Raw fat

[avalon]

A few points:- Just because the Eskimoes used broths doesn't make that healthy, in and of itself.

Just because the Eskimos ate rancid? fats doesn't make that healthy either, in and of itself. And I'll go as far as to say A soup or broth immediately sounds more appealing than anything with the word 'rancid' in it... to me specifically of course. 

Believe me when I say to thee, I've read about enzymes and good bacteria. But yey I am not convinced that Human life cannot flourish with good old mommy's slow cooked Chicken Soup. Join me and we can end this destructive conflict and bring Soup to the Galaxy!

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!

[TylerDurden]

Re 1st sentence:- that wasn't what I was saying.

It is a fact, though, that the Eskimoes had astonishingly good health by comparison to other hunter-gatherer tribes, and, given that they lived in the harshest possible environment on the planet, that is quite impressive. The fact that they ate more raw animal food, and therefore less cooked-food, than other hunter-gatherer tribes and the fact that the Eskimoes didn't touch dairy or grains(pre-Contact) is also of interest. Since there are plenty of other populations which eat/ate broths and soups, and are extremely unhealthy, it's unlikely that broths and soups are useful re health.

[avalon]

I know you are but what am I 

http://www.beyondveg.com/tu-j-l/raw-cooked/raw-cooked-3a.shtml

Natural "Garden of Eden" simply a myth. The conclusion of this is that the cooking of some foods, by saving time and effort and extending the range of the diet, would have enhanced survival in a significant way, even in more supposedly "ideal" or tropical environments, but especially in areas where edible raw foods are scarce. That lack of ease in obtaining food occurs only in temperate zones and higher latitudes is not true is shown by the examples of the Australian Aborigines [O'Dea 1992], the Bushmen [Bicchieri 1972 and below] as well as many others [Bicchieri 1972], including the tropical rainforest Ache of Paraguay [Hawkes et al. [1982]. (Note that even in the case of the Ache hunter-gatherers of Paraguay, one of the few examples of a primitive people that have been extensively studied who subsisted in a dense rainforest habitat--the type of environment considered ideal by raw-fooders--significant amounts of their food were cooked; and fruits, a typical raw-foodist staple, were not as easily obtainable compared to other foods in their diet [Clastres 1972, see esp. p. 156; also Hawkes et al. 1982, and Hill et al. 1984].)

The Garden of Eden is a myth--or, if you like, doesn't exist on Earth. The bottom line then, is that--however cooking may have gotten started--it's use conferred significant (evolutionary) survival advantages, or it would not have eventually become part of the regular repertoire of that most opportunistic of all animal species: human beings.

I'm not trying to change your mind. We can see you have your ideas set and I am aware of where we are... but as I've read time and time again, none of this is simply black and white.. unless it's like a ying and yang thing and in that case, okay, you got me.

The fact that they ate more raw animal food, and therefore less cooked-food, than other hunter-gatherer tribes and the fact that the Eskimoes didn't touch dairy or grains(pre-Contact) is also of interest. Since there are plenty of other populations which eat/ate broths and soups, and are extremely unhealthy, it's unlikely that broths and soups are useful re health.

What ? 

[TylerDurden]

Re broths/soups comment:- That's pretty clear. I mean, there were plenty of populations in ill-health such as the Egyptians who used broths, so it's unlikely that broths are such useful food. The only factors that Weston-Price noted were that the healthiest tribes both ate high amounts of animal food and also ate some of their food(animal and plant-based) raw.

Re garden of eden comment:- This statement is aimed at Raw Vegans/Fruitarians(for some strange reason, beyondveg.com doesn't akcnowledge raw animal foodists, except in 1 side-article on Aajonus). At any rate, the statement is based on a false premise, naemly the idea that if humans have been eating cooked-food for years, that it must somehow benefit their survival or they wouldn't do it. First of all, humans(and animals) do all sorts of stupid things, which are anti-survival. Monkeys in the wild go in heavily for fermented fruit, for example, because they're adicted to the alcohol in it. Secondly, a practice that harms survival can still be passed on to the next generations if the person doing the harmful, stupid practice manages to survive past the age of breeding. Since cooking (mostly) leads to slow deterioration of health(particularly after the age of 40), it doesn't prevent breeding. This easily negates the argument that humans would have died out if cooking was harmful. Plus, after the invention of fire for warmth, it has been argued that humans were no longer in danger of dying out, regardless of what other harmful practices they had, as fire could be used to drive away predators etc.


Lastly, humans increased the amounts of cooked-foods in their diet in the Neolithic(ie grains), in order to compensate for the scarcity of wild game around that time. The result is that they became extremely unhealthy leading to a decrease in height, dental caries and many grain- and dairy-based diseases. These Neolithic humans turned to grains/legumes/dairy out of desperation because of a lack of animal foods, not for any health-reasons, so there's no reason to assume that humans' incorporation of cooked-foods into their diet 240,000 years before, was any different. Indeed, other non-health-related reasons exist, such as the fact that addictive opioids exist in cooked-foods(they also , interestingly, exist in dairy and grains), or the claim that humans needed to warm their frozen, raw meats in ultra-cold environments and that the habit simply caught on in other climates.

