PDA

View Full Version : Raw Protein?


Tony Ferous
12-18-2006, 08:09 PM
Does anyone eat raw or very rare protein foods?

Lately ive been eating fresh raw tuna(expensive!) and grass fed beef(actually pretty tender), I eat rare kangaroo too.
Ive had zero acne since doing this for 2 of 3 of my daily meals.

Fruit I eat raw(obviously), cruciferous veg I cook.

Ive also been eating baken sweet potatoes for some carbs, esp after workouts.
Why do they taste so much better baked than boiled? Maybe all that acrylamide and glycated carbohydrate due to the higher temperatures?



http://waisays.com/index.html "Cooking food creates the toxins that cause welfare diseases"



Thanks!

Scott Kustes
12-19-2006, 05:12 AM
I've started cooking my meat less, except chicken. I still get my chicken at the local grocery, but it is antibiotic/hormone-free and I can get it on the cheap (wait till a few days before the sell-by, $.59-$.79/lb...load up the 15' freezer). I throw my steak on the grill long enough to singe the outside and leave the inside rare...or more appropriately raw. It's tougher to cut though, that's for sure. I do the same with liver...it's grass-fed from Slankers. I put it in with the onions long enough to cook it a touch, but leave the middle still somewhat rare. I'm not willing to go fully raw due to not knowing the full processing chain, but I think leaving it mostly raw can be beneficial.

Robb Wolf
12-19-2006, 08:49 AM
The beef I eat is typically very rare...still cook the outside. I've had two raging bouts of food poisoning in my life, not excited about a third. I steam most of my veggies. Salads are of course raw but I tend to mainly do those in the spring and summer.

Jeremy Jones
12-19-2006, 02:11 PM
Costco has Ahi tuna steaks frozen. . . I have debated if this fish popsicle thawed would be okay to eat.

How does the Grassfed beef taste raw?

Chris Forbis
12-19-2006, 03:41 PM
I eat the grassfed ground beef really rare. As in, pan fried just enough to make it warm. Pretty tasty to me...

Andew Cattermole
12-19-2006, 05:15 PM
I live with a Japanese Partner and if you haven't investigated their diet I would recommend it.
Very heavy in seafood and sea vegatables.

In regards to Raw Foods

On a weekly basis we would have Beef tataki,Sashimi and variety of seafood sashimi,as well as Korean (S?)Yukii(Raw beef with Nashi Pears and Raw egg).
Soups made from fish bones,snacks from chicken cartilage,lots of meals involving tripe and bones,fun to pick at.

Lucky enough also to have access of a variety of high quality fresh veg,salad greens and Asian Greens all year round in Aus.

Robb Wolf
12-21-2006, 07:57 AM
I love that the Japanese diet is portrayed as being largely vegetarian.
Andrew-
I'm game for dinner wiht you folks anytime!

I live with a Japanese Partner and if you haven't investigated their diet I would recommend it.
Very heavy in seafood and sea vegatables.

In regards to Raw Foods

On a weekly basis we would have Beef tataki,Sashimi and variety of seafood sashimi,as well as Korean (S?)Yukii(Raw beef with Nashi Pears and Raw egg).
Soups made from fish bones,snacks from chicken cartilage,lots of meals involving tripe and bones,fun to pick at.

Lucky enough also to have access of a variety of high quality fresh veg,salad greens and Asian Greens all year round in Aus.

Scott Kustes
12-21-2006, 10:59 AM
I love that the Japanese diet is portrayed as being largely vegetarian.
Andrew-
I'm game for dinner wiht you folks anytime!
Yeah, it's characterized as high in soy, which is a laugh...on average 2 tsp per day for men and less for women from the studies I've seen. But it's all about the agenda, facts be damned.

Scotty Hagnas
12-21-2006, 05:57 PM
I've been eating some raw meat periodically the last few months. It is actually quite good, especially when seasoned well.

Hmm... a raw meat recipe issue??

Scotty Hagnas
CrossFit Portland

Yael Grauer
12-21-2006, 06:06 PM
I like the Primal Diet recipes for raw meat. Mmm.

Tony Ferous
12-21-2006, 07:25 PM
Is the 'primal diet' worth a read Scotty?

Andew Cattermole
12-21-2006, 08:07 PM
I love that the Japanese diet is portrayed as being largely vegetarian.
Andrew-
I'm game for dinner wiht you folks anytime!
Rob
Yeah I never understood that,Japanese people love there meats and seafood.Strangely texture in food is a big thing,which means they eat every part of just about every animal.Tofu is consumed heavily but I'm yet to find Soy Milk or Rice Milk in anyone's daily diet despite what people over here tell me.
Then there is the wonder food of Nato (fermented Soy Bean)

Scotty Hagnas
12-22-2006, 04:15 PM
I like the recipes that the "Primal Diet" contains. I just recently got the book though, and haven't had time to finish it. (Nov. and Dec. always crush me, as my day/night job is at the post office.)

