Re: cooking cellulose

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 4/14/2002 2:48:16 PM Central Daylight Time,

foodfromafar@... writes:

> >>Kale cooked for an hour delivers far more mineral to your bones than

> lightly steamed kale.

>

> Is Weed southern? Sounds suspect to me, a foreigner in the land of

> the long-cooked vegetable.

>

> ine running and ducking for cover

>

Run for Texas, that's were the woman grew up!

Belinda

LaBelle Acres

www.labelleacres.com

[Guest guest]

I don't have any specific information myself, but

Susun Weed at http://www.susunweed.com might as she

says that cooking plants for a long time allows

minerals contained in cells to be released. She

strongly believes that plant juices don't contain a

significant amount of minerals. She says minerals are

mostly contained within cells and that cell walls need

to be broken for the minerals to be released, and

cooking does just that. Perhaps, you can obtain some

sort of proof from her. Please share what you find as

I am also interested in this. From

http://www.susunweed.com/z13%20articles_sw.htm#an5:

" To extract minerals from fruits and vegetables, I

cook them for long periods of time, or until there is

color and texture change, evidence that the cell walls

have been broken. Kale cooked for an hour delivers far

more mineral to your bones than lightly steamed kale.

Fresh juices contain virtually no minerals. Cooking

maximizes the nutrients available to us, especially

the minerals. "

Roman

--- Suze Fisher <s.fisher22@...> wrote:

> I know that mentioned he believes that cooking

> doesn't make the

> cellulose in plants 'break down' and become more

> digestible. I've been

> thinking along the same lines. Does anyone have any

> specific information on

> how cooking affects the digestibility of plants, and

> particularly of

> cellulose?

>

> TIA

>

> Suze Fisher

> Web Design & Development

> http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze3shjg/

> mailto:s.fisher22@...

__________________________________________________

[Guest guest]

>>Kale cooked for an hour delivers far more mineral to your bones than

lightly steamed kale.

Is Weed southern? Sounds suspect to me, a foreigner in the land of

the long-cooked vegetable.

ine running and ducking for cover

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 4/14/2002 6:31:53 PM Central Daylight Time,

wanitawa@... writes:

> Weed is one of the top herbalists in the country. She knows plants.

> Long

> cooking would extract like digestion of raw.

> Wanita

I agree but would modify it to Susun being tops in the world.

Belinda

LaBelle Acres

www.labelleacres.com

[Guest guest]

I would believe it, that's basically what they're saying about

tomatoes these days, the lycopene is released when you eat them in

spagetti sauces. Also, to play the common sense card, my french

cookbook recommends long, slow braisings as the best way to cook

veggies. The author himself speculates that some vitamins are lost

but he likes the flavor. I think he's wrong - the improved flavor is

a sign of the nutrition being released.

> I don't have any specific information myself, but

> Susun Weed at http://www.susunweed.com might as she

> says that cooking plants for a long time allows

> minerals contained in cells to be released. She

> strongly believes that plant juices don't contain a

> significant amount of minerals. She says minerals are

> mostly contained within cells and that cell walls need

> to be broken for the minerals to be released, and

> cooking does just that. Perhaps, you can obtain some

> sort of proof from her. Please share what you find as

> I am also interested in this. From

> http://www.susunweed.com/z13%20articles_sw.htm#an5:

> " To extract minerals from fruits and vegetables, I

> cook them for long periods of time, or until there is

> color and texture change, evidence that the cell walls

> have been broken. Kale cooked for an hour delivers far

> more mineral to your bones than lightly steamed kale.

> Fresh juices contain virtually no minerals. Cooking

> maximizes the nutrients available to us, especially

> the minerals. "

>

[Guest guest]

At 08:16 PM 4/14/2002 +0000, you wrote:

>I would believe it, that's basically what they're saying about

>tomatoes these days, the lycopene is released when you eat them in

>spagetti sauces. Also, to play the common sense card, my french

>cookbook recommends long, slow braisings as the best way to cook

>veggies. The author himself speculates that some vitamins are lost

>but he likes the flavor. I think he's wrong - the improved flavor is

>a sign of the nutrition being released.

>

>

I think like most things, it's a mixed bag. Cooking destroys some

ingredients, and makes others more accessible. Ditto with fermenting.

Fermenting " eats up " (literally) some things (hopefully things you don't

want, like lactose), and creates others. In carrots, cooking makes the

vitamin A easier to access. But cooking destroys vitamin C in most foods.

