2

votes

Does this study open your mind to raw-paleo?

Answered on August 19, 2014
Created August 07, 2011 at 7:42 PM

Between 1932 and 1942, Francis M. Pottenger, Jr., M.D., conducted a multi-generation nutrition study on cats with the goal of applying what he learned to human nutrition since cats also have mammalian biology. He published a book called,

Pottenger's Cats: A Study in Nutrition

In his study he fed one group of cats a raw meat diet and the other group a cooked diet. In a third group he fed 1/3 raw and 2/3 cooked. He noted that the cats fed the raw meat diet thrived while the cats on cooked meats/protein exhibited infertility, emotional imbalance and degenerative conditions noted in examinations of their skeletons.

I want to share with you a YouTube documentary of this study. It only takes a couple minutes to watch it. You will have to fast-forward to 3:00 minutes to watch the Pottenger study. The first part of the video talks about Weston A. Price and his studies on dental health in hunter gatherers. Here it is:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XPCOGSnjP5w

So are you more open to raw-Paleo after having watched this video?

Theory alert:

My take in considering raw proteins vs. cooked is the mechanism that alters the protein molecules must be the same in order to draw a direct comparison. An extreme heating of protein should theoretically yield a different outcome than the biological process of denaturation via gastric juice. One method of protein-bond breaking uses heat, the other depends on enzymes that exist due to evolution. Therefore I don't think the cooking process should be equated with digestive denaturation.

Beyond the basic contrast between heat reactions and enzyme activity, it's possible that while cooking unravels protein it also destroys a high percentage of amino acid blocks, rendering them useless and thus degrading the quality of the protein source whereas digestive denaturation mainly unravels the amino acid blocks while leaving a much higher percentage of them intact and usable.

EDIT:

Also for further research, consider this example where heat destorys the essential amino acids lysine, arginine and tryptophan:

"Protein-bound lysine has been known for several years to be inactivated by heat so that it is not nutritionally available."

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-2621.1951.tb17398.x/abstract

26b7615ef542394102785a67a2786867

(7967)

on August 08, 2011
at 06:59 PM

This may only be well-known to me because I haven't fed my pets commercial pet food in 6 years, and all the information about 'real food' diets for pets cautions against feeding your cats a wholly cooked diet because of the taurine issue.

9d43f6873107e17ca4d1a5055aa7a2ad

on August 07, 2011
at 11:34 PM

I am a huge fan of raw meat, I'm not a fascist, but I'm annoyed when people ask a question like "Am I totally right or totally right?" without being openminded that they might be wrong.

77877f762c40637911396daa19b53094

(78467)

on August 07, 2011
at 11:17 PM

Hey Melissa: why are the Paleos so totalitarian? Are they closet Socialists, or just Fascists? BamBam: I have switched to a predominantly 'rawist' diet and find it improoves digestion immensely. Also, I have found another site called "dirty carnivore" which emphasizes this aspect of the paleo lifestyle. I have been eating, by the way, 1 lb. of raw ground beef grain-fed and storebought...no problems...for motnsh on end!(I still have 50 lbs. left in the freezer).

Cab7e4ef73c5d7d7a77e1c3d7f5773a1

(7314)

on August 07, 2011
at 10:59 PM

Whoops. But seriously melissa, you always impress me with your knowledge!

5ccb98f6ae42ce87e206cf3f6a86039f

(11581)

on August 07, 2011
at 10:57 PM

A mix of cooked and raw probably gives the best outcome in humans. As opposed to cats.

5ccb98f6ae42ce87e206cf3f6a86039f

(11581)

on August 07, 2011
at 10:50 PM

While some water soluble vitamins are destroyed damaged by heat, this is not complete but varies in percentage by time and method of cooking. Unless you boil things to death for hours, most vitamins survive pretty well. Vitamin C is probably the quickest to suffer damage and the most common sources are usually eaten raw. Even then, light cooking isn't a problem. Some nutrients are made more available by cooking.

5ccb98f6ae42ce87e206cf3f6a86039f

(11581)

on August 07, 2011
at 10:41 PM

I'm not saying that you are wrong re raw (that's a separate issue right now) but that you are using very poor quality evidence.

5ccb98f6ae42ce87e206cf3f6a86039f

(11581)

on August 07, 2011
at 10:39 PM

"by the experts of the day" - Between 1932 and 1942. I wonder exactly how many discoveries have been made in both feline and human nutrition since then.

