Is eating raw meat (steak) Retarded?

[bonemaxer]

Maybe I look dumb asking this but I just want to know if there’s any real benefits from eating raw meat and raw eggs as I’ve seen a lot about it having better effects?

 

[naturalselector420]

it only gives you tapeworms jfl

 

[Epochs]

it only gives you tapeworms jfl

pretty clueless

 

[Zeekie]

YES NIGGA IT IS PRETTY RETARDED. Raw animal products have no extra benefits other than preserving some vitamins that are destroyed in the cooking process but A) Nobody is fucking deficient in those vitamins anyway and B) There are still going to be some of those vitamins (mainly B vitamins) in the food, just a slightly reduced usable amount.

Furthermore, eating raw meat and eggs has a very high chance of giving a bacterial infection or getting a parasite in your system, and on top of that actually reduces protein availability.

So let's review the facts: you get no extra benefits because the increased "vitamins" is a non-issue for 99% of the population, you absorb less protein, and you run the risk of ending up with deadly diarrhea, where exactly is the benefit here? There's a reason why when we estimate humans discovered fire and cooking, there also seems to be a convenient rise in brain size and functions.

 

[bruhlook]

Maybe I look dumb asking this but I just want to know if there’s any real benefits from eating raw meat and raw eggs as I’ve seen a lot about it having better effects?

idk dude, there are some benefits and some disadvantages, some nutrients are better absobed raw, but some others like protein in egg is harder to absorbe + sallmonella risk, but nutrition-wise:

Rare steak is better than well-cooked.

Raw yolk + cooked egg white is the best nutritional combination.

 

[Zeekie]

idk dude, there are some benefits and some disadvantages, some nutrients are better absobed raw, but some others like protein in egg is harder to absorbe + sallmonella risk, but nutrition-wise:

Rare steak is better than well-cooked.

Raw yolk + cooked egg white is the best nutritional combination.

This is actually a nice point I missed, you should cook your food to the point where it becomes safe, but not too much because that would impair nutrition more and more and really, why would you do that?

Plus cooking the egg yolk may or may not oxidize the cholesterol on it, and oxidized cholesterol isn't exactly linked to the best health outcomes.

High IQ take honestly, beats me

 

[Epochs]

YES NIGGA IT IS PRETTY RETARDED. Raw animal products have no extra benefits other than preserving some vitamins that are destroyed in the cooking process but A) Nobody is fucking deficient in those vitamins anyway and B) There are still going to be some of those vitamins (mainly B vitamins) in the food, just a slightly reduced usable amount.

Furthermore, eating raw meat and eggs has a very high chance of giving a bacterial infection or getting a parasite in your system, and on top of that actually reduces protein availability.

So let's review the facts: you get no extra benefits because the increased "vitamins" is a non-issue for 99% of the population, you absorb less protein, and you run the risk of ending up with deadly diarrhea, where exactly is the benefit here? There's a reason why when we estimate humans discovered fire and cooking, there also seems to be a convenient rise in brain size and functions.

not retarded at all

 

[Zeekie]

not retarded at all

Elaborate then.

 

[bonemaxer]

Ok thanks m

YES NIGGA IT IS PRETTY RETARDED. Raw animal products have no extra benefits other than preserving some vitamins that are destroyed in the cooking process but A) Nobody is fucking deficient in those vitamins anyway and B) There are still going to be some of those vitamins (mainly B vitamins) in the food, just a slightly reduced usable amount.

Furthermore, eating raw meat and eggs has a very high chance of giving a bacterial infection or getting a parasite in your system, and on top of that actually reduces protein availability.

So let's review the facts: you get no extra benefits because the increased "vitamins" is a non-issue for 99% of the population, you absorb less protein, and you run the risk of ending up with deadly diarrhea, where exactly is the benefit here? There's a reason why when we estimate humans discovered fire and cooking, there also seems to be a convenient rise in brain size and function

not retarded at all

This isn’t helping bruh I’m getting mixed answers, tell me how it’s good?

 

[Tyler1]

Kill animals
drink blood
eat raw meat

 

[proxup]

oh my fuck everybody saying its only a few more b vitamins is utterly retarded

if you cook your meat to death and still think it retains the same amount of “calories” and protein as seen on the package i laugh at you

your missing out on calories, protein, B,C,K vitamins, enzymes, and benefical bacteria, and your eating carcinogens

 

[Zeekie]

Ok thanks m



This isn’t helping bruh I’m getting mixed answers, tell me how it’s good?

I don't honestly mean to hate on anyone, but people who eat raw food don't have actual answers, they don't have answers supported by medical professionals, they don't have answers supported by nutritionist, and they don't have answers supported by history.

Raw meat puts you at risk of bacterial or parasite infections, nobody's debating that. You get better maintenance of some heat-sensitive vitamins, that's true, but nobody has issues with these vitamins in a normal diet either way. You get worse protein absorption. And again, historically and biologically, the leading theory is that because we started cooking, we were able to get better nutrition, therefore more energy to support a bigger and more functional brain, and that likely lead to the point where humanity is at now, COOKING LITERALLY EVOLVED US, and basically all cultures throughout human history have been doing it, the very few that don't are either extinct, severely underdeveloped or at the very least dried the food before doing it eating it.

