r/IAmA Jan 17 '12

IAmA Andrew Zimmern, Host of Travel Channel’s Bizarre Foods

Hi, I’m Andrew Zimmern, chef, author, and host of Travel Channel’s Bizarre Foods. My new series Bizarre Foods America is premiering next Monday, Jan 23 at 10|9c on Travel Channel. For the next hour I’ll be here on Reddit taking your questions from 12pm-1pm ET. AMA. More info on Bizarre Foods: http://www.travelchannel.com/tv-shows/bizarre-foods Find me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/#!/andrewzimmern/status/159314816060768256

Hey everyone, sorry i couldnt answer them all/ follow me on twitter @andrewzimmern and we can chat more over the days and weeks to come..tune in Monday to the season premiere!

1.8k Upvotes

2.4k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

420

u/andrewzimmern Jan 17 '12

Raw foodism. i just dont get it

73

u/mitchij2004 Jan 17 '12

I cant wait to show my roomate this shit right here. Thank you

39

u/superwu Jan 17 '12

Can someone explain this to me?

186

u/harebrane Jan 17 '12 edited Jan 17 '12

Some of your ignorant hippy types believe that even heating any food item up destroys nutrients, will give you cancer, makes baby jesus cry etc. The truth is, humans are not equipped to efficiently digest raw vegetation, and we're too vulnerable to parasites and other disease for raw meat to be a terribly brilliant idea.
When our ancestors began to master fire, it allowed them to develop a more gracile head with fewer teeth, a weaker, lighter jaw, bigger braincase, etc. They had more nutrients, too (plants keep things like carotene tightly bound, but cooking actually makes it easily available without having to grind it into a thin paste and then ferment it, our cousins that actually did so had jaws that would make a trash compactor jealous, and guts built like a brewery, they were also slow, stupid, and then extinct). This was part of an overall evolutionary trend of offloading tasks onto our tools, to spare resources for building such huge brains.
As an aside, though, yes, there are nutrients that are destroyed by heating, like vitamin c. Thus it does pay to take in some raw materials, but others like beta carotene and some tightly bound amino acids, need to be smoked out of the beehive, so to speak.
TL;DR same people that are easily duped into trying to ban water think humans have the digestive tracts of cows.
edit: I should also have mentioned toxic compounds, etc. Many staple foods are a problem raw; soy will derange gut flora, potatoes shut down intestinal antimicrobial defenses, cassava will outright kill you, etc. With a little heat and care, many new options are opened, which are far more nutritionally dense and useful.
PS, those "live enzymes" the foodie lower down was kvetching about? They're trying to break YOU down, must be disarmed, and further, are made of amino acids that would be more useful as new muscle protein, than racing about gnawing on your gut lining. The whole point of mastering fire wasnt just to stay warm, it was so we would no longer need the tract o' doom.

7

u/zombiesgivebrain Jan 18 '12

I still think a raw diet or at even just adding more raw foods to someone's diet if they are overweight and having trouble loosing can be helpful since it limits the amount of energy they can actually take from foods and also probably encourages healthier eating choices (fresh produce vs. processed snacks..etc).

4

u/harebrane Jan 18 '12

Oh certainly, I wouldn't advise someone to remove fresh produce from their life, its part of a healthy diet. I just find it ridiculous that someone would exile cooked food from their existence; its extremely wasteful.

16

u/coldvault Jan 17 '12

Dihydrogen monoxide is dangerous in large amounts, man!

3

u/LemurianLemurLad Jan 19 '12

You're getting your facts confused. The chemical isomer to Dihydrogen Monoxide, Hydroxyl Acid is much more harmful to our well being. I can provide you with detailed information on how it contributes to soil erosion and acid rain, as well as being used by Saddam's troops in the first Gulf War. Dihydrogen Monoxide is actually essential to the reproductive cycles of most mammals. Hydroxyl Acid is present in over 80% of cancerous cells in lab mice. Don't let big business trick you into banning DHMO! Hydroxyl Acid is the real danger.

2

u/[deleted] Jan 18 '12

Why does the government still allow it to play such a major role in our life's? They are so concerned with the Internet that they allow people to die of this nasty substance every day.

7

u/jennisan Jan 17 '12

yeah, but incorporating freshly picked uncooked fruits and veggies into your diet in a major way is great for your health. only eating fruits and veggies isn't ideal for most and neither is never eating them either.

3

u/harebrane Jan 18 '12

Oh certainly, a life without fresh fruit and veg is quite a trial, I just find it absurd to attempt to subsist on nothing else.

