Is it dangerous to eat too much meat?

[GCB]

To Löwenherz:
I won’t discus any longer about impressions and conjectures. It suffice to look at the actual results of the experiment: I have almost fifty years of experience on my own body, there are many who practice the instincto correctly for twenty, thirty or forty years and have no problems. Cancers appeared in small numbers and have always been linked to excessive consumption of domestic animals’ meat. All instinctos born children are in an excellent state of health and some are now healthy adults. Wait for an equivalent experience duration before judging and we'll see. All the rest is verbiage more or less disguised as scientific beliefs.
 
To Hanna:
The AGEs are not the devil himself and those produced below 40° C (to which we are genetically adapted because they are common classes of molecules and are present in small amounts only) should be distinguished from those produced by heat, rare in nature and present in very large concentrations in cooked food. The fear of AGEs produced at low temperature originated from the hypothesis that diabetics suffered from autoimmune degenerations because of AGEs that would have been produced in their bodies due to a higher glucose rate, an assumption that proved false once it has been shown that these levels of circulating AGEs correlate to intake of cooked food.

Another concern is that if we put together in the stomach a lot of different products that are never mixed in the nature, we can still certainly get molecular combinations (others than AGEs as well) difficult to treat by our digestive enzymes, especially when under overloaded. But in principle the instinct prevents overloads and minimizes these problems. Enzymes work very fast indeed when there is no overload, and only the instinct is able to indicate the right quantities.

[Dorothy]

Thank you Iguana for your response. I think I'm understanding better.
This and other recent conversations have brought up a big concern for me though.
All I have been able to find so far has been domesticated and frozen grass-fed meat including marrow, suet, organs etc. What I've learned is that here in Texas (which is big cattle country) there are these big processing plants where everyone brings their animals to for slaughter because it's legally much safer and infinitely much easier. Because it can get so darn hot here the only "safe" way (according to the FDA) to transport meat is to freeze it. No farmer I have spoken to wants to put themselves on the line and I don't blame them a bit. There is a war against small and grass-fed farmers going on. None of the plants are close to my home in the city.  I do not hunt and do not know any hunters.

In another post Iguana you said to do it right or not do it at all and doing it right seems to mean eating fresh muscle meat and other animal parts that haven't been frozen and GCB is seeming to say only to eat wild, non-domesticated animals. I also don't have much of any variety available to me.

At least for now, I am not able to eat that way and more importantly, provide that for my husband who seems to need more meat (I need barely any at all). What to do? Give up meat? Go Neolithic? What does it mean if you can't do it right to not do it all? What do you suggest for the people that are not able to follow the necessary baselines?

[Iguana]

What to do? Give up meat? Go Neolithic? What does it mean if you can't do it right to not do it all? What do you suggest for the people that are not able to follow the necessary baselines?

That is one of my often exceedingly perfectionist’s views! Of course, you have to eat and if you can’t eat 100% right, it doesn’t mean that you shouldn’t eat at all… Try to do the best you can. Can’t you find clams and other RAF in your place? Don’t give up meat, but avoid to eat the same meat everyday during several months or years. It’s probably not a problem if you eat raw beef in a reasonable amount one or twice a week or a huge amount once in way.

And, most important, don’t believe what I say: I m’ very far from knowing everything! 

Didn’t GCB and I explain several times that we should be careful with domestic animals’ meat just as with modern cultivated fruits? It’s no problem if we eat once a way as much beef as we like, but obviously we shouldn’t do it everyday. 
(…)
No problem with meat of wild animals, or even with a huge amount of beef  in a meal or perhaps during a whole week once in a way. The point is that we shouldn’t eat the meat of the same animal kind everyday for long periods of time. Variations are essential. 

From my own experience I can only tell you that high-fruit consumption for many years was the biggest mistake of my life, regarding physical and social conditions.

Of course, too much of anything - even water (see http://www.dhmo.org/  ) - is noxious and can even be deadly!

[TylerDurden]

Dorothy, seeking perfection is a bad idea. After a certain point, the benefits become too small to matter. So stick to prefrozen, grassfed meat for now, that's fine.

