what qualifies as raw

[a87.pal]

Hi guys,

I got thinking about how I personally consider things like jerky and "cold pressed" (under 120F) coconut oil raw. But really they are not.

Obviously there are physical transformations that occur at higher temperatures (and durations). Can someone summarize where the 120F number comes from (if I even got it right)? Additionally, are there any significant changes at lower temperatures?

[cherimoya_kid]

There's a big difference between 'wet' heat and 'dry' heat, i.e., the difference between being dipped in water of a certain temperature versus being surrounded by air of that same temperature.  Dry heat can go quite a bit higher without really "cooking" the food.

The strictest purists would say that any food heated in wet heat above 104 F is cooked.  In reality, though, a great deal depends on heating time.  Just because the outside of something gets up to a specific temperature doesn't mean the middle of the object has reached that temperature.

[Iguana]

104° F = 40° C (when will you Americans stop to use antediluvian units and switch to the worldwide used metric system?)

0° C to 40° C is the temperature at which living things usually function properly. Food having been heated to 50° C or 60° C is not cooked, but has been overheated to the point that some organic molecules will have been subject to significant damage, thus becoming more or less noxious depending on the kind of molecules and the kind of random damage. 

So, it's important that the whole food, outer parts included, had not been heated over 40° C, roughly. There  is certainly a tolerance up to which living processes  can still operate satisfactorily, perhaps up to 43 - 45° C, but it's safer to keep a safety margin.

The point is not to eat some (inside) parts of the stuff raw, but to avoid all overheated molecules because these can potentially be noxious and some certainly are. 

[a87.pal]

This makes sense as most mammals thermoregulate between 24C to 40C. So I guess ~40C would be the limit for truly raw.

You mentioned that up to 60C (you can sous-vide a steak) is still not considered cooked, but certain molecules become noxious. Any guidelines here, like the upper limit before proteins and fats start generating noxious substances -- for use when drying?

[TylerDurden]

Iguana is right. Most rawists  view 40°  Celsius/104°  Fahrenheit to be the upper limit, above which foods are  considered "non-raw".

Enzymes start getting denatured/destroyed after 40 degrees Celsius, so it is not a good idea to heat foods above that point. Anyway, dehydration can be practiced at temperatures below 40° Celsius.

[a87.pal]

I understand that getting active enzymes has benefits, but I was unaware that denatured proteins/enzymes were detrimental to health. I thought it was only the other compounds like PAH's and HCA's that were problematic, and that these required higher temperatures before they started to generate.

I monitored my last batch of jerky and noticed temperatures around 55C. I could obviously change things to keep temperatures below 40C, but I like my current set up and want to get a better idea if I am actually setting myself up for certain problems.

[eveheart]

I use the $10 Jerky Dryer, instructions from Lex Rooker can be found here: http://www.traditionaltx.us/images/JerkyDrierInstructions.pdf. I use an aquarium heater instead of a light bulb so that I don't get bothered by the light. I have mine set up so that it dries by convection at around 90 degrees F, so I'm not using a 100-watt heat source.

[William]

Hi guys,

I got thinking about how I personally consider things like jerky and "cold pressed" (under 120F) coconut oil raw. But really they are not.

Define jerky. Mine is lean meat dried at temperature below 40C.

Obviously there are physical transformations that occur at higher temperatures (and durations). Can someone summarize where the 120F number comes from (if I even got it right)? Additionally, are there any significant changes at lower temperatures?

The physical transformations occur at different temperature depending on what you refer to.
Fro instance, there are only two parts to a paleolithic diet, and while meat is no longer raw at temperatures above 104F, there is no change in tallow until above 300F.

Define tallow: rendered beef fat.
Define render: separated fat (or fatty acids) from indigestible connective tissue.
Define beef fat: combined fatty acids and INDIGESTIBLE PROTEINS.

I seems useful to define these terms, as previous "discussion" without definition has led to confusion and ill feeling.

[TylerDurden]

I understand that getting active enzymes has benefits, but I was unaware that denatured proteins/enzymes were detrimental to health. I thought it was only the other compounds like PAH's and HCA's that were problematic, and that these required higher temperatures before they started to generate.

  Denatured enzymes/proteins are not as dangerous as PAHs/HCAs/AGEs/NSAs. It just means that they make digestion more difficult for the body as it has to make more effort.  The trouble is that forcing the body to make more enzymes and work harder to digest the relevant food means that the body's enzyme-creating organs get worn out quicker. That's why old people on cooked diets benefit so much from adding extra enzyme supplements to their diet.


I am not sure when PAHs and the rest start getting created. But, obviously, they start appearing well before 100°C, as boiling creates a certain amount.

Here's some more detailed info on enzymes:-

http://www.westonaprice.org/nutrition-greats/edward-howell

[TylerDurden]

The physical transformations occur at different temperature depending on what you refer to.
Fro instance, there are only two parts to a paleolithic diet, and while meat is no longer raw at temperatures above 104F, there is no change in tallow until above 300F.

