Cooked food gives more energy to the human

[Artelus]

Why cooking counts | Harvard Gazette

According to this article, the human body gains more energy from cooked food than it does from raw food.

[IvyW]

actually raw food gives me more energy..

[scorpio1980]

I agree I have gone both raw, and cooked. Cooked food does tend to give me more grounded, sustained, balanced energy. Raw fruits and veggies tend to give me a short term burst of energy that doesn't last very long. I eat about 50/50 raw to cooked at the moment.

[russianrocket]

Originally Posted by scorpio1980

I agree I have gone both raw, and cooked. Cooked food does tend to give me more grounded, sustained, balanced energy. Raw fruits and veggies tend to give me a short term burst of energy that doesn't last very long. I eat about 50/50 raw to cooked at the moment.

You mention raw fruits and veggies, but what are you comparing it too on the cooked side? Cooked fruits and veggies?

[Altan]

Hi Artelus,
Thanks for sharing that informative link with everyone but I found raw food gives me more energy than cooked food. I have been eating raw food since last 8 months and dropped 45 lbs with diet and regular exercise.

[firenexx]

Digestibility, and how it's prepared.

Take 15 cups of spinach. Put five in a bowl. Put five in a steamer basket. Put five in a blender with your "green smoothie."

Since cooking does create some toxins, and reduces the content of most nutrients, the only reason one could explain for it providing more energy is that it is easier to chew and easier to digest. So this provides more calories in general. And more of the nutrients that aren't completely destroyed by cooking. And you can eat more in one sitting.

The spinach that's been steamed will reduce to a very small volume and will be very easy to eat. The spinach that's been liquified can just be drank, although it is a good idea to pass it around the mouth a few times because saliva helps with digestion. The five cups of raw spinach in the bowl will take a very long time to chew, comparably.

So if you eat raw meat (I'm guessing they did not let it ferment, which would allow the bacteria to partially digest it) it would be harder to chew and digest than fermented or cooked meat. More of it would pass through your digestive tract untouched, and you would get less "energy" from it. Also, have you ever tried to eat a raw potato? What the hell is your stomach going to do with that? Certainly not digest it and turn it into an abundance of energy.

[russianrocket]

Originally Posted by firenexx

Digestibility, and how it's prepared.

Take 15 cups of spinach. Put five in a bowl. Put five in a steamer basket. Put five in a blender with your "green smoothie."

Since cooking does create some toxins, and reduces the content of most nutrients, the only reason one could explain for it providing more energy is that it is easier to chew and easier to digest. So this provides more calories in general. And more of the nutrients that aren't completely destroyed by cooking. And you can eat more in one sitting.

The spinach that's been steamed will reduce to a very small volume and will be very easy to eat. The spinach that's been liquified can just be drank, although it is a good idea to pass it around the mouth a few times because saliva helps with digestion. The five cups of raw spinach in the bowl will take a very long time to chew, comparably.

So if you eat raw meat (I'm guessing they did not let it ferment, which would allow the bacteria to partially digest it) it would be harder to chew and digest than fermented or cooked meat. More of it would pass through your digestive tract untouched, and you would get less "energy" from it. Also, have you ever tried to eat a raw potato? What the hell is your stomach going to do with that? Certainly not digest it and turn it into an abundance of energy.

I've found raw meat very easy to chew, and digest in general. Eating cooked food, gives you the full stomach feeling for awhile. Raw, it barely feels like I ate that much, even tho I ate a lot. Also, it doesn't have to ferment to get the bacteria partially digesting it. Aging will do that. When you age beef, it gets really tender, because it's been partially digested.

[scorpio1980]

Originally Posted by russianrocket

You mention raw fruits and veggies, but what are you comparing it too on the cooked side? Cooked fruits and veggies?

Not cooked fruit, but cooked veggies, some meat, fish, coconut oil, butter etc. Raw foods give me energy just not the long lasting kind.

[russianrocket]

Originally Posted by scorpio1980

Not cooked fruit, but cooked veggies, some meat, fish, coconut oil, butter etc. Raw foods give me energy just not the long lasting kind.

