The rarer, the better: myth or fact?

[scottm]

Like X said, if it's meat that I have controlled, like a fresh deer then I will eat it medium rare. If it was store bought or I am eating at a restaurant I bump it up to medium to be safe

And +1 on never getting food poisoning again. I got it from eggs and or bacon at Denny's once and it was horrible - nothing like being 22 in college and spending an entire weekend vomiting and peeing from the butt stuck in your room while 200 other people party in your house.

 

[joshetc]

So I take it you cook all of your pistachios now?

 

[Blackice]

I got food poisoning from the only time I ever tried lobster at a restaurant and I thought I was dying. It's the sickest I've ever been. I puked hourly for 12 hours and the next day I was still extremely nauseous and was so weak I couldn't even feed myself. Then the hospital told me I had heartburn. Ahhhht no see. I actually walked out when the nurse got pissed off at me because I had to puke, and I had been waiting 3 hours for a blood test as it was. I got me some mint chocolate chip ice cream and some ginger ale and I fixed myself. I swear that mint chocolate chip ice cream is a miracle cure if you're nauseous and don't want to puke. It kicks gravol's ass.

 

[Oblivian]

I've had food poisoning only once and it was from a gas station sandwich when I was traveling. Honestly, most cases I hear about of food poisoning are from something besides undercooked meat. I typically hear it's from seafood, eggs, or something else random.

 

[WitchCraft]

Ha...this thread has been more entertaining than informative.

@ Xtrainer...I'm actually more concerned about carcinogens than I am food poisoning because of my family history of cancer...and probably because I've never had food poisoning.

So, now that I know everyone's taste preference for red meat, is there really any nutritional value assuming the meat isn't contaminated of course.

 

[Oblivian]

Ha...this thread has been more entertaining than informative.

@ Xtrainer...I'm actually more concerned about carcinogens than I am food poisoning because of my family history of cancer...and probably because I've never had food poisoning.

So, now that I know everyone's taste preference for red meat, is there really any nutritional value assuming the meat isn't contaminated of course.

Honestly, even if there was a difference, my assumption would be that it is negligible and nothing to really worry about. I'd just eat it however you prefer it cooked based on taste.

 

[ThePitBull32]

While were talking about this stuff, I've recently been asked several times in restaurants "how do you want your salmon cooked?" How do I eat salmon for years and never hear that, then all of a sudden they start asking?

Anyway, that one's a puzzler for me. I just shrug and say something lame like "uh...normal?"

Salmon is best cooked medium.

 

[eastNYgoon138]

If that's your main reason, why not just supplement with creatine?

real food > colored powder

 

[Monger]

Comp Biochem Physiol A Mol Integr Physiol. 2003 Sep;136(1):35-46.

'Cooking as a biological trait'.
Wrangham R, Conklin-Brittain N.

Department of Anthropology, Harvard University, Peabody Museum, 11 Divinity Avenue, Cambridge, MA 02138, USA. [email protected]

Abstract
No human foragers have been recorded as living without cooking, and people who choose a 'raw-foodist' life-style experience low energy and impaired reproductive function. This suggests that cooking may be obligatory for humans. The possibility that cooking is obligatory is supported by calculations suggesting that a diet of raw food could not supply sufficient calories for a normal hunter-gatherer lifestyle. In particular, many plant foods are too fiber-rich when raw, while most raw meat appears too tough to allow easy chewing. If cooking is indeed obligatory for humans but not for other apes, this means that human biology must have adapted to the ingestion of cooked food (i.e. food that is tender and low in fiber) in ways that no longer allow efficient processing of raw foods. Cooking has been practiced for ample time to allow the evolution of such adaptations. Digestive adaptations have not been investigated in detail but may include small teeth, small hind-guts, large small intestines, a fast gut passage rate, and possibly reduced ability to detoxify. The adoption of cooking can also be expected to have had far-reaching effects on such aspects of human biology as life-history, social behavior, and evolutionary psychology. Since dietary adaptations are central to understanding species evolution, cooking appears to have been a key feature of the environment of human evolutionary adaptedness. Further investigation is therefore needed of the ways in which human digestive physiology is constrained by the need for food of relatively high caloric density compared to other great apes.

