 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / Nutrition / August 2005Raw or cooked, which is more nutritious
Lifestyle food cults abound often tying themselves to one idea thought to trump all other considerations in nutrition. The raw food example is one such where the assertion is made that cooking destroys nutritional elements and food is best eaten raw, very often tied to not including meat either raw or cooked. Here is a bit from a newsletter to which I subscribe outlining the topic: "Many people believe that fresh fruits and vegetables always contain more nutrients than cooked ones, but cooked carrots have higher levels of antioxidants than fresh carrots. Cooking carrots in the presence of a small amount of oil or butter increases the amount of two antioxidants called beta carotene and phenolic acid. Cooking also increases the amount of lycopene you get from tomatoes. Cooking breaks the plant cells open to increase the absorption of these antioxidants and other beneficial plant chemicals. Adding a little oil or butter increases absorption of fat soluble chemicals. Some vitamins are affected by cooking, but you'll still get plenty. The enzymes in food that are destroyed by heat are of no use to you; your body makes the enzymes you need to digest your food. Most of the nutrients in food (minerals, proteins, fats, carbohydrates) are not destroyed by heat, and many common foods are unpalatable or unsafe if they are not cooked. I recommend eating the widest possible variety of fruits and vegetables, raw or cooked, and fresh, frozen, canned or dried." > Lifestyle food cults abound often tying themselves to one idea thought to > trump all other considerations in nutrition. The raw food example is one [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > of fruits and vegetables, raw or cooked, and fresh, frozen, canned or > dried." That's for carrots. What about fruits? I still believe fresh *fruits* (like oranges, apples, peaches, and so on) always contain more nutrients than cooked ones. Am I wrong? > I still believe fresh *fruits* (like oranges, apples, peaches, and so on) > always contain more nutrients than cooked ones. Am I wrong? For the most part, YES. :) Fruits are by definition eaten raw. That is why they are called a fruit, Fruit. A tomato, for example, when eaten raw is a fruit but when cooked is considered a vegetable. Just thought that you might want to know. :) >> I still believe fresh *fruits* (like oranges, apples, peaches, and so on) >> always contain more nutrients than cooked ones. Am I wrong? [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >A tomato, for example, when eaten raw is a fruit but when cooked is >considered a vegetable. Unlike yourself Gohde. Raw or cooked (half baked in your case) you are always a fruit. >Just thought that you might want to know. :) Actually ... no. RBR "That's for carrots. What about fruits? I still believe fresh *fruits* (like oranges, apples, peaches, and so on) always contain more nutrients than cooked ones. Am I wrong?" Carrots are an example only, spinach for example has more available nutrition if cooked because the things good for us are converted into a form we can absorb. In each individual case there are trade offs. With fruits the loss tends to be in the area of heat sensitive vitamins, but as he says, not all of them are lost there is a reduction in level. A fruit has many items of nutritional value, including the energy from the carbohydrates and many other things. Most fruts are cooked as part of pastries, on an an individual basis more is probably eaten as fresh. But then our culture tends to prompt removing skins even when they really contain more of the vitamins etc. which are usefull. I go with his concluding remark, eat a wide range of many fruits and vegetables, raw and/or cooked or otherwise preserved and what we need nutritionally will be there. This should not be confused with the goal someone might have to supplement with items from foods because very large amounts of them are thought to have some benefit. On that basis the natural source of them in the food we eat is but a small fraction even with the best preservation attempts with each kind of food and cooking or not is irrelevant. > The raw food example is one such where the assertion is made > that cooking destroys nutritional elements and food is best eaten raw, ... Biochemical texts agree. > "Many people believe that fresh fruits and vegetables always contain > more nutrients than cooked ones, but cooked carrots have higher > levels of antioxidants than fresh carrots. Cooking carrots in the > presence of a small amount of oil or butter increases the amount of > two antioxidants called beta carotene and phenolic acid. This approach is called "the quantitative lie". One trivial example is chosen and the implication is that it can be applied globally, when it can not. "Cooking carrots in the presence of a small amount of oil or butter increases the amount of ..." is intentionally-misleading because the oil will dissolve more of the fat-soluble nutrients and possibly make them more readily available, but what about the other 300 nutritional chemicals in the carrot? Cooking does NOT "increases the amount of" nutrients. Heat can not create molecules out of nothing. > Cooking also increases the amount of lycopene you get from tomatoes. Nope, it is the solubility in oil. > Cooking breaks the plant cells open to increase the absorption of these > antioxidants and other beneficial plant chemicals. It also breaks