 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / Nutrition / January 2007cooked food = junk food?
Why have nutritionists ignored decades of research demonstrating that cooked food is nutritionally incomplete, and unsuitable for humans? Why are these "professionals" not taken to court for misconduct as any doctor would for giving dangerous and misleading advice? John "...cooking renders food pasty, so that it sticks to the teeth, and undergoes acid fermentation. Furthermore, the cooking of food greatly diminishes the need for use of the teeth; and thus tends to diminish the circulation of blood to the jaws and teeth, and to produce under -development of the maxillary and contiguous bones—thus leading to contracted dental arches, and to malocclusion and impaction of the teeth, with complications of great seriousness." - Forbes, E. B., The Ohio Journal of Science. Vol. 33, No.5 (September, 1933), 389-406 In general, I agree, but they have not ignored it. I've found plenty of studies on the subject. Do you do any research at pubmed.com? The problem concerns who decides what gets into the textbooks. Burr & Burr (1930) is still being cited, for example, even though it was refuted directly in 1948 ! You might want to take a look at my free web site, where I try to sort this kind of thing out, examining the actual experimental findings. http://groups.msn.com/TheScientificDebateForum-/ Monty, You have hit the nail on the head, nutrition as also medical "science" has no satisfactory method. Foods comprise of thousands of biologically active compounds, and there is no practical way to establish which ones are "nutrients". One could expermient on other species, but that is not satisfactory, and then there is epidemiology of various kinds. But neither approach is precise, and both are misleading - there is certainly no decent control of the variables, and the number of combinations to test must be infinate. Nutrition also has no central dogma, does not explain any natural phenomena, so basically it is a branch of research, not a proper science. Furthermore, the approach so far just seems absurd. How are quite different foods comparable because a few chemicals in them are available in similar proportions for example? A careful examination of human oral anatomy leads to the conclusion that we are most similar to bonobos, who eat a frugivorous diet. Should bonobos eat a "balanced diet" ... pizza and chips...? John > In general, I agree, but they have not ignored it. I've found plenty > of studies on the subject. Do you do any research at pubmed.com? [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > http://groups.msn.com/TheScientificDebateForum-/ >Why have nutritionists ignored decades of research demonstrating that cooked >food is nutritionally incomplete, and unsuitable for humans? Why are these >"professionals" not taken to court for misconduct as any doctor would for >giving dangerous and misleading advice? Because they own the black helicopters? Cooked/chewed food is changed food, in some providing for release of nutrition not otherwise easily available. Eskimos who could not otherwise cook meat let it "rot" before eating to achieve a similar nutritional effect. The range of lifestyle food cults is great indeed. The "black helicopters" are only needed under the most extreme of circumstances. For the most part, people are willing to act the part of lambs, off to the slaughterhouse. I agree that some things, obviously not natural human foods, are inedible in their raw state. However, that is not a blanket reason to eat everything cooked. My original point stands. John > >Why have nutritionists ignored decades of research demonstrating that > cooked [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > The range of lifestyle food cults is great indeed. "I agree that some things, obviously not natural human foods, are inedible in their raw state. However, that is not a blanket reason to eat everything cooked." This is working backwards to make a point, if a human eats it then it is human food by definition. Cooking and fire allowed humans to exist in all parts of the globe because it provided warmth and made available food sources not as nutritious or as plentiful without it. The fat in meats was a concentrated surce of energy in colder climates that was not otherwise available on a seasonal basis. > "I agree that some things, obviously not natural human foods, are > inedible in their raw state. However, that is not a blanket reason to > eat everything cooked." > > This is working backwards to make a point, if a human eats it then it is > human food by definition. So if cattle eat ground up sheep remains, then ground up sheep remains is cattle food? If perverts eat scat, then it is human food? I simply cannot except your definition of "food", it is nothing like a proper scientific definition. It completely ignores the fact that all animals have some kind of natural diet consisting of various kinds of raw food. > Cooking and fire allowed humans to exist in > all parts of the globe because it provided warmth and made available > food sources not as nutritious or as plentiful without it. This is not in dispute, but it is another example of the "irrelevant conclusion". Nutrition is supposed to tell us what we should be eating, and tradition is not science. > The fat in > meats was a concentrated surce of energy in colder climates that was not > otherwise available on a seasonal basis. None of these