Raw fat

[Nicola]

I would like to share this with you - it has opend my eyes to how the internet can get hold of our mind; it has happend to me with raw vs. cooked and just makes your mind go off (if you let it)!

Two answers from Dr.med. B. Groves:

Answer Nr. 1

There are actually no studies that 'confirm that animal fats are unhealthy'. The
ones that purport to show this invariably class saturated fats and trans-fats
together. In fact, all naturally-fed animal fats are entirely stable whether
cooked or not.

It is only the highly unstable, polyunsaturated fats, and their trans-fat
cousins, that have even been shown to be harmful, particularly when heated.

AGEs are not produced from heating fats; they are produced only by heating
sugars (hence advanced 'GLYCATION' end products). Glycation = glucose.

Fats only figure in the AGE picture when heated with carbohydrates. Cooking meat
alone, whether fat or lean, does not produce AGEs.

Answer Nr. 2

This is explained at my
http://www.second-opinions.co.uk/tempera...-oils.html and
http://www.second-opinions.co.uk/fats.html. But there is one relevant point,
below, I have missed. I'll have to add it on my website.

The relative susceptibility to oxidation of a fatty acid is dependent on the
number of 'double bonds' it has. Fatty acids are not attacked by oxygen at their
double bonds, as I had originally been led to believe, but at the carbon atom
between double bonds.

Saturated fatty acids have no double bonds at all, so they are stable.
Monounsaturated fatty acids such as oleic acid (the major fatty acid in olive
oil and animal fats), have one double bond, so again they are stable. But
polyunsaturated fatty acids have two or more double bonds which are generally
three carbons apart. These are not stable.

There is an exception to this, however. In 'conjugated' fatty acids, such as CLA
found in the fat of cattle, sheep, etc, which with two double bonds, is a
polyunsaturated fatty acid, the double bonds are only two carbons apart. With no
central carbon, these are also stable.

I hope that helps.


For me I am shore that many lives are affected to a unhealthy and unsocial way; our body can deal with a lot more than we think - it's just the mind!

Nicola

 

[livingthelife]

This encourages me to try some pemmican and lard-fried potato chips! I was afraid of the cooked animal fats, even though they are saturated fats.
 

[TylerDurden]

Nicola, 2 things:- First of all, any controversial topic MUST be moved to the Hot Topics section, not discussed elsewhere. Not everyone wants to read this kind of anti-raw nonsense all the time, especially when there's little to back it up.

Secondly, it is highly inappropriate to take arguments from another board, in this way - what if I wasn't a member of this board? In this case, I feel obliged to post here  the rebuttal I posted re Barry Grove's remarks as stated above. In future, please allow me time to post my own rebuttals on the other group and then post both sides , here.

Here are my points debunking Mr Grove's notions below:-


"
I'm afraid this is erroneous information. For one thing, the report I mentioned


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

http://tinyurl.com/5mgyzh



made it very clear indeed that it was those foods highest in (heated) animal fats which had the highest levels of toxic AGEs(advanced glycation end products - butter being a prime example thereof, being  rich in saturated fats(at 265 KU/g, in terms of AGE-content!). This, of course, doesn't even include the levels of heterocyclic amines(HCAs)(present in cooked, muscle-meats), the polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons(PAHs) present in cooked-foods in general, among other issues.

Here's a pertinent extract from this report(the most comprehensive study of AGE-levels in foods , to date):-


"The fat group contained the highest mean AGE food
values. Among the items of this group, spreads, including
butter and processed cream cheese, margarine, and mayonnaise,
showed the highest amounts, followed by oils
and nuts (Tables 1 and 2). Thus 5-g servings of butter and
oil contained 1,300 and 450 kU AGE, respectively.
[High AGE values were also observed for the meat and
meat-substitute groups] (43
7 kU/g). Within this group,
highest levels were determined for cheeses, followed by
beef and poultry, tofu, fish, and whole eggs (Tables 1 and
3). [In all categories, exposure to higher temperature
achieved a greater AGE content for equal weight of the
sample]. The trend for AGE values achieved was ovenfrying
deep frying and broilingroastingboiling. Thus,
90-g servings of chicken breast prepared with these methods
yielded 9,000, 6,700, 5,250, 4,300, and 1,000 kU AGE,
respectively.
The carbohydrate group contained relatively low
amounts of AGE (3.4
1.8 kU/g). Within this category, the
highest AGE content was reported in processed items,
followed by grains, legumes, and starchy vegetables and
breads (Tables 1 and 4). The lowest AGE values were
detected in the milk group, followed by vegetables and
fruits (Tables 1 and 4), although infant formula contained
100-fold more AGE than natural milk.
Microwaving was shown to increase AGE content similar
to boiling cooking methods (data not shown)."


