Blog

2

Between 1932 and 1942, Francis M. Pottenger, Jr., M.D., conducted a multi-generation nutrition study on cats with the goal of applying what he learned to human nutrition since cats also have mammalian biology. He published a book called,

Pottenger's Cats: A Study in Nutrition

In his study he fed one group of cats a raw meat diet and the other group a cooked diet. In a third group he fed 1/3 raw and 2/3 cooked. He noted that the cats fed the raw meat diet thrived while the cats on cooked meats/protein exhibited infertility, emotional imbalance and degenerative conditions noted in examinations of their skeletons.

I want to share with you a YouTube documentary of this study. It only takes a couple minutes to watch it. You will have to fast-forward to 3:00 minutes to watch the Pottenger study. The first part of the video talks about Weston A. Price and his studies on dental health in hunter gatherers. Here it is:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XPCOGSnjP5w

So are you more open to raw-Paleo after having watched this video?

Theory alert:

My take in considering raw proteins vs. cooked is the mechanism that alters the protein molecules must be the same in order to draw a direct comparison. An extreme heating of protein should theoretically yield a different outcome than the biological process of denaturation via gastric juice. One method of protein-bond breaking uses heat, the other depends on enzymes that exist due to evolution. Therefore I don't think the cooking process should be equated with digestive denaturation.

Beyond the basic contrast between heat reactions and enzyme activity, it's possible that while cooking unravels protein it also destroys a high percentage of amino acid blocks, rendering them useless and thus degrading the quality of the protein source whereas digestive denaturation mainly unravels the amino acid blocks while leaving a much higher percentage of them intact and usable.

EDIT:

Also for further research, consider this example where heat destorys the essential amino acids lysine, arginine and tryptophan:

"Protein-bound lysine has been known for several years to be inactivated by heat so that it is not nutritionally available."

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-2621.1951.tb17398.x/abstract

flag
2 
IMHO this isn't even a real question. It's looking for validation, not debate, which isn't what this site is about. – Bread-Eating Beelzebub Aug 7 2011 at 21:56
If that is your opinion, then I guess it's officially a debate. – BAMBAM Aug 7 2011 at 21:59
It is a real question in my opinion. – BAMBAM Aug 7 2011 at 22:02
To please Melissa (and the others) here is her dream-boat's article on glutathione westonaprice.org/blogs/2010/09/11/… It is destroyed with harsh cooking and there is a lot of it in meat. I would consider this better than arguments from cats and amino acids, since nobody seems to suffer from a protein deficiency and cats aren't humans. – Stabby Aug 7 2011 at 22:34
4 
I am a huge fan of raw meat, I'm not a fascist, but I'm annoyed when people ask a question like "Am I totally right or totally right?" without being openminded that they might be wrong. – Bread-Eating Beelzebub Aug 7 2011 at 23:34
show 1 more comment

8 Answers

10

I don't mean to be rude, but I thought it was well known that Pottinger's results in these studies have been attributed solely to the fact that taurine's role in feline health had not been discovered at that time. Adequate taurine is essential for cats to breed and live, and cats who are deficient in taurine will sicken and die in the ways Pottinger details. Cooking destroys taurine. 'Live' taurine is added to all commercial cat foods after they have been heated. Feed your indoor cat only pastured cooked meat - it will eventually get ill from taurine deficiency.

Humans do not have this problem. We and most other mammals can make our own taurine.

ETA: Anyway for me it's less a matter of an open mind, and more a matter of closed sphincters. My body 'dumps' any but small amounts of well-masticated raw foods.

link|flag
This may only be well-known to me because I haven't fed my pets commercial pet food in 6 years, and all the information about 'real food' diets for pets cautions against feeding your cats a wholly cooked diet because of the taurine issue. – animalcule Aug 8 2011 at 18:59
8

I think that we shouldn't overcook our foods, but I've seen no evidence suggesting that light cooking of meat is detrimental to health. These are cats, not humans. Cats have never, ever, cooked foods, whereas humans have been using fire for quite some time. That's a pretty key difference and probably explains why cats do so poorly when their food is cooked.

