Can we settle this fucking debate

[underatedgreycel]

I’m about to yap so I’ll put a tldr at the end. So without further ado… I’m tired of seeing these mixed signals about dieting. Obviously im talking about raw vs cooked. I’m leaning more towards cooked now as I used to eat raw and watch Goatis every day however, I ended up getting sick from it and haven’t ate raw since. I’m growing and I know there are more nutrients in raw but I’m wondering is the dice roll even worth it. If not lmk the best cooked foods since my diet has been shit recently because I’ve been conflicted with this. TL;DR: which is better raw or cooked and why. [no low iq answers without reasoning]

 

[underatedgreycel]

Bump

 

[Zeekie]

Cooked is better, end of the discussion.

The reason behind eating raw food usually boils down to a few points:
1. "You get more nutrients".
2. "You absorb nutrients better".
3. "You get more gut benefits".
4. "Getting sick from healthy animals is impossible".

So I'll address each of them:
1. Yes, the cooking process does obviously destroy some nutrients, particularly water-soluble vitamins and minerals (so mostly B vitamins and vitamin C). But this is NOT an issue for two reasons: first, the reduction in micronutrients is partial not total, yes you're getting less nutrients, but you're still getting them to some degree, some uneducated raw dieticians claim "You get no nutrition!" which is stupid as humans have been cooking for as long as we started forming complex civilizations, if that were to be true, we wouldn't be here.

Second, the majority of the human population does not struggle to meet their RDA for vitamin C or B1, yes you may be getting more of those vitamins, but is it really useful when you would be meeting the requirements anyway from a normal diet? Plus, water-soluble vitamins cannot be stored in the body, so unlike with fat-soluble vitamins which are not affected by the cooking process, you're not storing them or benefiting from there any more.

2. This is blatant raw primal bullshit with no evidence to back it up, actually scientific research disagrees, we're able to absorb more proteins and nutrients from cooked foods than raw foods, it's just logical, the food is already broken down so your digestive enzymes have less work to do. Furthermore, I'd also like to point out that one of the leading theories behind human brain evolution was actually the discovery of fire and cooking, which theoretically lead to better nutrition utilization and calorie intake, which allowed our brains to develop more hence leading to modern humans.

Effects of meat cooking, and of ingested amount, on protein digestion speed and entry of residual proteins into the colon: a study in minipigs - PubMed

The speed of protein digestion impacts on postprandial protein anabolism. After exercise or in the elderly, fast proteins stimulate protein synthesis more efficiently than slow proteins. It has been shown that meat might be a source of fast proteins. However, cooking temperature, acting on the...

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

In the elderly, meat protein assimilation from rare meat is lower than that from meat that is well done - PubMed

<span><b>Background:</b> Meat cooking conditions in in vitro and in vivo models have been shown to influence the rate of protein digestion, which is known to affect postprandial protein metabolism in the elderly.<b>Objective:</b> The present study was conducted to demonstrate the effect of...

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Cooking and grinding reduces the cost of meat digestion - PubMed

The cooking of food is hypothesized to have played a major role in human evolution partly by providing an increase in net energy gain. For meat, cooking compromises the structural integrity of the tissue by gelatinizing the collagen. Hence, cooked meat should take less effort to digest compared...

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

3. Raw animal products contain some beneficial probiotics and enzymes that may aid digestion, this is hypothetical as far as I'm aware, there have been no studies that prove this is true or of any meaningful benefit, but let's give these people the benefit of the doubt and assume it was true. Do some potential improvements in gut health, outweigh the potential risk of suffering from a foodborne illness? And are these enzymes and probiotics any more beneficial than the ones we can obtain from other safer sources? I don't believe that's the case. To any sane person, the very small and unevidenced benefits do not outweight the potential risks.

4. While the sourcing of an animal product can reduce the risk of getting an illness from it (as in steak tartar), a reduced risk doesn't mean "no risk". Even in high-end restaurants, there have been reported cases of contracting a bacterial or parasite infections from these foods. It is next to impossible to tell whether an animal is completely "healthy" or not (whatever that means, "healthy animal" is more than likely a buzzword in this context, this people cannot tell you what is and isn't a healthy animal beyond: "uhh hEalThY!").

Also, what raw primals fail to account for is that the animal itself isn't the only source of contamination food can be exposed to, the handling and type of storage can (and will) contribute to potentially dangerous bacteria proliferation. And considering all the discussion beforehand, it doesn't seem really worth it to gamble every time you eat your food for some "probiotics and vitamins".

 

[underatedgreycel]

Cooked is better, end of the discussion.

