I believe cooking food destroys many of the nutrients in it

I guess that's why he grows pot in his toilet.

i

No, some self publishing crank.

Oh, gawd, Jeffrey Smith, the Frankenfood guy.

He does dish up some steaming loads, alright.

You act as though oxidation is some sort of strange phenomena that only happens when you cook food.

It isn't.

You forgot the link

The Wikipedia editors' note applies only to THE LAST SENTENCE about Vitamin C. Look at the article cited for yourself.

Effect of cooking on vitamin content

Shown below is percentage loss of vitamins after cooking averaged for common foods such as vegetables, meat, fish.

Vitamin C Average %loss 16

No, losing 16% of vitamin C is not the opposite of anything said in the Wikipedia article on cooking.

That isn't the citation given. The headline is not the story. And that story is about "an important substance"... just one! And it isn't Vitamin C.

"Now a Europe-wide study has shown that the body can absorb more of an important substance from cooked vegetables than from raw ones"

And that "important substance" is... carotenoids.

Your article about carotenoids does not say the exact opposite of anything written, anywhere, about Vitamin C. Sorry, loser.

But here's an article about *carotenoids* that does say the exact opposite of your article about *carotenoids* .

"To maximize the availability of the carotenoids in the foods listed above, the foods should be eaten raw or steamed lightly."

First, that link is neither 11 nor 12. Citation number 11 is this:

However, that web page no longer exists.

Number 12 is the BBC article I linked to:

That one refutes the first sentence in the quotation of the Wikipedia "Cooking" article I posted above, and it contains nothing to support the second one, as the editor(s) said.

The citation you linked to, again, is neither of the links in the above quotation. It's the main article for the subject of vitamins.

No matter. It provides an interesting link itself, which I'll note below.

The citation that the author linked to says the opposite of the first sentence, and NOTHING to support the second, to which it was attached.

Crappy referencing, at least. But it gets worse.

Yes it is. It is citation [12]. Look at it again.

So why did the Wikipedia article refer to it? The point was, the addled writer shot blanks. His citation does not support his assertion.

Back to that "Vitamin" article in Wikipedia, to which you linked above. Like most serious discussions of the subject, it points out that some vitamins (but not other nutrients) are reduced by cooking, but that "It should be noted however that some vitamins may become more "bio-available" ? that is, usable by the body ? when steamed or cooked. [34]"

Reference number [34] is this:

"Comparison of vitamin levels in raw vs. cooked foods"

The home page for that extensive analysis is this:

"Research-Based Appraisals of Alternative Diet Lore"

It's a multi-page analysis based on research, with references to clinical studies and literature. You'll learn which vitamins and other nutrients are made more bioavailable by cooking, and which aren't; which ANTI-vitamins are destroyed by heat; and so on. It's the motherlode for a nutrinaut -- a metastudy for lovers of diet lore.

I used to love metastudies when I did research for medical writing and editing. It's like a classroom in a box.

You'll love it.

Common sense is wrong. See time index 0:36:43

No, it doesn't.

The first sentence in the quotation of the Wikipedia "Cooking" article you posted above: "The micronutrients, minerals, and vitamins[11] in fruit and vegetables may be destroyed or eluted by cooking."

Nothing in your article refutes that.

True. So you labelled the Wikipedia author a moron for using the carotenoid article to support his claim that "Vitamin C is especially prone to oxidation during cooking and may be completely destroyed by protracted cooking." But you then immediately used the SAME carotenoid article to counter his claim about Vitamin C. You, therefore, are a moron.

No, it doesn't.

And NOTHING to refute the second either. Because it's completely irrelevant. But you're a moron, so you can't recognize that.

Crappy referencing, at least.

At most. Because that's all it was.

I've been eating raw for almost 4 years, and have never been healthier. The ignorance surrounding our food is astonishing. We've still got otherwise perfectly rational people thinking milk builds strong bones, for example. Or that protein is something we need to make sure we get enough of.

Watched from there to the finish. It's more common sense. It isn't wrong. The lesson is at the end, where fat people are on display.

And milk intolerance is a malady that should be overcome.

It's pretty simple, and sadly, common sense rarely plays a part in discussions like these. Meat is SURVIVAL FOOD. Humans can consume it, but will never THRIVE on it. To thrive, we must eat what come much more naturally. PLANTS. Eating plants, especially plants that are very close to their natural state (fresh and raw) will create and promote health and well-being. I suggest to those that are brainwashed by a profit-driven industry and government, and addicted to the crap they've been pushing, try eating real food for a month or two.... you'll be amazed, and might even start to wise up a little, and quit making such asses of yourselves. :D

SD:

So you don't believe "Milk Does a Body Good", eh? LOL

Weeelll, in the case of milk and the building of bones you're essentially correct. Some excerpts from the Livestrong site:

========================= ========================= =========

DOES MILK BUILD STRONG BONES?

"Milk. It does a body good," according to the Dairy Farmers of America. Th is is a controversial topic, with strong opinions and research on both side s. Many influences insist that milk helps build strong bones. Dairy has bee n a part of the four food groups and the food pyramid; doctors tell men, wo men, and children to drink milk to get more calcium; and even the "heroes" of today are seen with milk mustaches, touting the glories of milk. When yo u look deeper, you'll find that a lot of evidence says otherwise. Milk, may not do a body good. In fact, it may just be a major contributor to osteopo rosis.

