Wes:
> Are you hinting that cooking doesn't alter any amino acids, etc.?
No. Cooking destroys some amino-acids, especially lysine, because
Maillard molecules are produced. The percentage of destruction depends
on a number of factors, including of course cooking time and
temperature. Some foods are more sensitive than others. I was just
wondering (and asking you) whether cooking alters amino acids by some
other mechanism.
About cooked eggs: I was trying to have an HONEST look. My question
was: what does science tell us about the pros and cons of cooking eggs
(let's say boiling less than 3 minutes)? So far, what I know is:
-vitamin: very little losses, since some vitamins are not
heat-labile, and since cooking time and temperature are low. In
addition, biotin inhibitors are inactivated.
-protein: very little losses, since cooking time and temperature are
low and, unlike foods that are rich in protein and carbohydrate, not
many Maillard molecules are produced. Another "proof" is that (some)
bodybuilders can build a lot of muscle mass on cooked whites.
-carcinogens/mutagens: a tiny amount produced, really not enough to
induce cancer.
So, by cooking (soft-boiling, not frying) eggs, you gain biotin, and
lose tiny amounts of protein and of vitamins. That is, you get more of
a vitamin you already have plenty of (biotin), and you lose tiny
amounts of nutrients that you can get elsewhere (e.g. protein in meat
or fish or whatever). Risks of having cancer are NOT increased. In
addition, taste is improved (for most people).
My conclusion is that if you like the taste of raw egg whites, there
is no reason to cook them, and that if you don't like the taste of egg
whites, there is no reason NOT to cook them (again, soft-boiled, not
fried).
Of course, I am not ruling out the possibility that science might one
day discover other toxic effects of boiling eggs; neither do I exclude
the fact that heating might inactivate some natural toxins in raw egg
whites (other than avidin). We (I and you) can only speculate.
Note that I have eaten a lot of raw eggs too, including whites. But
since whites don't taste so good, I have discarded a lot of whites
too. That's certainly stupid, but I don't like to waste food that
way. You say that you mix eggs with bananas, but for some reasons I
prefer not to mix fruits with animal food.
> I could've sworn this was the "raw-food email list"! Perhaps I'm in the
> wrong place?!
You are. Nowhere was said that "anyone not agreeing with the fact that
cooking should be prohibited in any circumstances is susceptible of
capital punishment". I've been trying to determine whether it is
necessary to eat ONLY raw food or not, and in order to do that, you
have to be HONEST, OBJECTIVE. Not saying "hey, that's cooking,
therefore that's SAD. Vade retro, Satanas!". You are putting in my
"mouth" things I never said, probably because I don't assume a priori
that any degree of cooking is bad.
> I think you missed the point: I was talking about BIOLOGICAL VALUE of
> proteins. Eggs have the highest biological value (outside of mother's
> milk).
How do you measure biological value? By how much of it is available (which
in particular depends on whether the proteins provide all essential
amino-acids or not)? Then, meat and fish protein have a high biological
value. You get (i.e. assimilate) much more protein (with all essential
amino acids) with 100 g chicken breasts or sole than with 100 g whole eggs.
> Yay for cooked fats eh?
Not "Yay for cooked fats", but "nay for your logic". My point wasn't
to prove that cooked fats are good, but to say that your logic was
flawed (as it is often the case). That's all. Again, don't put in my
mouth words I didn't pronounce. You said raw fats were healthy because
you are lean even though you eat lots of raw fats. I answered that
your argument was flawed because the same argument could be used to
'prove' that pizzas are healthy. Since you certainly don't agree with
the latter conclusion, you have to accept that your 'proof' was
inexistent. No need to say:
> This "conversation" just gets more pathetic with
> each passing day. I suggest that if you think cooked fats are
> beneficial,
I find the "conversation" pathetic because you don't seem to read
carefully what I write.
> Are you a cooked food/SAD proponent or a raw food proponent?
Again, why do you say I am a SAD proponent? Does 90% equal SAD? Are
conventional vegetarianism, macrobiotic, Atkin's, Zone, etc. part of
the SAD?
> Do you only talk in favor of raw foods when it will be of
> benefit to you, such as say...in an argument with a SAD-eater?
I gave up the idea of argumenting with SAD-eaters, because they can't
understand. You need to experience with raw food to see the
benefits. I just eat my own way, and perhaps someone will be inspired
to improve his/her diet (like my mother, who just started to eat more
fruits and vegetables because she has chronic constipation).
> And likewise, you talk in favor of cooked foods when convenient...such as
> say, with a 100% raw food eater, such as myself?
I don't talk in "favor of cooked foods", but examine the pros and cons
of cooking. You provided the cons (although often inaccurately), so I
point out the limits of your arguments and provide the pros that you
"forgot". You claim you lose more than you gain with cooking, but such
a statement needs to be evaluated. You seem to be angry that someone
even dares raising the question and/or doesn't reach the conclusion
that one should eat raw potatoes and raw egg whites.
> I figured people on here would be bright enough
> to realize that cooked fats are harmful.
I agree that cooked vegetable oils (e.g. potatoes fried in sunflower
oil) are harmful but so far I don't know any argument against eating,
say, fat from a soft-boiled egg. Maybe I am just ignorant, but
ignoring or expressing doubts doesn't mean being dull. On the
contrary, believing without questioning is a sign of dullness.
> I guess people on this list might even want "proof" that the SAD is
> bad!!!
No question about that. You are making an amalgam between SAD and
"cooked", which is questionable.
> Many people find they can tolerate cigarettes, alcohol, McDonald's,
> etc.. Does this mean that these things are the best things to put into
> the human organism?
That's true, but they haven't compared with what they would feel
without cigarettes, alcohol, McDonald's, etc. Perhaps they think they
feel OK, but don't realize their health could improve. The difference
with these people is that I've been without cooked foods for one year,
and didn't feel bad when reintroducing a few boiled vegetables
(without salt).
> Didn't you know that all meat begins to putrefy within 24 hours after
> the animal is killed? This is why the bacteria multiplies, the carcass
> attracts flies, and so on.
Meat doesn't putrefy if the outer part is dried. This can in principle
even occur naturally (e.g. on a windy day).
> What's the theory behind this practice? What benefit does one supposedly
> derive from this?
No theory. Raw meat tastes good, and I feel good after eating it. You
say a lot of things against something you haven't even experienced.
--Jean-Louis Tu <[log in to unmask]>
|