points support the notion that it is necessary or healthy for humans to eat cooked food, nor do they discredit the evidence that cooked food is unhealthy for humans. I'm finding that I am begining to repeat myself, so unless someone produces the scientific goods, I'll ignore any further replies. > This is working backwards to make a point, if a human eats it then it is > human food by definition. "So if cattle eat ground up sheep remains, then ground up sheep remains is cattle food? If perverts eat scat, then it is human food? I simply cannot except your definition of "food", it is nothing like a proper scientific definition. It completely ignores the fact that all animals have some kind of natural diet consisting of various kinds of raw food." Natural is what natural does, if humans have eaten it with any kind of regularity then it is human food. Word play on "natural" has no meaning outside an empirical observation of what foods humans consume. Humans like some other animals can and do eat almost everything, in that respect humans and pigs and dogs share a "natural" diet. > Cooking and fire allowed humans to exist in > all parts of the globe because it provided warmth and made available > food sources not as nutritious or as plentiful without it. "This is not in dispute, but it is another example of the "irrelevant conclusion". Nutrition is supposed to tell us what we should be eating, and tradition is not science." It is an observation of the natural experiment in which humans have been involved these past 100 k years. Human populations in all parts of the globe have found traditionally a diet that serves all nutritional needs, by definition of course. All macro and micro nutritional needs were met by clusters of foods, almost all cooked, in all parts of the world. Those are the observed conclusions that can be drawn from the experiment. > The fat in > meats was a concentrated surce of energy in colder climates that was not > otherwise available on a seasonal basis. "None of these points support the notion that it is necessary or healthy for humans to eat cooked food, nor do they discredit the evidence that cooked food is unhealthy for humans." It shows just fine that cooked foods of all kinds is sufficient to support all the activities to maintain humans reproductively, if we merely do a nose count as measure of it. "I'm finding that I am begining to repeat myself, so unless someone produces the scientific goods, I'll ignore any further replies." It is your notion, you must support it beyond the speculative level so far provided, no others have any obligation. The scientific experiment has been done and humans thrive on and prefer cooked foods of all kinds in all parts of the world and the exponential nose count for the past 10 k years or so is measure enough to bring serious doubt on your notion. > > This is working backwards to make a point, if a human eats it then it is > > human food by definition. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > some other animals can and do eat almost everything, in that respect humans > and pigs and dogs share a "natural" diet. This is nothing like a definition in science, and is just another argument based on tradition. Furthermore, no other creatures eat cooked food. > "This is not in dispute, but it is another example of the "irrelevant > conclusion". Nutrition is supposed to tell us what we should be eating, and [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > clusters of foods, almost all cooked, in all parts of the world. Those are > the observed conclusions that can be drawn from the experiment. You are prostituting the term "experiment" to a ridiculous degree. Experiments outside labs cannot be properly controlled, and so their data needs careful scrutiny, and is always going to struggle towards any conclusion. As nutritional research has not, and cannot possibly establish all the nutrients from the thousands of substances found in foods, you cannot claim that all nutrients needs were met. Obviously though we got enough to reproduce, however, you then have to examine whether the reproduction was as efficient as it might of been without cooked food. You would have to count spontaneous abortions, deformaties and so forth. > "None of these points support the notion that it is necessary or healthy for > humans to eat cooked food, nor do they discredit the evidence that cooked [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > all the activities to maintain humans reproductively, if we merely do a > nose count as measure of it. You have not counted anything. Count the number of your teeth. If you don't have them all, then explain why not, then explain why 5500 other mammal species always have all theirs. > "I'm finding that I am begining to repeat > myself, so unless someone produces the scientific goods, I'll ignore any [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > in all parts of the world and the exponential nose count for the past 10 > k years or so is measure enough to bring serious doubt on your notion. I see no scientific basis for these claims. We should not confuse such fanatcism with actual facts. > You have not counted anything. Count the number of your teeth. If you don't > have them all, then explain why not, then explain why 5500 other mammal > species always have all theirs. Yep, ... a confirmed Weston Price, Kook! :( In the wild, Moron, wild animals end up dying from starvation when their teeth wear out from