loin, roasted
Halibut, baked/broiled
Shrimp, steamed/broiled
Salmon, chinook
Snapper, baked/broiled

Once again animal foods dominate the list, and I doubt that it's necessary to cook them to get the niacin and tryptophan.

[cliff]

However, that didn't make sense to me, given that the info that Dorothy at the Giveittomeraw forum provided indicated that NADH is essential to humans in numerous ways and given that supplement pills are a recent invention. If it's true that NADH is essential, then our ancestors would not have survived if there wasn't a way for them to obtain enough of it from natural foods

NADH isn't an essential nutrient...

The precursors are the only thing that matters.

Cooking destroys NADH because it denatures the protein its connected too, just like your stomach acid will.  Healthy people have no need for NADH and its main use seems to be to combat Alzheimers in people who are already screwed up(i.e. deficient in nutrients), the precursors would probably help these people just as much as the NADH maybe more?

[RawZi]

    Some people have little stomach acid (like aajonus) or produce less stomach acid because they are eating raw.  I bet some people are not able to process the precursors.  Why would you want to restrict yourself to precursors?  People play around too much.

NADH isn't an essential nutrient...

The precursors are the only thing that matters.

Cooking destroys NADH because it denatures the protein its connected too, just like your stomach acid will.  Healthy people have no need for NADH and its main use seems to be to combat Alzheimers in people who are already screwed up(i.e. deficient in nutrients), the precursors would probably help these people just as much as the NADH maybe more?

[PaleoPhil]

NADH isn't an essential nutrient...

It isn't an official essential nutrient, but I consider most of the reductionist scientific consensus views on what "nutrients" are "essential" to be bogus anyway. Do you mean as regards levels of NADH in the body or direct intake of NADH? I'm guessing you mean the latter.

The precursors are the only thing that matters.

Maybe

Cooking destroys NADH because it denatures the protein its connected too, just like your stomach acid will.

Yes, I know. This is a raw forum, so cooking is presumably pretty irrelevant here and Tyler's original post already covered this anyway.

Healthy people have no need for NADH....

I'm guessing you mean "no need for direct intake of NADH" here.

... and its main use seems to be to combat Alzheimers in people who are already screwed up(i.e. deficient in nutrients), the precursors would probably help these people just as much as the NADH maybe more?

Probably

The important thing is maintaining a healthy level of NADH in the body. Consuming foods that are rich in the precursors (mainly meats and fish--probably preferably raw) appears to be the most effective way to achieve that. Some would argue that folks who are severely deficient, such as Alzheimer's and Parkinson's patients with severe NADH deficiencies, might benefit by adding supplements (at least some of which are coated to allegedly enable them to reach the intestines), though the evidence is mixed on that.

[cliff]

It isn't an official essential nutrient, but I consider most of the reductionist scientific consensus views on what "nutrients" are "essential" to be bogus anyway.

Healthy people(i.e. Hunter gatherers) break down NADH so its not essential, if it was essential it would be digested whole and not denatured.

Yes, I know. This is a raw forum, so cooking is presumably pretty irrelevant here and Tyler's original post already covered this anyway.

My point was that it doesn't matter if you cook, broil or fry the food, if your healthy the NADH going to end up denatured.

The important thing is maintaining a healthy level of NADH in the body. Consuming foods that are rich in the precursors (mainly meats and fish--probably preferably raw) appears to be the most effective way to achieve that.

Agree'd

Some people have little stomach acid (like aajonus) or produce less stomach acid because they are eating raw.

What is this based on?  Raw meat needs less stomach acid to be digested?  Is this just anecdotal or do these people actually have test that show this?

[PaleoPhil]

Healthy people(i.e. Hunter gatherers) break down NADH so its not essential, if it was essential it would be digested whole and not denatured.

So like I said, you're talking about ingesting NADH, not the levels in the body. You apparently misunderstood my original post, as by "essential" I meant the levels in the body, not the direct ingesting of it. Reportedly, the body makes NADH because it is essential for the proper functioning of the body. I had already written about how the stomach reportedly breaks most of it down in a thread at GITMR before Tyler posted about it and I had also posted about how the precursors are the best overall source of NADH and I posted about that again here before you posted, so you haven't told me anything I didn't already know.

[cliff]

Thanks for clarifying phil, looks like were both on the same page.  And yes I do know the importance of NADH production in the body, just not sure on the importance of dietary NADH 

[RawZi]

    Cliff, try adding acid to raw meat. Try being acidic, then switching over 100% to raw meat for months. Have you been low on HCL? I was most of my life.  And aajonus got his vagus nerve severed so as to not produce HCL and his doctors told him he would never digest (cooked) meat again. I used acids (vinegar lemon) to break greens. Rice turns to acid breaking itself down, hence where sushi first came from, apples to ACV. Meat (raw) breaking down turns to slimy nonacidic mush. You make highmeats?

[PaleoPhil]

Thanks for clarifying phil, looks like were both on the same page.  And yes I do know the importance of NADH production in the body, just not sure on the importance of dietary NADH  

You're welcome, Cliff and I think we are on basically the same page. You're probably right that the benefits of raw meat/fish over cooked when it comes to directly ingesting NADH is not a big factor, but there is a measurable difference according to the article Tyler posted and I figure that can't hurt and who knows, it might even help a wee bit. When added to other factors, like heat-related toxins, the reduction of food enzymes by cooking, the depletion of nutrients by cooking, etc., I figure that the overall picture probably adds up to something significant, but it will take still more than this to convince many of the skeptics.