So really, you are comparing fruits and veggies, to completely different foods, and it's not the cooking, but the types of foods you are eating. Now, raw meat, fish, and butter compared to cooked meat, fish, and butter... Now, that's different.

[Artelus]

I see that there needs to be a scientific study to see if:
1. Cooking releases toxins.
2. Raw food is "easier" or "harder" to digest.
3. Cooking "destroys" nutrients.

The theory in my article is that, even if cooking food reduces (not "completely destroys") the amount of nutrients in some foods, animals (including people) "draw" more energy from cooked foods than raw, compensating for the supposed "lost" energy in raw foods.

Of course you'll "feel" more energy if you eat a bunch of sugary tomatoes versus a steak.

[firenexx]

I will guess that the scientists in that study did not feed the rats properly aged raw meat.

Artelus, there have been many studies done on the nutritional content of cooked foods and raw foods, and it indicates that cooking "destroys" nutrients, as you put it. In addition, there have been studies done on toxins created by cooking; especially cooking at high temperatures i.e. baking or frying in oil.

[Razia]

Its not that all food cooked gives better energy , some food are good to be eaten raw & some are good if cooked.

[rpcrazy]

Why Calorie Counts Are Wrong: Cooked Food Provides a Lot More Energy | The Crux | Discover Magazine

Recent research related to this discussion. Check it out

[waterfast]

Originally Posted by Artelus

Why cooking counts | Harvard Gazette

According to this article, the human body gains more energy from cooked food than it does from raw food.

Wahahahaha!

100% RAW Fruitarian is the way to pure energy. (Digests in 15 minutes!)


Raw food has enzymes that allow the food to digest itself... This eases the burden on your stomach and increases the overall speed of the digestion process, which provides you with the fastest energy.

Cooking destroys the enzymes which leave you with the full burden.
You may reason that cooking breaks down the food which will make it easier on you..
This is wrong because cooking denatures the proteins, which means that they are like pieces with missing arms and legs, and useless to the body in their current state.


With Raw food, the enzymes will break the molecule into two or three pieces, which will each be fully useful and functional to the body and the stomach will be able to absorb them immediately without having to break them down into their individual amino acids.

With Cooked Food, it may have been broken down by the cooking process, but the broken pieces will be useless to the body and the only way to utilize them will be for the stomach to break them completely down into their basic building block form, as individual amino acids.

Clearly the higher functions of the body are provided with energy and the components that food provide more readily when they are eaten Raw.


Another way of looking at it:

Your body is like a 1000 piece puzzle. Sometimes the pieces need to be replaced...

Raw food, comes with two or three of these pieces, connected together in different combinations.
The enzymes in the raw food, release these pieces into their whole selves and your body can then immediately replace the piece that it needs from the ones available.

Cooked food, had the pieces, but they were broken down and now they are a useless mush.
Now your body HAS TO MAKE the PIECE, from the mush... This takes time and energy.

[waterfast]

Originally Posted by Artelus

I see that there needs to be a scientific study to see if:
1. Cooking releases toxins.
2. Raw food is "easier" or "harder" to digest.
3. Cooking "destroys" nutrients.

The theory in my article is that, even if cooking food reduces (not "completely destroys") the amount of nutrients in some foods, animals (including people) "draw" more energy from cooked foods than raw, compensating for the supposed "lost" energy in raw foods.

Of course you'll "feel" more energy if you eat a bunch of sugary tomatoes versus a steak.

These studies have already been done in various forms.

One example is of two groups of cats.

1st group was given Raw Milk and Raw Meat.

2nd group was given Cooked Milk and Cooked Meat.


1st group was healthy and active, lived long lives and had healthy kittens.

2nd group was sick and weak, had reduced lifespan and had kittens with deformed skeletons, this was believed to be DNA Damage because the deformations were carried into the 3rd generation (The kittens' kittens), even when the kittens were given Raw Milk and Raw Meat.

[kat]

Originally Posted by Artelus

I see that there needs to be a scientific study to see if:
1. Cooking releases toxins.
2. Raw food is "easier" or "harder" to digest.
3. Cooking "destroys" nutrients.

