Are cooked vegetables all that bad?

[TylerDurden]

Rubbish. First of all, cooking in moisture only REDUCES the amounts of AGEs, water does not prevent them from forming at all.

Cooking also destroys the enzymes which hardly helps digestion, along with the bacteria.  Cooking also does not only allow nutrients to be leached into the cooking-water - the heat will also progressively destroy the nutrient-levels in the food, as the heat goes higher. Granted, the shredding of the cell-walls will release some nutrients, but the more heat is applied, the more quickly this benefit gets negated and then reversed to become a deficit.

Also, "cooking" is NOT equivalent to animals digesting food in their stomachs. The latter is an entirely different process altogether, requiring enzymes/bacteria etc. which are absent in cooked foods.

Also, intake of raw vegetables appears more effective than cooked vegetables as regards reducing the risk of cancer(eg:-

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14690788

).

[Muhammad.Sunshine]

1.   According to this article http://www.aging-no-more.com/advanced-glycation-end-products.html

“The browning of food…is achieved by heating or cooking sugars with proteins in the absence of water, and in this process AGEs are formed.”

“water prevents sugars from binding to protein molecules.  By eating fruits and vegetables raw or by cooking them in water or with steam prevents AGEs from forming.”

It seems that steaming or boiling creates an insignificant amount of AGES. 

2.   Neither dietary nor endogenous enzymes are capable of breaking down cellulose matter; intact cellulose rich foods pass completely undigested through the digestive system. In the case of cellulose rich vegetables, dietary enzymes are a moot point.

Juicing is an alternative; the cell walls are ruptured thoroughly in this case.

3.   According to WHFoods:

 “Cooking of vegetables and fruits for longer periods of time (10-20 minutes) can result in a loss of over one half the total vitamin C content.”

 Vitamin C may be the most heat sensitive vitamin in vegetables and >50% loss is significant. However, a couple cups of raw broccoli have 370% of your daily need for vitamin C, if you lost half you would still have an ample 185%.

Some vegetable nutrients are said to be better absorbed when cooked, carotenes in particular. And of course vegetables are loaded with anti-nutrients that are deactivated by heating.

The nutrient tradeoff for raw vs. cooked veggies is in favor of cooked in my opinion. However, you can always have some of each to get the best of both worlds  .

4. The study cited above: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14690788 shows correlation not causation, perhaps people who ate more raw salads also exercised more, ate more nutritiously and avoided unhealthy habits such as smoking. If you take the study at face value it has some bizarre conclusions:
a.   Wholegrain products are correlated with a reduced risk of cancer, yup aside from raw veggies, a big serving of cooked wholegrain products is the only other variable which keeps you healthy.
b.   Fruit doesn’t correlate with reduced cancer risk. Similar to raw veggies, shouldn’t raw fruit be healthy? The research methods suggest that the fruit category was plain fruit and not a “fruity” substance like Apfelstrudel.

Based on the aforementioned information, I still think that a moderate approach regarding vegetables is best, some raw and some cooked.

[Ferocious]

1.   According to this article http://www.aging-no-more.com/advanced-glycation-end-products.html

“The browning of food…is achieved by heating or cooking sugars with proteins in the absence of water, and in this process AGEs are formed.”

“water prevents sugars from binding to protein molecules.  By eating fruits and vegetables raw or by cooking them in water or with steam prevents AGEs from forming.”

It seems that steaming or boiling creates an insignificant amount of AGES. 

2.   Neither dietary nor endogenous enzymes are capable of breaking down cellulose matter; intact cellulose rich foods pass completely undigested through the digestive system. In the case of cellulose rich vegetables, dietary enzymes are a moot point.

Juicing is an alternative; the cell walls are ruptured thoroughly in this case.

3.   According to WHFoods:

 “Cooking of vegetables and fruits for longer periods of time (10-20 minutes) can result in a loss of over one half the total vitamin C content.”

 Vitamin C may be the most heat sensitive vitamin in vegetables and >50% loss is significant. However, a couple cups of raw broccoli have 370% of your daily need for vitamin C, if you lost half you would still have an ample 185%.

Some vegetable nutrients are said to be better absorbed when cooked, carotenes in particular. And of course vegetables are loaded with anti-nutrients that are deactivated by heating.

The nutrient tradeoff for raw vs. cooked veggies is in favor of cooked in my opinion. However, you can always have some of each to get the best of both worlds  .

