Daily reminder that eating raw stuff is moronic because cooking makes nutrients more available to you
Cooking is in part what allowed us to get more nutrients and become smarter as cave men
Daily reminder that eating raw stuff is moronic because cooking makes nutrients more available to you
Cooking is in part what allowed us to get more nutrients and become smarter as cave men
I don't know man, that guy looks pretty jacked. Raw liver might be the move
Eat steroids raw, not meat.
Then why does cooking dog food remove nutrients from it (for dogs)?
Because dog food is made to be eaten while the owner not having to cook anything, I assume they process it to make the nutrients more available, either by cooking, or by other processes.
I've never heard of dog food being cooked making it lose nutrients. What source did you take this from?
It's true for virtually all foods. Cooking breaks down the protein a bit so your gut only has to finish the job.
>Because dog food is made to be eaten while the owner not having to cook anything, I assume they process it to make the nutrients more available, either by cooking, or by other processes
This doesn't make any sense grammatically.
When I said "cooking dog food" I was referring to food that is raw, like raw meat and organs, AKA what dogs/wolves naturally eat, and cooking that. Not cooking already-cooked dog food like canned food or kibble. That doesn't make any sense.
>where did I hear this
I don't remember and I don't know if it's actually true.
>Because dog food is made to be eaten while the owner not having to cook anything, I assume they process it to make the nutrients more available, either by cooking, or by other processes
Because dog food is made to be eaten without the owner having to cook it for the dog*, I assume they process it to make the nutrients more available, either by cooking beforehand*, or by other processes
Fixed.
dude what the frick are you talking about. we are talking about RAW food that IS NOT COOKED beforehand. please slow down and read and use your brain before you type another nonsense post.
I was just fixing my sentence because it was really badly put together. I didn't engage with your other points because you not only said you have no source, buy you also assumed I was supposed to know you meant normal food given to dogs when you said dog food.
Dog food is food that is sold as dog food, like picrel, moron. Giving a chicken breast to a dog does not make it dog food, it's just food. Every person that speaks English will assume picrel if they hear someone talking about "dog food"
>calling someone stupid when your english comprehension and writing skills are horrible
like pottery. no one is cooking dehydrated kibble btw, and you are moronic for thinking that's what I was referring to.
How many languages do you speak, anon? Can you have conversations in all of them, maybe with some mistakes here and there?
I'm not arrogant like you, so I don't insult people's intelligence when I misinterpret things in languages I don't understand. That's the difference between me and you.
>hurr i speak broken english which is the language of the entire world and internet, i'm better than you!
>i'm bad at reading though, and that means you're moronic
god what an incredible homosexual.
I've actually designed a AAFCO-compliant veterinary formula back when my employer had an Animal Health division, and I can tell you they are only made to hit nutrient ranges using approved ingredients and pass microbial testing after processing and packaging.
>protein is the only nutrient
god you're moronic. You've never heard of micronutrients?
>Cooking breaks down the protein a bit so your gut only has to finish the job.
Cooking absolutely does not significantly alter protein structure in meat, and the small intestine has 0 issue digesting all of the amino acids from protein unless you have some kind of disorder.
I don't know why I'm the one who has to tell you this, but the human body is REALLY good at digesting the food it eats. That's why your poop is brown and stinky and doesn't look anything like the food you eat (again, unless you have some kind of disorder).
>i assume it is like this therefore it must be so
holy mother of reasoning. you truly are a genius
I didn't say it must be this way, this is why I used the word "assume"
Which micronutrients get less absorbed when cooked?
water-soluble vitamins: vitamin C and the B vitamins — thiamine (B1), riboflavin (B2), niacin (B3), pantothenic acid (B5), pyridoxine (B6), folic acid (B9), and cobalamin (B12)
fat-soluble vitamins: vitamins A, D, E, and K
minerals: primarily potassium, magnesium, sodium, and calcium
https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/cooking-nutrient-content#cooking-amp-nutrients
They have to add synthetic vitamin D to milk that’s heated (pasteurized).
Cooking destroys for example B vitamins, vitamin C, enzymes.
