Raw Foods Make Nutrients Unavailable

[Blood Sugar 101]

I was reading a fascinating anthropology book yesterday that cited studies that gave me insight to something I had not previously known. It is called, Catching Fire: How Cooking Made Us Human.

The author documents, very well, that our human digestive systems, unlike that of all other animals, processes raw foods very poorly.

For example, when you eat a raw egg, a study found you only are able to get about half the nutrients from it.

Raw veggies are the same way. In fact, women eating "raw food" diets long term are so poorly nourished that something like half the women on these diets stop menstruating.

The book's point is that the author, a professor of anthropology at Harvard, believes that pre-humans learned to cook food very early and that the greatly improved nutrition cooked food provided allowed humans to dispense with the much larger, metabolically expensive digestive tract of other primate--and use the energy reclaimed to grow bigger brains.

He makes a good case for this, but what really struck me was the extensive selection of studies showing how poorly we assimilate nutrients from uncooked food. He explains that the way nutrients are measured by nutritionists does not reflect this.

So I had an "aha!" moment because I have always been able to eat raw peppers and tomatoes without seeing the blood sugar spikes you'd expect to see going by the carb count.

This suggests to me that you might be able to break stalls by adding more uncooked foods to your diet, particularly vegetables.

It doesn't take much cooking to change the proteins and starches we eat from indigestible to digestible forms--so when you eat raw it would have to be really raw, not warmed.

But this is definitely a good reason to stop counting raw veggie carbs the same way you count cooked ones.

He also sheds a lot of light on what anthropologists know about hunter gatherer diets historically and in the 19th century, and blows away the imaginary "paleo" diet. Human Hunter gatherers world wide with a very few exceptions eat 50% of their diets in the form of roots, tubers, and seeds. And famine is a continual problem for both modern and paleo hunter gatherers, judging from the testimony of bones which show changes linked to nutritional flucuations.

Most interestingly, he cites that same arctic explorer who is always cited on Inuit all meat diets as warning against high protein consumption as being potentially fatal, and notes that the Inuit were eating raw fish guts and animal droppings as part of their diets, not just fat and meat.

Most importantly, in almost all known hunter gatherer groups women's gathering is an essential part of the diet because there are long, predictable seasonal periods where game is very hard to find. Males who do not have a female collecting those roots, etc do not survive very well, which the author argues is probably why male humans pair bond and dominate women--not as is thought for sexual access, but to get someone cooking for them so they can eat if the hunt fails.

Fascinating book!

[shunsweets]

Very interesting Jenny. Maybe this is why the only veggie I can eat without spiking is celery - it's also the only one I eat mostly raw! Think I'll see if my library has this book.

[peanutte]

Fascinating, Jenny!

[Jaysma]

Very interesting indeed. For the past few days I've been eating lots (4-5 cups a day) of raw broccoli & cauliflower. Since I'm watching my calories closer now, I've gotten away from eating them steamed with butter. I've noticed that raw veggies seem to fill me up faster than cooked ones for some reason. No spike in my bs either, which is always a good thing. Thanks for your insight about this

[teri f]

Very interesting. Thanks for the info.

[LJB]

Does the book mention which veggies/fruit would be better left raw to eat??

[Gretalyn]

Thanks for posting this! I checked my library's website, and they have it. So I'll be reading soon. Interesting stuff. I had read some info from Sally Fallon before about cooking making nutrients more available, at least in some foods. But it sounds like it might be more far-reaching than I thought.

I would like to ask, did the book have any info about cooking nuts and seeds? Fallon recommends soaking them in salt water to deactivate an enzyme that disrupts digestion, and then dehydrating them at low temp, but not cooking or roasting them, to keep the delicate oils in them fresh. I'm curious if there was any info in this book that conflicted with that.

Originally Posted by Blood Sugar 101

He also sheds a lot of light on what anthropologists know about hunter gatherer diets historically and in the 19th century, and blows away the imaginary "paleo" diet. Human Hunter gatherers world wide with a very few exceptions eat 50% of their diets in the form of roots, tubers, and seeds.

