Thoughts on cooking (Part 2/3)

Posted on Posted in Thoughts
Henry Doe @ Unsplash

Previously, I asserted there is no other logical possibility for both “Safety” and “Satiety” were to occur; without any large macronutrients first and foremost ~ be subdued to its fully rested states. Both at organic (movement) and micro-organic (bacterial) states. 

Now – my opinion/s on the so-opposing arm of cooking. Raw foodism.

What is (right) or wrong about raw foodism?

Raw foodism argues that perfectionism already exists abundantly in nature. Should not be tampered with. Thus must be consumed raw “as-is”.

My view and stance on this still remains fixated surrounding the (previously) importance of Safety and Satiety. If neither of these is fullfiled, something will be compromised down in the later, eventual chains of nutrient partitioning.

Further, I believe that everything of nature be it animate or inanimate ~ responds via Provocations. One thing I certainly hope (for all readers) is that “Nature” is never docile. Until it is biologically convinced ~ by the consumer that it is indeed again ~ both “safe” and “satiating”.

I hereby present two “NO’s” or why I am less optimistic about raw foodism. 


Cooked = Better Digestibility and Palatability. Shorter/Quicker path of least resistance towards partitioning.

I will start off being straight and anecdotal. Cooking always assures me – a familiar, warm path / passage of least resistance towards nutrient digestibility and hence partitioning. Because I believe “Heat” is a metaphor of progress and process. An imposition of all state of changes. “Cold” on the other hand – imposes stasis and delays.

“Digestibility” I believe – also correlates synergistically with Palatability. This requires a perception of warmth. Thus, requiring “heat” to help pre-pare such an outcome

Raw meat feels “cold” in the gut, as opposed to warmth of semi-cooked meats.

The “tastiness” or “ripeness” of any given food is an undoubtedly strong determinant at how well I am going to readily (enzymatically ready) to partition nutrients. If a food taste somewhat pale, or unworthwhile – chances are I am unable to utilise any metabolic usefulness out of such food in their incomplete state of rest. Why? Because nothing incites or provokes me to eat it.

As much as I at times demonise fructose during carb-refeeds, I’d still nonetheless be more compelled to eat a perfectly ripe banana than an unripe one. To be objective and frank – unripe fruits are completely chalky and leaves an excessively dry, rubbery walls of the mouth. To the point of irritation.

Consequent to this reasoning I implore that many people ignore these questions –

  • how much / how long often should I actually have to eat to gather my required calories?
  • How long of a time I have to spend eating each time to reach reasonable satiety?

Vegetarian SJWs love comparing ourselves daringly to that of silver back gorillas. Them spending nine hours daily – foraging & chewing cellulose 40 pounds a day. Should we all likewise graze an endless amount of endotoxins? Oh, not to mention cyanide like compounds from raw plant materials?

Isn’t the point of “nutrition” is to nurture, to “ration” (militarist term of) “reason”, and satiate the self – in the shortest amount of time?…Then “cooking” – in my humble opinion – both expediates and facilitates to such an outcome.

The primal man had no access to pressure cooker. But I’d wager he’d be so anxiously hungry. Searching for nutrients from having eaten; yet unable to assimilate any usefulness. From eating all that undigestible shrubs, hay and cellulose.

Gianni Zanato @ Unsplash


Hygiene & Orderliness.

Next – it’s all to do with hygiene and maintaining liberal sense of order. “Cleanliness” and “cooking” = in my humble anecdotal stance – are both an inseparable compartmentalisation of orderly habits. Paving the way to support and maintain immunological equilibrium in any living mechanism. They are both part of the goal (of you guessed it) – either avoiding, separating away, or killing ¬ unwanted pathogens.

Millions-year evidence of the worm Caenorhabditis elegans exhibited avoidance-like “behaviour” upon sensing any nearby pathogen Bacillus thuringiensis. Likewise fast forwarding to our present female bullfrogs – intuitively demonstrated not to choose mates who are infected with Candida humicola.