So you’re wrong, you stupid Black person.
except milk naturally has very little vitamin D, raw milk has almost no vitamin D, the reason why SOME pasteurised milk is fortified with vitamin D is to prevent deficiencies specially in childhood
you're fricking moronic, pasteurization does fricking nothing to non water soluble vitamins
You are a disingenuous Black person.
That is just one (1) example of what cooking does to food. Off yourself and your lineage.
B vitamins are all destroyed, enzymes, etc. Protein strands get disrupted. Buh buh buh we gudda put da synthetic vitamin durrr.
>also, we aren't dogs or cats we're human, cats and dogs have special dietary requirements that we don't have
You mean the nutrients that we destroy by cooking? Seems legit.
>Because dog food is made to be eaten while the owner not having to cook anything, I assume they process it to make the nutrients more available, either by cooking, or by other processes.
Lmao there’s been a study where they feed cats raw and cooked foods. Guess which one has more chronic illnesses? Cooked! Just like your brain.
you mean the few amino acids that are heat sensitive like carnitine that dogs need to eat in their diet but humans don't?
I literally don't know, otherwise I would have been more specific.
>humans don't need carnitine
False. Most people are deficient in carnitine and see improvements with carnitine supplementation (or diet changes that would do the same thing, e.g. eating more red meat). Same with creatine
are you a canine?
Do you have different biochemistry than a canine?
>cooking makes nutrients more available to you
that's true for vegetables, but the opposite for meat and eggs.
>eggs
Raw egg whites literally bind biotin and prevent you from absorbing it. So that is categorically false.
meanwhile raw yolks have double the nutrients than cooked yolks. That's why you seperate the yolks from the whites, and cook the whites and eat the yolks raw. Your parents never taught you this?
No, and no one I've ever met has been taught this by their parents. You are the weird one, anon.
sorry bit off topic but i just came across something that says canned tuna contains a lot of mercury and you shouldn't eat a lot of it
i have been eating 2 cans of tuna per day for the past year straight, that's about 1.7kg of tuna per week
should i be worried about this mercury thing?
anon....
what do you mean..
i'm so sorry...
HAHAHA stop messing with me should i genuinely be concerned or not
>eating 2 cans of tuna per day for the past year straight
literally why? cut it out of your diet at least a month or so
well i eat the same thing for lunch and dinner
250 grams of raw pasta with 120 grams of tuna
what would cutting it out for a month do if i'm gonna eat it again afterwards..
>raw pasta
What do you mean by this?
i boil it, i just meant the quantity is 250g raw and then i cook it, not 250g of cooked pasta
oh, thank you for the informations
could you tell me what symptoms i could be experiencing without realising it? i'm sure if i google stuff it'll just make me paranoid
oh while i'm at it i also drink more than 1 liter of whole milk per day, is that dangerous too?
i promise i'm not trolling but now i'm genuinely worried and will get bloodwork done urgently, surely that will show if i have abnormally high levels of mercury
Milk is absolutely based and 1 liter a day is a fine amount. Anything that comes from cows is gonna be good for you.
What about cow poop?
Yes it is good for your land by sequestering carbon into it.
>cow urine
Now that one I don't know about. Maybe it's good for plants or bugs or something.
I don't know, I haven't studied any neurology yet, so I would just be getting my information off google too. If you are generally feeling fine I wouldn't worry about it too much, but I would definitely stop eating tuna (and other predatory fish). Salmon and sardines are good fish to eat since they're low on the food chain. But I personally prefer beef as my go-to meat.
okay thank you
i mean i haven't noticed anything in particular, google says stuff like impaired speech, muscle strength, etc. but i feel like i have none of these
i like beef but i'm not sure i could eat it everyday
right, mercury is good and i should drink it straight from old thermometers, right?
big smile of relief on my face, thank you anon, i love cows
>what would cutting it out for a month do
The danger of mercury is it accumulating in your brain due to being fat-soluble. This means it takes a very long time to flush out of your system, because your brain doesn't exactly have a high turnover rate. This also means, when you start experiencing symptoms, you will experience them for a long time even if you stop eating all sources of mercury instantly.
