Wes,
>Well I am aware of GREEN potatoes containing solanine, but if they're not
>green, there should be no solanine in them.
Not true. you find solanine MOSTLY in green potatoes, in the "eyes"
(when they sprout) and just under the skin. So, if you want to eat
potatoes, better store them away from light, in a dry place, and make
thick peels.
>No, not just the sweet potato. Also the beet (a whole beet), corn on cob,
>and carrot. These are all high starch/complex carbohydrate foods.
Sweet potatoes have 24g carbohydrate per 100g, mostly starch. For
carrots, beets and corn, that's respectively 10g, 10g and 20g per 100g
of edible portion, a fair amount of which consisting of
sugar. (Perhaps even most of the carbs in beets are in the form of
sucrose). You didn't tell me the weight of each of the tubers you ate,
but I believe at least 50% of the starch was from the sweet potato.
>And as for the skin eruptions via eating cooked starches, yes I got them
>after just 1 regular potato.
You are not answering my question. I asked if just one cooked SWEET
potato was enough to produce eruptions. Later, you say:
>Boiled potato/sweet potato/yam did the same.
How much? Just one again?
Other question: since carrots contain a little starch, it would be
very interesting to do the following experiment: eat 3 cooked
carrots. If you still have eruptions, then there is a good chance that
cooked starch is toxic (for you), since 3 different starchy foods give
you the same effect. On the other hand, if you don't, it will mean
that it was not due to the starch but to something present in potatoes
and not in carrots.
>Seriously. BTW, I wouldn't recommend artichoke unless you have a lot
>of time on your hands to eat ;).
I know. For some times, I ate FOUR large artichokes/day (took almost
one hour). But they were so delicious!
>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
I searched for actual information on that page and I didn't find any.
>But what about 1,000 or so other factors in tomatoes that are
>adversely affected by cooking it? I think there are more cons than
>pros.
I agree that tomatoes are nutritious enough when raw, so they
shouldn't be cooked. But I wouldn't agree in the case of other
foods. For instance, most people can eat 100 grams (dry weight) of
cooked rice in a meal. Now, almost no one can eat 100 grams of raw,
soaked rice.
>And the light is extinguished when it is cooked. It's completely
>changed.
Which light? Of your kitchen?
>Actually, I'm just a student. But I do acknowledge that everyone is
>obviously different. We're each as unique as snowflakes.
Well, then you should understand that some people are simply not able
to eat a lot of raw starch, including me. Woever, I don't feel the
need to cook my food for the moment, since the high amount of raw
animal food (including the dreaded meat) keeps me balanced [but I do
eat cooked for social reasons, like at the restaurant].
--Jean-Louis Tu <[log in to unmask]>
|