9d43f6873107e17ca4d1a5055aa7a2ad

on August 07, 2011
at 10:36 PM

Mari, there are cultures where most meat is eaten raw, particular in Siberia. Otherwise I agree with you. Most cultures eat a mix of raw and cooked meat.

5ccb98f6ae42ce87e206cf3f6a86039f

(11581)

on August 07, 2011
at 10:35 PM

BAMBAM, I think the important point that you are missing is that this study would be a lot more convincing if performed on humans. Right now there are too many obvious problems with the study to apply it to humans. Hunt down some quality research using human subjects.

Be1dbd31e4a3fccd4394494aa5db256d

(17969)

on August 07, 2011
at 10:34 PM

To please Melissa (and the others) here is her dream-boat's article on glutathione http://www.westonaprice.org/blogs/2010/09/11/the-biochemical-magic-of-raw-milk-and-other-raw-foods-glutathione/ It is destroyed with harsh cooking and there is a lot of it in meat. I would consider this better than arguments from cats and amino acids, since nobody seems to suffer from a protein deficiency and cats aren't humans.

Be1dbd31e4a3fccd4394494aa5db256d

(17969)

on August 07, 2011
at 10:26 PM

And yet nobody has a protein deficiency. It would appear that humans can eat cooked meat and not develop a protein deficiency.

B4e1fa6a8cf43d2b69d97a99dfca262c

(10255)

on August 07, 2011
at 10:25 PM

good to know. i imagine thinly shaved beef with a dash of chipolte and lime would be wonderful

0bc6cbb653cdc5e82400f6da920f11eb

(19235)

on August 07, 2011
at 10:20 PM

Many good reasons for getting cows out of feedlots and on grass. However believing you are immune from risk when you are not isn't helpful. The science on E. coli has moved on in the last 10 years. Even wild elk can infect you http://www.ecoliblog.com/e-coli-outbreaks/yep-you-can-get-e-coli-0157h7-from-getting-too-friendly-with-wild-elk/

226b10cbb6b1d3530b00d2d84a2dc86e

(3313)

on August 07, 2011
at 10:06 PM

Check out this study. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-2621.1951.tb17398.x/abstract

226b10cbb6b1d3530b00d2d84a2dc86e

(3313)

on August 07, 2011
at 10:02 PM

It is a real question in my opinion.

226b10cbb6b1d3530b00d2d84a2dc86e

(3313)

on August 07, 2011
at 09:59 PM

If that is your opinion, then I guess it's officially a debate.

Be1dbd31e4a3fccd4394494aa5db256d

(17969)

on August 07, 2011
at 09:56 PM

If tryptophan is all destroyed why doesn't anybody in the western world have a tryptophan deficiency? There is literally no evidence for protein deficiencies in North America, but according to these people who made a video everyone should be dead.

9d43f6873107e17ca4d1a5055aa7a2ad

on August 07, 2011
at 09:56 PM

IMHO this isn't even a real question. It's looking for validation, not debate, which isn't what this site is about.

226b10cbb6b1d3530b00d2d84a2dc86e

(3313)

on August 07, 2011
at 09:45 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xu6LAnn4QC4

226b10cbb6b1d3530b00d2d84a2dc86e

(3313)

on August 07, 2011
at 09:42 PM

Basic chemistry teaches that water soluble molecules including molecules of essential vitamins are destroyed in heat.

Be1dbd31e4a3fccd4394494aa5db256d

(17969)

on August 07, 2011
at 09:41 PM

And no, that isn't the definition of adaptation. I assumed you knew what the definition of adaptation was. A changing of physiology to accomodate an environmental factor, it could be anything. Cooking isn't always the same in all cases. People thought that cooking broccoli destroyed various molecules but actually our gut flora salvage them for us. Likewise we are very good at protein synthesis and do all sorts of useful things with the amino acids that are broken and seemingly useless from metabolism.

226b10cbb6b1d3530b00d2d84a2dc86e

(3313)

on August 07, 2011
at 09:40 PM

Matthew. "Just as happily"? You will also see research showing that choosing products from grass-fed animals may lower your risk of two other food borne illnesses, campylobacter and E. coli. http://www.eatwild.com/foodsafety.html

Be1dbd31e4a3fccd4394494aa5db256d

(17969)

on August 07, 2011
at 09:29 PM

Most anthropologists agree that cooking food is always a net-positive to absorption. Some nutrients are destroyed, more are unlocked. Nobody considers that to be controversial. And I believe the onus is on you to actually demonstrate how cooking is worse, that is your argument isn't it? Don't shift the burden of proof.

