Nutritional differences based on preparation

[TaupeRawMan]

I have been wondering about this for a while. I have been eating 100% raw for 5 years and have believed wholeheartedly that it is the best way to go. Recently, I have read some things by Dr. Jameth Sheridan, Dr. Gabriel Cousens, Renee Loux, and others that sometimes light steaming of some items (some vegetables, sprouted grains and sprouted beans) actually makes them more digestible, requires less enzymes from the body, and makes more nutrients available.

Today, I read this article: http://www.dispatch.com/live/content/food/stories/2008/05/28/5A_VEGETABLES_IN_DIET.ART_ART_05-28-08_F1_1QA9EEL.html?type=rss&cat=&sid=101

What do you think of this concept?

[cherries]

I think juicing/blending would be better than cooking as far as making nutrients more available. That's why we do green smoothies, we are making the nutrients more available than when we eat these foods as a salad.

[avanderland]

I've seen this article a couple times. I think that there are maybe a few things that would be higher if processed, if you measure that one specific thing. But how do we know what the correct amount we need is? How do we know that it does not work in tandem with other things in the vegetable?

And I love how they talk about trade-offs --- well you'll increase this, but all these things will go down. It's always measuring this or that or whatever. I think we have to stop breaking our food down into all these tiny pieces and look at both each food item and our diet more holistically. Because that's how our body takes it in, and breaks ti down for use.

[shashibala]

I think it is probably true that some nutrients are made more available by cooking. The thing is that looking at a raw diet in a broader sense than a nutrient by nutrient analysis, I believe it yields more nutrition.
The reason one is raw will influence how one chooses to deal with this kind of information. I was a severely disordered eater when I ate cooked food. I was unable to make sensible choices when faced with the addictive qualities of cooked food, especially grains and other starches. I am not able to pick and choose my cooked vs raw foods. Only raw keeps me sensible and in control.
If I were a non-addictive eater and could eat a steamed vegie every once in a while, I might.

[Bananna]

If you dissect the article, the Only thing they found raw foodists deficient in was lycopene. Which they worded like this:

"But they fell short in lycopene, a carotenoid found in tomatoes and other red vegetables that ranks among the most potent anti-oxidants. Nearly 80 percent of them had plasma lycopene levels below average."

It's word play...nearly 80% (if you're not paying attention you might remember that they were 80% deficient in lycopene) ...but those 80% were only BELOW AVERAGE.

They also didn't bother to take the time to compare the differences in diet between the 80% and the remaining 20% who were average or above. Also average is a Really subjective word in the first place. That's 50% percentile, let's say, for all we Know 80% of that 80% could be in the 49th percentile. They are being really vague which raises my suspicions.

Then later, much later, they say this:

"When the salsa or salad was served with fat-rich avocados or full-fat salad dressing, the diners absorbed as much as four times more lycopene, seven times more lutein and 18 times the beta carotene than those who had their vegetables plain or with low-fat dressing."

So the take home msg is put some fat in your salad or when you eat tomatoes and you will then be Way Above average for your lycopene intake.


....and the rest of article actually Trashes cooking your food, so I'm not going to bother arguing with that.


Hilarious, isn't it?!

[TaupeRawMan]

Hi Bananna -

I agree with what you are saying when analyzing the article. I think the point I was trying to make was that there might be some foods (like some vegetables, sprouted grains, and and sprouted legumes) that might be made more nutritious, life-giving, digestible, and use less of our own enzymes, when lightly steamed.

This does not say that there is anything wrong with eating 100% raw food (as I do). I think it just depends on why one is eating 100% raw. If it is because of an addiction to cooked food, or because of a philosophical/spiritual preference, 100% raw may be the best way to go. If it is in desire of getting the most nutrition out of each food with the least harmful affect on the body, I am thinking that there may be some benefits to a bit of steaming of some foods.

