LONGECITY

I have heard people say that cooking food changes the qualities of the food and that it's better to eat raw.  At least as far as vegetables and stuff go.  Is this right?

It depends on what you're cooking. Some nutrients are more bioavailable when you cook the fruit or vegetable. So, 'raw' isn't always better. 

Click HERE to rent this advertising spot for NUTRITION to support LongeCity (this will replace the google ad above).

No, it isn't.

 

Except it is. In many cases. But you can't generalize it into a dogma like most raw foodists do. A good rule of thumb is to eat between one third and half of all the food you eat raw. Think of salads, smoothies, fruit bowls. You want to have that every day. But there are many foods you have to cook to get the most nutrition out of them, or even make them edible at all. Think of whole grains, beans, lentils and sweet potatoes, very healthy foods that have to be cooked in some way. Cooking tomatoes, carrots or spinach with a bit of oil will significantly increase the bioavailability of the carotenoid they contain and in the case of spinach reduce the oxalic acid. As always, it is about finding the right balance.

Edited by timar, 08 July 2014 - 04:30 PM.

Most vegetables and grains contain "antinutritionals". That is, substances that are detrimental or even poisonous.

For example, many grains and legumes contain lectins and/or saponins. These can bind to the sugars on the cell membranes of the gut and result in "leaky gut" syndrome.

Soaking and cooking washes out and destroys most (but usually not all) of these.

That's why eating raw beans is hazardous. Beans are almost always cooked.

 

Ever thought about why new varieties of vegetable are "resistant" to insects and grubs?

Usually it's because they have been bred (or GM'd) to contain high levels of substances in their skin that is toxic to predatory pests.

So, although the skins often contain the highest levels of vitamins, they also often contain the highest levels of antinutritionals....

 

There is no right or wrong answer to your question, but I would tend to cook rather than eat raw.

There are some concerns that cooking foods at high temperatures(generally above the boiling point of water), creates so-called "advance glycation end-products", and that these could possibly negatively impact health or even lifespan(there is some evidence supporting this in rodents.) Another potentially hazardous substance is "acrylamide" which may be produced in some foods when they are exposed to high cooking temperatures. Whether or not these subtances present a substantial risk for humans is still very speculative though.
Edited by Brett Black, 09 July 2014 - 06:56 AM.

Most vegetables and grains contain "antinutritionals". That is, substances that are detrimental or even poisonous.

For example, many grains and legumes contain lectins and/or saponins. These can bind to the sugars on the cell membranes of the gut and result in "leaky gut" syndrome.

Soaking and cooking washes out and destroys most (but usually not all) of these.

That's why eating raw beans is hazardous. Beans are almost always cooked.

 

The reason beans are cooked is surely that they are fairly inedible raw. Edibility is probably a good guide on how far to cook things, if at all.

 

For me, it is a balancing act between palatability and nutrition. So I cook things as little as I can--to the point where they become palatable. I might lose some nutrients by cooking, but not enough to affect my health, I should think.

Helen Vlassara has done the most research into exogenous AGEs, that is, oxidized proteins and lipids caused by cooking, particularly high temperature cooking.  There is ample data pointing out that exogenous AGEs are indeed very bad for you.  I think the reduction in AGEs is the real reason that raw diets are beneficial.  It's invariably attributed to vague fairy tales about "live enzymes".   I don't think it's really necessary to eat everything raw.  I certainly don't eat that way.  OTOH, avoiding high temperature cooking is a distinctly good idea.  I don't worry too much about cooking making more calories available, since most first world eaters have to work to avoid calories.  I imagine that there are cases where important micronutrients are made more bioavailable by cooking, and that might be important, depending on your diet and nutrient needs.  If you have to eat something that's crawling with parasites or particularly bad bacteria... Cook it.