Again, not to compare ourselves to racoons. But their human-like-dexterity paws led some important nerve sensitivities. This may explain why they seemingly wash their food. In order to enhance the reward signals of the foods they’re eating.

But of course excessiveness of hygiene is borderline, elitism. What good is it for $25 bomb alaska dessert if I do not wish to ruin its delicate presentation? I am no chef, but look at us humans. Making cooking into a career of all sorts – of “arts”. So much so sadly that it becomes narcisism.


Jez Tims @ Unsplash
Jez Tims @ Unsplash

Completely raw meats? A “No” for me.

As much as I am predominantly a meat eater ¬ I would shy nevertheless, away from eating raw meat.

Unless fermented, aged or sufficiently salted and dried – I have no problem with likes of ham, few slice/s of salami or prosciuttos. Their elitist price tags barred me from consumptive luxury, anyway.

But I’d argue that the seemingly glorified safety amongst practicing raw carnivorism -which I do not think is either accessibly nor consistently interpreted as safe to the general population.

We see advices time and time again – that animal welfare counts nutritionally towards conducive criteria. Make sure the animals are “clean”, “Free-range”, “Organic”, etc.  Our current economics system however prohibit these foods accessibility to a select few. The consequent high pricing unfortunately deters the desires of safe raw consumption. As so widely purported to withstand any nutritional losses.

I’d also blame much of this is due to our industrialised methodology of production and sustainability. Especially amongst economy grade minced meats production. Which mixes questionable sources all at once. Gelatin is no problem. But remnants of hair, nails, dirt, stones and factory debris? No thanks.

General population toxicology studies from raw meat consumptions; from both muscle and gelatinous / organ meats have all likewise proved to be of genuine concern. Including undercooked meats.

The lack of the physical breakability of the food itself is specific to my (significant) added hassle. Few occassions I tried (very briefly) baked beef tri-tip cuts, with all its glory in blood and jus’. Yet it was extremely fatiguing experience. As I gnawed and teethed my way through the tough fibres of meat itself.  “Morally” speaking, the blood affects me only a little. But it did not represent nor led me able to reconcile that path-of-least-resistance for digestion as I alluded to earlier. Did it suffice “Safety” badge? Probably. But what about “Satiety” ~ sadly, No.

In the context of pure survival mode – what about eating raw predators meat? I’d caution this  likely even more.

Predators likely inherit parasitic bacterias from each and every one of their prey in the food chain and thus, bacterial invasions from the preys they’ve eaten (which are most likely raw). It would also likely pose a transferrable risk to the human.

I’d remain hesitant if I were to eat such predator meats entirely raw; if one day I am thrown into the wild and prized myself a dead fox, coyote or wild boar. Thoroughly cooking the meat in such instance, seems prudent.

In conclusion – “cooking” is a pragmatic necessity.

I think, for the sake of lingual semantics – the best of an “answer” whether consuming raw foods is “safe” or “not safe” – depends on a qualitative balancing act. I bear no ill wills towards anyone, either veganism or carnivorism. Should this or that method of consumption works for them. 

I am nonetheless convinced to give these individuals my undying praise. That there is nothing else more primally simpler, than consuming things raw. Unaltered. Minimally intervened. Slaugher, harvest and chew.

However, “Fresh” is an illusion of safe haven in the eye of the beholder. Awaiting are the unexplored  – microcosmic unknown(s). Yet unfortunately on the other hand –Adulterating” imposes fear and distrust. Especially amongst those responsible behind such intervention – even when widely purported as “safe” and “assuring”. 

Nonetheless ~ I’d remain well and wise to cook. Why? Because I have no right for egoism assuming all things in Nature is forever benign. Nature has no trust or “faith” in us. After all we only live one (1) Life consciously, without a “spare”. Hence to be wise, is to subdue all distrusts.

Plant or not plant.

Now then, onto the pragmatic last and final part – what I do and do not do in the kitchen.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *