Less Food?

[joej627]

Just being a little paranoid today after 2nd liver flush.  my meals today were juiced celery/carrots, an apple, 4 raw eggs, and some cooked veggies with good amount of coconut oil.  I am nowhere near where i want to be but i can tell my body is screaming for the raw fats it just has been blocked up.  Anyways, off topic.  So question is, when switching over from cooked paleo to more raw and rare foods do you find that you don't need the same amount of food to feel satisfied?  For instance, eating 4 raw eggs feels like i get the same protein/fat as if i ate 3 cooked eggs plus a good amount of cooked chicken.  I would assume that the reason for this is that the raw fat/protein actually get mostly absorbed where the cooked proteins are much harder to break down.  And it seems in general, the longer i have been eating "healthfully," the less food i need.  Just want to believe i'm not going nuts.  It's like my body says, thank you for these beautiful eggs.  We don't need any more till tomorrow.  A little spacey tonight i know. Early bed tonight.  All i know is i love raw fat right now.  I think my liver congestion has had me deprived for a VERY LONG time.  Avocados anybody?

-Joe

[gc]

And it seems in general, the longer i have been eating "healthfully," the less food i need.

I've heard this too. Lex only eats about 2 1/2 pounds a day. I eat FAR more, thought I don't want to.

[TylerDurden]

That's true. Most of us find that we need less food on a RVAF diet, after some months/years on the diet. That said, I like to eat quite a lot on some days,  interspersed by whole-day fasts.

[sabertooth]

My intake varies from around 2 to 3 pounds of meat each day.

Often when I get a fresh kill I will eat three pounds a day or more. Then when I begin to run low on meat I will lower my intake to two pounds or less, in order to conserve until I can get another animal. Even If I am down to picking at the rib meat, and only get a Pound a day, I still feel good and I have even gone over two days without eating without any problem. I will make up for lost calories with the next animal.

In this way Maintain my body weight without even thinking about it. I will loose up to 5 pounds during the last week of finishing off an animal. Then I will gain it right back the first week of a new kill.

[catherinewinglet]

Yes I agree with your views. I have read this somewhere else also.

[mhikl]

Here are some interesting points from a Discovery article by Richard Wrangham
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/crux/2011/12/08/why-calorie-counts-are-wrong-cooked-food-provides-a-lot-more-energy/
His claims:
- no experiments had been published directly testing the effects of cooking foods on net energy gained or lost through processing.
- some peer commentaries were dismissive of the idea that cooked food provides more energy than raw
- (after experimentation on both plants and meat) cooked food provides more calories than eating the same foods raw
-  (therefore) the (usual) calorie counts are routinely wrong
- raw-foodists are thin compared to those who eat cooked diets
- the average woman on a 100% raw diet did not have a functioning menstrual cycle-?
- about 50% of raw-foodist women entirely stopped menstruating-?
- direct quote (When a raw-foodist’s reproductive system does not allow her to have a baby even when her diet is composed of processed, high-quality, agricultural foods, the obvious explanation is that she is not getting enough calories.)
- (in a lab setting testing mice) - mice gained more weight (or lost less weight) on (the same) cooked food than on raw food (pounding food had very little effect)*
-  (two major reasons why cooked foods provides more calories than raw foods) 1. muscle proteins, like the sugars in cooked starch, open up and allow digestive enzymes to attack their amino acid chains; 2. cooking does the same to collagen
- the mechanism for 1 & 2 is not understood
- however, mice had a spontaneous preference for eating cooked meat over raw
- The more highly processed (cooked and fine ground*, the more calories the body can extract from them
- Author is confident the increase in calories of cooked foods will be much higher than 10% (25-50%)
* conflicting point on pounding/fine ground foods
---
I have read (so have always understood that) cooking opens up more calories for assimilaltion. RW indicates the general assumption by biologists and the general population is that the calories are the same.
On the other hand, it seems intuitive that cooked foods would be harder to digest and therefore would take more calories to digest which is what this thread seems to suggest.
The idea of length of time on raw foods may come into play is interesting. Does the body adapt, how and what are the end results?
How important was the discovery of fire and cooking of meats to caloric improvement and was there some important indications to brain size and cognitive skills?
(Does this mean sugars in raw fruit are less fattening? I suspect a sugar - sucrose/fructose variety - is a sugar regardless its renderings)
---
I am going to keep better records regarding preparation and processing (cutting and cooking) of my food.

[Alive]

When I was 100% RVF my resting heart rate was very slow and I recovered very quickly from aerobic exercise. I believe a diet of raw living food creates an extremely efficient metabolism, where processing food and waste products and creating energy are as effortless as for a plant growing.

I think that raw living food peoples bodies do not want to get fat - they have regular supplies of excellent food so why do they need fat?

I support the theory that cooked foods are not processed correctly by a system evolved over millions of years to operate perfectly on RAVF, and that the cooking creates hormone and toxicity imbalances that drive the excessive accumulation of fat.

[mhikl]

All good points, alive. I suspect the same. I noted the possibility of cooked food on our species progress and possibly brain size. Something as such may be true but that does not preclude the possibility of the same or better coming from a body fed by raw; getting enough would be the problem is suggested by the idea of calories gained by eating cooked and rats running to cooked foods first- doesn't that suggest that taste may overrule nature's preferred course?

My resting blood pressure has improved to better than the quoted Euro/NA averages and I have a sense of calmness and efficiency similar to what you pointed out under RAVF. I'm also seeing weight loss, which is good in my case. I liked your phrase ". . . bodies do not want to get fat - . . ." I suspect that may be so under RVAF or the lucky who can eat as they please, however.

