Is Cooked Food Poison? & protein
-
- Posts: 34
- https://cutt.ly/meble-kuchenne-wroclaw
- Joined: Thu 17 Aug 2006 08:10
Is Cooked Food Poison? & protein
Dear Wai, first thank you for your great web and personnal answer. Sorry for my bad english too.
I need your help to clarify somethings. In fact, I've reading another web with many informations about Paleolithic nutrition.
Can you give your opignions about that ?
You can find all the article here :
http://www.beyondveg.com/tu-j-l/raw-coo ... d-1a.shtml
The cooking = toxicity = disease paradigm. One of the most common ideas in raw-food circles is that most diseases are due to toxemia, and that one cannot be truly healthy without discontinuing what is believed to be one of the major sources of such internal toxemia: cooked food, even if such food is unprocessed in any other respect except by heat.
While it certainly appears true that many people experience (sometimes impressive) improvements when first coming to raw food, it also appears that long-time pure raw-foodists who have maintained the diet for many years are rare. Anecdotal evidence also suggests (no peer-reviewed research is available on the issue, to our knowledge) that those eating 100% raw foods do not appear to be any healthier on average than people eating predominantly raw, and that raw diets are not the only diets that may work.
Evidence, experience, and arguments addressed in this paper. The material presented here is based on (A) an extensive review of scientific literature and the logical conclusions to be drawn or inferred from it, as well as (B) personal experience with eating 100% or close to 100% raw food, and reading about many other people's experiences (since little if any scientific research is available on raw-fooders). After looking into and examining here what are, we believe, virtually all of the arguments traditionally offered from both sides for and against cooking, the conclusion we are led to is that the dangers of cooking have been largely overstated. However, at the same time, it would obviously be erroneous to say that eating raw doesn't affect our health in any way, and in fact we do believe the knowledge available indicates eating at least partially raw is important.
Subject is not black-and-white. The objective here will be to investigate one by one all of the known effects of heating on food, and examine with a critical eye all the classical raw-foodist claims about the necessity to eat raw. In particular, we'll see that some of these claims appear to be true or partially true; others wrong or very doubtful; and also presented will be some benefits of cooking in certain situations--which as we will see depend very much on the particular food in question.
The present paper is quite long, unavoidably, due to the complexity of the problem. Things are not black-and-white in this subject, contrary to what many people believe. The hope here is to at least convince the reader of the last point.
I need your help to clarify somethings. In fact, I've reading another web with many informations about Paleolithic nutrition.
Can you give your opignions about that ?
You can find all the article here :
http://www.beyondveg.com/tu-j-l/raw-coo ... d-1a.shtml
The cooking = toxicity = disease paradigm. One of the most common ideas in raw-food circles is that most diseases are due to toxemia, and that one cannot be truly healthy without discontinuing what is believed to be one of the major sources of such internal toxemia: cooked food, even if such food is unprocessed in any other respect except by heat.
While it certainly appears true that many people experience (sometimes impressive) improvements when first coming to raw food, it also appears that long-time pure raw-foodists who have maintained the diet for many years are rare. Anecdotal evidence also suggests (no peer-reviewed research is available on the issue, to our knowledge) that those eating 100% raw foods do not appear to be any healthier on average than people eating predominantly raw, and that raw diets are not the only diets that may work.
Evidence, experience, and arguments addressed in this paper. The material presented here is based on (A) an extensive review of scientific literature and the logical conclusions to be drawn or inferred from it, as well as (B) personal experience with eating 100% or close to 100% raw food, and reading about many other people's experiences (since little if any scientific research is available on raw-fooders). After looking into and examining here what are, we believe, virtually all of the arguments traditionally offered from both sides for and against cooking, the conclusion we are led to is that the dangers of cooking have been largely overstated. However, at the same time, it would obviously be erroneous to say that eating raw doesn't affect our health in any way, and in fact we do believe the knowledge available indicates eating at least partially raw is important.
