Wes:
> > I could've sworn this was the "raw-food email list"! Perhaps I'm in the
> > wrong place?!

JL:
> You are...

Rex:
>Wes, I hope Jean-Louis really did not meant to tell you that you are on the
>wrong list.

Oops, I really meant that Wes was on the "raw-food email list".

Wes said ironically:

> Sounds like a great reason to eat cooked eggs.

Let's say that from I know about cooked eggs, there is no reason to be
afraid of them, and that they don't seem to be nutritionally inferior
to raw eggs. I didn't say it was necessary to cook eggs, eating them
raw is fine if you like their taste. I've eaten many raw (whole) eggs,
and still occasionally do.

> Yes. Science knows very little thus far as to just how destructive
> cooking is.

That's just speculation. Cooking can also destroy some anti-nutrients
or some toxins. So, how can you be sure that the balance is in favor
of raw food?

> "Food combining" dogma?

That's one of the reason. Although I've not experimented with all
possible RAF+fruit combination, I feel that digestion is better when
RAF and fruit are eaten separately (it's a feeling, not a dogma). I
also have other reasons.

> I didn't demand everyone eat all raw. I simply feel that all raw is
> optimal.

OK. Let me then restate that I feel all raw is not necessarily optimal
for everyone.

> Does cooking/high heat usually make proteins, fats, cholesterol, better?
> Just common sense. Hopefully, I will dig up some studies on this issue
> someday.

I didn't say cooked fats are better than raw fats. YOU said cooked
fats are "bad". One thing is not necessarily "better" than another,
they can have the same value.

> Doesn't necessarily make it optimal - "didn't feel bad when
> reintroducing a few boiled vegetables". In order to be more convincing,
> you'd have to state it makes you feel *better*.

But I didn't feel worse. And it introduced a little variety in my diet.


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