Hi Liza,

>I think the issue you are both trying to address is, "What is the
>"Nutrient-per-Calorie" yield of a food?" You, it seems, believe that one
>gets less from cooked foods than from raw foods. So what you are really
>talking about is nutrients, not calories.

Well it's not just the nutrients. It's the actual living vs. dead issue -
bioelectricity, etc..
Check out this link: http://www.newveg.av.org/raw/sun=food=energy.htm

>individual cannot digest raw fibrous foods well, because of various
>(common in our society) digestive problems, then cooking actually does
>increase digestibility for that person. Furthermore, there are some

Two possible options: a) blend up the fibrous food, b) do not eat the
particular food - there are other choices of foods less fibrous. I think
you're referring to foods such as broccoli.

>nutrients which are actually not available in a digestible form UNLESS
>the food is cooked (like for instance lycopene, a compound similar to
>beta-carotene, found in tomatoes).

Yes, that's true that your example of lycopene in tomatoes is made more
bioavailable. But what about 1,000 or so other factors in tomatoes that
are adversely affected by cooking it? And the light is extinguished when
it is cooked. It's completely changed. I think there are more cons than
pros.

>Moreover, certain enzyme inhibitors
>are present in some raw foods, and are destroyed by cooking, allowing us
>to digest what would have been an indigestible substance in its raw
>form. There are many more reasons why cooking is actually a means of
>INCREASING digestibility, but not appropriate to enumerate them here.

True. However there is a way around the enzyme inhibitor issue. The most
obvious would be soaking (with grains, nuts, seeds for example), or, one
may use some supplemental high quality food enzymes. The food enzymes
take care of the enzyme inhibitors. This is explained in Dr. Edward
Howell's works. I know this from experience, too. I've eaten large
quantities of raw unsoaked nuts for months, with no problems. I use food
enzymes with them.

>her own unique constitution, and life history, and some CANNOT digest
>starch in its raw form, even though you, evidently, can. And here I am
>speaking from MY experience.

I will say this: salivary amylase has no effect on raw starch. This may
make it sound indigestible. But the food enzymes present with the raw
starch are the main key.

>It looks from your signature line as though you are a Naturopath, so I
>would think that after some more extensive experience in working with
>people and their diets you will discover that the following is true:
>Everybody's Different.

Actually, I'm just a student. But I do acknowledge that everyone is
obviously different. We're each as unique as snowflakes.

However, I need some more hardcore data to convince me that we should be
eating any cooked food. :)

Wes