If interested, the book titled "Catching Fire" is an excellent read and I'd recommend it to anyone interested in the cooked vs. raw food topic.

It

 

[anaconda]

The rarer, the better it tastes...FACT

 

[MatterOverMind]

Honestly, even if there was a difference, my assumption would be that it is negligible and nothing to really worry about.

Stressing over negligible details is what D/S is all about.

 

[Monger]

The rarer, the better it tastes...FACT

Great apes disagree with you :icon_chee

J Hum Evol. 2008 Aug;55(2):340-8. Epub 2008 May 16.

Great apes prefer cooked food.
Wobber V, Hare B, Wrangham R.

Department of Anthropology, Harvard University, Peabody Museum, Cambridge, MA 02138, USA. [email protected]

Abstract
The cooking hypothesis proposes that a diet of cooked food was responsible for diverse morphological and behavioral changes in human evolution. However, it does not predict whether a preference for cooked food evolved before or after the control of fire. This question is important because the greater the preference shown by a raw-food-eating hominid for the properties present in cooked food, the more easily cooking should have been adopted following the control of fire. Here we use great apes to model food preferences by Paleolithic hominids. We conducted preference tests with various plant and animal foods to determine whether great apes prefer food items raw or cooked. We found that several populations of captive apes tended to prefer their food cooked, though with important exceptions. These results suggest that Paleolithic hominids would likewise have spontaneously preferred cooked food to raw, exapting a pre-existing preference for high-quality, easily chewed foods onto these cooked items. The results, therefore, challenge the hypothesis that the control of fire preceded cooking by a significant period.

PMID: 18486186 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

 

[WitchCraft]

real food > colored powder

HAHA...but my creatine is fruit punch flavored!!!!!

 

[Monger]

I've heard from (unreliable) sources that consuming rare meat/raw fish is beneficial because it contains more creatine. Myth or fact?

As for this specific question, I don't know if some creatine is actually lost by cooking or not but apparently there's still a decent amount remaining and it's readily absorbed...

J Sports Sci. 2002 Feb;20(2):147-51.

Absorption of creatine supplied as a drink, in meat or in solid form.
Harris RC, Nevill M, Harris DB, Fallowfield JL, Bogdanis GC, Wise JA.

Exercise Physiology Research Group, University College Chichester, UK. [email protected]

Abstract
We examined the plasma concentration curve obtained over 6 h after the ingestion of 2 g of creatine (Cr) (equivalent to 2.3 g Cr x H2O) contained in meat or in solution in five non-users of creatine supplements. Peak plasma creatine concentration was lower after the ingestion of meat but was maintained close to this for a longer period. Measurements of the area under the plasma concentration curve indicated approximate bioequivalence of creatine contained in meat with the same dose supplied in a solution. In a separate study, we examined the plasma concentration time curve after ingestion of solid Cr x H2O. Creatine ingested as a lozenge (crushed in the mouth and swallowed) or as a crystalline suspension in ice cold water resulted in a 20% lower peak concentration and 30-35% smaller area under the plasma creatine concentration curve than the same dose administered in solution. Despite a possibly lower bioavailability, 2.3 g Cr x H2O supplied in either solid form was nonetheless sufficient to raise the plasma concentration five- to six-fold in individuals with a mean body mass of 75.6 kg. We conclude that creatine administered as meat or in solid form is readily absorbed but may result in slightly lower peak concentrations than when the same dose is ingested as a solution.

PMID: 11811571 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

The meat used in this study was, obviously, cooked. A more practical question would probably be are you eating enough meat to give a shit, or at the very least, replace supplementation? Because if you're already supplementing with creatine, whatever you get in meat is probably insignificant in terms of obtaining full benefits from creatine.

 

[Oblivian]

Stressing over negligible details is what D/S is all about.

I've noticed.

 

[Zisteau]

I hear you. Pretty sure I've mentioned this before, but up until about two years ago, I always ordered everything medium-well, because that's what my whole family did and I never thought anything of it. I switched to medium and will never go back.

I'm a bit too chicken to do less than medium, even though I've liked it when I've tried it. I'm paranoid about food poisoning.

Just as a reference, I've been eating raw fish and beef my whole life, and I've never had food poisoning. I'd say how thoroughly your food is cooked has little to do with whether you'll get food poisoning. How fresh it is and where you get it is much more important. Rare beef is worth the (minimal) risk. Just don't buy it at some shady restaurant with a C or a D hanging in the window.