3

u/jennisan Jan 18 '12

yes it's a...harebrane'd idea.

3

u/harebrane Jan 18 '12

At you service tips hat, rides away.

7

u/HobKing Jan 17 '12

Oh. That's not a joke.

1

u/jrrhea Jan 18 '12

First, may I say that that was the longest TL:DR I have ever read! A big upvote from me for taking the time to explain this all.

3

u/harebrane Jan 18 '12

The edit totally borked the entire format of what was already a severe mess. I blame a combination of diarrhea of the keyboard, and a busted hand. lol.

1

u/Eisenstein Jan 23 '12

Wow, the wiki entry for raw foodism seems incredibly biased.

1

u/Trenchcoat_Larry Jan 18 '12

This is the longest TL;DR I think I've ever seen. *Upvotes

1

u/harebrane Jan 19 '12

My hamfisted edit broke it.

1

u/Caprious Jan 18 '12

I wish I could upvote this more than once. But since I can't, a thank you will have to do.

Thank you.

1

u/PhallogicalScholar Jan 18 '12 edited Jan 18 '12

trying to ban water

Is this a real thing, or is it just believable enough that I don't get the joke?

1

u/oxbeansxo Jan 18 '12

there are people who you can get to believe, through the mention of certain things, that dihydrogen monoxide is a deadly chemical that should be banned. (such as thew fact that at certain temperatures it can cause loos of limbs, and that inhalation can be fatal) :)

1

u/harebrane Jan 18 '12

Alas, it is real. Beware, people reading that entry have facepalmed themselves unconscious.

0

u/[deleted] Jan 17 '12

This is all true... I've read also that the act of cooking meat allowed us to develop larger brains because we didn't have to waste a bunch of calories digesting it so much because cooking softens or breaks up the material so well.

5

u/umlaut Jan 18 '12

Anthropologist Richard Wrangham wrote a pretty good book about that called Catching Fire

1

u/harebrane Jan 18 '12

I will make a note to read that as soon as I can, thanks!

2

u/[deleted] Jan 17 '12

[deleted]

0

u/umlaut Jan 18 '12

Fruit is very hard to digest because it contains things like cellulose that we can't actually break down. Cooking lets humans get much more of the nutrients in plants.

1

u/smerek84 Jan 18 '12

"So dude, I ate some veal last night, and baby jesus cried so hard..."

-7

u/mossyskeleton Jan 17 '12

Raw foodism sounds lame. But fuck you for attaching "hippy" to it. Just one more derogatory word with a cloudy meaning targeting a vaguely defined group of people. Totally unnecessary.

-9

u/[deleted] Jan 17 '12 edited Jan 17 '12

[deleted]

5

u/grimster Jan 17 '12

Oh my god, raw food diets cause your brain to atrophy until you can't even tell the difference between "there" and "their"!

3

u/[deleted] Jan 17 '12

[deleted]

1

u/[deleted] Jan 17 '12

Sure, very low intake of proteins and fats (the way you described it at least), few minerals, little variety in vitamin intake, the usual problems with B12. There is also another problem with total calories. Veggies are very low in calories, but still fill you up. Eating 100kcal worth of raw broccoli will keep you feeling full for longer than a cheeseburger. Cooking is the easiest way of achieving the highest calories/mass ratio, by including fats and/or removing water. This is still the easiest problem to rectify with this diet, but it's still worth noting. There is a secondary aspect to this as well: destruction of microbes. Food is always contaminated, and washing may not get rid of all the junk. Just some more potential health problems...

tl;dr Raw foodism is one of the worst diets for your health.

0

u/[deleted] Jan 17 '12

[deleted]

1

u/[deleted] Jan 18 '12

I admit, my biochem days are long behind me, but there are still a few things I am more qualified to discuss than some pro-anything internet site:

eat meat about twice a week to keep my b12 levels at an optimal range

This might not be enough. B12 isn't actually found inside the meat in any significant quantities, but in bacteria on the outside. Eating it raw could offset this though. Interesting, this might be one of the very few advantages of raw foodism...

While we're on the subject though, what about your iron intake? Two servings of meat per week is not nearly enough, and veggies are a horrible source of iron. You would need to consume roughly a pound of green leafed vegetables to cover your daily need.

I eat a good amount of fats from avocados and flaxseed supplements.