I'm not sure I understand this part. Are you referring to a specific paleo-type diet, maybe the official/original Paleo-Diet? The versions I am familiar with don't really disagree on this point. Root vegetables and nuts and seeds are strongly encouraged (though I admit I've never heard a specific percentage of the diet recommended). Other veggies are as well, since they are the best way in the modern world to get some of the nutrients we need. Although, for paleolithic people, if they ran across some root vegetables versus some leafy greens, I can see how they would not bother with the leafy greens at all! Tender leaves wouldn't have really provided them with any actual energy, and I must assume that was what they were always looking for in their foods. But I digress. Anyway, I think the main point of a paleo-type diet is to avoid sugar, grains, legumes, and dairy. But there's still plenty of room for roots and nuts.

[Looweewoo]

Originally Posted by Gretalyn

I'm not sure I understand this part. Are you referring to a specific paleo-type diet, maybe the official/original Paleo-Diet?

Many people know about as much about Carnivore styles of eating as the typical American knows about Atkins. It's assumed that Paleo or Neanderthin or Carnivore means Beef muscle meat and water only. I get the feeling they see us as squatting by a fire grunting. After a while it doesn't do much good to explain it. It's an emotional attitude that influences how people see things. What's obvious to one cannot be seen by another. You learn to roll with it and just take other people for what they are.

I was distressed to see it linked with yet more unashamed male bashing. As if women didn't seek out bonds with men because there were long predictable seasons where herb gathering was unproductive but meat was still available. But such acceptable sexism sells books, at least to some people.

[BillB]

Originally Posted by Looweewoo

Many people know about as much about Carnivore styles of eating as the typical American knows about Atkins. It's assumed that Paleo or Neanderthin or Carnivore means Beef muscle meat and water only. I get the feeling they see us as squatting by a fire grunting. After a while it doesn't do much good to explain it. It's an emotional attitude that influences how people see things. What's obvious to one cannot be seen by another. You learn to roll with it and just take other people for what they are.

I was distressed to see it linked with yet more unashamed male bashing. As if women didn't seek out bonds with men because there were long predictable seasons where herb gathering was unproductive but meat was still available. But such acceptable sexism sells books, at least to some people.

Just because something offends you, doesn't mean it's actually male-bashing. I don't believe there's such a thing as "acceptable sexism" either, in either direction the bias can be expressed. I mean, if the author said that if the reason women paired up with men was to get lots of tasty chunks of dead critters, would that push your persecution button?

--bill

[Gretalyn]

Originally Posted by Looweewoo

I get the feeling they see us as squatting by a fire grunting.

I was distressed to see it linked with yet more unashamed male bashing. As if women didn't seek out bonds with men because there were long predictable seasons where herb gathering was unproductive but meat was still available. But such acceptable sexism sells books, at least to some people.

My first thought when I read that was that, as a woman, if I were in a hunter-gatherer society, I'd be pretty quick to pair up if that meant having access to meat (well, not to mention the other fun stuff that comes from pairing up). So does that mean I'm dominating the man during hunting season, and he's dominating me when the gathered foods are more important? Or, maybe it could just mean we hooked up for mutual benefit?

[Gretalyn]

Originally Posted by BillB

Just because something offends you, doesn't mean it's actually male-bashing. I don't believe there's such a thing as "acceptable sexism" either, in either direction the bias can be expressed. I mean, if the author said that if the reason women paired up with men was to get lots of tasty chunks of dead critters, would that push your persecution button

But I think the implication was more than just men have a need for this food and therefore paired up for selfish reasons (which would cut both ways). The implication was that they further exploited this (how was not clear) to "dominate" women. I think that's where the sexism comes in, because it's a heck of an assumption, isn't it?

[Looweewoo]

Originally Posted by BillB

Just because something offends you, doesn't mean it's actually male-bashing. I don't believe there's such a thing as "acceptable sexism" either, in either direction the bias can be expressed. I mean, if the author said that if the reason women paired up with men was to get lots of tasty chunks of dead critters, would that push your persecution button?

--bill

I don't know what the book's author said. I meant to comment on the actual post.

