Raw vs Cooked..

[tp4tissue]

All online research points to the fact that , hell, no body knows for sure..

So.. what to do..  half and half??

Is that reasonable??

I'll eat half the blended vegetables raw... and I'll cook the other half...

[paicrai]

idk take your lumps

[noisyturtle]

Personally I feel like Paleo is just another load of **** fad diet, but cooking veggies does deplete a small amount of the nutrients. Don't think it really makes a big difference, just eat what tastes better IMO.

[tp4tissue]

Personally I feel like Paleo is just another load of **** fad diet, but cooking veggies does deplete a small amount of the nutrients. Don't think it really makes a big difference, just eat what tastes better IMO.

well, all these diets have  good points, and bad points..


I know not to take them to extremes.

But.. I was just looking for some feed back from anyone who's had some raw food experience..


Specifically,  this issue with raw-cruciferous (kale, cabbage, broccoli) vegetables suppressing thyroid function

[noisyturtle]

Raw kale is super healthy, I know that for sure, it's one of the superfoods. You can make a really delicious sort of salad with kale, quinoa, cucumber,  pinenuts, balsamic vinager, and lemon juice. Add some blueberries too if you fancy that. It's actually really really yummy, and very good for you.

[tbc]

'more nutrients' from raw veggies is BS.

i mean, it's technically true, but it's only useful if your body is in starvation mode and is desperately trying to absorb as many nutrients as possible (remember, we don't have useful appendixes anymore(

even more simply....if cooked veggies has less nutrients, JUST EAT MORE OF IT.  duh?


paleo is the caveman diet?

that's such a stupid premise i don't even know where to start.

maybe with the fact that cavemen didn't have supermarkets?

[tp4tissue]

'more nutrients' from raw veggies is BS.

i mean, it's technically true, but it's only useful if your body is in starvation mode and is desperately trying to absorb as many nutrients as possible (remember, we don't have useful appendixes anymore(

even more simply....if cooked veggies has less nutrients, JUST EAT MORE OF IT.  duh?


paleo is the caveman diet?

that's such a stupid premise i don't even know where to start.

maybe with the fact that cavemen didn't have supermarkets?

here's the thing.. with Eat more of it..

Do you really want to ?  vegetables = lots of water.. kinda hard to stomach that, without persistent restroom-use..

[Malphas]

I don't really think you need as much vegetables as people think for optimum health. I think a lot of the research on how much fruit and vegetables you should consume is based on the assumption the rest of your diet is crap (which for most people, it generally is, in fairness). Eating things like liver, eggs, oily fish, certain nuts, etc. provides a greater quantity of useful micronutrients than vegetables.

[dante]

Trick question!

Sure you can look up Vegetable / Fruit X, Y, Z and it will show what the nutritional content should have - but what about soil erosion?  Even if you eat raw you're not guaranteed that the soil your food was grown from wasn't depleted of nutrients.

[User Was Banned]

Personally I feel like Paleo is just another load of **** fad diet, but cooking veggies does deplete a small amount of the nutrients. Don't think it really makes a big difference, just eat what tastes better IMO.

Really, the take home message from "paleo" is to not eat processed foods, grains, and seed oils. Basically, keep it simple, eat foods that come from the earth. Plants and animals. It's really not that hard.

[User Was Banned]

Also, you could eat animal organ meats and offal and never touch a vegetable. Organ meats are the most nutrient dense foods on earth.

[Malphas]

Personally I feel like Paleo is just another load of **** fad diet, but cooking veggies does deplete a small amount of the nutrients. Don't think it really makes a big difference, just eat what tastes better IMO.

Really, the take home message from "paleo" is to not eat processed foods, grains, and seed oils. Basically, keep it simple, eat foods that come from the earth. Plants and animals. It's really not that hard.