Cooking bones for a long time leaches the minerals and other good things

out of the bone, but destroys other things, like enzymes. I tend to agree

that " improved flavor " probably means more nutrients are available

(long-simmered bone broth sure is better than those MSG pellets!).

The point I appreciate about the book Nurturing Traditions is the

" traditions " part. Cooking methods that have been passed down for many

years may very well have some nutritional component we don't know about,

and simplifying the routine to say that " raw is better than fresh " (or vice

versa) is impossible! The Indians had all kinds of traditions about how or

if to cook what part of an animal, and for the plant matter that was eaten too.

Heidi Schuppenhauer

Trillium Custom Software Inc.

heidis@...

[Guest guest]

--- Heidi Schuppenhauer <heidis@...>

wrote:

>In carrots, cooking makes the vitamin A easier to

access.

Beta-carotene, not Vitamin A.

Roman

__________________________________________________

[Guest guest]

>

>> I don't have any specific information myself, but

>> Susun Weed at <http://www.susunweed.com/>http://www.susunweed.com might as

she

>> says that cooking plants for a long time allows

>> minerals contained in cells to be released. She

>> strongly believes that plant juices don't contain a

>> significant amount of minerals. She says minerals are

>> mostly contained within cells and that cell walls need

>> to be broken for the minerals to be released, and

>> cooking does just that.

Weed is one of the top herbalists in the country. She knows plants. Long

cooking would extract like digestion of raw.

Wanita

[Guest guest]

>>>>I don't have any specific information myself, but

Susun Weed at http://www.susunweed.com might as she

says that cooking plants for a long time allows

minerals contained in cells to be released.

***Where are they released *to* I wonder..? Into the water I would think.

So, is there a better way to cook green leafy veggies other than

steaming/boiling so the nutrients won't all leach out into the water? If I

had enough freezer space, I could collect all the water that I cook my

veggies in, but I don't...

I just did a little web search to try to get some more info on cooking

cellulose. I'll list some of the points that I found:

1) pressure cooking cellulose for long periods breaks it down

2) Ph affects the amount of breakdown

3) Cellulose is made of (duh!) glucose molecules (somehow, that never

occured to me)

4) Older plants have more or tougher cellulose so need more pressure cooking

to break down their cellulose

5) companies making paper products seem to have the most information on this

process

Can anyone add to this list?

You know, first I have to deal with cutting way down on carbs (which I

adore), now I'm coming to think that my beloved salads offer not much more

nutrition than a bowl of wood chips....<sigh>...any of my other dearly held

illusions that someone would like to shatter..?

LOL! OK, I'll get over it

Here's a little more detailed info from one of the sites I ran across on

cooking cellulose:

Statement of Research:

Cellulose is a linear polymer of glucose which makes up 30 to 40% of

residues from agricultural, municipal, and forestry sources. Cellulose has

the allure of being a less expensive source of glucose compared to starch

from corn. A cellulose based industry has yet to evolve, or to contribute to

the wide application of glucose derived from starch for the production of

fermentation derived citric acid, amino acids, penicillin, and alcohols.

Approximately 9.5 million tons/year (400 million bushels) of corn are used

in these fermentation processes.

The lower raw material cost of cellulosic residues is offset by the

requirement that the cellulose must be ``softened'' if it is to be processed

economically. Softening entails insertion of water into cellulose's

crystalline structure thereby opening up its structure. Cellulose is coated

or closely associated with an organic material, lignin, in biomass materials

(e.g. wood, plant materials, and paper). This protective barrier must also

be breached. The softening process is called pretreatment since it precedes

enzyme or acid hydrolysis steps which depolymerize the cellulose to glucose.

An integral part of economic processes which convert starch to glucose is

the insertion of water into the structure of starch. The crystalline

structure of native, dry starch protects it from catalysts and hydrolysis.

Once converted into an open, hydrated form, starch is readily accessible to

the enzyme or acid catalysts which hydrolyze it to glucose. Softening of the

starch, i.e., starch pretreatment, is achieved by cooking the starch in

water at elevated pressures, where the pressure is sufficient to keep the

water in a liquid state. This process is also known as gelatinization since

pretreated corn or starch sometimes resembles a gel.