[Dorothy]

That is one of my often exceedingly perfectionist’s views! Of course, you have to eat and if you can’t eat 100% right, it doesn’t mean that you shouldn’t eat at all… Try to do the best you can. Can’t you find clams and other RAF in your place? Don’t give up meat, but avoid to eat the same meat everyday during several months or years. It’s probably not a problem if you eat raw beef in a reasonable amount one or twice a week or a huge amount once in way.

And, most important, don’t believe what I say: I m’ very far from knowing everything! 
Of course, too much of anything - even water (see http://www.dhmo.org/  ) - is noxious and can even be deadly!

Oh I am so very relieved my instincto friend Iguana is not throwing me out of the paleo era into the scary neolithic or modern era (shudder) and I am especially relieved that the Instincto tribe isn't going to shun me!   Whew.

Room for flexibility but....be careful Iguana... I take everything you say seriously even if you don't mean to be serious - so I might start not to believe you if you tell me not to!

Seriously though, that's really good advice that I will take to heart. In the spring we will be able to get lamb to switch off to and maybe some buffalo and we don't eat anything more than a couple of times a week. All the fish is frozen too. Clams my husband despises   Good try though.   I can appreciate the admonition for variety and that we might have to work at getting our palettes adjusted to be even able to appreciate (be attracted to) some foods. Little by little, step by step.

If he would only eat bugs like the chickens life would be so much easier! hee hee.

[Hanna]

Thank you, gcb, for your answer!

That report was not about endogenous AGE formation.

The data were, among others, about glycated hemoglobin, which is an early glycation endproduct.

From my own experience I can only tell you that high-fruit consumption for many years was the biggest mistake of my life, regarding physical and social conditions.

Social conditions? Why social conditions?

[TylerDurden]

GCB is wrong as regards the issue of AGEs in raw foods. It's been shown, via tables, that AGEs in chickens fed on very unhealthy, grainfed diets are very high, not all that different from the boiled version therefrom. Granted, AGEs in nature are available in microscopic amounts even in the healthiest foods, and the human body can indeed deal with such tiny amounts, but I seriously doubt that it can deal with the AGEs present in foods from animals fed on very unhealthy, unnatural diets.

[PaleoPhil]

The AGEs are not the devil himself and those produced below 40° C (to which we are genetically adapted because they are common classes of molecules and are present in small amounts only)

Interesting and refreshingly candid comment; sometimes around here it does seem like AGEs are made out to be the devil himself.

[Iguana]

GCB is wrong as regards the issue of AGEs in raw foods. It's been shown, via tables, that AGEs in chickens fed on very unhealthy, grainfed diets are very high, not all that different from the boiled version there from. Granted, AGEs in nature are available in microscopic amounts even in the healthiest foods, and the human body can indeed deal with such tiny amounts, but I seriously doubt that it can deal with the AGEs present in foods from animals fed on very unhealthy, unnatural diets.

Yes, of course, it can’t! Don’t you think that the AGEs present in animals fed cooked or heated food are the same as the AGEs present in their food, which have accumulated in their tissues?

GCB was obviously not talking about raw meats from animals fed cooked food and wheat, as for him it is absolutely out of the question to eat such meats which are highly concentrates of the toxins, including AGEs, brought by their  food. 

[Hanna]

Apropos animals fed heated food. Gcb, I have a question on this subject. Since I have eaten strictly rawfood for more than half a year, I have had strong reactions to any cooked food. Even when I tried to eat cold smoked food several weeks ago, I had the same symptoms that I had after eating cooked food, although much weaker. However, whenever I ate the meat of farmed animals (salmon, pork, prawns) I never had comparable symptoms. I don´t understand that. If the meat of farmed animals contains concentrated toxins including AGEs, why don´t I react to their meat in the same way I used to react to cooked food?

[Paleo Donk]

Post deleted in accord between global moderators  because it contained insults to one of our members. Paleo Donk is kindly invited not to post here again.

Could a moderator PM me and let me know why this post was deleted?

