# Debunking the raw food fraud/diet



## Mr. No-Tip (17/1/14)

So I've been invited to a raw food feast on sunday. The attendees are not militant hipsters, they are more moderate hipsters, of which I would describe myself one. They are interested in the raw food concept, but open to reality.

Some raw food capers talk about 'sea vegetables' and a bunch of other stuff, but my plan is to bring some marinated oysters and jerky to the party. IT'S MEATY, BUT MEETYS THE RULES, ya jerks.

...Cept I am not sure that my dehydrated jerky meets the militant 42 degrees standard of the raw food nazi. From what I understand, rawists feel that food dies at the point it is heated as the enzymes are robbed of their lifeforce (denatured to those of us that prefer to be objective). The raw foodist's measure seems to be 40ishdegreees

Any brewer knows that our enzymes are only getting their acid on at this point - they've got a summer's range before they start denaturing.

I plan to take this to the fairly open minded party this weekend. Hey guys, guess what? This no boil berliner is raw food by any realistic definition, but not by the militant one. This jerky is raw, unless you're a dick.

Am I missing something, or is the whole raw food caper based on a ridiculous assumption that enzymes LOSE THIER LIFEFORCE about fourty something degrees?


----------



## manticle (17/1/14)

A lot of proteins are denatured around/above 40 deg.

That in itself means nothing as proteins are complicated, specific strings of amino acids and our bodies can't often (could be seldom/never - can't remember) just take specific proteins and make them work for us. Many amino acids are produced internally but some essential ones we need to get from diet. Proteins make things what they are structurally so chicken skin is different to human skin for example.

Also while many proteins and enzymes are debatured above 40, many others aren't and may be optimised well above that.

Raw often retains certain nutrients including vitamins but enzymes and proteins are maybe a different bag of carrots.


----------



## Mardoo (17/1/14)

There's a spectrum. There are folks who base it on the belief that our bodies need enzymes to function and eating raw thereby increases enzyme load available to the body. There are folks who don't want to hurt the life force of the the little enzy-beasties. There are life-force theorists:

http://www.amazon.com/Raw-Food-Life-Force-Energy/dp/0061344656

I'm guessing it's not total bullshit, but rather an extreme interpretation of some simple information. "Our bodies need enzymes. Therefore our entire diet should be about getting more enzymes." Doesn't seem to make sense to focus on increasing enzyme load without using cooking to break down foods in specific ways to make their components more accessible to enzymes, but then I'm not hungry for eternal youth, which seems to drive a lot of these folks.

Generally things like this are based on something scientific someone heard about and thought sounded awesome and then built into a theory of living that they later realized they could make money propounding. I have just noted the fact that pretty much every culture includes eating raw foods as part of their diet, and seems to think it's important. So I make an effort to do so.


----------



## TSMill (17/1/14)

I like how you can be hipster, but anyone more hipster than you is a dick!


----------



## slcmorro (17/1/14)

Take Biltong instead. Definitely doesn't get over 42 degrees.


----------



## slcmorro (17/1/14)

(and it's a hundred times better than boring old jerky)


----------



## joshF (17/1/14)

I think if enzymes in foods are the only thing they're worried about then it's pretty narrow minded. Eating a strictly raw food diet eliminates the potential for eating chicken..... CHICKEN for gods sake.

No great story ever started with someone eating a salad :lol: I think there's still plenty of alternatives for those people who want to eat 'clean'. From what i've read, the whole paleo diet thing is pretty much based on eating non-processed 'clean' foods that you can still actually taste.

While few will dispute that raw probably holds more nutritional value, we only live once so may aswell make each meal taste semi decent. Raw cauliflower... OR cooked cauliflower with heaps of salt and that white sauce with pepper. I know which one tastes better and if they say the raw one does they are lying !!!!! Hmmmm :icon_drool2:


----------



## manticle (17/1/14)

I was with you until you mentioned cauliflower.


----------



## Not For Horses (17/1/14)

joshF said:


> Eating a strictly raw food diet eliminates the potential for eating chicken..... CHICKEN for gods sake.


You'd be surprised actually.
There are many people that eat raw chicken and are perfectly fine. It's not really advised, but eating a raw diet certainly doesn't eliminate it.

It's not for me though.


----------



## Mr. No-Tip (17/1/14)

slcmorro said:


> (and it's a hundred times better than boring old jerky)


The couple times oven had biltong, I've not enjoyed it all that much. The fat/oil doesn't render or the cuts have too much to begin with. I don't like the mouth coating it gives.

Also, jerky? Boring? You haven't had my peach lambic habanero death jerky yet, clearly!


----------



## Bribie G (17/1/14)

Chimpanzees occasionally eat raw meat, especially colobus monkeys.

However the main reason that we developed big brains and don't spend our days sitting in the dirt eating vast amounts of raw chewy nuts and tubers, grimacing, scratching fleas and making grunting noises (unless you live in Caboolture South) is that we devoloped fire and cooking. Fire remains have been found in Homo Erectus caves in China and it's fairly well accepted that the subsequent Homo Sapiens (us) have always cooked.


----------



## stakka82 (17/1/14)

Nothing over 42 degrees eh? That would render all Victorian produce in fields this week inedible.


----------



## Mr. No-Tip (17/1/14)

stakka82 said:


> Nothing over 42 degrees eh? That would render all Victorian produce in fields this week inedible.


Winner!


----------



## Scooby Tha Newbie (17/1/14)

Mate on one side the raw food movement has good intentions. but most of the info they give out is misleading and plain incorrect.


http://www.beyondveg.com/


----------



## Scooby Tha Newbie (17/1/14)

You should be safe. Just don't give them your bank details.


----------



## Airgead (17/1/14)

Yeah, actually, it is all total bull$hit.

The whole enzyme argument is crap. Some get denatured at 42 others (like... I dunno. the amalayse we use in a mash...) denature much higher.

The protein argument is crap as well. Proteins denaturing is nutritionally a good thing. We don't want whole proteins, we want the amino acids so we can build our own proteins. Digestion breaks down proteins. Cooking helps the process.