...yes you should definitely be worried and you should stop eating tuna. you generally shouldn't be eating predator fish (tuna, cod, halibut) anyway, with all the pollution in the ocean like microplastics.
WTF MAN
currently abroad so can't get bloodwork done, but will do when i can
what can i replace tuna with, chicken breasts?
please tell me your trolling
if not, cut out tuna immediately
It’s just a myth dude spread by the chicken farming israelite to trick you into eating chicken. Think about it, if mercury were so bad why would tuna have so much of it?
lol I don't know if this is a joke but tuna are high in mercury because of biological magnification. low levels of pollution at the bottom of the food chain (phytoplankton & tiny fishes in the ocean) build up to high levels of pollution at the top of the food chain (tuna -> humans eating tuna).
Is mercury kosher?
You are probably fine but go get a blood test and see what your mercury level is.
If we gave animals cooked food how long would it take to evolve them to our level? Wouldn’t mind a cat gf tbh.
It would lead to your cat having more health problems. No cat girl, sorry.
There is a documentary on youtube.
Cooked meat and milk vs uncooked.
After a few generation the cooked food cats where fricked.
But I love sushi bro
ITS UP!!!
corny is a homosexual
Shut the frick up Kenny
Mercury cured my depression, I make more mistakes but people say I'm more fun now. My skin looks youthful and tight.
Hello friends, I am an actual dietitian. I'd like to say something about OP's argument. The concept of "cooking makes nutrients more available to you" mostly applies to PLANTS that we aren't naturally designed to eat (leafs, tubers, etc). It is certain types of carbs in plants that we can't digest, that get turned into other types of carbs that we can digest when we cook it. For fruits and animal foods (that we are evolutionarily designed to eat without cooking them), this argument doesn't really apply. There are some exceptions, like certain proteins in for example egg get slightly more bio-available when you cook them, but for most animals foods like meats, this is simply not true. Raw meat is very, very bio-available to us, because, well, obviously, nature literally designed us to eat these foods raw. Another extremely important thing to take into account, is micro-nutrients. Generally speaking, heat and moisture (aka, cooking) will destroy or remove micro nutrients from the food, reducing the overall nutritional value of the food. So when we are talking about a food that is extremely bio-available to begin with, like meat/organ meat, eating it raw obviously is the superior choice, because cooking does not increase the bio-availability of the macro nutrients, but it does reduce the content of the micro nutrients. When we are talking about other foods, for example a plant tuber like a potato, then yeah, cooking it will help you.
In short it's really simple. Foods that we are naturally designed to eat (fruits and animals) do not need to be cooking, because naturally literally designed us to digest them raw. Foods that we aren't designed to eat raw; vegetables (leaves, stems, tubers) do need to be cooked.
The hypothesis that cooking allowed us to get smarter as cavemen is not really true. It's a little more complex. Cooking allowed us to tap into new plant food sources, which allowed us to switch to agriculture, which freed up time for other professions
>Cooking allowed us to tap into new plant food sources
This has nothing to do with increasing the brain size of humans. Our brains got larger with the invention of tools (which we used to hunt and kill animals better) which happened hundreds of thousands of years before agriculture. I'm not sure if you meant this but that's what you were implying.
>Cooking is in part what allowed us to get more nutrients and become smarter as cave men
I don't have an informed opinion on this theory, but it would support Lamarckism.
you won't stop me from eating tatar
Tartare, lad.
Mince is already pre chewed, I still wouldn’t eat that shot regularly due to salmonella and parasites
in EU it's generally safe to eat
Stop posting this old dwarf phaggot here. Noone cares, get a life OP.
He didn't do anything wrong.
Of course
If we didn’t cook our food we would still be apes
Anyone that eats nothing but raw meat runs the risk of constant bowel issues and psychosis
Why don’t people want a balanced diet anymore and just look to meme diets
>If we didn’t cook our food we would still be apes
This is categorically false. Brain size increase correlated with tools, not cooking. This is a basic undisputed fact.
