How our bodies are fooled....

[NoTiGG]

I have always wondered how it could be that millions of years of evolution could have lead us to have such a tendency to select foods... such as white breads and sugars.. to the detriment of our health. I thought that when something tastes good to us.. it is usually healthier than something that doesn't taste good. For instance a rare piece of cooked meat.. will taste better than a completely charred burnt piece of meat.. and obviously it is healthier too. So if our body is so wise in that respect why does it fail so much in others?

And the answer is because not only do we instinctually know what is healthier... we are instinctually attracted to foods that are easier to digest. This is especially true for kids who don't have as many taste buds.. and can't taste all the nuances in the food... for instance such as all of the flavors in a sprouted piece of ezekiel bread... as opposed to just white bread.

In a way I believe this instinct has helped us. It is theorized that cooking food.. lead to the large increase in brain size because it took us alot less energy afterwards to digest our food... and our brains currently utilize around 25% of our energy or thereabouts. '

I think the key to health is finding this balance.. of being easy to digest... but also still nourishing.
Anyways just thought I would share

[LoMaH]

Originally Posted by NoTiGG

I have always wondered how it could be that millions of years of evolution could have lead us to have such a tendency to select foods... such as white breads and sugars.. to the detriment of our health. I thought that when something tastes good to us.. it is usually healthier than something that doesn't taste good. For instance a rare piece of cooked meat.. will taste better than a completely charred burnt piece of meat.. and obviously it is healthier too.
So if our body is so wise in that respect why does it fail so much in others?

Perhaps the following will answer your question.

Weston Price wrote a letter to his nieces and nephews advising them on what to eat based on his findings.
In his letter, the reason he gave for us being drawn to certain foods was that:

**We have a sense of hunger which expresses itself as appetite and we eat until this is satisfied, but this only applies to the part of our food which produces power and heat.
We have almost no sense of hunger for the minerals and other chemicals and vitamins that are needed for building new and repairing old tissues.**

http://www.westonaprice.org/The-Right-Price.html

[NoTiGG]

Power and heat is energy.... easier to digest means the least amount of energy it takes to digest... in a way I think we both are saying the same thing. He must be a genius!

[LoMaH]

Originally Posted by NoTiGG

Power and heat is energy.... easier to digest means the least amount of energy it takes to digest... in a way I think we both are saying the same thing. He must be a genius!

I'm not sure that we are attracted to more digestible foods. For example, raw egg yolks (cultured veggies, etc.) are supposed to be easier to digest, but some people are repulsed by them. I don't think processed foods are easier to digest although we can get quick energy (sugar) from them.

WP concluded that as long as we get power and heat from food, our appetite will be satisfied even when we don't receive sufficient nutrients. That's why he stressed the importance of choosing good quality nutrient dense foods. Traditional peoples passed on this wisdom from generation to generation because it's not an instinct.
Once we lose that wisdom, we'll just eat whatever fills our bellies and not what rebuilds our bodies.

[NoTiGG]

It's a mistake to think that raw egg yolks are easier to digest... in that they require less energy. Raw things take more energy to digest.. cooking actually unfolds the proteins. Sure with raw you have more perfect digestion.. no minerals or vitamins are destroyed by heat... no proteins are mutated by high heat.. but at the same time it takes more energy. There are some articles about it floating around on the web about how evolutionarily cooking food our brain size increased. Thats why over time raw food eaters... get weak. they lack energy. I know and I have done it.... eating raw foods and meat for almost 2 years.

I have already thought about the cultured veggies thing. Some people are repulsed by them. Some people of them... it makes my mouth water. My theory is that the current bacteria in our bodies affect our cravings as well somewhat. For people who do not have a good balance of bad bacteria they will not crave Good bacteria. Just a thought anyway.

[chattyprincess]

I think part of the being repulsed is built in. I was raised to not even lick cookie/cake batter because of the raw egg yolk. I still do not eat raw eggs and understand now how good they are but if I told my mother I ate a raw egg yolk I think she would flip a lid.
I was never raised on fermented veggies and I think like alot of things its an accquired taste. I wasn't raised on curries either so when I see/think about them it repulses me, same for fermented veggies.
I think its about learning and trying new things and removing the obviously bad and replacing with the good. And after eating really nutrient dense food I now am repulsed by white bread and it makes me feel like crud!

[LoMaH]

Originally Posted by NoTiGG

It's a mistake to think that raw egg yolks are easier to digest... in that they require less energy. Raw things take more energy to digest.. cooking actually unfolds the proteins.

Is that so?
I've known about egg whites needing cooking, and I've known about raw veggies being difficult to digest, but I've never heard about raw egg yolks being more difficult to digest than cooked. I'll have to look into that further, thanks for the heads up.