Likewise starches. Likewise complex carbs.

Essentially it then comes down to "essential life force" which is basically new age crap.

OK. Some vitamins etc do degrade with heat (so don't boil everything till its grey) but general cooking actually makes more nutrients available to the body not less. it has been theorised that the introduction of cooking and thus the big increase in available nutrients was what helped us evolve big brains.

Its a pity we use those big brains to come up with rubbish like the raw food movement.

Cheers
Dave


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (17/1/14)

Bacon.......have you had raw bacon.....no contest.


----------



## Bribie G (17/1/14)

Unfortunately a lot of faddist diets are taken up by young people like fifteen year old girls who, like, say, like, like meat? eeewwww, like gross like. Like.

When you are young, say under 35, you can withstand stupid diets because you still have the reserves of fitness and repair - ability of the body. However once you get into your overthehump years stuff like raw foodism or can I even be politically incorrect, Atkins, can be positively life shortening.

I'm a diet-ist myself but whatever method I'm trying I always make sure they include good real food like veg, fruit, dairy, pig, eggs (not raw), ale, etc.


edit: interesting debunking site, raw food is on page 5


----------



## Greg.L (17/1/14)

This is just one of a number of modern systems based on magical beliefs. Biodynamics, astrology, homeopathy, chiropractic, all the other alternative medicine stuff, they are all based on mystical insights into the nature of the universe, without the bother of evidence or research. Maybe they are filling a void left by the lack of relevance in modern life of the established imaginary belief systems eg christianity islam etc, or maybe its just an easy way to make a buck.


----------



## Airgead (17/1/14)

Greg.L said:


> , or maybe its just an easy way to make a buck.


Got it in one methinks.

Selling easy solutions to the ill informed and gullible.


----------



## Phoney (17/1/14)

Bribie G said:


> Unfortunately a lot of faddist diets are taken up by young people like fifteen year old girls who, like, say, like, like meat? eeewwww, like gross like. Like.
> 
> When you are young, say under 35, you can withstand stupid diets because you still have the reserves of fitness and repair - ability of the body. However once you get into your overthehump years stuff like raw foodism or can I even be politically incorrect, Atkins, can be positively life shortening.



Not that I disagree with you there, but checkout this couple:

http://www.smh.com.au/national/couple-run-365-marathons-in-a-year-20131230-302sf.html

64 & 68, raw food diet, they ran a marathon every single day last year! I'm not sure that their lives will end anytime soon.


----------



## Bribie G (17/1/14)

I only eat food that has been grown in fields irrigated with a spray made from manure packed into cows horns and buried for a year, the spraying to happen at night on a full moon by a tractor with a certain set of crystals on the roof.


----------



## Airgead (17/1/14)

phoneyhuh said:


> Not that I disagree with you there, but checkout this couple:
> 
> http://www.smh.com.au/national/couple-run-365-marathons-in-a-year-20131230-302sf.html
> 
> 64 & 68, raw food diet, they ran a marathon every single day last year! I'm not sure that their lives will end anytime soon.


Imagine how much fitter they would be if they ate properly.


----------



## Liam_snorkel (17/1/14)

I only eat food that goes into my mouth.


----------



## Airgead (17/1/14)

Bribie G said:


> I only eat food that has been grown in fields irrigated with a spray made from manure packed into cows horns and buried for a year, the spraying to happen at night on a full moon by a tractor with a certain set of crystals on the roof.


And for those who don't know... that's exactly what you get when you but something with "biodynamic" on the label.


----------



## verysupple (17/1/14)

My partner works for a naturopath who does a lot of research into raw food. Now, if there's one thing I've picked up from what she's told me it's that an entirely raw food diet isn't something any naturopath worth listening to would recommend. The most extreme program she uses is about 90 days long and requires very careful preparation before commencing and then requires very careful supervison by an expert during the program. 

This all tells me that a raw food diet is not a good thing long term. It could be beneficial every now and again though.

I think the problem is this area of knowledge is not well understood by many of the people touting the benefits. As others have suggested, there probably is some good science in there if you dig deep enough, but there's a bit of Chinese whispers going on. The hipsters (and would have been hippies previously) pass on info they hear around the bong circle rather than seeking advice from someone who has actually done the research.

Just my 2c.


----------



## Airgead (17/1/14)

verysupple said:


> . As others have suggested, there probably is some good science in there if you dig deep enough


Nope.

The more you dig into the science the more it looks like complete BS.


----------



## technobabble66 (17/1/14)

+1 verysupple. 
The basic advice is eat a balanced diet. Ta dah!!
Some raw, some cooked, best quality ingredients you can comfortably afford. Paleo is a reasonable guide. 
Too many people see diets as a new religion, rather than looking critically at the science/evidence/rationale behind it (if there is any).
Fwiw, there's some very sound reasoning behind the basic concept of raw food, but it's not enough to make it your entire dietary intake - eg: as some hv already mentioned, some nutrients (esp minerals, amino acids) are significantly more accessible from cooked foods, whereas some are destroyed (eg: most enzymes & vitamins). There's a vast array of enzymes/nutrients in the various foods we eat. So it's generally flawed approaching dietary advice too simplistically (eg: all food should be raw; or all food is ok to be cooked). 
It's actually analogous to brewing in some way - sure you can make beer with a K&K, but you can do better by being mindful of greater details. Also, it's silly to put all your effort into one aspect & ignore the rest (eg: get the best malts, but ignore temp control). And finally, some people can't afford or hv space/time for 3v AG setup; though can still do well with other (lesser) options. 

Oh, and a healthy diet is something you can eat all the time. 

My 2c & professional opinion


----------



## technobabble66 (17/1/14)

Airgead said:


> Nope.
> 
> The more you dig into the science the more it looks like complete BS.


Definitely when treated as a religion. 

But there's certain enzymes/trace-nutrients that can degrade pretty quickly as the temps start going over "normal" biological temps. 
It's not the end of the world, but if you're gettin all sciency 'bout it...