Besides, the fact that a multitude of wildlife has existed on raw foods for millions/billions of years should indicate that cooked-food consumption is not necessary.

[avalon]

Re broths/soups comment:- That's pretty clear. I mean, there were plenty of populations in ill-health such as the Egyptians who used broths, so it's unlikely that broths are such useful food. The only factors that Weston-Price noted were that the healthiest tribes both ate high amounts of animal food and also ate some of their food(animal and plant-based) raw.

It's not clear at all. It may be clear to you, in your head and that's fine, but it's not clear at all and your argument that the Egyptians were ill because of broth is almost laughable.  Scratch almost. I'm sorry but it's true. If you picked a particular broth- say cream of toad soup I'd have to look into it before responding.

http://www.westonaprice.org/foodfeatures/broth.html

Hmmm Brooottthhhhh!!!!! 

[TylerDurden]

Not laughable at all - just look at any online sources re egyptia ill-health and you'll see what I mean. The fools at the WAPF such as Sally Fallon would have us all believe that dairy is healthy to consume as long as it's raw  or that grains are OK to eat as long as they're fermented  or that cooked meats are fine as long as they're boiled but the example of the Ancient Egyptians (and many ohter Neolithic-era peoples) kind of debunks such absurd claims.

[avalon]

Here is a very nice piece about our friends the Egyptians. I don't see broth mentioned as something bad though I might have missed it 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/ancient/egyptians/health_01.shtml

I don't think they are fools over at WAPF. I don't agree with everything they say, but I do believe their approach to traditional eating habits is one of the best around.

I certainly don't mean to imply that an all raw paleo diet is a bad thing and won't achieve the results sought by it's followers. At the same time I don't think properly prepared soups and broths of vegetable, meat or bone should be demonized (yet). I'm not saying one should live only on soups and broths either(yet).

It's easy for people to read The Bear and go wow, check this guy out! Look what he's saying! How exciting! Well, think for a moment of living in the 1500s and hearing of Mr.Cornaro who again- lived to 102! Talk about that! What did he eat? A Calorie Restricted diet of mutton, soup, egg yolk and wine and he wrote a book about it! Which you can read for free!

http://soilandhealth.org/
http://soilandhealth.org/02/0201hyglibcat/020105cornaro.html

If you could back up your claim, with any kind of documentation other than Potts cats, I'd be very interested to read it. And I would read it with an open mind. I like to learn. And as I said, my learning has lead me to believe that some cooked food, is not a bad thing. Like I have learned that carbs are not evil. It's what we do to them. Your learning has brought you hear with your beliefs. And you know, you might be right about a lot of things... ehh...  uhm...

It's too bad we can't all get together in a pub somewhere and have a great argument over a cold Beer or Raw Egg!

Best wishes,
Avalon 

[TylerDurden]

There's extensive online info on the Ancient Egyptian diet such as the mention of Melokhia soup which is basiacally a herb mixed with chicken-broth and/or other meats:-

http://originalrecipes.com/node/3190

Seems the broths didn't save them, nor did the fermentation of grains aid them, nor did raw dairy help the health of the Ancient Egyptian royalty,  even though those  are all WAPF staples. This is the whole problem with the WAPF, they cite many unnatural foods which are typical of many very sick Neolithic-era populations. Now, I might concede that the consumption of broths wouldn't have harmed as much those Palaeolithic-era peoples who started eating cooked-meats, after the time cooking was invented, since they weren't consuming dairy or grains or legumes, but it wouldn't have been as effective as an all-rawpalaeo diet, given the levels of toxins created by heat(even low heat).

As regards the whole issue of cooking, there are already a multitude of scientific papers showing the harm done by toxins in cooked-foods, most of them easily accessible online, some of which I've already referred to in previous texts and on the child boards of the general discussions forum. Like I said before, the only "proof" that the WAPF have re broths/soups is that they are "less worse" than more heavily-cooked foods, not necessarily better. Sure, if one cooks in water(AND drinks the water , afterwards, to get the leached-out vitamins), then it's less harmful than grilling/frying but you're still consuming AGEs which will leads to conditions such as diabetes etc. in later life. In the same way, someone might view smoking 1 or 2 cigarettes a day as not as harmful as smoking a full pack a day, but it'll still have an effect.

As for the age of 102, that's meaningless as plenty of people, in ill-health or otherwise, have lived till 120 or so. It could also be argued that if one ate all-rawpalaeo from birth that one could live till  150.

[goodsamaritan]

I have the book from the Weston A Price foundation: Nourishing Traditions.
And Sally Fallon explained the need for making STOCK.
She said that RAW FOOD was hydrophylic (?) attracts water / digestive juices, while COOKED FOOD was hydrophobic (?) repels water / digestive juices.
So making STOCK / SOUP / BROTH is a recommendation for non-rawists... cooked food eaters.
RAW FOODISTS would have no need for STOCK.
RAW FOOD rates best.
and STOCK is 2nd rate.

STOCK / SOUP / BROTH is useful for cooked food eaters.  I bought the nourishing traditions book and turned to making these things for my children who I am still transitioning to a more raw diet.

