Raw meat

[iblamegenetics7681]

i just had my first ever raw meat it was tartar 200 grams just raw out of the package i wanna start eating other raw animal food like liver for example, is there anyone that can guide me, and tell me how they went about it, im 16 years old.

 

[WaterDog]

Okay since you want to stay on topic, let’s stay on topic.

Raw meat or cooked meat, what is healthier for humans?

Your main arguments are that some nutrients, enzymes & amino acids are reduced, it’s our natural diet and cooking creates harmful compounds.

1. Raw meat commonly contains pathogenic bacteria. Yes we are made of bacteria, but there are good strains and bad strains of bacteria. Ecoli, salmonella, listeria etc. are not good for you and are harmful and bad for human health. Which is why safety of eating raw meat also translates to the health outcomes.

• Food safety incidents in the red meat industry: A review of foodborne disease outbreaks linked to the consumption of red meat and its products, 1991 to 2021
• Prevalence and Antimicrobial Susceptibility of Foodborne Pathogens from Raw Livestock Meat in China, 2021
• Parasite risks from raw meat-based diets for companion animals
• Health Risks Associated with Meat Consumption: A Review of Epidemiological Studies
• Foodborne Parasites and Their Complex Life Cycles Challenging Food Safety in Different Food Chains
• Predictors of Eating Raw or Undercooked Meat, Poultry, Seafood, and Eggs among Older Adults
• Retail Meat Analyzed for Parasites

There have been thousands of deaths proven to be caused by salmonella, ecoli, listeria etc. The only reason our ancestors could eat raw meat instead of cooked meat was because they had a much better stomach than humans today. We have been eating cooked meat for almost a million years. We have evolved to eat cooked meat and not raw anymore. It’s why you wouldn't drink river water now instead of filtered. Natural doesn’t also doesn’t always mean good.

2. Nutrients are lost. Yes they are lost, but not by a significant amount. With your evidence, you are boiling the food. You can cook your foods in different ways and preserve the nutrients well. It is easy to eat a diet of less than 2000 calories and hit all your micronutrients. Vitamin C in organs isn’t in significant amounts anyways, so the loss isn’t a big deal. The idea of nutrient deficiency by cooking your food is stupid. Our ancestors were more nutrients deficient than a modern human today anyways.

The Evolution of Diet

Could eating like our ancestors make us healthier?

www.nationalgeographic.com

https://www.cnn.com/2022/11/14/world/earliest-evidence-of-cooking-with-fire-scn

3. Cooking does create harmful compounds when burnt to a fucking crisp. If you lightly cook your food at low temperatures, the amount of AGE’s, HCAs and oxidation is so insignificant when you do this. That your phone is around the same level on the carcinogenic scale then lightly cooked meat.

Cell Phones and Cancer Risk Fact Sheet

A fact sheet that outlines the available evidence regarding use of cellular/mobile telephones and cancer risk.

www.cancer.gov

I don’t see how you are this blind, to not notice the harmful effects of eating raw meat. People die from eating raw meat, even from good sources. Vegetables and fruits are good for you. No, you won’t become nutrient deficient.

Plenty of cooked meat eaters are deficient in B vitamins, minerals, and fat-soluble vitamins. Cooking destroys heat-sensitive nutrients, thiamin (B1) losses up to 70–100% in boiling (Gerber 2009), B12 degraded by heat (Bito 2018), folate destroyed. You claim it’s “not significant,” but then admit you need to eat more food to make up for it. That’s the opposite of efficient. It is a waste of money, bad for the environment, waste of time etc etc.

Bacteria
You throw “salmonella” like it’s a trump card, but ignore that the majority of foodborne outbreaks come from spinach, salad, and bagged greens (CDC 2015). If bacteria = unhealthy, then vegetables are statistically more dangerous. You still haven’t proven that humans “lost” their ability to handle raw meat. Our gastric pH is 1–2, same as scavengers (Beasley 2015). That is hard physiological data. You still haven't proven anything with raw meat and bacteria, not even proven if bacteria is the reason for illness?. I know meat contains bacteria, all meat does so do yourself a favour and skip prooving that, I want to show me why it would be bad.


You claim we’ve been cooking for “almost a million years.” Source? The CNN link you dropped admits the earliest controlled fire evidence is ~780,000 years and patchy at best. This isn't even proof of cooking it is proof of burning fish remains btw. Even if it were a million, that’s less than 5% of our evolutionary timeline. Raw was the baseline, cooking is the deviation. If you admit “nature isn’t always better,” then you just destroyed your own appeal to evolution. Pick one.