One thing I worry about is picking up metals and other substances from cooking pans. But I have never been able to find a solution to that. I used to use non-stick pans, but they do deteriorate, even if you cook lightly. I have also tried ceramic pans. At first, they seemed the answer, but they are very hard to use and clean for long before they deteriorate--and even if their coatings are non toxic, metal gets exposed underneath.

 

Years ago, we had aluminium pans, which got a bad reputation (but some chefs dismiss the aluminium theory). Reluctantly, in the end, I settled for high-quality stainless steel pans, though some powder comes off them if you overclean them--bits of alloy, etc., I think. I try to minimise residue ingestion by cooking very lightly and never scraping anything stuck on the pan onto my plate. Also, I now will not eat anything burnt. In fact, I do not burn food these days, but some food has to be browned as part of the cooking and eaten as such.

 

I also eat many things that are supposed to have chelating properties, so perhaps that counteracts any potential harm.

 

I eat cooked food once a day. No more, if I can help it. But I am not sure I would enjoy life so much if I restricted myself to raw food.

Edited by Gerrans, 26 July 2014 - 06:50 PM.

 

Most vegetables and grains contain "antinutritionals". That is, substances that are detrimental or even poisonous.

For example, many grains and legumes contain lectins and/or saponins. These can bind to the sugars on the cell membranes of the gut and result in "leaky gut" syndrome.

Soaking and cooking washes out and destroys most (but usually not all) of these.

That's why eating raw beans is hazardous. Beans are almost always cooked.

 

The reason beans are cooked is surely that they are fairly inedible raw. Edibility is probably a good guide on how far to cook things, if at all.

 

For me, it is a balancing act between palatability and nutrition. So I cook things as little as I can--to the point where they become palatable. I might lose some nutrients by cooking, but not enough to affect my health, I should think.

 

 

You are correct...mostly.

However, there are several instances of people who ate raw beans and who paid quite a price...(severe illness or even death)...evidently the beans were not too unpalatable. I believe there are also cases involving certain fungi...toxic (but tasty) if raw...harmless if cooked.

 

One thing I worry about is picking up metals and other substances from cooking pans. But I have never been able to find a solution to that. I used to use non-stick pans, but they do deteriorate, even if you cook lightly. I have also tried ceramic pans. At first, they seemed the answer, but they are very hard to use and clean for long before they deteriorate--and even if their coatings are non toxic, metal gets exposed underneath.

 

Years ago, we had aluminium pans, which got a bad reputation (but some chefs dismiss the aluminium theory). Reluctantly, in the end, I settled for high-quality stainless steel pans, though some powder comes off them if you overclean them--bits of alloy, etc., I think. I try to minimise residue ingestion by cooking very lightly and never scraping anything stuck on the pan onto my plate. Also, I now will not eat anything burnt. In fact, I do not burn food these days, but some food has to be browned as part of the cooking and eaten as such.

 

I also eat many things that are supposed to have chelating properties, so perhaps that counteracts any potential harm.

 

I eat cooked food once a day. No more, if I can help it. But I am not sure I would enjoy life so much if I restricted myself to raw food.

 

I had a similar problem...how to find a suitable cooking pan.

Cast iron is OK but heavy and damn difficult to clean.

Teflon coated pans soon lose their coating and there is evidence that the degradation products of teflon are dangerous.

Aluminium and copper ingestion has been linked to Alzheimer's dementia.

Eventually I found a stainless steel pan with a copper base to spread the heat more evenly and I alternate that with a new ceramic pan.

I think the ceramic pan is as close to perfect I have seen...resistant to utensils, inert, transfers heat evenly and easy to clean.

 

I also tend to make a lot of vegetarian soup...no carcingens from burning and great in a cold winter, but still cooked!

 

FWIW

 

 

Ever thought about why new varieties of vegetable are "resistant" to insects and grubs?

Usually it's because they have been bred (or GM'd) to contain high levels of substances in their skin that is toxic to predatory pests.

So, although the skins often contain the highest levels of vitamins, they also often contain the highest levels of antinutritionals....