You get no real benefits from not cooking it, and you get a couple of risks. You do the math in your head, but again, how many attractive people do you know that eat raw food? Probably like 1 or 2 crazy looksmaxxers, but 99.99% of models and attractive actors eat food like a normal person...

By all means do your own research, but I'm telling you already, all these people have is a flawed understanding of nutrition and anecdotes.

 

[Zeekie]

oh my fuck everybody saying its only a few more b vitamins is utterly retarded

if you cook your meat to death and still think it retains the same amount of “calories” and protein as seen on the package i laugh at you

your not only missing out on calories and protein but also enzymes and more than just b vitamins, potentially A, K and C as well

Yeah, but nobody is suggesting you scorch the fucking thing. Also, you're not getting more protein, maybe less of it is destroyed, but does that really matter when you're not absorbing it properly anyway? The supposed "shortcomings" of cooking food, are either taken from completely exaggerated situations, like suggesting "cooking your meat to death", or are nutrient reductions WHICH DONT MATTER.


There's a reason why we eat balanced diets, yes, you may miss out on 15% of the vitamin A content of a steak, but guess what? There are 1000 other foods that provide vitamin A as well. There's no issue meeting the RDI for every single micronutrient every single day if you cook your meat, you're creating a non-issue.

 

[proxup]

Yeah, but nobody is suggesting you scorch the fucking thing. Also, you're not getting more protein, maybe less of it is destroyed, but does that really matter when you're not absorbing it properly anyway? The supposed "shortcomings" of cooking food, are either taken from completely exaggerated situations, like suggesting "cooking your meat to death", or are nutrient reductions WHICH DONT MATTER.


There's a reason why we eat balanced diets, yes, you may miss out on 15% of the vitamin A content of a steak, but guess what? There are 1000 other foods that provide vitamin A as well. There's no issue meeting the RDI for every single micronutrient every single day if you cook your meat, you're creating a non-issue.

I get what ur saying, and cooked to death was not a good example, but the fact you think the nutrient reduction dosnt matter surprises me. Also, protein and calories are most definitely reduced, enzymes are protein, and there completely denatured

moreso beneficial about the enzymes and beneficial bacteria.

if micronutrients dont matter, what do you think matters when it comes to health? protein?

 

[Epochs]

Ok thanks m



This isn’t helping bruh I’m getting mixed answers, tell me how it’s good?

The arguments id only actually take serious would be how realistic it is to consume a raw primal diet and is it worth it for its health gains.If someone says the consumption of well sourced or fresh raw meat is 'retarded' theres no point in debating that persons pretty behind.

 

[Zeekie]

I get what ur saying, and cooked to death was not a good example, but the fact you think the nutrient reduction dosnt matter surprises me. Also, protein and calories are most definitely reduced, enzymes are protein, and there completely denatured

moreso beneficial about the enzymes and beneficial bacteria.

if micronutrients dont matter, what do you think matters when it comes to health? protein?

Well first "if micronutrients don't matter" that's a straw man fallacy, I never said they don't matter, in fact I track all my micronutrients on a daily basis and meet 100% of my RDIs every day. My point here is, typically when you cook a steak about 15% of the vitamin A is lost, I said this loss doesn't matter for 2 reasons:

1- You're still getting that other 85% of the vitamin A.
2- If your diet is good, you're hopefully not getting all of your nutrition from a single steak, you're eating a variety of foods, organs, vegetables, fruits, etc. Or at the very least you're eating enough meat that this loss in nutrition is offset. The fact that you lose 15% of that vitamin A through coking means jack shit when you're still getting enough vitamin A from dozens of other sources in your diet.

Through cooking yes, protein and calories are destroyed, but we go back to my argument, this loss is minuscule, even more than the loss in vitamins and so you're still getting enough protein anyway.

Lastly, there are beneficial enzymes and bacteria on raw foods, yes. But also ones that could land in a hospital or kill you, the benefits you get from these compounds do not offset the risks.

Lastly, when it comes to enzymes and proteins, yes they're denatured, but guess what your gut does to absorb those proteins when they reach your stomach? It denatures them too, so at the end of the day the result is the same, and actually pre-denatured proteins are easier for your gut to absorb since it doesn't have to do it itself to get the amino acids it'll use, essentially improving protein absorption at the end of the day. To give an exact example, the protein in raw eggs is only about 50% bioavailable, while the one in cooked eggs is absorbable by up to 90%.

 

[mandiblade]

Well first "if micronutrients don't matter" that's a straw man fallacy, I never said they don't matter, in fact I track all my micronutrients on a daily basis and meet 100% of my RDIs every day. My point here is, typically when you cook a steak about 15% of the vitamin A is lost, I said this loss doesn't matter for 2 reasons:

1- You're still getting that other 85% of the vitamin A.
2- If your diet is good, you're hopefully not getting all of your nutrition from a single steak, you're eating a variety of foods, organs, vegetables, fruits, etc. Or at the very least you're eating enough meat that this loss in nutrition is offset. The fact that you lose 15% of that vitamin A through coking means jack shit when you're still getting enough vitamin A from dozens of other sources in your diet.