The theory in my article is that, even if cooking food reduces (not "completely destroys") the amount of nutrients in some foods, animals (including people) "draw" more energy from cooked foods than raw, compensating for the supposed "lost" energy in raw foods.

Of course you'll "feel" more energy if you eat a bunch of sugary tomatoes versus a steak.

1) Yes - it also destroys other ones (for instance, cooking is a way to make some otherwise-poisonous foods, like kidney beans, edible - but some forms of cooking create carcinogens such as Acrylamide - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia ).

2) Depends on the food. Raw foodists often make things like grains easier to digest by soaking them; without this prep work or cooking, they're essentially inedible.

3) Yes - it also makes others more bioavailable (such as Lycopene - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia ). How many nutrients are destroyed (and how many are made more available) depends on the food and style of cooking. On the whole, I'd say cooking is a net loss in this regard.

Originally Posted by waterfast

These studies have already been done in various forms.

One example is of two groups of cats.

1st group was given Raw Milk and Raw Meat.

2nd group was given Cooked Milk and Cooked Meat.


1st group was healthy and active, lived long lives and had healthy kittens.

2nd group was sick and weak, had reduced lifespan and had kittens with deformed skeletons, this was believed to be DNA Damage because the deformations were carried into the 3rd generation (The kittens' kittens), even when the kittens were given Raw Milk and Raw Meat.

Please read this: Lesson of the Pottenger's Cats Experiment--Cats Are Not Humans

The problem most likely was taurine deficiency, and isn't applicable to human beings. Cats are healthy on cooked diets; they're not healthy on any diet deficient in taurine, which the cooked diet in that study was.

In short, that particular study was fatally flawed, and it's a pity that it's continually used incorrectly in modern raw food circles.

[waterfast]

Originally Posted by kat

1) Yes - it also destroys other ones (for instance, cooking is a way to make some otherwise-poisonous foods, like kidney beans, edible - but some forms of cooking create carcinogens such as Acrylamide - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia ).

2) Depends on the food. Raw foodists often make things like grains easier to digest by soaking them; without this prep work or cooking, they're essentially inedible.

3) Yes - it also makes others more bioavailable (such as Lycopene - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia ). How many nutrients are destroyed (and how many are made more available) depends on the food and style of cooking. On the whole, I'd say cooking is a net loss in this regard.



Please read this: Lesson of the Pottenger's Cats Experiment--Cats Are Not Humans

The problem most likely was taurine deficiency, and isn't applicable to human beings. Cats are healthy on cooked diets; they're not healthy on any diet deficient in taurine, which the cooked diet in that study was.

In short, that particular study was fatally flawed, and it's a pity that it's continually used incorrectly in modern raw food circles.

I would be more careful about associating the deficiency to one specific amino acid..

As opposed to the general combination in beneficial cumulative effects of their Raw Food Diet vs the Cooked Food Diet.

Furthermore, taurine is an amino acid and all raw meats are a good source of taurine which is an essential amino acid.

If you were a cat, I don't think you would care what humans were eating..
All you would care about is that they stop giving you the nasty commercial cat food and allow you access to your natural raw meat diet.

If you can show me just one cat, that will cook its own food, in the wild, or in captivity, for that matter, I will concede that perhaps, the previous 1,000,000+ years of evolution for cats has something to reconsider.

Typical dry cat food is mostly corn meal which is worthless for a cat..
This is when you would be having yourself a Taurine Deficiency.

The honest truth is that we don't know how our pets feel and settling for 2nd best isn't what we would honestly do, if it was what would happen to us, if we were in their paws.

[Acting Like Godot]

"Cooked food gives more energy to humans".

Questions to think about:

1. Cooked in what way? Lightly steamed, deeply fried, stewed for hours, barbecued?

2. What type of food? There are so many types of food in the world, surely we must be careful with the generalizations.

3. Is more energy a good or bad thing? Eat chocolates and white sugar and Coke - you'll get a lot of energy fast. But is that good for you?

