Raw or cooked

[shaunche]

An interesting article on the raw versus cooked debate.

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

The tables clearly show the difference in nutrient value between raw and cooked food is not as significant as the raw food proponents would have us believe.

What do you think about the article?

 

[claudine]

This is an interesting article, thank you for sharing. There is still a difference between raw food and cooked food even if it's not as big as we thought. I prefer to eat raw vegetables mostly because in my opinion they're tastier this way and for sure it doesn't take so much time to prepare them.

 

[Jessi]

Some of it does rather surprise me. I would expect more of a difference on some of the items. I know it's not a huge difference for a lot of foods, but for others, they've always made it sound like it was a significant amount.

 

[classicnyer]

I've never understood the raw foods craze, honestly. Cooking was invented around the same time that fire was. By now one would assume that it's an evolutionary advancement, and necessary. There's a reason why we cook things.

 

[jovan107]

This was a very interesting article, thank you for sharing it. I prefer to eat some vegetables raw and others cooked. I'm not into the raw food craze, but I do have a friend who makes most of her meals raw and it still tastes delicious.

 

[marchese]

i'm partial to raw over cooked. Simply, they taste better to me.

 

[Esperahol]

I prefer cooking my foods and frankly considering how the human digestive track works it would seem like cooking takes the place of adaptations in other creatures. Besides I like meat/dairy/eggs and had to take courses on parasites and bacteria - all my food must be cooked.

 

[shaunche]

I've never understood the raw foods craze, honestly. Cooking was invented around the same time that fire was. By now one would assume that it's an evolutionary advancement, and necessary. There's a reason why we cook things.

Well, they would argue that we started cooking food around 200,000 years ago, thus through the majority of our evolution we did not eat cooked food. What they don't mention is that cooking food enabled us to grow and develop because less energy was spent digesting food.

 

[ohiotom76]

I never got into the raw food craze. I couldn't eat raw salads all day long, and some of the faux cooked recipes they came up with to simulate cooked food looked awful to me.

 

[artistry]

There is a difference in taste. I do like some raw foods. If you use the broth or juice, that is left over after cooking, you can take advantage of the vitamin loss.

 

[gar]

I prefer those half cooked veges like the broccoli and asparagus. The crunchier it is the better. Its alot better to eat these veges these way than having a half cooked meat.

 

[marlinealcott]

I personally have tried 100% raw diets, and it wasn't too good for me, mostly because it's difficult to be 100% raw and not-a-vegan, and veganism doesn't work for me. A lot of people eat meat raw as a part of the diet but I prefer my meats cooked. I ended up staying high raw and that, in my opinion, is probably the healthiest diet on earth. My diet is about 80% raw fruits, salads, fermented and sprouted foods, 10% cooked vegetables and greens, and 10% meat, fish and eggs.

I do this version of the diet which is basically a form of the Specific Carbohydrate Diet. I do it because I have really bad autoimmune issues due to leaky gut and gluten damage (Im celiac too). It works wonders for healing the holes in your gut. The longer I stay on it the less my symptoms are.

Anyways though, my belief about why a lot of people experience huge health benefits while 100% is that 1) this diet makes for an excellent short-term cleanse and 2) Just by the nature of the diet people end up giving up most glutens, processed soy and other foods, which will give almost anyone a health boost whether they are allergic to these things or not. Everyone is going to feel better without bread in their diet.

There is just no reason to be 100% raw, in my view. Why miss out on warm soups, spicy stir fry, steamed vegetables? I don't buy the logic that everything cooked is toxic somehow. The same raw foodists who say that are the ones who say it's wrong to use spices like black pepper or cayenne, and that is just too far for me.

 

[Esperahol]

I prefer those half cooked veges like the broccoli and asparagus. The crunchier it is the better. Its alot better to eat these veges these way than having a half cooked meat.

Asparagus swimming in butter with a sprinkling of sea salt is something I can eat and eat and eat. Broccoli however needs to be cooked and coated in cheese. That is the only way it's going down happily.

 

[hunysukle]

I've always believed that raw vegetables were much more nutritious than cooked vegetables, as cooking depleted vegetables of nutrients. However, I think that mainly overcooking vegetables causes them to lose their nutritional value, not simply steaming them. I now believe that steamed vegetables are practically just as healthy as raw.

 

[Sage]

I believe that steamed vegetables are just as healthy as raw vegetables too. I know overcooking vegetables does deplete the vitamins in them, but I still think eating them that way has got to be healthier than french fries and a Big Mac.

 

[gar]

Some restaurants don't even peel the skin of squash and cucumber when they serve food to their customers, this is because vitamins are actually in the skin of the these veges.

 

[Lena51]

I know that we are suppose to eat our foods raw but after all the years that we have gotten use to eating cooked food, I do not know if I could eat meat raw. I could eat some of the vegetables raw because it taste good but beans , I don't know about those. But I do know it's healthier for all of us.

 

[shaunche]

There is a difference in taste. I do like some raw foods. If you use the broth or juice, that is left over after cooking, you can take advantage of the vitamin loss.

Broth is very good for you, it is something we should all incorporate into our diets. The gelatine, glutamine and micro-nutrients are good for digestive health. Bones are cheap or even free so there should be no excuses for not making some !

 

[Aletha]

I don't see what difference it would make in the long run since you eat a variety of raw and cooked veggies. As long as you get a good variety you will be fine.

 

[marlinealcott]

From what I've read, a lot of vegetables actually become more nutritious when cooked, not the opposite. For example, tomatoes release far more lycopene that can be digested by the body when they are stewed versus raw. I've also heard that the nutrients in broccoli are better when cooked. And broccoli isn't very healthy raw anyway. It's hard to digest and contains anti-nutrients that can damage the thyroid when eaten in abundance.

The only people I've ever heard say that cooked food is worse than raw are the very militant 100% raw foodists. My friend is in school to become a registered dietician and her studies have confirmed the other things I've read.