Raw fat

[goodsamaritan]

don't shoot the messenger

Yes, I agree, don't shoot Tyler the messenger. 

And this is the RAW paleo forum.  Where advocacy of raw everything is encouraged.  RAW fat over cooked fat being one of them.  Of course in a raw paleo forum it will be natural to encounter people who have experienced and read studies that convinced them that raw paleo is the way to go... that raw fat is the way to go.

The only thing I can see in all these arguments so far is that those who are pushing cooked fat only do so because they have the opinion cooked fats taste better (because of the condiments and the cooking they are used to).

I have yet to see someone push that cooked fat is BETTER -HEALTHIER than raw fat.

In my opinion, cooked fat will always be inferior because:

- molecular structure has changed because of cooking
- condiments are not necessarily beneficial and may in fact be harmful sometimes
- most cooking introduces pollutants from the flame, from the wood, from the gas / fuel, from the cooking pot / utensils, from the method of cooking... some cooking styles are more harmful than others...

Many sick people today are just plain sick and die because they are genetically not adapted to cooked food and the surprises that come with the cooked food industry.  Nature / evolution takes its toll and weed out these unadapted people... or these people discover the nature recommended fuel of RAW FOOD and fight back to survive in this world. 

Like Pottenger's cats... the cooked eating cats can only go so many generations... until they are exterminated, humans just the same.  In my case, I just want to live, and so far raw everything / raw paleo including raw fats has been working best for me.  Now I can see a future for myself... instead of death at 40... maybe a good strong healthy life at 120.

[avalon]

Reply: Blah blah blah the messenger Tyler-PLEASE!

At least I responded where I was supposed to. Yes? In the HOT TOPICS!  Far away from unsuspecting eyes

Pott's cats- good point! Not definitive however! Not the end all be all truth! Do you think? Do you? Really? 

I've been feeding my Cat Raw Home-Food for a couple of years now, honest truth! Yet, here he is with an oral Cancer- terminal weeks to months to live. No Joking around. Frak! I had a friend in New York with a Cat at 15  eating standard food! My Cat on raw dieing at 10 years old! I deliberately tried to feed him right. Didn't matter! Now, though I am trying the baking soda mix I just don't have the hope I should... I'm essentially watching him die. After feeding him raw. Do you get that?  Frak it all!

You think you know the truth? Think again!

Avalon

[van]

  I agree, that whole Pottenger cat thing.  There are so many cats in the world that live in doors that only eat cooked that go on to reproduce generation after generation.  It doesn't make any sense to me, what his results showed.  But then I did have a cat, a Siamese, when I grew up.  It got old and wouldn't eat anything.  My mom, for some reason, tried feeding it frozen lake smelts  from the great lakes area. Before the lakes became really polluted.  That cat went from scrawny, dull thin hair, lifeless ect.... to the most amazingly pretty thick shiny haired alive creature you could imagine.  It was a real testament to rawism.  The smelts had the head removed as well as the guts, but had the spine intack.  She lived to be well over twenty.    And then there's the dog issue.  Ask anyone how their dogs died, and they will almost always say cancer.   That one also speaks of the dead crap they feed dogs, plus all the cooked carbs.  People will only feed their animals to the level that they eat.  Cooked rice and chicken for me and my dog.....     Sorry about your cat Avalon.    But I'm sure your love will ease his transition.

[avalon]

Thanx Van,

...and I'm sorry for getting a bit yappy last night. A bit too much wine I'm afraid    Oy!

The Vet said weeks to months for Goopy my Cat. He's pretty much acting alright, right now. It's just difficult.

My apologies and yet... hang on 

I know it's a Raw Forum. God bless Rawsome everywhere  hold on 

A price to be paid... hold on 

 

Best wishes everyone 

[TylerDurden]

  I agree, that whole Pottenger cat thing.  There are so many cats in the world that live in doors that only eat cooked that go on to reproduce generation after generation.  It doesn't make any sense to me, what his results showed.  But then I did have a cat, a Siamese, when I grew up.  It got old and wouldn't eat anything.  My mom, for some reason, tried feeding it frozen lake smelts  from the great lakes area. Before the lakes became really polluted.  That cat went from scrawny, dull thin hair, lifeless ect.... to the most amazingly pretty thick shiny haired alive creature you could imagine.  It was a real testament to rawism.  The smelts had the head removed as well as the guts, but had the spine intack.  She lived to be well over twenty.    And then there's the dog issue.  Ask anyone how their dogs died, and they will almost always say cancer.   That one also speaks of the dead crap they feed dogs, plus all the cooked carbs.  People will only feed their animals to the level that they eat.  Cooked rice and chicken for me and my dog.....     Sorry about your cat Avalon.    But I'm sure your love will ease his transition.