It's possibly better to look at how much benefit are you getting/missing by doing any dietary change compared to the effort/cost(/taste) of it. 

Another 2c


----------



## Airgead (17/1/14)

technobabble66 said:


> Paleo is a reasonable guide.


Don't get me started on paleo...


----------



## Airgead (17/1/14)

technobabble66 said:


> Definitely when treated as a religion.
> 
> But there's certain enzymes/trace-nutrients that can degrade pretty quickly as the temps start going over "normal" biological temps.
> It's not the end of the world, but if you're gettin all sciency 'bout it...
> ...


Agreed... there are some trace things that do degrade. I'm not saying that we should do like my grandmother did and boil the crap out of everything till its grey. Eat a salad occasionally. Fruit is nice.

But the whole premise of the raw food movement that cooking is somehow bad for you is fundamentally flawed and has absolutely no basis in fact. 

Cheers
Dave

Edit - and on the enzyme thing... I was under the impression that any enzymes we eat get broken down by digestion (like other proteins) and we then use the parts to make our own enzymes. I'm not aware of any dietary requirement to obtain enzymes from an external source. So denatured or not really makes zip difference nutritionally (except that the amino acids might be more biologically available if it is already denatured).


----------



## Silver (17/1/14)

Airgead said:


> Don't get me started on paleo...


OK, won't get you started but seeing how someone mentioned it, I have a mate at work who is pushing Paleo and now anti-gluten. I have always been a big believer in everything in moderation. Anyhow does paleo have any adverse effects on the average Joe?


----------



## Airgead (17/1/14)

It seems to make people who follow it a lot stupider.

Or maybe I have the causation round the wrong way...


----------



## RobW (17/1/14)

An enzyme is just a biological catalyst - it enhances a specific biochemical reaction.
Enzyme activity is affected by temperature, pressure, chemical environment (e.g., pH) etc.
I'm not aware enzymes have any specific nutritional value and in any case, whether you cook your food or not, what's going to happen to these enzymes when they hit the pH2 that's your stomach?


----------



## Airgead (17/1/14)

Precisely.


----------



## TimT (17/1/14)

Raw food is the latest in a long line of weird food fads, but it has an interesting link to beer making in that it embraces 'sprouted grain breads' - eg, the Sumerian bappir cakes that were made from sprouted barley grains and crumbled into hot water to get ale. We get an early recipe for a sprouted grain bread from Christ in the apocrypha, where he appears as a kind of dietary guru:

_'How should we cook our daily bread without fire, Master?' asked some with great astonishment. 'Let the angels of God prepare your bread. Moisten your wheat, that the angel of water may enter it. Then set it in the air, that the angel of air may also embrace it. And leave it from morning to evening beneath the sun, that the angel of sunshine may descend upon it. And the blessing of the three angels will soon make the germ of life to sprout in your wheat. Then crush your grain, and make thin wafers, as did your forefathers when they departed out of Egypt, the house of bondage. Put them back again beneath the sun from its appearing, and when it is risen to its highest in the heavens, turn them over on the other side that they be embraced there also by the angel of sunshine, and leave them there until the sun be set.' _


----------



## Midnight Brew (17/1/14)

You cant be 100% paleo and be a home brewer. Recipe for disaster. Is there any proof that cave men drank alcohol? I cant find any.

Myself, I follow 80% paleo diet, 1 day a week where I eat what ever I want and in what ever amount I want, moderate amounts of ale and train/exercise 4-5 times a week. It works for me but not everyone.

I agree with the OP 100% raw is not what we were designed for. We were meant to eat meat, cook vegies, cook meat, we have fire so on so forth (although I dont think we were suppose to drink from cow utters, id be curious to have a time machine and see the first bloke who came up with that idea.). There are benefits of eating raw food but like all things it should be incorporated into a diet like everything else as already mentioned.

Balance is key but at the same time you need to enjoy your life and what you're eating. <Could that be any more contradictory?


----------



## mje1980 (17/1/14)

I don't agree with some of the new age diets but I think it's better that people are conscious of the effect of what they eat on their health, instead of just eating whatever they want, whenever, without any thought to the effect.


----------



## technobabble66 (17/1/14)

The vaaast majority of proteins, proteoglycans, glycoproteins, etc are destroyed by the acids in the stomach & (mainly) the enzymes in the small intestine. However, there is a small percentage of these various molecules that are presented to the gut wall and will be taken into the bloodstream relatively intact. Hence the various trace nutrients of the foods we eat, including enzymes, can have biologically active role in our body. These acitivities are diverse and are only recently being explored. One example would be the anti-inflammatory action of certain enzymes. It's not only enzymes - many potent anti-oxidants are fairly complex (smaller) biological molecules; and they have significant diverse effects on the human body. Look up curcumin.

It's possibly worth noting that the effects of small changes in temp on proteins can be reversible, though these changes rapidly become irreversible as the temps go up. Similarly for acids/bases, though many molecules/enzymes seem to tolerate pH changes a bit better and activity can be returned if the pH is returned to more ideal conditions. It's also all based on time of exposure.

FWIW, tree-hugging earth muffin fanatics shit me immensely. 
But, just because some looney says somethings good for you, doesn't mean its _not_. You just look at the grain of truth, & ignore the bollocks.

Up to 6c


----------



## technobabble66 (17/1/14)

Midnight Brew said:


> Is there any proof that cave men drank alcohol? I cant find any.
> 
> ...although I dont think we were suppose to drink from cow utters, id be curious to have a time machine and see the first bloke who came up with that idea.




I think that's pretty solid evidence there was alcohol around at the time.


----------



## JDW81 (17/1/14)

Silver said:


> Anyhow does paleo have any adverse effects on the average Joe?


You can be perfectly healthy eating a paleo diet, but the problem with them and most diets is most people don't know what they should be eating in the first place. They drop off sources of nutrition and don't replace them with something else. I've seen this countless times with newly converted vegetarians as well (vitamin B12 is a big one for vegos). You can be perfectly healthy eating paleo, vego, vegan, and raw food diets as long as you know what you should be eating and what foods make good substitutes for those you drop out.