My dog has been on raw for a year and a half and I know when she upchucks very soon after eating, the meat is well into being digested whilst cooked meat and kibble are covered in slim and barely on the way to being digested. Having an iron clad stomach there's not much chance I can examen this from the human perspective.

I eat most of my foods raw which are always of animal origin; I do eat blanched greens (I need the vitamin K as I have a blood disorder of some sort) and I am now less cooking when cooking meat and veg.

[Alive]

...rats running to cooked foods first- doesn't that suggest that taste may overrule nature's preferred course?

Yes that makes sense, cooked food has a much stronger taste than raw food and this is what has driven its adoption - its survival of the tastiest for our inherited food preparation traditions.

It is very surprising how little taste there is in raw meat - I imagine as cooked taste buds adjust then all sorts of flavours are tasted.

[Polyvore]

One thing to think about: cooked foods taste better because of their sugary outside. When you sear meat the protein literally melts into a sugar (that brown/black tasty searing). Sugar is a prefered food source because of the immediate high nutrient energy (think berries, honey), so when we discovered how to cook we were basically cheating ourselves into thinking we were eating more nutrients and energy.

Also, as for raw eggs, I find I can eat literally twice as many raw eggs than cooked eggs. Raw eggs don't fill me at all :S

[joej627]

See i disagree that raw foods are intuitively always easier to digest.  Look at our ancestors.  They ate a lot of things raw that humans can easily eat.  Eggs, meats, fish, fats, coconut, avocado, fruits, honey, some veggies, etc.  They also knew that some things needed some type of preparation to make it easier to break down for the human.  This would include vegetables (especially root veggies, dark greens), beans, grains.  I agree that the living food is more useful generally speaking but that is not the only factor here.  My digestion is pretty whacked right now.  Healing, but whacked.  Lets say i eat a plate of raw kale.  I may get 5 units of good "living" nutrition from that but spend 10 units breaking down and getting rid of all that fiber.  If i eat cooked kale, i still get most of the minerals, some vitamins, and my body doesn't use much energy breaking down the fiber.  This is why juicing/blending seem like very good ways to get in the raw nutrition if your digestion is off.  Think about throwing a pound of cooked carrots versus raw carrots into your garbage disposal =)

[mhikl]

- I imagine as cooked taste buds adjust then all sorts of flavours are tasted.

Exactly. In the few months I have tried raw foods, liver has become lighter in flavour and muscle meat seems to have developed some noticeable tones.

I lived three years in Sarawak, Malaysia and western chocolate bars were difficult to find. I made a two week visit home after two years and Sweet Marie chocolate bars tasted as usual. The next year I returned home for good and the first thing I did off the plane was to head for a kiosk to get a bar. The chocolate had become terribly sweet, the nuts tasted rancid, the pleasure was gone. Overcoming the power of fat, on the other hand, didn't take more than a few weeks when I tried the Ormish vegetarian diet for four months. Sweets are insidious.

. . . , as for raw eggs, I find I can eat literally twice as many raw eggs than cooked eggs. Raw eggs don't fill me at all :S

I'm going to have 4 raw eggs (1 more than the number of cooked eggs I usually down) though I will heat to slightly change the colour of the whites, add a dollop of butter and the raw yolks and time how long it takes to get hungry again, Polyvore. I usually breakfast on raw Round and tallow and I don't get hungry for about 4+ hours. I like the idea of more yolks in the morning. I might just add one raw yolk to my beef breakfasts. For some reason I am a little queazy in regards to raw whites.

[mhikl]

If i eat cooked kale, i still get most of the minerals, some vitamins, and my body doesn't use much energy breaking down the fiber.  This is why juicing/blending seem like very good ways to get in the raw nutrition if your digestion is off.

joej627, I believe you may be correct when it comes to vegetables as that is what I remember reading about over the years—more nutrients come from cooked veg and the vitamins are more easily released. What one reads, however, isn't always scientific.

On the USDA site http://ndb.nal.usda.gov/, it seems to suggest that there is more vitamin K in frozen spinach than fresh. I wonder if freezing vegetables instead of heating them might do the same in regards to digestibility?

I lightly blanch my vegetables. Chinese broccolis I cut up and add salt to my water. The stems I quickly blanch first, and lastly I add the leaves. Then about the count of ten later I strain the water out of the vegetables, and plunge them into ice water to stop the cooking. I shake them dry, roll them in a towel. Then I heat up some home rendered lard and toss them round a bit (to seal in the moisture???). I air cool them  and then pack them in a Nestle's ice cream container and to the fridge. They are very crunchy still and easy to add to any dish. The quick searing seems to stop them from losing their moisture.

Now I'm thinking of maybe giving the veggies their salt soak, rinsing them off and then just freezing them. Then I could just pull out some frozen veggies to quickly stir fry to hot enough when I am eating cooked meats.

Meats, however, Joe, I honestly believe are more nutritious raw. A mix of raw and cooked veg might be a way of covering one's preverbal, eh?

[Charlie4444]

Wat are raw fats?  What foods do you eat to get raw fats?

[mhikl]

I only eat raw beef, bison and lamb fat at this point Charlie. Pork fat I render.

Tallow and suet are names for beef fat. The fat around the kidneys is supposed to be the best. I get mine from a good butcher. The best I have had for raw eating is ground up and has bits of red in it. It comes frozen or fresh.

I like to eat it slightly chilled if I am eating it on its own or with my chilled snack of fine chopped round steak.