Be1dbd31e4a3fccd4394494aa5db256d

(17969)

on August 07, 2011
at 09:28 PM

That meat is still edible when raw means that we didn't miraculously develop an adaptation to make food NOT edible when it is raw, of course we wouldn't. Sorry to burst the bubble but an animal study when the evolutionary history of humans is one where humans cooked their food and cats didn't. That doesn't mean that there isn't such thing as too much cooking, it just means that the argument isn't a valid one based on the cats. That should be a no-brainer.

226b10cbb6b1d3530b00d2d84a2dc86e

(3313)

on August 07, 2011
at 09:27 PM

Stabby, do we really know on what level we have adapted to cooking? Define "adaptation". By adaptation to you mean that we have achieved optimal health through cooking? Where is the evidence of that? Do we know for sure that we're not cheating ourselves at all by cooking most of our proteins? If our DNA evolved on high levels of raw proteins and amino acids, then it's possible that we could optimize our health if we return to mostly raw-Paleo. Adaptation and optimization are two different things.

Cab7e4ef73c5d7d7a77e1c3d7f5773a1

(7314)

on August 07, 2011
at 09:26 PM

^^ to add to that, I am aware of beef tartars and sushi and etc. However, people are not subsisting entirely on these raw foods.

226b10cbb6b1d3530b00d2d84a2dc86e

(3313)

on August 07, 2011
at 09:23 PM

I hear you loud and clear on that one. Raw wild caught fish is easier but it gets scary when you're talking about beef. It must be grass-fed and you really have to scrutinize the farmer/farm producing it. It's important to find out where they butcher it. Marination in weak acid (vinegar or citrus) offers some protection.

Be1dbd31e4a3fccd4394494aa5db256d

(17969)

on August 07, 2011
at 09:22 PM

Why would any of that matter? The issue is whether we have reason to suspect that humans have adapted to cooking whereas cats haven't. We do so it makes no sense to use an animal study.

Cab7e4ef73c5d7d7a77e1c3d7f5773a1

(7314)

on August 07, 2011
at 09:22 PM

This reminds me of the study where rabbits were fed cholesterol. They subsequently developed atherosclerosis. This does not suggest that humans should not eat cholesterol, even though rabbits are mammals. Rabbits are not designed to eat cholesterol, cats are not designed to eat cooked food. I don't know of any traditional culture or any place in history where humans have preferred to eat raw and have done so consistently.

226b10cbb6b1d3530b00d2d84a2dc86e

(3313)

on August 07, 2011
at 09:21 PM

"In his effort to maximize the preoperative health of his laboratory animals, Francis fed them a diet of market grade raw milk, cod liver oil and cooked meat scraps from the sanitarium. These scraps included the liver, tripe, sweetbreads, brains, heart and muscle. This diet was considered to be rich in all the important nutritive substances by the experts of the day" http://www.whale.to/a/pottenger.html

Ede6029838b9d17195c84bab64a5d88d

(181)

on August 07, 2011
at 09:07 PM

Yes, some connective tissues are very rubbery. If I have time I work out my jaws or I simply discard them. Pure muscle meat is somewhat soft, kind of like sashimi, but not that soft.

0bc6cbb653cdc5e82400f6da920f11eb

(19235)

on August 07, 2011
at 09:07 PM

@BAMBAM - Lethal E. coli strains grow just as happily in grass-fed cows.

Ede6029838b9d17195c84bab64a5d88d

(181)

on August 07, 2011
at 09:04 PM

I would never eat raw meat form Walmart. I only eat raw from known sources or butcher it myself when I buy half cow or when hunting. In two years of mostly raw I never experienced any infections. Meat itself is sterile, it's the dirty butchering that contaminates it.

226b10cbb6b1d3530b00d2d84a2dc86e

(3313)

on August 07, 2011
at 08:41 PM

From what I understand about the lethal strands of e-coli is that they occur in feedlot livestock and cattle, not in grass-fed. The bacteria feeds on metabolic wastes from foods not conducive to cow's biology. The corn sits in the colon and contributes to e-coli growth.

226b10cbb6b1d3530b00d2d84a2dc86e

(3313)

on August 07, 2011
at 08:38 PM

edit: "wouldn't" fall under mass scrutiny.

Ec7cb2a7a68655954a01f03e95be1383

(1453)

on August 07, 2011
at 08:37 PM

How do you avoid bacterial contamination? Do you just buy some typical meat and eat it raw? Isn't it chewy?

