General fitness, health and nutrition · Public discussion

Raw or cooked, which is more nutritious

Started by Email address hidden · · Last activity · 11 posts · 614 views

Thread navigation

Jump through the discussion

Go to the original post, the replies on this page, or the latest preserved contribution.

Thread details

What we know about this thread

Original section
General fitness, health and nutrition
Published
15 July 2005
Last activity
18 August 2005
Original author
Email address hidden
Posts
11
Discussion status
Public discussion
Total views
614
Views / 30 days
0

The navigation and discussion metadata provide context. Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Showing posts 1–11 of 11
Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Text size
  1. 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."

  2. On 15 Jul 2005 15:40:04 GMT, [email hidden] wrote in
    <news:[email hidden]> on sci.med.nutrition :

    Quoted message said:

    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."

    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?

  3. Enrico C said:

    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. 🙂

  4. Mr-Natural-Health said:
    Enrico C said:

    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.

    Unlike yourself Gohde. Raw or cooked (half baked in your case) you are
    always a fruit.

    Quoted message said:


    Just thought that you might want to know. 🙂

    Actually ... no.

    RBR

  5. <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:

    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.

    Quoted message said:

    "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.

    Quoted message said:

    Cooking also increases the amount of lycopene you get from tomatoes.


    Nope, it is the solubility in oil.

    Quoted message said:

    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.

    Quoted message said:

    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.

    Quoted message said:

    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

    Quoted message said:

    ... and many common foods are unpalatable or unsafe if
    they are not cooked.


    Irrefutable evidence that they should not be eaten.

    Laurie

  6. On Thu, 4 Aug 2005 14:21:57 -1000, Laurie wrote in
    <news:[email hidden]> on sci.med.nutrition :

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    ... and many common foods are unpalatable or unsafe if
    they are not cooked.


    Irrefutable evidence that they should not be eaten.

    On what grounds?

    --
    Enrico C

  7. "Enrico C" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:

    On Thu, 4 Aug 2005 14:21:57 -1000, Laurie wrote in
    <news:[email hidden]> on sci.med.nutrition :

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    ... 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

  8. Laurie said:


    "Enrico C" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:

    On Thu, 4 Aug 2005 14:21:57 -1000, Laurie wrote in
    <news:[email hidden]> on sci.med.nutrition :

    Quoted message said:

    > ... 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

    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

  9. On Fri, 12 Aug 2005 15:01:06 -1000, Laurie wrote in
    <news:[email hidden]> on sci.med.nutrition :

    Quoted message said:

    "Enrico C" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:

    On Thu, 4 Aug 2005 14:21:57 -1000, Laurie wrote in
    <news:[email hidden]> on sci.med.nutrition :

    Quoted message said:

    > ... 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

    Isn't it a good few years since Prometheus found out about fire? 🙂

  10. <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:

    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

    Quoted message said:

    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?

    Quoted message said:

    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

  11. Laurie said:

    <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:

    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,

    Cooking some foods in certain ways increases availability of some
    nutrients. For example - corn.

    Quoted message said:

    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.

    Quoted message said:

    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.

    Quoted message said:

    http://www.ecologos.org/denature.htm
    http://www.price-pottenger.org/Articles/PottsCats.html

    Quoted message said:

    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?

    Quoted message said:

    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

    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

Active in the last 60 minutes

Active in this thread

0 users · 0 guests ·0 bots ·0 total

No signed-in users are active right now.

No known search crawlers active right now.