Toxins and health

[Roman]

This thread has been split off from this one

No, but we love to be able to do so.
how do I know about the toxins?
Studies have shown that cooking creates toxins from proteins and cholesterol.
Not ingesting those toxins automatically means a decreased cancer risk, in as much as not smoking reduces lung cancer risk, dont you agree?

I don't really know how to think.

I somewhere read:

"Japan and Greece have the highest numbers of adult cigarette smokers in the world, but the lowest incidence of lung cancer.
In direct contrast to this, America, Australia, Russia, and some South Pacific island groups have the lowest numbers of adult cigarette smokers in the world, but the highest incidence of lung cancer.".

I'm just reporting it.

This Diet compels ME (ok, just me) to a sacrifice.

The questions are:

How big is this sacrifice?
What am I obtaining FOR CERTAIN with that?

But your answers may be very different from mine...

Im sorry, but im not going to support that, as this board is about a raw food diet, and not about a 'less cooked' diet.

Well, I wasn't talking about a "less cooked diet", but about a "less cooked approach" to this diet.

But it doesn't matter.

[Roman]

Studies have shown that cooking creates toxins from proteins and cholesterol.

How many toxins? Everywhere?
Many toxins from many proteins? Less toxins from less proteins?

[RRM]

Please read these articles:
http://www.youngerthanyourage.com/13/cooking.htm
http://www.youngerthanyourage.com/13/cholesterol.htm

[Roman]

Please read these articles:
http://www.youngerthanyourage.com/13/cooking.htm
http://www.youngerthanyourage.com/13/cholesterol.htm

I did it.

And have you read this ?

Both stored and cooked foods contain Maillard products. The second remark is that, since the reaction can and also does occur at room temperature, certainly many of the Maillard compounds are found in uncooked foods, though in different (usually lower) concentrations than in cooked foods. One may also observe that many raw-fooders are reluctant to consume anything heated above 104°F (40°C), even if for a few minutes, while they will readily use foods preserved for months (like nuts or olives) which contain a substantial amount of Maillard reaction products and, arguably, are thus hardly more natural than cooked foods.

The body's normal metabolic processes also produce Maillard molecules via non-food pathways. Finally, there has been a recent growing interest in studying the Maillard reaction in vivo (in living organisms as opposed to in vitro, i.e., in "test tubes" or other situations outside the living organism) and more particularly in relation to diabetes and aging. It is thought that the cross-linking between long-lived proteins such as collagen and free sugars (especially fructose, which has a high cross-linking potential) produces Advanced Glycation Endproducts, or AGEs (the products of the Maillard reaction at an advanced stage) which contribute to tissue degeneration [Baynes and Monnier 1989]. For the intrigued reader, fructose is an intermediate product of a chain of reactions called the "sorbitol pathway," one of the several possible pathways of glucose metabolism. (I would like to point out here that other theories of aging, related to telomere length, exist.)

Production of Maillard molecules via elevated blood sugar (diabetes, high-fruit diets) may be more of a concern for raw-fooders. The point of the above is that there is no reason to fear Maillard molecules excessively, since they are produced naturally inside our body, whether we eat 100% raw or 100% cooked. Moreover, if one of the goals of the raw-fooder is to increase longevity, then it may be more important to regulate blood sugars (since the Maillard reactions that occur among the body's own tissues are accelerated in diabetics [Baynes and Monnier 1989]) than to worry excessively about avoiding dietary Maillard molecules.

Note again that dietary Maillard molecules involve FOOD proteins, not the BODY'S proteins; there is no reason to believe that Maillard reaction products consumed in food in any way participate in the body's own internal cross-linking reactions that contribute to aging, since the latter Maillard reaction products are produced as part of normal cellular metabolism, and via a separate biochemical pathway. Given that so many raw-fooders who attempt to entirely avoid cooked foods often tend to eat high-fruit diets (which are higher in sugars), this is a consideration such individuals may want to keep in mind.

Metabolic defenses against AGEs. Furthermore, the body is not defenseless, since AGEs forming on body proteins such as collagen are recognized and endocytosed (engulfed) by macrophages [Vlassara et al. 1989], i.e., destroyed by white blood cells.

I don't really know how to think...
Could you help or explain?
Have you read the whole article?

"Japan and Greece have the highest numbers of adult cigarette smokers in the world, but the lowest incidence of lung cancer.
In direct contrast to this, America, Australia, Russia, and some South Pacific island groups have the lowest numbers of adult cigarette smokers in the world, but the highest incidence of lung cancer.".

I just want to know if you say it's not true.
If it's true, how could you explain that?
Don't you find it quite interesting?


p.s. - not to polemize, but to UNDERSTAND.

[RRM]

I somewhere read:

"Japan and Greece have the highest numbers of adult cigarette smokers in the world, but the lowest incidence of lung cancer.
In direct contrast to this, America, Australia, Russia, and some South Pacific island groups have the lowest numbers of adult cigarette smokers in the world, but the highest incidence of lung cancer.".

Thats because cancer is not just about the ingestion of toxins that cause the mutations in DNA, but also about the hormones and growth factors stimulating growth of mutated cells. Toxins are just half the story.
Thats why milk consumption and lung cancer incidence have been shown to be somewhat associated as well, as milk contains growth factors that stimulate growth of lung cancer cells. There is a stronger relation between milk consumption and breast- and prostate cancer.
http://www.youngerthanyourage.com/13/cancer2.htm

Well, I wasn't talking about a "less cooked diet", but about a "less cooked approach" to this diet.

I dont know what you are trying to say here. Please explain.

[RRM]

Both stored and cooked foods contain Maillard products.
...
The body's normal metabolic processes also produce Maillard molecules via non-food pathways.

