Which is healthier to eat cooked meat? or Raw meat?

Question

i just looked at wife swap and the people where eating raw meat saying it was much healtheir then eating cooked meat because of the chemicals or something, but yea which is healthier?

Answer 1

Raw meat could be ingested if you knew the health of the cow etc..exactly where that meat was coming from. For the majority of us we have no clue - It is even not recommend to eat steak tar tar in finer restaurants anymore. There are too many potentially fatal disease that you could acquire from eating meat raw to make any nutritional value worth it.

Answer 2

With the notable exception of sashimi (the raw fish in sushi), clams and a few beef dishes (like carpaccio), meat should be cooked. This goes especially for chicken and pork products.

Besides killing off any bacteria in the meat, our bodies are not designed to break down the proteins in most raw meat. Cooking the meat breaks down the protein structure in the flesh into a form our digestive system can better use. (the scientific term is called "denaturing" - and yes, I learned that from Alton Brown.)

Even organically raised meat still needs to be cooked for the same reasons, even though it's arguably healthier for you because it didn't have the hormones and other chemicals injected into it when it was still alive.

Answer 3

The cooking process kills bacteria. So if you take some raw hamburger and some cooked hamburger and set them side-by-side, the cooked meat will have no living bacteria on it whereas the raw meat will have living bacteria. Now that the two meat samples are sitting out, though, they will both "collect" bacteria at the same rate, as particles in the air land on them. The raw meat starts out with more living bacteria, though, and so it will have a larger bacterial population.

Answer 4

Huh? Cooked meat is supposed to destroy bacteria and chemicals. Unless on a barbeque...the charcoal can cause issues sometimes. If it cooked in an oven then its probobly fine. But eating it raw is much worse than any "chemical" that you could eat. Did you ever think about Mad cow? Eboli? It would be a good idea to cook it. Remember that not everybody on television has their head straight.

Answer 5

Cooked.

One of the very important factor you didn't consider is that all the meat in US are sold knowing it will be cooked, at least somewhat. The handling and the packaging of the meat are done knowing they won't be consumed as is. You could easily be very sick from eating such meat.

You might say, Japanese people eat raw fish.... but those fish are specially handled from capture to the table. It is entirely not the same fish that are sold for having it cooked first.

Answer 6

If you could GUARANTEE there was no bacteria in the raw meat it would be better for you to eat it raw.

If you eat meat that is overcooked it has a higher chance of absorbing carcinogens (cancer causing agents) since the structure of the meat is altered.

Since you don't want either of these two options, the best alternative is to cook it just enough to kill all the bacteria and no more.

Answer 7

As humans, we have lost a lot of the enzymes to properly digest raw meat, and we are at risk for disease from it. So, it might have more nutrients, but not be a very good option for most people.

If you feed your dog meat, it is FAR healthier to give them raw meat than to cook it or feed them commercial dog food.

Answer 8

Raw meat has bacteria such as salmonella that are present when not cooked. So I'd say that cooked meat is healthier to eat.

Answer 9

Oh, come on now. If they said Oral sex with a cannibal was a rush, would you do it? I think not. Who knows when they last ate?? Same as raw meat. You're not Leo the Lion. Not today, tomorrow or yesterday. Staring at the Sun makes you smatter!! I'll be proud to staying stupid. At least I can see what I'm stupid at. Smart enough not to eat raw meat. Even if the Olsen twin's are dangling steak Tar Tar, on their naked moist lower, well, use your imagination.

Answer 10

I often see it tried but you cannot compare vegetarian to carnivore. Its an automatic win. Because "arian" refers to a human created diet that will work for humans while "vore" is an animal classification. Its always a win to compare vegetarian to carnivore just as its always a win to compare meatatarian (yes its a word) with herbivore. And for mostly the same reasons. Man was a frugivore (fruit eater) that came down from the trees and become a faunivore (animal eater) which is not the same as a carnivore (meat eater). His diet stretched to include honey, insects, shellfish, and carrion amoung other things. We are not built to handle a carnivore diet. But we also not herbivores. For most of the same reasons. We cannot handle raw grains, raw grasses, and most wild fruits any better than we can raw red meat. We can handle most arian diets because they fill in our needs with processed versions we can handle. The same for meat. The things that make a carrion diet different than a carnivore diet are the things that makes it work for us physically. But I wouldnt recommend returning to that diet as a basis for health. :) Luckily, cooking and pre-processing our meat duplicates the actions of our natural diet making it work for us. Of course many people still get it wrong. There is NO meat diet (carnivore, omnivore, meatatarian) that involves red meat 3 times a day. Or even once a day. Just as a vegetarian diet makes rational human choices, not an herbivore diet. Meatarian makes rational human choices, not a carnivore diet.