[van]

I am glad you two are living up to your morals; that of saying what you believe.  Many good points have been raised.  Please excuse the following if it rambles a bit.  First there may be no perfect way of eating.  For the concept includes the idea that a particular food(s) is what sustains us. When probably there are many factors, like love, hope, intuitive guidance, maybe even God.  Hence the mind is only one facet of knowing, and so it may be true with diet. A crazy for instance; those monkeys, if they chose to forgo the fermented fruit, might not have the delight in life as much as those that didn't.  Might cherish their own life more, might make up for it in other ways.  Silly, I know, but how we take in life seems very important to our health.

 The person who forgoes a hot bowl of soup and spends the evening wishing they hadn't probably suffers more than if they hadn't.  The point is that mental restrictions may not always lead to perfect health.  Once every month or so I shop at whole foods.  I would almost always sample in a little one ounce sample cup their soups.  I at one point really liked them, but denied myself.  Now, they have little attraction for me.  When I had to deny myself, I noticed there was inner conflict.  Hard to describe in detail, but it caused a slight discomfort.
It didn't last long, for about 15 minutes later, the taste of the soup had gone bad in my mouth and repeatedly I was glad I hadn't eaten more.  But that may not be true for everyone.  For it seems that from having been raw or various sorts for over thirty years, I have lost the ability to handle cooked foods, maybe an enzyme thing.  Others do seemingly well with cooked.  
     And then from the rational point of view, I can't imagine anything 'good' happens to the ingredients  in the soup from having been cooked.  Just like explaining 'raw' food to a newly interested person.  I always say, what do you intuitively think is healthier, an apple just picked from a tree or one that has been baked for an hour?  Pretty much the same is true with anything you could put in a soup, unless you wanted to breakdown grains or bones.   I made a Sally Fallon soup for my daughter.  Lots of bones, etc, slow cooked.   And then I tried it.  Wasn't bad as soups go.  But from a perspective of having eaten raw for so many years, I knew it wasn't right for me.    And that's where I'll end it here, because for some, I am sure It may have been.
 

[avalon]

That was a very nice post Van.

Tyler wrote:

As for the age of 102, that's meaningless as plenty of people, in ill-health or otherwise, have lived till 120 or so. It could also be argued that if one at all-rawpalaeo from birth that one could live till  150.

Argued for sure as it hasn't happened yet. And in favor of Cornaro, he wasn't in ill health. Actually he was in ill health at 40, changed his ways and lived a very healthy life. If you live a very healthy life to 102, I think that will be just grand. I hope you do.

But I'm afraid to say that your 'arguments' are more smooth talk than anything. There are papers and studies contradicting everything and they aren't hard to find. Your Egyptian Soup was meant to show what? It was the cause of Egyptian ill health? 'the broths didn't save them'? Were they specifically making broth to be saved? And as with all things, it could have been a combination of foods, lack of certain foods- any number of things! Sand and pebbles in their food (no joke)! Why do some people swear by raw milk? And don't get me wrong- I'm not arguing that it's always a good thing. I'm arguing that there are people who believe differently than you in countless different ways.

Is your way of eating the only true way of eating for everyone to experience good health and a long life?

While growing up all the vegetable water was thrown down the drain. Boiled broccoli, green beans and on and on thrown down the drain! OMG! The horror! And people who don't know better continue this practice. It took me to 49-50 years of age to learn the atrocity of pouring away the green water. Now, if I do boil Bok Choy or Green pepper, and they aren't used in say a soup, I'll drink the water as a tea which I find quite delicious. Asparagus tea is a favorite of mine. I also like those veggies raw.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/20/health/nutrition/20well.html?ref=science

It's my belief that the evidence isn't there regarding the certain cooking methods and human health. It's my belief this makes for great arguments on the subject. What you can't do and haven't done is find the proof you need to convince me otherwise- because it doesn't exist, yet. Make a balance sheet in excel or something and show me how the balance tilts in your favor. I'll bet without smooth talking, you won't be able to do it. Because the scientific evidence isn't there. What you will have is a band of diet explorers- like Geoff and AV and The Bear and Stefansson and yourself perhaps and your neighbor all living better healthier lives than you were before. But there are countless McDougallers with the same results. There are traditional Okinawans living healthy old age lives.

I support your raw quest. I support the possibilities!

But your way the only way bunk is bunk IMO (for now at least)

P.S. I'm not sure I can explain what I'm about to try and explain but since I've come to believe that some cooking is okay- I just have this sense that if you don't throw the water away... if you still retain the veggies and their broth and haven't cooked it for days, then the essence of that food is still there. You can't see the air, but it moves things, erodes mountains. Things freeze and thaw and grow and rot and it's all still here, perhaps in a different form. Throwing the water out is a crime. I no longer do that. And if you haven't tried Bok Choy or Asparagus tea
they are quite tasty 

[RawZi]

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?

    I think the enzymes are destroyed in Neolithic and plant based foods at 120 degrees.  I feel it's destroyed in RAFs at much lower temperatures, depending on which food we're talking about, fat at maybe 104, honey at maybe 96.  I intuit the difference is a good thing, that Paleo foods are more sensitive because they can give more nutrition.  My body can tend to be hypersensitive, and I'm best staying away from heated and dehydrated foods, and yes heated grilled fatty meat I have found tasty too, but it's not worth it for me.  Maybe it's tasty because it's 'addictive', which does not work well for me.