I suspect that you're actually  thinking of the heat-created toxin acrylamide, which is, indeed, a carb-oriented issue.

As for the issue of (cooked) animal fats and studies on their harmful effects, there are so many studies out there, that I don't really feel the need to go on about it, but here's a small sample among numerous others on the Net):-


http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=health&res=9F0CE7DF133AF935A35753C1A965958260

http://tinyurl.com/6hybqz

http://www.bio-medicine.org/medicine-news/Animal-Fat-Enhances-Risk-Of-Stomach--578-1/

http://tinyurl.com/5z8hq5

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=health&res=9C0CE1DA1630F930A25751C1A966958260

http://tinyurl.com/6nwtvm


http://www.healthcentral.com/alzheimers/c/62/47555/high-fat-alzheimer

(actually, the above study is an example of where researchers studiously ignored the fact that grassfed meat with its higher PUFA-content etc.,  is much healthier than  grainfed meat - in other words, the healthier the meat'source is, the closer to raw it is, the healthier it is).

All I will say is that  these studies are generally highly flawed as they concentrate on the negative effects of consuming cooked meats, without recognising the fact that raw animal foods do not contain the levels of toxins present in cooked animal foods which contribute to modern health-problems:-


 "It has been suggested that, "given the prominence of this type of food in the human diet, the deleterious effects of high-fat foods may be in part due to the high content in glycotoxins, above and beyond those due to oxidized fatty acid derivatives." taken from


http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/picrender.fcgi?artid=21074&blobtype=pdf

http://tinyurl.com/2kpfbc


The paper and comment are also listed in wikipedia, last paragraph of thise section:-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturated_fat#Dietary_recommendations

For those in the group curious about the whole issue of toxins in cooked-foods, here's a list (which is slowly being updated over time), containing numerous info on exactly how cooking damages foods, creating toxins, destroying nutrients etc.:-


http://www.rawpaleoforum.com/important-info-for-newbies/info-on-toxins-in-cooked-foods/msg4791/#msg4791

http://tinyurl.com/6ckuet


"

[TylerDurden]

This encourages me to try some pemmican and lard-fried potato chips! I was afraid of the cooked animal fats, even though they are saturated fats.
 

Cooked Pemmican and lard-fried potato chips! Well, that's a great way to get heart-disease.

[livingthelife]

Cooked Pemmican and lard-fried potato chips! Well, that's a great way to get heart-disease.

Seems that way, depending on who you believe.

Maybe sitting here reading about it will give me heart disease. Or brain cancer from the monitor radiation.

[livingthelife]

Or indigestion from the sarcasm. Sorry.

[Guittarman03]

I'm gonna put in my two cents here.  There is alot of bio-chem related to the study of foods, nutrients, and toxins.  Some foods may be more affected by heating than others, some of us may tolerate different cooked foods better than other cooked foods.  There is alot going on, and the fact that much of the medical community doesn't recognize the benefits of raw, unadulterated foods is evidence that even for our "vast" information, we truly are only at the beginning of discovery. 

So I've always been a big fan of the top down approach when it comes to learning.  Understand the basics, the big picture items first, then delve into the details.  It seems all to often we study in reverse. 

So it seems to me here that the big picture has been lost.  From a simple chemical perspective, heat changes the composition of various chemicals, period.  This is especially true for biological compounds.  The more heat applied the more the chemicals will change, deteriorate and/or form new chemicals.  Now our digestive systems have been evolving for tens, if not hundreds of millions of years to process very particular biological chemicals, and just 150,000 years of evolution (at best), is nowhere near enough time to adapt to the thousands? ten thousands? of new chemicals created by cooking, or to compensate for the chemicals lost.   