Current Activities:

Our work is examining the analogy to the pressure cooking of starch in

water - cooking cellulose in water under pressure. Cellulose has a

crystalline structure which is much more stable than starch. Studies with

fractionated celluloses of a degree of polymerization of 210

(microcrystalline cellulose) and 1000 (pulping grade cellulose) have yielded

mechanistic insights on the effect of pressurized liquid water at 180 to

220\xfb C on their structures. Compared to untreated cellulose, cellulose

pretreated with water gives a one and a half to three-fold higher conversion

to glucose when hydrolyzed with commercially available, non-toxic, food

grade enzymes.

Mechanistic insights derived from our studies have shown pH control during

cooking is the key parameter for achieving high cellulose reactivity during

subsequent enzyme hydrolysis. Cellulose forms organic acids via chemical

dehydration when cooked in water in the absence of pH control, due to the

acidity of water at high temperatures.

Current work is developing and experimentally validating mechanistic models

for rate processes involved in enzyme and microbial processing of cellulosic

materials. Fundamental insights into structure/function relationships

between cellulose, water and enzymes will help to develop environmentally

compatible pretreatment and hydrolysis schemes.

http://abe.www.ecn.purdue.edu/ABE/Research/research95/lad.weil.96.html

Suze Fisher

Web Design & Development

http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze3shjg/

mailto:s.fisher22@...

[Guest guest]

--- Suze Fisher <s.fisher22@...> wrote:

> ***Where are they released *to* I wonder..? Into the

> water I would think.

> So, is there a better way to cook green leafy

> veggies other than

> steaming/boiling so the nutrients won't all leach

> out into the water? If I

> had enough freezer space, I could collect all the

> water that I cook my

> veggies in, but I don't...

I think most of the good stuff goes into water. You

won't have to eat the cooked veggies. Look here at how

a potassium rich broth is made (vegs are discarded):

http://www.krispin.com/potassm.html -- on the bottom.

Roman

__________________________________________________

[Guest guest]

--- justinbond <justin_bond@...> wrote:

> cookbook recommends long, slow braisings as the best

> way to cook

> veggies. The author himself speculates that some

> vitamins are lost

> but he likes the flavor. I think he's wrong - the

> improved flavor is

> a sign of the nutrition being released.

As for " improved flavor " , IMO, some veggies taste

terrible when cooked for a long time and just don't

lend themselves to long, slow cooking. I think

brassicas are horrible when cooked beyond the

just-tender stage, they get bitter and sulfur-y.

Aubin

__________________________________________________

[Guest guest]

> The Indians had all kinds of traditions about how or

> if to cook what part of an animal, and for the plant matter that was eaten

too.

And you can sleep soundly in the certainty that those traditions varied

greatly from one group to another depending on a variety of sound reasoning

and observation as well as ridiculous superstitions and learned habits.

By the way, upon re-reading my preceding text, I was smacked upside the head

by the opening alliteration of the sentence. It was wholly unintentional,

but I like it anyway! :-)

[Guest guest]

> ***Where are they released *to* I wonder..? Into the water I would think.

> So, is there a better way to cook green leafy veggies other than

> steaming/boiling so the nutrients won't all leach out into the water? If I

> had enough freezer space, I could collect all the water that I cook my

> veggies in, but I don't...

I suspect that you can't do much better than simmering them in soups, stews

and sauces...especially if using a home-made stock as the base.

[Guest guest]

> > ***Where are they released *to* I wonder..? Into the water I

would think.

> > So, is there a better way to cook green leafy veggies other than

> > steaming/boiling so the nutrients won't all leach out into the

water? If I

> > had enough freezer space, I could collect all the water that I

cook my

> > veggies in, but I don't...

>

> I suspect that you can't do much better than simmering them in

soups, stews

> and sauces...especially if using a home-made stock as the base.

Makes sense to me. But while a spinach and mushroom soup may be

tasty, who really wants to put wheat grass in their soup?

[Guest guest]

> Makes sense to me. But while a spinach and mushroom soup may be

> tasty, who really wants to put wheat grass in their soup?

I'm not going to put wheat grass in anything except livestock!\

[Guest guest]

oh no, you guys have gotten me thinking. I'm going to pick up some

spirulina from the local HFS next time I go. NT says that it doesn't

have cellulose for cellular walls, so it should be a pretty good

source for those kinds of nutrients. Its got such veggie

connotations, I'll definitely have to buy a steak while I get it!

[Guest guest]

At 12:57 PM 4/15/2002 -0500, you wrote:

>And you can sleep soundly in the certainty that those traditions varied

>greatly from one group to another depending on a variety of sound reasoning

>and observation as well as ridiculous superstitions and learned habits.