[kat]

Originally Posted by waterfast

I would be more careful about associating the deficiency to one specific amino acid..

As opposed to the general combination in beneficial cumulative effects of their Raw Food Diet vs the Cooked Food Diet.

Furthermore, taurine is an amino acid and all raw meats are a good source of taurine which is an essential amino acid.

If you were a cat, I don't think you would care what humans were eating..
All you would care about is that they stop giving you the nasty commercial cat food and allow you access to your natural raw meat diet.

If you can show me just one cat, that will cook its own food, in the wild, or in captivity, for that matter, I will concede that perhaps, the previous 1,000,000+ years of evolution for cats has something to reconsider.

Typical dry cat food is mostly corn meal which is worthless for a cat..
This is when you would be having yourself a Taurine Deficiency.

The honest truth is that we don't know how our pets feel and settling for 2nd best isn't what we would honestly do, if it was what would happen to us, if we were in their paws.

I'm not advocating cooked food, or advocating feeding cats corn.

I'm advocating not trotting out poorly-done studies and using them to support conclusions that are blatantly false. If cooked food lead to sterility in cats in 3 generations in general, the pet situation (or pet food situation) in the world would be very different indeed...

Using incorrect/poor arguments is a bad idea - perhaps especially when you're correct.

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by waterfast

If you can show me just one cat, that will cook its own food, in the wild, or in captivity, for that matter, I will concede that perhaps, the previous 1,000,000+ years of evolution for cats has something to reconsider.

Yes, they should have considered evolving opposable thumbs. Otherwise it would be rather difficult to perform cooking activities.

[Brutha]

Raw food has enzymes that allow the food to digest itself... This eases the burden on your stomach and increases the overall speed of the digestion process, which provides you with the fastest energy.

If your goal isn't to get diabities why would you want to digest the food that you normally eat as fast as possible?

Fast digestion produces insulin spikes which aren't healthy. It's much better if the energy get released over time.

[waterfast]

Originally Posted by kat

I'm not advocating cooked food, or advocating feeding cats corn.

I'm advocating not trotting out poorly-done studies and using them to support conclusions that are blatantly false. If cooked food lead to sterility in cats in 3 generations in general, the pet situation (or pet food situation) in the world would be very different indeed...

Using incorrect/poor arguments is a bad idea - perhaps especially when you're correct.

If someone is correct then there is nothing poor about their argument.

Specifically as to do with the study, in general, its conclusions are an well arrived.

The general focus of the study was to identify any differences in cat health to the Raw vs Cooked diets and it was an obvious fact that raw food resulted in healthier cats.

Cats on cooked food would seem healthy at first, much in the same way that humans eating cooked food may seem just as well off as their Raw food eating counterpart, simply because some of the more serious symptoms and problems may not show up until several years down the road.

Cancer and Diabetes, for example, usually do not present themselves as problems in humans until they are into their 40's or older.

Cats on the other hand have much shorter lifespans, so people may incorrectly assume that we shouldn't worry about them developing complications from cooked food, but that would be an Incorrect/Poor Argument indeed.

[kat]

Originally Posted by waterfast

If someone is correct then there is nothing poor about their argument.

So, if I say "1+1=2, because leprechauns gave me some broccoli this morning", you'd consider that a good argument? (I'm assuming that we agree that 1+1=2). Leprechauns did not give me any broccoli this morning, but that doesn't negate that 1+1=2... and this would be a horrible argument in favour of it.

Anyone can use a poor argument for a conclusion. One can use a poor argument to get to a wrong conclusion. And one can use a poor or irrelevant argument with a correct conclusion.

Originally Posted by waterfast

Specifically as to do with the study, in general, its conclusions are an well arrived.

The general focus of the study was to identify any differences in cat health to the Raw vs Cooked diets and it was an obvious fact that raw food resulted in healthier cats.

Cats on cooked food would seem healthy at first, much in the same way that humans eating cooked food may seem just as well off as their Raw food eating counterpart, simply because some of the more serious symptoms and problems may not show up until several years down the road.

