Guest guest Posted October 25, 2002 Report Share Posted October 25, 2002 ''According to Dr W on page 236 of " Beyond " : " Are raw foods more nutritious......? ...moderately so as far as vitamins; but aborption of carotenoids including beta carotend, lutein, and lycopene from raw foods is only 4% whereas the same foods cooked it is 15 to 20%. The distinction between raw and cooked (...not " overcooked " ) foods is probably not worth making. " '' As far as carotenoids go, you don't need to cook carrots to get higher levels of absorbsion - just stop so much of them being locked up with fibre - which can easily be done with a blender or juicer: ``Carrots, for example, actually release more of their carotenoids if you cook them; puréeing them has a similar effect.'' - http://www.cancerproject.org/medicine/carotenoids.html This seems like a pretty general rule to me - cooking increases bioavailability of some nutrients by reducing the extent to which they are bound to fibre. You can usually do the same thing with a blender or juicer. Once that is taken into account the effect of cooking seems almost wholly destructive. *Sometimes* destroying elements in food is good - since those elements are toxic. However that is hardly the rule. Claiming that raw and cooked foods are closely related seems extremely suspect to me. We know the deleterious effects of overcooking. Too high temperatures very often produce toxic compounds - such as acrylamide. Walford may not have been aware of that at the time of writing - but we know it now. Previously " healthy " cooked foodstuffs - such as ryvita, rice cakes, etc. must consequently be regarded with a certain degree of distrust, and all those who warned that they were unnatural, over-processed foodstuffs can look smug. We do know that boiled or steamed food has had all its natural enzymes destroyes - and that the fibre in the food has had its character seriously modified. What are the significance of these enzymes as nutrients? What else in the food has also been destroyed - in addition to some of the vitamin content? What will the " acrylamide " of steamed food be christened - when it is discovered? The short answer to these questions is that nobody really knows. Until more of the answers are in I would be /very/ hesitant about equating the nutrient content of raw and cooked foods. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 25, 2002 Report Share Posted October 25, 2002 Sorry you lost me with this statement: " Claiming that raw and cooked foods are closely related seems extremely suspect to me. " Sounds to me that you're rewording what Walford said. As for the deleterious effects of " overcooking " - Walford agrees with that when he says " not overcooked " - so that' doesn't seem to be an issue in this discussion. Of course it's your right to be " suspicious " of cooked foods or anything else that you're suspicious of. But I question whether it's a good idea to be obsessive or have your mind made up about an issue when there's no evidence that steamed or otherwise what we consider healthy ways to cook, are harmful and in many cases more healthful. I do note that you've presented both sides of the issue and I applaud you for that. > Claiming that raw and cooked foods are closely related seems > extremely suspect to me. We know the deleterious effects of > overcooking. Too high temperatures very often produce toxic > compounds - such as acrylamide. Walford may not have been > aware of that at the time of writing - but we know it now. > > Previously " healthy " cooked foodstuffs - such as ryvita, rice cakes, > etc. must consequently be regarded with a certain degree of distrust, > and all those who warned that they were unnatural, over-processed > foodstuffs can look smug. > > We do know that boiled or steamed food has had all its natural > enzymes destroyes - and that the fibre in the food has had its > character seriously modified. What are the significance of these > enzymes as nutrients? What else in the food has also been > destroyed - in addition to some of the vitamin content? What will > the " acrylamide " of steamed food be christened - when it is > discovered? > > The short answer to these questions is that nobody really knows. > Until more of the answers are in I would be /very/ hesitant about > equating the nutrient content of raw and cooked foods. > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 25, 2002 Report Share Posted October 25, 2002 Sorry you lost me with this statement: " Claiming that raw and cooked foods are closely related seems extremely suspect to me. " Sounds to me that you're rewording what Walford said. Walford's statement was: " The distinction between raw and cooked (I do not mean " overcooked " ) foods is probably not worth making. " That is the statement I was referring to. > As for the deleterious effects of " overcooking " - > Walford agrees with that when he says " not overcooked " - > so that' doesn't seem to be an issue in this discussion. An escape clause. What does " overcooked " mean? How much do you have to cook something before it is " overcooked " ? Is bread " overcooked " ? Is crispbread? Are all fried foods " overcooked " ? Maybe steaming something at STP is " overcooking " it. > Of course it's your right to be " suspicious " of cooked foods > or anything else that you're suspicious of. But I question > whether it's a good idea to be obsessive or have your mind > made up about an issue when there's no evidence that steamed > or otherwise what we consider healthy ways to cook, > are harmful and in many cases more healthful. Obviously preconceptions and obsessivness are undesirable. Does that have anything to do with the views I have expressed? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 26, 2002 Report Share Posted October 26, 2002 ----- Original Message ----- From: Tim Tyler "As far as carotenoids go, you don't need to cook carrots to get higher levels of absorbsion - just stop so much of them being locked up with fibre - which can easily be done with a blender or juicer: --With the potential drawback of increased rapidity of sugar effect, hieghtened GI effect. Those readers who have suffered from hypoglycemia in the past can probably remember the effect of high sugar liquids on them. "Once that is taken into account the effect of cooking seems almost wholly destructive. --That the increased bioavailability of lycopenes from tomatoes, for example, can be dismissed? That the increased or improved flavor is destructive, really? "Too high temperatures very often produce toxic compounds - such as acrylamide. Walford may not have beenaware of that at the time of writing - but we know it now. "We do know that boiled or steamed food has had all its natural enzymes destroyes - and that the fibre in the food has had its character seriously modified. What are the significance of these enzymes as nutrients? -I don't know, and i suggest you don't know either. Some cultures in the world have existed in superlative health with a diet of mostly steamed foods, while raw food purists are few, with an apparently substantial number of failed backsliders. My use of the word "back sliders", i think, matches the contralogical, mystical thinking that is at the core of the raw foods movement. " The short answer to these questions is that nobody really knows. Until more of the answers are in I would be /very/ hesitant aboutequating the nutrient content of raw and cooked foods. --Others are more aware no doubt on this than me, but i cannot think of any extant hunter collector society that is 100% raw foods. If you asked them why they cook foods, they would probably regard you as totally clueless. Raw food cultists: do they eat raw potatoes? raw beet leaves? raw kale? I don't believe it. Is it really necessary to go back, way back, to even pre- Paleo times, to the diet of tree dwelling primates? Hue Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 26, 2002 Report Share Posted October 26, 2002 --- I, " Tim Tyler " <tt2333@y...> wrote: > Is bread " overcooked " ? Is crispbread? Are all fried > foods " overcooked " ? Maybe steaming something at STP > is " overcooking " it. I've been trying to understand the pros and cons of pressure cooking food vs steaming it recently. From the acrylamide perspective: ``Boiling at 100 degrees Celsius appears to be the only safe cooking method. In potato-based foods, even cooking at a moderate temperature of 120 degrees Celsius began the process of acrylamide formation.'' - http://www.mercola.com/2002/aug/17/cooking_cancer.htm Household pressure cookers routinely reach a temperature of 121 degrees C. It still appears to be too soon to say very much about the effects of acrylamide on humans - but I take this as a sign that going much above 100 degrees centigrade is, perhaps, something to be avoided. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 26, 2002 Report Share Posted October 26, 2002 >> " As far as carotenoids go, you don't need to cook carrots to get >> higher levels of absorbsion - just stop so much of them being >> locked up with fibre - which can easily be done with a blender >> or juicer: > >With the potential drawback of increased rapidity of sugar >effect, hieghtened GI effect. > >Those readers who have suffered from hypoglycemia in the past can >probably remember the effect of high sugar liquids on them. I'm sure carrot juice is absorbed much more rapidly than from cooked carrots. While carrots are one of the sweetest vegetable juices, I can't say I've ever noticed much in the way of blood-sugar disturbance from consuming them - whereas I do if I consume melon juice or grape juice in any quantity. If people /do/ suffer from this problem with vegetable juices, my first reaction would be to tell them to dilute their juice - either with another, milder juice - or with water. >> " Once that is taken into account the effect of >> cooking seems almost wholly destructive. > > --That the increased bioavailability of lycopenes from tomatoes, > for example, can be dismissed? Lycopene absorbsion from tomatoes is also increased by juicing them. I'd say this is likely to be primarily a case of a nutrient being bound up with food in a manner that blending, juicing and cooking all liberate. > That the increased or improved flavor is destructive, really? I can't think of many examples where flavour is