link|flag
Rats are not humans either but they are mammals and data collected through clinical trials using rats does carry credibility in the scientific community. Do you think it's worth a little self-experimentation? I mean, I've tried raw Paleo and I can say that I seemed to have better hormonal balance and mood while eating raw proteins vs. cooked meats. I guess I'm not so quick to dismiss a study that uses mammals as its subject. And this was a decade long study on top of it. I think it deserves more than instant dismissal. – BAMBAM Aug 7 2011 at 19:59
4 
No one said you can't experiment on yourself, why do you seem so offended by other peoples opinions? I've got no desire to eat raw meat personally either but if you want to, have at it! – HeatherC Aug 7 2011 at 20:18
I'm not offended at all but I will point out, if it is found that raw-meats are vital and requirements for essential amino acids much higher than originally believed, it would force agribusiness to completely restructure meat production methods so that contaminations linked to corn and soybean fed cattle and livestock would fall under mass scrutiny. We have a perfectly legitimate study here. That's my only point of contention. – BAMBAM Aug 7 2011 at 20:24
edit: "wouldn't" fall under mass scrutiny. – BAMBAM Aug 7 2011 at 20:38
4 
This reminds me of the study where rabbits were fed cholesterol. They subsequently developed atherosclerosis. This does not suggest that humans should not eat cholesterol, even though rabbits are mammals. Rabbits are not designed to eat cholesterol, cats are not designed to eat cooked food. I don't know of any traditional culture or any place in history where humans have preferred to eat raw and have done so consistently. – mari Aug 7 2011 at 21:22
show 3 more comments
8

Cat's are not humans!

Read that: http://www.beyondveg.com/tu-j-l/raw-cooked/raw-cooked-1h.shtml

Probably it was the taurine deficiency due to cooking which caused the degenerative conditions in the cats fed cooked meat, not cooked meat per se.

For hundreds of generations cats today are fed cooked crap and it seems they are still able to reproduce and live more ore less healthy, so it is extreme unlikey that cooked meat in general is responsible for diseases in cats.

Humans have apparently adopted a cooked diet, anthropologic evidence indicates that our growing brain size was linked with advanced cooking processes, ie. the controlled use of fire, thus higher caloric intake, and eating the fat from hunted animals. (Wrangham)

However, eating raw-paleo is still something I want to try before leaving this realm of existence.

link|flag
3 
Bam, while we can use other mammals in experiments, it certainly doesn't mean that we can use them for any experiment. When the objection is valid like that humans have a long history of cooking and cats don't, we have to realize the limitations. – Stabby Aug 7 2011 at 20:17
5 
also cats are carnivores, we are omnivores. So it's better to use omnivore mammals like rats. – Primordial Aug 7 2011 at 20:18
2 
Why would any of that matter? The issue is whether we have reason to suspect that humans have adapted to cooking whereas cats haven't. We do so it makes no sense to use an animal study. – Stabby Aug 7 2011 at 21:22
2 
That meat is still edible when raw means that we didn't miraculously develop an adaptation to make food NOT edible when it is raw, of course we wouldn't. Sorry to burst the bubble but an animal study when the evolutionary history of humans is one where humans cooked their food and cats didn't. That doesn't mean that there isn't such thing as too much cooking, it just means that the argument isn't a valid one based on the cats. That should be a no-brainer. – Stabby Aug 7 2011 at 21:28
2 
If tryptophan is all destroyed why doesn't anybody in the western world have a tryptophan deficiency? There is literally no evidence for protein deficiencies in North America, but according to these people who made a video everyone should be dead. – Stabby Aug 7 2011 at 21:56
show 16 more comments
7

i don't feel more open to eating raw meat based on this video.

i would be more open to eating raw meat if i had more confidence in the system that brings that meat to me for consumption.

link|flag
I hear you loud and clear on that one. Raw wild caught fish is easier but it gets scary when you're talking about beef. It must be grass-fed and you really have to scrutinize the farmer/farm producing it. It's important to find out where they butcher it. Marination in weak acid (vinegar or citrus) offers some protection. – BAMBAM Aug 7 2011 at 21:23
good to know. i imagine thinly shaved beef with a dash of chipolte and lime would be wonderful – sage_ Aug 7 2011 at 22:25
2