226b10cbb6b1d3530b00d2d84a2dc86e

(3313)

on August 07, 2011
at 08:35 PM

Primordial. I agree more studies should be done and that rats might make more useful subjects. But since cats rely on amino acids and so do humans, I think the main focus remains on a comparison between extreme heat reactions involving protein vs. digestive denaturation of protein.

226b10cbb6b1d3530b00d2d84a2dc86e

(3313)

on August 07, 2011
at 08:29 PM

Stabby, humans have a "long" history of cooking. Define "long". In this history did we cook 100% of our foods? 50% of our foods? What percentage of our foods? What percentage of our foods did we eat fresh, on the spot? When a lion kills its prey, does it leave it sitting for the hyenas? Is there some survival risk involved in letting meat sit very long after you kill it? What if it disappears? Furthermore, is it still edible if you don't cook it and can you save time without cooking it?

226b10cbb6b1d3530b00d2d84a2dc86e

(3313)

on August 07, 2011
at 08:24 PM

I'm not offended at all but I will point out, if it is found that raw-meats are vital and requirements for essential amino acids much higher than originally believed, it would force agribusiness to completely restructure meat production methods so that contaminations linked to corn and soybean fed cattle and livestock would fall under mass scrutiny. We have a perfectly legitimate study here. That's my only point of contention.

Ec7cb2a7a68655954a01f03e95be1383

(1453)

on August 07, 2011
at 08:18 PM

also cats are carnivores, we are omnivores. So it's better to use omnivore mammals like rats.

34a367e60db77270bd7096dc04270fdc

(4171)

on August 07, 2011
at 08:18 PM

No one said you can't experiment on yourself, why do you seem so offended by other peoples opinions? I've got no desire to eat raw meat personally either but if you want to, have at it!

Be1dbd31e4a3fccd4394494aa5db256d

(17969)

on August 07, 2011
at 08:17 PM

Bam, while we can use other mammals in experiments, it certainly doesn't mean that we can use them for any experiment. When the objection is valid like that humans have a long history of cooking and cats don't, we have to realize the limitations.

Ec7cb2a7a68655954a01f03e95be1383

(1453)

on August 07, 2011
at 08:12 PM

It's cooked carbs and proteins! Do you know the expensive tissue hypothesis?

226b10cbb6b1d3530b00d2d84a2dc86e

(3313)

on August 07, 2011
at 08:10 PM

Also, I would be careful not to credit cooking proteins with evolutionary brain development. Studies point to DHA (an Omega 3 fatty acid) being the main contributer to growing brain size and enhanced brain function. Human populations along rivers, lakes and the ocean first exhibited this differentiation. http://www.fi.edu/learn/brain/fats.html

Ec7cb2a7a68655954a01f03e95be1383

(1453)

on August 07, 2011
at 08:09 PM

From an evolutionary perspective it could be wise to eat some raw, some cooked. It is likely our ancestors ate a fare amount of meat raw, especially organs and marrow. But I am sorry, I can't provide you with more information on that topic. It's interesting, though.

226b10cbb6b1d3530b00d2d84a2dc86e

(3313)

on August 07, 2011
at 08:06 PM

Again, cats are mammals and mammals exhibit enough similarities between species for me to want to at least be open to a wee bit of self-experimentation. While cooking may destroy taurine, why are other amino acids exempt from destruction? There are 13 essential amino acids for humans.

226b10cbb6b1d3530b00d2d84a2dc86e

(3313)

on August 07, 2011
at 07:59 PM

Rats are not humans either but they are mammals and data collected through clinical trials using rats does carry credibility in the scientific community. Do you think it's worth a little self-experimentation? I mean, I've tried raw Paleo and I can say that I seemed to have better hormonal balance and mood while eating raw proteins vs. cooked meats. I guess I'm not so quick to dismiss a study that uses mammals as its subject. And this was a decade long study on top of it. I think it deserves more than instant dismissal.

  • 226b10cbb6b1d3530b00d2d84a2dc86e

    asked by

    (3313)
  • Views
    2K
  • Last Activity
    1283D AGO
Frontpage book

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

8 Answers

10
26b7615ef542394102785a67a2786867

on August 08, 2011
at 12:19 AM

I don't mean to be rude, but I thought it was well known that Pottinger's results in these studies have been attributed solely to the fact that taurine's role in feline health had not been discovered at that time. Adequate taurine is essential for cats to breed and live, and cats who are deficient in taurine will sicken and die in the ways Pottinger details. Cooking destroys taurine. 'Live' taurine is added to all commercial cat foods after they have been heated. Feed your indoor cat only pastured cooked meat - it will eventually get ill from taurine deficiency.

Humans do not have this problem. We and most other mammals can make our own taurine.

ETA: Anyway for me it's less a matter of an open mind, and more a matter of closed sphincters. My body 'dumps' any but small amounts of well-masticated raw foods.

26b7615ef542394102785a67a2786867

(7967)

on August 08, 2011
at 06:59 PM

This may only be well-known to me because I haven't fed my pets commercial pet food in 6 years, and all the information about 'real food' diets for pets cautions against feeding your cats a wholly cooked diet because of the taurine issue.

9
Cab7e4ef73c5d7d7a77e1c3d7f5773a1

(7314)

on August 07, 2011
at 07:55 PM

I think that we shouldn't overcook our foods, but I've seen no evidence suggesting that light cooking of meat is detrimental to health. These are cats, not humans. Cats have never, ever, cooked foods, whereas humans have been using fire for quite some time. That's a pretty key difference and probably explains why cats do so poorly when their food is cooked.

Cab7e4ef73c5d7d7a77e1c3d7f5773a1

(7314)

on August 07, 2011
at 09:22 PM

This reminds me of the study where rabbits were fed cholesterol. They subsequently developed atherosclerosis. This does not suggest that humans should not eat cholesterol, even though rabbits are mammals. Rabbits are not designed to eat cholesterol, cats are not designed to eat cooked food. I don't know of any traditional culture or any place in history where humans have preferred to eat raw and have done so consistently.

9d43f6873107e17ca4d1a5055aa7a2ad

on August 07, 2011
at 10:36 PM

Mari, there are cultures where most meat is eaten raw, particular in Siberia. Otherwise I agree with you. Most cultures eat a mix of raw and cooked meat.

226b10cbb6b1d3530b00d2d84a2dc86e

(3313)

on August 07, 2011
at 08:38 PM

edit: "wouldn't" fall under mass scrutiny.

226b10cbb6b1d3530b00d2d84a2dc86e

(3313)

on August 07, 2011
at 07:59 PM

Rats are not humans either but they are mammals and data collected through clinical trials using rats does carry credibility in the scientific community. Do you think it's worth a little self-experimentation? I mean, I've tried raw Paleo and I can say that I seemed to have better hormonal balance and mood while eating raw proteins vs. cooked meats. I guess I'm not so quick to dismiss a study that uses mammals as its subject. And this was a decade long study on top of it. I think it deserves more than instant dismissal.

226b10cbb6b1d3530b00d2d84a2dc86e

(3313)

on August 07, 2011
at 08:24 PM

I'm not offended at all but I will point out, if it is found that raw-meats are vital and requirements for essential amino acids much higher than originally believed, it would force agribusiness to completely restructure meat production methods so that contaminations linked to corn and soybean fed cattle and livestock would fall under mass scrutiny. We have a perfectly legitimate study here. That's my only point of contention.

34a367e60db77270bd7096dc04270fdc

(4171)

on August 07, 2011
at 08:18 PM

No one said you can't experiment on yourself, why do you seem so offended by other peoples opinions? I've got no desire to eat raw meat personally either but if you want to, have at it!

Cab7e4ef73c5d7d7a77e1c3d7f5773a1

(7314)

on August 07, 2011
at 10:59 PM

Whoops. But seriously melissa, you always impress me with your knowledge!

Cab7e4ef73c5d7d7a77e1c3d7f5773a1

(7314)

on August 07, 2011
at 09:26 PM

^^ to add to that, I am aware of beef tartars and sushi and etc. However, people are not subsisting entirely on these raw foods.

7
Ec7cb2a7a68655954a01f03e95be1383

on August 07, 2011
at 08:04 PM

Cat's are not humans!

Read that: http://www.beyondveg.com/tu-j-l/raw-cooked/raw-cooked-1h.shtml

Probably it was the taurine deficiency due to cooking which caused the degenerative conditions in the cats fed cooked meat, not cooked meat per se.

For hundreds of generations cats today are fed cooked crap and it seems they are still able to reproduce and live more ore less healthy, so it is extreme unlikey that cooked meat in general is responsible for diseases in cats.

Humans have apparently adopted a cooked diet, anthropologic evidence indicates that our growing brain size was linked with advanced cooking processes, ie. the controlled use of fire, thus higher caloric intake, and eating the fat from hunted animals. (Wrangham)

However, eating raw-paleo is still something I want to try before leaving this realm of existence.

