> Jean Louis said:
> >A calorie is a calorie.

Wes:
> No... There are whole calories and there are damaged calories.

Liza:
Wes, I think maybe you are trying to say that there are whole foods, and
damaged foods. A calorie is simply a measure of how much work is done,
or how much energy is yielded. It is a unit of measurement, like a gram
of weight, or a litre of volume. This is what Jean Louis means by 'a
calorie is a calorie' I think.

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.

Wes:
>We can't compare a raw yam to a piece of white
> bread
> and say, "It's just starch!" It doesn't work that way

Liza:
I'm pretty sure that most on this list would agree with you on that!! I
don't think that's what Jean Louis meant to imply. He was making a
comment about the measuring unit of a calorie, with that comment.


Jean Louis had said:
> > With cooking,
> >digestibility can be improved (e.g. starch, or some tough and fibrous
> >vegetables...) or reduced, nutrient (vitamin, minerals) availability
> >can be improved or reduced.


Wes replied:
> Cooked foods
> are damaged goods... . And I don't believe
> that cooking makes starch more digestible. That is fallacy.

Liza says:
Wes, first of all, Jean Louis said above that cooking EITHER increases
OR decreases the digestibility of a food, depending on what factor you
are looking at. So you misunderstood his comment.

Second of all, it is, in fact, true (not "fallacy" as you say above)
that cooking increases digestibility in some cases. For instance, if an
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
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). 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.

Of course on the other hand, vitamins, some of which are very fragile
and susceptible to heat, will probably be destroyed by cooking. And
fiber is broken down. Some enzymes will be destroyed (depending on how
high and how long the food is heated - lightly steaming, for a short
time, does not destroy all enzymes).

So I think that Jean Louis was tryiang to say that it is not simply an
either-or, cooked-or-raw, question. Sorry Wes, but it just ain't as
simple as that.

Wes said:
> Raw starch
> contains a full compliment of food enzymes which break down the
> molecules.
> I know from experience. Results speak for themselves.

Liza:
Well, you may know from YOUR experience, how YOUR digestion handles
certain nutrients. However, every single individual ever born has his or
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.

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.


Love, Liza

[log in to unmask] (Liza May)