I realize I might get voted off the island for this thought, but wanted to put it out there. I also realize that I can easily get pulled into the orthorexic thinking about enzymes and cooked foods being toxic and a real fear-based approach to food - what to eat in what combinations, etc. - that I wanted to offer this info to people. I don't think it is quite so cut and dry that all forms of cooking of all foods is bad. I am not saying that roasted nuts or bread or french fries are a healthy choice by any means, but lightly steaming of some foods might be beneficial.

[shashibala]

HEEEE HEEEEE!!!! Nobody will vote you off the island unless you chase and slay a pig! We are all here to journey to our own health. Thinking about ideas is a necessary part of that journey! Your post gave me a starting point for some interesting discussions with myself.:)

[Eva]

I realize I might get voted off the island for this thought, but wanted to put it out there. I also realize that I can easily get pulled into the orthorexic thinking about enzymes and cooked foods being toxic and a real fear-based approach to food - what to eat in what combinations, etc. - that I wanted to offer this info to people. I don't think it is quite so cut and dry that all forms of cooking of all foods is bad. I am not saying that roasted nuts or bread or french fries are a healthy choice by any means, but lightly steaming of some foods might be beneficial.

I'm not saying I want to "vote you off the island" -- but this forum probably isn't the best place to suggest that cooking food might be beneficial sometimes. :p

[Eva]

If you dissect the article, the Only thing they found raw foodists deficient in was lycopene. Which they worded like this:

"But they fell short in lycopene, a carotenoid found in tomatoes and other red vegetables that ranks among the most potent anti-oxidants. Nearly 80 percent of them had plasma lycopene levels below average."

It's word play...nearly 80% (if you're not paying attention you might remember that they were 80% deficient in lycopene) ...but those 80% were only BELOW AVERAGE.

They also didn't bother to take the time to compare the differences in diet between the 80% and the remaining 20% who were average or above. Also average is a Really subjective word in the first place. That's 50% percentile, let's say, for all we Know 80% of that 80% could be in the 49th percentile. They are being really vague which raises my suspicions.

Then later, much later, they say this:

"When the salsa or salad was served with fat-rich avocados or full-fat salad dressing, the diners absorbed as much as four times more lycopene, seven times more lutein and 18 times the beta carotene than those who had their vegetables plain or with low-fat dressing."

So the take home msg is put some fat in your salad or when you eat tomatoes and you will then be Way Above average for your lycopene intake.


....and the rest of article actually Trashes cooking your food, so I'm not going to bother arguing with that.


Hilarious, isn't it?!

Isn't it interesting how good avocados taste with tomatoes!? What a wonderful thing nature has done for us in making food taste good together when the nutrients become more usable in combination. My FAVORITE snack used to be a mashed avocado with a diced up tomato. Something about the two rocked my world almost every single day.

Of course I'm not eating avocados now that I'm doing the local thing -- so now it's mushroom tomato basil salads rocking my world -- with a good amount of olive oil. What a lucky coincidence that that tastes SO good with the olive oil and without it is missing something.

But, watermelon, for example -- I naturally don't want that with anything else, and apparently it would be a food combining mishap if I did. :) I just LOVE how our bodies often ask for the things that are best for us (when raw)...

[Bananna]

Hi TaupeRawMan,

I'm not arguing with you that some foods might be more nutritious when lightly steamed...but that article just doesn't even pass the sniff test as far as proving so. If I am going to buy into such dogma, they better do better than that. They better show me that A) all the raw foodists ate the Exact same diet, B) That all the cooked food eaters also did, but cooked, C) They better talk about why the antioxidant lycopene is important specifically as opposed to the vast array of other antioxidants and D) They better give me some numbers like what's average, what's ideal, what are these ranges, and what are the numbers of the participants....not be all vague and say 'below average or average'. They need to say Ideal amounts vs Actual amounts....and not make cut off lines of either below or above average intake. Average intake might be still below ideal, or even above ideal... Give me numbers and ranges and such.

Like how am I supposed to work with that article from a truly contemplative view? IF I am going to buy into something, then they better make a proper scientific case. Especially when they are bloody scientists! Otherwise, it falls into the category of 'who knows, maybe, shmaybe, might, possibly could be somewhat sort of partially accurate, depending on how I say it and how you read it'.