4.   Tyler, the study you cited http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14690788 shows correlation not causation, perhaps people who ate more raw salads also exercised more, ate more nutritiously and avoided unhealthy habits such as smoking. If you take the study at face value it has some bizarre conclusions:
a.   Wholegrain products are correlated with a reduced risk of cancer, yup aside from raw veggies, a big serving of cooked wholegrain products is the only other variable which keeps you healthy.
b.   Fruit doesn’t correlate with reduced cancer risk. Similar to raw veggies, shouldn’t raw fruit be healthy? The research methods suggest that the fruit category was plain fruit and not a “fruity” substance like Apfelstrudel.

Based on the aforementioned information, I still think that a moderate approach regarding vegetables is best, some raw and some cooked.

Is this a troll?

[goodsamaritan]

I don't think so.
It is a logical opinion from a cooked point of view.

[Ferocious]

I don't think so.
It is a logical opinion from a cooked point of view.

Actually, I misread what he wrote, my apologies.

[Muhammad.Sunshine]

Thank you Goodsamaritan my kaibigan 

It is important to go by empirical results and decide what works for your own self.

The best way to eat animal foods and fruits are in a raw state. Animal foods have unique heat sensitive nutrients and are more susceptible to damage and toxins created by cooking.

You can easily eat raw meat, fruits, and even some vegetables. However, many vegetables are inappropriate for consumption unless processed through cooking or fermenting. Brassica family vegetables are particularly hard to eat raw and contain goitrogens and anti-nutrients; can you imagine eating large volumes of raw broccoli, cabbage, or bok choy on a daily basis?

Isn't it better to enjoy the benefits of raw animals, fruits, and plants, as well as the benefits of some cooked vegetables. The benefits of raw food consumption operate on a spectrum, not an either or dichotomy.

[goodsamaritan]

I'm not a fan of cooked vegetables.  I'm on the camp of Aajonus that says some people are allergic to cooked vegetables.  I eat raw vegetables from time to time like celery or pounding sweet potato leaves.  Other than that I am not convinced of any healing power of cooked vegetables as staple food.  As healing herbs maybe such as boiling leaves for tea, pounding leaves, etc.

I came across Henry Bieler's soup vs raw meat and in my experience with healing people, raw meat works so much better than the Bieler's soup.

[TylerDurden]

You can easily eat raw meat, fruits, and even some vegetables. However, many vegetables are inappropriate for consumption unless processed through cooking or fermenting. Brassica family vegetables are particularly hard to eat raw and contain goitrogens and anti-nutrients; can you imagine eating large volumes of raw broccoli, cabbage, or bok choy on a daily basis?

Isn't it better to enjoy the benefits of raw animals, fruits, and plants, as well as the benefits of some cooked vegetables. The benefits of raw food consumption operate on a spectrum, not an either or dichotomy.

  The whole point of the palaeo concept is that one should never eat foods that are inedible when raw; so, foods with high levels of antinutrients when raw, should also be avoided when cooked. The point being that we have not evolved to digest those properly.

[TylerDurden]

1.   According to this article http://www.aging-no-more.com/advanced-glycation-end-products.html

“The browning of food…is achieved by heating or cooking sugars with proteins in the absence of water, and in this process AGEs are formed.”

“water prevents sugars from binding to protein molecules.  By eating fruits and vegetables raw or by cooking them in water or with steam prevents AGEs from forming.”

It seems that steaming or boiling creates an insignificant amount of AGES. 

I find it saddening that there are so many websites out there deliberately spreading lies or deliberately suppressing data. The worst examples are those websites which pretend that boiling, or otherwise lightly cooking any foods "causes negligible amounts of AGEs to form" - easily disproven by looking at data-tables re AGEs and boiling.  In the above case you cited, AGEs are also caused by oxidising fats in the presence of proteins via heat(they are sometimes called "advanced lipoxidation end products", but are a type of AGE.

It is also NOT true that cooking fully in water completely reduces the amounts of AGEs formed to 0. If that were true, then the tables would show the AGE-levels to be 0 for all boiled foods. Obviously not the case.

2.   Neither dietary nor endogenous enzymes are capable of breaking down cellulose matter; intact cellulose rich foods pass completely undigested through the digestive system. In the case of cellulose rich vegetables, dietary enzymes are a moot point.

  Humans can, apparently, digest cellulose to some extent:-

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8719737

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cellulose

Juicing is an alternative; the cell walls are ruptured thoroughly in this case.

  Juicing is a very BAD idea. There have been frequent negative reports about juicing in the RVAF diet community. People have claimed to get nutritional deficiencies, eventually, from juicing. It has been suggested that juicing not only liberates more nutrients, but that it also makes the antinutrients in raw vegetables more bioavailable - since juicing also allows one to consume far more vegetable nutrients/antinutrients  than if one ate only solid, raw vegetables(there is less of a "stop" feeling in the stomach re liquids), one can see how that might cause problems.