[RawZi]

Here is a very nice piece about our friends the Egyptians. I don't see broth mentioned as something bad though I might have missed it 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/ancient/egyptians/health_01.shtml

I don't think they are fools over at WAPF. I don't agree with everything they say, but I do believe their approach to traditional eating habits is one of the best around.

I certainly don't mean to imply that an all raw paleo diet is a bad thing and won't achieve the results sought by it's followers. At the same time I don't think properly prepared soups and broths of vegetable, meat or bone should be demonized (yet). I'm not saying one should live only on soups and broths either(yet).

It's easy for people to read The Bear and go wow, check this guy out! Look what he's saying! How exciting! Well, think for a moment of living in the 1500s and hearing of Mr.Cornaro who again- lived to 102! Talk about that! What did he eat? A Calorie Restricted diet of mutton, soup, egg yolk and wine and he wrote a book about it! Which you can read for free!

http://soilandhealth.org/
http://soilandhealth.org/02/0201hyglibcat/020105cornaro.html

If you could back up your claim, with any kind of documentation other than Potts cats, I'd be very interested to read it. And I would read it with an open mind. I like to learn. And as I said, my learning has lead me to believe that some cooked food, is not a bad thing. Like I have learned that carbs are not evil. It's what we do to them. Your learning has brought you hear with your beliefs. And you know, you might be right about a lot of things... ehh...  uhm...

It's too bad we can't all get together in a pub somewhere and have a great argument over a cold Beer or Raw Egg!

Best wishes,
Avalon 

    I feel it would be nice to get together and do that too.

[avalon]

Good Morning 

Here's a nice piece in defense of Raw Food, but tackles the 'live enzyme' myth.

http://www.ecologos.org/lenzyme.htm

Among raw-food enthusiasts, there is a very popular myth that enzymes are "alive" and these so-called "living enzymes" somehow (never supported with biochemistry) assist the body in digesting food.
     There is also a myth that foods are "alive" and therefore contain "living enzymes".  Well, foods are rendered quite dead upon chewing, and certainly the food's being digested would also certainly kill any living cell that was not killed by chewing.  If you think that foods are alive, then chew some seeds and plant the mush thus prepared, and wait for it to sprout and grow - does anyone really believe chewed foods can be "alive".

I don't dare assume this to be true, but I can't be the only one to feel that the argument that we are the only species to cook our food may actually explain why we are who we are and do what we do. And I don't mean kill each other and destroy the planet kinda thing. I mean every time I see a giant Hollywood explosion on film I expect the earth to shake free from its axis and spin off into space    What if cooking and say fish eating were the catalysts needed to spark an evolutionary change, but then as Humans often to do- we messed it up. Took it too far. Invented Twinkies and Pop Tarts and Jelly Babies. Maybe it's as simple as some raw, some cooked. Not all cooked. Or, not.

Time for breakfast!

Best wishes,
Avalon 

[TylerDurden]

First of all, the time when cooking was invented did not coincide with a massive evolutionary change. The only times when brain-size was significantly boosted out of all proportion was when our hominid ancestors started eating more meats, each time(which were raw as these two events occurred long  before cooking was invented).

Secondly, it's pretty clear that you won't accept any evidence no matter how many scientific papers I show you re Advanced glycation end products, links to diabetes etc.. Fair enough, but the evidence is there, regardless, and most responsible nutritionists, as a result of such a multitude of studies,  already recommend against extreme forms of cooking such as grilling/frying/microwaving/baking so that already 1/2 to 2/3 of the pro-cooking argument is already lost.

The claim re some people thriving on cooked-foods is dubious. Sure, there will always be some people who are better adapted re tolerating toxins, whether in the form of arsenic or nicotine or advanced glycation end products, but it's rather difficult to believe a claim that one could not only tolerate a toxin but also thrive on it. After all, technically, all that cooked-foods are is treated raw food that has fewer levels of vitamins(due to heat), with some toxins added to them. And since wildlife has survived perfectly well on raw foods for billions of years, it's unlikely that cooked-food is somehow "necessary" or "useful" and it's difficult to find anything about cooked-food that makes it superior to raw foods, other than that it can expand the range of diets by reducing antinutrients thus allowing people to eat several more foods that do a lot of harm to many people(eg:- grains and legumes).

As for the other mention re quality of life, I'm a devotee of Schopenhauer and disagree with that world-view. Schopenhauer pointed out that we all, like animals, seek to attain a higher state of being re increased happiness etc. The trouble, as Schopenhauer pointed out, is that that renders us slaves to things that have no intrinsic value in themselves (eg:- money, alcohol, drugs etc.) So, it's best to not be dependent on such material things and focus on the more important things in life such as health etc.

[avalon]

As the following article suggests, it can only be speculated. Meat? Fish? I tend to lean more towards fish.

http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-34056671_ITM

There's this also

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/38009.php

According to Dr. Stephen Cunnane it was a rich and secure shore-based diet that fuelled and provided the essential nutrients to make our brains what they are today. Controversially, according to Dr. Cunnane our initial brain boost didn't happen by adaptation, but by exaptation, or chance.

