One of the claims that one hears in raw foods is that if grain is cooked
before being fed to animals (usually mentioned: pigs), the animals will
gain more weight than if the grain is fed in the raw state. Supposedly
this is an argument against cooked food?  I really don't remember the precise
point of this example. So, I thought I would ask the lists - see if
anyone remembers what is so bad about the pigs  gaining more weight on
cooked grain, than on raw.

What is actually happening in the above, is that:

1) grain is a starch food,

2) cooking makes the starch more digestible (by degrading the crystalline
   structure of starch, making it more susceptible to enzyme action),

3) the animals eat the cooked grain (same amount as raw) and gain weight because
   they assimilate more calories from the cooked grain, as the cooked starch
   is easier to digest, than the raw grain/starch.

The farmer presumably wants the animals to gain weight. Humans, especially
overweight humans, often want to lose weight.

I would point out that the raw grain fed to animals is probably unsprouted,
so comparisons (of the above example) to sprouted grain are dubious.

The explanation I give above is not raw dogma, but it appears to be what
is happening.  Anyway, I don't recall what the point of the example cited
above is, in the usual rawist arguments. If someone remembers, please post
or e-mail me. Thanks!

Regards,
Tom Billings
[log in to unmask]