No need to mention calories as they don't apply to organisms? And as I mentioned why would you waste more resources and so on to compensate + more toxins. And no it was not my evidence it was your own evidence that said that the sous vide was the least harmfull and other cooking methods being harmfull. Again most modern people are nutrient deficient in nutrients such as b12 because of cooking.We are talking about raw meat being healthier so insignificance is not a thing, even if raw meat is 0,001%healthier it is still healthier so shut up.

Toxins
Cooking creates poisons, AGEs, HCAs, PAHs, lipid peroxides. All linked in the literature to cancer, insulin resistance, cardiovascular disease, and aging. Your defense is literally “light cooking makes them insignificant.” Okay, so you admit they exist. What is healthier: no poison or little poison? Exactly. Phones have nothing to do with food, stop embarrassing yourself.


You still haven’t produced a single randomized controlled human trial or meta-analysis showing cooked > raw. You cite epidemiology about “foodborne illness” but ignore that those studies also include salads, processed meats, and bad storage. That doesn’t prove that raw meat itself is unhealthy, only that the industrial food system is.

Also why do you mention vegetables and fruit? we are talking about meat. and if you want to I can also destroy you in that department but again humans don't eat leaves so you start off with the burden of proof, but let us finish the meat thing first I will be sure to remember.

 

[Asoka]

Plenty of cooked meat eaters are deficient in B vitamins, minerals, and fat-soluble vitamins. Cooking destroys heat-sensitive nutrients, thiamin (B1) losses up to 70–100% in boiling (Gerber 2009), B12 degraded by heat (Bito 2018), folate destroyed. You claim it’s “not significant,” but then admit you need to eat more food to make up for it. That’s the opposite of efficient. It is a waste of money, bad for the environment, waste of time etc etc.

Bacteria
You throw “salmonella” like it’s a trump card, but ignore that the majority of foodborne outbreaks come from spinach, salad, and bagged greens (CDC 2015). If bacteria = unhealthy, then vegetables are statistically more dangerous. You still haven’t proven that humans “lost” their ability to handle raw meat. Our gastric pH is 1–2, same as scavengers (Beasley 2015). That is hard physiological data. You still haven't proven anything with raw meat and bacteria, not even proven if bacteria is the reason for illness?. I know meat contains bacteria, all meat does so do yourself a favour and skip prooving that, I want to show me why it would be bad.


You claim we’ve been cooking for “almost a million years.” Source? The CNN link you dropped admits the earliest controlled fire evidence is ~780,000 years and patchy at best. This isn't even proof of cooking it is proof of burning fish remains btw. Even if it were a million, that’s less than 5% of our evolutionary timeline. Raw was the baseline, cooking is the deviation. If you admit “nature isn’t always better,” then you just destroyed your own appeal to evolution. Pick one.


No need to mention calories as they don't apply to organisms? And as I mentioned why would you waste more resources and so on to compensate + more toxins. And no it was not my evidence it was your own evidence that said that the sous vide was the least harmfull and other cooking methods being harmfull. Again most modern people are nutrient deficient in nutrients such as b12 because of cooking.We are talking about raw meat being healthier so insignificance is not a thing, even if raw meat is 0,001%healthier it is still healthier so shut up.

Toxins
Cooking creates poisons, AGEs, HCAs, PAHs, lipid peroxides. All linked in the literature to cancer, insulin resistance, cardiovascular disease, and aging. Your defense is literally “light cooking makes them insignificant.” Okay, so you admit they exist. What is healthier: no poison or little poison? Exactly. Phones have nothing to do with food, stop embarrassing yourself.


You still haven’t produced a single randomized controlled human trial or meta-analysis showing cooked > raw. You cite epidemiology about “foodborne illness” but ignore that those studies also include salads, processed meats, and bad storage. That doesn’t prove that raw meat itself is unhealthy, only that the industrial food system is.

Also why do you mention vegetables and fruit? we are talking about meat. and if you want to I can also destroy you in that department but again humans don't eat leaves so you start off with the burden of proof, but let us finish the meat thing first I will be sure to remember.

First of all, stop with the boiling. No one boils their meat. Methods like sous vide will not make a meaningful difference in the nutritional profile. All the studies with significant loss is frying or boiling. Sure, many people don’t use sous vide for cooking but that is completely irrelevant. And yes you need to eat more food to get some of those nutrients back, but you don’t go out of your way to do it, you do it naturally to eat enough calories.