Tyler wrote:

Secondly, it's pretty clear that you won't accept any evidence no matter how many scientific papers I show you re Advanced glycation end products, links to diabetes etc.. Fair enough, but the evidence is there, regardless, and most responsible nutritionists, as a result of such a multitude of studies,  already recommend against extreme forms of cooking such as grilling/frying/microwaving/baking so that already 1/2 to 2/3 of the pro-cooking argument is already lost.

Some believe some of this AGE business to be a natural reaction. Perhaps as- I repeat again, we go too far. I agree that grilling and frying and baking are quite possibly a bad thing. You have shown me no scientific evidence regarding Soups and Broths. And the Salmon Soup I posted never reached the boiling point.

Show me your scientific paper regarding AGEs and Vegetable Soup.

http://www.ccmhi.org/StarchBasedDietsNoAnswerforDiabetics.htm

Exposure to advanced glycation end products

Another reason why typical vegetarian diets are not ideal for diabetics is they are not designed to avoid exposure to advanced glycation end products (AGEs). There is a huge body of literature documenting that the high sugar in the bloodstream in diabetics promotes the formation of AGEs in the body as the sugars react with body proteins. The formation of advanced glycation end products (AGEs) on connective tissue and within cells stiffens and ages your blood vessels and accelerates aging throughout the body. AGEs are a significant causal factor of the horrible side effects of diabetes, such as blindness, kidney failure, heart attacks, and strokes.The chemical modifications of cells that occur as a result of the accumulation of AGEs are one of the primary hallmarks of aged and diseased tissues.

But the accumulation of AGEs in the body does not result solely from increased sugar in the bloodstream. AGEs also are formed when starchy foods are cooked at higher temperatures, causing molecular rearrangement. Acrylamides are an example of AGEs that occur from cooking carbohydrates—such as potatoes and grains—in the absence of water. The higher the temperature, the more these toxic compounds are formed. Neither acrylamides nor other AGEs are formed when vegetables are steamed or cooked in soups.

Yeah I know, Dr. Joel Fuhrman M.D. what does he know. What does Dr. McDougall know. What did Atkins and Eades know. I don't know.

The frightening new news is that eating foods with these advanced glycation products raises blood and tissue levels and increases nerve damage. Cooking with water prevents sugars from binding to proteins to form these poisonous chemicals. Cooking without water causes sugars to combine with proteins to form these advanced glycation products. So, baking, roasting and broiling cause the poisonous advanced glycation products to form, while boiling and steaming prevent them.

oops, sorry, Gabe Mirkin, M.D. (another Doctor)

I'm asking you- Show me the Evidence. Help convince me. I'm not kidding. I'm not talking about frying, grilling or nuking. I'm talking lightly cooked soups, even bone broths. How do you know that these kinds of cooking might, I say might, I'm allowed to be uncertain... where was i? ehh, might not simulate, as has been argued a kind of pre-digestion process??? Because of the liquid food combination thingy...

If you don't think I'm serious then you're off the hook. Actually, you might start sounding like The Bear- never finding those papers he'd lost. Sorry, that was a dig. My bad 

Best wishes,
Avalon 

[avalon]

Here is one of the best pages I've found on our friends the AGEs 

http://qualitycounts.com/fpadvanced_glycation_end_products.html

[avalon]

Last Post of the Day, yeah maybe...

Here's a very interesting list from Jeff Novick

http://www.jeffnovick.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=493:starchy-foods-ages-and-you&catid=97:newsletter&Itemid=349

AGE Amounts In Food (per serving)

Starchy vegetables
Corn, 20
Sweet potato, roasted, 72
White potato, boiled, 17
White potato, french fries, homemade, 694
White potato, french fries, fast food, 1,522
White potato, roasted, 45 min, prepared with 5 mL oil, 218

Grains/legumes/Cereals
Bean, red kidney, raw, 116
Bean, red kidney, canned, 191
Bean, red kidney, cooked, 1 h, 298
Pasta, cooked 8 min, 112
Bran Flakes, 10
Corn Flakes, 70
Frosted Flakes, 128
Oatmeal, dry, instant, 4
Oatmeal, cooked, instant 25

Bread
Whole wheat, center, 16
Whole wheat, center toasted, 25
Whole wheat, crust, 22
Whole wheat, crust, toasted, 36
Pita pocket, 16

Fruits
Apple 13
Apple, baked, 45
Banana, 9
Cantaloupe, 20
Raisins, 36

High Fat Plant Foods
Almonds, roasted, 1,995
Avocado, 473
Cashews, roasted 2,942
Olive, ripe 501
Peanut butter, smooth 2,255
Walnuts, roasted 2,366

High Fat Animal Products
Cream cheese, 3,265
Mayonnaise, 9,470
Butter, 1,324

Beef
Frankfurter, boiled 7 min, 6,736
Frankfurter, broiled 5 min, 10,143
Hamburger, fried 6 min, 2,375
Hamburger, fast food, 4,876
Meatball, boiled in sauce, 2,567
Shoulder cut, broiled, 5,367
Bacon, microwave, 1,173
Deli ham, smoked, 2,114
Pork chop, pan fried, 4,277

Chicken breast, skinless cubes
Steamed 10 min and broiled 12 min, 5,071
Pan fried 10 min and boiled 12 min, 5,706