Originally Posted by NoTiGG

My theory is that the current bacteria in our bodies affect our cravings as well somewhat. For people who do not have a good balance of bad bacteria they will not crave Good bacteria. Just a thought anyway.

I agree with this. Healthy bodies make healthier choices and I also think gut flora plays a role.

Originally Posted by chattyprincess

I think part of the being repulsed is built in.
I think like alot of things its an acquired taste.

I think its about learning and trying new things and removing the obviously bad and replacing with the good. And after eating really nutrient dense food I now am repulsed by white bread and it makes me feel like crud!

You've brought up some other good points. Upbringing, acquired taste and willingness to try new foods.
None of these contradict the idea that we must learn (as opposed to thinking that we will instinctively) to make better food choices if we want better health.

[spughy]

The reason we eat so many unhealthy things and think that they taste good is because we're no longer operating in the environment for which we evolved.

We evolved as hunter-gatherers who had to work reasonably hard to get food. Organisms who were more motivated to find and eat food would have more offspring - this probably happened WELL before humans began, probably back in the unicellular days. Humans are omnivores who preferentially use carbohydrates and fats as energy, so we are attracted to rich sources of both. In the environment in which we evolved, it was a very GOOD idea to gorge on berries, or honey, or bear fat, or salmon roe, or whatever else was plentiful at any given time. It wouldn't last, and any fat reserves meant that you could get through a period of little food (like January-March in temperate climates) with relative ease. We never needed a special taste for specific minerals, except salt, because all other minerals were readily available in most of our food.

Now, we are living in situations nowhere near the environment we're adapted for. Carbohydrates especially are far, far more available to us, and this problem is compounded by the fact that the minerals that were formerly so plentiful are now nearly absent in our food, while salt - the only mineral we have cravings for - is present in huge amounts. Fats no longer carry the same nutrients and we don't (well, most of us) undergo periods of fasting or hunger.

It's not a question of our bodies failing us, it's more like putting our bodies in an environment they can't function well in. The only thing that's really saving us IS the fact that we're so omnivorous and we can teach ourselves to like things that are good for us.

[NoTiGG]

Originally Posted by spughy

The reason we eat so many unhealthy things and think that they taste good is because we're no longer operating in the environment for which we evolved. .......

.

That's not really a reason why we prefer certain foods over others. It is a precursor to the reason.. but not the reason. We do not like sugar because suddenly we are in a room full of sugar... whereas before we were not. There are plenty of carbs in some foods.. for instance oatmeal. But more than likely a child will prefer a spoon full of sugar... on sugar rich cereal. The reason why is because sugar takes little energy to digest. For the energy that it gives.

[QUOTE]I've known about egg whites needing cooking, and I've known about raw veggies being difficult to digest, but I've never heard about raw egg yolks being more difficult to digest than cooked/QUOTE]

Yes egg yolks and any meat products take less energy to digest when they are cooked. If you have ever eaten raw meat.. you would know how hard it is to chew. cooked meat though is much easier. Most animals simply swallow it and don't really taste it. There has to be a reason why a raw piece of meat... which is theoretically superior in almost every way to a cooked piece of meat... does not taste as good.... and the only explanation is that the heat and cooking denatures it... making it easier to digest .. requiring less energy for that which it gives.

You can do a simple test if you want....... slightly cook an egg yolk.. and take a raw one. Then let them sit at room temperature so they are the same temp. Which one tastes better? And by taste I don't mean swallow without tasting.......

[Mirzam]

Originally Posted by NoTiGG

Yes egg yolks and any meat products take less energy to digest when they are cooked. If you have ever eaten raw meat.. you would know how hard it is to chew. cooked meat though is much easier. Most animals simply swallow it and don't really taste it. There has to be a reason why a raw piece of meat... which is theoretically superior in almost every way to a cooked piece of meat... does not taste as good.... and the only explanation is that the heat and cooking denatures it... making it easier to digest .. requiring less energy for that which it gives.

You can do a simple test if you want....... slightly cook an egg yolk.. and take a raw one. Then let them sit at room temperature so they are the same temp. Which one tastes better? And by taste I don't mean swallow without tasting.......

Chewing and digesting are totally different things. Raw meat should not be chewed excessively, a couple of chews is all that is needed for it to be easily digested, because of the enzymes.

Taste is subjective. You are used to eating cooked food so it tastes better to you.

[NoTiGG]

Maybe you missed the part where I said I have eaten raw meat and diet for 2 years straight.

I have eaten the raw liver from a freshly killed deer before it was even "processed"

Swallowing is not tasting.

