Stefan:
>I think, that cooking changes the molecules of a food so much, that it
>is very different from the original. Even small changes are important:
>remember, that the protein, that was found to be "responsible" for
>BSE (mad cow disease) exists in two forms: one is good and necessary
>for the organism, the second is causing the disease.
Since we handle the effects of cooking much easier than we do BSE, I am not
sure the comparison is a valid one.
>The tertiary structure of molecules is essential for recognition
>by our digestive enzymes. If it is changed by denaturation, recognition
>will not take place.
It sounds compelling but as many people thrive on diets consisting mainly
of cooked foods into ripe old ages, I think that it must be more complex
than so.
>Additionally cooking creates new chemical combinations - the maillard
>products. Judy posted an interesting article about them (AGEs). It seems
>that they are highly toxic to the human body.
>From the article that Judy posted it seems clear that we are talking of high
temperature heating especially when combined with certain carbohydrates.
I do not believe that a gentler, lower temperature cooking will produce the
same toxic compounds. From Judy's article:
"*AGEs are products that form spontaneously in all natural environments
where proteins and lipids come in contact with glucose or other
sugars. AGEs are known by food chemists to exist in cooked foods,
such as baked goods, glazed meats, and roasted coffee but were
not believed to be toxic or absorbed into the bloodstream or to
have any biological effect other than imparting flavor and color.
AGE formation, also known as the Maillard or browning reaction,
occurs independently and slowly inside the human body. In a sense,
human beings are perpetually cooking internally over many years."
>The previous is an approach that asks for the results of single mole-
>cules in human digestion. Another approach would be, to ask for gene-
>tical adaptation to cooked foods and not to care about single molecules.
>This is, what I prefer.
I do not understand what you are referring to. Could you please elaborate?
>Since the fire was invented some several hundred thousand years ago,
>it is likely, that some partial adaptation to cooked foods has taken
>place. But of course to paleolithic cooked foods, not dairy or grains,
>nor products made from them.
Good point.
>The question is, which percentage of paleolithic cooked food (let's
>call it PCF) is appropriate for modern humans. I guess, it is some-
>thing less than 2 percent of total food intake.
Judging by our ability to adapt to cooked foods, I suspect it is a little
higher.
>It even might be, that cooked food, which our paleolithic ancestors
>surely ate only, when nothing else was available,
I think it very likely that they just as modern man got a taste for the
enticing flavors of cooked foods as well.
>is not needed if one has a wide supply with fruits, vegetables, seeds,
nuts and animal >foods.
In times of scarcity cooking foods would broaden the range of foods eaten
thereby increasing the chance of survival.
>The question is, whether a partial genetical adaptation to PCF also
>let us lose some capabilities for digesting raw foods. This would mean
>that we h a v e to eat some amount of PCF to be healthy.
Correct.
>Currently I can't answer the question, if PCF is really needed in
>small amounts and w h e n one should it eat (any instinctive sig-
>nals?)
Just do it! - if not for any other reason then just to prove to yourself
that you are not attached to eating instinctively. ;-)
>Some time I might experiment with PCF. But not now. I've got other
>things to do now and raw foods satisfy me 100% - no need to try PCF.
For the sake of science I hope that you will try it soon. This will also
take some of the burden off Kirt, our premier raw guineas pig. :-)
Best, Peter
[log in to unmask]
|