Chicken breast, skinless cutlet
Raw, 692
Boiled 1 h, 1,011
Broiled 15 min, 5,245
Fried 8 min, 6,651
Roasted, barbecue sauce, 4,291
Roasted, breaded, 4,102
Roasted, breaded, microwave, 1 min, 5,157

Fish
Salmon, raw, 502
Salmon, smoked, 515
Trout, raw, 705
Trout, roasted 25 min, 1,924

Cheese
American, processed, 2,603
American, processed, low fat, 1,425
Brie, 1,679
Cottage cheese, 1,744
Feta 2,527
Mozzarella, part skim, 503
Parmesan, grated, 2,535

As you can see, it is not the unrefined unprocessed starchy foods, like a potato, a sweet potato, or a bowl of oatmeal, let alone a slice of whole wheat bread that is contributing to the AGE load of most people. The real culprits to the high level of AGE's in the American diet are the high fat foods, fried foods and animal products that most Americans cosnume.

Boiled white potato 17

Raw Salmon 502

Raw Chicken 692

Avocado 473

And who eats raw fruit?

duhnn duhnn duhnnn...

[TylerDurden]

First of all, the notions re aquatic ape theory or the shoreline theory are considered extremely fringe, with most scientists dismissing the theory given the lack of evidence and faulty points. Here's a page criticising the more basic faults in the aquatic ape theory:-

http://www.aquaticape.org/

and this one:-
http://www.aquaticape.org/aahbook.html


The other problem is that there's plenty of evidence of wild-game being slaughtered in the Palaeolithic such as the famous bones of horses at the bottom of certain cliffs in France, not forgetting the images of wild aurochs and other large herbivores on the cave walls.  It  is extremely unlikely that they would eat fish in any serious amounts  if they didn't depict them on the cave-walls.

[TylerDurden]

Re AGEs list:-

It's amazing how one can find almost anything that supports any old theory if one googles enough. In the case of Joel Fuhrmann's claims re broth, it's unsubstantiated(he's a highly dodgy pro-vegan researcher - ironically, the Palaeo guru Eades pointed, in his blogs,  to a study

http://www.proteinpower.com/drmike/sugar-and-sweeteners/vegetarians-age-faster-2/

showing that vegans have higher AGE-levels than cooked-palaeos). Other, more honest , websites claim merely that boiling and similiar methods only produce fewer AGEs and other toxins:-

http://www.life-enhancement.com/article_template.asp?ID=1869

As for the selected mentions of raw chicken and raw salmon, this was already discussed in other topics on this forum. It was pointed out that many modern raw foods are derived from intensively-farmed animals fed on crappy AGE-rich,unnatural diets, so that it's understandable that farmed salmon or intensively-farmed chicken would have high AGE-levels. That's the trouble with such tables, if they, instead of detailing grainfed beef/farmed fish, showed data for much healthier raw foods, the kind that we rawpalaeos eat, such as grassfed beef, wildcaught salmon/swordfish etc., they would find far fewer AGE-levels.

As regards broths/soups, scientific papers, as you very well know, focus on foods that we  currently eat, not the broths/soups that our ancestors used to eat centuries ago(well, unless very heavily processed). What we do know with certainty, however, is that food starts getting destroyed at c.40 degrees Celsius, with the (proteinous) enzymes being affected first, followed by the killing off of most of the bacteria(I believe there are some heat-resistant strains), then comes the formation of AGEs. Since you've even pointed out in the above tables(as have I in other reports), that boiling does produce toxins such as AGEs, albeit in smaller amounts than in grilling/frying, the best you could come up with is that foods heated, but nowhere near boiling point, are less unhealthy than boiled food. That is unless you can show that we need to consume small amounts of toxins such as AGEs in order to be healthy.

I've already pointed out how the body reacts by upping the white-blood-cell count when it eats cooked-food on its own. Since this is a reaction to illness/pathogens as well, that would indicate that things like AGEs aren't natural at all.

I'm impressed by your efforts so far, incidentally - at least it hasn't been boring. It's so much more fun debating with you than with some of the more vehement anti-raws out there.

[William]

    I think the enzymes are destroyed in Neolithic and plant based foods at 120 degrees.  I feel it's destroyed in RAFs at much lower temperatures, depending on which food we're talking about, fat at maybe 104, honey at maybe 96.  I intuit the difference is a good thing, that Paleo foods are more sensitive because they can give more nutrition.  My body can tend to be hypersensitive, and I'm best staying away from heated and dehydrated foods, and yes heated grilled fatty meat I have found tasty too, but it's not worth it for me.  Maybe it's tasty because it's 'addictive', which does not work well for me.

I think enzymes are the key, however maybe not needed in the food itself for the proper digestion of (rendered?) fat. If true, and my experience seems to indicate that it is, there should be no objection to pemmican. I read that the needed enzyme, lipase, is made in the pancreas. I don't know if this ability wears out same as those needed for meat digestion.

If broth is a clear liquid with maybe some fat on top, then there are no AGEs in it, and the nutrients will be all dissolved. I don't see any problem with that.

[avalon]

I'm impressed by your efforts so far, incidentally - at least it hasn't been boring.

