this is a followup on remarks by Larry Robert Semark <[log in to unmask]>,
regarding enzymes and starch. Some additional notes on philosophy are at
the end.

Tom:
>> Cooked grains typically cause a glucose spike, as the heat of cooking
>> denatures their starch.

>Larry:
>Please define denature.  Heat does not change the starch molecule.

Check the McGraw Hill Encyclopedia of Science and Technology (starch article),
or, for example, "Starch: Chemistry and Technology", by Roy Whistler. Besides
enzyme action, starch is modified by two things: acid, and heat in the range
of 131-167 degrees F (which is well below normal cooking temperatures). It
takes a lot of acid, more than the stomach produces, to effect starch (short
exposure to stomach acid will have small impact on raw starch), but heat is
*very* effective in breaking down starch. Heat gelatinizes the starch and
destroys the granular structure.  This is why a baked potato has a high
glycemic index, while a raw potato does not have the same effect.


> (comments regarding Beano enzyme deleted for space)
>Larry:

>Good point, but it is probably because
>it is protected by the indigestability of the grain.  Also,
>this is not a digestive enzyme.

Not a digestive enzyme?  Gross digestion begins at the mouth and ends at the
anus. The colon has digestive functions. How can it not be a digestive enzyme
in terms of function? The important point though is that the Beano enzyme
survives the stomach and is active in digestion below the stomach.  If one
enzyme can survive, that suggests others can.

>Tom:
>> 2) Similar remarks apply to the chewable enzyme tablets that are sold.

>Larry:
>Write all the companies (as one of my professors did) that make these tablets
>and ask them to send you documented research which shows that their product
>works.  That their tablets were tested in a human physiology lab, or
>even in an animal study.  None will write you back or they will send you
>literature pushing their product without any scientific evidence to back
>it up.

I'm not a fan of enzyme tablets, but enough people I know have used them
for short term support that I believe they can be helpful. This is not a
published study, it is an observation on numerous uncontrolled experiments.
(That's what epidemiology often is, observation after the fact).  Indeed,
it disturbs me that some people justify eating junk by saying that the
enzyme supplement will help them digest it! (I don't recommend use of enzyme
tablets - better to eat right, in which case they are irrelevant. Viktoras
promotes using (expensive, multi-level marketed) enzyme tablets.)

> (regarding Dr. Howell's work on enzymes)
>Larry:
>True, but there is little scientific evidence to back up his theories.

Dr. Howell worked many years ago (he is around 90), and his book does list
many references, though it would be nice if there were more. Most of the
works he cites are old, but that doesn't necessarily make them invalid.

Just a couple of general comments on philosophy:

* Nutrition is a social science, with all the limits and imprecisions implied.
(So is allopathic, Western medicine, despite any claims to the contrary). Raw
fooders, with excellent health on an "inadequate" diet, demonstrate its limits.
Mono-eaters and those few who subsist only on juice, are further evidence that
the "rules" of nutrition might not apply fully to raw fooders.

* The process of digestion is not perfectly understood. Although much is known,
it can be hard to find laboratory evidence that one food is easier to digest
than another, particularly if their composition is similar. Indeed, much
evidence of digestibility could be termed subjective - how do you feel after
eating it, did it give you gas, heartburn, stomach ache, etc. So those who
demand laboratory proof are likely to be disappointed here. Further, what goes
around comes around. You have asked for (hard) proof that sunflower sprouts are
easier to digest than unsprouted sunflower seeds. I could do the same thing and
ask for hard proof that sunflower seeds are easier (or same) in digestion as
their sprouts. Then if I didn't like any studies you might cite, I could easily
argue that you are not measuring digestibility in the "correct" way!

* Although enzymes are of real importance, I feel they are over-emphasized in
the raw food movement. My feeling is that the life force in the food (said
force cannot be measured), is more important. In general, raw foods have more
life force than cooked, and that is their main advantage. The issue of life
force also raises interesting philosophical questions regarding living foods
which I may address in future post(s) (not part of this thread).

Tom Billings
[log in to unmask]