Do you even know what modest means?
Man Lives on Raw Meat for 5+ Years
- Thread starter anaconda
- Start date
Do you even know what modest means?
- Joined
- Oct 29, 2009
- Messages
- 1,901
- Reaction score
- 0
Nah. Cratos isn't retarded. He's a curmudgeon.
I actually have one more question. Who are these 'original humans'? Like, Adam and Eve? Or are we going for somewhere in the fossil record? And if so, where in that record?
Juno Leed**
Yellow Belt
- Joined
- Nov 23, 2010
- Messages
- 167
- Reaction score
- 0
So now i'm somebody else now? lol
And how is stating my opinion on one thread "Trolling the entire S&C Forum"? lol
And how is stating my opinion on one thread "Trolling the entire S&C Forum"? lol
Last edited:
Juno Leed**
Yellow Belt
- Joined
- Nov 23, 2010
- Messages
- 167
- Reaction score
- 0
The first original humanoids, the people we evolved from. And I don't believe in any of that bible stuff. Like i said we have adapted to cooking over the years. we didn't start out cooking.
- Joined
- May 1, 2006
- Messages
- 16,828
- Reaction score
- 0
This is progress. Most people keep denying and backpedaling.
Try to stick around and read more. You will learn a lot.
xilliun
Brown Belt
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2010
- Messages
- 3,344
- Reaction score
- 0
Because we didn't know how to cook it. Refer to my post earlier in this thread that outlines the food preferences of great apes when given the choice between cooked and raw foods. Not knowing how to do something isn't indicative of it being harmful to us.
- Joined
- May 4, 2007
- Messages
- 21,629
- Reaction score
- 3
haha nice articles. The first one completely debunks any argument you could possibly come up with.
You're right in that if you go back long enough, there is a time that the creatures further up our lineage didn't cook. But they're not "we" as such but rather a "they" who are quite similar.
As far as I know, cooking started with pre-human hominids. Nobody seems to be sure exactly how far back. Seems to vary from 10's of thousands up to over 1.5million years, which is a hell of a long time - easily long enough for us to evolve to suit it and make cooking "natural" for us.
So "we" (as in homo sapiens) may have always cooked but our pre-human ancestors didn't always cook. I'm not sure what this really means though in terms of health. I'm sure there are many other things they didn't do that we do now.
What is "natural" exactly? How about making stone axes, using spears, wearing clothes, growing crops and so on? Are they natural? If not should be stop wearing clothes?
To me, this naturalistic argument doesn't really add up to much.
- Joined
- May 11, 2005
- Messages
- 5,372
- Reaction score
- 26
Lets stop for just a second with hand picking isolated study suggestions and look at the whole picture:
Is cooking food in a diet as a whole more efficient nutritionally or is eating food raw more efficient nutritionally? Everyone wants to jump all over this Juno guy but I would agree with him. Cooking your food is less efficient from a total nutritional standpoint than eating it raw.
Is cooking food in a diet as a whole more efficient nutritionally or is eating food raw more efficient nutritionally? Everyone wants to jump all over this Juno guy but I would agree with him. Cooking your food is less efficient from a total nutritional standpoint than eating it raw.
What leads you believe that?
What do you mean my efficient?
There are good nutritional reasons why humans all over the planet cook their food. It means we can eat many more foods than we could otherwise giving us greater nutritional diversity which is generally held to be a good thing. It makes survival possible in many places. It does lower some nutes like vitamins but also raises the availability of some.Take a typical meal consisting of chilli made with stewing steak, tomatoes and kidney beans served with rice, broccoli and carrots:
You'll have a pretty hard time chewing, swallowing and digesting raw stewing steak and we get good quality protein from cooked meats. Let's leave the risks of parasites and food poisoning from raw meat to one side
Cooked tomatoes lose vitamin C but lycopene levels go right up
Raw kidney beans are inedible to the point of being poisonous
How do you eat raw rice? Soak it for a day or so? Hardly an efficient way of eating and getting hold of the starch plus a food poisoning risk.