Maillard compounds is a wide group; some neurotransmitters fall in the same category. I can see why he takes that wide group, because if he would make a distinction between benign and malign Maillard compounds, he has no valid point.
Equally so, oxysterols are a wide group, and some of them are produced inside the body, and are completely benign and required for regulatory processes. The hazardous ones are created by heat, outside the body, and can cause vascular diseases once ingested.

The most potent, toxic Maillard products are created by heat. The more heat is involved (grilling), and the more proteins and other nitrogenous compounds, the more toxic the compounds. The innocent ones are produced inside the body.

while they will readily use foods preserved for months (like nuts or olives)

Are you suggesting that raw nuts kept in their shell contain hazardous Maillard products?

Production of Maillard molecules via elevated blood sugar (diabetes, high-fruit diets) may be more of a concern for raw-fooders.

What makes you think that raw foodists have elevated blood sugar levels?
What hazardous Maillard products are created inside the body?

The point of the above is that there is no reason to fear Maillard molecules excessively

Indeed. We shouldnt fear the good ones, only the bad ones.
What creates the bad ones?
Heat applied to our food.

it may be more important to regulate blood sugars

Sure, thats important.
With this diet one consumes small meals very frequently, as opposed to 'normal diets', that very much spike the blood sugar level after every big meal.

there is no reason to believe that Maillard reaction products consumed in food in any way participate in the body's own internal cross-linking reactions that contribute to aging

Excuse me?
Ingested toxins have no influence on aging?
In his view, does the same go for toxins ingested from cigarettes?
from polluted air?

the body is not defenseless

Absolutely not, indeed, and luckily.
But that is not the point, at all.
The point is whether its okay to ingest lots of toxins, or that it may lead to cancer and other degenerative diseases.

[Roman]

Thats because cancer is not just about the ingestion of toxins that cause the mutations in DNA, but also about the hormones and growth factors stimulating growth of mutated cells. Toxins are just half the story.

So, if I'd ingest toxins, but no hormones or grow factors, I couldn't get cancer?

If in Greece or in Japan they smoke very much, they probably ingest less or no hormones and growth factors than in other places. And the contrary for United States and the others. Are you saying that?

I dont know what you are trying to say here. Please explain.

This diet to me is VERY difficult.
Is it possible to have a "step by step" approach to this diet?
You talk about "munch food" and it's ok.
In my opinion we could also see at "munch foods" as a "step by step" approach to this diet (munch foods, less, munch foods, less munch foods, less, less, less... NO MUNCH FOODS).
But to make those foods less dangerous, could we use less harmful ways of cooking? Boiling? Steaming? Steaming in a pressure pot? Grilling? Barbecueing? Microwave?

Just the same? With no differences?

I also read that to marinate foods before cooking produces less HCA. Is that true?

I hope now it's clear what I meant.

[Roman]

Maillard compounds is a wide group;

Ok. Where could I read a distinction between benign and malign Maillard compunds? Or which are the benign and which are the malign?

The innocent ones are produced inside the body.

I couldn't find anything on the web saying that "the reaction can and also does occur at room temperature". Is it true?

Are you suggesting that raw nuts kept in their shell contain hazardous Maillard products?

Oh RRM, I'm suggesting nothing here, and i'm holding you in very high esteem. But i'm writing here always full of doubts and nothing else but this. Instead of me, HE probably is suggesting this.

Mmmhh ... what about dried fruits, not in their shell (figs, dates, apricots)?

[avalon]

Here's a very nice article on the subject:

http://www.nyas.org/annals/annalsExtra.asp?AnnalID=28

In light of these and other findings, Helen Vlassara of the Mount Sinai School of Medicine suggests that people reconsider the AGE content of common foods. Foods higher in fat and protein, such as meat and cheese, will give higher AGE levels. And in general, cooking at a higher temperature creates higher levels of AGEs. Sautéing, steaming, and poaching create fewer Maillard products than frying, grilling, and broiling.

You are right, there are ways to lower the reaction and create less damage.

[RRM]

So, if I'd ingest toxins, but no hormones or grow factors, I couldn't get cancer?

Yes, you could; if the mutated cell doesnt need 'a kickstart' and produces enough growth factors of itsself, it may start dominating other cells and form a group of growing tissue (tumor) all by itself.
If that production is lower, it may need such a kickstart by 'external' growth factors / hormones to survive your defense.

If in Greece or in Japan they smoke very much, they probably ingest less or no hormones and growth factors than in other places. And the contrary for United States and the others. Are you saying that?

If thats just an (maybe unreal) example, yes.
But, also other (environmental) factors play a role of course.

This diet to me is VERY difficult.
Is it possible to have a "step by step" approach to this diet?

Sure (its even mentioned in the book), but it may be even more difficult, as it will not supply you with (fast) results, and the addiction to cooked foods will remain equally strong...

to make those foods less dangerous, could we use less harmful ways of cooking? Boiling? Steaming? Steaming in a pressure pot? Grilling? Barbecueing? Microwave?

Sure, steaming is less harmful than grilling, for example, but then its not this diet.

I also read that to marinate foods before cooking produces less HCA. Is that true?

I would expect more, as there are more 'free molecules' available for interacting.

[RRM]

Where could I read a distinction between benign and malign Maillard compunds? Or which are the benign and which are the malign?

In studies studying the effects of individual HCAs. The benign are not toxic, the malign are toxic. There have been done many studies. You can find a few here: http://www.youngerthanyourage.com/13/cooking.htm

I couldn't find anything on the web saying that "the reaction can and also does occur at room temperature". Is it true?

Yes, some HCAs are. It really depends on the HCA, and on whether fermentation has taken place first, for example, and on what molecules are available for interaction.