In a message dated 11/16/02 6:27:35 PM, [log in to unmask] writes:

>I believe cooking does not
>make anything more accessible or nutritious, at least nothing a healthy
>animal needs on a long-term basis. I disagree with the idea that we were
>somehow unsuccessful as a species while eating only raw, and needed cooking
>to "complete" our evolution.

Certainly we were not unsuccessful as a species before we cooked food and
cooking did not complete our evolution -- we're still evolving, I'm sure.
People probably stayed with cooking because it makes a lot of foods more
palatable and easier to eat; processing foods in general tends to break down
fibers and bring out flavors. Cooking both enhances and subtracts nutritional
quality of foods. Obviously cooking destroys many enzymes that aid digestion,
but it also breaks down food which makes digestion easier. Cooking sometimes
destroys nutrients (water soluble vitamins particularly) but it also makes
some nutrients more bioavailable (ex. carotenes, lycopenes, etc.) In the case
of wheat, pulverizing and cooking it actually makes a given amount of food go
further. Cooking also makes flavors blend sometimes in a favorable way.
Sometimes light cooking actually destroys elements in food that block other
nutrients (raw spinach contains substances that block calcium absorption and
raw broccoli contains goitrogens for instance). Personally I try to eat a
great deal of my food raw or lightly cooked, but I'm not ready to (and my
family can't even tolerate the suggestion) to eat meats, etc. completely raw.

Namaste, Liz
<A HREF="http://www.csun.edu/~ecm59556/Healthycarb/index.html">
http://www.csun.edu/~ecm59556/Healthycarb/index.html</A>