So if you're going to eat fried potato chips, cool, that's your decision.  But don't try to kid yourself into thinking that the impact on the body is minimal to none.  That's just nonsense.  We may debate about whether we should freeze foods, let them spoil at all, should we consume oils (even if cold pressed), eat unfertilized eggs, etc, etc, but the very basics of what we understand is that cooking deterriorates the biological life in our foods.  We understand this first from an experiential, then genetic standpoint, and we are only just beginning to understand this from a chemical perspective.   

Big picture:  Heat destorys the essential biological life in our foods, even if we don't understand it chemically.
                 If you put life into the body, you will get life back from the body.

[Kristelle]

I agree that heating changes food but ultimately, the question is whether cooked foods have any effect on the human body and lead to certain health problems. And by cooked foods, I mean animal fat and meat. Nothing else. Is a person eating a few fruits, here and there (like Tyler) and meat all raw, better off in the long run than say someone like me who eats no fruits at all and eats their meat and fat slightly cooked? We just don't know. We make assumptions. We assume that because food is modified through eating that it must have some negative consequences on the body but where is the proof?? There's none. I'm not saying that cooked meat is without health consequences but I'm not saying the opposite either. I don't know but I have my UNFOUNDED suspicions.

 

[Guittarman03]

I'm not too sure what exactly would constitute 'proof,' but I do know there is a remarkable amount of evidence to support the idea of raw foods.  The inuit are a prime example, along with the native Americans.  I know for myself the changes have been remarkable. 

Also, cooking vs not cooking is not entirely black and white.  Foods heated to only 110 degrees F would of course be much better than foods cooked at 250 degrees F.  But foods heated at 250 would surely be better for you than those cooked at 500.  The higher the temperature, the more vitality that is lost, the greater the change in chemical composition.

Heating above 105 F kills most all of the enzymes, which forces your body to produce them.  This not only takes a toll on the body, but you have a limited ability to produce only so many of them in a lifetime - which many scientists speculate is related to aging. 

But if you're eating a very rare steak, with heating limited to the outside, you're probably doing pretty well, as most of the enzymes on the inside are still preserved.

And I'm no saint here.  Just 2 nights ago I ate a medium cooked steak b/c I was at a banquet.  Stayed away from the mashed potatoes and steamed broccoli though.  Ugh, but it made me feel not so great. 

[JaX]

If you had to choose, between eating a cooked paleo diet and a raw vegan diet, which would you choose? Please post your answer..

This really comes down to your belief about how bad cooked animal food is.

To be honest, I don't think it's absolutely necessary to be 100% raw. Go and talk to people in your area who have lived past the 100 mark - I assure you most of them have never eaten raw muscle meats or raw organs.

And the Inuit, while being an example of a population that did eat raw meats, didn't actually eat everything raw. Their lack of degenerative can also be due to the fact that they lived in isolated areas with no pollution, pesticides, toxins and fast food restaurants at every corner lol. And their live span was actually not that long (probably due to lack of medical care, but still..)

and don't forget:

Eating a significant amount of fresh or raw food is important, but 100% raw is not necessarily better (based on attempting to assess the experience of many Natural Hygienists and other raw-fooders, given the lack of any official studies). In fact, given that it often significantly restricts the diet, it actually can be worse than eating some cooked food.

What 100% raw foodists are doing today (and this goes both for raw vegans and raw paleo dieters) is something we have no evidence that any population has ever done in history, ever. And scientific proof is also lacking on raw food diets.

That's why you also have to trust your body's reaction to the food. I know for sure that if I eat my steak bloody rare it will be digested a lot better than if I eat it cooked through. I also know that eating some meat/fish for a meal will leave me with much better energy than if I eat 10 bananas for that meal . So I'm following my body's hints instead of too much science.


 

[Guittarman03]

If you had to choose, between eating a cooked paleo diet and a raw vegan diet, which would you choose? Please post your answer

That's a tough question to answer.  Do I get to eat sushi?  Can I eat sunny side up eggs?  What about rare steak?  These are things that are all partially raw foods that I ate before I ever started this diet.  This issue is less about my belief about how bad 'cooked' animal food is, than it is about shades of gray and having to choose between the lesser of 2 evils.  Nonetheless, I would have to go with cooked paleo as opposed to raw vegan, as I believe animal prodocts are essential to human life, and were essential in our evolution.  Again though, that kind of choice seems a very limiting way to look at this issue, I'd rather think of things in terms of varying degrees of what is ideal.       

