Im Your Man Posted August 5, 2009 Share Posted August 5, 2009 100 gr. for both. Between raw and cooked, there were less of some vitamins and more of other vitamins, and the amino acids score improved when cooked. About vitamins, I guess you will say that it is because the 100gr of cooked contain less water, so more meat and therefore more vitamins than the same 100gr with water. Perhaps. But there is still a loss of vitamins due to heating. What about the amino acids score, why is it better when cooked? I have serious doubts about that. Also, all those foods have been tested cooked, right? I heard they dont have the technology to study raw/living food, or they do but not since long enough to have updated all the infos in this database. So how can they say those numbers about raw food? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zack Posted August 5, 2009 Share Posted August 5, 2009 What about the amino acids score, why is it better when cooked? I have serious doubts about that. Because the protein has become denatured. Makes it easier to utilize the amino acids that the protein is made up of. Cooked protein = easier to digest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Im Your Man Posted August 5, 2009 Share Posted August 5, 2009 Cooked protein = easier to digest. refined food is never superior, in any way, to whole food in its natural state. Food becomes easier to digest by itself, when time comes; that's why it is important to eat fruits when they are ripe, or to eat young shoots or sprouts. With cooking, the amino acids are partially destroyed, there's less amino acids, less proteins. Since when does fire/heat does not destroy organic matter ? Digestion is not like an oven; what temperature do you think it is in your belly? Enzymes secreted in our stomach break down nutrients so they can enter our bloodstream to be available for our body. Removing parts of something is never good. If we denature your hand by burning some of your fingers, do you think your new hand will be more useful? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zack Posted August 5, 2009 Share Posted August 5, 2009 Cooked protein = easier to digest. refined food is never superior, in any way, to whole food in its natural state. Food becomes easier to digest by itself, when time comes; that's why it is important to eat fruits when they are ripe, or to eat young shoots or sprouts. With cooking, the amino acids are partially destroyed, there's less amino acids, less proteins. Since when does fire/heat does not destroy organic matter ? Digestion is not like an oven; what temperature do you think it is in your belly? Enzymes secreted in our stomach break down nutrients so they can enter our bloodstream to be available for our body. Removing parts of something is never good. If we denature your hand by burning some of your fingers, do you think your new hand will be more useful? I love having you around. You'll readily admit that you don't know why something is the way it is in a previous post, then post again trying to explain what you've already stated that you don't know. Denaturation is going to happen one way or another, either by cooking or by stomach acid, the end result is the same. Breaking coiled protein molecules into shorter unfolded amino chains (through denaturation, in this case cooking) makes it easier for digestive enzymes to get to them. Logically, this would make it easier for the body to digest once it is in the stomach, hence the higher amino score. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xjohanx Posted August 5, 2009 Share Posted August 5, 2009 lawl Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blabbate Posted August 5, 2009 Share Posted August 5, 2009 100 gr. for both. Between raw and cooked, there were less of some vitamins and more of other vitamins, and the amino acids score improved when cooked. About vitamins, I guess you will say that it is because the 100gr of cooked contain less water, so more meat and therefore more vitamins than the same 100gr with water. Perhaps. But there is still a loss of vitamins due to heating. What about the amino acids score, why is it better when cooked? I have serious doubts about that. Also, all those foods have been tested cooked, right? I heard they dont have the technology to study raw/living food, or they do but not since long enough to have updated all the infos in this database. So how can they say those numbers about raw food?Yay, you figured it out! Yes, at 100 g for both, the protein content of the cooked food will be higher, as will the vitamin content. The amino acid score is based on proportions, not on total amount. The proportions of some aminos decreased while others increased, bringing the total closer to an ideal ratio. It's a quality score, not quantity. It's nice you heard they don't have the technology, but testing food is not difficult. Students in high school chemistry class can break down macronutrient ratios, and it's not a big step to determining aminos and vitamins. It doesn't matter whether it's raw or cooked. If you really want to make a comparison, find out what 100 g of cooked beef equates to when raw, then compare. But unless you know that ratio, you're just guessing and blindly accusing PDCAAS scores of being impossible. I can understand thinking they're worthless, but they are at least internally consistent and verifiable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blabbate Posted August 5, 2009 Share Posted August 5, 2009 refined food is never superior, in any way, to whole food in its natural state. Food becomes easier to digest by itself, when time comes; that's why it is important to eat fruits when they are ripe, or to eat young shoots or sprouts. With cooking, the amino acids are partially destroyed, there's less amino acids, less proteins. Since when