But maybe all they wanted to do was plant the seed in your brain as Plausible, more plausible than before. I'll give you plausibility, but I am no more convinced of anything by that article than before.

That being said, I treat information I find on raw food the exact same way. Analytically. I just don't see any information that leads to benefits of steaming food. It just isn't there. It's all smoke and mirrors to me.

As for being orthorexic, I am not, that seems more fear based or something...not quite sure. It's just not me, I'm still not wholly convinced of raw food perfection either as I have unanswered questions there too. ie. dehydration or freezing foods. I see no studies regarding these...

It might be beneficial, but it might not be....I just don't think that article is offering much to the discussion.

[TaupeRawMan]

Hi TaupeRawMan,

I'm not arguing with you that some foods might be more nutritious when lightly steamed...but that article just doesn't even pass the sniff test as far as proving so. If I am going to buy into such dogma, they better do better than that. They better show me that A) all the raw foodists ate the Exact same diet, B) That all the cooked food eaters also did, but cooked, C) They better talk about why the antioxidant lycopene is important specifically as opposed to the vast array of other antioxidants and D) They better give me some numbers like what's average, what's ideal, what are these ranges, and what are the numbers of the participants....not be all vague and say 'below average or average'. They need to say Ideal amounts vs Actual amounts....and not make cut off lines of either below or above average intake. Average intake might be still below ideal, or even above ideal... Give me numbers and ranges and such.

Like how am I supposed to work with that article from a truly contemplative view? IF I am going to buy into something, then they better make a proper scientific case. Especially when they are bloody scientists! Otherwise, it falls into the category of 'who knows, maybe, shmaybe, might, possibly could be somewhat sort of partially accurate, depending on how I say it and how you read it'.

But maybe all they wanted to do was plant the seed in your brain as Plausible, more plausible than before. I'll give you plausibility, but I am no more convinced of anything by that article than before.

That being said, I treat information I find on raw food the exact same way. Analytically. I just don't see any information that leads to benefits of steaming food. It just isn't there. It's all smoke and mirrors to me.



Well said and I agree. The reason I posted the article is that it kind of was of an example of the other theories I had been reading about and I wanted to put it out there.

Eva - good point. I realize that this forum is about eating raw and being healthy and that this thinking might not align with that. However, I don't think there are a lot of 100% long-term raw fooders on this board and, those that are, most have not been doing it for a long time. What I read a lot is that the 100% raw food diet, like fasting, is wonderful on a short-term basis (no specified time period). However, on a long-term basis, it is not as ideal as what I mentioned above (@90% raw with steamed sprouted beans and grains and those veggies that aren't as digestible raw). Again, this is not something I have bought into, just something some of the longer raw foodists discuss. I am not sure what I think about this concept yet, but I wanted to share it with others and see what people thought about it.

[Eva]

I'm a little confused by what you're saying, but this is definitely not the forum to recommend or discuss cooking food!

Many times people come to this forum when they are new to raw and do not stick around every single day because they already have answers to a lot of their questions. That does not mean there is not a good population of people who are successfully all raw long-term!

[Bananna]

Well where are you reading all this stuff then, so I can dissect that too. If you can give something solid, that would be great. Otherwise, untill then, I will have no choice but to believe that cooked food, is simply, second rate.

Eva - I would rather people bring their concerns of the raw diet to the table to be looked at because if people hide their concerns then in 'moments of weakness' those doubts will serve to derail them. And derailing from raw, is ALL too easy if you're not working from a solid, convinced foundation. I know this as much as the best of the flip-floppers! ;)

That being said, I am also a bit confused, lol...I do find it bizarre that TaupeRawMan has managed to be all raw, with such doubts? What is stopping you from eating steamed veggies exactly?

[Eva]

Bananna, actually I agree with you re: discussion. But, because this goes against the rules of the forum, I think that the discussion will not be a particularly good one. If it did become good/heated, it would be removed since it's "against the rules." Just guessing. LOL -- I'm not the forum police or anything, though.

