General fitness, health and nutrition · Public discussion

Re: Raw or cooked, which is more nutritious

Started by Email address hidden · · Last activity · 7 posts · 381 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
13 August 2005
Original author
Email address hidden
Posts
7
Discussion status
Public discussion
Total views
381
Views / 30 days
0

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

Showing posts 1–7 of 7
Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Text size
  1. "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.

  2. On 15 Jul 2005 17:11:35 GMT, [email hidden] wrote in
    <news:[email hidden]> on sci.med.nutrition :

    Quoted message said:

    "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.

    Okay, but that may apply for some vegetables...
    Where is the trade off in the case of fruits?

    Quoted message said:

    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.

    There is a loss, anyway. What do I get instead from cooking?

    Quoted message said:

    A fruit
    has many items of nutritional value, including the energy from the
    carbohydrates

    In the Western world we are not short for energy, most times.

    Quoted message said:

    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.

    Sadly we have to, if it's not really organic fruit. Not a choice. Neither a
    good reason to cook fruits.

    Does skin really contain more of the vitamins, btw?

    Quoted message said:

    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.

    Processed fruits (cooked, in pastries, in jams, in fruit squashes) have
    less nutrients, sometimes less fiber, and keeps the same sugars and energy,
    ewhich we don't really need that much, usually.

    Quoted message said:

    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.

    Cooking or not *is* relevant.

  3. On 15 Jul 2005 17:11:35 GMT, [email hidden] wrote in
    <news:[email hidden]> on sci.med.nutrition :

    Quoted message said:

    "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.

    Okay, but that may apply for some vegetables...
    Where is the trade off in the case of fruits?

    Quoted message said:

    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.

    There is a loss, anyway. What do I get instead from cooking?

    Quoted message said:

    A fruit
    has many items of nutritional value, including the energy from the
    carbohydrates

    In the Western world we are not short of energy, most times.

    Quoted message said:

    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.

    Sadly we have to, if it's not really organic fruit. Not a choice. Neither a
    good reason to cook fruits.

    Does skin really contain more of the vitamins, btw?

    Quoted message said:

    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.

    Processed fruits (cooked, dried. in pastries, in jams, in fruit squashes)
    have less nutrients, sometimes less fiber, and keeps the same sugars and
    energy, ewhich we don't really need that much, usually.

    Quoted message said:

    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.

    Cooking or not *is* relevant.

  4. Quoted message said:

    "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.

    I would like to see someone try to eat grains and/or corn raw. It would
    be like trying to pass sandpaper thru the GI tract.

    TC

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

    Quoted message said:


    Quoted message said:

    "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.

    I would like to see someone try to eat grains and/or corn raw. It would
    be like trying to pass sandpaper thru the GI tract.

    I've eaten all kinds of grains "raw"--that is after they've
    been soaked and sprouted a couple of days. I suspect
    this was the first way our progenitors ate grains--even
    before the their invention of cooking with fire.

    Sprouted seeds and sprouted nuts
    Travel quite easily through your guts.

    GWC

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

    Quoted message said:

    On 15 Jul 2005 17:11:35 GMT, [email hidden] wrote in
    <news:[email hidden]> on sci.med.nutrition
    :

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    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.


    Okay, ...


    No, it is not OK. If the writer does not name specific nutrients and
    amounts lost/gained; that is, the claims are non-numerical, the statement is
    quantitatively absurd and means nothing. Most claims in contemporary
    nutribabble are false for this reason.

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    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.


    Non-numerical = non-sensical. "Most", "not all", "some", "high", "low",
    .... all are totally meaningless, yet dominate the illusion that people
    understand what they are talking about.

    Quoted message said:

    There is a loss, anyway. What do I get instead from cooking?


    Cooking produces some of the most potent carcinogens known, the
    nitrosamines, and hundreds of other pyrolytic and Maillard Reaction
    chemicals foreign to human biochemistry. It denatures proteins, destroying
    their biological activity. http://www.ecologos.org/denature.htm
    It changes fats into unhealthy forms.
    It allows people to eat all sorts of things they would never consider
    "food" if they had any understanding of the word "natural" or interest in
    their own health.

    Quoted message said:

    Cooking or not *is* relevant.


    It is THE most relevant issue in human nutrition, and, strangely, the
    one most ignored by orthodox "nutritional research".

    Laurie

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

    Quoted message said:

    I would like to see someone try to eat grains and/or corn raw. It would
    be like trying to pass sandpaper thru the GI tract.


    Ah, yes, the voice of inexperience.
    Fresh-picked raw corn is absolutely delightful.

    Laurie

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.