My personal view is it also applies to humans. I digest raw meat much better than cooked. Cooked meat stays in my stomach much longer than raw. Also there are plenty of ethnic dishes that still use raw meat, organs, fish, other sea food, snails, insects. I only cook bones to make broth and eggs because I don't like taste of raw eggs. And finally raw meat is very bland so that I don't get tired of it. I can eat raw lamb three times a day for weeks. Cooked lamb on the other hand gets tiring very quickly. There is definitely something about raw meat that gets lost during cooking. I don't advocate raw, it's just my body likes it more than cooked.

link|flag
How do you avoid bacterial contamination? Do you just buy some typical meat and eat it raw? Isn't it chewy? – Primordial Aug 7 2011 at 20:37
From what I understand about the lethal strands of e-coli is that they occur in feedlot livestock and cattle, not in grass-fed. The bacteria feeds on metabolic wastes from foods not conducive to cow's biology. The corn sits in the colon and contributes to e-coli growth. – BAMBAM Aug 7 2011 at 20:41
1 
I would never eat raw meat form Walmart. I only eat raw from known sources or butcher it myself when I buy half cow or when hunting. In two years of mostly raw I never experienced any infections. Meat itself is sterile, it's the dirty butchering that contaminates it. – aaa Aug 7 2011 at 21:04
2 
@BAMBAM - Lethal E. coli strains grow just as happily in grass-fed cows. – Matt Aug 7 2011 at 21:07
Yes, some connective tissues are very rubbery. If I have time I work out my jaws or I simply discard them. Pure muscle meat is somewhat soft, kind of like sashimi, but not that soft. – aaa Aug 7 2011 at 21:07
show 2 more comments
1

I'd say that few of us are at risk of developing a protein deficiency, and if the issue is nutrient degradation, then I'm sure that the difference between those cats would be minor if it were raw meat & raw liver vs. cooked meat & cooked liver.

link|flag
"In his effort to maximize the preoperative health of his laboratory animals, Francis fed them a diet of market grade raw milk, cod liver oil and cooked meat scraps from the sanitarium. These scraps included the liver, tripe, sweetbreads, brains, heart and muscle. This diet was considered to be rich in all the important nutritive substances by the experts of the day" whale.to/a/pottenger.html – BAMBAM Aug 7 2011 at 21:21
"by the experts of the day" - Between 1932 and 1942. I wonder exactly how many discoveries have been made in both feline and human nutrition since then. – Karen Aug 7 2011 at 22:39
I'm not saying that you are wrong re raw (that's a separate issue right now) but that you are using very poor quality evidence. – Karen Aug 7 2011 at 22:41
1

I think they're referring more to denatured foods like pasteurized milk and "dead," unfermented, nutritionally-void foods you would find on the grocery store shelf. Even basic store-bought foods that are traditionally made through a fermentation process like yogurt, sauerkraut and pickles - are pasteurized before they make it to the store shelf. Homemade chicken stock is not anything like its bouillon cube counterpart at the grocery store. Hell, they're even pasteurizing some brands of eggs now. :/

As for raw meat, as others have pointed out, we're not cats. Humans evolved cooking meat; cats did not. That said, I think current generations have been taught to overcook meat (perhaps in response to the dangers of undercooked, conventionally-raised cattle who were sick at slaughter). Personally, I grew up loving the taste of the char that comes on well-done steaks and burgers. I do think that the rarer you can stand your meat (provided it's from a healthy source - if it's not, then feel free to nuke it. Or not eat it.) the better. I'm now a medium rare person, so hopefully that - along with my fermented and lacto-fermented creations - are enough!

link|flag
0

No, Pottenger's study does not open my mind to raw paleo — partly because my mind wasn't closed to it in the first place, and partly because my favorable opinion of raw foods has nothing to do with Pottenger's study.

link|flag

Your Answer

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.