Ellie:

> Thanks for that feedback. If molecule X is a protein wouldn't it go
> through many stages in oxidation before becoming CO2, H2O and NO2? Do you
> think if a food is slighly digested by its own enzymes in the process of
> warming, etc. , that some proteins might be broken down into poypetides,
> and would then be in solution in the fluid of the food and might react,
> e.g. the amino groups with sugars, forming a small amount of Maillard's
> moleclues?

Yes, but

1] some of the many Maillard reactions require a high temperature,
namely those which produce a roast aroma and have a browning effect.

2] The reactions which are merely speeded up by an elevation of
temperature may be harmful too: if the body is able to cope with 0.1
mg/day of a certain chemical compound, and cooking produces 10 mg,
what will happen? Similarly, as Bruno Comby said, the food we eat is
slightly "denatured" by natural radioactivity. But that doesn't mean
artificially irradiated food is tolerable.


>
> Again, hopefully we don't have such leaky guts that too many polypeptides
> get through, and that mostly only the amino acids we need are cirulating
> in our blood. I'm not aware that the body ever uses polypetides in
> building protein. I surely will study up on that when I get a chance.

Burger's theory (or hypothesis) is that the few polypeptides, which
are not usable by the body, accumulate in the cells, which causes
various dysfunctions. Maybe very few abnormal polypeptides pass
through the intestinal "barrier", but after 20 or 30 years of accumulation...

>
> I am sure in awe and respect of that comment. My physiology book says tha
> unlike most receptors, adaptation of taste occurs in the central nervous
> system rather than at the recpetors of tastebuds. The CNS is capable of
> detecting the ratios of stimulation of the different types of taste buds,
> i.e. most taste buds respond to the four taste stimuli to varying
> extents. The possibilities are endless, and the CNS might be able to
> compute which foods are not fit for us. It's beyond my understanding, but
> I don't doubt it's designed to protect us, as long as it's functioning
> properly.

Sorry, when I talked about "tastebuds", I meant "tastebuds+analysis by
the CNS". Clearly, experience shows that our tastebuds (+CNS) are not
adapted to cooked food, and doesn't function very well with too
selected fruits.

--
Jean-Louis Tu
[log in to unmask]