Go Back   Bodybuilding Forum - Bodybuilding.net > Bodybuilding Forum > Nutrition

Raw Eggs for Your Health -- Major Update

Nutrition discussion on Raw Eggs for Your Health -- Major Update, within the Bodybuilding Forum; Five ileostomy patients were studied Is there anything out there that doesn't have someone with a health problems? I just ...


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 08-22-2007, 04:27 AM   #21
Darkhorse
Rank: Light Heavyweight
Experience: 7-10 Years
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: CA
Posts: 4,174
Country:

Gender:
Send a message via Yahoo to Darkhorse
Default

Quote:
Five ileostomy patients were studied
Is there anything out there that doesn't have someone with a health problems? I just googled what the hell ileostomy means lol. Now, I don't believe the surgery itself (putting the intestine through the stomach) has anything to do with digestion per say (not sure), but I'm wondering what effects on digestion (if any) could these factor's have?

I tried all morning and couldn't find any studies besides this one. I'm looking because there's a lot of stuff both for and against eating raw foods in general.. Mainly all for safety purposes, and aside from this one study, there's nothing conclusive about assimilation of proteins raw vs. cooked aside from one study with patients that are having ileostomy surgery. Not that it matters, but I DO find it interesting though since I've been using my morning/night shakes for a long time now. Good food for thought for everyone who has been doing this for years and were wondering if it's safe/effective..

I think to sum it up, I believe that it's beneficial from the standpoint of being time efficient and extremely filling/tasty to add a few eggs into your protein shakes. Hands down. And supposing that study was accurate, if you throw in 5 eggs with your 45 gram protein shake and digest half the protein in the eggs, that still boosts your shake up to 15 more grams of slow digesting proteins.. As for the digestibility, IMHO it's probably better to cook them if you plan on having a MEAL out of them. Not only due to the greater assimilation, but also from the health standpoint of your digestive system as a whole (trying to suck down 12 raw eggs in a sitting lol is not an attractive idea).

I'm just going to post everything I can find on this subject just to make for a thorough thread.

Last edited by Darkhorse; 08-22-2007 at 06:19 AM..

Darkhorse's Sig:
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


I can be found at
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Darkhorse is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Share on Facebook
Reply With Quote
Old 08-22-2007, 05:16 AM   #22
Darkhorse
Rank: Light Heavyweight
Experience: 7-10 Years
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: CA
Posts: 4,174
Country:

Gender:
Send a message via Yahoo to Darkhorse
Default

This is all I could find that doesn't have Mercola's stink on it LOL..

Quote:
Raw Fresh Produce vs. Cooked Food
by Arthur M. Baker


Scientific Research: Denaturation: What Cooking Does to Protein

Cooking denatures protein. According to Encyclopedia Britannica, denaturation is a modification of the molecular structure of protein by heat or by an acid, an alkali, or ultraviolet radiation that destroys or diminishes its original properties and biological activity.

Denaturation alters protein and makes it unusable or less usable. According to Britannica, protein molecules are readily altered by heat:  Unlike simple organic molecules, the physical and chemical properties of protein are markedly altered when the substance is boiled in water. Further: All of the agents able to cause denaturat-ion are able to break the secondary bonds that hold the chains in place. Once these weak bonds are broken, the molecule falls into a disorganized tangle devoid of biological function.

According to Britannica the most significant effect of protein denaturation is the loss of the its biological function. For example, enzymes lose their catalytic powers and hemoglobin loses its capacity to carry oxygen.  The changes that accom-pany denaturation have been shown to result from destruction of the specific pattern in which the amino acid chains are folded in the native protein.

This is why the term dead food, referring to cooked food, is often stated. A result of denaturation is lowered solubility. In the case of egg white, a gel or coagulum is formed when heat is applied, thereby forming enzyme resistant linkages that inhibit the separation of constituent amino acids.

Proteins Coagulate

You can see coagulation of protein take place on a macroscopic level when you fry an egg. The clear protein gel surrounding the yolk whitens, thickens, and coagulates into a glue-like consistency. Digestive enzymes (peptones and proteases) cannot readily break down coagulated protein molecules once they fuse together. Not only are heated proteins unavailable to your body, worse yet: the indigestible, coagulated protein molecules tend to putrefy as bacteria in the body feed upon this dead organic matter. Bacterial enzymatic by-products are carcinogenic. Coagulation occurs on a microscopic level in all cooked protein molecules whether witnessed or not.