To be honest, I don't think it's absolutely necessary to be 100% raw. Go and talk to people in your area who have lived past the 100 mark - I assure you most of them have never eaten raw muscle meats or raw organs.

How many people do I know in my local area that have EVER consistently eaten raw muscle meats or organs?  Don't exactly have a sample size to compare apples to apples.  Also, who's to say those same people wouldn't have lived even longer if on RAF?

What 100% raw foodists are doing today (and this goes both for raw vegans and raw paleo dieters) is something we have no evidence that any population has ever done in history, ever. And scientific proof is also lacking on raw food diets

Interesting statement.  Are you saying that all humans cooked their foods before 200,000 years ago?  Or are you just referring to recorded history.  Again, maybe not what you're looking for in 'proof,' but there's still a wealth of evidence for RAF, and it just makes good sense.

I do agree with you though, listen to your body, listen to your instincts.  But as a result of civilization, instincts MUST be tempered with the reasoning capacities of the mind.  If I instinctively want twinkies and diet soda, doesn't mean I should eat them.  This is why we all post on this forum, to gain information, knowledge, and to share experience - to use the reasoning mind to seek out what is ideal (or at least more ideal that where we each might currently be at). 

[timmypatch]

TylerDurdan, I don't see why you have felt the need to respond so aggressively to Nicola's remarks.  So what if she has brought some views to the table that potentially run counter to your orthodoxy?  In the first case, I think you have misunderstood the message that she was trying to get across: that with the amount of contradictory information sounding scientific to us non scientists and having the veneer of correctness, its all but impossible not to go crazy about one's diet.  I don't think she necessarily has her mind made up on the cooked food question, she's just bringing to light how complicate the question on raw vs. cooked really is, and how challenging diet in this age of contradictory information has been for her.

But more importantly, I am bothered and perplexed in equal measure by your claim that Nicola is peddling "anti-raw nonsense all the time...(with) little to back it up."  In the first place, she has backed it up.  In the second place, her sources are no more questionable than yours, and in some cases decidedly less as far as I can tell.  Pulling up a NYT article on how fat causes disease and cancer proves in no way shape or form that the cooking is what makes it lethal.  It could very well be the case that it is simply the combination of animal fat and carbs that causes disease and illness.  Alliteratively, perhaps we've all got it wrong and fat really is the source of man's plagues (unlikely, but its really hard to actually PROVE any of these hypothesis right or wrong).  You have obviously chosen to look at thing in a black and white way--Cooked is bad, raw is good, end of the debate.  This inclination is understandable, and it is clearly one that Nicola struggles with, wanting so badly to have the right answer but not being able to make up her mind on what the right answer is.  Nonetheless, I think that we are all better of if we are willing to be a little more open minded about things.  Clearly all of us who regularly post on this forum have at least toyed with the idea that raw animal food is healthy, but a large portion of us still have our doubts, and I think it is wrongheaded to close out discussion on any and all views to the contrary of raw dogma (science in some cases, other times, not so much).  As the principal moderator of this forum, you set tone, and in my humble opinion you are not setting the right one.  I feel that you should be encouraging Nicola to look for answers and think for herself rather than demand that she subscribe to your orthodoxy or else clear thing with you before posting.  The responses to this thread are evidence enough that we members generally embrace this sort of input.  So long as you create a hostile environment closed to reasonable contrarian ideas, you will loose some of the most thoughtful, intelligent and charming members of your forum--Nicola being one of them.

[RawZi]

Cooked Pemmican and lard-fried potato chips! Well, that's a great way to get heart-disease.

    Is there a raw pemmican recipe?  I've never tried pemmican.  Is it better than jerky?  Jerky makes me sick.

If you had to choose, between eating a cooked paleo diet and a raw vegan diet, which would you choose? Please post your answer..

    If I could choose, I'd choose raw vegan.  Cooked meat makes me sick.  But I can't choose.  Raw vegan no longer works for me, so...

[Nicola]

TylerDurdan, I don't see why you have felt the need to respond so aggressively to Nicola's remarks.  So what if she has brought some views to the table that potentially run counter to your orthodoxy?  In the first case, I think you have misunderstood the message that she was trying to get across: that with the amount of contradictory information sounding scientific to us non scientists and having the veneer of correctness, its all but impossible not to go crazy about one's diet.  I don't think she necessarily has her mind made up on the cooked food question, she's just bringing to light how complicate the question on raw vs. cooked really is, and how challenging diet in this age of contradictory information has been for her.

