I concur. Raw paleo is different. People who do raw paleo eat as much as
a pound of raw meat at a sitting, some more. See www.rawpaleo.com.
I read once that some people have noticed a health improvement when they
moved from warmed or slightly cooked meat to raw. I have also heard that
raw-paleo people have offensive body odour. These things are just
hearsay for me. I don't know anyone personally who practises raw paleo.
My personal thoughts on this are simple. What did "we" do tens of
thousands of years ago? I think we hunted, killed and ate. And, if we
were hungry enough, we ate some raw meat before it was cooked or instead
of cooking it. If time and other factors permitted, I think we cooked
it. And, we ate edible vegetation as well. Not scientific, but just my
thoughts based on what I have learned so far.
- Wayne
Burnaby, BC
Mrs Caroline Centa wrote:
> Correct me if I am wrong but I am pretty sure this is not the RAW PLACE.... I am pretty sure it is called PALEOFOOD... not all people who eat a paleolithic type diet follow Raw practices.... I couldn't bear eating my meat slightly pink, let alone raw...
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Brenda Young <[log in to unmask]>
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Sent: Sunday, December 28, 2008 4:21:46 PM
> Subject: Re: Christmas morning yummy-ness Re: Roast beast
>
> Ok, I don't get it, lol. This is the RAW PLACE, and I don't so much suscribe to all of everything, but I listen and I learn, yes. But I for sure cook meat til it's just barely pink, and not according to "meat thermometers" and all the other BS, lol. Haven't died yet. Am still alve to annoy and contradict you all, hehe. All joking aside, why do you all subscribe to raw eating, but you worry about temp in meat??? I am NOT being rude, just trying to understand.
>
> shirley sommers wrote:
>
>> The pork was slashed every 1/4 in through the skin and into the meat so
>>
> it was started at 450 degrees just long enough to get the skin strips to start
> curling up. Then it was 250 degrees, uncovered and basted , till done. I
> thought 165 was the lowest you could go for food safety reasons?
>
>>
>>
> 165 is the recommended for pork, but beef can be 140 for rare IIRC.
> Roasting pork at 145 would be venturing into unknown territory, might taste
> odd.
>
> William
>
>
>
>
> __________ NOD32 3719 (20081227) Information __________
>
> This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system.
> http://www.eset.com
>
>
>
>
|