Anyway here is an interesting excerpt from an article:

[QUOTE]To find support for his ideas, Wrangham went to the lab to quantify the nutritional impact of cooking. He found almost nothing in food science literature and began to collaborate with physiologist Stephen Secor of the University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, who studies digestive physiology and metabolism in amphibians and reptiles. Secor's team fed 24 Burmese pythons one of four diets consisting of the same number of calories of beef: cooked ground beef, cooked intact beef, raw ground beef, or raw intact beef. Then they estimated the energy the snakes consumed before, during, and after they digested the meat, by measuring the declining oxygen content in their metabolic chambers. Pythons fed cooked beef spent 12.7% less energy digesting it and 23.4% less energy if the meat was both cooked and ground. "By eating cooked meat, less energy is expended on digestion; therefore, more energy can be used for other activities and growth," says Secor./QUOTE]

http://scienceblogs.com/purepedantry...r_the_incr.php

[Mirzam]

Originally Posted by NoTiGG

Swallowing is not tasting.

Huh? Of course it isn't. I said, chewing and digesting, ie in the stomach, isn't the same thing. Were you not saying that because a food is more chewable (tasty) it is easier to digest? Raw meat is much more easily assimilated in the body than cooked meat. Same for eggs.

Cooked foods certainly taste better, but that doesn't mean they are better for us or that they are digested more easily.

Pythons are cold blooded. Humans are warm blooded. What about Pottenger's Cats as an example of how animals do on a cooked food vs raw food diet? I honestly don't want to get into this whole cooked food vs raw food argument. I find cooked food addictive and it certainly does not give me more energy. I certainly feel much more energetic and alive when I am consuming only raw foods, primarily raw animal foods. I am way more sluggish after consuming a meal of cooked foods vs some sashimi or some raw meat. I also find you need less raw meat that cooked meat energy ratio wise.

[NoTiGG]

Originally Posted by Mirzam

Huh? Of course it isn't. I said, chewing and digesting, ie in the stomach, isn't the same thing. Were you not saying that because a food is more chewable (tasty) it is easier to digest? Raw meat is much more easily assimilated in the body than cooked meat. Same for eggs.

Cooked foods certainly taste better, but that doesn't mean they are better for us or that they are digested more easily.

Raw meat is not easier to digest in that it takes less energy. It takes More energy. That is a fact backed up by scientific data.

What I am saying is that our taste shows preference to cooked meat over raw meat. There has to be a reason why our bodies would instinctually show this preference... Since cooked meat is inferior to raw meat in almost every way.. except for that important one.. it must be that reason which affects our sense of taste so much. And it also explains our desire for empty calorie laden sugar.

[Mirzam]

Originally Posted by NoTiGG

R
What I am saying is that our taste shows preference to cooked meat over raw meat. There has to be a reason why our bodies would instinctually show this preference... Since cooked meat is inferior to raw meat in almost every way.. except for that important one.. it must be that reason which affects our sense of taste so much. And also explains our desire for empty calorie laden sugar.

Cooked food and meat is addictive, it isn't an instinctive reaction it is a learned response, because we get a high from cooked food. Incidently, you can also get a high from "high" meat.

[NoTiGG]

"Cooked foods certainly taste better, but that doesn't mean they are better for us"

Originally Posted by Mirzam

Cooked food and meat is addictive, it isn't an instinctive reaction it is a learned response,

These are two contradictory statements. Taste is an instinct.

I am not arguing that cooked food is better... or that raw food is better. Just that a balance is needed to attain a level of health. That is all. And also to reason out why we are instinctually attracted to foods that *can* be bad for us.. such as sugar which is totally devoid of nutrients.

Anyways the article continues...

"Secor also helped Wrangham and graduate student Rachel Carmody design a pilot study in which they found that mice raised on cooked meat gained 29% more weight than mice fed raw meat over 5 weeks. The mice eating cooked food were also 4% longer on average, according to preliminary results. Mice that ate raw chow weighed less even though they consumed more calories than those fed cooked food. "The energetic consequences of eating cooked meat are very high," says Wrangham. "

[Mirzam]

Originally Posted by NoTiGG

"Cooked foods certainly taste better, but that doesn't mean they are better for us"



These are two contradictory statements. Taste is an instinct.

I don't agree. Taste is a preference.

[NoTiGG]

Originally Posted by Mirzam

I don't agree. Taste is a preference.

The reason why you are wrong.. is because if taste was just a preference... and not an instinct.. then it would have absolutely no bearing whatsoever on the quality of what we were eating. If taste were just a preference and not an instinct.. then evolutionarily speaking.. it would be the most poorly designed feature nature has ever designed.. because not only would it be useless.. it would in fact be harmful since portions of our bodies are devoted to it.. taking up precious resources such as part of the brain... that could be used for other purposes.