But more importantly, I am bothered and perplexed in equal measure by your claim that Nicola is peddling "anti-raw nonsense all the time...(with) little to back it up."  In the first place, she has backed it up.  In the second place, her sources are no more questionable than yours, and in some cases decidedly less as far as I can tell.  Pulling up a NYT article on how fat causes disease and cancer proves in no way shape or form that the cooking is what makes it lethal.  It could very well be the case that it is simply the combination of animal fat and carbs that causes disease and illness.  Alliteratively, perhaps we've all got it wrong and fat really is the source of man's plagues (unlikely, but its really hard to actually PROVE any of these hypothesis right or wrong).  You have obviously chosen to look at thing in a black and white way--Cooked is bad, raw is good, end of the debate.  This inclination is understandable, and it is clearly one that Nicola struggles with, wanting so badly to have the right answer but not being able to make up her mind on what the right answer is.  Nonetheless, I think that we are all better of if we are willing to be a little more open minded about things.  Clearly all of us who regularly post on this forum have at least toyed with the idea that raw animal food is healthy, but a large portion of us still have our doubts, and I think it is wrongheaded to close out discussion on any and all views to the contrary of raw dogma (science in some cases, other times, not so much).  As the principal moderator of this forum, you set tone, and in my humble opinion you are not setting the right one.  I feel that you should be encouraging Nicola to look for answers and think for herself rather than demand that she subscribe to your orthodoxy or else clear thing with you before posting.  The responses to this thread are evidence enough that we members generally embrace this sort of input.  So long as you create a hostile environment closed to reasonable contrarian ideas, you will loose some of the most thoughtful, intelligent and charming members of your forum--Nicola being one of them.

Thank you for writing this s thoughtfully; I am following to forums - this one with raw meat and fat and Charles forum with mostly cooked or "half" cooked meat and fat. It's like two different worlds - the raw being very isolating and causing vomiting...and the other more social but "toxic".

What about when it's -20 and you have snow and ice; raw meat and fat may just be a bit unpleasing?

Nicola

[livingthelife]

    Is there a raw pemmican recipe?  I've never tried pemmican.  Is it better than jerky?  Jerky makes me sick.

My understanding is that pemmican is make with tallow, which is a rendered (cooked) fat, so by definition, there is no such thing as raw pemmican.

As for cooking with fat or cooked fat, Since I still eat some cooked food and bake bread, I have most confidence in highly saturated fats because they are more stable than mono- or poly- fats. Other fats I eat only raw.

I only bake with coconut oil and ghee, but I mostly make french bread, which contains no fats at all.

I have ordered a small portion of pemmican from USWellness Meats to try. It would be a bit of variety for packed lunches. Tallow and lard are highly saturated fats. However, I haven't really reached a comfort level with them. There is so much conflicting information. The Weston Price Foundation embraces them as healthful, but social conditioning against them is still strong.

USWellness Meats also has muscle and organ sausages that are grass-fed and additive (include nitrate/nitrite) free. They are cooked, except for one braunsweiger. I will investigate the link posted in the recent "sausage" thread.

Of course, I'm still trying to minimize cooked food when possible. If it takes a few potato chips to get down a plate of raw spleen, I'm not going to lose any sleep over it, though! I think stress is far more damaging than a few portions of carefully selected cooked food once in awhile.

As for craving twinkies, unless you have a blood-sugar imbalance or starvation, that is a mental craving. The body does not instinctively want twinkies.

[TylerDurden]

In answer to various concerns:-

First of all, I do think it's misguided to claim that there is insufficient evidence to indicate that cooking is bad for you. I've already posted a small summary of scientific studies and reports showing how cooking destroys nutrients and produces toxins:-

http://www.rawpaleoforum.com/important-info-for-newbies/info-on-toxins-in-cooked-foods/

There are now 100s, perhaps 1000s of studies on the harmful effects of toxins in cooked foods such as AGEs etc., many of which are shown online,to the point where most responsible nutritionists admit that all severe forms of cooking(eg:- barbecuing/broiling/baking/frying/grilling/roasting/pressure-cooking/microwaving etc.) are, to some degree, harmful to one's health. The only forms of cooking  that SAD-diet  nutritionists are willing to defend as being supposedly healthy and not harmful in any way whatsoever  are:-  boiling in water(assuming that you drink that water, afterwards as it contains water-soluble vitamins leached from the food), simmering,steaming and poaching.  This basically means that the arguments in favour of cooking are already 2/3  lost, before even raw-foodists can put forward their own points.

Secondly, we already have plenty of proof of how healthy being 100% raw is in the form of wildlife - we're the only species that cooks its food and suffer from all sorts of health-problems that wild animals don't have . As regards claims re 100% raw being bad, I believe that's a Beyondveg.com statement applied to 100% Raw Vegans. Since Raw Vegans are liable to incur various nutritional deficiencies due to certain nutrients not being fully accessible in plants etc., that's understandable. However, I know several families on 100% raw(with animal foods), who have no health-issues. I, on the other hand, have to occasionally eat cooked-food for social reasons and have incurred awful, though thankfully temporary,  side-effects as a result - a good example, being, very recently, where I thought I could get away with eating an organic  Christmas Pudding which was free of vegetable-oils - as a result, I've been vomiting for the last couple of days and feeling like I'm on drugs. A very stupid thing to do - I'll have to be more careful next Christmas.

As regards Nicola's remarks etc., my concerns are as follows:- this is a rawpalaeo forum, and therefore while it's perfectly OK to discuss highly  controversial topics, these should all be discussed in the Hot Topics section, which is meant for that purpose(anti-raw and pro-vegan ones, that is, as other topics are generally less controversial and can be discussed elsewhere). Not only does this help generate posts in a different corner of the board(I don't much like the idea of just 1 sub-forum(general discussions) being used for most of the discussions)  but also any rawists get to hear all sorts of anti-raw comments in the real world, invariably not backed by any real evidence(according to my own experience), and come to this forum for support not to have their diets attacked constantly - so, having controversial topics put in the Hot Topics section allows people to avoid them should they choose to, while still allowing plenty of controversy.

My other concern was that Barry Grove's points were shown by Nicola without waiting for my answer to appear on the other group, which was a bit one-sided. It's always a bad idea to lift arguments from one different diet-discussion board to another, as the people on the new forum are often not aware of the whole issue(especially since, often, only selected passages are quoted). I note that Nicola has even posted Barry's comments on the zero-carbage forum, without my own side being shown).

One last point:- The report I cited studied the creation of toxins in cooked foods, with foods highest in cooked animal fats being cited as the ones with the highest amounts of toxins in them. Since the foods were cooked on their own, not with carbs, the issue cited re   eating fat with carbs is irrelevant to the discussion. After all, the toxins cited have already been directly implicated in many modern diseases.

[TylerDurden]

Well, here's Barry's answer, for what it's worth:-

">
> I see. So, just as they tend to lump benign saturated fats together with harmful trans-fats to confuse the unwary, they are now lumping AGEs together with ALEs.
>
> It's clever subterfuge. They would make good magicians.
>
"  and mine in response:-

"In that report, they cook the foods individually on their own. It's only in industrial mass-processing that large amounts of trans-fats are created. While cooking does create tiny trace amounts of trans-fats(in itself hardly an endorsement of cooking), one cannot solely blame such tiny trace-amounts for the mass of toxins created by heating animal fats, in general. In short, the only benign fats are raw ones(preferably from animal sources).

As for the issue of AGEs/ALEs, that's beside the point. They're all toxins, one way or the other, leading to such modern diseases as diabetes etc., and, as shown in the report, foods high in saturated fats,such as butter, are not immune to the formation of toxins via heat/cooking."

[timmypatch]

Well, Tyler, I guess that's not all so unreasonable given this is a "raw paleo" forum.  I guess I was mostly bothered by the acrimony of your earlier post, since clearly Nicola had not intended to stir up trouble.  But to get back to my point about keeping an open mind to things, my biggest frustration with internet health-related forums is that invariably they entail individuals in charge of setting the tone and content of the forum and these individuals invariably attack and call unsubstantial any article or point of view, however substantial or unsubstantial, that strongly deviates from their strongly held views, usually justifying their attacks, derision (and even deletion in some cases--though not here of course) as necessary to protect their membership from bad ideas.  Furthermore, they are usually able to support their polarizing opinion with reams of scientific data and articles which they claim are somehow the only substantial data while all to the contrary is hogwash.  Interestingly, each of these forums seems to have a unique axe to grind, and frequently supports as true beyond a shadow of a doubt what others regard as questionable or even downright false.  I, along with many others I am sure, came to the internet because I didn't trust the orthodoxy of conventional doctors and nutritionists, only to find that the internet is chock full of more of the same--different orthodoxies, but orthodoxies nonetheless.  If orthodoxy were what I was after, I wouldn't be here.  Moreover, given my bad experiences following various individuals and communities orthodox views, I immediately begin to regard as suspicious everything idea you push when it begins to wreak of unquestioning one-sidedness.  Furthermore, my observation has always been that one who is most secure in his beliefs will be very open to new ideas.

[Nicola]

In answer to various concerns:-
I note that Nicola has even posted Barry's comments on the zero-carbage forum, without my own side being shown).

Tyler, Dr. Barry Groves is a doctor and many are interested in his "Second opinions" on Charles forum. I can not post your comments with out getting a slap in my face - you have already told me some very encouraging things so that will do for me.

[TylerDurden]

TimmyPatch, the reason why I got so worked up is that I've heard the exact same sort of arguments to Barry Groves'  a 1000 times before, and it gets very boring when I have to provide the same old answers to debunk such notions, especially when people like Groves blithely dismiss my references without a decent counter-argument. As regards the issue of toxins in cooked-foods, that's something that even SAD-diet nutritionists admit, albeit grudgingly, and there's plenty of scientific studies out there  to back this up. On the other hand, almost almost all of the Weston-Price-oriented claims are based on vague, anecdotal accounts by Dr Weston-Price made decades ago, without the rigorous accuracy that genuinely scientific studies require - and which, in some cases, are contradicted by other experts' accounts.  The only exception I can think of was that Pottenger experiment, and even that was flawed as all the various experiments involved feeding cats on raw or pasteurised milk - they should have had 1 test involving just feeding them their natural diet of raw meats and organs.

Same goes for Vilhjalmur Stefansson - he made all sorts of claims re the Eskimoes hardly ever eating any organ-meats. Yet, every other source I've read makes it clear that the Eskimoes/Inuit did indeed eat plenty of organs. and so on and so forth.

Now, of course, we have our own Aajonus as a rawist guru who's somewhat dodgy, but I wasn't even referring to his claims in that rebuttal. My point is that god is on the side of the big battalions - in other words, for every study claiming that cooked fat is very healthy, there are a 1000 studies stating the opposite. That's how science works, some studies can be flawed, but when the number of studies overwhelmingly favour one side, then one can draw certain conclusions. I'll agree that criteria can be wrong, for example, I pointed out that while the relevant studies did correctly condemn cooked animal fats, that they then used a false premise by claiming, therefore, that ALL animal food was bad, rather than just cooked animal food.

As for me, the issue is decided not solely because of scientific studies but also because of mine and others' experience. Due to my past health-problems I had to endure endless extremely painful stomach-aches after eating any cooked animal food and had to then endure the effects of nutritional deficiencies as a result of going raw vegan  - the rawpalaeo diet was the only diet which worked for me.

But that's by the by. I don't mind people posting stuff about other diets, praising the nutritional value of  processed trans-fats or of sugar or whatever, but please keep it on the Hot Topics forum, not elsewhere.

[goodsamaritan]

My POV regarding the issue of cooked fat vs raw fat is from the healer's point of view.
If my parents or my children were really sick, which kind of diet would I bet their lives on?
Raw Paleo Diet of course.
The variant of Raw Paleo Diet would depend on what they were sick of in the first place.
Would a healing dietary variant have any cooked fat in it? 
I don't let my children run around with a loaded gun. 

[avalon]

TimmyPatch wrote:

Moreover, given my bad experiences following various individuals and communities orthodox views, I immediately begin to regard as suspicious everything idea you push when it begins to wreak of unquestioning one-sidedness.  Furthermore, my observation has always been that one who is most secure in his beliefs will be very open to new ideas.

Wow! The wow is for your other posts as well. A good wow. I've come to believe, and I've written this elsewhere, that 'The Lord of the Flies' is alive and well on the Internet.

I've learned so much my brain bleeds! Everyone is right! Everyone is wrong! This study! That study!

What Proof! There is no proof! Perhaps, let me clarify, there is individual proof. One feels better eating a certain way, healed by eating a certain way. But a global proof? Too many disagree on too many subjects. Too many people eating differently for hundreds of years, who knows what might cure and not.