Subject is not black-and-white. The objective here will be to investigate one by one all of the known effects of heating on food, and examine with a critical eye all the classical raw-foodist claims about the necessity to eat raw. In particular, we'll see that some of these claims appear to be true or partially true; others wrong or very doubtful; and also presented will be some benefits of cooking in certain situations--which as we will see depend very much on the particular food in question.
The present paper is quite long, unavoidably, due to the complexity of the problem. Things are not black-and-white in this subject, contrary to what many people believe. The hope here is to at least convince the reader of the last point.
Hello, and welcome on the forum.
It's a bit time consuming to go into a detailed discussion about the all the contents of the article. If you want to know something specific, that would be easier.
Some things in the article are correct, some are not, and some conclusions have been drawn on incomplete facts. Since the article is mostly aimed at debunking several standard raw food ideas, myths and ideals, it has to be read with that in mind. The Wai Diet, though a raw diet, is far away from a standard raw diet. Not only in the foods we (don't) eat, but also in the ideas behind the diet.
Interestingly, on the Wai Diet we manage to avoid all the toxins listed in the article. We also manage to get enough nutrients (except calcium) according to the RDA (RDA is also mostly arbitrary, but that's a different story). All this without cooking. If substances are 'only' mildy carcinogenic, it does not mean there won't be any long-term effects.
It's a bit time consuming to go into a detailed discussion about the all the contents of the article. If you want to know something specific, that would be easier.
Some things in the article are correct, some are not, and some conclusions have been drawn on incomplete facts. Since the article is mostly aimed at debunking several standard raw food ideas, myths and ideals, it has to be read with that in mind. The Wai Diet, though a raw diet, is far away from a standard raw diet. Not only in the foods we (don't) eat, but also in the ideas behind the diet.
Interestingly, on the Wai Diet we manage to avoid all the toxins listed in the article. We also manage to get enough nutrients (except calcium) according to the RDA (RDA is also mostly arbitrary, but that's a different story). All this without cooking. If substances are 'only' mildy carcinogenic, it does not mean there won't be any long-term effects.
I've read most of the articles at beyondveg.com. They usually pick people that are used as the 'raw food' type that are vegans that are probably not eating the right foods. Just because you eat raw food doesnt' mean you will be healthy if you are neglecting your nutritional needs.
I used to be a raw vegan and always had worries in the back of my mind. Now that I am eating egg yolks and fish I feel like I'm covering the nutritional spectrum.
I don't know if this makes sense, but have you ever thought about animals in nature? what other living being on this planet needs to cook its food? I don't think we should cook it but for sure I don't think we need to cook food.
I feel like Tom B (the auther of the beyondveg site) used him self as an example of a raw vegan alot. he admits to binge eating of sweets and other issues. This shows me that he either had phsycological issues or was eating a really unbalanced diet and his body was fighting him. The diet that waisays recommends wont set you up for binging if you make sure to eat enough calories.
I'm am not fully convinced of everything that waisays recommends yet, but am convinced that this is a great way to eat.
I used to be a raw vegan and always had worries in the back of my mind. Now that I am eating egg yolks and fish I feel like I'm covering the nutritional spectrum.
I don't know if this makes sense, but have you ever thought about animals in nature? what other living being on this planet needs to cook its food? I don't think we should cook it but for sure I don't think we need to cook food.
I feel like Tom B (the auther of the beyondveg site) used him self as an example of a raw vegan alot. he admits to binge eating of sweets and other issues. This shows me that he either had phsycological issues or was eating a really unbalanced diet and his body was fighting him. The diet that waisays recommends wont set you up for binging if you make sure to eat enough calories.
I'm am not fully convinced of everything that waisays recommends yet, but am convinced that this is a great way to eat.
proteins and sarcopenia
Thank you Sirs for your answers,RRM wrote:Indeed, please specify what you worry about / doubt / question or want to know.
