but just wanted to point out re AGES, that these are actually natural and occur in the body over time regardless of what one eats

I read that AGEs are created in the absence of an enzyme. Does not seem natural to me.

Tyler -I'm fully aware of your stance on cooked meat, but just wanted to point out re AGES, that these are actually natural and occur in the body over time regardless of what one eats, that is why the body has evolved mechanisms to deal witih them, plus not all the AGEs in cooked meat are absorbed, so i bet the effects of AGEs consumed with lightly cooked meat here and there  would be negligible. I don;t know about other heat created toxins, but just wanted to mention that...

First off, the natural amounts of AGEs in the body are tiny by comparison to the load of toxins found in cooked foods.Secondly, I'm well aware that not all the AGEs found in cooked foods are absorbed, it's claimed, for now, to be 30%, but that's plenty already(especially when you consider that there are also AGEs in raw foods from unhealthy animals(eg:- grainfed meats). And there are now enough studies done on animals and humans to show inflammation etc. being directly caused by AGEs and other heat-created toxins like PAHs, so that it's very difficult to argue they don't have any effect.So eating lightly-cooked food would be comparable to smoking a cigarette every now and then, while eating moderately-cooked food would be equivalent to smoking several regularly. (it's a good analogy as polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, created via cooking, are also byproducts of smoking cigarettes).

Re smoking:- The longevity issue is irrelevant as Winston Churchill managed to live till 90 despite smoking cigars heavily(though suffering long-term ill-health for decades like Roosevelt). Longevity appears to be a lot more to do with issues like will-power rather than diet.

I'm not trying to make people feel guilty about eating cooked foods. We all have to make practical compromises re healthy living  for social reasons , here and there. What I object to is when people know it's unhealthy to eat such cooked foods, so they try to convince themselves and others that eating cooked food is supposedly healthy. I suppose, on a psychological level, people don't like the notion of eating something that is unhealthy as it sounds a bit foolish, so they try to justify their actions by claiming that cooked food is healthy.

Congrats, Lex! Well I hope that satisfies some of the critics, but I doubt it.

Well I hope that satisfies some of the critics, but I doubt it.

Ever since I disclosed that my urine pH was consistently running around 5.0 to 5.5, (acidic), I've been warned by many concerned do-gooder's that this is a sure sign that my blood is also very acidic and that my body is certainly sacrificing massive amounts of minerals from my bones to neutralize the acidity. It won't be long, they warn, before my bones crumble to dust and I’ll be a formless quivering mass of protoplasm.    

Well, I’ve been eating this way for almost 4 years now.  I check urine pH and ketones every morning.  Ph is almost always around 5.0, but occasionally will rise to 5.5.  One would think that if the theory that urine pH reflects blood pH, and that bone minerals are sacrificed to keep blood pH under control were true, then surely my DEXA scan would show a significant level of abnormality.

Though I’m not qualified to comment on the actual numerical results of my DEXA scan, the fact that it returned as NORMAL, and actually showed slightly higher than normal bone density for someone in my age group, would seem to me to disprove the "acidic urine equals acidic blood" theory, or at least shows that, in my case, bone minerals have not been sacrificed under these conditions.

I also think that those who are concerned that a diet of mostly meat and fat is deficient in calcium, magnesium, and phosphorous can put those fears to rest as well.  If this were true, I doubt that the body could maintain bone integrity over such a long period.  One thing I’ve come to accept, is that nothing in our bodies is static.  Fats are constantly moving in and out of fat cells, protein is constantly being broken down and rebuilt, and minerals are moving in and out of bone structure.  If there was a deficiency of any necessary element for building and maintaining healthy bones, then minerals that naturally moved out of the bones would not be replaced and bone integrity would suffer over time.  Based on my test results, this concern seems unwarranted as well.

This is my current thinking based on what little I know, and the above may be total nonsense, however, I’m betting my life on the assumption that it's fairly close to the mark.

Lex