Sender: |
|
Date: |
Sun, 14 Jun 2009 16:29:13 -0400 |
Reply-To: |
|
Subject: |
|
MIME-Version: |
1.0 |
Content-Transfer-Encoding: |
quoted-printable |
In-Reply-To: |
|
Content-Type: |
text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed |
From: |
|
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
Tracy Bradley wrote:
> william wrote:
>> The higher nutrient content of raw fat meat satisfies because it is as
>> close as we can get to the perfect food.
>> Eating to excess, as in the same meat cooked, results in malnutrition.
>> This has been demonstrated by those brave enough and/or desperate
>> enough to try eating raw zero carb.
>>
>> William
>>
> William...can you back this up? How on earth does eating cooked meat
> result in malnutrition? What do you mean by cooked...well done, medium,
> etc?
Cooked meat lacks the nutrients of raw, so we eat more of it until full.
The full signal is probably because stomach is full, not because of
satisfaction.
I think it is malnutrition because I don't feel good after eating
cooked. If there is a credible study on this I am not aware of it, so
must use my own experience.
By cooked, I mean heated high enough to destroy nutrients, ~120°F
according to Rooker.
Stef and Andersen, in their Bellevue experiment, ate med-well done
> meat and suffered no malnutrition after one year, so perhaps you can
> qualify what exactly it is you mean, or provide a source?
>
>
No source, but consider: to what did they compare their state of health?
A year of eating all raw would have given them a point of reference; I
don't know that they ever did that.
William
|
|
|