0

votes

Cooked food: Is it a good basis for paleo

Answered on August 19, 2014
Created September 12, 2010 at 1:24 AM

My question is not about whether food should be cooked or not, but about is food that can be eaten raw more paleo than food that must be cooked.

When i think of the paleo diet, i think of fruits, vegitables, and lean meats, all of which can be eaten raw. When i think of SAD, i think of grains, legumes, and processed junk, all of which is toxic to the human body raw.

I know paleolithic humans did cook their foods, but that was to make it easier to eat, not to make it edible.

So my question is this, is determining whether something can be eaten with no cooking a good gauge on whether it is paleo?

P.S. i want to go to a fair or a festival, and have a booth open with large potatos and sweet corn that's raw. A $10 bet if the person can eat, swallow, and run a mile after consuming all of a raw potato and raw sweet corn. ( my guess is i'd make a lot of money :D)

83d6a06c93bb3490dbca339cbbb63385

(526)

on November 06, 2011
at 11:02 PM

Naw. This is only true of plants. Meat doesn't need cooking to make it significantly more digestible.

2fd2b2346da1afd4cea4de40ed8480a0

(106)

on September 14, 2010
at 07:30 AM

thanks eva, you reaffirmed what everyone else skipped right over. thanks a lot :)

62ed65f3596aa2f62fa1d58a0c09f8c3

(20807)

on September 13, 2010
at 03:34 AM

Oh and ironically, I have many many times eaten green potatoes, partially sprouted potatoes, the sprouts on partially sprouted potatoes, etc. Until recently, I had NO IDEA they were toxic and my body did not have any perceptable ill effects from intake of them. So the poison is obviously not a huge thing. I've never heard of anyone getting seriously sick from it. If I was out of food, I'd totally eat them again. They tasted just fine although the texture was a bit mushy and dry.

62ed65f3596aa2f62fa1d58a0c09f8c3

(20807)

on September 13, 2010
at 03:29 AM

Well yeah, if something MUST be cooked it's probably because it's toxic. Otherwise, you would not HAVE to cook it. Perhaps, though, some things are usually cooked to make them taste better. But most greens, nuts, fruit, etc, can be eaten either cooked or raw. If these things are more paleo depends on your definition of paleo. If they are more healthy or not depends on if cooking fully removes the toxin or not. Like in the case of seeds and even nuts, cooking doesn't fully remove the toxin. I'd say they are thus less healthy and maybe less paleo.

2fd2b2346da1afd4cea4de40ed8480a0

(106)

on September 12, 2010
at 08:32 PM

i was asking for confirmation or a counterargument, a lot of peopole were giving answers as to whether cooking is beneficial to all types of food, which is not what i was asking about.

100fd85230060e754fc13394eee6d6f1

(18706)

on September 12, 2010
at 03:17 PM

There are two reasons to ask a question for which you have the answer. One is to confirm your answer, or find counter arguments to it. The other is to post an interesting point to a forum which allows only questions! ;-)

89e238284ccb95b439edcff9e123671e

(10299)

on September 12, 2010
at 09:18 AM

So you are asking a question to wich you already have the answer??

2fd2b2346da1afd4cea4de40ed8480a0

(106)

on September 12, 2010
at 08:47 AM

haha, that would be a problem, but i think bigger law suits would come from defaming the corn industry :D

D31a2a2d43191b15ca4a1c7ec7d03038

(4134)

on September 12, 2010
at 04:30 AM

Thanks very much for posting this. Excellent answer in a nutshell.

4b97e3bb2ee4a9588783f5d56d687da1

(22913)

on September 12, 2010
at 03:40 AM

Yeah, I have to agree, lawsuit potential makes that a bad idea

1f70da0b737e9c6e7679a248f4228a01

on September 12, 2010
at 02:19 AM

You might make a few bucks - until the manslaughter law suits come pouring in...

  • 2fd2b2346da1afd4cea4de40ed8480a0

    asked by

    (106)
  • Views
    1.1K
  • Last Activity
    1429D AGO
Frontpage book

Get FREE instant access to our Paleo For Beginners Guide & 15 FREE Recipes!

7 Answers

6
4b97e3bb2ee4a9588783f5d56d687da1

on September 12, 2010
at 01:54 AM

Read: Catching Fire, How cooking made us human.

It's not just making food edible. Better Digestion and availability of nutrients

Cooking also "helps" neutralize alot of antinutrients

D31a2a2d43191b15ca4a1c7ec7d03038

(4134)

on September 12, 2010
at 04:30 AM

Thanks very much for posting this. Excellent answer in a nutshell.

83d6a06c93bb3490dbca339cbbb63385

(526)

on November 06, 2011
at 11:02 PM

Naw. This is only true of plants. Meat doesn't need cooking to make it significantly more digestible.

2
93f44e8673d3ea2294cce085ebc96e13

(10502)

on September 12, 2010
at 05:57 AM

Your question:

So my question is this, is determining whether something can be eaten with no cooking a good gauge on whether it is paleo?

Answer:

No. Read Kurt Harris' blog for why not.