Pottenger's results were A-OK. What Pottenger showed was that feeding cats just cooked meats would lead to horrible deficiencies. The reason why modern cats can survive(albeit with il-health) long enough to reproduce further generations is only because processed-cat-food-suppliers deliberately supplement their cat-feeds with artificial doses of taurine - if they didn't, the cats would get taurine-deficiency, much like they did in Pottenger's Experiments, with the inevitable results.

[TylerDurden]

I get the impression, Avalon, that you must be "on something", judging from the above!LOL!

As regards cooking, all I will say is that humans have done many stupid things over the last million years or so, with no real justification for them - cooking could well be one of those things. As regards cooking itself, the argument re taste is only 1. Other points have been made that cooked-food is addictive, due to its opioid content, so that that explanation is as good, if not better, than the taste aspect, and taste, anyway, is , to a large extent, determined by habit.

Anyway, my point is that cooking could not possibly have contributed to science in the way that fire did. I believe the lamest possible excuse, given by pro-cooking-advocates, is that cooking forced people to sit around and socialise more, because they had to waste so much more of their free time cooking their food, once cooking became a widespread practice.- and this is claimed to have been "a good thing".

[JaX]

Tyler yea a lot of people view cooking as something they can socialize about.. People invite each other for dinner and everyone can do part of the cooking (because it's so difficult.. you have to put the meat in a hot pan with vegetable oil and you have to "know" when it's ready, maybe even use one of those meat thermometers LOL).

People inevitably socialized when hunting down and killing an animal.
Eating part of the animal on the spot, or taking parts of it back to the "camp", no doubt a tribe would do it together. And they could still eat together around a fire without actually cooking the food. Maybe fire was first used for thawing frozen meat..


In recent history cooking might have been advantageous during famine and lack of food, as grains and plants such as potatoes are easy to grow, are calorically dense and can be stored for a very long time, and they are foods that have to be cooked to be edible.
Eating cooked food is at least better than starving to death.. I hope you all agree on that one :p

[avalon]

When I went 'raw' on Wai, my cat went raw too. He was being fed raw chicken ground by me sometimes with bones, some times with egg shell for calcium- to the best of my knowledge and ability, from hours of cat nutrition study... and here he is with oral cancer after a few years of eating raw foods. The tumor was not visually present 8 months ago.

Was Pottenger's cooked diet detrimental because it was "dead" or simply deficient? One might argue in response here that commercial feeds are not simply cooked food--they are supplemented as well. But this, then, simply demonstrates it is not that the food is somehow "dead" (as raw-fooders often term cooked food) that is the underlying problem, but rather that the diet fed by Pottenger was deficient in some way. And we shall see later that cooked diets--in humans, at least--are not necessarily more deficient than raw ones. Moreover, one cannot compare pet diets--particularly cat diets--with cooked human diets, which are less monotonous and hence provide a larger variety of nutrients. (Cats are true carnivores, humans are omnivores eating a much wider range of foods.) To put it plainly: cats are cats, humans are humans, and there are significant differences between the two.

Such considerations, therefore, suggest that--since domestic cats reproduce prolifically on today's cooked-food pet diets (to the point that everyone is urged to spay and neuter their cats to prevent severe overpopulation)--Pottenger's cats suffered not due to some magically bad toxic effects of cooking, or because the food was "dead," but rather from nutritional deficiencies in the diets fed by Pottenger.

Obviously I thought I was doing right by my cat by feeding him a raw food diet. Maybe I did do him right. I sure hope so. I cared enough to try. And yet he's only 10 years old...

[van]

  I hate to preach the evils of chicken,  but again, chickens are fed corn and soy.  The so called free range one get the same, just barren ground to walk around each other one.  Those chickens are horribly out of balance and are only 'asked' to live several months till slaughter.  My opinion is that many diseases would occur in them if asked to live a ripe old age.  Their imbalance is passed along to whatever eats them.  I used to feed my dogs raw chicken and then I learned about and experienced all kinds of skin lesions until I let go of using that 'convenient' food source for them. 

[Raw Kyle]

Sorry to hear about your cat avalon, I have a cat I am very fond of an would be very upset if he got cancer or some other disease. I usually feed him the beef cubes (stew meat) that I eat combined with the Slanker's Dog and Cat mix. Sometimes I give him sashimi and rarely turkey or chicken or an egg yolk. He's only about 3 or 4 (not exactly sure) but he's doing very well.

Maybe diet isn't everything in disease as your case seems to show, but I believe it is the single most important factor. Maybe the chickens weren't healthy, or maybe there is some other mystery reason to your cats cancer that can't be explained in terms of raw paleo diet. I would maintain though that your cat would have been less healthy and probably sick sooner if on a less raw paleo diet; a diet of Fancy Feast would not have saved him/her.