It also doesn't really matter if you degrade enzymes in food as the body produces all the enzymes it needs to catalyse chemical reactions, assuming you eat a healthy enough diet to give you the basic building blocks to synthesise them. There are a few amino acids (from proteins) which can't be synthesised in the body (hence the term essential). Vitamins generally act as cofactors in bodily reactions and are generally degraded by heat (B12 for example is cofactor along with folate in the methylation of DNA and B12 also is important in the formation of red blood cells).

JD


----------



## technobabble66 (17/1/14)

Actually, you can occasionally see footage of animals eating slightly rotten fruit and getting drunk. So cave men could've done that.

All we've done is put it a vessel.
In a fridge.
And change the fruit to grain.
And use some flowers. :icon_cheers:


So i'd suggest Airgead's been sneakily indulging in a Paleo diet the whole time !!! 
You hipster!


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (17/1/14)

I like the seefood diet.

Some foods need cooking to enable the vitamins to be released. Corn actually needs to be cooked in lye to release the nutrients, especially Vitamin B.

Personally I couldnt care less, as long as the nutjobs dont go around harrasing people to change, regardless of how subtly the do it.


----------



## Liam_snorkel (17/1/14)

Midnight Brew said:


> (although I dont think we were suppose to drink from cow utters, id be curious to have a time machine and see the first bloke who came up with that idea.)


no, but most races now have an innate tolerance for lactose. further, there are nomadic african tribes who get by (while they're following herd) on small amounts of milk & blood and nothing else, and I doubt this is a recent innovation.


----------



## TimT (17/1/14)

_ Is there any proof that cave men drank alcohol? I cant find any._

When was cave man time again?

Fermentation is a natural process so it would have been discovered fairly early on. Beer - ale - is by some standards a rather difficult alcohol because of the malting and mashing process you have to go through to get the sugars out. But other sugars were available - it's often said that mead is the earliest alcohol. Seems likely, since the honey is a pretty widely available sugar.

That said some of the early theories about the 'first mead' are pretty lame. My mead book by Ken Schramm speculates that an early man was carrying some honey in an animal skin bag to 'give to the alpha human' in his tribe. Right. How does he know that this was their social arrangement? Why even drag this spot of weird sociological speculating into his theory anyway? 

Then again, a Finnish folk song about the making of mead and ale speculates that one of the substances needed to make ale were 'the spit of a bear'. True! (There could be something in that - certainly human spit has an enzyme in it that makes starch break down into sugar, hence the South American 'spit' beers, made out of chewed maize).


----------



## GalBrew (17/1/14)

Humans synthesise their own enzymes funnily enough (some of which are antioxidants more powerful than any dietary ones we may ingest such as vitamin c, e) We do however require a few amino acids and vitamins that we can't make on our own. How eating raw stuff aids this is beyond me. The invention of cooking has allowed humans to develop into the intelligent, all powerful superbeings that we are.


----------



## TimT (17/1/14)

_the intelligent, all powerful superbeings that we are._

Hey, not all of us are beer gods yet.


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (17/1/14)

GalBrew said:


> Which is probably why raw foodists cant understand the benefit of cooking food.


----------



## Midnight Brew (17/1/14)

technobabble66 said:


> Actually, you can occasionally see footage of animals eating slightly rotten fruit and getting drunk. So cave men could've done that.
> 
> All we've done is put it a vessel.
> In a fridge.
> ...


I guess what I meant to say was consumption wouldnt have been relatively high from a guess (if it were fermented fruit) but then again we havnt found literature proof either so who knows. This is of course in reference to those living beyond 10-12,000 years ago (paleo usually refers to 10,000y ago to 2.4? m years ago)



Liam_snorkel said:


> no, but most races now have an innate tolerance for lactose. further, there are nomadic african tribes who get by (while they're following herd) on small amounts of milk & blood and nothing else, and I doubt this is a recent innovation.


I have been reading latley that it seems to be in the last 5000 years we have started to evolve to be tolerant to lactose. Forgive me for not providing a reference and also not sure of the scientific proof behind that reference.

Id still be curious for that time machine to see the first man drinking from the utter. He must of been the initial laughing stock of the whole tribe then later considered somewhat of a genius/hero.


----------



## Mardoo (17/1/14)

I like to eat.


----------



## Liam_snorkel (17/1/14)

the laughing stock who didn't die of malnutrition.


----------



## TimT (17/1/14)

Well you can get meat from cows and goats and sheep too, and a lot of it, so they're desirable animals to have around. I assume people would have known about cow milk for a long time before they started consuming it in large quantities - possibly it was considered of medical benefit originally, or just as an alternative to meat when little of that was available. Cats are supposedly lactose intolerant but they looooooooove cream, certainly ours do. I can see those early humans having similar inclinations - 'I'm not supposed to have this milk but damn it's nice....'

Indeed, only 35 per cent of humans have inherited the gene for lactose tolerance. So that's roughly 2/3rds of humans alive who _aren't_ lactose tolerant!


----------



## Mr. No-Tip (17/1/14)

So wait, the enzymes DIE in our acidic stomach? Wait till I tell the life force theorists that they are killing their precious tummesiahs!

Soylent green is enzymes!


----------



## Liam_snorkel (17/1/14)

TimT said:


> Indeed, only 35 per cent of humans have inherited the gene for lactose tolerance. So that's roughly 2/3rds of humans alive who _aren't_ lactose tolerant!


I said cultures (not a pun), and I also suggest that the selection pressures on humans 5000 years ago are no longer present, certainly not since the exponential growth in the last say 500-1000 years.


----------



## TimT (17/1/14)

Cow _utters_?

An oddly fitting euphemism, considering one of the nicknames for our parts is 'extremities'.


----------



## spryzie (17/1/14)

I think it obvious that a human would know milk comes from tits and drink it.

No complicated theory is needed.