That's why paleo is inadvertently effective, but it also goes far beyond what's necessary, making it needlessly more inconvenient and more unpalatable for most people. It's also based on an incredibly arbitrary and flimsy premise. A whole foods diet that also includes minimally processed grains (like oatmeal and rice), legumes, root vegetables, dairy (if you're of Northern European or Middle Eastern ancestry) but still omitting processed foods is just as effective.

[dante]

The ethical dilemma I have with the meat eating thing are the environmental consequences.  Raising animals takes a crap load of oil and fresh water.

I still eat meat but have cut my consumption to about 5% of my caloric intake.

The paleo guys unfortunately don't follow their own message: for our ancestors meat was an extreme luxury or sparingly used as a condiment.

[Malphas]

Trick question!

Sure you can look up Vegetable / Fruit X, Y, Z and it will show what the nutritional content should have - but what about soil erosion?  Even if you eat raw you're not guaranteed that the soil your food was grown from wasn't depleted of nutrients.

Agricultural land tends to be naturally fertile and loaded with chemical fertilisers. Although the majority of phytochemicals in vegetables and fruit are synthesised in the plant, not derived from the environment - all plants need from the soil is nitrogen basically.

[User Was Banned]

The ethical dilemma I have with the meat eating thing is the environmental consequences.  Raising animals takes a crap load of oil and fresh water.

I still eat meat but have cut my consumption to about 5% of my caloric intake.

The paleo guys unfortunately don't follow their own message: for our ancestors meat was an extreme luxury or sparingly used as a condiment.

Please prove this with citations, or do not speculate.

[Malphas]

The paleo guys unfortunately don't follow their own message: for our ancestors meat was an extreme luxury or sparingly used as a condiment.

No it wasn't. For our neolithic ancestors it was, but for our paleolithic ancestors it was the staple. Hunting one animal provided thousands of calories, which would take days and days of foraging to equal.

[User Was Banned]

The ethical dilemma I have with the meat eating thing are the environmental consequences.  Raising animals takes a crap load of oil and fresh water.

Fresh water, okay. Oil? How so?

Almost all paleo diet advocates also advocate fully grass-fed and finished, free roaming ruminants. They also advocate eating the fattier, more calorie dense parts of the animal that are most often thrown out by typical consumers.

[Malphas]

The ethical dilemma I have with the meat eating thing is the environmental consequences.  Raising animals takes a crap load of oil and fresh water.

I still eat meat but have cut my consumption to about 5% of my caloric intake.

The paleo guys unfortunately don't follow their own message: for our ancestors meat was an extreme luxury or sparingly used as a condiment.

Please prove this with citations, or do not speculate.

That's a lame reply, man. This isn't Wikipedia where aspies argue over [citation needed]. I don't recall you posting a citation for the claims you made in the thread.

[User Was Banned]

The ethical dilemma I have with the meat eating thing is the environmental consequences.  Raising animals takes a crap load of oil and fresh water.

I still eat meat but have cut my consumption to about 5% of my caloric intake.

The paleo guys unfortunately don't follow their own message: for our ancestors meat was an extreme luxury or sparingly used as a condiment.

Please prove this with citations, or do not speculate.

That's a lame reply, man. This isn't Wikipedia where aspies argue over [citation needed]. I don't recall you posting a citation for the claims you made in the thread.

Read my replies. What needed citations? Saying "meat was an extreme luxury for our ancestors" is rather baseless and begs for some sort of citation.

I've been involved in paleo culture for nearly 6 years now, and it kills me to see the same baseless assumptions being thrown around.

[Malphas]

The ethical dilemma I have with the meat eating thing are the environmental consequences.  Raising animals takes a crap load of oil and fresh water.

Fresh water, okay. Oil? How so?

Almost all paleo diet advocates also advocate fully grass-fed and finished, free roaming ruminants. They also advocate eating the fattier, more calorie dense parts of the animal that are most often thrown out by typical consumers.

Oil - heating, lighting, agricultural machinery, the entire transport and production chain for everything involved in raising and processing the product, etc.