MILK IS FOREIGN TO THE HUMAN BODY

The common belief is that because milk contains calcium and vitamin D, it is good for building strong bones. While calcium and vitamin D do help to b uild strong bones, it's not certain if the calcium and vitamin D in milk ev en reach the bones. Cow's milk wasn't present when human DNA was formed, an d therefore is foreign to the body and harmful. According to Robert Cohen, author of the 1997 book "Milk, the Deadly Poison," milk has been firmly lin ked to numerous diseases, including eczema, ear infections, anemia, high ch olesterol, high blood pressure, heart disease, inflammation and gastric dis ease.

MILK AND ACID/ALKALINE BALANCE

Due to the acidic nature of milk and other dairy products, they increase t he net acid load on the body, causing the bones to lose calcium and prohibi ting any calcium that is in milk from being absorbed. According to Dr. Mich ael Colgan, a researcher in the fields of nutrition and exercise, acidic fo ods cause bones to leach calcium and the kidneys to expel calcium. Alkaline foods cause the body to absorb calcium. By this reasoning, there is no way milk can protect your bones. Your kidneys are just not designed to handle all the acid in our food today, and because of it, the bones suffer. ========================= ========================= =========

Protein now, is a different story. It's what we are made of, and repair a nd replacement is a lifelong ongoing process.

========================= ========================= =========

d/

WHAT IS PROTEIN?

Proteins are organic compounds made up of amino acids. Every cell, tissue and organ contains protein, which helps build, maintain and repair body tis sue. Protein is also found in the diet, from both animal and plant sources. The protein you eat provides your body with the energy and nutrients it ne eds to make new proteins.

TYPES OF PROTEIN

Dietary proteins can be either complete or incomplete. Complete proteins c ontain all the essential amino acids necessary to make new proteins. Essent ial amino acids cannot be made by the body and must be obtained from the di et. In contrast, nonessential amino acids can be made by the body and do no t need to be obtained from food. Animal-based sources are complete proteins , while plant-based sources, except for soy products, are incomplete protei ns.

HEALTHY PROTEIN CHOICES

When choosing either animal- or plant-based proteins, it is important to c onsider the overall quality of the protein. Animal sources of protein can b e high in saturated fat. Healthy animal-based proteins are lean meats like poultry without the skin, as well as seafood, eggs and low or non-fat dairy products. Most plant-based sources of protein contain only healthy fats, a long with fiber, vitamins and minerals. Despite the fact that nearly all pl ant proteins are incomplete, you can still manage to get all the needed ami no acids by eating a variety of plant sources. Good sources of plant protei ns are legumes, tofu and other soybean products, nuts, seeds and grains.

RECOMMENDED AMOUNTS

According to the Institute of Medicine, the average healthy adult requires 0.36 g of protein per pound of body weight per day. So for example, if you weigh 150 lbs., you would need 54 g of protein a day. In food terms, that would equal a 4 oz. piece of chicken, 6 oz. cup of Greek yogurt and a half- cup of skim milk.

ATHLETES AND OLDER ADULTS

Athletes and people over the age of 60 might benefit from increasing the r ecommended amount of protein in their diets to support muscle growth and pr event muscle loss, respectively. The recommended amount of protein for stre ngth and endurance athletes ranges from 0.5 to 0.8 g of protein per pound. Older adults may benefit from increasing the amount of protein in their die ts to 0.5 g of protein per pound per day. ========================= ========================= =========

I eat a high protein, low fat, low carb diet. But then I do a lot of cali sthenic type exercises (pushups, chinups, dips, etc.), I try to shoot for 1

00+g of protein per day, even when my total caloric intake might be under 1 ,000 calories.

Wrong. A study by a Dartmouth Collage Anthropologist proved that man individual can live on a 100% meat diet.

The study, by the way, involved the Anthropologist eating only meat for one year.

Interesting. You mean that man does not need a source of calcium in his diet? Or protein?

Raw foods are certainly an important part of a healthy diet. But before you jump into the latest "only raw foods for me" fad, consider this:

According to the ³cooking hypothesis,² the advent of cooked food altered the course of human evolution. By providing our forebears with a more energy-dense and easy-to-digest diet, it allowed our brains to grow bigger (brains being notorious energy guzzlers) and our guts to shrink. It seems that raw food takes much more time and energy to chew and digest, which is why other primates our size carry around substantially larger digestive tracts and spend many more of their waking hours chewing? as much as six hours a day.

Cooking, in effect, took part of the work of chewing and digestion and performed it for us outside of the body, using outside sources of energy. Also, since cooking detoxifies many potential sources of food, the new technology cracked open a treasure trove of calories unavailable to other animals. Freed from the necessity of spending our days gathering large quantities of raw food and then chewing (and chewing) it, humans could now devote their time, and their metabolic resources, to other purposes, like creating a culture.

This is from Claude Lévi-Strauss, quoted in Michael Pollan's new book, "Cooked".

or perhaps

"But Australopithecus had an opportunity to evolve in a new direction. Because members of the species walked, Dr. Stanley says, females could use their arms to carry infants rather than to swing through trees. Infants could remain helpless, allowing their brains to develop after birth.

"We ended up with a brains-over-brawn success story early in our history," Dr. Stanley says."