That said  I do remain open and willing to learn! I do think cooking (not all foods- vegetables mostly) might be one of the most important things we've ever done. I don't mean SAD cooking. I mean traditional cauldron soups and stews and broths... sorry rambling now am I...

Anyone- including all Doctors, who say they know the absolute and only truth about nutrition- lose me immediately as a potential pupil. Doesn't mean I don't take what I do believe, but Nutrition is in its infancy. We, are in our infancy as time-lines go on this planet.

oh anyway best wishes Avalon 

[TylerDurden]

It is ridiculous to argue that cooking was the most important invention as there is no clear benefit from it(the argument re cooking leading to bigger brains has been totally refuted by now, so there's no other justification for it). However, there's a pretty good case for fire being the most important human invention, though that is by no means the same as cooking. I think you're just confusing the two.

[avalon]

It is ridiculous to argue that cooking was the most important invention as there is no clear benefit from it(the argument re cooking leading to bigger brains has been totally refuted by now, so there's no other justification for it). However, there's a pretty good case for fire being the most important human invention, though that is by no means the same as cooking. I think you're just confusing the two.

"You're out of order!"
"No! You're out of order!"

To be specific, I wrote the word 'maybe' on purpose. There actually is a difference when saying "was the most" or  "maybe".

Hey, for over a year I lived the Wai diet, believing raw, living it most of the time. I did on occasion saute some Spinach and garlic in Olive Oil! I can still taste it... but the more I learned and thought about it, the more I believed that Cooking, or, the eating of seafood along coastal waters was responsible for our larger brains, or hell if I know really. But we aren't like other animals. The argument that we are the only creatures cooking our food, might be the very reason we ARE different. Now, like most things, humans are great with abuse. We've abused cooking methods and now eat SAD.

Where has it been refuted "by now". Hogwash! Boulderdash! Gefilte fish! I'll pay you a penny, right now if you can prove any of what you claim as a global/population thingy. I'm not even sure how you can prove it scientifically on yourself without spending lots of money with tests and publicity and medical neverminds... You feel better! Your tests are good! So are those on McDougall! So are those on Atkins! So are those simply cutting out the crap.  Will we live longer? Who knows!

I turn to Luigi Cornaro sometimes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luigi_Cornaro

Why? because it was the 1500s. Because not many people lived to 102 back then- if you believe the story. Vegetable soup, egg yolk, mutton and wine. Simplicity.

Sardinia! Cooked meat and Cheese and Wine! This is what we know. Okinawa! Rice, soup, seaweed, fish, pork- another longest lived culture. But when they move here they get sick like Americans.

Were we Monkeys? Was it an Alien intervention? We don't know how we got to be US! Or, if some of us do, it hasn't been proven, or, the man with the envelope was driven off the cliff by the illuminati!

See, I want to believe the believe. What are people really doing here? You? Me? We are all experimenting as best we can with the paths we've chosen and that's that. There is nothing ridiculous about arguing at all. If you are unwilling to argue, then you know the truth, and I immediately discount you  Because I believe the truth is not known, yet... if ever... or something.

People should experiment. We should be doing what we are doing and for the first time in History it's happening on the Internet! When has that ever happened? Nicola in her neck of the woods sharing with Avalon. Amazing! It's fraking Amazing and wonderous!

I think our best shot at a long life seems to be Calorie Restriction. It comes up again and again and even back with Cornaro. Unless you're inbred like the Sardinians, ehh, so I've read... don't shoot the messenger 

San Dimas High School Football Rules!

Best wishes,
Avalon 

P.S. OMG! I didn't address your no clear benefit from cooking. WHAT? Imagine an organism, for the first time able to throw carrots and meat and leaves and bark and leaves and dirt and bugs into a pot with water and being able to eat it!?! It was the first real science experiment! Man, this tastes good! This doesn't This tastes hood! This doesn't   What we must have cooked! Over-load nutrient city! It makes fraking sense to me. Is it/was it true? Who knows? But I can see it happening 

[avalon]

Oh ehh, how dare you belittle all the Women who have cooked for Centuries on their knees in the kitchen, or standing, like with hot metal all around! Don't you know what they went through to get you here?!!! Don't you!    What? Plucky comic relief?