3.   According to WHFoods:

 “Cooking of vegetables and fruits for longer periods of time (10-20 minutes) can result in a loss of over one half the total vitamin C content.”

 Vitamin C may be the most heat sensitive vitamin in vegetables and >50% loss is significant. However, a couple cups of raw broccoli have 370% of your daily need for vitamin C, if you lost half you would still have an ample 185%.

  I doubt that the RDA government figures are remotely reliable. I suspect that the true figures are much higher. But the point is that cooking also creates toxins into the bargain.

Some vegetable nutrients are said to be better absorbed when cooked, carotenes in particular. And of course vegetables are loaded with anti-nutrients that are deactivated by heating.

  The carotenes are increased in amount  after cooking vegetables, according to studies, but they are not made more bioavailable per se.  There seems to be some misunderstanding by many websites - making something more bioavailable(as in better absorption via digestion) is NOT the same as increasing the amounts of a particular nutrient in a food via cooking.

The nutrient tradeoff for raw vs. cooked veggies is in favor of cooked in my opinion. However, you can always have some of each to get the best of both worlds  .

The trade-off is clearly negative, given the above points I mentioned. The point is, simply, that one can get all the nutrients one needs from raw meats , raw fruits, and a few raw vegetables much lower in antinutrients than broccoli et al, without ever needing to cook since a) raw meats and raw fruits contain much higher levels of nutrients than cooked meats or cooked fruits and b) no cooking means no toxins, unlike with cooking(assuming the raw foods are of high quality, not grainfed, raw meats and the like).

4. The study cited above: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14690788 shows correlation not causation, perhaps people who ate more raw salads also exercised more, ate more nutritiously and avoided unhealthy habits such as smoking. If you take the study at face value it has some bizarre conclusions:
a.   Wholegrain products are correlated with a reduced risk of cancer, yup aside from raw veggies, a big serving of cooked wholegrain products is the only other variable which keeps you healthy.
b.   Fruit doesn’t correlate with reduced cancer risk. Similar to raw veggies, shouldn’t raw fruit be healthy? The research methods suggest that the fruit category was plain fruit and not a “fruity” substance like Apfelstrudel.

Fruit might have other negative aspects(when eaten in quantity) which might block a protective effect against cancer. I believe Paleophil once cited a lone study condemning natural fructose in raw fruit?

However, all in all, the aforementioned study I cited is merely one of a vast multitude of studies confirming that raw plant foods are healthier/more protective against cancer than cooked animal foods. There are many similiar, additional studies showing that the more the vegetables etc. get cooked, the more carcinogenic/less anti-carcinogenic they will be.  So, since science operates on the notion that the side with the highest number of studies is the winner, your point is somewhat debunked....

[TylerDurden]

I can't get hold of a decent list of AGE-content in foods. The only good one is a PDF file searchable on google, called "Advanced Glycation End Products in Foods and a Practical Guide to Their Reduction in the Diet JAIME URIBARRI, MD; SANDRA WOODRUFF, RD; SUSAN GOODMAN, RD; WEIJING CAI, MD; XUE CHEN, MD; RENATA PYZIK, MA, MS; ANGIE YONG, MPH; GARY E. STRIKER, MD; HELEN VLASSARA, MD".

. Note how high amounts of AGEs that cold-pressed(technically raw!) olive-oil has, showing how even a little  processing can be harmful.

Here's another, shorter, table:-

http://inhumanexperiment.blogspot.com/2009/09/age-content-of-foods.html

[HIT_it_RAW]

I can't get hold of a decent list of AGE-content in foods. The only good one is a PDF file searchable on google, called "Advanced Glycation End Products in Foods and a Practical Guide to Their Reduction in the Diet JAIME URIBARRI, MD; SANDRA WOODRUFF, RD; SUSAN GOODMAN, RD; WEIJING CAI, MD; XUE CHEN, MD; RENATA PYZIK, MA, MS; ANGIE YONG, MPH; GARY E. STRIKER, MD; HELEN VLASSARA, MD".

Unfortunately the list in that pdf is also rather short...

[TylerDurden]

Unfortunately the list in that pdf is also rather short...

Did you even have  a look at that list? It has the longest list of tables on the web, something like 10+ pages full! Hardly short!

[HIT_it_RAW]

Did you even have  a look at that list? It has the longest list of tables on the web, something like 10+ pages full! Hardly short!

Sorry you're very right. There is a shortened version of the list halfway down the doc. The rest of the document wasn't loaded yet so i didn't saw the whole version. That is a very respectable list indeed

[Iguana]

Note how high amounts of AGEs that cold-pressed(technically raw!) olive-oil has, showing how even a little  processing can be harmful.

