Re: Raw or cooked, which is more nutritious

On 15 Jul 2005 15:40:04 GMT, calypso47@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote in
<news:42d7d8d4$0$17237$4d5ecec7@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> on sci.med.nutrition :

> Lifestyle food cults abound often tying themselves to one idea thought to
> trump all other considerations in nutrition. The raw food example is one
> such where the assertion is made that cooking destroys nutritional
> elements and food is best eaten raw, very often tied to not including meat
> either raw or cooked. Here is a bit from a newsletter to which I
> subscribe outlining the topic:
>
> "Many people believe that fresh fruits and vegetables always contain
> more nutrients than cooked ones, but cooked carrots have higher
> levels of antioxidants than fresh carrots. Cooking carrots in the
> presence of a small amount of oil or butter increases the amount of
> two antioxidants called beta carotene and phenolic acid. Cooking also
> increases the amount of lycopene you get from tomatoes. Cooking
> breaks the plant cells open to increase the absorption of these
> antioxidants and other beneficial plant chemicals. Adding a little
> oil or butter increases absorption of fat soluble chemicals. Some
> vitamins are affected by cooking, but you'll still get plenty. The
> enzymes in food that are destroyed by heat are of no use to you; your
> body makes the enzymes you need to digest your food. Most of the
> nutrients in food (minerals, proteins, fats, carbohydrates) are not
> destroyed by heat, and many common foods are unpalatable or unsafe if
> they are not cooked. I recommend eating the widest possible variety
> of fruits and vegetables, raw or cooked, and fresh, frozen, canned or
> dried."


That's for carrots. What about fruits?
I still believe fresh *fruits* (like oranges, apples, peaches, and so on)
always contain more nutrients than cooked ones. Am I wrong?
.

Quantcast