[GCB]

Apropos animals fed heated food. Gcb, I have a question on this subject. Since I have eaten strictly rawfood for more than half a year, I have had strong reactions to any cooked food. Even when I tried to eat cold smoked food several weeks ago, I had the same symptoms that I had after eating cooked food, although much weaker. However, whenever I ate the meat of farmed animals (salmon, pork, prawns) I never had comparable symptoms. I don´t understand that. If the meat of farmed animals contains concentrated toxins including AGEs, why don´t I react to their meat in the same way I used to react to cooked food?

Serious answer to this question may require a decade of research in immunology... The immunological reactions are extremely complex, packed with interactions, cross-reactions, inhibitions, sensitizations, etc.

However, your observation seems surprising. I recently had (accidentally) an experience with a farmed fish: a bar that I was assured it had been caught in the Atlantic. So I thought I was safe (excellent in terms of objectivity!), but next day I noticed effects on my nervous system, which I didn’t initially know how to explain: insomnia, disordered dreams, agitation, myoclonus of the facial muscles (small spasmodic contractions), diminished ability to concentrate and decreased appetite. It took me a while to blame that fish, because I was sure of its source, but further investigation revealed that the fishmonger had thought I was talking about the mackerel which was right next on the stall and is actually fished. I also had some small red spots on the thighs in the following days and some body odor (usually non-existent after a sufficient period of instincto).

So I am surprised that you haven’t noticed any symptoms. However, I did not myself observe any manifestation of immune type (except for small eruptions). There probably was some, but not violent enough to appear clinically. Immune work that can occur in the animals themselves must also be considered, perhaps because the denatured molecules are stored in modified forms. And last, it is possible that after a few months of instincto, you were not yet out of tolerance for the molecules in question. The post-culinary detoxification takes years, about as long as the intoxination lasted, so we need more patience to draw definitive conclusions...

Merry Christmas to all!

[Hanna]

Thank you, gcb, for your reply and a happy new year to all! I noticed symptoms, such as more sweating after eating organic salmon, but they are not exactly the same symptoms (most notably, I never had pain symptoms after eating farmed fish, farmed prawns or farmed meat, but I always had pain symptoms after eating cooked food) and the symptoms are not as strong and not as reliable as the symptoms I had after eating cooked food.
Sorry for the late reply; I had no private internet access for a time.

[Dorothy]

Hanna, I have the same kinds of reactions as you. Whether something is cooked or not makes more of a difference than how it was raised/grown.... usually.... unless it was raised/grown REALLY badly. Eating a kind of food no matter how it was raised/grown that is not appropriate for me at the moment is much more detrimental than even if it is cooked or not. I would put the order of importance as 1. Appropriate/needed atm 2. Raw 3. Farming method.

This makes me think about the holistic veterinarian that helped me to transfer my dogs to a raw diet. He told me that the studies that were done showed that there was dramatically more positive impact from a raw diet with only small gains incorporating grass-fed, organic and the like. He told me that the one most important thing I can do for the health of my pets was get them on raw food and then think about the kind of raw food later when I had the resources and time. This made sense to me with my own experiences with raw vs cooked foods - albeit it was all fruits and vegetables for me back then. It's now the same for me with animal foods.

[cherimoya_kid]

Dorothy, I think a great deal also has to do with HOW cooked something is.  Lightly steamed is pretty much the same as raw.  Deep-fried, heavily grilled, etc. are definitely NOT.   

[Dorothy]

So true Cherimoya! What you said made me realize something. I don't consider deep fried food as food any more - nor do I consider what usually pass for deserts or make-believe concoctions in boxes wrapped in plastic that they sell in supermarkets where I don't even know what most of the ingredients mean to be food either -  so I kinda forget about those kinds of things that some people eat when talking about food. If I eat any of those I think of them more like doing drugs or like drinking alcohol with others as a socially accepted but damaging past-time. Those things give me nothing and take a lot and I will have to get over them. They are not something that nourish me - they deplete me. It's funny that I didn't even realize that I no longer categorize as food what most people do. 