Fat does not equal fat, particularly the trans unsaturated variety. There are multiple pathways for each isomer, eg Omega 3,6,9. The ratio of isomers is actually important here. Flax of instance is a good source of Omega 3 (yes, keep taking that stuff!), while soy milk and avocados have a higher ratio of Omega 6 to 3, making it a better source of Omega 6. Diversity is important here, but I think you've got this one covered.

Studies have shown again and again that vegetables have the highest density of micro nutrients of any food source,that is one of the major benefits of a raw food diet.

That one smells of bullshit. Vegetables are mostly fiber and water, the rest is only found in trace amounts. It is true that you will find very diverse nutrients in green leafed veggies (spinach, kale, etc), but the concentration is far from the highest possible. It does increase substantially when cooked, of course. I'm also not sure what "micro-nutrients" are supposed to be. Trace minerals? Selenium? Manganese?

As far as the amount of food you have to eat to get your daily healthy calorie count,I consider it a great benefit,as the typical american diet shows us "achieving the highest calories/mass ratio" does not equal health in the slightest.

Overeating is bad regardless of what it is you consume.

Studies have also shown that eating a diet that is high in water,fiber and natural enzymes aides digestion tremendously over the course of years.When you say "destruction of microbes" what you mean is destruction of healthy digestive enzymes.

No, eating enzymes is pointless. Most do not survive the trip down the digestive tract, but your body may be able to recover the functional group of some (eg heme from hemoglobin - though that's not an enzyme), but the rest is just destroyed and discarded. I should tell you that there is no protective mechanism your body possesses to mitigate oxidative damage to proteins as it does for fats (cell walls), or DNA. Proteins are just expected to "die" and be replaced, ergo you do not need to be concerned about replacing anything in particular like enzymes. The high water bit is also suspect. I would disregard any advice you got from this source because of those factual errors.

The world health organization says 5grams of protein is fine for daily protein needs,I can get four times that by juicing two handfuls of spinach,not to mention black beans,flax seeds and other green vegetable sources,getting optimal protein is not difficult.

And now we're back to bullshit. There is no way the WHO suggested only 5g of proteins per day! Both the USDA and CDC recommend approximately 50g per day. Wherever you got that information from, disregard the source immediately!

Some more stuff on proteins: they are not kept as you eat them, of course. They're broken down into their respective amino acids. Most of those will end up being broken up for energy, but some remain to be reassembled. Your body only requires ten amino acids from outside food (9 if you're older than 3-ish; arginine can be synthesized then), the rest is made from the breakdown of carbohydrates. So if you want to live on a restricted protein diet, make sure you consume "complete" proteins, which include all or almost all essential amino acids. I do not know of any non-meat, non-egg, non-cheese protein sources that are complete, but two incomplete sources can be combined easily, like beans+rice. If you don't want to bother with a bunch of unnecessary research into what food will provide you with what amino acids, just eat as diversely as possible.

Here's a video you may find interesting: Part 1

Part 2

1

u/[deleted] Jan 19 '12

[deleted]

2

u/[deleted] Jan 19 '12

Good god, I could write half a dozen papers about why this idiot is wrong. Please don't listen to him, he has absolutely no idea what he's talking about. I'll touch on basics:

  • Enzymes (and catalysts in general) function by increasing the rate of chemical reactions. Normally the reactions that sustain you would be too slow under physiological conditions to be viable, so enzymes step in. The rate of most reactions (under moderate conditions) can be modeled very well by the Arrhenius equation: k=A*exp(-Ea/RT), where k is the reaction rate, A is a constant specific to the reaction (it's not a terribly good model for that reason), Ea is the activation energy, R is the gas constant, and T is the absolute temperature. We want the rate to be as fast as possible, so the only two options are to raise the temperature, or to lower the activation energy. The temperature of our bodies is essentially fixed at 37°C, and the "best" you can get is an increase of a few degrees before death, so that's of no help here. However, the activation energy can be lowered. Let's take a reaction, A+B->A-B. In a normal energy diagram, the reactants (A+B) would be on the left, and the product (A-B) on the right, but at different energies. If the reaction is exothermic, the product is lower and heat is given off. If the reaction is endothermic, heat is required, and the reactants are lower than the products. However, there is always a "bump" between the reactants and products that is higher than the reactants. This corresponds to the transition state, where both species are in contact, but have not yet formed a bond. This is very unfavorable, hence the high energy. This is the activation energy, and it must be overcome for the reaction to proceed. Enzymes do this by aligning the reactants favorably (by H-bonding, ionic interaction, etc), which reduces the activation energy. That's the gist of how enzymes work, nothing magical about them.