Salmonella is found on plants and does cause more salmonella outbreaks. But think about how many people eat plants every day. Almost the entire population. People who eat raw meat willingly, there are only a couple thousand. So of course there would be more salmonella breakouts with vegetables, but that doesn’t mean it’s more risky. The risk for raw meat is still way higher just less common due to sensible people not eating raw meat. And we do still have reactions to ecoli, salmonella, listeria etc. even though scavengers have the same pH level, their short intestines make it easier to pass through the harmful bacteria, while humans have longer intestines which make it very hard to get harmful bacteria out of our system. The scavengers also contain a very differently gut microbiome to us which allows them to break down the bacteria easier. These bacteria strains are harmful to us…

"Escherichia coli Infection" from StatPearls
"Salmonella" in Medical Microbiology
Mayo Clinic's overview of Salmonella infection
"Listeria monocytogenes: epidemiology, human disease, and mechanisms of brain invasion"
"Human Listeriosis" in the journal Pathogens:
The Link to Guillain-Barré Syndrome (GBS)

Also please explain why evidence is “patchy”. The burning of fish is it being cooked, pretty simple. And you can pretty surprised at how quickly species evolve. We will adapt if we continue doing something for so long. My point on natural isn’t always good, doesn’t go against evolution. It’s stating that something that artificial (which cooking isnt) is not always bad.

Most people aren’t eating quality meats, fruits, vegetables and dairy. So it’s completely stupid to use them as an example and then label them as cooked meat eaters. They aren’t deficient in B12 because of cooking, it’s because they don’t eat enough animal products. “Even if raw meat is 0.00001% healthier it is healthier”, that doesn’t matter at all if it has a tiny bit more nutrients because of the significant risk of bacteria.

Yes the compounds formed are harmful, but those studies heat them at high temperatures for a long time. A little heat for little time won’t form many. It’s very ironic to mention poison or no poison, because raw meat has risk of food POISONING. The compounds harms are so insignificant that they wouldn’t take more than a week of your life, which just isn't worth the risk of harmful bacteria. I only refereed to phones because you still use them and they are about as dangerous as slightly cooking food. Showing how useless the point is.

I think I’ve repeated the point almost three times and you just seem to ignore it. There are no solid RCT or meta analysis on raw vs cooked because they can’t put volunteers at the risk of eating raw meat because there is such an abundant amount of evidence showing that it is harmful. Studies on food-borne illness involve lots of different foods, but raw meat still has harmful bacteria, you said you know yourself. All harmful bacteria acts the same in all foods. Bad storage? You mean stored in fridges?

Once you realise you’re wrong, let’s move onto vegetables and fruits. Please read everything and respond to it all.

 

[WaterDog]

First of all, stop with the boiling. No one boils their meat. Methods like sous vide will not make a meaningful difference in the nutritional profile. All the studies with significant loss is frying or boiling. Sure, many people don’t use sous vide for cooking but that is completely irrelevant. And yes you need to eat more food to get some of those nutrients back, but you don’t go out of your way to do it, you do it naturally to eat enough calories.

Salmonella is found on plants and does cause more salmonella outbreaks. But think about how many people eat plants every day. Almost the entire population. People who eat raw meat willingly, there are only a couple thousand. So of course there would be more salmonella breakouts with vegetables, but that doesn’t mean it’s more risky. The risk for raw meat is still way higher just less common due to sensible people not eating raw meat. And we do still have reactions to ecoli, salmonella, listeria etc. even though scavengers have the same pH level, their short intestines make it easier to pass through the harmful bacteria, while humans have longer intestines which make it very hard to get harmful bacteria out of our system. The scavengers also contain a very differently gut microbiome to us which allows them to break down the bacteria easier. These bacteria strains are harmful to us…

"Escherichia coli Infection" from StatPearls
"Salmonella" in Medical Microbiology
Mayo Clinic's overview of Salmonella infection
"Listeria monocytogenes: epidemiology, human disease, and mechanisms of brain invasion"
"Human Listeriosis" in the journal Pathogens:
The Link to Guillain-Barré Syndrome (GBS)

Also please explain why evidence is “patchy”. The burning of fish is it being cooked, pretty simple. And you can pretty surprised at how quickly species evolve. We will adapt if we continue doing something for so long. My point on natural isn’t always good, doesn’t go against evolution. It’s stating that something that artificial (which cooking isnt) is not always bad.