First, my post is not a critic, is just for my understanding.
I like the articles in Wai, but I've learned for medical school some differents views.
First, with aging many people lose muscle called sarcopenia. Many physician give for aging men, a prescription that work.
1- exercise
2 -HRT testoterone for men who have low testosterone
3 - high protein diet to keep the muscle mass
OK, many study particulary Lemon study said that aging men need 1.2 g of protein per kg each day. Bodybuiders take 1.2 to 1.8 g/kg/day to gain more muscle.
In fact, I speak with Wai about that and he said that "protein utilisation" is the most important- OK but Wai doesn't said how much protein per kg/day is necessary for aging people. I need information about that ?
Per exemple for an aging men 50 year's old, for a bodyweight of 80 kg that exercise weightlifing 2 times 30 mn each week, how much protein a day is necessary to keep muscle mass intact ?
Wai said it said that good protein like sushi with yellows eggs, with some brazil nut. But I known many athletes who look good with "dirty cooked protein" like chicken and protein powders .
Per exemple for an aging men 50 year's old, for a bodyweight of 80 kg that exercise weightlifing 2 times 30 mn each week, how much protein a day is necessary to keep muscle mass intact ?
I'm spetick too with some raw food about mycotoxins ? like brazil nuts.
Thank you again for yours help.
I think sarcopenia, like osteoporosis, is not a normal situation. Most cures/solutions are at best temporarily relieving the symptoms, but do not address the cause. It's like mopping with an open tap.
I'm not sure how much protein we need per day, but at the moment I'm on 0.6g/kg, which amounts to 5-7% of my daily calories. We can only use so much protein per day as we need for construction/maintenance, and having all amino acids is more important.
Those athletes you talk about, how old are they? A lot of dietary ill-effects are long(er) term, hence aging people have so many problems.
I'm not sure how much protein we need per day, but at the moment I'm on 0.6g/kg, which amounts to 5-7% of my daily calories. We can only use so much protein per day as we need for construction/maintenance, and having all amino acids is more important.
Those athletes you talk about, how old are they? A lot of dietary ill-effects are long(er) term, hence aging people have so many problems.
how much protein
thank you for all informations.
I think when you have many study that said differents things, it's not easy to find the true, if you don't try yourself this diet.
I try to make a diet from wai. I buy organic brazil nuts, raw eggs, raw meats , some fish (not so much because many have mercury),coconut oil, fruits and vegetable...
My bodyweight is heavy and muscular (90 kg), body fat 12%, but some water bloat around stomach (not come from thyroid or hormonal problem, not from food intolerance or gut toxins)...
MAY BE IS A DIRTY PROTEIN, but I feel spetick !!!
I try to lose weight but not muscle...
My question is how much protein, thank you to help me how much quality protein I need each day.
Can I eat only one meal a day of protein ?
Yes, this diet look good on the papers, because you're not crazy about how much protein you need to eat evry meals each days...
I need to try, and thank you for your suggestions.
I think when you have many study that said differents things, it's not easy to find the true, if you don't try yourself this diet.
I try to make a diet from wai. I buy organic brazil nuts, raw eggs, raw meats , some fish (not so much because many have mercury),coconut oil, fruits and vegetable...
My bodyweight is heavy and muscular (90 kg), body fat 12%, but some water bloat around stomach (not come from thyroid or hormonal problem, not from food intolerance or gut toxins)...
MAY BE IS A DIRTY PROTEIN, but I feel spetick !!!
I try to lose weight but not muscle...
My question is how much protein, thank you to help me how much quality protein I need each day.
Can I eat only one meal a day of protein ?
Yes, this diet look good on the papers, because you're not crazy about how much protein you need to eat evry meals each days...
I need to try, and thank you for your suggestions.
Well, if you're going to eat fruits all day, you're consuming a little protein the whole time. But it's a good idea to eat the bulk of the protein in one go. Like one meal with 125gr raw fish. I think the total amount of protein for you could be around 50-60gr per day (so including fruit protein).
