>> Well, if these enzymes were really important in digesting
>> food, wouldn't the plant digest itself?
>
>This little piece bothered me for a few days so I thought I'd respond...
>
>I'm not sure this is logical at all. After all, we have enzymes that digest
>protein, and *we* don't digest ourselves.
>
>Raw plants and even meat does have enzymes in it that may be destroyed with
>cooking. The enzymes might be contained inside the cell organelles. Mild
>cooking or physical destruction (through cutting or pureeing, say) may
>release these enzymes. Heavy cooking probably destroys most of them.
>
>I don't say that enzymes are necessary for digesting food, but consuming
>fresh food in a more or less raw state may be very healthy due to these
>enzymes, who knows?
>
>--Richard

What about the thought that no animal except humans eats anything cooked?
Why are we discussing this when any prototypical diet for which we are
designed would be raw? Why imagine that any cooked food would be
beneficial? This is sort of along the same lines as what I asked Rachel
when she said cooked greens were more nutritious. There's something here I
don't get.... My feeling is that eating cooked stuff is just about as good
as taking extracted supplements of things: it's a fraction of the good that
might otherwise be available. I like to think of my food as a positive
influence, not something against which I have to defend myself, or
counteract, or fortify because of lacks I knowingly chose to induce.

ginny and Tomo, one confused, the other oblivious

All stunts performed without a net!