increased. My experience of cooked and juiced vegetables is rather uniformly that the cooked version tastes much, much milder. In these cases I would attribute the flavour loss mainly to the destruction (or perhaps transformation) of the more powerfully flavoured elements during cooking. Cooked wheat in bread and pastry is perhaps an example of qualitative change that is often percieved as an improvement (at least by those who haven't tasted wheatgrass :->) - but then we are rather getting away from boiling vegetables, and off into the world of high-temperature chemical transformation. >> " Too high temperatures very often produce toxic >> compounds - such as acrylamide. Walford may not have been >> aware of that at the time of writing - but we know it now. >> " We do know that boiled or steamed food has had all its natural >> enzymes destroyes - and that the fibre in the food has had its >> character seriously modified. What are the significance of >> these enzymes as nutrients? > > -I don't know, and i suggest you don't know either. I believe I went on to claim myself that " nobody really knows " . > Some cultures in the world have existed in superlative health > with a diet of mostly steamed foods, while raw food purists > are few, with an apparently substantial number of failed > backsliders. I'm certainly not advocating an all raw food diet here. >> " The short answer to these questions is that nobody really >> knows. Until more of the answers are in I would be /very/ >> hesitant about equating the nutrient content of raw and >> cooked foods. > > --Others are more aware no doubt on this than me, but i > cannot think of any extant hunter collector society that > is 100% raw foods. If you asked them why they cook foods, > they would probably regard you as totally clueless. It seems like an experiment of primarily sociological interest. > Raw food cultists: do they eat raw potatoes? raw beet leaves? > raw kale? I don't see myself as a " raw food cultist " , but - I've never eaten raw potatoes or raw beet leaves - but I have eaten raw kale juice - very strong tasting stuff ;-) Others seem to use kale in salads. Beet leaves are a potent source of oxalic acid - and oxalates are not destroyed by cooking. I avoid eating them for that reason. > I don't believe it. Is it really necessary to go back, > way back, to even pre-Paleo times, to the diet of tree > dwelling primates? I'm not advocating an all raw food diet here. I'm just questioning the assertion that the nutritional differences between raw and cooked foods are minor. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 26, 2002 Report Share Posted October 26, 2002 Here is a link for a recent study that is somewhat in keeping with this discussion. Another case for a possible benefit to heat processing???? http://www.globaltechnoscan.com/15thAug-21stAug02/sweet_corn.htm Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 26, 2002 Report Share Posted October 26, 2002 --- " ran7972002 " wrote: > Here is a link for a recent study that is somewhat in keeping with > this discussion. Another case for a possible benefit to heat > processing???? > > http://www.globaltechnoscan.com/15thAug-21stAug02/sweet_corn.htm " It doesn't matter if it's raw; it doesn't matter if it's cooked; it doesn't matter if it's fresh; it doesn't matter if it's processed. You simply need to eat a variety of fruits and vegetables to get maximum health benefits. " I think that sort of comment is not justified at all. If fact, I think it is so misleading it reflects badly on the individual making it :-( Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 26, 2002 Report Share Posted October 26, 2002 > >> " Too high temperatures very often produce toxic > >> compounds - such as acrylamide. Walford may not have been > >> aware of that at the time of writing - but we know it now. > >> " We do know that boiled or steamed food has had all its natural > >> enzymes destroyes - and that the fibre in the food has had its > >> character seriously modified. What are the significance of > >> these enzymes as nutrients? > > > > -I don't know, and i suggest you don't know either. > > I believe I went on to claim myself that " nobody really knows " . > Ok, but based on zero evidence I see little reason to adopt a raw foods diet. Even acrylamides are only formed by certain forms of cooking. They are not formed by boiling for instance. Although I admit even if the raw foods approach had a ton of evidence I'd still eat things like eggs and fish in a cooked state. Raw eggs - YUCK!! It's very easy psychologically to eliminate foods - such as eliminating all cooked foods - or going vegan - or eliminating all grain foods. It taps into a very primitive area of the psyche IMO - that which avoided certain foods due to poison I imagine - that which is still part of various religions and their food taboos - that which thinks eating chocolate covered cochroaches (not to mention raw eggs) is yucky. It's the minimalist approach to health. The novel pared down to the haiku. If too much is bad none at all must be good. Pare down your diet until there's nothing left. The criticism of this approach is what makes that