Go easy on the raw meat, rather go for raw salmon/tuna/mackerel, use mainly olive oil (extra virgin cold pressed), no veggies (tomato, cucumber, avocado are fruits). Do you know how to go about the diet?
Go easy on the raw meat, rather go for raw salmon/tuna/mackerel, use mainly olive oil (extra virgin cold pressed), no veggies (tomato, cucumber, avocado are fruits). Do you know how to go about the diet?
Thank.
I want to try this diet by instinct. First, I like the contreversial e-book of Wai, because I known that many scientifivc study was biased? I like the humility of this guy and a free e-book in this world is incredible... No zone diet, no atckin's diet, no pritikin diet...
Why raw meat is so bad. I've just finishing to read the book of Aajomus Vonderplanitz, this guy eat raw meat with no problem at all...
see : primal diet
ABOUT FISH : http://www.mercola.com/2002/jun/19/mercury_fish.htm
know many of you out there are not familiar with the metric system, so please allow me to translate what 0.15 grams of whalemeat actually equates to.
There are 5 grams in a teaspoon, so 0.15 grams is a measly 3% of a teaspoon. This speck of fish is supplying more mercury than the average adult should have in one week!
I have known that mercury in fish has been a problem for some time now, and used to warn that one should restrict fish consumption to a few species. Because some fish have less mercury then others, I thought certain types of fish, eaten in limited quantities, were acceptable.
However, upon more study, I have changed my position. It is my experience that nearly all fish are contaminated with mercury. I have done thousands of hair mineral analysis on patients and the patients who don't eat fish are the ones who have immeasurable levels of mercury in their hair. Anyone eating fish has mercury and nearly always in direct proportion to the frequency they are eating fish.
Although this study was performed on whales in Japan, it is not the only country suffering from pollution. Recently, I posted an article that showed over 5 million pounds of mercury were dumped into the environment by the US alone(one pound is equal to 454,000 mgs). This is causing immeasurable damage to our environment and the food we get from it.
It is confirmation that our species has irreversibly and permanently contaminated the waters of the world to the point that all fish are now toxic, and although I suspect technology will develop in the next few centuries that will clean up this mess, for now we are stuck with this fact.
It is my strong recommendation to avoid all fish, unless you are absolutely certain that it has been tested in a laboratory and shown not to contain detectable levels of mercury and other toxins.
It has mercury that will absolutely compromise your health.
We all need the omega-3 fats, but you should get them from a clean source. Most of the fish oil supplements go through a molecular distillation process to clean out the mercury, but you should definitely contact the manufacturer directly to confirm this.
THERA ARE MANY CONTRACTION ABOUT RAW MEAT or RAW FISH;
Thank for your advises
I want to try this diet by instinct. First, I like the contreversial e-book of Wai, because I known that many scientifivc study was biased? I like the humility of this guy and a free e-book in this world is incredible... No zone diet, no atckin's diet, no pritikin diet...
Why raw meat is so bad. I've just finishing to read the book of Aajomus Vonderplanitz, this guy eat raw meat with no problem at all...
see : primal diet
ABOUT FISH : http://www.mercola.com/2002/jun/19/mercury_fish.htm
know many of you out there are not familiar with the metric system, so please allow me to translate what 0.15 grams of whalemeat actually equates to.
There are 5 grams in a teaspoon, so 0.15 grams is a measly 3% of a teaspoon. This speck of fish is supplying more mercury than the average adult should have in one week!
I have known that mercury in fish has been a problem for some time now, and used to warn that one should restrict fish consumption to a few species. Because some fish have less mercury then others, I thought certain types of fish, eaten in limited quantities, were acceptable.
However, upon more study, I have changed my position. It is my experience that nearly all fish are contaminated with mercury. I have done thousands of hair mineral analysis on patients and the patients who don't eat fish are the ones who have immeasurable levels of mercury in their hair. Anyone eating fish has mercury and nearly always in direct proportion to the frequency they are eating fish.