226b10cbb6b1d3530b00d2d84a2dc86e

(3313)

on August 07, 2011
at 08:10 PM

Also, I would be careful not to credit cooking proteins with evolutionary brain development. Studies point to DHA (an Omega 3 fatty acid) being the main contributer to growing brain size and enhanced brain function. Human populations along rivers, lakes and the ocean first exhibited this differentiation. http://www.fi.edu/learn/brain/fats.html

Be1dbd31e4a3fccd4394494aa5db256d

(17969)

on August 07, 2011
at 09:29 PM

Most anthropologists agree that cooking food is always a net-positive to absorption. Some nutrients are destroyed, more are unlocked. Nobody considers that to be controversial. And I believe the onus is on you to actually demonstrate how cooking is worse, that is your argument isn't it? Don't shift the burden of proof.

Ec7cb2a7a68655954a01f03e95be1383

(1453)

on August 07, 2011
at 08:18 PM

also cats are carnivores, we are omnivores. So it's better to use omnivore mammals like rats.

Be1dbd31e4a3fccd4394494aa5db256d

(17969)

on August 07, 2011
at 09:28 PM

That meat is still edible when raw means that we didn't miraculously develop an adaptation to make food NOT edible when it is raw, of course we wouldn't. Sorry to burst the bubble but an animal study when the evolutionary history of humans is one where humans cooked their food and cats didn't. That doesn't mean that there isn't such thing as too much cooking, it just means that the argument isn't a valid one based on the cats. That should be a no-brainer.

226b10cbb6b1d3530b00d2d84a2dc86e

(3313)

on August 07, 2011
at 08:29 PM

Stabby, humans have a "long" history of cooking. Define "long". In this history did we cook 100% of our foods? 50% of our foods? What percentage of our foods? What percentage of our foods did we eat fresh, on the spot? When a lion kills its prey, does it leave it sitting for the hyenas? Is there some survival risk involved in letting meat sit very long after you kill it? What if it disappears? Furthermore, is it still edible if you don't cook it and can you save time without cooking it?

Be1dbd31e4a3fccd4394494aa5db256d

(17969)

on August 07, 2011
at 09:22 PM

Why would any of that matter? The issue is whether we have reason to suspect that humans have adapted to cooking whereas cats haven't. We do so it makes no sense to use an animal study.

226b10cbb6b1d3530b00d2d84a2dc86e

(3313)

on August 07, 2011
at 09:27 PM

Stabby, do we really know on what level we have adapted to cooking? Define "adaptation". By adaptation to you mean that we have achieved optimal health through cooking? Where is the evidence of that? Do we know for sure that we're not cheating ourselves at all by cooking most of our proteins? If our DNA evolved on high levels of raw proteins and amino acids, then it's possible that we could optimize our health if we return to mostly raw-Paleo. Adaptation and optimization are two different things.

5ccb98f6ae42ce87e206cf3f6a86039f

(11581)

on August 07, 2011
at 10:57 PM

A mix of cooked and raw probably gives the best outcome in humans. As opposed to cats.

5ccb98f6ae42ce87e206cf3f6a86039f

(11581)

on August 07, 2011
at 10:35 PM

BAMBAM, I think the important point that you are missing is that this study would be a lot more convincing if performed on humans. Right now there are too many obvious problems with the study to apply it to humans. Hunt down some quality research using human subjects.

Be1dbd31e4a3fccd4394494aa5db256d

(17969)

on August 07, 2011
at 08:17 PM

Bam, while we can use other mammals in experiments, it certainly doesn't mean that we can use them for any experiment. When the objection is valid like that humans have a long history of cooking and cats don't, we have to realize the limitations.

Be1dbd31e4a3fccd4394494aa5db256d

(17969)

on August 07, 2011
at 09:56 PM

If tryptophan is all destroyed why doesn't anybody in the western world have a tryptophan deficiency? There is literally no evidence for protein deficiencies in North America, but according to these people who made a video everyone should be dead.

226b10cbb6b1d3530b00d2d84a2dc86e

(3313)

on August 07, 2011
at 09:42 PM

Basic chemistry teaches that water soluble molecules including molecules of essential vitamins are destroyed in heat.

