william wrote:
>
> 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.
Yes, but I know people who 'don't feel so good' after eating raw or rare 
meat. (I am not one of these people, just to be clear). What does that 
tell us other than we all have different reactions? And again, I'd like 
to see evidence that cooked meat lacks enough nutrients. Whether or not 
it has less nutrients after analysis than raw meat has, that tells us 
nothing about utilization in the body or whether or not there's enough 
in it to satisfy the needs of the body and its systems.

Understand that I have nothing against raw, and eat seared and/or rare 
red meat often (I prefer it). I've also seen people, once they start 
eating very low carb/zc, come to prefer their meat rarer and rarer 
(though not always). What I am trying to understand, and what I am 
interested in, is what exactly has been demonstrated as the problem with 
cooked foods and how we know that the problem is directly related to the 
foods being cooked and not to something else.
>
>
>  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.
They were their own controls - they compared to their state of health 
prior to undergoing the experiment. In the first two weeks, they ate a 
'regular' mixed diet.