1
Be1dbd31e4a3fccd4394494aa5db256d

(17969)

on September 12, 2010
at 04:21 AM

Easier to digest means more nutrition and the downsides of cooking are greatly exaggerated, especially if using slow cooking techniques. There are some who do well on raw paleo but I can't possibly see it being better, it would be a matter of taste. As mentioned before, cooking destroys bad stuff, makes digestion more efficient and it even unlocks nutrients http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17071511

0
2fd2b2346da1afd4cea4de40ed8480a0

(106)

on September 12, 2010
at 08:46 AM

haha guys, ur misunderstanding the point of my question. I'm not asking whether cooking is beneficial, i know that it does ease digestion and allow more nutrients to be absorbed, my question had to do with whether things that must be cooked IE corn and wheat, must be cooked because naturally they are toxic to our bodies.

62ed65f3596aa2f62fa1d58a0c09f8c3

(20807)

on September 13, 2010
at 03:34 AM

Oh and ironically, I have many many times eaten green potatoes, partially sprouted potatoes, the sprouts on partially sprouted potatoes, etc. Until recently, I had NO IDEA they were toxic and my body did not have any perceptable ill effects from intake of them. So the poison is obviously not a huge thing. I've never heard of anyone getting seriously sick from it. If I was out of food, I'd totally eat them again. They tasted just fine although the texture was a bit mushy and dry.

62ed65f3596aa2f62fa1d58a0c09f8c3

(20807)

on September 13, 2010
at 03:29 AM

Well yeah, if something MUST be cooked it's probably because it's toxic. Otherwise, you would not HAVE to cook it. Perhaps, though, some things are usually cooked to make them taste better. But most greens, nuts, fruit, etc, can be eaten either cooked or raw. If these things are more paleo depends on your definition of paleo. If they are more healthy or not depends on if cooking fully removes the toxin or not. Like in the case of seeds and even nuts, cooking doesn't fully remove the toxin. I'd say they are thus less healthy and maybe less paleo.

89e238284ccb95b439edcff9e123671e

(10299)

on September 12, 2010
at 09:18 AM

So you are asking a question to wich you already have the answer??

100fd85230060e754fc13394eee6d6f1

(18706)

on September 12, 2010
at 03:17 PM

There are two reasons to ask a question for which you have the answer. One is to confirm your answer, or find counter arguments to it. The other is to post an interesting point to a forum which allows only questions! ;-)

2fd2b2346da1afd4cea4de40ed8480a0

(106)

on September 12, 2010
at 08:32 PM

i was asking for confirmation or a counterargument, a lot of peopole were giving answers as to whether cooking is beneficial to all types of food, which is not what i was asking about.

2fd2b2346da1afd4cea4de40ed8480a0

(106)

on September 14, 2010
at 07:30 AM

thanks eva, you reaffirmed what everyone else skipped right over. thanks a lot :)

0
1a8020e101199de55c1b3b726f342321

(1973)

on September 12, 2010
at 06:18 AM

Cooking has its advantages, you'll be interested in reading "The Expensive-Tissue Hypothesis"

http://www.scribd.com/doc/20045146/The-Expensive-Tissue-Hypothesis

0
D31a2a2d43191b15ca4a1c7ec7d03038

on September 12, 2010
at 04:29 AM

You might find "The Implications of Cooking Food and Methods Used" article at Barry Groves' site useful:

http://www.second-opinions.co.uk/cooking-1.html

Another vote here for the "Catching Fire" book which Stephen-Aegis recommended.

0
62ed65f3596aa2f62fa1d58a0c09f8c3

(20807)

on September 12, 2010
at 03:35 AM

You are right, most paleo foods can be eaten raw. THis is interesting when you think about it and might serve as another not perfect but interesting mental hueristic for deciding what might be healthy. Even the things I cook before eating can mostly all be eaten raw, things like spinach, meat, coconut, etc. I am trying to think if there is anything I eat often that can't be eaten raw and I can't think of even one thing.

Now as for potatoes, sweet potato contain a trypsin inhibitor that makes it difficult to digest protein and since they also contain protein, they can cause digestive problems if eaten raw. Raw regular potatoes seem fine but have a bit of a reputation (probably unfounded) of also being poisonous. They do contain solanine and other glycoalkaloids, which are known to cause neural function damage, but these toxins are not removed by cooking. Most of said toxins are in the peel and areas close to the peel, so peeling is the best way to minimize these toxins. The raw eating of regular potatoes is probably no more dangerous than eating cooked potatoes, but eating large amounts of potatoes at once could be dangerous to some people because of the toxins. My suggestion is not to do it or run any contests. Even if you are not at fault, even a rumor that something might be poisonous would be enough for someone to sue you. Also, for many people who are not fit, running a mile might be dangerous for them all by itself.

-Eva

4b97e3bb2ee4a9588783f5d56d687da1

(22913)

on September 12, 2010
at 03:40 AM

Yeah, I have to agree, lawsuit potential makes that a bad idea

Answer Question


Get FREE instant access to our
Paleo For Beginners Guide & 15 FREE Recipes!