[User Was Banned]

The ethical dilemma I have with the meat eating thing are the environmental consequences.  Raising animals takes a crap load of oil and fresh water.

Fresh water, okay. Oil? How so?

Almost all paleo diet advocates also advocate fully grass-fed and finished, free roaming ruminants. They also advocate eating the fattier, more calorie dense parts of the animal that are most often thrown out by typical consumers.

Oil - heating, lighting, agricultural machinery, the entire transport and production chain for everything involved in raising and processing the product, etc.

That is a slippery slope. If raising and butchering animals for consumption costed more oil than growing and processing the grains necessary for every other dry junk in a box, then that might be a valid argument. Oil is so prevalent elsewhere that it's really a moot point. Especially if you're choosing free range ruminants that are butchered and processed on site.

[tp4tissue]

Guys...  I just made some coconut milk from fresh coconuts..

OMFG... I feel like I'm gonna die...  this is the end...   If you never hear from me again......   I love you all....

[Malphas]

The ethical dilemma I have with the meat eating thing are the environmental consequences.  Raising animals takes a crap load of oil and fresh water.

Fresh water, okay. Oil? How so?

Almost all paleo diet advocates also advocate fully grass-fed and finished, free roaming ruminants. They also advocate eating the fattier, more calorie dense parts of the animal that are most often thrown out by typical consumers.

Oil - heating, lighting, agricultural machinery, the entire transport and production chain for everything involved in raising and processing the product, etc.

That is a slippery slope. If raising and butchering animals for consumption costed more oil than growing and processing the grains necessary for every other dry junk in a box, then that might be a valid argument. Oil is so prevalent elsewhere that it's really a moot point. Especially if you're choosing free range ruminants that are butchered and processed on site.

I don't consider it a relevant argument in dictating other people's diets, but it's a legitimate personal point (not one I personally subscribe to). But it is a well known fact that livestock production requires more energy and more land than grain production does, per calorie, so there's no point trying to dispute that. Free range, organic, and other esoteric farming methods are even less efficient, even if they are healthier.

[tbc]

The ethical dilemma I have with the meat eating thing are the environmental consequences.  Raising animals takes a crap load of oil and fresh water.

I still eat meat but have cut my consumption to about 5% of my caloric intake.

The paleo guys unfortunately don't follow their own message: for our ancestors meat was an extreme luxury or sparingly used as a condiment.

that's the BEST diet.

meat should be a third or less of your total intake.  for most people, it's WAYY  the other way around; like 5% of calories from veggies.

[Malphas]

There is no best diet. There's a multitude of different ways you can eat that are all effective in terms of general health, energy, longevity, etc. If you look at communities with the longest lifespans and low rates of corony disease, obesity, diabetes etc. you'll notice they all vary widely. The one thing they have in common is the lack of processed foods and moderated caloric intake, which are really the only two things you have to worry about.

[tbc]

exactly.  i was being unspecific for a reason.

the exact details are largely irrelevant.  it's the overall diet plan that is more important.

i'v never seen a proven successful diet where meat (different than protein) was the majority of food intake though.

[dante]

Here is a nice video I've found:

[Malphas]

exactly.  i was being unspecific for a reason.

the exact details are largely irrelevant.  it's the overall diet plan that is more important.

i'v never seen a proven successful diet where meat (different than protein) was the majority of food intake though.

Arctic peoples and Plains Indians to name a couple.

[Malphas]

Here is a nice video I've found:

Completely irrelevant to the dietary pros and cons of meat.

[dante]

exactly.  i was being unspecific for a reason.

the exact details are largely irrelevant.  it's the overall diet plan that is more important.

i'v never seen a proven successful diet where meat (different than protein) was the majority of food intake though.

