Man Lives on Raw Meat for 5+ Years

Also, my favourite part of the thread was when Juno desperately googled some articles and the first article completely disagreed with his assertion that cooking your food "makes it more harmful".
 
How do you get to that?

What is the bioavailability of the raw form of the major sources of calories on the planet, those being rice, potato and wheat? How about beans such as kidney beans which are actually toxic without cooking?

This is true, which I already stated. But, compare your total choices of food. Starches and lentils do not make up much of the total selection of food sources on earth. I would venture to bet there are more different choices of fruits alone than all choices of lentils and starches combined. Would you argue that cooking fruits does not infact have any degredation of nutrient content and quality?

How I get to the assumption that vitamin and nutrient content is degraded? The link that I posted showed a 10%-25% loss in vitamins and nutrients in raw vs cooked food using a sample size of hundreds of different sources of food from different food types.

Although it might not be much, a 10%-25% loss of nutrients and vitamins to me is enough to at least consider the thought that when looking at all sources of food on earth, cooked foods might not be as nutrient and vitamin dense as raw ones.

Can I honestly say I believe this? Yes; although I rarely eat raw foods. Am I 100% certain this is right? Absolutely not. But there is science there, and the raw diet has PhD supporters who are much smarter than myself (Masters in Human Science) and anyone else on this board. For everyone to straight up tell this Juno character that he is 100% wrong and science proves him wrong is a one sided, flawed point of view.
 
Holt - away from my uni access comp right now. For the third study which claims a 10-25% loss in vitamin content, what cooking method or methods were they using? The only study I remember looking at that had similar results used boiling and discarding the cooking water.

And no one is ever arguing that cooking fruit improves its nutritional profile. The whole point of fruit is that you don't need to cook it.

As for whether Juno is 100% wrong...
Although i don't eat meat, there have been studies showing that cooking your food actually kills important nutrition and actually make it more harmful. It's actually a lot healthier to eat your meat and vegetables raw. Just to let you know, as the original humans didn't cook there food.

There is no defense of that. Cooking makes food harmful?

You also haven't addressed the issue of the nutritional profiles of cooked brassicas, tomatoes, and other vegetables improving after cooking. Just because there are more vitamins/minerals in an uncooked bit of food doesn't mean that you will actually get all those out of that food if you just pop it in your mouth. It's a well-known issue with iron in spinach for instance - if you burn a ton of spinach to ash and filter out the iron molecules, there's a good amount. But a much smaller % iron makes it into your body when you eat spinach in comparison to heme iron from animal flesh.

Cooking is just pre-digesting food outside our body before putting it into our body. Taking a load off of our internal systems.

Another way to think about it: Plants have an evolutionary incentive to make themselves as worthless as possible to eat for animals. Binding up nutrients in phytic acid like a lot of grains or legumes, making toxins like rhubarb leaves, coconut or macadamia nut shells, etc. Animals get around that by using bacteria to break plants down for them (gut fermenters), by just eating the parts that the plant wants them to eat (birds), and so on... but humans cheat because plants have been adapting to make themselves minimally digestible by things like stomach acid and digestive juices. Heat? Not so much.

/ramble
 
This is true, which I already stated. But, compare your total choices of food. Starches and lentils do not make up much of the total selection of food sources on earth. I would venture to bet there are more different choices of fruits alone than all choices of lentils and starches combined. Would you argue that cooking fruits does not infact have any degredation of nutrient content and quality?

On a gram for gram basis, there is supporting evidence for degredation of micronutrient content in cooked foods. However, there's still a significant consensus in the literature that supports cooked foods in preference of raw foods for both its digestibility, bioavailability, and perhaps most importantly - palatability. Thus, you'll be extracting more nutrients out of a cooked product rather than a raw one.

Can I honestly say I believe this? Yes; although I rarely eat raw foods. Am I 100% certain this is right? Absolutely not. But there is science there, and the raw diet has PhD supporters who are much smarter than myself (Masters in Human Science) and anyone else on this board. For everyone to straight up tell this Juno character that he is 100% wrong and science proves him wrong is a one sided, flawed point of view.