I would sleep (and cook) a lot more soundly if I was able to blindly follow

some traditions that work for me: like kill a fatted lamb and sunup, scrub

the cutting board with 3 kinds of salt while facing west, cook the stomach

in a red clay pot over banked alder coals ... ok, I'm not good at coming up

with something traditional, but sometimes, it is so much WORK to rethink

everything from scratch and throw out most of what you grew up with, and in

fact, to throw out much of what you learned last month, and have no " here's

the accepted reality " text -- even in this group opinions obviously differ.

Can you even imagine living in a time when the traditions have not changed

for 100 years?

(this is tongue-in-cheek, not true complaining: I've spend a very long day

trying something new, and I'm ready to crawl back into a womb ...)

Heidi

[Guest guest]

Suze-

>I know that mentioned he believes that cooking doesn't make the

>cellulose in plants 'break down' and become more digestible. I've been

>thinking along the same lines. Does anyone have any specific information on

>how cooking affects the digestibility of plants, and particularly of

>cellulose?

Cellulose never (AFAIK) becomes " digestible " by humans -- IOW it's always

just a source of dietary fiber, but as we're adapted to handle it, it's not

harmful in reasonable quantities. Cooking can, however, burst cell walls

and break down certain starches such that they're less branched and more

digestible.

-

[Guest guest]

Me:

>I know that mentioned he believes that cooking doesn't make the

>cellulose in plants 'break down' and become more digestible. I've been

>thinking along the same lines. Does anyone have any specific information on

>how cooking affects the digestibility of plants, and particularly of

>cellulose?

:

Cellulose never (AFAIK) becomes " digestible " by humans -- IOW it's always

just a source of dietary fiber, but as we're adapted to handle it, it's not

harmful in reasonable quantities.

****Yes, of course - duh! Stupid me! It's not the cellulose *itself* that

contains the nutrients, but the cellulose we must break down to access the

nutrients contained *within the cell.*

Which reminds me of another question - do we humans have lipases that can

efficiently digest the waxy lipids that coat plant leaves and stems? Anyone

know?

Ah! And one more thing, according to Pond in " The Fats of Life " the highest

proportion of polyunsaturated fatty acids in plants is found in the leaves

and " other green tissue. " She writes that leaves are rarely more than 1%

lipid by weight, and that most of it is the waxy coating on the

outside...so, presumably, that outer waxy coating has a high proportion of

PUFAs (albeit, it's only 1% of the leaf's weight).

If we need to cook these plants thoroughly in order to break down the cell

walls so as to have access to the nutrients within, wouldn't heating them,

and especially for long periods, cause peroxidation of the PUFAs that

surround the cellulose? Or is 1% (by weight) too little PUFA to be concerned

with?

Suze Fisher

Web Design & Development

http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze3shjg/

mailto:s.fisher22@...

[Guest guest]

Suze-

>If we need to cook these plants thoroughly in order to break down the cell

>walls so as to have access to the nutrients within, wouldn't heating them,

>and especially for long periods, cause peroxidation of the PUFAs that

>surround the cellulose? Or is 1% (by weight) too little PUFA to be concerned

>with?

I'd be concerned with any consumption of oxidized lipids, but perhaps

healthy people eating good diets can handle the amounts to be found in

green vegetables.

That said, I think the value of fruits and vegetables is rather

over-estimated by the dietary mainstream.

>Which reminds me of another question - do we humans have lipases that can

>efficiently digest the waxy lipids that coat plant leaves and stems? Anyone

>know?

That's a good question, and I have no idea what the answer is. I'd tend to

suspect that if they're waxy we'd be less likely to be able to digest them

as we can't digest wax, but how waxy does it have to be before we can't

digest it? I don't know.

-

[Guest guest]

At 01:52 PM 4/16/2002 -0400, you wrote:

>Which reminds me of another question - do we humans have lipases that can

>efficiently digest the waxy lipids that coat plant leaves and stems? Anyone

>know?

In our youth we have an abundance of enzymes. As we age and if we have

eaten mainly a cooked diet our tissue reserve of enzymes is depleted

(leaching metabolic enzymes for digestive purposes). If we don't ingest

raw enzymes we will eventually run very low (ill health and degenerative

diseases) or run out (death). So it might be wise, as we age, to consume

more and more raw enzymes either in the form of foods (my favorite) or good

supplements. In answer to the question - yes we have them - but we must

keep replenishing them with raw, active enzymes.

-=mark=-