Through cooking yes, protein and calories are destroyed, but we go back to my argument, this loss is minuscule, even more than the loss in vitamins and so you're still getting enough protein anyway.

Lastly, there are beneficial enzymes and bacteria on raw foods, yes. But also ones that could land in a hospital or kill you, the benefits you get from these compounds do not offset the risks.

Lastly, when it comes to enzymes and proteins, yes they're denatured, but guess what your gut does to absorb those proteins when they reach your stomach? It denatures them too, so at the end of the day the result is the same, and actually pre-denatured proteins are easier for your gut to absorb since it doesn't have to do it itself to get the amino acids it'll use, essentially improving protein absorption at the end of the day. To give an exact example, the protein in raw eggs is only about 50% bioavailable, while the one in cooked eggs is absorbable by up to 90%.

Bro said lastly twice
Anyways, jokes aside, the raw position makes more sense when someone is a carnivore than when they are following nutritional guidelines + eating raw meat. Personally, I would have a blue steak over well done. 100% raw doesn't seem to make much sense
About the eggs, the only reason the bioavailability is 50% is because of the egg whites. This can't be extrapolated to beef
In addition, I have seen some long articles against the cookimg hypothesis which seemed highiq at first glance. I havent read them yet tho, so I will not make conclusive statements on that

 

[proxup]

Well first "if micronutrients don't matter" that's a straw man fallacy, I never said they don't matter, in fact I track all my micronutrients on a daily basis and meet 100% of my RDIs every day. My point here is, typically when you cook a steak about 15% of the vitamin A is lost, I said this loss doesn't matter for 2 reasons:

1- You're still getting that other 85% of the vitamin A.
2- If your diet is good, you're hopefully not getting all of your nutrition from a single steak, you're eating a variety of foods, organs, vegetables, fruits, etc. Or at the very least you're eating enough meat that this loss in nutrition is offset. The fact that you lose 15% of that vitamin A through coking means jack shit when you're still getting enough vitamin A from dozens of other sources in your diet.

Through cooking yes, protein and calories are destroyed, but we go back to my argument, this loss is minuscule, even more than the loss in vitamins and so you're still getting enough protein anyway.

Lastly, there are beneficial enzymes and bacteria on raw foods, yes. But also ones that could land in a hospital or kill you, the benefits you get from these compounds do not offset the risks.

Lastly, when it comes to enzymes and proteins, yes they're denatured, but guess what your gut does to absorb those proteins when they reach your stomach? It denatures them too, so at the end of the day the result is the same, and actually pre-denatured proteins are easier for your gut to absorb since it doesn't have to do it itself to get the amino acids it'll use, essentially improving protein absorption at the end of the day. To give an exact example, the protein in raw eggs is only about 50% bioavailable, while the one in cooked eggs is absorbable by up to 90%.

read every molecule

okay high iq

really my only response to that is that the gut bacteria is pretty beneficial , and that if the meat is well sourced most of the time you shoudnt even have to think twice about cooking it, so if your willing to take that risk why not eat it raw and get the benefits.

 

[soggra]

raw meat is good, drink blood too for hydration.

 

[Zeekie]

Bro said lastly twice
Anyways, jokes aside, the raw position makes more sense when someone is a carnivore than when they are following nutritional guidelines + eating raw meat. Personally, I would have a blue steak over well done. 100% raw doesn't seem to make much sense
About the eggs, the only reason the bioavailability is 50% is because of the egg whites. This can't be extrapolated to beef
In addition, I have seen some long articles against the cookimg hypothesis which seemed highiq at first glance. I havent read them yet tho, so I will not make conclusive statements on that

I'd argue that even as a carnivore, it's not worth it. If you have any issue with meeting your full micronutrient profile in the carnivore diet (excluding vitamin E, K1, and C), then you're doing something wrong. And yeah the egg issue is mostly because of the egg whites but it's sort of a similar case for the proteins in the beef still.

It's not that eating raw foods is bad itself, it's the potential risk there is to it, compared to the potential gain, I just don't think it's worth it. Would you gamble 10,000 dollars knowing you have an 80% chance of losing it all, but a 20% chance of gaining 2k more? Yeah, 2000 extra dollars sounds hella good, but is it worth the risk? I don't think so, specially when you can get those 2k dollars safely from somewhere else.

 

[Zeekie]

read every molecule

okay high iq

really my only response to that is that the gut bacteria is pretty beneficial , and that if the meat is well sourced most of the time you shoudnt even have to think twice about cooking it, so if your willing to take that risk why not eat it raw and get the benefits.

I guess it's a matter of perspective, I personally value not having the chance of getting diarrhea or a parasite for extra nutrition, but maybe someone really trusts their sourcing or isn't too scared about having a few inhabitants in their guts or a little stomachache. This is just how I see, not worth the risk really.