The above claim  is , of course, utter nonsense.  Cooking oxidises fats which are then harmful to the body. The 300F figure  is purely arbitrary, and is likely a lame attempt on William's part to refer to the smoke-point of tallow. In actual fact, cooking oxidises fats at much lower temperatures than that.

Tallow is useful as a component of  biodiesel, candles and soap. It is harmful as a food-source.

[Iguana]

Denatured enzymes/proteins are not as dangerous as PAHs/HCAs/AGEs/NSAs.

AFAIK, that’s far from being proved, Tyler. Experiments done by GCB in the 60’s on mice fed with food heated to various temperature showed that heating to “low” temperature (50 to 70° C) appeared to be more troublesome than thorough cooking! Here is what he say about that in http://www.reocities.com/HotSprings/7627/ggraw_eat2.html. You really have to read that book, we are still waiting for your review!

As far as blanched vegetables are concerned, that is, vegetables that have been heated to temperatures of 60 to 80°C for varying periods of time, things aren’t as simple as they look. It is usually thought that the less altered a food, the less toxic it is. Now, the validity of such a proportional rule is far from being proven. The most dangerous by-products are not necessarily produced at high temperatures. If you want to make sure that you aren’t affected by those cooked substances, it might be best to char everything you cook in your oven. Pure carbon is definitely non-toxic!

As I was saying, it isn’t known whether molecules that have been slightly damaged are more dangerous that those having undergone complete alteration. The body will identify the latter more readily, whereas the former will play surreptitious tricks with our immunity.

And it is precisely the dissolution of food molecules, or their pre-digestion if you prefer, that is achieved through cooking, and, at the same time, a great many parasitic molecules show up, especially in whatever parts of food that have borne the brunt of very high temperatures, i.e. bread crusts, charred spots on grilled or fried meat, etc. In the parts less conspicuously affected, there are fewer of these molecules, but the production of “Maillard’s molecules” (proteins + sugars), for example, is already underway at moderate temperatures, without any visible browning to the food occurring to indicate the presence of these molecules.

Scientists must feel a bit uneasy about not having raised this important matter before now, especially since they are, supposedly, responsible for world health. Every time I’ve tried to broach the subject, I’ve had to put up with viciously aggressive reactions, that were quite irrational, from my point of view, even from scientists who were apparently open to ditching traditional diets.

I have heard things like, for instance, “It is probable that mucus in the gut contains enzymes that can break down ‘Maillard’s molecules.’ Indicting cooked food would be an unwarranted scientific extrapolation; it’s better to stick with well-known dietary rules and cook meat and fish as required, without overdoing it.” That is what was printed in the Swiss Cancer Research Journal at one point.

See also http://www.rawpaleodietforum.com/instinctoanopsology/who-has-read-gc-burger%27s-first-book/msg98397/#msg98397and following posts.
Hmmm… I keep repeating the same thing over and over again…

[TylerDurden]

Well, I see it as logical that the more heat is applied, the worse the damage is. Still, maybe...

The Internet and modern lifestyles make us very lazy. I still have to reorganise rawpaleodiet.com when I have the time, and then I will do a GCB review. Sort of necessary as he is more in line with rawpalaeo ideas than even Aajonus.

[a87.pal]

Ive read some of GCB's work, but, as I remember, his key point is that  aside from creating toxins, cooking also perverts our instincts, obscuring our decisions about what and how much to eat.

Its interesting to consider that slightly cooking could be equally as dangerous as fully cooking, just through a different mechanism. Based on the excerpts quoted and Tyler's concerns about enzymes, I'm curious if this is more of an issue with plant matter than with animal matter.

(I'd be surprised if there were significant amounts of proteases and lipases in animal tissue though I suppose it is possible.)

I guess what I really need to do is look into the temperatures when the reactions for PAHs/HCAs/AGEs/NSAs begin.

[cherimoya_kid]

Ive read some of GCB's work, but, as I remember, his key point is that  aside from creating toxins, cooking also perverts our instincts, obscuring our decisions about what and how much to eat.

Its interesting to consider that slightly cooking could be equally as dangerous as fully cooking, just through a different mechanism. Based on the excerpts quoted and Tyler's concerns about enzymes, I'm curious if this is more of an issue with plant matter than with animal matter.

(I'd be surprised if there were significant amounts of proteases and lipases in animal tissue though I suppose it is possible.)

I guess what I really need to do is look into the temperatures when the reactions for PAHs/HCAs/AGEs/NSAs begin.

I've seen absolutely no scientific studies that indicate that lighter cooking methods are more dangerous than heavier cooking methods.  GCB's study was not peer-reviewed, nor has it been replicated.

[Iguana]

That's true.

But are there studies indicating that high temperature cooking methods are systematically more dangerous than lower temperature cooking methods?