[JTA Mom]

I think it's simple. In evolutionary terms, we are geared towards wanting something tasting sweet, salty or fatty. Because those three items were necessary to our bodies. Sweet and fatty indicate a density of calories in the wild. Salt for electrolytes. Combining two or even all three makes the pull of certain foods irresistible.

Today, if you really look at the 'addictive' bad for us foods, it combines all three. That sugary cereal? Has a lot of salt in it and oils to get the 'cereal' crispy. Fast food, even the hamburgers, are loaded with sugar and salt.

Our bodies can taste these mixes, these 'triads' and BAM! It sends out a signal to eat more. How often in nature does sweet mix with fat and salt? To our bodies, that's nirvana. Perfection.

Even white bread--full of sugar, and if you look in the ingredient list, salt. Usually containing some fat too, but even if not, how many people love love love bread with butter? Or even margarine? It tells the body that there's fat, sugar and salt.

Commercial peanut butters are chock full of added salt and sugar. Hmmmm, wonder why?

If you look at traditional foods, even the 'basic' bowl of oatmeal/grain. It's usually salted a bit, and cooked in something fatty (milk, butter, etc). The oatmeal itself is chock full of 'sugar' albeit in a less processed form of white table sugar. But our bodies read it the same way.

Modern fruits and vegetables are actually a ton sweeter than what they used to be. Take a bite of an heirloom apple and you will see what I'm talking about. Modern carrots are super sweet. The wild form of celery is quite bitter, etc etc. Humans like sweet, so we breed for that. We like fat, so we breed for that. And then liberally salt everything.

Right now, we have the technology to refine foods into oblivion. They didn't back then. However, that doesn't mean that our ancestors weren't trying to combine foods into the perfect 'triad' though. There's a reason manufacturing sugar exploded so quickly that even the poorest people had access to a big amount of it within 200yrs of really exploiting sugar cane. Traditional 'heirloom' animal breeds, compared to today's animals, were porkers. There was a type of sheep produced that had a HUGE fat long tail--consisting entirely of pure fat. Back then, they couldn't make oil from corn or refine flour into oblivion. But the combinations of food (grain/sweet, fat, salt) goes back a long, long way.

ETA: And I think our bodies can sense a lack of minerals/vitamins in our foods. I believe it's a big reason for the obesity epidemic in regions of the world that eat lots of processed SAD diet. We keep getting the hunger signal, because our bodies are starving--for micronutrients.

Ami

[Mirzam]

The only instinctual aspect of taste is when something tastes really bad so could be a potential poison. Raw meat/eggs no not make that category. Raw meat and eggs do not taste "bad", unless they are rotten, they just don't taste as "good" as when cooked, but that doesn't mean the cooked versions are superior so we have instinctively gone for cooked food over raw. That is purely preference and has nothing to do with instinct or improving the species. Fruit is sweet and very appealing, but gorging on fruit certainly isn't preferable to our physical development as eating raw animal foods is.

I also don't buy the cooked food = bigger brain stuff. Because the body utilizes energy to digest cooked food, according to the research, doesn't mean that using less internal energy is better. How effectively is the python or mouse using this so called excess energy?

[JTA Mom]

Originally Posted by Mirzam

The only instinctual aspect of taste is when something tastes really bad so could be a potential poison. Raw meat/eggs no not make that category. Raw meat and eggs do not taste "bad", unless they are rotten, they just don't taste as "good" as when cooked, but that doesn't mean the cooked versions are superior so we have instinctively gone for cooked food over raw. That is purely preference and has nothing to do with instinct or improving the species. Fruit is sweet and very appealing, but gorging on fruit certainly isn't preferable to our physical development as eating raw animal foods is.

I also don't buy the cooked food = bigger brain stuff. Because the body utilizes energy to digest cooked food, according to the research, doesn't mean that using less internal energy is better. How effectively is the python or mouse using this so called excess energy?

And that's all individual preference as well. There are fermented meat dishes. Think of fish sauce, hundred year old eggs, etc. Outside of those cultures, it's considered 'spoiled'. Depending on the culture, what is considered rotten and putrid is, to another culture, a delicacy.

But less energy=less calories. So having 'extra' energy means having more calories to use for other tasks.

The question to ask is if the less calories used outweighs the 'loss' in nutrition in cooking. Maybe the 'destruction' of enzymes and some vitamins is more than made up in the energy savings? In that case, it's evolutionarily advantageous to do that. Because more calories=more going to growth or fat padding or even to just use for running down extra food.

ETA: Bitterness is a better indicator of poison. But we still eat bitter things like dandelion.

Ami