"Jay Banks" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> Richard Archer wrote:
> > if you want to focus on raw ... there's a list called raw-food.
> > That would also be the appropriate list for discussing Howell.
>
> As if a paleo list wasn't appropriate for discussing Howell's work.
>
> Ray Audette's Neanderthin, page 196:
>
>    Q: According to your theory, shouldn't I eat all my food raw?
>
>    A: In a perfect world, yes...but modern farming and food processing
> techniques preclude this practice.

I question Ray's assumption that an all-raw diet would be
ideal. Take raw eggs, for instance. They contain "trypsin
inhibitors" similar to those in soy. We need trypsin, and
other proteolytic enzymes (pepsin and chymotrypsin) or we
can't break apart protein molecules into their constituent
peptides and amino acids. Thus, the protein in raw egg is
only about half as digestible as cooked egg. Bodybuilders
have known this for decades. Just eating the raw egg yolk
is not a good idea either, because the white has most of
the sodium, as well as other important nutrients.

http://www.encyclopedia.com/html/t1/trypsin.asp
http://www.nutrition.org/cgi/content/full/128/10/1716

Raw egg whites contain avidin, a protein which binds some
of the biotin in the yolk, preventing absorption. Cooking
neutralizes avidin. Although egg yolks are rich in biotin
and not all the biotin is bound with avidin, avidin is an
anti-nutrient best avoided. Egg white also has conalbumin
which binds with iron. The iron in eggs already has a low
bio-availability, compared to red meat. Eating ra egg can
lead to anemia, esp for mothers and babies.

> Neanderthin, page 67:
>
>    Should I Eat Raw Meat?
>
>    Although all meat is edible raw, you shouldn't eat supermarket meat raw.

I doubt it makes much difference whether we eat meats raw
or cooked. They are low-residue (fully digested), one way
or the other. The potential bacteria and parasites aren't
as much of a problem as all the chemicals in or on modern
meat. Hard-boiled eggs also have a "low-residue", meaning
we digest them almost fully. Raw eggs, on the other hand,
have a much higher residue (produce more waste).

http://www.pdrhealth.com/content/nutrition_health/chapters/fgnt25.shtml

We know that raw eggs contain numerous anti-nutrients that
would interfere with digestion and other functions. Seeds
and nuts are another potent example. Eating too many nuts
and seeds (esp raw) causes digestive problems and nutrient
deficiencies. Read Sally Fallon's "Nourishing Traditions"
for a good layman's explanation, Price and Howell for more
detail. The case for a raw diet is hardly open-and-shut.

http://www.beyondveg.com/

> Neanderthin, page 41:
>
>    We find none other than Frances Pottenger, M.D., Weston Price,
>    and the Price Pottenger foundation mentioned...with not a thing
>    negative said about any of them.
>
> If these things are off topic on this list then that is fine. But to say
> they are somehow not part of paleo discussion isn't accurate at all unless
> Ray Audette has somehow became not paleo enough for you. If they are off
> topic, then this list would more appropriately be labeled a sort-of paleo
> list or pick-and-choose paleo list.

Excellent points, Jay. I just checked my paperback copy of
NeanderThin. I had forgotten that Ray's book mentions both
Drs. Weston A. Price and Francis M. Pottenger, as well as
Price's book, "Nutrition and Physical Degeneneration", and
the Price-Pottenger Nutrition Foundation. Both authors had
insight into why modern foods and diseases go hand in hand.
We would do well to familiarize ourselves with them.

-Bruce Kleisner

...
> Tom Bridgeland wrote:
> > One thing I don't like particularly is the venom some show when their
> > views are questioned. There just isn't enough easily available
> > scientific data to show whether the paleo diet is all it is cracked up
> > to be. So we have to feel our way forward on anecdotal accounts and
> > personal experience, especially since a true paleo diet isn't even
> > possible for most of us.