And, really... I'm always on the lookout for thorough, responsibly written articles one way or the other. But I haven't seen much to refute eating 100% raw that is credible. :)

[keylime]

I know of no articles/written information at the moment regarding a 100% raw versus high raw with lightly steamed whole foods, BUT I feel somewhat of a responsibility to jump in here and say that after many years of seeing clients in the natural health field, I have NEVER counseled somebody who successfully stayed 100% raw (and/or vegan- but I won't even touch that) long term. 5-8 years seems to be about the point at which most people begin to show signs that it's just not working out for them anymore, and I have come to my own conclusion that while eating solely raw is fantastic for cleansing and healing (much the same way fasting is) that eventually some (and I really want to say most) need more in terms of calorie and/or nutrient consumption that can be better provided by occasionally steaming certain foods to partly or fully break them down- making them easier to both eat and digest. I know the difference when I added a few steamed veggies for myself was phenomenal after 4 years of eating 100% raw and feeling tired more then I knew I should. Naturally, I won't mention names, but I do know of several long term raw foodists often in the "spot light" who do not eat raw all of the time but keep that information under the radar as they have built large and successful businesses around certain ideas/ways of living and eating. Also, there are several more who are open about the fact that they include a small percentage of cooked foods in their diet. The bottom line is that you should do what feels right to you- and that this whole "diet journey" should really be about the nutrition and how it makes you feel...and if that means changing what you eat if your body begins to change what it needs, then we all would be doing a huge disservice to ourselves to ignore that simply to adhere to dogma.

[chilove]

Hi there,

I think it is simple. We weren't born with stoves or microwaves attached to us. That tells me that we don't need to cook our food. If something needs to be cooked to be more nutritious then it is not a natural human food and we don't need to be eating it. :-)

Blessings,

Audrey
www.rawhealing.com

[tanishamarshall]

The bottom line is that you should do what feels right to you- and that this whole "diet journey" should really be about the nutrition and how it makes you feel...and if that means changing what you eat if your body begins to change what it needs, then we all would be doing a huge disservice to ourselves to ignore that simply to adhere to dogma.


I totally agree.

[Rawkinlocs]

Okay folks.

Yes, it's true that people have to do what is right or feels right for them, etc. etc. etc.

However, this forum is/was designed for the SUPPORT OF the 100% raw food diet. So, please keep it as such. I'm not saying this of my OWN, PERSONAL accord (yall know me and that I'm not a "raw dogma" person nor a "purist"), but I'm speaking this from the desires of the forum owner.

You have to be willing to adhere to the rules here...but just know that there are other places on the net that will not stop you from delving into where this thread is delving into. But this is too touchy for this place...RFT has always been a place that doesn't simply allow any and all types of discussions...yall know that.

But I know what I've seen here before in terms of these types of discussions and I know how they've gone down so this is a "warning" of sorts to please keep this type of stuff (advocating cooking, steaming food; saying that 100% is not optimal and that no raw fooders go at it long-term) out of the equation...this isn't the place for it. But please feel free to start up a "beyond raw" or what have you group or list to continue it if you feel led to do so.

Thanks!

[Vaclare79]

Hi there,

I think it is simple. We weren't born with stoves or microwaves attached to us. That tells me that we don't need to cook our food. If something needs to be cooked to be more nutritious then it is not a natural human food and we don't need to be eating it. :-)

Blessings,

Audrey
www.rawhealing.com


I agree.. We didn't have cooking stoves and microwaves until later. We only had fire for heat to warm ourselves.

[Bananna]

That's a fact I can't really argue with ;)

[TaupeRawMan]

Well where are you reading all this stuff then, so I can dissect that too. If you can give something solid, that would be great. Otherwise, untill then, I will have no choice but to believe that cooked food, is simply, second rate.

Hi Bananna -

Conscious Eating by Gabriel Cousens would probably be a good place to start. Renee Loux also discusses this in her books. Uncooking by Jameth Sheridan is a third option.

[Bananna]

Thanks TaupeRawMan.