Quote:
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. :biglaugh: |
This is all I could find that doesn't have Mercola's stink on it LOL..
Quote:
|
Here's another..
Quote:
Quote:
|
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 :biglaugh:. 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 :biglaugh: |
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
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 :biglaugh: 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 :) |
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 |
Quote:
Edit: And you better not take offense to that as that's not what I'm trying to convey! :biglaugh: Quote:
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:
|
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! :D
|
All times are GMT -8. The time now is 06:23 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.