[avalon]

Kyle wrote:

I would maintain though that your cat would have been less healthy and probably sick sooner if on a less raw paleo diet; a diet of Fancy Feast would not have saved him/her.

I want to believe that. But I'm not so sure anymore. He didn't eat only chicken. He had beef too, but I admit, none of the meat he ate, including fish, was organic.

What I was on was good old Merlot. I should really be chained to a tree when I taste of the fermented grape. Yet, I stand by what I wrote, ehh I think    hold on 

Best wishes,
I am right and you are wrong,
Avalon    What?

[JaX]

  I hate to preach the evils of chicken,  but again, chickens are fed corn and soy.  The so called free range one get the same, just barren ground to walk around each other one.  Those chickens are horribly out of balance and are only 'asked' to live several months till slaughter.  My opinion is that many diseases would occur in them if asked to live a ripe old age.  Their imbalance is passed along to whatever eats them.  I used to feed my dogs raw chicken and then I learned about and experienced all kinds of skin lesions until I let go of using that 'convenient' food source for them. 

Even if Avalon's cat was fed grain fed chicken, the meat was still raw and not the same as the processed industrial garbage that's labeled as pet food today, which is still is an advantage. I would say eating meats fed grain is better than eating the grains themselves (especially if we are talkin about corn and soy).. When you eat an animal fed grain, the grain has been metabolized into the respective proteins of animal flesh, so you are not actually eating the grain itself when you eat a grain-fed animal (which is why people with gluten intolerance can eat chicken meat and eggs from chicken fed wheat).

What's there left to eat if you exclude everything fed grain/soy? You can eat organic 100% grassfed beef and wild fish.  That can be expensive and very limiting (you can't find grass fed beef everywhere)

[van]

chickens are what they are,  unless raised on pasture, rich pasture. 
Even cows that are fed grains put on their first 800 or so pounds eating grass. 
But chickens from day one get mashed grains that are already oxidized from a bag filled many months prior.  I have experienced several times allergic cold symptoms using goat milk that included grains used during the milking process, and zero reaction when the grains were not fed.  It is easy to see the effect of cows or goats eating large amount of grains, the amounts necessary for a farmer to increase yield.  Those animals have mucous running out of their noses.  Not a natural condition for animals.  Also you can learn about cows fed a high grain diet which causes their foot structure to collapse due to the high protein low mineral ratio of grains compared to grass. These 'perfectly good' milkers are then sent to slaughter and not because they aren't producing, but because they are no longer mobile.    The minerals are suspected to be leached out to supply them to the milk for their 'young'.     There are many sources of naturally raised animals and products on the internet.  I think the problem is that we are used to doing something or believing in something and shifts sometimes are hard to assimilate.  But then who really knows?

[avalon]

http://www.lavidalocavore.org/showDiary.do?diaryId=322

yeah and there's the whole m&m potato chip thing. I did watch a video about this not long ago and now I can't find it. Imagine that? 

[JaX]

http://www.lavidalocavore.org/showDiary.do?diaryId=322

yeah and there's the whole m&m potato chip thing. I did watch a video about this not long ago and now I can't find it. Imagine that? 

Wonder which new cattle disease will arise out of something like that..

[TylerDurden]

Yes, a number of grain-sensitive people have noted a nasty reaction to grainfed meats or eggs from soy-fed chickens etc.

[coconinoz]

re. the cooking vs raw issue, here's what i just posted in another thread:

in his the tender carnivore & the sacred game paul shepard writes that for the cro-magnon warming up the meat -- to match body temp, i take it -- was more important that either cooking it or eating it fully raw
he adds that specific meat cuts were considered more appropriate for specific people

unfortunately, shepard does not elaborate on any of this & now he's passed away

[William]

Just checked the top, it still says "Raw fat".

My definition: fat is what is found on meat.
There is no fat on/in corn, soy, peanuts etc.

I will not eat raw fat with my ground raw jerky because it tastes repulsive, and it is supposed to go rancid, so I render the fat.
I do not believe that paleoman was stupid enough to eat rancid fat, so must have rendered it.
AFAIK there is no evidence that rendered fat is bad for us.

I test everything by eating it, this works because I have weak digestion caused by one of those ugly incurable modern diseases that is supposed to have killed me years ago.

My own experience is that it is the meat that must be raw, whether or not the fat is rendered does not seem to matter.

BTW the meat tastes a lot better dried.

[TylerDurden]

Nothing wrong with eating so-called "rancid" raw fat - after all the eskimoes loved eating rotting meats.