Not too excited about his recomendations to consume most veggies juiced, nor his feeding schedule of like 12 meals a day. Constantly elevated baseline insulin leels, anyone?

It's worth checking out, though.

Scotty Hagnas
CrossFit Portland

Elliot Royce
12-23-2006, 10:34 AM
Not to put a downer on this but remember that you can get intestinal parasites through eating raw meat or fish. Besides pork, where everyone knows you have to cook it, other meats can contain parasites. My wife got one when she was younger and you may lose your taste for raw meat when you find you have a 20 ft tapeworm. Of course, for losing weight, it can't be beat.

I believe many of the cultures that eat raw meat also combine it with marinades or other techniques that minimize the chance of infection by parasites. Not to mention that paleo man was probably riddled by parasites.

http://www.ourfood.com/Parasites_Pathogenic_Protoz.html

Family/work safe but pretty gross: talks about coughing up your tapeworm, etc.

Also, I believe that pregnant women are particularly at risk from toxoplasmosis which commonly comes from cat boxes but I believe may also be directly transferable from raw food (not sure but better check with the doctor).

Tony Ferous
12-27-2006, 02:55 AM
Fair point Elliot, some of the descirptions on that site are pretty scarey!

Looks like including a variety of spicey condiments with the meal is important, like ginger and wasabi with sashimi and maybe garlic, hot pepper, mustard with meat.

http://www.electroherbalism.com/Naturopathy/Therapies/Supplements/Herbs/TheKitchenHerbalist.htm

Frank Needham
12-27-2006, 07:30 AM
Elliot touches on a point that is ALWAYS obscured when PALEO MAN is being discussed. If his diet was so hot and it was so good for him then why did he only live to the ripe old age of 30? I know, I know, you're going to tell me that there are so many other factors. Believe me, I've thought it through and I just don't buy it. If the basis of selection is the justification for the continuance of the specie then it seems that agriculture has won out already. The fact that humans are basically lazy has not changed in the last 10k years either. If Paleo dude had access to mega carbs he probably would have had a gut like H Simpson and Paleo dudette would have had a kiester like Large Marge the same as today.

Scott Kustes
12-27-2006, 08:07 AM
Frank, here is something I've written prior. Looking at the lifespan to determine optimal diet is impossible when there are so many factors.

Of course, a mention of a Paleolithic Diet brings up the argument that “our ancestors only lived to be 35 years old.” This argument assumes that early death was a result of subpar health. In dismantling this argument, we should first recognize that 35 years was the average life expectancy for our ancestors. If you recall from statistics class, an average is approximately the middle of a range of numbers, assuming that there are no extreme outliers (which in the case of age would be centenarians). So that alone means that we’re dealing with a range of approximately 0 to 70 years old.

The 20th century saw vast improvements in life expectancy which are most certainly not attributable to improvements in what we eat. If we look back just a little over a century ago to 1900, we see that average life expectancy at birth was only 47 years old.51 Looking around, it is obvious that we aren’t any healthier, yet we are living, on average, 50% longer. What gives?

The first answer to that dilemma is medical treatment, which enables people to survive things that would’ve killed them just a century ago, not to mention 50,000 years ago. For instance, today we can survive gunshots, knife wounds, falls from height, degenerative diseases, and broken bones due to medications and excellent surgical techniques. Parasites and infections that would’ve killed 200 or 2,000 or 20,000 years ago are now easily treated by doctors. A broken leg would’ve made a person a target to rival tribes as well as predators searching for dinner. Today, humans are not prey. The second answer is sanitation. It wasn’t too long ago that we lived amongst our waste, which is a breeding ground for the parasites and bacteria that we can so easily kill these days.

There is also a huge difference in the lifestyle led by hunter-gatherers and that led by modern Westernized humans. Basically, no one in modern culture has to worry about their dinner baring its claws and teeth and being turned into dinner themselves. Hunter-gatherers fought daily with animals that were bigger, stronger, and better equipped for killing than are humans with our lack of claws and fangs. Today, we go to the grocery store and pick up our steak or roast. Even modern hunters have little worry of being killed by their prey with their high-powered rifles and shotguns. Today, few people in modern societies have to worry about starvation, yet it was an ever-present reality amongst indigenous peoples.

We must also look at the infant mortality rate. While I don’t have data for 50,000 years ago, a few assumptions make it easy to see how medical improvements have vastly increased our average age by improving the number of people surviving to age 5 and beyond. In the year 2000, 99.3% of all babies reached age 1; in 1900, only 87.5% of babies reached age 1.52 In 2000, about 99.2% of all babies reached age 5; in 1900, that percentage was only 81.8%. Seeing the huge leaps in just 100 years, it isn’t out of the question to assume that (conservatively) at least 25% of all babies born in the Paleolithic era did not reach age 5. Given that, we have to assume that at least that many reached beyond age 35. In fact, looking at modern day hunter-gatherer tribes we see that many of them reach beyond age 60, well into old-age.