In Britannica is the acknowledgement that cooking destroys protein to make it practically useless. Utilize raw fruits, vegetables, nuts and seeds as your source of protein (amino acids). By eating The Fresh Produce Diet, you are assured of maximum biological value of protein and other consumed nutrients. (For further detail, see: The Truth About Protein and The China Project: Avoid Animal Protein).

As you consume more fresh produce as a staple, the body progressively requires less food. As you eat more nutrient rich raw food, the body steadily becomes healthier, and its metabolic efficiency increases. So does its ability to absorb and assimilate more nutriment. Only about one-half the amount of protein if eaten raw from protein plant food is necessary (via nuts and seeds) rather than from cooked animal protein.

Last edited by Darkhorse; 08-22-2007 at 05:54 AM..
Darkhorse is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Share on Facebook
Reply With Quote
Old 08-22-2007, 05:26 AM   #23
Darkhorse
Rank: Light Heavyweight
Experience: 7-10 Years
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: CA
Posts: 4,174
Country:

Gender:
Send a message via Yahoo to Darkhorse
Default

Here's another..

Quote:
Optimum Nutrition: Cooked or Raw?
c. 2004 Susun S Weed


Click Here

Research done by Dr. Pottenger in the mid-twentieth century revealed that raw meat and milk contained enzymes necessary for digestion. He showed that heat deactivated their enzymes. His conclusion was that raw meat, fish, milk and eggs provide more nutrients and are more easily digested.
At least here's one that says food is getting safer:

Quote:
TAKING A BITE OUT OF FOOD-BORNE ILLNESSES
After increasing in the 1990s, food-borne illnesses are now on a sharp decline, according to a report from the Centers for Disease Control.

Between 1996 and 2004, the most severe type of food-borne illness -- E. coli 0157 infections -- decreased by 42 percent to less than one case per 100,000 people.

Listeria, found in raw milk, soft cheeses and raw vegetables, has dropped by 40 percent.

Campylobacter, found in raw chicken, has dropped 31 percent, while yersinia, found in meat, oysters, fish and raw milk, decreased 45 percent.

Salmonella, found in raw eggs, fell by 8 percent.

Observers attribute increased training and oversight in food factories, greater consumer awareness, and testing and safety measures based on those used by NASA to keep food on moon flights safe from bacteria and toxin.

However, vibrio, found in raw shellfish, has increased by 47 percent. The Food and Drug Administration is unsure what is causing the increase, but new processing technologies that can eliminate vibrio have not yet been widely adopted.

Source: Elizabeth Weise, "Food-borne Illnesses Decline Dramatically," USA Today, April 18, 2005.
Darkhorse is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Share on Facebook
Reply With Quote
Old 08-22-2007, 09:09 AM   #24
EricT
Rank: Heavyweight
Experience: 7-10 Years
 
EricT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 6,314
Country:

Gender:
Default

Without having read through the posts, which I will in a minute, I can say that part of this raw vs. cooked food thing for me is the dealing in absolutes. That is where the raw food AND the cooked food people go wrong. Whatever the limitations of the egg study or any other study may be (and you can't find a study without limitations) different foods react differently to different things. There is no absolute answer and this has been shown in many ways..

Some foods nutrients become more available when you heat them and some less. When you are dealing with macronutrients it still varys. For this I was ONLY talking about eggs, personally, and not saying there weren't many foods that would be much more nutritious raw. Many of the vitamins in our vegetables are damaged or downright destroyed by cooking. On the other hand it's been found that certain nutrients become more available. For intstance cooked carrots have some major advantages over raw. Cooked tomatoes can be advantageous. At the same time there is always a downside and you can be giving up a little. And the method of cooking and the degree make a difference.

If you were to start eating raw meat, well you wouldn't digest it as well as some degree of cooking. On the other hand overcooked meat may be problematic too. In the case of proteins, yes, there has been some very small cases where whole proteins were supposedly absorbed as in certain enzymes but it is extremely limited. If such is the case then denaturing those proteins would not be good. But if you go around eating animal proteins raw all you're really doing is giving up a lot of the protein and setting bacteria to work in your gut on the extremely off chance that there is some healthful enzyme or something to be had in an "active" form.

The enzyme thing in raw protein foods is one of those things clung to by the "raw food gurus" one of which is that Arthur Baker guy above. Nothing really accurate or scientific about that. You can't just say that all proteins are made uavailable by cooking without proving it with individual foods. The enzymes that are supposed to be there would only be active in the gut but they would be "destroyed" by the stomach acid in the first place. You'll notice, just like Mercola, these people like to call on ancient research. Twentieth century as the 1900's. Yeah that's where I want my nutrition knowledge from.