>Anyone that eats nothing but raw meat runs the risk of constant bowel issues
This is also categorically false, not that many people actually do this, but you can have perfect bowel function with 0 fiber (many studies exist proving this, I'd be happy to link them).
>and psychosis
Now this is straight up delusion. Vegans typically have mental disorders like depression and anxiety (multiple studies showing this). I've never heard of this happening with people who eat a lot of meat, which contains important compounds for mental function (creatine, carnosine, etc.).
All of you responses are categorically false
Apes use tools
Fibre isn’t the only factor in perfectly functioning bowels
Vegans and Carnivore are two sides of the same coin
>Fibre isn’t the only factor in perfectly functioning bowels
Uh of course it's not, hence why "you can have perfect bowel function with 0 fiber" (you can also have perfect bowel function with fiber).
What does that have anything to do with what I said? Do you even know what "categorically false" means?
I like to think he purged after every video in which he ate raw organs.
humans are definitely adapted to a fully cooked foods diet
anyone that claims otherwise is a fricking moron
>but muh dogs and cats suffer from a fully cooked diet
only if the cooked food is exposed to the elements for a long time, kibble targeted towards cats and dogs is fortified with nutrients that are specifically vulnerable to degradation from long shelf life(months and sometimes even years), roasting a chicken and feeding it to your dog is perfectly fine and will barely make a dent on its creatine, taurine, carnosine and carnitine content
also, we aren't dogs or cats we're human, cats and dogs have special dietary requirements that we don't have(carnitine, carn, and we have special dietary requirements that cats and dogs don't have(vitamin C and vitamin K1)
our instestine, our teeth, our stomach and everything else are well adapted to a 100% cooked foods diet
(carnitine, carnosine, taurine, creatine)*
>humans are definitely adapted to a fully cooked foods diet
Try to think about this for a minute:
>Our ancestors have been eating raw fruits and meats for millions of years, and only a few thousands of years ago, they started to eat certain plants that we couldn't eat before due to cooking techniques.
>Right now, our modern diets consists mainly of these man made modern plants that we need to cook before consumption.
Your conclusion is: "look guys, we currently eat mostly plants that we need to cook! So therefore humans have adapted to eat a cooked diet!!"
Are you fricking moronic? Are you just going to completely ignore how the foods that our ancestors originally used to eat (fruits and animals) don't need to be cooked at all?
Your argument is comparable to saying that humans are supposed to be fat, because most people are fat right now.
>Our ancestors have been eating raw fruits and meats for millions of years
Human’s have been cooking meat since before homosexual sapiens evolved. It is not a recent development.
I recommend you to look that up again. How long humans have been cooking foods is under heavy debate and criticism, and the evidence that they have been doing it for that long (or at least, that it played a significant role in their overall diet) really isn't that strong at all.
It is. And thinking that literally destroying nutrients is a good idea shows what an utter moron you truly are.
>cats and dogs have special dietary requirements that we don't have(carnitine, carn
Both of these are necessary for proper function in humans, as I described in my post above.
Also, humans only "need vitamin C" with a high-carb diet, and don't need it on a keto diet (which dogs and cats mostly eat). Anyway, even with carbs, you need a very small amount of vitamin c.
>Vitamin K1
Vitamin K1 (plant-based vitamin K) literally does nothing lol. Humans need vitamin K2 (animal-based vitamin K) just like cats and dogs.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15514282/
>Menaquinone is AKA vitamin K2, only found in animal-based foods
>K2 intake inversely proportional to deaths from heart disease and all-cause mortality, no relationship at all with K1
>The relative risk (RR) of CHD mortality was reduced in the mid and upper tertiles of dietary menaquinone compared to the lower tertile
>Intake of menaquinone was also inversely related to all-cause mortalityand severe aortic calcification
>Phylloquinone intake was not related to any of the outcomes.
The Pottinger Experiment.
Foods that need to be cooked to be eaten are suboptimal. Your diet should be mostly foods that can be consumed raw, since the complete opposite of
>cooking makes nutrients more available to you
is true. Cooking destroys nutrients. This is common sense, right? Heating something to the temperatures used to cook damages it.
is getting parasitic or viral/bacterial infection optimal?