Cancer and Diabetes, for example, usually do not present themselves as problems in humans until they are into their 40's or older.

Cats on the other hand have much shorter lifespans, so people may incorrectly assume that we shouldn't worry about them developing complications from cooked food, but that would be an Incorrect/Poor Argument indeed.

Raw food resulted in healthier cats in that study, because the cooked food they were given in that diet did not meet the basic nutritional needs of cats.

The study was exactly as useful as a study that says humans can't only live off of raw food, because everyone dies of starvation if they're only given spinach. I hope you'd take any such study with exactly the credence it deserves: none.

It's bad experimental design, and the experiment doesn't support the conclusions. It gives no evidence: none for, none against. It's just a bad study.

[waterfast]

Originally Posted by kat

Raw food resulted in healthier cats in that study, because the cooked food they were given in that diet did not meet the basic nutritional needs of cats.

The Raw food was nutritionally complete.. And the Cats were healthy from it.

The cooked food was exactly the same as the raw food, except that it was COOKED.

The reason the cats were nutritionally deficient is because...
THE NUTRIENTS WERE DESTROYED WHEN THEY WERE COOKED.

Meat contains Taurine, it was not a taurine deficiency, it was a deficiency of much more than one thing, it was a total/complete deficiency of nutrients from cooking the meat.

Everyone knows that raw meat provides cats with enough nutrition, because that they are carnivores, NOT because Leprechauns said so.

[waterfast]

Originally Posted by kat

The problem most likely was taurine deficiency, and isn't applicable to human beings. Cats are healthy on cooked diets; they're not healthy on any diet deficient in taurine, which the cooked diet in that study was.

Raw meat contains Taurine, and cooking it destroys nutrients.

Therefore, it was not a taurine deficiency, IT WAS A COMPLETE DEFICIENCY, caused BY COOKING.

This furthermore, means that THIS IS APPLICABLE TO HUMAN BEINGS, because the deficiency will be created from cooking.


Taurine and The Other Potential Benefits of Meat

Raw meats in general are great sources of B complex vitamins and oil soluble vitamins. Oil soluble vitamins include vitamins A, D and E.

Vitamin A's cousin beta carotene which is found in vegetables cannot be utilized by cats. Therefore, all vegetables should be considered as a poor source of vitamin A for cats. Dogs can, however, convert beta carotene into vitamin A.

All raw meats are a good source of taurine which is an essential amino acid. Taurine is said to help with problems like epilepsy. On page 129 of The Healing Nutrients Within, the authors state that taurine has a potent and long lasting anticonvulsant action.

Raw meats in general contain taurine. Chicken is said to be the best source in terms of muscle meats, but since taurine is more liberally found in areas of the body where there is electrical activity, the heart, eyes and brains are a better source of taurine. Since I have never seen eyes being sold a butcher shop (although some Asian stores may sell fish eyes), I tend to feed either brains or heart. When feeding organ meat, please remember to read my notes about organ meats which can be found in Part 2 of my book.

Taurine also plays an important role in maintaining the health of the brain, heart, breast, gall bladder, and kidney. A deficiency of taurine can also be a factor in inflammation or swelling; hyperactivity, hypoglycemia, blindness and death.

[Acting Like Godot]

Just to let you know that while cats cannot synthesise taurine, humans can. That's why it's wrong to use the taurine example to conclude that if cats don't do well on cooked meat, humans won't do well either.

In contrast, humans cannot synthesise Vitamin C, while cats can. That's why we need to eat fruits and vegetables, whereas Kitty (and other carnivores) don't.

[waterfast]

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

Just to let you know that while cats cannot synthesise taurine, humans can. That's why it's wrong to use the taurine example to conclude that if cats don't do well on cooked meat, humans won't do well either.

In contrast, humans cannot synthesise Vitamin C, while cats can. That's why we need to eat fruits and vegetables, whereas Kitty (and other carnivores) don't.

Taurine is an amino acid. It is an Essential Amino Acid for Cats.

Humans have Essential Amino Acids as well.. Even if Taurine isnt one of them, it is the same story.


Your example of Vitamin C is IDEAL.
Following along the lines of the same story's logic.

