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