Yes, the non-food that many people still think of as food is worse than anything. When I talk about cooking I refer to "normally - healthful" cooked natural whole foods.

Thanks.

[Joy2012]

  Lightly steamed is pretty much the same as raw.

Will you provide research for this statement? Thanks.

[TylerDurden]

Even slight heating will destroy most enzymes and some bacteria. Plus it will create some heat-created toxins, too. Not as much as with full boiling or frying etc., but still bad.

[cherimoya_kid]

Will you provide research for this statement? Thanks.

The higher the heat, the worse it is.  Temperatures up to 118 F have been recorded inside the human body, so I imagine anything up to that temperature is not extremely damaging, at least not to meat/fish.  Fruit, and especially honey, are going to have some damage, mainly honey.

When I say lightly steamed, I really mean that the inside of the food is only raised to around 105 F or so.  The outside can be a little warmer, with relatively little damage.

[Joy2012]

According to the following quote, it seems we can "warm up" raw food in the dehydrator (which produces dry heat) up to 149 degrees without  doing damage to food enzymes (and other food properties) ? Will someone verify this based on science?

 "Enzyme research has revealed the importance of raw foods in the diet. The enzymes in raw food help start the process of digestion and reduce the body's need to produce digestive enzymes. All enzymes are deactivated at a wet-heat temperature of 118 degrees Fahrenheit, and a dry-heat temperature of about 150 degrees. It is one of those happy designs of nature that foods and liquid at 117 degrees can be touched without pain, but liquids over 118 degrees will burn. Thus we have a built-in mechanism for determining whether or not the food we are eating still contains its enzyme content."

http://www.realmilk.com/enzyme.html

It seems to make sense to me that there is a difference between dry heat and liquid heat. For instance, in a sauna, the dry heat is  very high (definitely above 118 degrees) but the human users of sauna are not damaged/cooked up (up to a certain temperature).

[Iguana]

The higher the heat, the worse it is.

Not necessarily. A slightly damaged molecule is unlikely to be  immediately recognized as such by the immune system, while a completely wrecked one would be discarded straight away. Thus the first one could induce a lot more troubles in the metabolism.

This seem to be confirmed by the experiment on mice done by GCB & al in the 60’s :

Les conclusions générales de cette expérience sont les suivantes :

a/ Le groupe le plus catastrophique est le groupe "diététique". Avec
des dénaturations supposées minimes, cette alimentation se veut
pourtant « hypotoxique » (= faiblement toxique). Elle comprend
notamment du blé bio cuit à des températures inférieures à 100°. Des
lots de souris sont alimentés avec du blé et autres aliments "bio"
chauffés à 50°, d'autres avec des aliments chauffés à 60°, d'autres à
70° et ainsi de suite. Certaines souris deviennent très maigres,
tandis que d'autres grossissent énormément. Les souris se mangent
entre elles ou meurent prématurément, d'elles-mêmes. Il n'y a pas
besoin de les tuer pour la dissection.

b/ Les cages cuites :
Curieusement les résultats sont moins mauvais qu'avec des
dénaturations « douces ». Les souris sont nourries avec des patates
cuites, de la viande cuite, du pain… Elles se mangent aussi entre
elles. Mais ce qu'il faut retenir c'est qu'il y a globalement une
amélioration par rapport à l'alimentation diététique.

Rough translation:
The general conclusions from this experiment are:

a / The most catastrophic group is the group "healthy diet". With assumed minimal processing, this diet aims to be "hypotoxic" (= only slightly toxic). It includes organic wheat cooked at temperatures below 100 ° C. Some mice groups were fed with wheat and other "organic" foods heated to 50 °, other groups with food heated to 60 ° C, other groups with food heated 70 ° C and so on. Some mice become very skinny, while others grow enormously obese. The mice eat each others or die prematurely, spontaneously. There is no need to kill them for dissection.

b / Cages cooked:
Curiously the results are less bad than with "light" cooking. Mice were cooked fed potatoes , cooked meat, bread... They also eat each other. But what we must remember is that there is an overall improvement from the “healthy diet”.