Most people aren’t eating quality meats, fruits, vegetables and dairy. So it’s completely stupid to use them as an example and then label them as cooked meat eaters. They aren’t deficient in B12 because of cooking, it’s because they don’t eat enough animal products. “Even if raw meat is 0.00001% healthier it is healthier”, that doesn’t matter at all if it has a tiny bit more nutrients because of the significant risk of bacteria.

Yes the compounds formed are harmful, but those studies heat them at high temperatures for a long time. A little heat for little time won’t form many. It’s very ironic to mention poison or no poison, because raw meat has risk of food POISONING. The compounds harms are so insignificant that they wouldn’t take more than a week of your life, which just isn't worth the risk of harmful bacteria. I only refereed to phones because you still use them and they are about as dangerous as slightly cooking food. Showing how useless the point is.

I think I’ve repeated the point almost three times and you just seem to ignore it. There are no solid RCT or meta analysis on raw vs cooked because they can’t put volunteers at the risk of eating raw meat because there is such an abundant amount of evidence showing that it is harmful. Studies on food-borne illness involve lots of different foods, but raw meat still has harmful bacteria, you said you know yourself. All harmful bacteria acts the same in all foods. Bad storage? You mean stored in fridges?

Once you realise you’re wrong, let’s move onto vegetables and fruits. Please read everything and respond to it all.

Alright I will be addressing everything but since you don't seem to be reading and understanding everything please read everything and also maybe read your own response before sending it lol
"First of all, stop with the boiling. No one boils their meat. Methods like sous vide will not make a meaningful difference in the nutritional profile. All the studies with significant loss is frying or boiling. Sure, many people don’t use sous vide for cooking but that is completely irrelevant"
You brought up the boiling and sous vide and you would know if you had read your "evidence" before sending it to me, not my fault. And as your "evidence" actually proves it is not "irrelevant" what method you choose as it greatly influences the degree of "unfavourable changes". All of this has been concluded on the basis of your own study my guy.

"And yes you need to eat more food to get some of those nutrients back, but you don’t go out of your way to do it, you do it naturally to eat enough calories."
And what is your point here? Adress my argument: The more cooked meat you eat to compensate for the nutrient loss the more harmfull compounds you consume, therefore more unhealthy than raw. The increase also leeds to increased negative impact on the environment and would cost more time and money. Either you agree or you make it clear to me that I am wrong and why. Furthermore stop talking about calories as they don't apply to organisms, how many times do I have to tell you, same thing with all my arguments you keep circling around like an idiot.

I think we can move on from the nutrient argument now, is that correct? We have established a loss in nutrients, increase in harmfull particles, cost more, worse for environment more time consuming and things I mentioned earlier from cooking (not directly health related but I think we can agree that environment and stress from money and time etc does influence health), so just shortly confirm in the next answer if you agree. Otherwise make a valid argument ofc.

next.

"
Salmonella is found on plants and does cause more salmonella outbreaks. But think about how many people eat plants every day. Almost the entire population. People who eat raw meat willingly, there are only a couple thousand. So of course there would be more salmonella breakouts with vegetables, but that doesn’t mean it’s more risky. The risk for raw meat is still way higher just less common due to sensible people not eating raw meat. And we do still have reactions to ecoli, salmonella, listeria etc. even though scavengers have the same pH level, their short intestines make it easier to pass through the harmful bacteria, while humans have longer intestines which make it very hard to get harmful bacteria out of our system. The scavengers also contain a very differently gut microbiome to us which allows them to break down the bacteria easier. These bacteria strains are harmful to us…

"Escherichia coli Infection" from StatPearls
"Salmonella" in Medical Microbiology
Mayo Clinic's overview of Salmonella infection
"Listeria monocytogenes: epidemiology, human disease, and mechanisms of brain invasion"
"Human Listeriosis" in the journal Pathogens:
The Link to Guillain-Barré Syndrome (GBS)
"
Why the fuck do you use the "less cases does not mean less risky" rebuttal and then link a study for vegetables. You are confusing case counts with actual relative risk. The CDC and EFSA outbreak data show that vegetables like sprouts, lettuce, melons and tomatoes are consistently the leading sources of Salmonella and E coli outbreaks in the modern world. That is not just because more people eat plants, it is because they are a highly vulnerable vector. If risk was purely proportional to how many eat them, the raw dairy and raw meat outbreaks would still dominate given the small niche that eats them. They do not.

Your citations are generic textbook descriptions of pathogens. They prove nothing about relative risk of raw vs cooked animal foods in healthy humans. Mayo Clinic and StatPearls are patient info summaries, not comparative studies. Drevets 2008 on Listeria is a mechanistic review of brain invasion pathways, not an argument that raw meat is uniquely unsafe. You are throwing scary pathogen names around without a single human trial comparing outcomes.