Thank you, I think. Maybe that's because I'm not anti-raw at all.

Your comment about Googling is an important one and one of the reasons I'm not ready to believe your all or nothing stance on AGEs. I like Eades sometimes. But he has come across more than once as a Vegan/Vegetarian hater. Okay, maybe hater isn't the word. He's made some nasty comments about the Vegans/Vegetarians he's met at his lectures, which in my opinion doesn't count for the many people living their lives and minding their own business. I incidentaly called Jeff Novick on a comment he made because as you probably know there are fractions within fraction of fractions, fractating all over the place. His comment was that 'MOST' Vegetarian even Vegans did not eat well. I offered that the word 'MANY' was a better way to go. I don't think you can say 'MOST'- but again he was going by those he'd met on the 'circuit'.

For you because it's good to know what the enemy is thinking:

http://www.diseaseproof.com/archives/healthy-food-the-cold-truth-about-raw-food-diets.html

Cooking can be beneficial.
In many cases, cooking destroys some of the harmful anti-nutrients that bind minerals in the gut and interfere with the utilization of nutrients. Destruction of these anti-nutrients increases absorption. Steaming vegetables and making vegetable soups breaks down cellulose and alters the plants’ cell structures so that fewer of your own enzymes are needed to digest the food, not more. The point is that this “cooked food is dead food” enzyme argument does not hold water. On the other hand, the roasting of nuts and the baking of cereals does reduce availability and absorbability of protein.

One of the first thing I learned was about the white blood cell count rising upon eating cooked food. I remember the scary black and white photographs. Have you seen this particular beyond veg page? Do you know what's funny? When I was eating Wai they really annoyed me thos beyond people. Now, not so much 

http://www.beyondveg.com/tu-j-l/raw-cooked/raw-cooked-1i.shtml

Even at face value, Kouchakoff experiments not an argument against cooked food when some raw foods are also eaten. However, for the sake of discussion, let's look at the Kouchakoff experiments upon which the raw-foodist claims are based. When we do, what we first notice is that Kouchakoff's experiments are not an argument against predominantly raw diets (versus 100% raw)--or even against predominantly cooked diets that include sufficient amounts of raw food--since according to Kouchakoff [1930]:

    It has been proved possible to take, without changing the blood formula, every kind of foodstuff which is habitually eaten now, but only by following this rule, viz.--that it must be taken along with raw products, according to a definite formula.

My turn to mention missing info- and I could be wrong, but I do believe I read that cooked food, eaten after cooling does not present the same problem. I have to check into this. I do know factually that cooked potatoes- cooled in the fridge do not raise insulin like a cooked hot potato, but that's another story.

The problem we face is what is scripture and what is not. And I mentioned Furhman and those others on purpose. They may be right or wrong, but they are prominent in this whatever it is that's happening in Nutrition. People are following them- ooh, lets not forget the 80/10/10 Diet by Dr. Graham but he's a chiro right? Maybe?

It's hard to imagine that everyone in this Country, if you are in this Country, has a unique phone number. 7 numbers, switched around and around to achieve a different result. That's kinda how I see what's going on in nutrition right now. Anything is better than SAD. Then you have this combination that might work. It might work better than that combination, but wait! Add in some raw milk and you have a new convert! But wait! Take milk out and throw in Orange juice mixed with Olive Oil! But what if we went all fruit, nuts and leaves or just meat and leaves, or GOD! It could be anything! Some new combination that hasn't happened yet.

I'm as certain that you don't know the end all be all answer as you are certain that you do DOHHH!!! And I know I don't know, but I am totally enjoying the ride... hang on I'm not feeling so well heh heh.

I'm glad we cleared this up.

I'll try and find the cold cooked food thing just in case there's hope for you yet 

Best wishes,
Avalon 

[TylerDurden]

I doubt that cooled cooked food wouldn't induce the leukocytosis effect.

The arguments used against Koutchakoff are highly dodgy as microwaving foods has been shown to induce luekocytosis - so Koutchakoff is vindicated. Secondly,  beyondveg.com argues that Koutchakoff's point is irrelevant as the leukocytosis effect is negated if one eats 10% or more food , raw(at the same meal). Since most people, nowadays, eat things like pizzas, fried foods/ready meals , all 100% cooked in 1 meal, this point is irrelevant. Plus, it merely shows that raw food is so superior to cooked-food that it can negate the effect of coooked-food(in a partial way) if one eats 10% raw at every single meal.

I've actually addressed all of beyondveg.com's absurd points in that anti-raw thesis on this website:-

http://www.rawpaleodiet.com/anti-raw-bias-on-beyondveg-com-website-debunked/

Then there's BYV's point re luekocytosis and exercise. Yes, harsh exercise might induce leukocytosis, but there the point is that such stresses can overwhelm the body if taken to excess. That's why one hears so often about people suffering health-problems  from overtraining. Similiarly, a rise in white-blood-cell count, in and of itself, isn't that dangerous, but, over a long period of time and if produced constantly via cooked-food-consumption, it weakens the body's resources, leading to physical degeneration over time.