They do it for a reason. They want you to think that "modern" nutritional science is a sham. Like I called it before the "conspiracy theory of nutrition". It's a scaremongering tactic designed to cover up the fact they have no credentials or research of their own to back up what they say. So they call on the wisdom of the ancients . Back when coca cola was a health tonic and a good dose of sugar was supposed to make you live longer.

It is very clear that certain proteins are made more available to us when denatured. Shit half the stuff we cook it should be enough to know you can hardly chew the stuff without cooking it. And chewing is the beginning of digestion. We're not dogs and cats who can basically "wolf" down our food all the time.

Comparing us to other species is the other way they do it. Arthur Baker makes a big thing about us being the only animal who processes their food. And then says that we feed cats and dogs processed heat treated food thus giving them "human" illnesses like cancer. Which is just ridiculous. Cancer is all over the animal kingdom. It is not unique to humans in any way. A cat or a dog can get cancer or kidney disease and frequently does and it is quite possible to see that in the wild. But what he doesn't mention is that cats or dogs wouldn't normally LIVE LONG ENOUGH to have a problem with this. But WE HAVE EXTENDED average lifespan of our pets in general. You won't see lions in the wild usually dying because their kidneys wear out. You see more of these diseases in domesticated pets for two reasons:

1. Living longer in general is going to increase your chances of seeing something like cancer.

2. Selevtive breeding which breeds in weakness. For instance Boxers seem to be very prone to bone cancer. And not because of what we feed them.

But why do the raw food gurus say stuff like this which is basically uniformed assumptions? Scaremongering like I said before. They can present a reasoned scientiific argument so they try to frighten you in to excepting their views by overstating pretty much everything.

It reminds me of Mercola talking about dogs or cats getting salmonella or something. Your dog is very likely to be able to eat a piece of spoiled meat with not problem. His stomach acid is much stronger and most food borne pathogens simply die.

But there are lots of people who have tried raw food diets even to the extent of eating raw meat and eggs. And hardly anybody sticks to it. Probably because of the diarrhea

Last edited by EricT; 08-22-2007 at 10:36 AM..

EricT's Sig:
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.



To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
or
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


If you act sanctimonious I will just list out your logical fallacies until you get pissed off and spew blasphemous remarks.
EricT is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Share on Facebook
Reply With Quote
Old 08-22-2007, 10:28 AM   #25
Darkhorse
Rank: Light Heavyweight
Experience: 7-10 Years
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: CA
Posts: 4,174
Country:

Gender:
Send a message via Yahoo to Darkhorse
Default

Quote:
You'll notice, just like Mercola, these people like to call on ancient research. Twentieth century as the 1900's. Yeah that's where I want my nutrition knowledge from.
Actually, go back another 100,000 years.. Read the sources at the bottom. But again, we keep arriving at the same place every time. One case study with unhealthy patients, and two or three articles that quote books that are called, "Ancient Origins of Fire Use." There's nothing compelling about any of it IMHO.

Quote:
But there are lots of people who have tried raw food diets even to the extent of eating raw meat and eggs. And hardly anybody sticks to it. Probably because of the diarrhea
Diarrhea from raw meat certainly. But as I was doing my research, it was very clear that there are a lot of people who stick to raw veggies, eggs, ect. But this topic is about raw eggs, and a quick search around bodybuilding specific forums everywhere prove many people have been doing it for years, with an abundance upwards of 10-15 per day! Is it effective? Is it safe? To each his own and let results light the way! Maybe someday they'll do a study worthy to talk about.
Darkhorse is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Share on Facebook
Reply With Quote
Old 08-22-2007, 10:36 AM   #26
Darkhorse
Rank: Light Heavyweight
Experience: 7-10 Years
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: CA
Posts: 4,174
Country:

Gender:
Send a message via Yahoo to Darkhorse
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Eric
If you don't cook your eggs you are giving up as much as FORTY percent of the protein. If I've got the math right, which is not my strong suit. Basically cooked eggs are used with about 92% efficiency and raw eggs with 52%.
BTW, I must add that what you said in your initial post I also found in wikipedia. Unfortunately, lol, guess where wikipedia gets that information from:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wikipedia
In addition, the protein in raw eggs are only 51% bio-available, whereas a cooked egg is nearer 91% bio-available, meaning the protein of cooked eggs is nearly twice as absorbable as the protein from raw eggs.[1]