eating an all raw diet. >> You have not counted anything. Count the number of your teeth. If you don't >> have them all, then explain why not, then explain why 5500 other mammal [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >In the wild, Moron, wild animals end up dying from starvation when >their teeth wear out from eating an all raw diet. That seems a very fair point to me. The extremist positions that *only cooked* food is damaging, and that humans evolved to eat and should only eat raw food are surely flawed. First, no-one that I know of eats *only* cooked food. Cooking has merely extended the foods we can eat by a considerable number. Many plants are inedible raw, and some even toxic. Man evolved with a chronic shortage of energy, and any extension of his energy supply was hugely advantageous. Only humans from Hollywood are so narcissistic to be conned by this orthodontic scam. Animals have no problems generally with crooked teeth. I had an old cattle dog bitch who had a canine sticking out horizontal. She looked like she had a constant fat lip. Lived to a ripe old age. She never went to the doggy orthodontist. It's not cooked food that is to blame for most tooth loss, but too many snacks of refined sugars. Oh, and we live too long. jack ps, the bitch ate a lot of cooked food in her life, but it was another dog that bent her canine. > Natural is what natural does, if humans have eaten it with any kind of > regularity then it is human food. Word play on "natural" has no meaning > outside an empirical observation of what foods humans consume. Humans like > some other animals can and do eat almost everything, in that respect humans > and pigs and dogs share a "natural" diet. "This is nothing like a definition in science, and is just another argument based on tradition. Furthermore, no other creatures eat cooked food." A A great deal of science is only done by observation of natural experiments. Along with human dietary practices are climatology, human population genetics, archaeology, linguistics, epidemiology, much of biology, paleontology, and many many dozens of others. > It is an observation of the natural experiment in which humans have been > involved these past 100 k years. Human populations in all parts of the > globe have found traditionally a diet that serves all nutritional needs, by > definition of course. All macro and micro nutritional needs were met by > clusters of foods, almost all cooked, in all parts of the world. Those are > the observed conclusions that can be drawn from the experiment. "You are prostituting the term "experiment" to a ridiculous degree. Experiments outside labs cannot be properly controlled, and so their data needs careful scrutiny, and is always going to struggle towards any conclusion." See above. "As nutritional research has not, and cannot possibly establish all the nutrients from the thousands of substances found in foods, you cannot claim that all nutrients needs were met. Obviously though we got enough to reproduce, however, you then have to examine whether the reproduction was as efficient as it might of been without cooked food. You would have to count spontaneous abortions, deformaties and so forth." Success in evolutionary biology is a nose count, which humans have with cooked foods shown an exponential growth these past 10 k years. The results of that natural experiment are in. "You have not counted anything. Count the number of your teeth. If you don't have them all, then explain why not, then explain why 5500 other mammal species always have all theirs." Until using cooked foods routinely humans had very good teeth, another outcome of the natural experiment. "I see no scientific basis for these claims. We should not confuse such fanatcism with actual facts." 6 billion, the current datum point on the exponential curve of increase of humans these past 10 k years eating mostly cooked foods is a tiny fact that brings your "theory" in great doubt. > 6 billion, the current datum point on the exponential curve of increase of > humans these past 10 k years eating mostly cooked foods is a tiny fact that > brings your "theory" in great doubt. I don't have a theory of my own, I merely state what has been well known to anthropolgists and orthodontic researchers for decades, that cooked food eating cripples humans. My interpretation of that is that cooked food is not suitable (i.e. healthy) for humans. What part of the above do you disagree with? Do you disagree with the research or with my interpretation? If you disagree with the research, then I say read the literature I have cited, and show me how I have misrepresented it. If you disagree with my conclusion, identify a flaw in my logic. >> 6 billion, the current datum point on the exponential curve of increase of >> humans these past 10 k years eating mostly cooked foods is a tiny fact >that >> brings your "theory" in great doubt. >I don't have a theory of my own, I merely state what has been well known to >anthropolgists and orthodontic researchers for decades, that cooked food >eating cripples humans. And we ask again for * WEB * based evidence by which to evaluate your claim. >My interpretation of that is that cooked food is not suitable (i.e. healthy) >for humans. And an exponential population growth to 6 billion in all parts of the globe these past 10 k years points to a different reality. >What part of the above do you disagree with? Do you disagree with the >research or with my interpretation? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >If you disagree with my conclusion, identify a flaw in my logic. Your "research" is yet to be evaluated. Your conclusion is in great doubt as it starts with a presumption and fails to get past the start line. I can see that I am wasting my time here. > >> 6 billion, the current datum point on the exponential curve of increase of > >> humans these past 10 k years eating mostly cooked foods is a tiny fact [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > doubt as it starts with a presumption and fails to get past the start > line. > Why have nutritionists ignored decades of research demonstrating that cooked > food is nutritionally incomplete, and unsuitable for humans? Why are these > "professionals" not taken to court for misconduct as any doctor would for > giving dangerous and misleading advice? What? Don't you watch those Caveman GeiGo commericals. Primitive man discovered fire. Did you? Privitive man invented the wheel, and said that the frying pan good. But, the plate was even better. You should try them sometimes. Cooking food keeps criters from walking off your plate. Just thought that you might want to get real. You got out of bed on the wrong side of the rock, didn't you? This is supposed to be a "sci" group, but I don't see any scientific material in your post. > > Why have nutritionists ignored decades of research demonstrating that cooked > > food is nutritionally incomplete, and unsuitable for humans? Why are these [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > that you might want to get real. You got out of bed on the wrong side > of the rock, didn't you? > This is supposed to be a "sci" group, but I don't see any scientific > material in your post. Where do these MORONs come from? That is exactly what you are. Quoting some quack research paper written in 1933, which is ancient history as far as nutrition research is concerned, is NOT science. You are a Moron making a moronic argument. You deserve to be treated like the Moron that you are. :) > > This is supposed to be a "sci" group, but I don't see any scientific > > material in your post. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Quoting some quack research paper written in 1933, which is ancient > history as far as nutrition research is concerned, is NOT science. attacking a researchers, or their work because it was done some time ago is not acceptable behavior- if this were a moderated group, you would be removed for such a foolish and defamatory remark > You are a Moron making a moronic argument. You deserve to be treated > like the Moron that you are. :) Perhaps you are projecting your issues onto others? In any case, even if a moron speaks the truth, it is still the truth. > > > This is supposed to be a "sci" group, but I don't see any scientific > > > material in your post. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > Perhaps you are projecting your issues onto others? In any case, even if a > moron speaks the truth, it is still the truth. You are NOT worth the time of day Buddy, let alone a SCI response. :) Ha, ... Hah, Ha! First impressions count, and you showed up on this ng spouting off the mouth about some Quack research paper written back in 1933. LOL Where do these morons come from? > Why have nutritionists ignored decades of research demonstrating that cooked > food is nutritionally incomplete, and unsuitable for humans? Why are these > "professionals" not taken to court for misconduct as any doctor would for > giving dangerous and misleading advice? One website states: "Carrots are delicious eaten raw or cooked. Beta-carotene is not destroyed by cooking; in fact, cooking breaks down the fiber, making this nutrient and carrots' sugars more available, thus also making them taste sweeter. Take care not to overcook carrots, however, to ensure that they retain their maximum flavor and nutritional content."  SignatureRon Again this does not address my key points, it's just dogma. In real sciences all the facts have to be accounted for and assumptions can't just be made off-the-cuff. Cooking reduces the anti-cancer effect of many vegetables, and as originally stated, does not offer enough exercise for our jaws to develop normally - hence the pandemic of tooth decay and malocclusion amongst civilized humans. All these facts are in the literature, but ignored by nutritionists, who prefer their pseudoscience. John > > Why have nutritionists ignored decades of research demonstrating that cooked > > food is nutritionally incomplete, and unsuitable for humans? Why are these [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > taste sweeter. Take care not to overcook carrots, however, to ensure > that they retain their maximum flavor and nutritional content." "Again this does not address my key points, it's just dogma. In real sciences all the facts have to be accounted for and assumptions can't just be made off-the-cuff. Cooking reduces the anti-cancer effect of many vegetables, and as originally stated, does not offer enough exercise for our jaws to develop normally - hence the pandemic of tooth decay and malocclusion amongst civilized humans." "Reducing" does not mean not effective nor does more mean more effective, this would have to be shown to be a significant effect. That's why we invented chewinggum, and physical activity of the mouth is not the cause of tooth decay. Where except for eskimos who did not have the fuel for it