I read recently that the valuable nutrients in tomato is best absorbed by us
in cooked tomatoes rather than eating them raw.

It has now apparently been shown that the way to cook broccoli that retains
*most* nutrient value is to use the microwave. (we find using the microwave
seems to keep the best flavour, providing a lower wattage setting on the
microwave is used).

Bearing in mind the above information, what would be the most healthy way to
eat broccoli, raw or microwaved? Thanks for advice.

john zeiss wrote:
> I read recently that the valuable nutrients in tomato is best absorbed by us
> in cooked tomatoes rather than eating them raw.
>
> It has now apparently been shown that the way to cook broccoli that retains
> *most* nutrient value is to use the microwave. (we find using the microwave
> seems to keep the best flavour, providing a lower wattage setting on the
> microwave is used).
>
> Bearing in mind the above information, what would be the most healthy way to
> eat broccoli, raw or microwaved? Thanks for advice.

You didn't say where you got this information, but for years microwave
cooking of broccoli has been discouraged as it causes massive cell wall
rupture and heat inactivation of water soluble nutrients, yielding
significant loss of nutritive value.

Boiling results in less loss, and steaming results in the least loss of
nutrients. Raw broccoli is practically nutritionally useless as most
nutrients are intracellular and it takes at least parcooking to weaken
cell walls, something the human digestive system is incapable of doing.

In my opinion, raw broccoli is revolting. All those little flowers
rolling around my mouth and stuck in my teeth...ew! Love it cooked, hate
it raw.

Pennyaline wrote:
> Raw broccoli is practically nutritionally useless as most
> nutrients are intracellular and it takes at least parcooking to weaken
> cell walls, something the human digestive system is incapable of doing.
>


Do you have a reference for this? I eat lots of raw broccoli in salads
and assumed it was good for more than just fiber. Thanks.

Bob

On Wed, 12 Nov 2008 15:58:36 -0000, "john zeiss"
> wrote:

>I read recently that the valuable nutrients in tomato is best absorbed by us
>in cooked tomatoes rather than eating them raw.
>
>It has now apparently been shown that the way to cook broccoli that retains
>*most* nutrient value is to use the microwave. (we find using the microwave
>seems to keep the best flavour, providing a lower wattage setting on the
>microwave is used).
>
>Bearing in mind the above information, what would be the most healthy way to
>eat broccoli, raw or microwaved? Thanks for advice.
>
Why don't you check it out here and tell us the results.

http://www.nal.usda.gov/fnic/cgi-bin/nut_s.pl

john zeiss wrote:
>
> Bearing in mind the above information, what would be the most healthy way to
> eat broccoli, raw or microwaved? Thanks for advice.

When I eat raw broccoli, Brussels sprouts, or parsley,
it causes a tiny horizontal crack to appear at one
or both corners of my mouth (where the upper lip
meets the lower lip). It can be painful and can last
for a long time.

I've discovered that when these vegetables are fully
cooked, that doesn't happen. My theory is that these
vegetables contain some kind of anti-nutritional factor.
Fully cooking is not complete protection. If I were
to eat these vegetables about 3 times a week or more,
the crack appears even if the vegetables are fully
cooked.

One the other hand, if I don't eat broccoli or Brussels
sprouts for about a week, roughness and tiny cracks can
appear on my lower lip. I do take a daily multivitamin
which gives me 100% of the US RDA. My theory is that
there's an unrecognized vitamin in these vegetables
that I'm not getting from my multivitamin.

So it's kind of a balancing act. I go back and forth
between broccoli overdose and underdose, watching for
the warning signs of each. It took many years for me
to figure out what was causing these problems.

zxcvbob wrote:
>
> Pennyaline wrote:
>> Raw broccoli is practically nutritionally useless as most nutrients
>> are intracellular and it takes at least parcooking to weaken cell
>> walls, something the human digestive system is incapable of doing.
>>
>
>
> Do you have a reference for this? I eat lots of raw broccoli in salads
> and assumed it was good for more than just fiber. Thanks.

Uh, yeah. Science is all behind this. The human body is incapable of
digesting the complex starch cellulose. The cell walls of plants is
cellulose. Plant nutrients are contained in the cells where the water
is, as the walls and intracellular spaces are largely tough fiber and
cementious matter. Herbivorous animals, especially ruminants can digest
cellulose mechanically by chewing and chewing and chewing, and in the
gut chemically.

Cell walls weaken when cooked, and humans are more successful at
breaking through and extracting the cellular contents with thorough
chewing once vegetables are cooked. You get very little except
indigestible fiber from raw veggies.

In article >,
"kilikini" > wrote:

> Pennyaline wrote:

> > In my opinion, raw broccoli is revolting. All those little flowers
> > rolling around my mouth and stuck in my teeth...ew! Love it cooked,
> > hate it raw.
>
> I'm with you, Pennyaline. I never could stand the flavor of raw broccoli,
> but I love it steamed, in stir-fry, as a soup or baked au gratin style.

People who don't like raw broccoli shouldn't eat it. That leaves more
for me!