If she said that women paired up with and DOMINATED men to get them to hunt meat FOR THEM, I would expect some women to feel that an unfair generalization had been made. Many pretechnological cultures knew that women and men made good partners without one having to dominate the other.

But as I said, some things which are obvious to one person go unnoticed by others.

[Looweewoo]

Originally Posted by Gretalyn

Is that you squatting by the fire in that avatar?

[goohsmom]

Now we have the real reason why so many diets (Protein Power included) allow almost unlimited raw salad veggies.

Sadly Louis, Richard Wrangham does appear to be a male apologist. I did a little snooping and found another book he's written called The Demon Male. I still think his premise is interesting about cooked foods giving human beings a developmental advantage, but I don't know that I'd put a lot of credence into all of his conclusions due to his bias. Considering his other book, I'd have to say that what BloodSugar101 posted came straight from the book.

Pam

[chiody]

[Looweewoo]

Originally Posted by goohsmom

I still think his premise is interesting about cooked foods giving human beings a developmental advantage, but I don't know that I'd put a lot of credence into all of his conclusions due to his bias.

I would counter, or at least balance it with this post by Eades:

Are we meat eaters or vegetarians? Part II | The Blog of Michael R. Eades, M.D.

Thanks for searching out the sexism info. If we want to end bias, we have to bring it all out into the sun, not just the parts that affect us personally.

[fireflyfaster]

The nutritional observations present an interesting conundrum: to eat cooked, and get the additional nutrients, or raw, and avoid the extra calories/blood sugar?

And then there's the additional matter, which we've heard elsewhere, about certain nutrients being diminished or destroyed through cooking -- which way do we eat these foods to get the most from them we can?

The anthropological conjecture interests me less. I tend to think that we choose one another's company today for much the same reasons that our ancestors always have. Love and/or bonding have complex dimensions. I don't stay with my DH because he brings me meat. But if we have a fight, it's a lot better to bring me steak than flowers.

[goohsmom]

Originally Posted by Looweewoo

I would counter, or at least balance it with this post by Eades:

Are we meat eaters or vegetarians? Part II | The Blog of Michael R. Eades, M.D.

Thanks for searching out the sexism info. If we want to end bias, we have to bring it all out into the sun, not just the parts that affect us personally.

Interesting blog, Louis. I would point out, though, that there's room for both ideas. It makes me wonder, though, if we get more nutrition out of cooked meat than out of raw, and which one might have come first, cooking or increased meat consumption?

Pam

[Gretalyn]

Originally Posted by Looweewoo

Is that you squatting by the fire in that avatar?

It's an artist's conception of a scene from one of the Earth's Children novels, which take place about 20,000 years ago. I enjoyed the books very much a few years back, and the image seemed appropriate for the WOE I'm aiming for now.

So, sorry, I am no help at all in your quest to dispel people's images about carnivore/paleo eating! Part of the problem. Yeah, that's me.

[Blood Sugar 101]

Originally Posted by Gretalyn

Thanks for posting this! I checked my library's website, and they have it. So I'll be reading soon. Interesting stuff. I had read some info from Sally Fallon before about cooking making nutrients more available, at least in some foods. But it sounds like it might be more far-reaching than I thought.

I would like to ask, did the book have any info about cooking nuts and seeds? Fallon recommends soaking them in salt water to deactivate an enzyme that disrupts digestion, and then dehydrating them at low temp, but not cooking or roasting them, to keep the delicate oils in them fresh. I'm curious if there was any info in this book that conflicted with that.

That book explains that drying and salting also denature proteins which is what you are doing when you cook that makes the nutrients more available to our digestive systems.


The point that emerges about the true diets of hunter gatherers and the imagined diets of humans living in the paleolithic period is that they included a lot starch and are not the mostly meat diets that so many modern "Paleo diet" fanatics seem to imagine they were.

[2big4mysize]

actrually the book gives a much better explaination about femals and males interacting because of cooking

Cooking made women more vulnerable, Mr. Wrangham ruefully observes, to male authority.

“Relying on cooked food creates opportunities for cooperation, but just as important, it exposes cooks to being exploited,” he writes. “Cooking takes time, so lone cooks cannot easily guard their wares from determined thieves such as hungry males without their own food.” Women needed male protection.

