Raw vs. Cooked: Do You Believe Dr. Fuhrman's Take? What's Your Stance?
This is from Joel Fuhrman M.D., a board–certified family physician who specializes in preventing and reversing disease through nutritional and natural methods:
Raw vs. Cooked?
Certainly, there are benefits to consuming plenty of raw fruits and vegetables. These foods supply us with high nutrient levels and are generally low in calories too. Eating lots of raw foods is a key feature of an anti-cancer diet style and a long life. But are there advantages to eating a diet of all raw foods and excluding all cooked foods? The answer is a resounding “No”. In fact, eating an exclusively raw-food diet is a disadvantage. Excluding all steamed vegetables and vegetable soups from your diet narrows your nutrient diversity and has a tendency to reduce the percentage of calories from vegetables in favor of nuts and fruits which are lower in nutrients per calorie.
Raw vegetables are dramatically low in calories and we probably only absorb about 50 calories a pound from raw vegetables. Our caloric needs cannot be met on a raw food diet without consuming large amounts of fruits, avocado, nuts and seeds. This may be an adequate diet for some people, but in my 15 years of medical practice catering to the community of natural food enthusiasts, raw foodists and natural hygienists, I have seen many people who weakened their health on such raw food, vegan diets. Frequent fungal skin and nail infections, poor dentition, hair loss and muscular wasting are common on such fruit-based diets.
Unfortunately, sloppy science prevails in the raw-food movement. Raw food advocates mistakenly conclude that since many cooked foods are not healthy for us, then all cooked foods are bad. This is not true.
The idea that stirs the most enthusiasm for this diet is the contention that cooking both destroys about fifty percent of the nutrients in food, and destroys all or most of the life promoting enzymes. It is true that when food is baked at high temperatures—and especially when it is fried or barbecued—toxic compounds are formed and most important nutrients are lost. Many vitamins are water-soluble, and a significant percent can be lost with cooking, especially overcooking. Similarly, many plant enzymes function as phytochemical nutrients in our body and are useful to maximize health. They, too, can be destroyed by overcooking. However, we cannot paint with this brush of negativity over every form of cooking.
Only small amounts of nutrients are lost with conservative cooking like making a soup, but many more nutrients are made more absorbable. These nutrients would have been lost if those vegetables had been consumed raw. When we heat, soften and moisturize the vegetables and beans we dramatically increase the potential digestibility and absorption of many beneficial and nutritious compounds. We also increase the plant proteins in the diet, especially important for those eating a plant-based diet with limited or no animal products.
In many cases, cooking actually destroys some of the harmful anti-nutrients that bind minerals in the gut and interfere with the utilization of nutrients. Destruction of these anti-nutrients increases absorption. Steaming vegetables and making vegetable soups breaks down cellulose and alters the plants’ cell structures so that fewer of your own enzymes are needed to digest the food, not more. On the other hand, the roasting of nuts and the baking of cereals does reduce availability and absorbability of protein.
When food is steamed or made into a soup, the temperature is fixed at 100 degrees Celsius or 212 Fahrenheit—the temperature of boiling water. This moisture-based cooking prevents food from browning and forming toxic compounds. Acrylamides, the most generally recognized of the heat-created toxins, are not formed with boiling or steaming. They are formed only with dry cooking. Most essential nutrients in vegetables are made more absorbable after being cooked in a soup and water-soluble nutrients are not lost because we eat the liquid portion of the soup too.
Recent studies confirm that the body absorbs much more of the beneficial anti-cancer compounds (carotenoids and phytochemicals—especially lutein and lycopene) from cooked vegetables compared with raw. Scientists speculate that the increase in absorption of antioxidants after cooking may be attributed to the destruction of the cell matrix (connective bands) to which the valuable compounds are bound.