^ Evenepoel, P., Geypens, B., Luypaerts, A., Hiele, M., Ghoos, Y., & Rutgeerts, P. (1998). Digestibility of Cooked and Raw Egg Protein in Humans as Assessed by Stable Isotope Techniques. The Journal of Nutrition, 128 (10), 1716-1722. abstract
Goes to show that there isn't much out there!
Darkhorse is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Share on Facebook
Reply With Quote
Old 08-22-2007, 10:48 AM   #27
EricT
Rank: Heavyweight
Experience: 7-10 Years
 
EricT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 6,314
Country:

Gender:
Default

Well I disagree that the study on eggs is not worth talking about. You forget that it COMPARED the two in these patients. It didn't compare them eating raw eggs to "healthy" people with raw eggs. It compared the subjects to the subjects and I'm sure there were controls. Even if YOU were able to digest either better it is still clear that raw egg protein is not AS available. So I think the study is very valid. I understand that you feel that what you are doing if fine and effective and that's OK with me! But the data is there.

NOW I didn't get the study from Wikepedia I got it from pubmed. Wikepedia sucks but a valid source is a valid source. Just because a bad resource uses a study as a source it doens't mean the source is bad. Some people on wikepedia probably write well research stuff but it gets bastardized. But I think you are saying there are just not many references out there on raw eggs.

I still think that one ACTUAL study on raw eggs trumps "all the guys out there who do it with NO PROBLEM". Lots guys out there do most all of their exercises wrong with NO PROBLEM. No problem nowk, that is. It doesn't mean much to me. Again, I'm not trying to convince you to stop. I'm just saying that lot's of guys doing something doesn't mean anything much to me.

As far as veges....hell yeah, lots of veges are good raw. But like I said before some veges become better for us cooked. On reason is because we have a hard time liberating some of the nutrients from certain plants. There is not simple answer and I think it is best to eat a combination of raw and cooked food. I mean raw potatoes are not a good idea. Go ahead and try it (just as an example).

Like you said though this is about raw eggs! Getting into a raw food thing could fill a book
EricT is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Share on Facebook
Reply With Quote
Old 08-22-2007, 10:49 AM   #28
Darkhorse
Rank: Light Heavyweight
Experience: 7-10 Years
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: CA
Posts: 4,174
Country:

Gender:
Send a message via Yahoo to Darkhorse
Default

I kinda took what he was saying about cancer is true in the sense that cooking it DOES increase carcinogens although it's blown WAAAY out of proportion.

http://www.pcrm.org/health/reports/worst_grill.html
Darkhorse is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Share on Facebook
Reply With Quote
Old 08-22-2007, 10:51 AM   #29
Darkhorse
Rank: Light Heavyweight
Experience: 7-10 Years
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: CA
Posts: 4,174
Country:

Gender:
Send a message via Yahoo to Darkhorse
Default

Quote:
It compared the subjects to the subjects and I'm sure there were controls.
Isn't the whole point of a study is to provide these things? I just fail to see why they didn't use healthy subjects and not ones with digestive problems (even if the latter half of the digestive system). Personally, nothing against what you believe, I need more than a single "comprehensive end all" study on unhealthy subjects. That's like that guy Bobo from AM using one or two rat studies as a definitive "I'm right". BTW, I'm not comparing the two of you LOL!

Edit: And you better not take offense to that as that's not what I'm trying to convey!

Quote:
Even if YOU were able to digest either better it is still clear that raw egg protein is not AS available.
110% my point exactly. We need more than 5 unhealthy test subjects IMHO.

Is it less? Absolutely agreed. But again, I'm not fighting to say that it's as or more bioavailable raw vs. cooked whatsoever! I'm saying it's still extremely beneficial to use raw eggs in your shakes. If I put in 5 eggs and get a return of 15-20 grams protein, then I'll walk out of here with a smile on my face. If I have the time though to make a meal out of eggs, I'll definately cook them..

Quote:
I still think that one ACTUAL study on raw eggs trumps "all the guys out there who do it with NO PROBLEM".
I'm the opposite as I see it as one study vs. the masses.. It's hard to find that conclusive either way.. But I totally see your point!
Darkhorse is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Share on Facebook
Reply With Quote
Old 08-22-2007, 11:00 AM   #30
Darkhorse
Rank: Light Heavyweight
Experience: 7-10 Years
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: CA
Posts: 4,174
Country:

Gender:
Send a message via Yahoo to Darkhorse
Default

Lol, by the way, I think as we continue modifying our posts at the same time, it may be beneficial to refresh the page every once in a while!
Darkhorse is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Share on Facebook
Reply With Quote
Reply

  Bodybuilding Forum - Bodybuilding.net > Bodybuilding Forum > Nutrition


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 10:30 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.