One of the claims that one hears in raw foods is that if grain is cooked before being fed to animals (usually mentioned: pigs), the animals will gain more weight than if the grain is fed in the raw state. Supposedly this is an argument against cooked food? I really don't remember the precise point of this example. So, I thought I would ask the lists - see if anyone remembers what is so bad about the pigs gaining more weight on cooked grain, than on raw. What is actually happening in the above, is that: 1) grain is a starch food, 2) cooking makes the starch more digestible (by degrading the crystalline structure of starch, making it more susceptible to enzyme action), 3) the animals eat the cooked grain (same amount as raw) and gain weight because they assimilate more calories from the cooked grain, as the cooked starch is easier to digest, than the raw grain/starch. The farmer presumably wants the animals to gain weight. Humans, especially overweight humans, often want to lose weight. I would point out that the raw grain fed to animals is probably unsprouted, so comparisons (of the above example) to sprouted grain are dubious. The explanation I give above is not raw dogma, but it appears to be what is happening. Anyway, I don't recall what the point of the example cited above is, in the usual rawist arguments. If someone remembers, please post or e-mail me. Thanks! Regards, Tom Billings [log in to unmask]