The reason behind eating raw food usually boils down to a feature points:
1. "You get more nutrients".
2. "You absorb nutrients better".
3. "You get more gut benefits".
4. "Getting sick from healthy animals is impossible".

So I'll address each of them:
1. Yes, the cooking process does obviously destroy some nutrients, particularly water-soluble vitamins and minerals (so mostly B vitamins and vitamin C). But this is NOT an issue for two reasons: first, the reduction in micronutrients is partial not total, yes you're getting less nutrients, but you're still getting them to some degree, some uneducated raw dieticians claim "You get no nutrition!" which is stupid as humans have been cooking for as long as we started forming complex civilizations, if that were to be true, we wouldn't be here.

Second, the majority of the human population does not struggle to meet their RDA for vitamin C or B1, yes you may be getting more of those vitamins, but is it really useful when you would be meeting the requirements anyway from a normal diet? Plus, water-soluble vitamins cannot be stored in the body, so unlike with fat-soluble vitamins which are not affected by the cooking process, you're not storing them or benefiting from there any more.

2. This is blatant raw primal bullshit with no evidence to back it up, actually scientific research disagrees, we're able to absorb more proteins and nutrients from cooked foods than raw foods, it's just logical, the food is already broken down so your digestive enzymes have less work to do. Furthermore, I'd also like to point out that one of the leading theories behind human brain evolution was actually the discovery of fire and cooking, which theoretically lead to better nutrition utilization and calorie intake, which allowed our brains to develop more hence leading to modern humans.

Effects of meat cooking, and of ingested amount, on protein digestion speed and entry of residual proteins into the colon: a study in minipigs - PubMed

The speed of protein digestion impacts on postprandial protein anabolism. After exercise or in the elderly, fast proteins stimulate protein synthesis more efficiently than slow proteins. It has been shown that meat might be a source of fast proteins. However, cooking temperature, acting on the...

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

In the elderly, meat protein assimilation from rare meat is lower than that from meat that is well done - PubMed

<span><b>Background:</b> Meat cooking conditions in in vitro and in vivo models have been shown to influence the rate of protein digestion, which is known to affect postprandial protein metabolism in the elderly.<b>Objective:</b> The present study was conducted to demonstrate the effect of...

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Cooking and grinding reduces the cost of meat digestion - PubMed

The cooking of food is hypothesized to have played a major role in human evolution partly by providing an increase in net energy gain. For meat, cooking compromises the structural integrity of the tissue by gelatinizing the collagen. Hence, cooked meat should take less effort to digest compared...

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

3. Raw animal products contain some beneficial probiotics and enzymes that may aid digestion, this is hypothetical as far as I'm aware, there have been no studies that prove this is true or of any meaningful benefit, but let's give these people the benefit of the doubt and assume it was true. Do some potential improvements in gut health, outweigh the potential risk of suffering from a foodborne illness? And are these enzymes and probiotics any more beneficial than the ones we can obtain from other safer sources? I don't believe that's the case. To any sane person, the very small and unevidenced benefits do not outweight the potential risks.

4. While the sourcing of an animal product can reduce the risk of getting an illness from it (as in steak tartar), a reduced risk doesn't mean "no risk". Even in high-end restaurants, there have been reported cases of contracting a bacterial or parasite infections from these foods. It is next to impossible to tell whether an animal is completely "healthy" or not (whatever that means, "healthy animal" is more than likely a buzzword in this context, this people cannot tell you what is and isn't a healthy animal beyond: "uhh hEalThY!").

Also, what raw primals fail to account for is that the animal itself isn't the only source of contamination food can be exposed to, the handling and type of storage can (and will) contribute to potentially dangerous bacteria proliferation. And considering all the discussion beforehand, it doesn't seem really worth it to gamble every time you eat your food for some "probiotics and vitamins".

Holy high iq. Sorry for even considering primal jfl

 

[Zeekie]

That said, I'd also point out that these morons do have a point. Certain methods of cooking (particularly grilling or frying) can produce potentially dangerous compounds in the food, the degree to which this is dangerous is very mixed, part of the research says its a huge issue and will give you cancer, another part says it's likely not too concerning when done occasionally, I'd stay away from charred or fried foods regardless.

As well as foods that are way too cooked, it is true that cooking food reduces nutrient content, so we ideally want to cook it to a degree where it is no longer an active threat to your health, but you're not making it less tasty and nutritious because you turned a perfectly good medium-rare steak into a block of cement.

Cooked food, but not too cooked, that's the only smart way here.

 

[Zeekie]

Holy high iq. Sorry for even considering primal jfl

it's fine, I'm afraid to say I also eventually fell for that bullshit at some point.