We would be lead to conclude that Vitamin C would be more effective it if was consumed from Raw Orange Juice as opposed to Pasteurized Orange Juice.

AND THIS IS IN FACT TRUE.



According to the flawed logic, it was saying that the Vitamin C deficiency coming from Humans Drinking Pasteurized Orange Juice, had nothing to do with it being COOKED.

AND THIS IS IN FACT FALSE.

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by waterfast

Taurine is an amino acid. It is an Essential Amino Acid for Cats.

Humans have Essential Amino Acids as well.. Even if Taurine isnt one of them, it is the same story.

No, it is a different story. Whether a thing is essential or not makes a big difference.

Your example of Vitamin C is IDEAL.
Following along the lines of the same story's logic.

We would be lead to conclude that Vitamin C would be more effective it if was consumed from Raw Orange Juice as opposed to Pasteurized Orange Juice.

AND THIS IS IN FACT TRUE.

Notice that cats do not drink orange juice, whether pasteurized or not. That is the key point for you.

Incidentally, one orange has about 70 mg of vitamin C, while the average vitamin C supplement is 500 mg, about 7 oranges' worth.

[Acting Like Godot]

And to cat owners, I say this. If you read the labels of your tinned cat food, you'll probably find that many manufacturers specifically add taurine to the product, to compensate for the deficiency.

[waterfast]

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

No, it is a different story. Whether a thing is essential or not makes a big difference.

It is not a different story if you can extrapolate it out logically.

The similarity is not in whether it is essential vs non-essential.

The similarity is in that both Humans and Cats have specific proteins in their diet that are essential to them.


The excerpt from a website below proves the point:

Taurine Related Issues with regard to cooking

This says how much they need.
The standard Taurine used in cat food is 60 - 80 mg of Taurine. per day's serving.

This shows that Raw Meat has the Essential Amino Acid.
Raw chicken and beef based diets contain 30 - 50 mg of Taurine per day's serving.

This is saying that COOKING DESTROYS THE ESSENTIAL AMINO ACID.
Cooked meat contains 12 - 35mg.

THIS IS ALSO SAYING HEAT DESTROYS THE TAURINE
Robert Backus DVM, PHD of the Dept. of BioSciences of the University of California agreed with Dr. Hassan PHD microbiology (North California)in that taurine can be heated in hydrochloric acid up to 110 o C (262 oF) for 24 hours without substantial destruction. This was what author, Ann Martin (Protect Your Pet) found out when she sent her questions out to these biologists.

This person is reasoning that Taurine is supplemented in the cooked cat food.
So based on this, I don't feel so concerned that my cat is not getting her taurine due to her food being cooked.

But, she acknowledges that Cooking, DESTROYS MANY NUTRIENTS, not just Taurine.
However it can be very well possible that cooked meat lacks many enzymes and nutrients that are present in raw fresh meat.

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

Notice that cats do not drink orange juice, whether pasteurized or not. That is the key point for you.

Notice that Humans do not eat Raw Meat?

That should be a key point, for you to realize that you have no business sticking it into your mouth, be it cooked or not.

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

Incidentally, one orange has about 70 mg of vitamin C, while the average vitamin C supplement is 500 mg, about 7 oranges' worth.

One orange has 70mg of Natural Vitamin-C COMPLEX
Along with hundreds of other Anti-Oxidants, Flavinoids, Poly-Phenols and Plant Hormones, many of which have yet to be discovered or understood.

While Vitamin C supplement is 500mg in a Synthetic/Natural Isolated Form, which makes it more difficult for the body to utilize effectively.

Also, synthesized vitamins are not even always identical to the natural forms of the specific vitamin, let alone that they are not accompanied by its natural complex.

Here is an excerpt from a website about it.

when Vitamin C was first isolated and produced in a supplement form, we did not know about bioflavonoids. They were discovered later. It was found that in nature, bioflavonoids always accompany Vitamin C. In fact, the bioflavonoids are essential for better absorption. They increase bioavailability by 30%. This suggests you should take the natural form of vitamin C.