Marriage, or what Mr. Wrangham calls “a primitive protection racket,” was a solution. Mr. Wrangham’s nuanced ideas cannot be given their full due here, but he is not happy to note that cooking “trapped women into a newly subservient role enforced by male-dominated culture.”

“Cooking,” he writes, “created and perpetuated a novel system of male cultural superiority. It is not a pretty picture.”

from DWIGHT GARNER's NY TIMES review of the book

[Blood Sugar 101]

Originally Posted by Gretalyn

My first thought when I read that was that, as a woman, if I were in a hunter-gatherer society, I'd be pretty quick to pair up if that meant having access to meat (well, not to mention the other fun stuff that comes from pairing up). So does that mean I'm dominating the man during hunting season, and he's dominating me when the gathered foods are more important? Or, maybe it could just mean we hooked up for mutual benefit?

The case that the anthropologist made, based on his years studying primates in the wild is that women didn't pair up with men to get the meat. But that the preferance for, and eventual need of cooking foods made it impossible for females to defend their gathered foods from males.

In situations where primates eat what they gather the females don't store the food long enough for males to take it. But when you cook it takes a while and the woman is there with the food, unprotected, all it takes is for a band of males to show up when dinner is ready and your female loses her food.

So he suggests that females found the pair bond with males who had a claim to their gatherings and would defend them against other males helpful. The men brought some meat, but studies of modern peoples show women don't get much of the meat and often they get only the stuff the men don't want. It's the protection that he thinks was what pushed women into the traditional role.

He cites that in the hunter gatherer cultures studied, it is universal that men share food broadly but women ONLY cook for their males and close family and other males will not take food from a woman not related to them.

HE makes the case, BTW, that there are cultures where the wife is allowed to sleep with other men as long as she doesn't share any food with them.

This is a brief summary and doesn't do justice to a fascinating and well researched book by a man who knows his primates, paleontology, and modern hunter gatherers.

[Joy-FL]

“Cooking takes time, so lone cooks cannot easily guard their wares from determined thieves such as hungry males without their own food.” Women needed male protection.

This is based on the assumption that men aren't capable of cooking their own food. Give me a break.

Originally Posted by fireflyfaster

But if we have a fight, it's a lot better to bring me steak than flowers.

I've got a whip for anyone who comes to steal my steak. Just try it, boys.

[2big4mysize]

Originally Posted by Joy-FL

This is based on the assumption that men aren't capable of cooking their own food. Give me a break.





I've got a whip for anyone who comes to steal my steak. Just try it, boys.

it doesn't say they can't cook their own it says they don't have their own food.

[Joy-FL]

Originally Posted by 2big4mysize

it doesn't say they can't cook their own it says they don't have their own food.

Because, as far as I can tell, men can't pick berries and women can't kill things.

ETA: You know, I think I just figured out why Caveboy and Cavegirl first started pairbonding. It was to move out of Caveparents' cave.

ETA again: Come to think of it, this whole discussion is based on men and women living in separate packs or something and then one day choosing to work together. Which is just silly. Humans have liked to cross-socialize since the Day o' Primordial Soup.

ETA again: I should invent something LC called Primordial Soup.

[fireflyfaster]

Originally Posted by Blood Sugar 101

all it takes is for a band of males to show up when dinner is ready and your female loses her food.

This is technically termed "Halftime."

(Apologies, Louis! Initiating self-flogging sequence...)

[BillB]

Originally Posted by Looweewoo

Is that you squatting by the fire in that avatar?

You made me laugh out loud.



--bill

[peanutte]

This is technically termed "Halftime."

[BillB]

Originally Posted by fireflyfaster

This is technically termed "Halftime."

(Apologies, Louis! Initiating self-flogging sequence...)

OK, you made me snort kool aid through my nose.



--bill

[BillB]

Originally Posted by Joy-FL

Because, as far as I can tell, men can't pick berries and women can't kill things.

ETA: You know, I think I just figured out why Caveboy and Cavegirl first started pairbonding. It was to move out of Caveparents' cave.

Bamm! Bamm! Bamm bamm bamm!



--bill