226b10cbb6b1d3530b00d2d84a2dc86e

(3313)

on August 07, 2011
at 08:35 PM

Primordial. I agree more studies should be done and that rats might make more useful subjects. But since cats rely on amino acids and so do humans, I think the main focus remains on a comparison between extreme heat reactions involving protein vs. digestive denaturation of protein.

226b10cbb6b1d3530b00d2d84a2dc86e

(3313)

on August 07, 2011
at 09:45 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xu6LAnn4QC4

Ec7cb2a7a68655954a01f03e95be1383

(1453)

on August 07, 2011
at 08:12 PM

It's cooked carbs and proteins! Do you know the expensive tissue hypothesis?

Be1dbd31e4a3fccd4394494aa5db256d

(17969)

on August 07, 2011
at 10:26 PM

And yet nobody has a protein deficiency. It would appear that humans can eat cooked meat and not develop a protein deficiency.

226b10cbb6b1d3530b00d2d84a2dc86e

(3313)

on August 07, 2011
at 08:06 PM

Again, cats are mammals and mammals exhibit enough similarities between species for me to want to at least be open to a wee bit of self-experimentation. While cooking may destroy taurine, why are other amino acids exempt from destruction? There are 13 essential amino acids for humans.

Be1dbd31e4a3fccd4394494aa5db256d

(17969)

on August 07, 2011
at 09:41 PM

And no, that isn't the definition of adaptation. I assumed you knew what the definition of adaptation was. A changing of physiology to accomodate an environmental factor, it could be anything. Cooking isn't always the same in all cases. People thought that cooking broccoli destroyed various molecules but actually our gut flora salvage them for us. Likewise we are very good at protein synthesis and do all sorts of useful things with the amino acids that are broken and seemingly useless from metabolism.

Ec7cb2a7a68655954a01f03e95be1383

(1453)

on August 07, 2011
at 08:09 PM

From an evolutionary perspective it could be wise to eat some raw, some cooked. It is likely our ancestors ate a fare amount of meat raw, especially organs and marrow. But I am sorry, I can't provide you with more information on that topic. It's interesting, though.

226b10cbb6b1d3530b00d2d84a2dc86e

(3313)

on August 07, 2011
at 10:06 PM

Check out this study. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-2621.1951.tb17398.x/abstract

5ccb98f6ae42ce87e206cf3f6a86039f

(11581)

on August 07, 2011
at 10:50 PM

While some water soluble vitamins are destroyed damaged by heat, this is not complete but varies in percentage by time and method of cooking. Unless you boil things to death for hours, most vitamins survive pretty well. Vitamin C is probably the quickest to suffer damage and the most common sources are usually eaten raw. Even then, light cooking isn't a problem. Some nutrients are made more available by cooking.

6
B4e1fa6a8cf43d2b69d97a99dfca262c

(10255)

on August 07, 2011
at 08:58 PM

i don't feel more open to eating raw meat based on this video.

i would be more open to eating raw meat if i had more confidence in the system that brings that meat to me for consumption.

226b10cbb6b1d3530b00d2d84a2dc86e

(3313)

on August 07, 2011
at 09:23 PM

I hear you loud and clear on that one. Raw wild caught fish is easier but it gets scary when you're talking about beef. It must be grass-fed and you really have to scrutinize the farmer/farm producing it. It's important to find out where they butcher it. Marination in weak acid (vinegar or citrus) offers some protection.

B4e1fa6a8cf43d2b69d97a99dfca262c

(10255)

on August 07, 2011
at 10:25 PM

good to know. i imagine thinly shaved beef with a dash of chipolte and lime would be wonderful

2
Ede6029838b9d17195c84bab64a5d88d

(181)

on August 07, 2011
at 08:34 PM

My personal view is it also applies to humans. I digest raw meat much better than cooked. Cooked meat stays in my stomach much longer than raw. Also there are plenty of ethnic dishes that still use raw meat, organs, fish, other sea food, snails, insects. I only cook bones to make broth and eggs because I don't like taste of raw eggs. And finally raw meat is very bland so that I don't get tired of it. I can eat raw lamb three times a day for weeks. Cooked lamb on the other hand gets tiring very quickly. There is definitely something about raw meat that gets lost during cooking. I don't advocate raw, it's just my body likes it more than cooked.

226b10cbb6b1d3530b00d2d84a2dc86e

(3313)

on August 07, 2011
at 08:41 PM

From what I understand about the lethal strands of e-coli is that they occur in feedlot livestock and cattle, not in grass-fed. The bacteria feeds on metabolic wastes from foods not conducive to cow's biology. The corn sits in the colon and contributes to e-coli growth.