----------



## spryzie (17/1/14)

Oh, and they would have collected milk in a bowl and not sat under the cow sucking.

Duh.


----------



## Liam_snorkel (17/1/14)




----------



## TimT (17/1/14)

Heh. Know the myth of Romulus and Remus?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6a/She-wolf_suckles_Romulus_and_Remus.jpg


----------



## spryzie (17/1/14)

View attachment 67855


Does the image have to have a dark skinned person to have credence?


----------



## Liam_snorkel (17/1/14)

yep.



spryzie said:


> 27_milking_cow.jpeg
> 
> Does the image have to have a dark skinned person to have credence?


of course!


----------



## Bribie G (17/1/14)

Everyone is able to drink milk up until the toddler years when the lactase enzyme is no longer produced, _except _for some populations in Africa and Europe where there was a genetic mutation that arose around 9000 years ago. For example in Turkey and areas to the East, the modern population is descended from Atilla the Hun and Ghengis Khan's mobs who didn't raise cattle. However (edit: since settling down and taking up farming as opposed to pillaging and mayhem) they do consume a lot of dairy as cheese and yogurt where the lactose is fermented out.




Paleo is a great system but modern food is nothing like the foods they would have eaten in the Old Stone Age, meats were leaner and veggies such as cabbage and carrots were mere shadows of the modern varieties, which are a product of Neolothic and then modern farming.

I read about the elderly couple doing daily marathons on a raw diet, in their case they were probably getting all necessary nutrients due to the huge amounts of food they were taking in. As an illustration I used to run 3 or 4 half marathons a week when I was in my 40s and typical food consumption consisted of things like 12 vitabrits in a huge bowl, five oranges, a large tin of salmon with a mound of steamed veg and that was only breakfast.

I hovered around 79 kilos. If I ate that nowadays I'd look like Clive Palmer in a year.


----------



## Airgead (17/1/14)

On the whole cave man alcohol thing, there is a theory gaining some credence in archaeological circles that we didn't start brewing to use up spare production from farming, instead we took up farming to be able to brew more.

There is reasonably good evidence for brewing at a very serious scale in the earliest permanent human settlements. The implication is that we were brewing before we settled down and just scaled it up when we didn't have to carry it round with us.

My opinion (and opinion it is... unsupported by any firm evidence) is that humans never invented brewing. instead we evolved with various forms of alcohol (including from fermented grains... the whole paleo = no grains is rubbish... they ate grains back then they just didn't farm them.. it the whole gatherer part of hunter gatherer) and improved on them as we got smarter. Essentially humans have never not had alcohol. Its been with us since before we were human.

Cheers
Dave


----------



## slcmorro (17/1/14)

Mr. No-Tip said:


> The couple times oven had biltong, I've not enjoyed it all that much. The fat/oil doesn't render or the cuts have too much to begin with. I don't like the mouth coating it gives.
> 
> Also, jerky? Boring? You haven't had my peach lambic habanero death jerky yet, clearly!


Proper biltong is meant to be extremely lean. The stuff I make is cut from whole rump or topside, and is very lean indeed.


----------



## Bribie G (17/1/14)

The Paleo thing isn't that there weren't grains, of course there were, just that when farming came in the population came to base their _entire _diet on grains (plus beans and potatoes after the Columbian Exchange) as we do today.

Anyway we did drink alcohol, Jean Auel of the Clan of the Cave Bear series definitely reports drinking wine from fermented elderberries, as well as producing sunflower margarine from seeds boiled in a skin over a fire, with Jondolar screaming over the horizon on his trail bike made from antlers and mammoth tusks. Who can you trust if not Jean Auel.




She also has a fascination with Jondolar's penis as you can see from her dreamy look.


----------



## GalBrew (17/1/14)

Airgead said:


> Essentially humans have never not had alcohol. Its been with us since before we were human.



All vertebrate species produce the enzyme alcohol dehydrogenase and can therefore metabolise booze, so yeah alcohol has been a foodstuff of the life forms of planet Earth for a while now.


----------



## Midnight Brew (17/1/14)

This thread has evolved into an interesting discussion with some good information in those links.


----------



## TimT (18/1/14)

_Essentially humans have never not had alcohol. Its been with us since before we were human._

I like the theory. I thought when you put it to us yesterday, 'but hang on.... in my book by Stephen Harrod Buhner there is the claim that the only humans who do not ferment are Aboriginal Australians... so presumably that would indicate they came to Australia before we began to ferment things'.

However it would seem that Buhner is mistaken about this (his is not a scientific book, and his expertise isn't in Australian plants), since after a quick google I found this:

_The Aborigines also used fruits like tamarinds and native lime to make refreshing beverages.11 An acid drink was made from the fruit of lawyer cane by squashing the fruit in water, and from breadfruit by soaking it in water.6 Certain flowers rich in nectar were gathered in the early morning and steeped in water. This was drunk fresh and also set aside to ferment.11 Some tribes pounded flowers in a wooden dish, then drained the liquid into another dish and mixed this with the sugary parts of honey ants. This mixture was allowed to ferment for eight to ten days and a brew was made to drink.6 Dried leaves of the red flowering ti tree were added to hot water to produce a tealike beverage.6_

Recently we discovered this white waxy stuff on eucalyptus leaves in our neighbourhood was called 'lerp' and was considered a food source by the original inhabitants - it's a waxy protective coating made from plant sap that has been ingested and exuded by these wee little beasties called psyllids. I did start thinking like a mad brewer at that point, saying to myself, 'now, I'll just scrape off this lerp into water, add a yeast source, and....'


----------



## JDW81 (18/1/14)

Midnight Brew said:


> This thread has evolved into an interesting discussion with some good information in those links.


Nice change from the usual "you're wrong", "no, you're wrong" banter that seems to be par for the course lately…..


----------



## Mr. No-Tip (18/1/14)

So I was prepping to do my honey soy jerky, but I thought I'd get into the spirit of the event and see if I could do something nice without soy, which I believe is pasteurised (let's just pretend I had unprocessed honey).

