Tom Billings wrote:
>False. Heat renders starch foods more digestible via a process known as
>gelatinization. Ref: Mc-Graw Hill Encyclopedia of Science and Technology,
>starch entry. Raw rhubarb and kidney beans are toxic; cooked are not.
>This subject has been discussed at length before; check archives of the
>list for details.

Sorry Tom, but you're leaving out KEY words of significance here. Look back
at what I originally said. I said "the truth of the matter is, heating food
does NOTHING to enhance its nutritional value." Note the KEY word,
NUTRITIONAL VALUE, not digestibility. Big difference.. No matter how you
cut it, when you heat food, important innate nutrients are lost forever.
Just because something will pass through your system easier without
symptoms, it doesn't mean that it's nutritional content is still in its
optimal form. And besides, the argument can be had for starches that we
don't necessarily do the best in digesting them in the first place, as a
species. Correct that certain foods in their raw state are TOXIC, but
cooking them does not enhance the original nutrient content. It's my
thinking that if a food is poisonous in its raw state, we probably should
look a little closer at that anyway.

Tom:

>That is the raw "party line", but there is no scientific proof.
>Anecdotal proof goes both ways...


What do you mean there is no scientific PROOF? This is common knowledge.
Even mainstream practitioners know that eating raw fresh fruits and
vegetables provides fantastic nutrition, minus a lot of the toxic side
effects of cooked food. It isn't that elusive or complex an issue.

Tom:

>Sorry to disappoint you, but those cultures all eat cooked food (lots
>of it) and animal foods. See the book "Long Life Now" by Lee Hitchcox for
>details of the Hunza diet.

Wrong. They may now in these perverse modern times, but it wasn't always
that way. All these societies have been infilitrated by the conveniences of
modern life. White flour, refined sugar, tobacco, alcohol, conveinence
foods, etc. If you take a look at some of the older text on these cultures,
you'll see they have been notorious for eating a large percentage of
uncooked fare, minimal animal products, and have for ages lived  with a low
level of stress in their lives. They most definitely DO include a lot of
fresh, raw foods in their diets during the growing seasons, and eat more
cooked and dried foods during the harsher months. I need not argue you this
with you, because you know as well as I do, that they eat a phenomenally
healthier diet than the rest of the world. And that includes a larger
percentage of uncooked food than the rest of other societies throughout the
world.

I said it once, I'll say it again. How can it be denied that heating food
destroys nutritive value? Digestibility and nutrient preservation are two
distinct realms. I notice you didn't argue my point on "leukocytosis." This
right here is enough "scientific evidence" for me, based on what we know of
pathogens in the physiology, to make a case for uncooked food being
something very worthy of in-depth analysis in terms of health and disease.
Escalation of white blood cells in the bloodstream is not a good reaction
to an exogenous subtance taken exogenously.

I rest my case. I'm going to go back to being a lurker now.

John