The scavenger argument is also weak. Humans do not have herbivore guts. Our intestines are short relative to body size and our gastric acid is at pH 1 to 2 in fasting state. That is a direct adaptation to handling animal tissue.

So to recap: you claim that just because there are less cases of raw meat being the reason of these pathogens than of vegetables it is still more risky but you did not prove this in any way so that point remains false. Then you talk about human anatomy and claim we have longer intenstines (like herbivores) without any proof, and other animals gut microbiome is irrelevant so let us just look at humans (yes I earlier compared humans to scavengers earlier because we are alike which I wanted to make you realise).

next.

"Also please explain why evidence is “patchy”. The burning of fish is it being cooked, pretty simple. And you can pretty surprised at how quickly species evolve. We will adapt if we continue doing something for so long. My point on natural isn’t always good, doesn’t go against evolution. It’s stating that something that artificial (which cooking isnt) is not always bad."

First off, one account of burned fish remains does not relate to cooked meat being healthier than raw meat. I will happily teach you why the evidence is utter shit for proving anything but I think it is completely irrelevant to the cooked meat being healthier than raw meat debate.
Secondly you need to learn to clearly state your point so that I can tell what you are talking about because you are mostly just rambling like a schizophrenic TikTok conspiracy theorist. It seems like you want to talk about nature and evolution? Just make this point clear in the next argument, maybe google how to argument too lol


JFL cause ur an idiot:
"It’s stating that something that artificial (which cooking isnt) is not always bad."
This is the definition of artificial:
"made or produced by human beings rather than occurring naturally, especially as a copy of something natural."


"Most people aren’t eating quality meats, fruits, vegetables and dairy. So it’s completely stupid to use them as an example and then label them as cooked meat eaters(first claim). They aren’t deficient in B12 because of cooking, it’s because they don’t eat enough animal products(second claim). “Even if raw meat is 0.00001% healthier it is healthier”, that doesn’t matter at all if it has a tiny bit more nutrients because of the significant risk of bacteria."

Coherence level 0
First claim needs proof and when did I use them as an example.
Second claim also need proof, and how does this relate to the point again, I hope I don't need to remind you but you are trying to prove that cooked meat is healthier than raw.
And you cannot use the bacteria being risky argument here because you didn't prove it, also risk of food poisoning is also part of something being healthier, not admitting that bacteria is risky but that seemed like your point (any risk lowers health so no need to mention riskines making the healthier choice less advantageous)


"Yes the compounds formed are harmful, but those studies heat them at high temperatures for a long time. A little heat for little time won’t form many. It’s very ironic to mention poison or no poison, because raw meat has risk of food POISONING. The compounds harms are so insignificant that they wouldn’t take more than a week of your life, which just isn't worth the risk of harmful bacteria. I only refereed to phones because you still use them and they are about as dangerous as slightly cooking food. Showing how useless the point is."

Again, you need to show how raw meat is poisonous or risky to use the argument. You don't need to mention the poisonous effects of cooking any more as we have already established that the only thing you have left to prove is the risk of illness. It is easy to establish that the poisonous compounds from cooking makes it unhealthy therefore waste of time, doesn't matter if it is just as much as your phone or whatever, 0 is better than 0,1."Yes the compounds formed are harmful" then don't use the fucking argument.

"I think I’ve repeated the point almost three times and you just seem to ignore it. There are no solid RCT or meta analysis on raw vs cooked because they can’t put volunteers at the risk of eating raw meat because there is such an abundant amount of evidence showing that it is harmful. Studies on food-borne illness involve lots of different foods, but raw meat still has harmful bacteria, you said you know yourself. All harmful bacteria acts the same in all foods. Bad storage? You mean stored in fridges?"

1. you simply have the burden of proof so that is your problem.
2. show how rawmeat bacteria is harmfull. I don't think bacteria is bad.

Show me 1 single piece of evigende if "there is such an abundant amount of evidence showing that it is harmful", seems like a waste of time if there is sooooo much evidence right?


“So far you admitted nutrient losses exist, harmful compounds form with heat, and your only argument left is ‘risk’. But you have not posted a single piece of human evidence proving raw meat is uniquely risky compared to plants, dairy, or anything else. If you had the evidence you would have posted it already. Either bring real data or concede.”

what an utter disgrace to your genetic pool, must feel good
Please read everything and respond