It's generally assumed that things are more or less linear, but in this case it seems it's not necessarily so.

[van]

In making tallow...   I grind fat and then heat it to 100-105 f.    When I error and the temp goes too high, one  thing I notice is how difficult it is to clean the glass container I have used to heat the fat in. The fat sticks much more than when it's just heated to 100.  That's enough for me to know that something has changed that I don't want to experiment with in my body.  I'm interested if anyone else has the same experience with heating fats, and having them stick to utensils?

[William]

There are very good glues made of protein, which is still in your sticking "fat". Note the definition.

You are right not to experiment by eating cooked fat. Been done, and some of us have suffered enough not to ever eat it again.

OTOH billions have eaten tallow, including the customers of MacDonald's fast food joints, with never a complaint. Not surprising, since all the cells of healthy bodies contain the same kind of fatty acids.

[TylerDurden]

That's true.

But are there studies indicating that high temperature cooking methods are systematically more dangerous than lower temperature cooking methods?

I'm afraid there are. I haven't the time to cite them now, but hopefully tomorrow. Remind me. Basically, the higher the cooking temperature, the higher  are the amounts of heat-created toxins in the foods. Plus, the studies cite more harmful effects as the amounts of heat-created toxins rise.

[TylerDurden]

OTOH billions have eaten tallow, including the customers of MacDonald's fast food joints, with never a complaint. Not surprising, since all the cells of healthy bodies contain the same kind of fatty acids.

Tallow is, of course, cooked, rendered fat and is therefore extremely unhealthy. Many customers  of McDonald's have found out, to their cost, that their health had suffered greatly as a result of eating cooked fats.

[William]

Tallow is, of course, cooked, rendered fat and is therefore extremely unhealthy. Many customers  of McDonald's have found out, to their cost, that their health had suffered greatly as a result of eating cooked fats.

We would love to see any credible evidence that supports this remarkable claim.

[TylerDurden]

We would love to see any credible evidence that supports this remarkable claim.

  Heating  any food above 100°C means it's cooked  by any reasonable definition.  Plus, there is plenty of evidence that MacDonald's offers unhealthy food,  so to suggest that a junk-food-store-chain   like McDonald's is healthy is moronic. Inventing absurd lies comparing tallow to stone in terms of how it is affected by heat, like you did before, is pathetic. Bear also in mind that you were banned for a month previously for citing such outrageous lies on here.

[LePatron7]

We would love to see any credible evidence that supports this remarkable claim.

Ever seen "Super Size Me?"

A guy eats McDonald's for breakfast, lunch and dinner for 30 days. Before he starts, he gets a physical and is fine.

Before the 30 days is up, he's throwing up and sick. He goes to the doctor, and a few things are wrong with him. The doctor says if he had kept up the experiment he may have died.

His is extreme, most people who eat fast food don't eat it for 3 meals a day. But it shows that the food isn't healthy.

[goodsamaritan]

Ever seen "Super Size Me?"

A guy eats McDonald's for breakfast, lunch and dinner for 30 days. Before he starts, he gets a physical and is fine.

Before the 30 days is up, he's throwing up and sick. He goes to the doctor, and a few things are wrong with him. The doctor says if he had kept up the experiment he may have died.

His is extreme, most people who eat fast food don't eat it for 3 meals a day. But it shows that the food isn't healthy.

Plus he agreed to every UP-size offer.  That is why it was called "Super Size Me".

But that is not what William was referring to.

William was referring to this statement:

>> "Tallow is, of course, cooked, rendered fat and is therefore extremely unhealthy."

I seem to remember William having much success with tallow and pemmican?

[LePatron7]

I seem to remember William having much success with tallow and pemmican?

Tallow is probably one of the healthiest of the cooked fats there are.

Cooked vegetable oils are extremely detrimental to health, while cooked animal fats aren't as bad. It's been claimed the reason is animal fats have more saturated fats so they're more likely to stay stable/unchanged by heating. While vegetable oils, being high in unsaturated fats, change/degrade rapidly in high heat.

[TylerDurden]

Tallow is probably one of the healthiest of the cooked fats there are.

Cooked vegetable oils are extremely detrimental to health, while cooked animal fats aren't as bad. It's been claimed the reason is animal fats have more saturated fats so they're more likely to stay stable/unchanged by heating. While vegetable oils, being high in unsaturated fats, change/degrade rapidly in high heat.

The above is, of course, a load of rubbish. In actual fact, it has been repeatedly mentioned that cooked animal fats, like pasteurised butter for example, contain much higher levels of heat-created toxins in them than any other types of foods.

Tallow is one of the unhealthiest types of animal fats around. The vast number of scientific studies damning cooked saturated fats like tallow etc., have, however, erroneously cited the saturated fats as  being the cause, whereas the truth is that the vast amounts of heat-created toxins generated by cooking the saturated fats are the real culprits. Raw saturated fat is, by contrast, very healthy.