Straight up telling people to accept a point of view because of the letters after a persons name isn't acceptable, especially when you suggest that a "raw diet" may be acceptable. I'm not quite sure how best to refute a statement like that, all I know is that it's dangerous, and ineffective, on many different levels.

Juno has presented a flawed argument from the beginning, which is beyond that of a simplistic examination of vitamin content in cooked v raw foods.
 
Straight up telling people to accept a point of view because of the letters after a persons name isn't acceptable, especially when you suggest that a "raw diet" may be acceptable. I'm not quite sure how best to refute a statement like that, all I know is that it's dangerous, and ineffective, on many different levels.

Juno has presented a flawed argument from the beginning, which is beyond that of a simplistic examination of vitamin content in cooked v raw foods.

Now i can understand if you don't agree with me, but how is raw food dangerous? Not only did we start out eating raw food, but i know plenty of 100% raw foodist that are perfectly healthy and fine. Hell, the guy on the front page said he's been living off raw meat for 5 years now.
 
Raw diets have been proven dangerous in studies. Read my thread "How is frutarian possible?" right here on F15. Although it has little to do with my question, they ramble on about raw diets.
 
Now i can understand if you don't agree with me, but how is raw food dangerous? Not only did we start out eating raw food, but i know plenty of 100% raw foodist that are perfectly healthy and fine. Hell, the guy on the front page said he's been living off raw meat for 5 years now.

We didn't start out eating raw food. Homo sapiens sapiens appeared roughly 200,000 years ago. Cooking probably started 300,000 - 500,000 years ago. Creatures that evolved into humans began cooking food. Let that sink in.
 
This is true, which I already stated. But, compare your total choices of food. Starches and lentils do not make up much of the total selection of food sources on earth. I would venture to bet there are more different choices of fruits alone than all choices of lentils and starches combined. Would you argue that cooking fruits does not infact have any degredation of nutrient content and quality?

How I get to the assumption that vitamin and nutrient content is degraded? The link that I posted showed a 10%-25% loss in vitamins and nutrients in raw vs cooked food using a sample size of hundreds of different sources of food from different food types.

Although it might not be much, a 10%-25% loss of nutrients and vitamins to me is enough to at least consider the thought that when looking at all sources of food on earth, cooked foods might not be as nutrient and vitamin dense as raw ones.

Can I honestly say I believe this? Yes; although I rarely eat raw foods. Am I 100% certain this is right? Absolutely not. But there is science there, and the raw diet has PhD supporters who are much smarter than myself (Masters in Human Science) and anyone else on this board. For everyone to straight up tell this Juno character that he is 100% wrong and science proves him wrong is a one sided, flawed point of view.

Yes but not sure why one would focus on the total choices of food when no one person has access to all those choices. Makes more sense to focus on the typical plate which consists of carbs, some veg and a source of protein. The carbs element needs cooking generally and most meats aren't great raw.

I don't think anyone is saying eat only cooked food or that it's superior in every way. It isn't and a mix of cooked and raw is probably optimal. We're reacting to the claim that raw is better across the board when it clearly is not, plus the argument that this must be true because we evolved from hominids which, if you go far enough back, didn't have fire.

It isn't true is to say that raw food is more efficient nutritionally per se.

I think the argument has been settled really. We're all agreeing that some food is better raw and some cooked and in fact that even single food items like some veg should be eaten both cooked and raw since they give up different nutrients better in either state.

All-raw food diets are generally not considered a good idea by the majority of dieticians at levels far higher than pHd so not sure that is a good argument.
 
Now i can understand if you don't agree with me, but how is raw food dangerous? Not only did we start out eating raw food, but i know plenty of 100% raw foodist that are perfectly healthy and fine. Hell, the guy on the front page said he's been living off raw meat for 5 years now.

I agree. I can't really see that it's particularly harmful as such. I wouldn't do it and there is no scientifically proven reason to eschew cooking but I'm sure people can be healthy on it. I people can survive being vegans I'm sure they can survive being raw food faddists.
 
Back
Top