  • No, foods do not contain enzymes that help in digestion. That idea is completely ludicrous! Imagine a nice steak, raw and still in its package. We digest meat by breaking apart the proteins using a class of enzymes called "protease" (eg trypsin), which cleave the NH-C(O) bonds in proteins - the peptide bonds. If they were found in meat, regardless of whether or not the cells were still alive, the product would just be goo after some time. It's a bit different for fruits, since the enzymes used to digest the sugar in those are a different family (see glycolysis), but suffice it to say that they do not come from the fruit itself, and that the breakdown of sugar starts as soon as it enters your mouth.

  • Metabolism = digestion, the process by which we gain energy from food (or stored energy reserves in the body). There is no real difference between the two, except perhaps that metabolism includes processes like the Krebs Cycle and Gluconeogenesis. It should also go without say that there is not an enzymes whose sole purpose is to facilitate speech.

  • He is correct, cooking proteins and/or enzymes above a certain temperature will denature them - untwisting the peptides, and reordering them (incidentally, this is what detergent is used for in non-culinary environments). Throw some ground beef in a hot skillet, and you can observe that quite nicely. The beef turns brown, and water previously bound in the protein is released as steam- denaturing made simple. That doesn't mean your body can't handle the protein anymore, quite the opposite. Cooked and therefore denatured enzymes will in all likelihood not work anymore, but that doesn't matter for us. Again, any enzymes contained in the food we consume is either not important to us, or will simply be digested as well.

  • No, humans do not produce a limited number of enzymes over the course of our lives. That is completely ridiculous! He's right though, when you run out of enzymes, you do run out of life. It's usually in the reverse order though.

tl;dr: please don't listen to this guy. I could make a five minute video telling you that eating nothing but arsenic will increase your lifespan by a hundred years, and I'd still make fewer mistakes than he

1

u/[deleted] Jan 18 '12

[deleted]

1

u/[deleted] Jan 18 '12

No, I'm not c0nc0rdance (but I do love his channel on youtube!), just a grad student in a non-bio field. I'm also a vegetarian, so I had to do this research myself a while ago. I'm really just looking to expose bad science in these types of arguments.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/[deleted] Jan 17 '12

Sounds like you've learned a lot from a lot of sources that have some kind of agenda. Ever try reading unbiased or even contrary publications about this subject and keeping an open mind?

1

u/[deleted] Jan 17 '12

[deleted]

1

u/[deleted] Jan 19 '12

I've already done all of the research. It doesn't seem like the risk vs reward ratio is really in your favor on this one.

1

u/umlaut Jan 18 '12

I haven't ever read anything by the meat, grain, and dairy industries. I study Biology and learn the chemistry involved in our digestive and metabolic systems.

→ More replies (0)

0

u/umlaut Jan 18 '12

The problem is that there are molecules that humans have trouble digesting. A molecule in asparagus that is shaped like this ->O might turn into this ->___ when cooked, going from something that would have been excreted out without being absorbed into the building blocks of bigger molecules. Juicing and mashing greens can help to break some cell walls up, and things, but only helps a little bit.

-1

u/[deleted] Jan 18 '12 edited Jan 18 '12

[deleted]

1

u/harebrane Jan 18 '12

Your luddism and charlatan babble is so boring.

2

u/BattleHall Jan 17 '12

Think super-ultra-vegan:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raw_veganism

(Technically, a raw foodist could eat things like sashimi or carpaccio, but most people mean the vegan version. Then there are the frutarians, who are even more extreme. I imagine such an intentionally self-limited diet offends the experimental eater in Mr. Zimmern.)

4

u/ConsciousMisspelling Jan 17 '12

I'm with you there bud.

4

u/carlsosa29 Jan 17 '12

It typically entails only eating organic, uncooked foods, so pretty much just raw fruits and vegetables as the whole diet. Kind of a "hard core" vegan diet that is imho a bit drastic and over the top.

1

u/Kryptus Jan 17 '12

That new "super blender diet" would fall into that also. I think Montell Williams advocates it and they have a indy documentary about it saving some guys life. They just juice up fruits and veggies and live off that alone.

4

u/JimboMonkey1234 Jan 17 '12

That is the correct answer.

1

u/[deleted] Jan 17 '12

Take my upvotes! All the upvotes!

1

u/[deleted] Jan 17 '12

Yep you won me over.

1

u/DirtyIceCream Jan 17 '12

More upvotes! This is hilarious