Actually, I've found that raw suet can last forever - I've kept very dry raw suet for weeks out of a fridge on a couple of occasions and all that happened was that it got a little greeny-brown on the surface, with the fat tremaining white underneath. And it tasted fine, after all that time.

As for the whole issue of cooking, the Palaeolithic era lasted from c.2.5 million years ago to c.10,000 years BC, and it was only in the last 200,000/300,000 years that cooking was even invented, so the eating of raw fats is necessary for real health.


Here's a scientific report which shows definitively that heating raw fats causes a huge buildup in toxins:-

http://www.newcastleyoga.com.au/links/Food%20AGEs%20text.pdf

[avalon]

Have you tested the rancid fat? It's okay to follow the Eskimos examples in this regard, but not in the fact they make soups and broths?

You might like this pdf also

http://cjasn.asnjournals.org/cgi/reprint/1/6/1293

The article you cited concludes high AGEs primarily from dry-heated protein foods.

http://andersonclan.us/andersonclan_top/ages.html

To note also it seemed that a Lacto-Veggie diet is best regarding AGEs.

When I make a Salmon soup, when not eating Salmon raw, I don't even bring the broth to a boil. I bring it right up to before, then remove from the burner and add the Salmon. The meat is delicious that way and I never popped a bubble.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_ATnxmCpq-DU/R63syH5CeBI/AAAAAAAAAQY/_JKtQkX_YsM/s1600-h/000_2364.JPG

I think of course there needs to be more testing. Most of these results are about highly cooked foods. I don't think that barbecuing or pan searing any food is a good thing. I do believe for now, that an old fashioned pot of soup or broth on occasion isn't deleterious to ones health and has been   consumed by Human kind throughout history. AND I'M NOT TALKING PROGRESSO OR CAMPBELLS!!!! 

Best wishes,
Avalon 

[William]

Nothing wrong with eating so-called "rancid" raw fat - after all the eskimoes loved eating rotting meats.

Here's a scientific report which shows definitively that heating raw fats causes a huge buildup in toxins:-

http://www.newcastleyoga.com.au/links/Food%20AGEs%20text.pdf

Rotten (or high) raw meat is not rancid fat. Many eat high meat, I know of none who eat rancid fat.

That scientific report is junk science in that it considers fat to be: "almonds,roasted  oil,olive  butter  mayonnaise". Nowhere in that report is beef suet or hide fat mentioned, and I am surprised that you did not notice.

[William]

Good stuff, Avalon.
I note the line: "Heating food, over 120 C (~245 F), causes a very rapid increase in AGEs, and generates damaging fat and sugar oxidation products."
http://andersonclan.us/andersonclan_top/ages.html

My suet is rendered in an electric oven in enameled pot at 225°F.

[avalon]

Hi William, It is interesting just how delicious dripping, melting fat tastes!!!! I can't say who's right about what, but man, when I do eat rare steak, the fat is tops! When I was eating raw beef, the fat was well, sticking to the roof of my mouth  not the same at all. I can taste it just writing about it.

May raw foodists do heat their food, just not beyond 120 degrees and still consider themselves raw. What do y'all feel about this?

[William]

I think that the delicious taste is a message from our immune system, saying that this is the right stuff.

Or a message from God, if you prefer.

Merry Christmas to all.

[TylerDurden]

A few points:- Just because the Eskimoes used broths doesn't make that healthy, in and of itself. It's an obvious fact that all humans are prone to error, so that no one group is perfect. Therefore it makes sense to take into account  another group's good points while discarding dodgy stuff such as the broths/soups.

As regards the dry-heating and temperature(120 degrees) citations, I should add that even boiling meats in water  produces toxins such as AGEs. Granted, boiling doesn't produce as many toxins as frying or grilling do, but it still causes some harm. And then there's the fact that enzymes and bacteria get destroyed at 120 degrees Celsius.

As regards making broths throughout history, that's irrelevant. Besides, the amount of time our ancestors spent eating raw(millions upon millions of years) rather dwarfs the number of years we've been eating borths/soups(200,000 to 300,000 years).

As regards suet/hide-fat, there's no evidence to suggest that they are somehow magically protected against heat-treatment, by comparison to other meats. The report didn't include those two items simply because they're not very common ones. I suppose one could argue that foods high in saturated fats, such as suet, aren't as affected by heat, but this is easily debunked by the fact that butter is very high in saturated fat and was also one of the foods with the highest amounts of toxins in it, as a result of heating.

As regards the issue of taste/immune-system, it should be pointed out that Koutchakoff and others noted that an increase in white-blood-cell count that occurred after eating any cooked-food(without any raw added). This is the same bodily reaction that occurs when one is feeling ill.