Arctic peoples and Plains Indians to name a couple.

http://www.raw-food-health.net/Primal-Diet.html

Unfortunately, claims about the great health of Eskimos prior to the addition of processed foods are overstated. They are not the paragons of health meat-centric dieters want them to be.

Primal Diet EskimosIn his book, "Health Conditions and Disease Incidence Among The Eskimos of Labrador," Dr. Samel Hutton reported on the Inuit before the addition of western foods.

He studied them personally from 1902 to 1913, and had access to the detailed birth and death records kept by missionaries from the previous century.

Hutton said: "Old age sets in at fifty and its signs are strongly marked at sixty. In the years beyond sixty the Eskimo is aged and feeble. Comparatively few live beyond sixty and only a very few reach seventy. Those who live to such an age have spent a life of great activity, feeding on Eskimo foods and engaging in characteristically Eskimo pursuits."

The more you study Eskimo culture, the more you realize it was never free from disease, and, in fact, people of the culture suffered from a number of disorders we associate with meat-centric diets today.

The Eskimos were very familiar with constipation due to their low-fiber diet, and they created the spirit Matshishkapeu, the most powerful spirit in their mythology, to embody it.  The spirit's name literally translates into "Fart Man." In Inuit stories, he is known to inflict painful cases of constipation upon people and other gods

[Malphas]

That's written from a non-objective angle, and doesn't actually contain any factual evidence. Do you really expect anyone who spend their entire life doing hard physical work outdoors in Arctic climate to not have age take its toll on them? For more objective information rather than propaganda look at non-biased studies where subjects were put on an Eskimo diet and the positive effect it had on their cardiovascular health.

[tbc]

exactly.  i was being unspecific for a reason.

the exact details are largely irrelevant.  it's the overall diet plan that is more important.

i'v never seen a proven successful diet where meat (different than protein) was the majority of food intake though.

Arctic peoples and Plains Indians to name a couple.

i'm not sure what your impression of the quality of their health was....it wasn't good, let's say that (not many octogenarians)

but let's be clear, they had ALOT of physical activity due to constantly migrating to follow animal herds and constantly rebuilding their housing infrastructure and long term food storage.  this is NOT counting the hunting they had to do...once again, no supermarkets.

like squirrels....you've seen squirrels run around before?  dear lord that's so much energy

[Malphas]

Again, expecting to find octogenarians in nomadic hunter-gatherer societies is a fallacy. I'm referring to the diet itself, not advocating palaeolithic superiority as some misguided paelo diet proponents do.

All you need to do is compare the health of these populations before and after the introduction of western foods, or look at modern studies where groups of subjects are placed on approximations of these diets and then monitored, and its obvious that they're superior to modern western diets - which is my whole point, that caloric moderation and whole foods is all you need to worry about. You don't need to worry about macronutrient ratios, or eating enough of one food or too much of another.

[tp4tissue]

Here is a nice video I've found:

Thanks for sharing the video dante.... Very informative on some of the health correlated effects of eating animal products.




On the subject of animals:

I don't think that guy understands that Right and Wrong is a direct-result of Power and Influence..

So things such as cruelty, slavery, subjugation does not actually exist.. they are just descriptors for our limited human ability to organize..

[noisyturtle]

I never understood why people would want to be unhappy and live longer, rather than be happy and live less. The last 15 or so years of your life is going to be ****ty anyway, who in their right mind would want to live past 80 with our current medicine?

[Findecanor]

The ethical dilemma I have with the meat eating thing are the environmental consequences.  Raising animals takes a crap load of oil and fresh water.

One fifth of all greenhouse gases are attributed to meat production. Our most popular meat is beef, from cows, who are ruminants who burp methane (30 times more potent than CO2). Farm animals also produce heaps and heaps of manure which seeps methane and laughing gas (295 times more potent than CO2).