I ended up doing something like this, but the site made me laugh so hard "As we know, soy is one of the most deadly foods." The hate of legumes among certain subsets of the health food world makes PETA's anti-meat stuff look positively balanced.


----------



## TimT (18/1/14)

Jeepers. Imagine if you were a vegetarian for 'ethical and health reasons' and took those theories seriously. You'd end up ruling out soy (and soy milk, and soy sauce, and tofu) from your diet. What *could* you eat?


----------



## Liam_snorkel (18/1/14)

If consumption was based on guilt we would eat and drink nothing at all.


----------



## Mr. No-Tip (18/1/14)

Liam_snorkel said:


> If consumption was based on guilt we would eat and drink nothing at all.


I feel guilty about not drinking IPAs and Hefes early....more consumption...the one exception?


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (18/1/14)

I think the way human diets have involved is interesting.

The Australian Aboriginal metabolism cant cope with modern western foods, a diet that is higher in sugars and processed fats. One of the issues with there diabeties problem. It is actually a noted and documented issue

And when you look at it, it makes a bit of sense. When you look at the diet that they evolved with over the 40,000 odd years they have been owning this land, it was a diet low in salt,sugers and fat. The animals they ate are generally low in fats and high in protein. The plants available generally where not sugar rich.

A lot different to the european diet that has been introduced, and the one we take for granted.


----------



## Bribie G (18/1/14)

When early settlers arrived in New England they encountered Indigenous Americans who were actually farmers, unlike the plains Indians who hunted Bison and whom we are more familiar with via Hollywood (Apaches etc).

Their favourite feast, a "beanfeast" consisted of a huge fire pit lined with rocks that were heated thoroughly then lined with skins. Then a couple of hundred kilos of beans were poured in, the fat of a whole grizzly bear and many litres of maple syrup. Then covered over with more skins, soil and left for a day until well done.

The settlers report them as being fine healthy specimens, probably more so than the poor starved colonists.


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (18/1/14)

And the first settlers in Australia nearly died from starvation, but the aboriginals where healthy


----------



## Bribie G (18/1/14)

Years ago I remember a TV show about a plane that crashed in the 1930s ? on a beach in the far North of WA, near the NT border. They died while there was an abundance of bush tucker, mussels etc nearby. Probably waiting for Maccas to be invented.


----------



## Liam_snorkel (18/1/14)

Ducatiboy stu said:


> And the first settlers in Australia nearly died from starvation, but the aboriginals where healthy


Well yeah the Dutch and French had been hanging around and basically said **** this place, there's nothing to eat and the natives are hostile. The poms thought it would be a great place to dump the Irish.


----------



## Bribie G (18/1/14)

Inventory of the First Fleet.


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (18/1/14)

Mmm..would be a different country if the first settlesr realised the how awsome this country is...

Now if we could just get the general population to realise how good native animals ( Kangaroo's ) and plants are actually good to eat and healthy.

Sorry, dont agree with this "Coat of Arms" & " But there cute " & " Endangered" attitude towards some species that are able to be used for human consumption and are easly able to be managed on a wide scale


----------



## manticle (18/1/14)

Native/indigenous foodstuffs are the bomb.

was a thing of mine when I worked as a chef but would love to have taken it much further had I continued in the profession.


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (19/1/14)

Kangaroo is prob one of the best meats,low in fat and high in iron .

Bitch to cook, needs to be cooked "rare", due to its lack of fat. 

Emu is the same.


----------



## manticle (19/1/14)

Easy to cook. Just add a different source of fat like extra olive oil or bacon with roo burgers and stick with rare/medium rare. 
Emu is great too. And possum.
And wallaby. And shellfish that's native.

Not tried wombat but don't mind croc.


----------



## Aces High (19/1/14)

I'd stop worrying about the cooked or raw food and consider all the chemicals they spray that raw food you're ingesting with. 

You really need to look at all the lingering chemicals in your food from the round up that monsanto peddle to the farmers to see that raw or cooked makes no difference when there is no nutrition left and only a fuckload (yes that is a term of measurement) of chemicals.

maybe cooking is better as it may just break down some of the lingering glyphosate which is reeking havoc inside our bodies


----------



## Greg.L (19/1/14)

Man my life would be a lot harder without glyphosate. Monsanto lost the rights years ago, it is one of the most useful chemicals ever discovered. I sympathise with people who care about the environment, and I don't like the irresponsible use of pesticides, but glyphosate poisoning is pretty low on my list of things to worry about. It isn't even sprayed on food, except for "roundup ready" crops. Some of the worst pesticides for the environment like pyrethroids are actually very safe for people, I get more worried about the environment that human health. I'm pretty sure my insides aren't reeking with havoc.


----------



## Bribie G (19/1/14)

Problem with kangaroo is that it is low fat. However as Manticle says it can be tricked up with bacon etc. In good times aborigines would let wallabies and kangaroos hop through their camp unmolested while they ate good fatty goanna.
We need good saturated natural fats for our brains and metabolism and particularly in a low carb situation like most hunter gatherers it's essential as you can't make fats from proteins.

American Indians also had a similar problem, they sometimes suffered from "rabbit starvation" at times of year when there were plentiful rabbits but nothing much else.

Anyway, off now for some scrambled eggs cooked in two tablespoons of ghee and washed down with full fat yogurt :icon_drool2:


----------



## Edak (19/1/14)

slcmorro said:


> (and it's a hundred times better than boring old jerky)


then you don't eat Geronimo blazing saddle! That is awesome stuff!


----------



## Mardoo (19/1/14)

I reckon raw food diets could go in the First World Problems thread. Only with such wealth and leisure could we whinge enough about perfect health to concoct ideas like this. 

Regarding Aboriginal problems with Euro diets I read a reference to a study that concluded traditional Aboriginal diets were higher in potassium than sodium, and the Euro diet is the opposite. It said this creates huge issues in the body and IIRC has links to the diabetes problem for Aboriginal folks. I'll see if I can track it down. Think it's on my laptop.