did any culture eat only uncooked food? Even with the eskimos they let "rot" their meat for taste and tenderness to imitate the protein breakdown cooking allows, it was their version of a crock pot. > "Again this does not address my key points, it's just dogma. In real > sciences [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > "Reducing" does not mean not effective nor does more mean more > effective, this would have to be shown to be a significant effect. The effect is statistically significant. > That's why we invented chewinggum, and physical activity of the mouth is > not the cause of tooth decay. I don't think I said lack of chewing activity is the cause of tooth decay, but I do think there is evidence that it is a factor. When jaws are not exercised enough, this causes mandibular atrophy, having outcomes such as malocclusion and impacted wisdom teeth. Overcrowding of teeth often results in tooth overlap which promotes decay. Furthermore, chewing increase blood flow to the jaws, bringing with it more immune cells, and also more nutrients, so it may be that physical activity is in these ways a variable in tooth decay. Certainly you need more science to defend your claims of no relationship. > Where except for eskimos who did not have > the fuel for it did any culture eat only uncooked food? Who cares? Tradition is not a defence of anything. And furthermore, we don't need to show that there are any 100% raw eating cultures that fair better, we only need ones that eat more raw and do better, and of course show that is due to the raw food. This evidence is available in the literature. > Even with the > eskimos they let "rot" their meat for taste and tenderness to imitate > the protein breakdown cooking allows, it was their version of a crock > pot. I don't need to offer any critique of cooking. However, those who propose it, most certainly need credible science to support the practice, so where is it? >Who cares? Tradition is not a defence of anything. And furthermore, we >don't >need to show that there are any 100% raw eating cultures that fair better, >we only need ones that eat more raw and do better, and of course show that >is due to the raw food. This evidence is available in the literature. So point us to the data for this assertion, web sources if you please, defining "do better" along the way of course. snip >I don't need to offer any critique of cooking. However, those who propose >it, most certainly need credible science to support the practice, so where >is it? The usual order of such things is he who has an idea is duty bound to also provide evidence, not those to whom it is offered to provide same for any alternative ideas they might hold to the contrary. We can proceed when we see your "do better" evidence. > >Who cares? Tradition is not a defence of anything. And furthermore, we > >don't [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > So point us to the data for this assertion, web sources if you please, > defining "do better" along the way of course. Am J Orthod. 1982 Jan;81(1):38-42, The adaptive value of dental crowding: a consideration of the biologic basis of malocclusion, Lombardi AV Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1990 Apr;97(4):349-57, Australian aboriginal tooth succession, interproximal attrition, and Begg's theory, Corruccini RS. Am J Phys Anthropol. 1983 Nov;62(3):317-24, Changing occlusal variation in Pima Amerinds, Corruccini RS, Potter RH, Dahlberg AA. J Craniofac Genet Dev Biol. 1983;3(2):193-202, Craniofacial correlates of dietary consistency in a nonhuman primate, Beecher RM, Corruccini RS, Freeman M Am J Orthod. 1981 Mar;79(3):250-62, Occlusal variation in a rural Kentucky community, Corruccini RS, Whitley LD. Univ. Mus., Univ. Tokyo, Bull. 27, 1986, Dental Pathology of Hunter-Gatherers and Early farmers in Prehistoric Japan, Naohiko I, Gakuji I, Tetsuya K J Dent Res. 1977 Feb;56(2):117-27, Dental Condition of Two Tribes of Taiwan Aborigines-Ami and Atayal, KHANG-LEE LIu, By "do better" I mean that as populations consume more cooked foods they have more orthodontic problems. There is also evidence that cooking destroys the cancer protective effects that raw foods have: NUTRITION AND CANCER, 46(2), 131-137, Raw and Cooked Vegetables, Fruits, Selected Micronutrients, and Breast Cancer Risk: A Case-Control Study in Germany, Karl-Heinrich Adzersen, Patricia Jess, Klaus Wilhelm Freivogel, Ingrid Gerhard, and Gunther Bastert > snip > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > we > see your "do better" evidence. Let us see the scientific evidence (not tradition) that cooked food is suitable for humans. Indeed, are there any nutritionsist that can even give us a useful description of what food (for humans) is? Here I disclude the idea that, food is anything that people have eaten (tradition again). > Am J Orthod. 