Another fallacy promoted in the raw food movement and on the web is that the fragile heat-sensitive enzymes contained in the plants we eat catalyze chemical reactions that occur in humans and aid in digestion of the food. This is not true. Plant foods do not supply enzymes that aid in their digestion when consumed by animals. Our body supplies exactly the precise amount of enzymes needed for digestion; we are not ill equipped to digest normal food. The plant enzymes are broken down into simpler molecules by our own powerful digestive juices and even those that are absorbed as peptide size pieces (or with some biologic function) do not function to catalyze human functions. So it is not true that eating raw food demands less enzyme production by your body. A healthy body produces the precise amount of enzymes needed to digest the ingested food appropriately and the enzymes our body uses for other processes are unique to our human needs and are not present in plants. We make what we need from the proper materials.
In conclusion, eating lots of raw foods is a feature of a healthy diet. I always encourage people to eat more raw food. One of my common statements is—the salad is the main dish. Raw food is necessary for digestive efficiency, proper peristalsis and normal bowel function. Certain foods, especially fruit, avocado and nuts undergo significant change with cooking and are best eaten raw. Baking, frying, barbecuing and other high heat cooking methods that brown and damage food form acrylamides, which are carcinogenic. Browning and other high heat cooking methods should be avoided. Cooking techniques like steaming vegetables, stewing foods in a pressure cooker and soup making, do not have these drawbacks. They do not brown foods or form acrylamides.
Eating raw food is necessary for good health and is an important feature of a healthy diet. But that does not mean that one’s entire diet has to be raw to be in excellent health. It also does not mean eating an all raw diet is the healthiest way to eat. It is healthier to expand your nutrient density, your absorption of plant protein and your nutrient diversity with the inclusion of some conservatively cooked food in your diet.
Link LB ; Potter JD. Raw versus cooked vegetables and cancer risk.
Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2004; 13(9):1422-35.
Ismail A ; Lee WY. Influence of cooking practice on antioxidant properties and phenolic content of selected vegetables. Asia Pac J Clin Nutr. 2004; 13(Suppl):S162.
Tags: cooked, eating, health, high, percentage, raw, soups, steamed, wellness
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Jef on -
No, she saw it on some mainstream TV or news or radio program....of course they're gonna say that. I should ask her what it was. Now she's convinced she wouldn't try raw.
Debbie, maybe I got what she said wrong.
I wonder why it would take longer to break down veggies than meat though. is it the fiber.?
-
Permalink Reply by ben "the beekeeper" stiller on -
Susun explains that it's the cell wall. The cell wall in a plant cell is really thick and only "cooking" can break it down (note: cooking also means marinating, blending in Vitamix, mixing with oil, etc.). On the other hand, animal derived cell structure is easily accessible as the cell wall is relatively thin.
I think her full response if in video clip 1.
-
Permalink Reply by Debbie Took on
-
:-)
It doesn't take longer to break down veggies actually...it takes our digestive systems longer to break down meat.
-
-
As I said, it takes our digestive systems longer to break down meat.
You have asked me 'if you eat 100 calories of raw fish or raw squab'. For those who don't know, squab is pigeon.
Rawzi, you know very well that I would find the thought of eating pigeon repugnant, as would most on this forum. I respectfully ask that you keep such posts to your 'paleo' forum.
I will not partake in discussions of hypothetical situations involving eating the flesh of murdered animals.
-
Permalink Reply by Finnegan Kelley on -
... When did this become an ethical vegan forum? I think that's a very fair question. You don't have to answer it if you don't want to, but why disrespectfully ask a person to go away "respectfully"?
-
-
OK.
Rawzi (as of course, the poster IS Rawzi, who was banned, but immediately continued posting under a different account) asked me about eating pigeon. I replied by saying that she knows very well I don't eat it. As she has always been well aware of my views on meat, the post was subtlely inflammatory.
In my post, I made it clear that I do not wish to be asked questions about hypothetical situations involving murdered animals. I understand that some of you are fine here about eating animals.
Mellifera, you have described me as 'intolerant'.
That is ridiculous. I am married to a meat-eater. My post simply asked that comments advocating meat-eating (including links to an article that advocated the eating of raw flesh, however opposite to that the title might have appeared to be) be kept to the 'paleo' forum.