Although this study was performed on whales in Japan, it is not the only country suffering from pollution. Recently, I posted an article that showed over 5 million pounds of mercury were dumped into the environment by the US alone(one pound is equal to 454,000 mgs). This is causing immeasurable damage to our environment and the food we get from it.
It is confirmation that our species has irreversibly and permanently contaminated the waters of the world to the point that all fish are now toxic, and although I suspect technology will develop in the next few centuries that will clean up this mess, for now we are stuck with this fact.
It is my strong recommendation to avoid all fish, unless you are absolutely certain that it has been tested in a laboratory and shown not to contain detectable levels of mercury and other toxins.
It has mercury that will absolutely compromise your health.
We all need the omega-3 fats, but you should get them from a clean source. Most of the fish oil supplements go through a molecular distillation process to clean out the mercury, but you should definitely contact the manufacturer directly to confirm this.
THERA ARE MANY CONTRACTION ABOUT RAW MEAT or RAW FISH;
Thank for your advises
Raw meat in itself isn't bad, but there are a few issues, like mercury is an issue with raw fish.
1. raw meat usually isn't raw, but treated with radiation.
2. cattle is often fed processed food, which means their flesh can contain harmful substances.
3. possible parasites (pork meat)
4. due to handling in factories cross-infections with E. coli bacteria can take place.
If you can get meat which doesn't have these issues, then by all means go for it.
1. raw meat usually isn't raw, but treated with radiation.
2. cattle is often fed processed food, which means their flesh can contain harmful substances.
3. possible parasites (pork meat)
4. due to handling in factories cross-infections with E. coli bacteria can take place.
If you can get meat which doesn't have these issues, then by all means go for it.
Well,
Oscar, it's a bad new for meat. Do you not be afraid about mercury in fish ?
I've learning that a problem with bacteria in tuna too ?
I'm little afraid because my mercury in my body is still high and I had a CFS one year's ago...
May be do you have an good alternative to meat and fish ?
eggs, nuts, fruits is not enough to keep my protein intake to 60 gr a day.
Oscar, it's a bad new for meat. Do you not be afraid about mercury in fish ?
I've learning that a problem with bacteria in tuna too ?
I'm little afraid because my mercury in my body is still high and I had a CFS one year's ago...
May be do you have an good alternative to meat and fish ?
eggs, nuts, fruits is not enough to keep my protein intake to 60 gr a day.
I think mercury from amalgam fillings is far more dangerous, but I usually keep to the fish with lower mercury levels, like salmon and mackerel. If you have amalgam fillings, it might be a good idea to have them replaced.
Personally I'm not that worried about bacteria. My immune system should be able to handle that.
I would switch between fish and egg yolks, and eat salmon just to be sure of low mercury levels.
Personally I'm not that worried about bacteria. My immune system should be able to handle that.
I would switch between fish and egg yolks, and eat salmon just to be sure of low mercury levels.
Yes, or maybe even protein in general, but yes, dirty proteins are the worst.thea wrote:My bodyweight is heavy and muscular (90 kg), body fat 12%, but some water bloat around stomach (not come from thyroid or hormonal problem, not from food intolerance or gut toxins)...
MAY BE IS A DIRTY PROTEIN, but I feel spetick !!!
Consuming a handful of Brazil nuts increases your overall protein quality (of that what you already consumed that day)My question is how much protein, thank you to help me how much quality protein I need each day.
If you are not acne prone, I would start off with 200 to 300 grams of fish or egg yolks (may be a combination of the both), to see what effect that will have. You can eat that in one sitting, or in 2 (if you have enough time to rest afterwards)
If your muscle volume does not decrease, but your water retention doesnt decrease either, then you can gradually decrease the amount of fish/egg yolks consumed, to establish the level that will do the trick.