On Mon, 16 Dec 2002 23:53:04 -0600, Jay Banks <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>* All uncooked foods contain an abundance of food enzymes which correspond
>to the nutritional highlights of the food. ...  Lean
>meats, on the other hand, contain sizable amounts of protease in the form
>of
>cathepsin and little amylase.

It seems obvious to me that carbohydrate containing food items contain
some enzymes that the original creature (plant, e.g. a grain)
needs to use this storage at some time.
At last, if the grain is growing it needs to activate this storage energy.
The digestion - splitting up the starch molecule to glucose by amylase seems
to be little of a problem. I have learned that a whole lot of enzymes are
necessary to make this glucose into usable energy in the Krebs Cycle.
(see e.g.: http://chemistry.gsu.edu/glactone/PDB/Proteins/Krebs/Krebs.html )
In addition a whole group of enzymes can *not* be made by the body, but must
be obtained from food. Like thiamin, riboflavin (vitamin Bx-es).
Amylase can be made by the body, obviously. Like lipase, pepsin, etc..

What looks strange for me in your quote is the following:
Why on earth should any animal include an enzyme in it's own muscle to help
predators digest it?
That's not logical to me.

Enzymes are proteins. And proteins are made out of amino acids.
Most proteins are destroyed (cracked or mis-folded) if you heat them.
But proteins are destroyed and cracked into their amino acids in the course
of digestion anyway. Pepsin etc does this.
So it shouldn't make any difference if certain enzymes were present in the
food. They would be destroyed in the stomach anyway.

*Except* when some toxins arise from the heating
- which is the case for some chemicals we know - maillard , acrylamide for
ex..

regards

Amadeus