« Cold-pressed oil » only means that it has been extracted with no heat provided by an external source. But as every kid who has ever inflated a bicycle tire knows, pressure increase generates heat. For example, a compression pressure of 50 bars elevates the temperature  of the compressed air to more than 500°C, enough for spontaneous inflammation of the fuel in a Diesel engine – also called “compression ignition engine”.

[PaleoPhil]

Fruit might have other negative aspects(when eaten in quantity) which might block a protective effect against cancer. I believe Paleophil once cited a lone study condemning natural fructose in raw fruit?

I vaguely remember something like that, though studies tend to be prone to error, of course. More convincingly, I do remember that wild chimps that eat fruit-heavy diets are prone to caries, so I do think it's possible to overdo it on fruits, and fruit-heavy vegans do seem to fare worse than other vegans, anecdotally, but I wouldn't condemn eating any and all fruit. I suspect that it's more a problem of balance than of fruit being inherently bad, and wild fruit is probably not nearly as much of a problem as the processed fructose that's used in studies, with the results then irresponsibly extrapolated to fruits.

[jessica]

yum@cookedvegetables.com

[cherimoya_kid]

, but I wouldn't condemn eating any and all fruit. I suspect that it's more a problem of balance than of fruit being inherently bad, and wild fruit is probably not nearly as much of a problem as the processed fructose that's used in studies,

Brix makes an enormous difference.  There's a world of difference between 8 Brix oranges and 25 Brix oranges.  Orange juice companies pay more for higher Brix fruit, and orange growers use Brix readings to determine when to harvest.

I've noticed far less of the usual problems that fruit tends to cause if I stick to high-Brix fruit, most definitely.

[goodsamaritan]

Brix makes an enormous difference.  There's a world of difference between 8 Brix oranges and 25 Brix oranges.  Orange juice companies pay more for higher Brix fruit, and orange growers use Brix readings to determine when to harvest.

I've noticed far less of the usual problems that fruit tends to cause if I stick to high-Brix fruit, most definitely.

Okay, I need a new brix meter.  Any suggestions?

[Iguana]

Okay, I need a new brix meter.  Any suggestions?

You already have one built-in inside your mouth :
http://www.highbrixgardens.com/what-is-brix.html

High Brix Foods Taste Better

Why won’t little Johnny eat his peas? They taste terrible. Little Johnny instinctively knows that sweet tasting peas are better while poor-quality peas are instantly rejected. Have you ever eaten a 22 brix grape? Once you have you won’t forget the taste. A candy bar will be held in disdain by little Jane compared to 22 brix grapes. Ask any old-timer if they like the taste of fruits and vegetables now compared to when they were young. I am sure you won’t be able to find a single person that feels today’s are better. Taste is built upon the upon the carbohydrate and mineral levels in the produce. When they decline so does the taste. What about aroma? That seems lost as well. Todays average 2-3 brix hydroponic greenhouse tomato looks like a tomato but it has virtually no aroma and is nearly tasteless. It is a poor caricature of what a tomato should be. As a culture Americans are so used to eating low quality produce we don’t even know what really good produce tastes like.

[cherimoya_kid]

Okay, I need a new brix meter.  Any suggestions?

I always just get one off Ebay.  I have a Sun Instruments brand, works great, cost me about $40.  Their website is  www.suninstruments.com 

[cherimoya_kid]

You already have one built-in inside your mouth :

Yeah, but it takes a few months of regularly eating a specific type of fruit and Brixing it before you are good at guessing the Brix without checking it first.  I can still be fooled by fruits I don't eat very often. I'm never completely off, but I can miss by a few Brix degrees.

[Muhammad.Sunshine]

Regarding the Paleo concept, the actual Paleoman’s approach was simple: do what works.

If a human can’t naturally digest certain raw foods, he can use his mind to find ways to process, cook, and utilize such foods.  Humans haven’t physically evolved to hunt animals.  It is the mind which devises unnatural artifacts such as spears, arrows, and knives thus enabling the consumption of meat.

That being said, you have knowledge that raw foods possess unique health benefits and if it works for you, then by all means do it. It is your mind which allows you to master your world. 

Regarding cooked vegetables, I equated cooking vegetables with cooking broccoli, probably because it is a vegetable that is unpractical to eat when raw. The situation had to be remedied because brassica and cruciferous vegetables are championed as nutritious super foods and the goitrogens they contain are benign in vivo. Any side effects of gentle steaming would be mitigated by the sheer healthfulness of the tree-like vegetable.

