Why do cooked foods have more toxins than raw?

[dwixi]

Steve said that cooked foods have allot of toxins in.
I dont get how this works... Something is raw and it doesnt have them, then you cooked them and it somehow gains these toxins and isnt as good for you.
Could you please explain to me how this works.
Thanks.

[Subscreet]

Also, could somebody discretely define exactly what a "toxin" is and possibly name a few toxins by their chemical name or structure?

Thanks in advance!

[Dimond]

Here are some links to start out with:

Living and Raw Foods: The Living and Raw Foods F.A.Q.
Is Cooked Food 'Toxic'? Comparing the Claims and the Evidence
Living and Raw Foods: Is cooked food good for us?

[Subscreet]

Originally Posted by Dimond

Here are some links to start out with:

Living and Raw Foods: The Living and Raw Foods F.A.Q.
Is Cooked Food 'Toxic'? Comparing the Claims and the Evidence
Living and Raw Foods: Is cooked food good for us?

All these links basically just appeal to nature, especially the last two. The third one should be dismissed out of hand because it's really nothing more than a rant with no factual support. The second one talks a lot about maillard molecules but doesn't really prove anything or offer anything more than conjecture. In fact, it even says that maillard molecules have anti-carcinogenic properties. The first doesn't discuss toxins.

[Dan.Linehan]

Heating causes free radicals, AFAIK.

Aside from that, it may just be that cooked foods are not toxic -- but simply "dead."

[dice]

I like to think of it this way: any food thats burnt and extremely overcooked is supposedly carcinogenic (cancer causing), and those carcinogenic effects become lesser if the food is cooked less.

The other 'scientific' reason I have is that there isn't really a cooked food - to my knowledge - that has antioxidants.

[Subscreet]

Originally Posted by dice

I like to think of it this way: any food thats burnt and extremely overcooked is supposedly carcinogenic (cancer causing), and those carcinogenic effects become lesser if the food is cooked less.

The other 'scientific' reason I have is that there isn't really a cooked food - to my knowledge - that has antioxidants.

There may be carcinogens in burnt food but there's no reason to think that they're not negligible and not everything that's cooked is cooked in a manner that will produce carcinogens. Also, there are many cooked foods with antioxidants and even if there weren't one could simply add raw food to an otherwise cooked dish. Cooking actually increases the amount of antioxidants in some foods like sweet corn.

For Cancer prevention, Whole Cooked Corn Has More Antioxidants

Heating causes free radicals AFAIK.

A free radical is just a molecule or an atom with an unpaired electron. People always bring this up but it's a non-issue. They are necessary for some crucial biological functions and the body has mechanisms that can effectively deal with them.

Aside from that, it may just be that cooked foods are not toxic -- but simply "dead."

How would you quantify this biologically?

[RUSSLA]

they don't...they just taste worse.

[funchy]

Here are a few links on bad things that may happen to food when cooked:

New Research Supports The Link Between Cooking And Carcinogens

Fried food carcinogens

BBC News | HEALTH | Bread and crisps in cancer risk scare

5 Ways to Reduce Carcinogens in Cooked Meat

High Temperature Cooking Produces Harmful Carcinogens

In the pans used for cooking:
Teflon Chemical A Likely Carcinogen, Finding By EPA Panel Is Disputed By DuPont - CBS News

In the oil used for cooking:
ScienceDirect - Environmental Research : Identification of Carcinogens in Cooking Oil Fumes

Coming from heat sources except electric: (PDF File)
http://cancerres.aacrjournals.org/cg...55/20/4516.pdf
Gas better than charcoal? Men's Health - Advice: Is It Healthier To Grill With Propane Or Charcoal? - Men's Health



I am not sure if this was the original intention of the Raw folks, but I've come to realize the secondary dangers of cooked/processed foods: it's way too easy to get too many calories. The calories you do eat are often more "empty" than the original. Too much of cooking/processing turns food into the SAD diet, and then we have a nation fighting obesity, cancer, and other diet-linked health problems.

However, that being said, I still admittedly not a raw person, but I am realizing more and more the value of live and whole foods.

[Parthon]

I've been reading the subject for a few years, and just based on the overwhelming amount of empirical information, the more raw whole food in your diet the better, but there's no concrete evidence.

Now, I'm wondering why this is so. Nutritional science is complicated and humans have barely scratched the surface. We've identified thousands of organic molecular compounds, but how they affect the human body we are still unsure. As scientists learn more though and get closer to the truth we see new ways of thinking about food.

The other side of it is: There's no money in raw food. You can't add value to it, because it can't really be processed. Big companies of course want you to avoid it, because then they can't sell you the mark up for profit. That's why so many adverts always advertise taste sensations or the fun part of food, because it's sure as hell not healthy. Add on to that the fact that people are human, and there's a lot of misinformation out there already. People are using outdated or just plain wrong information while at the same time being advertised to.

In the end, the best thing to do is to experiement personally and find out what works the best for you.

Also, does anyone else find it amusing that people spend so much damn time on food. Between shopping, cooking, and eating, it's a good portion of your life. :P

[dwixi]

Originally Posted by Parthon

The other side of it is: There's no money in raw food. You can't add value to it, because it can't really be processed. Big companies of course want you to avoid it, because then they can't sell you the mark up for profit. That's why so many adverts always advertise taste sensations or the fun part of food, because it's sure as hell not healthy. Add on to that the fact that people are human, and there's a lot of misinformation out there already. People are using outdated or just plain wrong information while at the same time being advertised to.

Yeah, I think this is a major aspect of it.
Its a shame.
Think if it wasnt for that there would be no starvation. Infact if people were just vegiterian there would be no starvation as feeding animals takes more food and nutrition. We would probably have WAY more food than we need if we all just ate raw and unprocessed food.

[Monique7nuns]

I know these articles don't answer your question if you're leaning towards pro-raw (which I think you are) but I thought they might give a little balance to the discussion. They are both chalked full of additional reference links.

Raw vs Cooked Fruits and Vegetables
Cancer Cells, Facts You Need to Know

I still think it all has to do with the individual figuring out what works best for them - NO amount of "expert" research based on so-called scientific facts, figures or studies can determine that.

[JE Gonzalez]

Its mostly rubbish this cooked-is-evil. But there is one thing to keep in mind: Glycation-End Products