Temperatures up to 118 F have been recorded inside the human body, so I imagine anything up to that temperature is not extremely damaging, at least not to meat/fish.  Fruit, and especially honey, are going have some damage, mainly honey.

That is 48° C. I don’t know from where you got this number but let’s admit it’s true. Ok, wide scale damage to organic molecules start probably a little over that; according to an oral report I heard, the calf fed with milk heated at 55° C are faring very badly, being sick and unable to reach a normal adult state.

By limiting our intakes to food not heated over 40° C, we hopefully have a slight safety margin.

When I say lightly steamed, I really mean that the inside of the food is only raised to around 105 F or so.  The outside can be a little warmer, with relatively little damage.

41° C inside… but this “little damage” of the outside is precisely what should be avoided. Completely carbonize your food would certainly be less hazardous since pure carbon has extremely low toxicity to humans. 

[TylerDurden]

I'm afraid that the above claims re 118F are incorrect. According to this:-

http://www.blurtit.com/q616156.html

"If you are referring to the internal temperature of the human body, studies show most bodies can only survive up to 108 degrees Fahrenheit, or 42 degrees Celcius, as the proteins inside the body  begin to die at around 105F.
"
AV believes that enzymes in raw honey get destroyed at much lower temperatures(not sure re this myself). But I would imagine that since enzymes are proteins, anything above 105F would get  damaged and many enzymes above 108F would be destroyed or at least denatured.

[Iguana]

Yes, thanks Tyler!

It seems to make sense to me that there is a difference between dry heat and liquid heat. For instance, in a sauna, the dry heat is  very high (definitely above 118 degrees) but the human users of sauna are not damaged/cooked up (up to a certain temperature).

We can stand air temperatures of 50 – 55° C (not uncommon in Kuwait or in the Death Valley) for a few days provided we have enough fluid to drink. It doesn’t mean that our body temperature goes that high – as long as we are still alive!

But we would not survive long in a bath at 55° C. See the difference between conduction and convection: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_transfer#Conduction 

[Wattlebird]

For me, regarding the cooking (thoroughly, medium or light) of meat, whether a study says it is healthy, or not, is a moot point. Likewise, whether enzymes are more or less alive.
The cooking changes the meat. When it is not cooked, and is suitable 'wild' meat, there is a natural stop when one has had enough, and also its raw 'wildness' has its inherent smell attraction. (or not, depending on physiological needs)
As soon as a meat is cooked 'wildness' is lost and it becomes more a product of cooking preference as per gustatory and culturally learned sensualities, rather than direct sensory instinct.
For what its worth.

[cherimoya_kid]

I'm afraid that the above claims re 118F are incorrect. According to this:-

http://www.blurtit.com/q616156.html

"If you are referring to the internal temperature of the human body, studies show most bodies can only survive up to 108 degrees Fahrenheit, or 42 degrees Celcius, as the proteins inside the body  begin to die at around 105F.
"
AV believes that enzymes in raw honey get destroyed at much lower temperatures(not sure re this myself). But I would imagine that since enzymes are proteins, anything above 105F would get  damaged and many enzymes above 108F would be destroyed or at least denatured.

Medical reports of people who have died after consuming the drug Ecstasy have confirmed internal body temps post-mortem of at least 109 F, and that's after several hours of cooling.

http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/1891/does-an-ecstasy-overdose-raise-your-body-temperature-to-108-degrees

Scroll down, it's a long article.

So I was off by a couple of degrees, yes.  However, I'd say that common sense would tell you that if a body can produce heat of 115 F, then "cooking" meat at that temp is probably not going to be all that damaging.

To Iguana--GCB's theory about low-temp cooked food being worse that heavily-cooked food is highly suspect.  Not that I don't think he's a tremendous pioneer in the area of diet but I just don't buy that theory.

I really find it hard to believe that people would be healthier eating food roasted in at oven at 400 F for 3 hours, than if the food were lightly steamed for about 5 minutes.

Call me crazy, but it just seems obvious.