At 11:46 AM 4/10/97 +0200, you wrote:
Jean-Louis,

>Thinking about the reasons for changing one's diet ..snip.. the main
advantages of raw
>food are 1] no loss of nutrients 2] no creation of toxic compounds due
>to cooking...snip.. A 100% raw diet is probably not necessary
..snip..small fraction
>of cooked food is not necessarily a problem, since:
> -it is possible that humans have partially adapted to cooked food

> -the loss of nutrients is compensated by the raw part of the diet;
> -cooking destroys some natural toxins and harmful micro-organisms;
> -cooking improves starch digestibility, and tenderizes food.

This, Jean-Louis, makes perfectly lovely sense to me, je vous remercie (
well, if you charming french can speack to americans in english, it would
seem fair to at least learn some pleasantries to respond back to you, d'accord?)

>350 types of Maillard molecules, but a mildly cooked one is probably
>less harmful; moreover, it is more palatable and more digestible than
>a raw one.

Please, was my understanding of Maillard molecules on track, then, did you
see the post?
And...is no one but myself concerned about estrogenic compounds? I am
troubled that there was no response to my labored plagerism, both for love's
labor lost and for the sake of increased awareness and discussion, quel doleur!

Pat