cell walls to make ~10 times as much starch available, and that is the reason for the tendency of people on a high starch diet toward obesity. > Adding a little > oil or butter increases absorption of fat soluble chemicals. But, it does not "increase the amount" as previously claimed. One can readily add oil to a raw salad to get this solubility-effect without cooking. > Most of the nutrients in food (minerals, proteins, fats, carbohydrates) > are not destroyed by heat, ... Not "destroyed", but rather their biological activity has been severely reduced, or eliminated, by the denaturing of proteins and protein complexes and the oxidation of various nutrients. In addition, hundreds of foreign/toxic Maillard Reaction products and carcinogens are created by cooking. http://www.ecologos.org/denature.htm > ... and many common foods are unpalatable or unsafe if > they are not cooked. Irrefutable evidence that they should not be eaten. Laurie >> ... and many common foods are unpalatable or unsafe if >> they are not cooked. > Irrefutable evidence that they should not be eaten. On what grounds?  SignatureEnrico C >>> ... and many common foods are unpalatable or unsafe if >>> they are not cooked. >> Irrefutable evidence that they should not be eaten. > > On what grounds? Animals are attracted to their proper diet by instinct; that is, until culture traps them into self-destructive behavior. Thus, foods that are "unpalatable" raw (HINT: our species evolved on raw foods) are unpalatable simply because they are not a part of our proper biological diet. So, the "grounds" would by "Nature". Laurie >>>> ... and many common foods are unpalatable or unsafe if >>>> they are not cooked. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Laurie Are you saying that I should not eat cooked broccoli because I find raw broccoli unpalatable? Also cooked carrots vs. raw carrots. There are many veggies that I like cooked but not raw. It really irritates me when I go to a restaurant and they bring me (with my entree) raw broccoli, zucchini, etc. which is still cold because they took it out of the freezer and didn't bother to even heat it up. In my opinion, raw veggies belong in a salad, not in an entree. The salad dressing is there to make those raw veggies palatable. Ora > Are you saying that I should not eat cooked broccoli because I find > raw broccoli unpalatable? Also cooked carrots vs. raw carrots. > There are many veggies that. I like cooked but not raw. I am not saying anyone should, or should not, do/eat anything. This is not about your culturally-conditioned "likes" or dislikes. It is a simple fact that cooking reduces the availability of many nutrients, produces potent carcinogens and hundreds of foreign Maillard reaction chemicals never seen by our bodies before. It also denatures proteins making them essentially biologically-useless, as denaturing of proteins destroys their biological activity. http://www.ecologos.org/denature.htm http://www.price-pottenger.org/Articles/PottsCats.html > It really irritates me when I go to a restaurant and they bring me (with > my > entree) raw broccoli, zucchini, etc. which is still cold because they took > it > out of the freezer and didn't bother to even heat it up. A restaurant that serves still-frozen vegetables? > In my opinion, raw veggies belong in a salad, not in an entree. The salad > dressing is there to make those raw veggies palatable. Yet, our species evolved on a totally uncooked diet, as did every species ever existing on this planet. You are relating to local cultural concepts, not biochemistry, which is what eating is really about. Laurie > > Are you saying that I should not eat cooked broccoli because I find > > raw broccoli unpalatable? Also cooked carrots vs. raw carrots. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > It is a simple fact that cooking reduces the availability of many > nutrients, Cooking some foods in certain ways increases availability of some nutrients. For example - corn. > produces potent carcinogens and hundreds of foreign Maillard > reaction chemicals never seen by our bodies before. Only when over heated and burned. Boiling or poaching is fine. > It also denatures > proteins making them essentially biologically-useless, as denaturing of > proteins destroys their biological activity. Again only in very high temperature cooking. That is why a steak served rare is more nutritious and contains fewer carcinogens than steak burned to a crisp well-done. > http://www.ecologos.org/denature.htm > http://www.price-pottenger.org/Articles/PottsCats.html [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Laurie Not all foods give up their nutrition in their absolute raw state. Some do and some don't. Which are they? You tell us, you are the expert on raw foods. But I do knopw that moderately cooked food is fine for the most part. Seafood should only be brought to temperature or eaten raw (I like raw oysters, clams and sushi), steaks should not be charred but one should cook the outside to ensure that any surface bacteria are taken care of, corn has to be cooked or it is inedible, other grains as well. Not all foods can be *safely* eaten raw either. See it isn't entirely black and white. Everything in moderation including moderation. TC >>>> ... and many common foods are unpalatable or unsafe if >>>> they are not cooked. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Laurie Isn't it a good few years since Prometheus found out about fire? :) |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.