Also, four fifths of all farmland is used for growing animal feed. That is not just a waste of resources, it is also that most farmers use farming methods that are not ecologically sound.
A lot of land is monoculture, with the same species of crop on the land year after year and that is draining the land of nutrients which are then replaced with fertiliser. Synthetic fertiliser is made from oil, thus adding more carbon into the system. Plowing the land releases carbon in the soil into the atmosphere.

The paleo guys unfortunately don't follow their own message: for our ancestors meat was an extreme luxury or sparingly used as a condiment.

Hey, beef steaks and pork chops were luxuries even for our grandparents. People ate more of what are now considered "bad cuts", intestines and blood products, and often in sausages. Nowadays those parts go into dog food, or back into becoming fertiliser.

[Findecanor]

Another threat from meat is the threat of germs. I found this to be as important as to warrant its own post.
Most antibiotics in the world today is not used to treat diseases, but to make meat-animals grow faster. This overuse of antibiotics creates resistant strains of dangerous bacteria that humanity used to have under control.
It is estimated that 80% of all pigs in Denmark and Germany are infected with MRSA, and that practically all chicken have salmonella.
It is also believed that the yearly outbreaks of new strains of influenza originate from animal handling in Asia.

[tp4tissue]

Another threat from meat is the threat of germs. I found this to be as important as to warrant its own post.
Most antibiotics in the world today is not used to treat diseases, but to make meat-animals grow faster. This overuse of antibiotics creates resistant strains of dangerous bacteria that humanity used to have under control.
It is estimated that 80% of all pigs in Denmark and Germany are infected with MRSA, and that practically all chicken have salmonella.
It is also believed that the yearly outbreaks of new strains of influenza originate from animal handling in Asia.

adsf

[Malphas]

The main problem with the Gary Yourofsky is that he's intellectually dishonest. He's also careful to avoid making very specific claims on why eating meat is unhealthy but instead words himself in a way that the unguarded listener comes to that conclusion himself from the statements he makes. e.g. 1 in 3 meat-eaters get cancer, the implication being that it's due to the consumption of meat rather than the fact that 1 in 3 of the population in general is affected by cancer.

I completely respect vegetarian and vegan diets for ethical reasons, but trying to conflate that with health reasons to prop up your argument makes you a lying scumbag. (The same goes for pro-meat eating that try to disregard the ethical issue, for the record.)

[tp4tissue]

The main problem with the Gary Yourofsky is that he's intellectually dishonest. He's also careful to avoid making very specific claims on why eating meat is unhealthy but instead words himself in a way that the unguarded listener comes to that conclusion himself from the statements he makes. e.g. 1 in 3 meat-eaters get cancer, the implication being that it's due to the consumption of meat rather than the fact that 1 in 3 of the population in general is affected by cancer.

I completely respect vegetarian and vegan diets for ethical reasons, but trying to conflate that with health reasons to prop up your argument makes you a lying scumbag. (The same goes for pro-meat eating that try to disregard the ethical issue, for the record.)

i moved my previous post on the vegan debate to new thread..  would love to continue the conversation over there..  since this one is on raw vs cooked, and not reallly about gary..

[dante]

I never understood why people would want to be unhappy and live longer, rather than be happy and live less. The last 15 or so years of your life is going to be ****ty anyway, who in their right mind would want to live past 80 with our current medicine?

I agree Vegans and Meat eaters can live to 90+ ... The difference is I don't want to depend on anyone else to wipe my ass.

[Malphas]

I never understood why people would want to be unhappy and live longer, rather than be happy and live less. The last 15 or so years of your life is going to be ****ty anyway, who in their right mind would want to live past 80 with our current medicine?

I agree Vegans and Meat eaters can live to 90+ ... The difference is I don't want to depend on anyone else to wipe my ass.

If you honestly believe meat consumption is the critical factor here on how long you'll live and in what sort of condition you'll be in then you're completely delusional. You started out with an ethical argument, which I can respect even if I don't subscribe to it. Now you're coming from a fraudulent health angle that doesn't tally with facts, which I can't.