Eating foods that can give you parasites is suboptimal. Past that, eat whole cuts of meat and lightly sear the outside if you have a weak immune system.
Nice source you got there, kid.
>Kid
I'm an actual food scientist working for a major nutrition company. You're out of your league, boy.
https://academic.oup.com/jn/article/148/10/1564/5094772
https://nutrition.ansci.illinois.edu/sites/nutrition.ansci.illinois.edu/files/13.%20Bailey%20et%20al.%2C%20DIAAS%20in%20meat%20products%2C%20BJN%2C%20June%2013%2C%202020.pdf
scholar.google.com exists. educate yourselves before you buy into geared-up dipshits selling supplements.
>I'm an actual food scientist working for a major nutrition company.
>posts study on pigs
>posts a second study that proves him wrong
You're not serious, are you? Did you just run off to google some shit that sounded right or something? Your second study literally says that cooking meat too much makes it less digestible.
I don't recall ever telling you that you needed to eat meat in the first place, but I already said
>eat whole cuts of meat and lightly sear the outside if you have a weak immune system
Buying some beef liver from a small local farmer and lightly searing the outside before eating it will 100% prevent the possibility of any sort of parasite/bacteria/virus.
Haha wtf bro? Have you read the actual studies you posted? They literally disprove your point... Also, did you actually think that saying you work for a "major nutrition company" was going to give you more credit? "Oh look guys, this dude works for a large corporation that funds scientist to create biased studies that promote selling processed foods. Let's all listen to him! He sounds like a good, neutral source of information..."
Not that any of it is true though. If you actually were a scientist you would have spotted in the abstracts that the studies you linked don't prove your point at all. I 100% guarantee everyone that this guy is larper. Or, in the rare case that he is an actual scientist, this just goes to show the quality of scientists that work for big corporations, pushing processed foods like sneed oils
>Eating foods that can give you parasites is suboptimal
seafood is full of parasites and viruses
land animal meat is full of parasites and viruses specially wild game
what are you gonna eat raw that you can be sure has no parasites?
no, it's literally been proven with feeding studies that cooked meats encourage muscle growth better than raw meats.
Post the studies
>the science LITERALLY shows it!
>i am a SCIENTIST!
>doesn't read or understand scientific studies
>tells people to educate themselves while proving himself wrong
pottery. what a clown world we live in.
Stop spamming this ugly old dwarf. Not fitness related.
his stans just can't accept that they've been duped into thinking that eating trimmings while choking down nasty supplements will make them yoked.
you can not and will not stop me from eating raw sewage
How old does a garloid have to get before they are this big? Oldest one I have gotten was 6 months before it escaped.
I eat raw liver and beef because it's tasty af. Cooked liver is insanely nutritious.
I just realized that most people prefer medium-rare steak over well-done steak. This probably proves raw meat is more nutritious than cooked meat.
Why would people prefer a less nutritious version of food? No one eats raw potatoes or green bananas.
I have no other evidence for my claim, but I think this is enough.
Well, at least it shows you are thinking about what you observe, unlike most cattle.
To add another reply, I think people overeat because they are malnourished because their body isn’t getting what it needs. So it desperately eats whatever it sees. The body says “Eat this and it might have the nutrients you need”. Nutrients not delivered. Cycle continues.
The other extreme is when people eat very little. No appetite. They eat little because they can sense some food doesn’t have the nutrients, so it is unappetizing and a chore to eat. Their body is saying “don’t eat that, there’s no nutrients you need”
When I started eating raw steak I felt this sort of longing after it like I was longing after that satisfaction I could only feel from it alone. Otherwise eating is a horrible chore.
That's a great point and I agree. That's why goyslop has such low satiety—basically 0 nutrient content.
>I just realized that most people prefer medium-rare steak over well-done steak
because it's the trendy thing to do.
"Trendy" implies it's not universal across all cultures at all points in history. I don't know any cultures (modern or historical) that prefer steak well-done.