----------



## Edak (19/1/14)

Sorry last post a day out and now OT! Can we slow cook kangaroo on a smoker or something BBQ related? Does that give a tasty dish?


----------



## mr_wibble (19/1/14)

technobabble66 said:


> I think that's pretty solid evidence there was alcohol around at the time.


Source: http://www.reuters.com/article/2009/07/09/us-germany-badger-odd-idUSTRE5683O720090709

_"(Reuters) - A badger in Germany got so drunk on over-ripe cherries it staggered into the middle of a road and refused to budge, police said on Wednesday.
A motorist called police near the central town of Goslar to report a dead badger on a road -- only for officers to turn up and discover the animal alive and well, but drunk.
Police discovered the nocturnal beast had eaten cherries from a nearby tree which had turned to alcohol and given the badger diarrhoea.
Having failed to scare the animal away, officers eventually chased it from the road with a broom."_

QED.

Fruits are covered in wild yeasts, it only takes a break in the skin and fermentation begins.


----------



## mr_wibble (19/1/14)

Liam_snorkel said:


>


We used to do that when we occasionally milked the house-cow as kids.
And shoot it at each other, but we'd get a clip over the ear for that.


----------



## mr_wibble (19/1/14)

Liam_snorkel said:


> If consumption was based on guilt we would eat and drink nothing at all.


Yeah, but I reckon you could eat fruit, because they plant is "paying" you for seed dispersal.
But you'd have to keep the bargain of course, and make like a bear in the woods.


----------



## mr_wibble (19/1/14)

Greg.L said:


> Man my life would be a lot harder without glyphosate. Monsanto lost the rights years ago, it is one of the most useful chemicals ever discovered. I sympathise with people who care about the environment, and I don't like the irresponsible use of pesticides, but glyphosate poisoning is pretty low on my list of things to worry about. It isn't even sprayed on food, except for "roundup ready" crops. Some of the worst pesticides for the environment like pyrethroids are actually very safe for people, I get more worried about the environment that human health. I'm pretty sure my insides aren't reeking with havoc.


Except perhaps mustard. I'm not an expert, but I believe the entire mustard-seed crop is sprayed with a herbicide before it's harvested.
Maybe that's just an English (the country) thing.

-kt


----------



## manticle (19/1/14)

Edak said:


> Sorry last post a day out and now OT! Can we slow cook kangaroo on a smoker or something BBQ related? Does that give a tasty dish?


As long as you have a source of fat and moisture then you can. Similar to any other lean meat being slow cooked.

You can also smoke roo quite quickly so it remains rare/medium rare but still takes on a smoky flavour (hot smoke). I have done this and it is lovely. Basically get hot smoke going in your smoker (I just used an oven tray and cake rack with tea leaves and dry herbs), season roo fillets and throw them on the cake rack). Cover with foil, cook till just rare then remove from heat. Keep foil cover on, let roo rest till rare/medium rare and continue to take on the smokiness.


----------



## Aces High (19/1/14)

Greg.L said:


> Man my life would be a lot harder without glyphosate. Monsanto lost the rights years ago, it is one of the most useful chemicals ever discovered. I sympathise with people who care about the environment, and I don't like the irresponsible use of pesticides, but glyphosate poisoning is pretty low on my list of things to worry about. It isn't even sprayed on food, except for "roundup ready" crops. Some of the worst pesticides for the environment like pyrethroids are actually very safe for people, I get more worried about the environment that human health. I'm pretty sure my insides aren't reeking with havoc.


Not sprayed on food......Really???

http://www.grdc.com.au/~/media/76E91298B77646BBAA36C0D302535B58.pdf


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (19/1/14)

Spraying glyphosate on food crops is self defeating as it is non selective ( exluding GMO roundup ready crops ) and will kill the crop

That document is more in regards to weed control. I can assure you farmers do not spray wheat,barley etc with glyphosate due to the fact it will kill the crop.


----------



## Bribie G (19/1/14)

Roundup, the gardener's friend.


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (19/1/14)

Whiper Sniper in a bottle


----------



## Dave70 (21/1/14)

Mr. No-Tip said:


> Am I missing something, or is the whole raw food caper based on a ridiculous assumption that enzymes LOSE THIER LIFEFORCE about fourty something degrees?


I'd suggest the fact all food consumed basically gets masticated, dropped into a bath of dilute hydrochloric acid followed by an extended seeing to by digestive enzymes makes the whole 'forty degree' assertion kind a moot point anyway. Beside being misinformation. And f*****g dumb.

I hope somebody gets food poisoning and shits their pants.


----------



## Bribie G (21/1/14)

What's your view on people (mostly checkout chicks) who suck on a water bottle all day like it's got a teat. Worked in a call centre with dozens of chicks and they spent half their time running off for a piss.
I guess in prehistoric and even historic times people didn't suck all day. When I were a lad the though of paying for a drink of water would have been laughable.


----------



## lukiferj (21/1/14)

I drink quite a bit of water every day. I'm too cheap to buy it though. We have chilled water at work for free but there's still plenty of people paying for their water at the canteen for some reason. I guess I have a job where it doesn't matter how many times I visit the can a day.


----------



## Parks (21/1/14)

Bribie G said:


> Roundup, the gardener's friend.


I see what you did there


----------



## adryargument (21/1/14)

All this health food shit, creating a group of idiots imo.

I have found out that they are naieve as shit. Avoiding eating bacon to avoid nitrates??? Your celery stick has 3x the amount. Get a clue please, stop believing in what you read on the internet.

(Yes, i live with 3 healthies. No, i don't follow their believes. Yes, i am qualified to say your all crazy.)

Edit: Another thing is that silly (non-cooled) $800 water machine filled with demineralised water and a bunch of 'engineered' rocks. Just to put in the minerals ffthat you take out in the first place. WTF. Im hitting the instant cold tap everyday instead.


----------



## Airgead (21/1/14)

adryargument said:


> Get a clue please, stop believing in what you read on the internet.


I saw this on the internet. Should i believe it? Paradox!