 

[WitchCraft]

As for this specific question, I don't know if some creatine is actually lost by cooking or not but apparently there's still a decent amount remaining and it's readily absorbed...



The meat used in this study was, obviously, cooked. A more practical question would probably be are you eating enough meat to give a shit, or at the very least, replace supplementation? Because if you're already supplementing with creatine, whatever you get in meat is probably insignificant in terms of obtaining full benefits from creatine.

Interesting...where are you finding all these articles? Through a school database or something?

And I'm actually not nuts about taking creatine and usually don't think about it but I recently started cooking a lot of ground bison/beef and was just wondering how much I should cook it.

 

[WitchCraft]

Just as a reference, I've been eating raw fish and beef my whole life, and I've never had food poisoning. I'd say how thoroughly your food is cooked has little to do with whether you'll get food poisoning. How fresh it is and where you get it is much more important. Rare beef is worth the (minimal) risk. Just don't buy it at some shady restaurant with a C or a D hanging in the window.

RAW beef?? I said rare! lol...I really don't think I could just eat raw meat. I think it's an instinctual thing, it needs to be somewhat cooked to prevent poisoning...even though you just said you've never food poisoning, seems kinda risque.

 

[Monger]

Interesting...where are you finding all these articles? Through a school database or something?

And I'm actually not nuts about taking creatine and usually don't think about it but I recently started cooking a lot of ground bison/beef and was just wondering how much I should cook it.

I have the articles from previous research. I'm sure they can all be found on pubmed.com. Whether you'll have access to the full texts is another story.

It's been awhile since I looked at how much creatine is in an ounce (or whatever) of meat. I'm sure you could probably Google it or someone here might know off hand. My gut tells me that, while doable, it may not be practical to get all of your creatine from meat (at least not in terms of reaping the full benefits).

If I had to guess, I'd say that the difference between rare and well done in terms of creatine consumption would be entirely insignificant if there was indeed a difference at all.

Short answer: Fuck it. Cook the meat the way you like it.

 

[XTrainer]

A rare steak is far better than a rare Mod.

Somebody grab that guy before he gets away again!

So I take it you cook all of your pistachios now?

Was never a big pistachio guy, haven't touched them since "the incident."

Ha...this thread has been more entertaining than informative.

@ Xtrainer...I'm actually more concerned about carcinogens than I am food poisoning because of my family history of cancer...and probably because I've never had food poisoning.

So, now that I know everyone's taste preference for red meat, is there really any nutritional value assuming the meat isn't contaminated of course.

Honestly, even if there was a difference, my assumption would be that it is negligible and nothing to really worry about. I'd just eat it however you prefer it cooked based on taste.

As far as the carcinogen thing, it's not something I've researched or am well versed in, just something I'm throwing out there. I don't know if it's a big deal or not, but if you're concerned, doing a little homework would be worthwhile.

If interested, the book titled "Catching Fire" is an excellent read and I'd recommend it to anyone interested in the cooked vs. raw food topic.

It’s assumed that cooked foods came very quickly after human ancestry obtained the ability to control fire. There’s *some* evidence that this could have happened anywhere between 200,000 and 1.8 million years ago. There seems to be fairly strong evidence that fire was controlled ~ 500,000 years ago.

Long story short, humans are literally built to eat cooked food.

Yeah, there's actually an awful lot of literature out there about how cooking contributed to human development, and how cooking improved human nutrition generally by making the nutrients already in food more bioavailable, so primal humans could effectively be better nourished on a given quantity of food, provided it was cooked.

Take that raw food vegans!

(I kid.)

Just as a reference, I've been eating raw fish and beef my whole life, and I've never had food poisoning. I'd say how thoroughly your food is cooked has little to do with whether you'll get food poisoning. How fresh it is and where you get it is much more important. Rare beef is worth the (minimal) risk. Just don't buy it at some shady restaurant with a C or a D hanging in the window.

I think that's a totally fair statement. But, since it doesn't really cost me anything in terms of enjoyment, nutrition, etc. to cook my meat beyond rare, fully cook my eggs, etc, I don't mind erring on the safe side.