However, I recently came across an article from the WAPF http://www.westonaprice.org/basics/bearers-of-the-cross . The article has an alternative view of cruciferous vegetables. Crucifers and vegetables in general were uncommon in historical human diets and indeed the goitrogens in crucifers have deleterious consequences even when cooked. This new knowledge caused me to reevaluate my opinion of cooked cruciferous vegetables.  It is important to modify your diet to go with what works.

[TylerDurden]

Regarding the Paleo concept, the actual Paleoman’s approach was simple: do what works.

If a human can’t naturally digest certain raw foods, he can use his mind to find ways to process, cook, and utilize such foods.  Humans haven’t physically evolved to hunt animals.  It is the mind which devises unnatural artifacts such as spears, arrows, and knives thus enabling the consumption of meat.

  Wrong. Tools like traps, arrows etc. seem to have only been invented c. 60,000 years ago, according to the latest evidence(well, John Shea the palaeoanthropologist on allexperts.com anyway). Hominids went in for eating/hunting meats before even the start of the Palaeolithic era, with increased meat-consumption starting, in particular, 2.5 million years ago or so, when the palaeo era started.
As for cooking foods, that is only necessary if one is a hunter-gatherer who is constantly under threat of starvation due to limited resources, so needs to also eat a wide range of low-quality (cooked) foods as well just in order to stay alive - another reason not to buy into WP's ideas. Modern peoples have vast resources so should stick to the best available (raw) foods.

[goodsamaritan]

Humans haven’t physically evolved to hunt animals.

I do not agree with this statement.

Humans even in early paleo may have eaten shellfish like oysters clams, crabs, shrimps, frogs, turtles, fish by the sea shore and rivers and lakes.  Then onto insects, grubs, worms, eggs. As to big game, remember the dodo birds?  Betcha a lot of dodos are now extinct being favorite human foods.

Philippines was paleo like rich in tons and tons of food when the Spaniards began recorded history in the 1520s, it was like the garden of eden.  Tons of aquatic food, forest game, wild fruits and honey.

Cooking is a survival trait, but not optimal.  Hey, I stock canned goods and our emergency bags have canned goods.  Never know when a disaster will hit you.

When my children are sick I do not ever count on cooked vegetables for recovery... absolutely no way.

[Muhammad.Sunshine]

Tyler,

Wrong. Tools like traps, arrows etc. seem to have only been invented c. 60,000 years ago, according to the latest evidence

Humans have no useful physical adaptations to facilitate killing a beast which could weigh thousands of pounds. All we have is fisticuffs vs. a woolly rhinoceros, in addition to our ferocious chompers of course. Even if you managed to slay the beast, you would still need a sharp blade to dress the carcass and extract the meat. The point is cognitive ability and technology allow us achieve goals that are otherwise biologically or naturally impossible.

As for cooking foods, that is only necessary if one is a hunter-gatherer who is constantly under threat of starvation due to limited resources, so needs to also eat a wide range of low-quality (cooked) foods as well just in order to stay alive

Your spot on, Paleoman domesticated grains to achieve survival goals; a consistent supply of calorie energy was the main priority. Times and circumstances change, survival in the modern world requires excellence in health. Eating wholesome and nutritious food is the main priority.

another reason not to buy into WP's ideas.

The WAPF tries to be moderate and sensible in my opinion. According to the WAPF, humans can be healthy and strong on a variety of diets which contain high quality natural foods, much of it raw.

Modern peoples have vast resources so should stick to the best available (raw) foods.

Theoretically the exclusive consumption of the best (raw) foods is good; however, one issue I have is that many raw dieters report improvements in physical performance with the inclusion of cooked starches. For me, a fully raw diet would be realistic if there was a practical source of raw non-fruit starch.


Goodsamaritan,

Humans even in early paleo may have eaten shellfish like oysters clams, crabs, shrimps, frogs, turtles, fish by the sea shore and rivers and lakes.  Then onto insects, grubs, worms, eggs. As to big game, remember the dodo birds?  Betcha a lot of dodos are now extinct being favorite human foods.

Although those are great foods, I was thinking about animals like bison and mammoth. Seafood was nourishing and easy to obtain, but bone remnants indicate that big game was an important dietary component in archaic societies.

Cooking is a survival trait, but not optimal.  Hey, I stock canned goods and our emergency bags have canned goods.  Never know when a disaster will hit you.

Be prepared and stay safe and sound bro.

When my children are sick I do not ever count on cooked vegetables for recovery... absolutely no way.

In historical medical texts that I’ve read the healers frequently recommended meat as the best food for the sick and healthy alike. I believe that meat has the best healing properties of foods, raw meat is loaded with anti-oxidants as well.