I'm afraid that this is largely mistaken. Yes, the nutrients of some foods like grains are made more bioavailable by cooking, but these are almost wholly non-palaeo foods, such as grains and legumes all of which are very, very unhealthy even in cooked form. Plus, no matter if a specific nutrient is increased by a small amount of cooking, increased cooking at higher temperatures and/or for longer periods will inevitably negate any such benefit eventually.

Here are some studies and data showing the damage done by cooking foods:-

These 2 articles effectively debunk Richard Wrangham's and others' silly anti-raw musings:-


http://www.rawpaleodiet.com/when-did-humans-begin-to-cook/

http://old.rawpaleodiet.com/non-wrangham-theories-of-cooking-debunked/

Here are studies showing the loss of nutrients caused by cooking:-

Here's a reference which show that cooking reduces protein digestibility of meats:-

"From Oste [1991], heating (above 100°C, or 212°F) decreases meat protein digestibility. Frying chickpeas, oven-heating winged beans, or roasting cereals at 200-280°C (392-536°F) reduces protein digestibility.

Seidler [1987] studied the effects of heating on the digestibility of the protein in hake, a type of fish. Fish meat heated for 10 minutes at 130°C (266°F), showed a 1.5% decrease in protein digestibility. Similar heating of hake meat in the presence of potato starch, soy oil, and salt caused a 6% decrease in amino acid content."

taken from:-

http://www.beyondveg.com/tu-j-l/raw-cooked/raw-cooked-2a.shtml


The 2 studies referenced above are shown here:-

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1897402


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3748129?ordinalpos=2&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum


Here are more:-

ere's a scientific report  describing the typical loss of nutrients as a result of cooking:-

http://journals.cambridge.org/download.php?file=%2FPNS%2FPNS4_02%2FS0029665146000321a.pdf&code=44a8dfdde48fb6037fc0936b8a4b398c

Here's a scientific report showing the reduction in digestibility of meats after cooking:-

http://www.springerlink.com/content/rwm8p2pyb4kj3q5w/


Here's a table listing typical losses of vitamins and minerals from cooking:-

http://www.nutritiondata.com/topics/processing

A more minor online dictionary entry re the subject is found here:-

http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1O39-cookinglossofnutrients.html


The only studies I have ever come across which suggested an increase in the amount of nutrients via cooking usually involved only non-palaeo foods like grains. There is only one lone study as regards raw eggs vs cooked eggs, but it ignores the fact that fertilised raw eggs would have much lower levels of such antinutrients. The only other studies I can think of are one or two organised by Richard Wrangham, and since Wrangham is an obviously biased moron, they cannot be taken remotely seriously.


All this does not take into account the many toxins created by cooking, such as advanced glycation end products, advanced lipoxidation end products, polyclycylic aromatic hydrocarbons,  heterocyclic amines and nitrosamines, all of which create further harm to the human body via cooking.


Geoff






This may or may not be true, I don’t know, but studies that I have read have shown that we can absorb more nutrients from cooked food than from raw as the food is easier to break down.  Pound for pound you will get more nutrients from cooked food than raw.

Peter Maxwell