beyondveg site so interesting. A varied diet is more likely to get all the necessary nutrients. (Nonetheless that site doesn't have any real critiques to make of lacto-ovo vegetarianism - probably because it's a fairly decent diet) In short - I'd have to see stronger evidence to eliminate cooked foods than I have seen. I'll try however to develop a stict taboo on sugary deserts - hopefully so much so that they no longer tempt me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 27, 2002 Report Share Posted October 27, 2002 > > I think that sort of comment is not justified at all. > > If fact, I think it is so misleading it reflects badly on the > individual making it :-( according to Rui Hai Liu, M.D., Ph.D., assistant professor of food science at Cornell University Yeah, what the heck would he know. ;- ) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 27, 2002 Report Share Posted October 27, 2002 From: " Tim Tyler " <tt2333@y...> Date: Sat Oct 26, 2002 10:49 am Subject: Re: raw foods revisited ``Boiling at 100 degrees Celsius appears to be the only safe cooking method. In potato-based foods, even cooking at a moderate temperature of 120 degrees Celsius began the process of acrylamide formation.'' Try steaming, Tim and All. Cheers, Al. Alan Pater, Ph.D.; Faculty of Medicine; Memorial University; St. 's, NL A1B 3V6 Canada; Tel. No.: (709) 777-6488; Fax No.: (709) 777-7010; email: apater@... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 27, 2002 Report Share Posted October 27, 2002 Hi all, Another pro-cooking argument, for brassica veggies (like cabbage) at least, is given in the following abstract: http://www.agralin.nl/wda/abstracts/ab3200.html It even gives tips on the preperation of 'em. (I recalled reading something about this in a newspaper this year and thought it to be of interest in this discussion, so I did some digging.) Some other possibly interesting links on this subject are (as a startingpoint for further digging?): GLUCOSINOLATES AND HUMAN HEALTH http://www.flair-flow.com/docs/ffe35299.htm (this one contradicts the first, it says: " ...Both boiling and microwave cooking lead to extensive loss of glucosinolates... " , but the first is more recent I guess.) Glucosinolates and Health http://www.flair-flow.com/docs/ffe48602.html Eating Brassica Vegetables is Good for Our Health http://www.flair-flow.com/docs/ffe49102.html Effects of food-borne glucosinolates in human health http://www.nf-2000.org/secure/Fair/S697.htm GLUCOSINOLATES AND THEIR BREAKDOWN PRODUCTS (For the biochemists among us?) www.fsagx.ac.be/cg/e_gluc1.htm Ciao, . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 28, 2002 Report Share Posted October 28, 2002 --- " alexmatul " wrote: > Another pro-cooking argument, for brassica veggies (like cabbage) > at least, is given in the following abstract: > > http://www.agralin.nl/wda/abstracts/ab3200.html It says: None of the studies mentioned in this context so far seem to me to have been particularly favourable to cooking. This one explicitly says that " increased extractability " is likely to be the factor responsible for the increased availability. Comparisons with juicing the produce or blending it seem to me to be essential if the conclusion that cooking is beneficial (compared to raw consumption) in that case is to be reached. I juice some 80% of my raw vegetables - and (I think) all my raw brassica. I'm sure there will be some cases somewhere of some new useful nutrient being formed during cooking - but it seems likely to me that for every useful compound created, ten times as many things are typically lost or destroyed. http://www.ifr.bbsrc.ac.uk/Diet/GItract_EFGLU.html has more details on the study. It states that juices are effective - and that the comparisons relating to cooking were done on: uncooked, lightly cooked (10 min), cooked for a long time (30 min) or uncooked, after cutting and storage for 24h produce. I suspect that that if blended or juiced cabbage was employed, availability would be greater still. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 28, 2002 Report Share Posted October 28, 2002 Whoops. I thought it was a discussion of heating veggies versus not processing veggies, maybe chopping them a little (for the sake of comfort during consumption;). But your reply and going up thread learned me that it was more becoming a discussion of cooking veggies versus juicing veggies. I am sorry for being a bit sloppy on this. Anyway, I think you made clear that this abstract does not provide a con-juicing argument Furthermore I have this lunch problem. I don't eat lunch at home and taking a huge box/bowl of salad with me is impractical, for it takes up a lot of space in my bag, not to mention that I feel uncomfortable or a bit nerdie to sit in the canteen eating a large bowl of salad, brought from home, among people eating their compact sandwiches wich most of them bought on the spot. Also it takes a lot of time to consume, wich I don't have during the lunch break. I think that taking a bottle of veggie juice with me for lunch, instead of a salad, could provide (at least part of) the solution. Ciao, . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.