 

I would think buying local organic can solve some of this if not all ?
 

 

 

Ever thought about why new varieties of vegetable are "resistant" to insects and grubs?

Usually it's because they have been bred (or GM'd) to contain high levels of substances in their skin that is toxic to predatory pests.

So, although the skins often contain the highest levels of vitamins, they also often contain the highest levels of antinutritionals....

 

I would think buying local organic can solve some of this if not all ?
 

 

 

 

"Organic" vegetables are no more or less nutritious than any others. (That has been proven by analysis.)

They may contain slightly less chemical residues from sprays, but non-organic are still under the safety threshold.

Organic vegetables would still contain anti-predator chemicals in their skins.

Perhaps less than GM varieties, but they would still be there.

"Organic" vegetables are no more or less nutritious than any others. (That has been proven by analysis.)

They may contain slightly less chemical residues from sprays, but non-organic are still under the safety threshold.

Organic vegetables would still contain anti-predator chemicals in their skins.

 

This is the very reason why I prefer organic produce . While it contains hardly more vitamins or minerals, it has been shown to contain significantly more of those phytochemicals plants produce to defend themselves, most of which are highly beneficial for humans to consume (e.g. stilbenes like resveratrol, flavonoids like quercitin, proanthocyanidins, etc.)

 

Edited by timar, 05 August 2014 - 01:57 PM.

I agree for the most part, although this effect is much more pronounced in certain types of fruit vegetables for example. Organic and nonorganic bellpeppers for example are a completely different ballgame when it comes to phytochemicals. I wouldn't think that this is necessarily true for red onions for example on the other side.

Cooking (partially) destroys only some nutrients, mainly some vitamins. It does not destroy minerals but some minerals, for example potassium, can leek out during boiling. You can prevent this by cooking potatoes in a vapor above the water - most of potassium will stay in, which you can tell by tasting it - potatoes will have much fuller taste.

 

 

 

Ever thought about why new varieties of vegetable are "resistant" to insects and grubs?

Usually it's because they have been bred (or GM'd) to contain high levels of substances in their skin that is toxic to predatory pests.

So, although the skins often contain the highest levels of vitamins, they also often contain the highest levels of antinutritionals....

 

I would think buying local organic can solve some of this if not all ?
 

 

 

 

"Organic" vegetables are no more or less nutritious than any others. (That has been proven by analysis.)

They may contain slightly less chemical residues from sprays, but non-organic are still under the safety threshold.

Organic vegetables would still contain anti-predator chemicals in their skins.

Perhaps less than GM varieties, but they would still be there.

 

 

Most studies done against organic can be traced right to back to those benefiting on high level, high spraying chemical company's or lobbies.

 

Thats the honest truth, in compare to vitamin etc its true many conventional veggies sprayed has same limit, but not some benefits.

 

 

If you ad up all toxins you are pron to be subject to in a day, why also do it with your food ?

 

Its make no sens.

 

 

 

 

This is an old thread, I know... But,

 

You can go to cronometer.com and specify cooked or boiled foods and see the difference in nutrients between those and raw. So, there's no reason to speculate or worry if you're deficient. Go find out. At cronometer, you can see that cooking reduces most of the nutrients to a degree. Some nutrients are reduced only 10%, others are more like 50%. Other nutrients, like most minerals actually go up. (Well, they go up in comparison to raw by weight because the water is drained off.) 

 

I eat mostly boiled veggies, mainly because they are so much easier to chew and digest. Also, because I have a mild oral allergy to many raw veggies where my lips and throat would get inflamed. Cooking veggies eliminates (at least for me) these allergic proteins, so that can be a benefit for some people. Also, as others above have already mentioned, cooking reduces bacteria and some anti-nutrients.

 

The claim by the raw food crowd that cooking "destroys" vitamins is overblown. They often seem to imply that it totally destroys them. It's not true. It doesn't totally destroy them. It reduces them, somewhat.