John Leschinski <[log in to unmask]>:
>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.

Tom:
Sorry, John, but the difference here is whether one considers calories
a "nutrient" or not. Cooked starch is more easily digested and hence the
energy content is more bio-available (though it may not show up in
nutritional composition tables).

It is true that heating does destroy many nutrients - but it also destroys
many anti-nutrients as well. The issue is not black and white as you suggest;
it is shades of grey. The scientific posts made by Jean-Louis Tu on this
list provide convincing scientific evidence of this point.

John Leschinski <[log in to unmask]>:
>What do you mean there is no scientific PROOF? This is common knowledge.

Tom:
My comment referred to the fact that 100% raw diets rarely work in the
long run, hence claims that such diets are optimal are based on scant,
anecdotal evidence, and there is plenty of anecdotal evidence that such
diets are non-optimal.

John Leschinski <[log in to unmask]>:
>Wrong. They may now in these perverse modern times, but it wasn't always
>that way.

Tom:
Where is your proof? The truth is that there are/were NO (that means ZERO)
raw vegan societies, period. Your claim that the Hunzas and other societies
were predominantly raw needs real evidence to support it; i.e. vague
refs. to "older texts" is really not informative..

John Leschinski <[log in to unmask]>:
>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.

Tom:
Actually, there are many skeptics who question your claim. The claims of
longevity in (Soviet) Georgia have been debunked. One must wonder about the
others as well.

John Leschinski <[log in to unmask]>:
>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.

Tom:
Leukocytosis is an interesting phenomenon, but it is analytically weak.
Is there hard evidence that the phenomenon is always bad?? Does this
explain why so many rawists have weak immune systems (low white blood cell
counts)?

Your reaction to my comments suggests that you have learned the rawist "party
line" well. Please take note that reality is not interested in the party
line. Things are not as simplistic/absolute as certain fanatical rawists
claim them to be. Raw diets may work great in the short run, but often fail
in the long run. It would be best for you to remember that, at all times,
your personal health is more important than rawist dogma or the party line.
Such an attitude is not as comforting as the "one true religion and science
of perfect health, the raw foods diet", but that is reality, and reality
is not interested in the party line...

Tom Billings