does fire/heat does not destroy organic matter ? Digestion is not like an oven; what temperature do you think it is in your belly? Enzymes secreted in our stomach break down nutrients so they can enter our bloodstream to be available for our body. Removing parts of something is never good. If we denature your hand by burning some of your fingers, do you think your new hand will be more useful?I can't tell whether you're willfully ignorant or just accidentally, but You Fail Biology Forever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Im Your Man Posted August 5, 2009 Share Posted August 5, 2009 I can't tell whether you're willfully ignorant or just accidentally, but You Fail Biology Forever. From the constant condescension in most of your posts, and the fact that you fail to provide any useful information like in your last posts, just always commenting and judging others, I can tell you're just an asshole and that you believe you're the ass hole of the world.Yay, you figured it out! Of course I did, and you didn't. It doesn't matter whether it's raw or cooked. ahah.I love having you around. You'll readily admit that you don't know why something is the way it is in a previous post' date=' then post again trying to explain what you've already stated that you don't know.[/quote'] I love you too. I write informations, not always exact or right, I ask questions, I answer them, I'm learning, etc. All this is far better than acting like a cheap Confucius blabbing about everything, and I'm not talking about you Zack. Denaturation is going to happen one way or another, either by cooking or by stomach acid, the end result is the same. Not the same result at all, the oven or microwave cannot absorb nutrients for you counter to if it happens in your stomach. In the pan or whatever some nutrients are lost by evaporation, unless you keep your nose above the pan and you breathe every single molecule. Even if you would do this, it is far superior to ''cook'' (as you like to describe digestion) in your body than outside. Other nutrients become useless because they're burned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blabbate Posted August 5, 2009 Share Posted August 5, 2009 I can't tell whether you're willfully ignorant or just accidentally, but You Fail Biology Forever. From the constant condescension in most of your posts, and the fact that you fail to provide any useful information like in your last posts, just always commenting and judging others, I can tell you're just an asshole and that you believe you're the ass hole of the world.I think you're reading too much into my condescension. All I'm trying to get across is the most obvious interpretation: I don't think you're very bright. Yay, you figured it out! Of course I did, and you didn't.Failing to understand the following doesn't speak well for your critical thinking skills: a) removing water from meat will proportionally increase the shares of the other constituent substances with respect to total weight, b) amino acid scores are based on proportions, not total amino amounts, and c) just because you don't like PDCAAS scores doesn't mean they're inaccurate. It doesn't matter whether it's raw or cooked. ahah.Not actually sure what you're getting at here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VeganEssentials Posted August 5, 2009 Share Posted August 5, 2009 Have we learned nothing from the past in getting into these debates? Not meaning to offend IYM (even though it may sound like a jab), we know what we're getting into when debating with him regarding nutritional science. He chooses to use science (and I do use that term loosely based on many of his past references) that he finds suitable and calls it irrefutible fact even when it's pretty spotty for accuracy, but then chooses to disregard any conflicting science that might prove his theories wrong even when there's no logical question as to its accuracy. You simply cannot debate someone who comes strong with intentions to battle everything that they not previously agree with, because they're not actually open to learning anything that might make them ponder their pre-conceived notions. They only want to convince you that you're the one who needs to learn something, no matter how inaccurate some of their information is. I've banged my head on my desk many a night after getting into these sort of things with him - I've over it, because he's never wanted to consider anything other than raw theory and "science" even when it can be shown to be incorrect (or, at least only partially correct). But, that's fine, one can believe what one wants to, but that doesn't mean it's the truth Again, no disrespect intended to you, IYM - believe what you want, it's your choice. If anything, I admire your conviction (even though I think you're way off base), but I still think you've got a LOT to learn about nutrition that doesn't involve half-truths, unproven theory, and "science" that's propagated by those with an agenda that you want to side with. Maybe it's time to consider that you're not always 100% on the mark and to not dismiss every single point you don't agree with, just because it might put some gaping holes in your beliefs. Just a thought! Anyway, back to business - I'm ready to be entertained again Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blabbate Posted August 5, 2009 Share Posted August 5, 2009 Have we learned nothing from the past in getting into these debates? Ugh, you're right. And I shouldn't even get involved in the first place. Now I feel dirty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VeganEssentials Posted August 5, 2009 Share Posted August 5, 2009 Damn! If only I'd kept my mouth shut, we may have been able to squeeze 3 more pages out of this sucker! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Couture547 Posted August 5, 2009 Share Posted August 5, 2009 Have we learned nothing from the past in getting into these debates? Not meaning to offend IYM (even though it may sound like a jab), we know what we're getting into when debating with him regarding nutritional science. He chooses to use science (and I do use that term loosely based on many of his past references) that he finds suitable and calls it irrefutible fact even when it's pretty spotty for accuracy, but then chooses to disregard any conflicting science that might prove his theories wrong even when there's no logical question as to its accuracy. You simply cannot debate someone who comes strong with intentions to battle everything that they not previously agree with, because they're not actually open to learning anything that might make them ponder their pre-conceived notions. They only want to convince you that you're the one who needs to learn something, no matter how inaccurate some of their information is. I've banged my head on my desk many a night after getting into these sort of things with him - I've over it, because he's never wanted to consider anything other than raw theory and "science" even when it can be shown to be incorrect (or, at least only partially correct). But, that's fine, one can believe what one wants to, but that doesn't mean it's the truth Again, no disrespect intended to you, IYM - believe what you want, it's your choice. If anything, I admire your conviction (even though I think you're way off base), but I still think you've got a LOT to learn about nutrition that doesn't involve half-truths, unproven theory, and "science" that's propagated by those with an agenda that you want to side with. Maybe it's time to consider that you're not always 100% on the mark and to not dismiss every single point you don't agree with, just because it might put some gaping holes in your beliefs. Just a thought! Anyway, back to business - I'm ready to be entertained again I agree with some of what you say, but at the same time i belive we're still kinda in the dark ages of human health. There's more health issues now then ever before (at least in the west) there's more science now then ever before, but more problems then ever before that are nutrition related. If we eliminated every food that a scientic studies said were bad we'd be left eatting nothing. One study shows we thrive best on a hunter and gather type diet, another a higher fat vegan diet, another a low fat vegan diet. The probelm is people like the use stats but not look at the whole story. People will say humans are living longer then ever before, yet the stats don't show the whole story, hundreds of years ago infant deaths were 16 times higher then today, people dieing at 0 really though off the stats, also mothers were dieing very young through child birth. I guess the best things for everyone to do is try things out for themselves and see what they feel best on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VeganEssentials Posted August 5, 2009 Share Posted August 5, 2009 I agree with some of what you say, but at the same time i belive we're still kinda in the dark ages of human health. There's more health issues now then ever before (at least in the west) there's more science now then ever before, but more problems then ever before that are nutrition related. If we eliminated every food that a scientic studies said were bad we'd be left eatting nothing. One study shows we thrive best on a hunter and gather type diet, another a higher fat vegan diet, another a low fat vegan diet. The probelm is people like the use stats but not look at the whole story. People will say humans are living longer then ever before, yet the stats don't show the whole story, hundreds of years ago infant deaths were 16 times higher then today, people dieing at 0 really though off the stats, also mothers were dieing very young through child birth. I guess the best things for everyone to do is try things out for themselves and see what they feel best on. By no means am I saying that scientific stats rule supreme in every case (we're all too different to all respond best to the same thing), and I do agree that using stats exclusively isn't the way to go. Some people will do well raw, some will do better cooked, some people will thrive on processed junk and live to be 100, some will eat a completely organic whole-food diet and die young. I concur that we need to do what feels best for our own body vs. following what we're told is "best" at any given moment. My post was more in regard to the usual IYM statements where he says he's open to other ideas, yet shoots down everything that isn't in line with his usual way of thinking. He, too, likes to quote different "facts" when they're suitable, but any time anyone else does it, they're automatically using faulty science by his statements (at least, any time it does not mesh with his theories on raw being best for everyone). That was more my point than anything else Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zack Posted August 5, 2009 Share Posted August 5, 2009 I wasn't expecting him to pay any attention to it VE. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Couture547 Posted August 5, 2009 Share Posted August 5, 2009 By no means am I saying that scientific stats rule supreme in every case (we're all too different to all respond best to the same thing), and I do agree that using stats exclusively isn't the way to go. Some people will do well raw, some will do better cooked, some people will thrive on processed junk and live to be 100, some will eat a completely organic whole-food diet and die young. I concur that we need to do what feels best for our own body vs. following what we're told is "best" at any given moment. My post was more in regard to the usual IYM statements where he says he's open to other ideas, yet shoots down everything that isn't in line with his usual way of thinking. He, too, likes to quote different "facts" when they're suitable, but any time anyone else does it, they're automatically using faulty science by his statements (at least, any time it does not mesh with his theories on raw being best for everyone). That was more my point than anything else Yeah i agree. I like IYM and think alot of what he says is good stuff and he seems to be a intelligent guy, but he's a little caught up in the raw food dogma, as i was at one point. Not that the raw food diet is a really bad diet, certainly better then sad. But it has flaws and the biggest being meeting calorie needs with proper macro ratios(not too high in fat, proper carbs) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zack Posted August 5, 2009 Share Posted August 5, 2009 as i was at one point. The good old days. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Couture547 Posted August 5, 2009 Share Posted August 5, 2009 as i was at one point. The good old days. It was just one of many different things i've tried. I give every thing i do about a 3 month trial. This started 4 years ago on a omni diet and continues to today, but i'm staying with what i'm doing now becasue it's giving me the best results of ay diet i've ever done or make small ajustments down the road Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Im Your Man Posted August 6, 2009 Share Posted August 6, 2009 (about PDCAAS scores): I can understand thinking they're worthless, but they are at least internally consistent and verifiable. You said I'm ignorant because I don't know things that are worthless... I believe knowledge about everything is not necessarily good. Actually it is far better to forget most of the stuff we learn at school, in magazines, on tv, etc; to remember only the essential, to come back to the essence of life, to know yourself better, to understand the human nature, to discover other countries and nations, etc. A baby or a kid knows less than an educated adult, but in some way the baby knows enough, at least enough to be happy. Today, when we read just one newspaper for 10 minutes we learn more informations than during an entire life in 1800. How much of all these infos are useful, essential? probably none. So you're judging me on worthless things. If I was you I wouldn't be proud to know so many worthless things; I'm proud to know useful things. I don't think you're very bright. maybe you're not bright enough to judge accurately. Failing to understand the following doesn't speak well for your critical thinking skills: a) removing water from (...) I've explained all these before you and you claim I dont understand it. Of course when we eat raw we need to eat larger portions' date=' because its a whole package, with water, which takes space and weights a lot. But at the end, for the same amount of calories, without comparing weight, you probably get more vitamins in the raw version. Cooked food is decifient in the most essential element to life, water, so that you need to supplement with a glass of water. It doesn't matter whether it's raw or cooked.ahah.Not actually sure what you're getting at here. It means that I'm laughing at you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zack Posted August 6, 2009 Share Posted August 6, 2009 Cooked food is decifient in the most essential element to life, water, so that you need to supplement with a glass of water. So what? I've done raw before and I still needed water. It's not like you have zero need for water just because you eat fruit.. Also, how is boiled/steamed food deficient in water? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Couture547 Posted August 6, 2009 Share Posted August 6, 2009 Cooked food is decifient in the most essential element to life, water, so that you need to supplement with a glass of water. So what? I've done raw before and I still needed water. It's not like you have zero need for water just because you eat fruit.. Also, how is boiled/steamed food deficient in water? Yeah your right on with this one. I think that's one of the bigger myths about raw food diets is that you don't extra water. Most raw foodist eat a diet just a dehydrated as sad. They eat seeds/nuts which have no water unless you pick them fresh, they eat dried fruits ect. The only raw food diet where there's a ton of water is a true raw food diet like 80/10/10 where everything is fresh/ whole/ ripe fruits and veggies, but they make up a very small percent of the raw food movement. Doug Graham even says he's seen people on his diet or similar diets run into alot of problems becasue they think they don't need water when that's a extremely natural thing to do. Of course the more water rich food we eat the less extra water we need, but cooked foods have plenty of water in them. a cup of beans takes in like 2 cups of water or pretty much all grains/ legumes. most animals drink water as well so i think it's crazy to say we don't need water, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VeganEssentials Posted August 6, 2009 Share Posted August 6, 2009 http://farm1.static.flickr.com/187/437889322_50203f466b.jpg?v=0 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zack Posted August 6, 2009 Share Posted August 6, 2009 yay it's time for my favorite .gif http://img12.imageshack.us/img12/2231/kicard.gif Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Couture547 Posted August 7, 2009 Share Posted August 7, 2009 I'm confused, are those for me? IF so that's weird because i was agreeing with you Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zack Posted August 7, 2009 Share Posted August 7, 2009 I'm confused, are those for me? IF so that's weird because i was agreeing with you nah, IYM Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now