Carrots supply more antioxidants, such as carotenoids and ferulic acid when cooked
Broccoli similar to carrots
We cannot deny that vitamins like vit c are lowered but most people are not short of it and it's available elsewhere whereas lycopenes and carotenoids are not so easy to come by in a bioavailable form. So it's prudent to eat some raw fruit and veg in some meals but definitely good to cook them in others. Many pulses are not edible raw. Most of our sources of starch such as grains and tubers are inedible or barely edible raw and at at the least require heavy processing to make them palatable so we can get their nutrients.
What do you mean my efficient?
There are good nutritional reasons why humans all over the planet cook their food. It means we can eat many more foods than we could otherwise giving us greater nutritional diversity which is generally held to be a good thing. It makes survival possible in many places. It does lower some nutes like vitamins but also raises the availability of some.Take a typical meal consisting of chilli made with stewing steak, tomatoes and kidney beans served with rice, broccoli and carrots:
You'll have a pretty hard time chewing, swallowing and digesting raw stewing steak and we get good quality protein from cooked meats. Let's leave the risks of parasites and food poisoning from raw meat to one side
Cooked tomatoes lose vitamin C but lycopene levels go right up
Raw kidney beans are inedible to the point of being poisonous
How do you eat raw rice? Soak it for a day or so? Hardly an efficient way of eating and getting hold of the starch plus a food poisoning risk.
Carrots supply more antioxidants, such as carotenoids and ferulic acid when cooked
Broccoli similar to carrots
We cannot deny that vitamins like vit c are lowered but most people are not short of it and it's available elsewhere whereas lycopenes and carotenoids are not so easy to come by in a bioavailable form. So it's prudent to eat some raw fruit and veg in some meals but definitely good to cook them in others. Many pulses are not edible raw. Most of our sources of starch such as grains and tubers are inedible or barely edible raw and at at the least require heavy processing to make them palatable so we can get their nutrients.
Last edited:
- Joined
- May 4, 2007
- Messages
- 21,629
- Reaction score
- 3
How so? Throughout the thread many have shown evidence that cooking food actually allows for better digestion / absorption of food.
The point he is trying to make is that cooking isn't a natural act. however, studies have shown that humans have been cooking for for 1 - 1.5 million years. If that isn't long enough to make something a "natural" part of human life (meaning humans have adapted to absorb nutrients through cooked food optimally) than i don't know what is.
- Joined
- May 4, 2007
- Messages
- 21,629
- Reaction score
- 3
Shit. You beat me to it. I pretty much posted the same thing. i can't even edit it because I haz the dubbs :icon_cry2
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2011
- Messages
- 14,948
- Reaction score
- 0
Did you not just read the ten pages of people explaining in painstaking detail why your statement is wrong?
This is akin to me posting in a UFC 162 discussion thread claiming "I think Anderson will KO Weidman in round 2!" two days after the event is over.
I have a great deal of respect for you in the wrestling world, but you are wrong about this one man.
I was going to come back today and post this (thus my lead in yesterday about who these 'original' humans were), but you beat me to it. I don't see how someone can say it's not 'natural' for humans to do 'X' if humans have been doing 'X' since before we were humans.
- Joined
- Nov 2, 2010
- Messages
- 14,125
- Reaction score
- 9,311
This is actually the opposite of true. While some foods such as fresh fruit and some fresh vegetables will have higher antioxidant content (including vitamin C) and lower digestible carbohydrate content when consumed fresh and raw, most staples and protein sources (including but not limited to rice, grains, beans of any kind, meat, eggs, and more) actually experience much higher efficiency in the human digestive system when properly cooked in terms of the calories from protein and carbohydrates that are actually metabolically accessible.
Also there is emerging data that some brassica's including kale and broccoli may have damaging effects on thyroid function when consumed raw in high doses for long periods of time while when cooked there is no such drawback and a host of health benefits remain in cooked kale and broccoli. Obviously you can over cook anything, but here is a green superfood that does better cooked. It's not even just about grains and meat.
The enzyme argument from the raw camp is also utter horseshit. Food doesn't come with significant amounts of digestive enzymes that are destroyed by heat exposure. The vast majority of enzymatic activity in the human GI tract during digestion involves enzymes secreted directly by the pancreas and it is much easier for the stomach and small intestine to break down foods where heat has already broken apart long chain molecules.
Latest posts
-
-
-
Media Conor back throwing kicks - heavy bag - with leg he broke - video- Latest: GiganticMeat
-