1982 Jan;81(1):38-42, The adaptive value of dental crowding: a > consideration of the biologic basis of malocclusion, Lombardi AV [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > J Dent Res. 1977 Feb;56(2):117-27, Dental Condition of Two Tribes of Taiwan > Aborigines-Ami and Atayal, KHANG-LEE LIu, This tells me that we are dealing with a Weston Price Kook. :( http://naturalhealthperspective.com/tutorials/weston-price.html Price the dentist believed in science, but NEVER used the scientific method. So, much for your knowledge of science, Kook! > > >we only need ones that eat more raw and do better, and of course show > > that > > >is due to the raw food. This evidence is available in the literature. > So point us to the data for this assertion, web sources if you please, > defining "do better" along the way of course. Several non-web based citations offered about teeth. Web based information was requested for evaluation. "By "do better" I mean that as populations consume more cooked foods they have more orthodontic problems. There is also evidence that cooking destroys the cancer protective effects that raw foods have: NUTRITION AND CANCER, 46(2), 131-137, Raw and Cooked Vegetables, Fruits, Selected Micronutrients, and Breast Cancer Risk: A Case-Control Study in Germany, Karl-Heinrich Adzersen, Patricia Jess, Klaus Wilhelm Freivogel, Ingrid Gerhard, and Gunther Bastert Same problem as above. > The usual order of such things is he who has an idea is duty bound to > also [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > we > see your "do better" evidence. "Let us see the scientific evidence (not tradition) that cooked food is suitable for humans. Indeed, are there any nutritionsist that can even give us a useful description of what food (for humans) is? Here I disclude the idea that, food is anything that people have eaten (tradition again)." We need not present anything in support of any other idea, it is your task in service of your own, and so far a mite thin on the ground, along with being non-responsive to requests for web based information for evaluation. Is "disclude" a word? Food is by definition what is naturally consumed for metabolic ends as can be seen in human history. "Do better" is of yet still undefined so if and when we get something in which to sink our teeth, cooked preferred of course, such an undefined measure is meaningless. > > > >we only need ones that eat more raw and do better, and of course show > > > that [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Several non-web based citations offered about teeth. Web based information > was requested for evaluation. Are you unaware that scientific literature is published in journals and text books for money, not dished out for free on the web? Is a valid scientific position, only acceptable based on web available sources? > "By "do better" I mean that as populations consume more cooked foods they > have more orthodontic problems. There is also evidence that cooking destroys [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Same problem as above. The only "problem" is that while this is a sci list and therefore quite reasonable to cite the literature, for some reason you think this unacceptable. > We need not present anything in support of any other idea, it is your task > in service of your own, and so far a mite thin on the ground, along with > being non-responsive to requests for web based information for evaluation. I am challenging the scientific basis of nutrition promoting cooked food eating, which is what it does. You provide no defence of this position, instead you attempt distractions. > Is "disclude" a word? The nice thing about English is that it is open to having new words made, but please substitute "exclude". > Food is by definition what is naturally consumed for > metabolic ends as can be seen in human history. This is not a scientific definition. Here is an example of a definition of a metal, I got this off wikipedia, so at least you will be able to read it: "In chemistry, a metal is a word for a group of chemical elements that have certain properties. It is easy for the atoms of a metal to lose an electron and become positive ions, or cations. In this way, metals are not like the other two kinds of elements - the nonmetals and the metalloids." This definition allows anyone to examine a variety of elements and correctly choose metals from all others. Now, following this example, _define_ human food. > "Do better" is of yet still undefined I stated that "do better" meant anotomically normal, i.e. all 32 teeth in their correct position. When you show me someone who eats only cooked food with perfectly healthy teeth and jaws, the claim that cooked food is suitable for humans, will be credible. Until then, such a belief exists only in the minds of fanatics. > Several non-web based citations offered about teeth. Web based information > was requested for evaluation. "Are you unaware that scientific literature is published in journals and text books for money, not dished out for free on the web? Is a valid scientific position, only acceptable based on web available sources?" Sure, and any notion worth its salt also has accessable abstracts and sometimes the entire article online. For material for the past 15 years or so all of it is online, I consult it almost daily. A few items about teeth and one about cancr is not something about which to get excited anyway, considering the grand scope of your notion. "I am challenging the scientific basis of nutrition promoting cooked food eating, which is what it does. You provide no defence of this position," It is your notion, we need not provide anything in support of any other notion of our own. Natural is what natural does and natural for humans in their natural setting of the past 10 k years is cooked foods and they are are not by any evidence you yet provide at any demonstrated nutrition disadvantage for it. Waiting for the web based information. |
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
|
©2008 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.