New Substances In Prepared Food

[Fairy Prince]

Wai says:

Due to heat, preparing food originates new substances. Most of these new substances originate from proteins reacting upon carbohydrates.

Theoretically, does this mean that if a food contained lots of protein and zero carbohydrates at all, then it would not originate "most" of the new substances, such as HCA?

Wai says:
Due to the heat these HCA originate from the interaction between protein and carbohydrates and / or creatine (in red meat) or nitrate (in vegetables).

Does this mean that if you had a food high in protein, but contained zero carbs, creatine, or nitrate, no harmful new substances would originate from cooking the protein food?

I heard it mentioned on this board that sugar is allowed (even though its not raw) because it contains no protein. From this same reverse logic, maybe a high protein food is alright if it contained absolutely no carbs. I'm just theorizing here of course. What does anyone think?

[RRM]

does this mean that if a food contained lots of protein and zero carbohydrates at all, then it would not originate "most" of the new substances, such as HCA?

Unfortunately no, because those 'carbo-like' bodies can also come from proteins and fats. Its just when there are plenty of carbs available too, the Maillard reaction takes place at a greater rate.

Does this mean that if you had a food high in protein, but contained zero carbs, creatine, or nitrate, no harmful new substances would originate from cooking the protein food?

Unfortunately, no, because that extra nitrogen can also come from protein (they always contain nitrogen); its just that carbs, creatine and nitrate are forceful contributory factors.

I heard it mentioned on this board that sugar is allowed (even though its not raw) because it contains no protein.

Yes, no nitrogen, and its just fuel; it all gets broken down (unlike constructive fat / protein compounds)

[Gerard]

http://www.nutripharma.com/Press_Room/P ... ie2006.pdf

This study notes that in 'protein' drinks that are absent oxidized cholesterol, the heat-denatured protein alone (not the oxidized cholesterol that in the case of milk or other products would normally accompany it) has a harmful effect on one's cholesterol.

That is, damaged animal protein unaccompanied by damaged cholesterol-containing animal fat is bad enough for you in terms of cholesterol.

[Gerard]

And damaged plant protein (in this case, soy) was used to make this case...

[Brazilnuts]

http://www.nutripharma.com/Press_Room/P ... ie2006.pdf

This study notes that in 'protein' drinks that are absent oxidized cholesterol, the heat-denatured protein alone (not the oxidized cholesterol that in the case of milk or other products would normally accompany it) has a harmful effect on one's cholesterol.

That is, damaged animal protein unaccompanied by damaged cholesterol-containing animal fat is bad enough for you in terms of cholesterol.

Wow, that is really scary!

[RRM]

damaged animal protein unaccompanied by damaged cholesterol-containing animal fat is bad enough for you in terms of cholesterol.

Sure, i that makes sense to me, as there are many agents to co-regulate cholesterol level, and many of such 'messenger'/ 'regulatory' agents are protein-based, so that when you ingest compounds with a similar molecular structure, that may affect cholesterol metabolism.
Such agents not just co-regulate cholesterol metabolism, but virtually all processes in our body...

[Gerard]

The cholesterol issue is so interesting I almost feel it deserves a "Sticky" at the top of this site; it is so key to the diet and it is terrifically interesting since it really makes this diet so different from other raw ones.

It's as if most raw-fooders can't accept animal foods--

And most animal-food-including researchers (esp. the saturated-fats ppl who espouse including grassfed animal fats) can't see their way clear to raw foods.

This diet comes at animal food and cholesterol from a completley different angle that fills the blind spots above.

[RRM]

Yes, most raw fooders are vegetarians as well; as if raw-foodism is an extreme type of vegetarianism. There is no in-between-step for the wai-diet. Well, actually raw vegetarianism is, but then again, that one seems so far away from the wai-diet, regarding what it is based on ('living foods' / enzymes) and ideology (we are not like animals, we dont eat other animals).
So, i guess for most people it would be a too-big-a-stretch, no?

[Gerard]

In fact I feel the biggest obstacle to many raw-fooders or 'traditional nutritionists' espousing saturated animal fats is a kind of lack of joy, surprisingly.

First-- for the Wai diet-- you have to really turn your mind off, and your cravings down, and then listen to your body. Food is functional; it is deeply enjoyable, but not because it is stimulating or druglike. So you must function with a finely-tuned sense of the body's own enjoyment, which is both utilitarian and sublime, and far outside the realm of addicting foods.

Then you must not take it to a level of dogma. As much as I 'believe' in this diet, it is not an idea; a concept. It is a kind of seamless integration with what the body wants (and i didn't know it wanted).

Most people's level of addicition to food, and addiction to ideas, is destined to cover over these senses completely. And yet to really enjoy the body; to live freely in the body and with it, you have to open yourself to how much better you can feel (and think less about it, at the same time).

Paradoxically, most people can't accommodate this.

[RRM]

Very eloquantly put...

[johndela1]

Food junkies

[RRM]

Maybe they are not even that much addicted to food, but maybe also to their lifestyle and the comfort they think they get from it. Maybe its also about blending in. About not wanting to take responsibility. About what they are used to. About not knowing what to do with your life. Or about being occupied so much that there is no room for any of this diet stuff. And maybe its about this world ibeing a confusing one, so we dont want to get even more confused.

[johndela1]

If people where trying to blend end it seems they'd tend to eat healthy when on their own. I think people really don't have a clue to what healthy eating is. I mean who do you listen too? People like us are considered nut cases by most.

[RRM]

True.

[Oscar]

Aren't most raw foodists even vegans?

I think that a normal lifestyle and social behavior is completely influenced by the addiction to addictive substances. Social happenings become so much more sought after because of the intake of those substances, that they become inseparable.