Finally, there is the argument that age 35 was simply too early to acquire the diseases such as cancer and heart disease. This also holds no water as Dr. Cordain points out in his article discussing our ancestral life expectancy.53 Dr. Cordain says it better than I ever could, so I offer this quote: “While chronic degenerative diseases generally produce mortality in later life, they begin much earlier, often in childhood. This allows comparison between age-matched younger members of industrial and technologically primitive societies. Biomarkers of developing abnormality such as obesity, rising blood
pressure, non-obstructive coronary atherosclerosis, and insulin resistance are common among the former, but rare in the latter. Measurements of muscular strength and aerobic power reveal similar discrepancies, again favoring individuals whose lives more closely resemble the ancestral pattern. About 20% of hunter-gatherers reach age 60 or beyond, but even in this age bracket, individuals from foraging and other technologically primitive cultures appear almost completely free from manifestations of most chronic degenerative diseases (osteoarthritis is an exception).” We can see that these diseases do not occur overnight; one is not cancer-free one day and cancerous the next.

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr54/nvsr54_14.pdf, Page 35
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr54/nvsr54_14.pdf, Page 26
http://www.thepaleodiet.com/articles/Counter%20Arguments%20Paper.pdf

Agriculture has won for one reason - quantity of calories. Natural selection works on "most" not necessarily "optimal". Agriculture, for all of its faults, has allowed the human race to proliferate beyond anyone's wildest imaginations. Agriculture is the only way of supporting 6 billion people. If fewer people starve to death, at a time when fewer people are dying from animal attacks due to improved security and villages, you will see a proliferation of people. But the archeological record shows vast decreases in human health at the same time. Agriculture has produced many humans at the cost of healthy humans.

Jeremy Jones
12-27-2006, 03:35 PM
I just made a connection with what Scott posted and with some info contained in "On Combat."

Grossman states something like we are living in the most violent times - in recorded history. It is true that murder rates have gone down significantly in the last few decades, but the truth is that violent crimes have gone up significantly. If it weren't for our advances in medicine, the homicide rates would be through the roof.

So related to what Scott said. . . we may be negating the deaths, but we have not actually done anything to solve the problem.

Elliot Royce
12-27-2006, 04:00 PM
I don't believe that the homicide rate per capita is anywhere near historical levels. I don't have the information in front of me but I can recall reading that even Victorian England was much more violent than our days. Is your source referring to per capita rates or just absolute numbers? Almost any quantum relating to human beings in aggregate is larger today given the vastly greater population.

The Paleo debate continues. In a sense, it doesn't matter what happened to our ancestors in neolithic times as long as the Paleo diet works for people today. I don't think there are any certainties when it comes to most diets.

Robb Wolf
12-28-2006, 10:22 AM
On the parasite topic:
This is also part of why traditionally eaten raw meats are cut very thinly. One should inspect the meat through a light source (called "candling") for eggs and other goodies. Keep in mind that our ancestors were almost certainly battling parasitic infections. Dr's Eades talk about this in Protein Power Life Plan, as does our own Greg Everett with regards to potentially unhealthy levels of iron.

Now the topic of Paleo longevity was well addressed by Scott K but I'll add that average lifespan, stature and dental health all suffered with the advent of agriculture. Infant mortality greatly increased which should beg the question then: How did our global population increase with the advent of agriculture? Not only was a greater caloric density available but birth spacing shortened from an average of 4.5 years for hunter gatherers to 12 months for agriculturalists. Elevated insulin blocks the contraceptive effects of breast feeding, thus allowing for much more frequent births.

This is off topic but if you start talking population and sustainability it appears that your best bet is to industrialize and educate your population. This will encourages higher yield agricultural practices (whether paleo-esque or not) AND it leads to dramatically decreased birth rates (bad secular humanists not wanting 6 kids!)

The Neo-Cons think this will lead to Islam overrunning Europe and the destruction of The West. I guess time will tell.

Jeremy Jones
12-28-2006, 02:05 PM
Per capita.

It is not talking about "homicide" rates being the highest (even though homicides per capita are up 5 times from the 1950's). Grossman is talking about the fact that violent assaults are at an all time high, and the "homocide" rate isn't as affected by violent crime as it used to be because our advances in medicine and emergency treatment.


This is the same reason why it is difficult to directly compare paleo and current lifestyles. The medical field has changed the rules.




I think Rob is advocating that we increase welfare to the Inner Cities and Trailer Parks so we can combat the radical Islam wave.


Quick! Send beer, twinkies and mac 'cheese STAT. We need a baby boom! It is the only way to save the future for the West.

Scott Kustes
12-28-2006, 04:35 PM
Robb, you said "Infant mortality greatly increased". Are you saying that agriculture actually brought about the deaths of more infants? I had assumed otherwise, that removing the constant predation by other savannah dwelling creatures and having dedicated medicine men would've cause a decrease in infant mortality.