You then accuse me of 'spreading natural hygiene information masquerading as science'. That has no relevance to this post, or this thread, but appears to be some sort of problem you have with Natural Hygiene. Rather than respecting the fact that people differ in their philosophies, you have chosen to insult.
You have accused me of 'parroting the dogma'. Again, insulting and patronising. I'm not going to spend my time or energy arguing with you.
You talk of 'guilt-mongering pseudoscience'. Well, I'd say around a million vegetarians/vegans would disagree with you, and some are...scientists! But, again, what relevance do the insults in your post have to do with this thread?
You say that I cite 'silly little fear mongering ditties' about meat 'rotting' inside you. These 'silly little fear mongering ditties' are views shared by many experts in not only the raw food world, but in the wider health area.
Mellifera, your post is thoroughly unpleasant and aggressive, but in fact it is not the first such post I have seen from you.
I do respect the view of meat-eaters. I have no problem for example with you enjoying the flesh of a stag, because you find the taste of venison 'sweet'.
However, you do seem to have a problem with me making it clear that I will not partake in discussions involving flesh-eating.
I consider your post to be an attack.
-
Permalink Reply by Mellifera on -
I'm sorry. I realize after I wrote it how negative I was being. I think I reacted so strongly because I thought of your post as an attack too. I think we all should be allowed to post things on general chat regardless of our chosen diet. They are all raw diets after all?
I am trying to work on my overall issues with negativity, as per the suggestions of my mentor, who I am studying non violent communication with. I will try to find ways to say what I think that don't make the other person feel guilty, which is a form of violence. Just because others do it doesn't mean I have to.
So I am sorry!
-
Permalink Reply by ben "the beekeeper" stiller on
-
Just remember this site is not about promoting a particular diet, whether vegan, fruit, or even raw! no general discussions should be marginalized...
From Drumil:We don't "believe" in Raw Foods and we aren't here to convert you into a particular way of eating. Our focus is on getting real health results, not on promoting an agenda.
-
-
Mellifera, I see you have deleted your post.
Re your comment, as you posted it on my profile page as well, I answered it on your profile page.
-
Permalink Reply by John on -
The shorter intestines are so that waste that can putrefy in the intestines can be eliminated quicker.
With regard to carnivores getting nutrients out of meat there are many reasons they are better at it than humans but I believe the biggest are - more digestive enzymes and more powerful hydrochloric acid (pH ~1 compared to humans at ~4-5) and a liver that can eliminate 10 to 15 times the amount of Uric acid.
-
-
PLA said:
'Are there other sources than DG?'
Not quite sure what you mean here. I really don't know whether DG has any information on this - I haven't read the 80/10/10 book that thoroughly - it might have.
As to the digestive transit times for various foods, I can tell you (without being a scientist!) that meat takes longer to digest than vegetables (generally), fruit digests quickest, and melons most quickly of all fruits I believe.
I knew that it took longer for human beings to digest meat than veg 30 years ago, when I first took meat out of my diet and noticed the difference myself!
If you want sources for that, I'd suggest googling 'bowel transit time'. In a few seconds I found this, but I'm sure there are many other sources.
http://journals.cambridge.org/download.php?file=%2FBJN%2FBJN45_01%2...
I certainly remember seeing various sources over the years that did list transit time for various foods.
You can of course do your own 'experiments'. For example, I ate a persimmon the other day with a small label on. I know this because I saw it floating, whole, in my poo, about three hours later!
Anyway, I'd prefer not to discuss this any more. I don't mean to sound impolite, but, (and this is also in reply to Multibee) but all I have done to date is comment that human beings have relatively long intestinal tracts, and that vegetarian food is in general digested quicker than meat. I would prefer not to get into any more conversations that touch on vegetarianism v meat-eating in this thread, for reasons that I'm sure will be apparent.
-
-
I could suggest logical reasons why it wouldn't be, but...would prefer not to :-)
See John's answer above (re the shorter intestines of carnivores). That could help, but beyond that...my lips are sealed.
Latest Activity
Community by WLIR:
© 2009 Created by Dhrumil