----------



## adryargument (21/1/14)

Airgead said:


> I saw this on the internet. Should i believe it? Paradox!


No, you should go watch star trek and believe what you see on tv.


----------



## Greg.L (21/1/14)

Ducatiboy stu said:


> Whiper Sniper in a bottle


The advantage of roundup is you don't have to disturb the soil (major ecological benefit over tilling the soil) and it leaves a nice mulch to protect the soil. Also a lot less sweat and petrol fumes.


----------



## Dave70 (22/1/14)

Bribie G said:


> What's your view on people (mostly checkout chicks) who suck on a water bottle all day like it's got a teat. Worked in a call centre with dozens of chicks and they spent half their time running off for a piss.
> I guess in prehistoric and even historic times people didn't suck all day. When I were a lad the though of paying for a drink of water would have been laughable.


Seriously, as with all things, we only require 'enough'. Guzzling liters of water beyond the body's needs serves no purpose unless you have some fetish for pissing.
Not really my kettle of fish, but hey, whatever floats your boat. Were they German or Danish lasses by chance? Just curious..

Next to organic produce - not the farmers market version, mind you - I'm convinced someone, somewhere, sitting on the deck of a luxury yacht moored in the marina grande enjoys a giant belly laugh every time some western twat pays for the convenience of drinking tap water from a plastic bottle. 

I freely admit however when travelling in parts of south east Asia or anywhere I was advised to 'not drink the water', I reached for the bottled stuff.
If beer was unavailable, that is.


----------



## manticle (22/1/14)

Bottled water has its uses. Mainly refilling the empty plastic bottle with water from the tap.
I don't much care what other people choose to spend their money on though.


----------



## TimT (22/1/14)

_What's your view on people (mostly checkout chicks) who suck on a water bottle all day like it's got a teat. Worked in a call centre with dozens of chicks and they spent half their time running off for a piss._

No-one has made the obvious observation yet that this is no surprise, as those jobs just suck in general.

Yeah. Sorry. I'll see myself out.


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (22/1/14)

Most bottled water is filtered tap water.

Why is bottled water more expensive than beer or petrol...?

I laugh every time someone goes for the bottled water, knowing full well they are getting ripped of big time.


----------



## stm (22/1/14)

Ducatiboy stu said:


> Kangaroo is prob one of the best meats,low in fat and high in iron .
> 
> Bitch to cook, needs to be cooked "rare", due to its lack of fat.


Very quickly stir-fried chinese style is good. Best kangaroo I have had was from a Chinese restaurant in Sydney.


----------



## stm (22/1/14)

Aces High said:


> maybe cooking is better as it may just break down some of the lingering glyphosate which is reeking havoc inside our bodies


Got any evidence for that? And I don't mean fanciful claims like on the raw food websites.


----------



## mje1980 (22/1/14)

Ducatiboy stu said:


> Most bottled water is filtered tap water.
> Why is bottled water more expensive than beer or petrol...?
> I laugh every time someone goes for the bottled water, knowing full well they are getting ripped of big time.


Know what coca cola makes on $3 something bottle of coke?. Probably not much less than the water people, maybe even more, and it's probably 95% water. Buying bottled water might be stupid but if I'm out and about and need to drink something most of the time I'd rather water than a shed load of sugar ( or sugar alcohols ) and god knows what other chemicals.


----------



## Dave70 (22/1/14)

No need to feel stoopid anymore..


----------



## TimT (22/1/14)

Reminds me of that brand, 'Conscious Chocolate'. So, you mean the chocolate is actually aware of its surroundings?


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (22/1/14)

I will stick to dumb tank water.


----------



## Mardoo (22/1/14)

TimT said:


> Reminds me of that brand, 'Conscious Chocolate'. So, you mean the chocolate is actually aware of its surroundings?



It's feels you consume it wholly, and may or may not choose to comment on the experience.


----------



## Dunkelbrau (2/2/14)

TimT said:


> Well you can get meat from cows and goats and sheep too, and a lot of it, so they're desirable animals to have around. I assume people would have known about cow milk for a long time before they started consuming it in large quantities - possibly it was considered of medical benefit originally, or just as an alternative to meat when little of that was available. Cats are supposedly lactose intolerant but they looooooooove cream, certainly ours do. I can see those early humans having similar inclinations - 'I'm not supposed to have this milk but damn it's nice....'
> 
> Indeed, only 35 per cent of humans have inherited the gene for lactose tolerance. So that's roughly 2/3rds of humans alive who _aren't_ lactose tolerant!


A big part of it is lactase, an enzyme which is denatured in pastuerisation and naturally found in milk. It's added in now to make lactose free milk.

It naturally breaks down lactose in milk to make it more digestible. Maybe that's why 2/3rds of us can't consume lactose?

Human breast milk was the only form of food for us as babies, so our body produced lactase, as we started to eat more solid foods, we ended up not producing lactase naturally and we never drank milk again..

Human breast milk has twice the lactose as cows surprisingly!

The cultured European butters and yoghurt bought in australia should all have a lot less lactose (if any dependant on product) than the non cultured dairy foods because of live cultures and enzymes that will break lactase down for us.

I'm willing to say it's not genetic, it's human interference with the natural way things are - sure milk can be dangerous if farmed in unsanitary conditions and blended from multiple farms. But straight from the cow into a clean bucket.. Nothing is more pure, take what you need, leave the rest for the calf!

If I could buy raw milk for consumption, I'd be gettin my fiancé to drink it and see how she goes (she's lactose intolerant).


----------



## Bribie G (2/2/14)

2/3 of the human race may be lactose intolerant, but the vast majority of Europeans and Australians (to name 2) are quite capable of digesting lactose due to that gene mutation. Lucky for us otherwise the demand for milk worldwide would probably put milk up to five bucks a litre.


----------



## un3735928559 (2/2/14)

TimT said:


> Reminds me of that brand, 'Conscious Chocolate'. So, you mean the chocolate is actually aware of its surroundings?


They're trying to tap into the anti-vego market.


----------