226b10cbb6b1d3530b00d2d84a2dc86e

(3313)

on August 07, 2011
at 09:40 PM

Matthew. "Just as happily"? You will also see research showing that choosing products from grass-fed animals may lower your risk of two other food borne illnesses, campylobacter and E. coli. http://www.eatwild.com/foodsafety.html

0bc6cbb653cdc5e82400f6da920f11eb

(19235)

on August 07, 2011
at 10:20 PM

Many good reasons for getting cows out of feedlots and on grass. However believing you are immune from risk when you are not isn't helpful. The science on E. coli has moved on in the last 10 years. Even wild elk can infect you http://www.ecoliblog.com/e-coli-outbreaks/yep-you-can-get-e-coli-0157h7-from-getting-too-friendly-with-wild-elk/

0bc6cbb653cdc5e82400f6da920f11eb

(19235)

on August 07, 2011
at 09:07 PM

@BAMBAM - Lethal E. coli strains grow just as happily in grass-fed cows.

Ede6029838b9d17195c84bab64a5d88d

(181)

on August 07, 2011
at 09:07 PM

Yes, some connective tissues are very rubbery. If I have time I work out my jaws or I simply discard them. Pure muscle meat is somewhat soft, kind of like sashimi, but not that soft.

Ec7cb2a7a68655954a01f03e95be1383

(1453)

on August 07, 2011
at 08:37 PM

How do you avoid bacterial contamination? Do you just buy some typical meat and eat it raw? Isn't it chewy?

Ede6029838b9d17195c84bab64a5d88d

(181)

on August 07, 2011
at 09:04 PM

I would never eat raw meat form Walmart. I only eat raw from known sources or butcher it myself when I buy half cow or when hunting. In two years of mostly raw I never experienced any infections. Meat itself is sterile, it's the dirty butchering that contaminates it.

1
0242b468fe1c97997749db416c92e7ed

(4528)

on August 07, 2011
at 09:45 PM

I think they're referring more to denatured foods like pasteurized milk and "dead," unfermented, nutritionally-void foods you would find on the grocery store shelf. Even basic store-bought foods that are traditionally made through a fermentation process like yogurt, sauerkraut and pickles - are pasteurized before they make it to the store shelf. Homemade chicken stock is not anything like its bouillon cube counterpart at the grocery store. Hell, they're even pasteurizing some brands of eggs now. :/

As for raw meat, as others have pointed out, we're not cats. Humans evolved cooking meat; cats did not. That said, I think current generations have been taught to overcook meat (perhaps in response to the dangers of undercooked, conventionally-raised cattle who were sick at slaughter). Personally, I grew up loving the taste of the char that comes on well-done steaks and burgers. I do think that the rarer you can stand your meat (provided it's from a healthy source - if it's not, then feel free to nuke it. Or not eat it.) the better. I'm now a medium rare person, so hopefully that - along with my fermented and lacto-fermented creations - are enough!

1
Medium avatar

on August 07, 2011
at 08:48 PM

I'd say that few of us are at risk of developing a protein deficiency, and if the issue is nutrient degradation, then I'm sure that the difference between those cats would be minor if it were raw meat & raw liver vs. cooked meat & cooked liver.

5ccb98f6ae42ce87e206cf3f6a86039f

(11581)

on August 07, 2011
at 10:41 PM

I'm not saying that you are wrong re raw (that's a separate issue right now) but that you are using very poor quality evidence.

226b10cbb6b1d3530b00d2d84a2dc86e

(3313)

on August 07, 2011
at 09:21 PM

"In his effort to maximize the preoperative health of his laboratory animals, Francis fed them a diet of market grade raw milk, cod liver oil and cooked meat scraps from the sanitarium. These scraps included the liver, tripe, sweetbreads, brains, heart and muscle. This diet was considered to be rich in all the important nutritive substances by the experts of the day" http://www.whale.to/a/pottenger.html

5ccb98f6ae42ce87e206cf3f6a86039f

(11581)

on August 07, 2011
at 10:39 PM

"by the experts of the day" - Between 1932 and 1942. I wonder exactly how many discoveries have been made in both feline and human nutrition since then.

0
E639bc85fd42430285596434a6515ad5

(2226)

on August 08, 2011
at 02:39 AM

No, Pottenger's study does not open my mind to raw paleo — partly because my mind wasn't closed to it in the first place, and partly because my favorable opinion of raw foods has nothing to do with Pottenger's study.

Answer Question


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