As regards the other anti-raw essay, it's very flawed as it only focuses on raw vegans. Yes, vegetables get antinutrients reduced as a result of cooking, but cooking lowers the levels of nutrients in the first place, plus creates toxins in the process. The argument on that website claiming  that boiling/steaming/simmering doesn't produce any toxins is an outright falsehood as shown previously.

[coconinoz]

for the record:
any1 who has actually read cunnane's book knows well that the aquatic ape theory & cunnane's shore based scenario are not 1 & the same -- even though cunnane is friends w/ & seems to have learned from crawford & elaine morgan

while i learned a thing or 2 from my parents, i am not 1 & the same w/ them

perhaps we all can use some dietary dha to clear up mental cloudiness, misconceptions, dogmatic presuppositions...?

re. schopenhauer's philosophy:
where & on what grounds does he draw the line?
why appreciating money = bad whereas appreciating health = good?
is health nonphysical (sort of spiritual) in his view, whereas money is just paper or plastic?
why are money & drugs in the same category?

[avalon]

OK, first of all, let's examine BYV's notion that since all human cultures eat (some) cooked-food and that that implies that we need it or have to have it. This is a false conclusion as the only way one could conclude that cooked-food is essential/necessary for human health and that raw food is unnecessary or toxic is if we could encounter a human culture that only ate cooked-food and no raw food whatsoever (no such culture exists, to my knowledge as all humans need to eat raw fruit for vitamin C etc., and the Eskimos on their 99% meat diets would eat some of their meats raw, also for the vitamin C among other nutrients) . I should also point out that since all non-human species do not cook their foods and thrive in that state, that humans don't need to cook their food, either.

There has not been an all Vegan Civilization either, but that's not stopping them from believing meat is necessary in Man's diet. Many claim to be thriving as you do. I don't think BYV's conclusion is false by any means. I think merely, it is their own conclusion and not yours.

Re BYV's mention of Maillard molecules in stored, raw food:- This is an exaggeration as the Maillard molecules in raw food are never anywhere near as high as those in cooked-foods.

After reading Jeff Novick's list, it appears your comment might not be true. Unless you can fins a different list- which I wouldn't mind seeing by the way. The raw Avocado was more than a boiled potato. Obviously it might be good to track down the origin of that list.

One problem is your claims are wide-spread and I don't think you can make such statements because so many people are eating so many different types of food- cooked and raw. Not everyone eats SAD. How many people  eating a whole foods traditional God forbid Weston Price-ish diet have been studied recently?

The claim that cooking either reduces or doesn't affect the allergenicity of food seems to be misguided. Here's a relevant quotation from the Wikipedia entry for AGEs:- Advanced Gycation End Products. This article is backed up by a reference to a study:- "AGEs may be less, or more, reactive than the initial sugars they were formed from. Foods may be up to 200 times more immunoreactive after cooking". This would seem to imply that allergenicity is worse as regards cooked-foods than the raw version.

Which foods though? Some foods shouldn't be eaten raw. Maybe some foods shouldn't be cooked or, too much. Lord, what if some foods can be cooked without incident? Are there any? Are we still talking grilling and all the nasty cooking methods or are we still talking 'boiling'?

The only genuine statement that BYV makes here is that eating some raw food (10% apparently) along with the cooked-food minimises the leukocytosis reaction. But since most people nowadays in the Western world don't automatically eat raw and cooked food at the same meal, this is meaningless.

This is hardly meaningless if one eats 30-50% raw/cooked. And how can you make the blanket statement that 'MOST' people don't eat raw and cooked at the same meal... ehh, okay don't answer that... but it is not meaningless! If people are uneducated about the issue, of course they won't know what they are doing is wrong. And why is that? Because, ehh OH FRAK! It's complicated. This Family raises that Family- God help me like the Bear said- Acculturation is a mighty force. And if you have read him, you'll know he says most will fail because of Acculturation. I detest people who tell people they will fail. It is not constructive. It is very possible that there are people eating raw and cooked and many are over at McDougall... and with out the meat heh heh.

Okay I'll be honest and say I read ¾ of the way down the page before collapsing from brain bleed exhaustion. I commend your rebuttal! I really do! Obviously it comes from the heart. But because there are so many variables that have not been tested, I still say nothing has been proven. In fact, some things may have been proven, but they should be listed and believe me the list will go on forever as I mentioned about the endless phone number possibilites.

As you now know, I do believe some cooking methods ARE dangerous. I am a believer in much of what you say :thumbs up:

For me to believe I would need to see studies regarding various meats in stews, soups and broths. I would need studies on various vegetables the same. Bone broths studied. I have not found these studies, Also how raw vs cooked AGEs affect the human body. Meaning a boiled potato in water vs an apple.

Let me ask you a question. If you have blood work done, do you believe the results- that you're okay within a certain range? If you believe them why? And if you can believe that certain numbers are okay- I mean over having a sttaight flat-line of 0, why would it be difficult to believe that certain numbers- say an AGE 17 of a boiled potato, might be within an acceptable range?

Do you believe the Cholesterol Myth? If you do, on so such information, why would it be a difficult leap to believe not all AGE levels are dangerous to human life, when most of the world has a different view on cholesterol.

What you've shown me does not tilt the balance away from soups broths with any concrete measure. It doesn't favor it for sure.

I do appreciate your input however.

Best wishes,
Avalon