--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA

Pennyaline wrote:
> zxcvbob wrote:
>>
>> Pennyaline wrote:
>>> Raw broccoli is practically nutritionally useless as most nutrients
>>> are intracellular and it takes at least parcooking to weaken cell
>>> walls, something the human digestive system is incapable of doing.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Do you have a reference for this? I eat lots of raw broccoli in
>> salads and assumed it was good for more than just fiber. Thanks.
>
> Uh, yeah. Science is all behind this. The human body is incapable of
> digesting the complex starch cellulose. The cell walls of plants is
> cellulose. Plant nutrients are contained in the cells where the water
> is, as the walls and intracellular spaces are largely tough fiber and
> cementious matter. Herbivorous animals, especially ruminants can digest
> cellulose mechanically by chewing and chewing and chewing, and in the
> gut chemically.
>
> Cell walls weaken when cooked, and humans are more successful at
> breaking through and extracting the cellular contents with thorough
> chewing once vegetables are cooked. You get very little except
> indigestible fiber from raw veggies.
>


I'm not buying it. *Chewing* breaks down the cell walls. The cellulose
is still indigestible, but it is indigestible after cooking too.

Cooking reduces certain nutrient levels (vitamin C, for example), but
may make the remaining nutrients more available.

Bob

zxcvbob wrote:
> Pennyaline wrote:
>> zxcvbob wrote:
>>>
>>> Pennyaline wrote:
>>>> Raw broccoli is practically nutritionally useless as most nutrients
>>>> are intracellular and it takes at least parcooking to weaken cell
>>>> walls, something the human digestive system is incapable of doing.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Do you have a reference for this? I eat lots of raw broccoli in
>>> salads and assumed it was good for more than just fiber. Thanks.
>>
>> Uh, yeah. Science is all behind this. The human body is incapable of
>> digesting the complex starch cellulose. The cell walls of plants is
>> cellulose. Plant nutrients are contained in the cells where the water
>> is, as the walls and intracellular spaces are largely tough fiber and
>> cementious matter. Herbivorous animals, especially ruminants can
>> digest cellulose mechanically by chewing and chewing and chewing, and
>> in the gut chemically.
>>
>> Cell walls weaken when cooked, and humans are more successful at
>> breaking through and extracting the cellular contents with thorough
>> chewing once vegetables are cooked. You get very little except
>> indigestible fiber from raw veggies.
>>
>
>
> I'm not buying it. *Chewing* breaks down the cell walls. The cellulose
> is still indigestible, but it is indigestible after cooking too.

I didn't say we digest cooked cellulose. I said cell walls are
compromised during cooking, and that makes it possible for us to extract
nutrients via chewing.

Uncooked vegetables with intact cell walls are of almost no value to us.
We can chew all we want, but we will not break down cell walls
sufficiently just by chewing. We don't have the stamina or the patience
to chew for as long as we'd have to. Think of cows chewing their cud,
and you'll get an idea of how much chewing it takes.



> Cooking reduces certain nutrient levels (vitamin C, for example), but
> may make the remaining nutrients more available.

Cooking and processing of food reduces the levels of most vitamins,
which is why overcooking vegetables is discouraged. Does it make the
remaining nutrients more available? Well, you tell me. Explain your
reasoning to me carefully. Maybe you'll say the same thing I did, I tell
you what.

Pennyaline wrote:
> zxcvbob wrote:

>> Cooking reduces certain nutrient levels (vitamin C, for example), but
>> may make the remaining nutrients more available.
>
> Cooking and processing of food reduces the levels of most vitamins,
> which is why overcooking vegetables is discouraged. Does it make the
> remaining nutrients more available? Well, you tell me. Explain your
> reasoning to me carefully. Maybe you'll say the same thing I did, I tell
> you what.


I think your point is valid, but you are grossly overstating it.

Here's an interesting study I found (I just read the abstract):
http://pubs.acs.org/cgi-bin/abstract...jf801989e.html

Best regards,
Bob

"zxcvbob" > wrote in message
...
> Pennyaline wrote:
>> zxcvbob wrote:
>
>>> Cooking reduces certain nutrient levels (vitamin C, for example), but
>>> may make the remaining nutrients more available.
>>
>> Cooking and processing of food reduces the levels of most vitamins, which
>> is why overcooking vegetables is discouraged. Does it make the remaining
>> nutrients more available? Well, you tell me. Explain your reasoning to me
>> carefully. Maybe you'll say the same thing I did, I tell you what.
>
>
> I think your point is valid, but you are grossly overstating it.
>
> Here's an interesting study I found (I just read the abstract):
> http://pubs.acs.org/cgi-bin/abstract...jf801989e.html
>

Yes. It depends on the vegetable, and also on which nutrients/properties you
are interested in getting the most of.

"Pennyaline" > wrote
>
> Uncooked vegetables with intact cell walls are of almost no value to us.

Just not true. You've oversimplified.

> > Bearing in mind the above information, what would be the most healthy
> > way to
> > eat broccoli, raw or microwaved? ?Thanks for advice.

We eat quite a lot of lettuce in salads, from what i have just learnt in
these posts; I am now wondering if I should be cooking lettuce as well ?

"john zeiss" wrote:
> > > Bearing in mind the above information, what would be the most healthy
> > > way to
> > > eat broccoli, raw or microwaved? ?Thanks for advice.
>
> We eat quite a lot of lettuce in salads, from what i have just learnt in
> these posts; �I am now wondering if I should be cooking lettuce as well ?

Well, if you're like the rest of those old farts who have no teeth,
just gum and swallow. Gee, a good handle for that Cyberanile; G&S:
http://tinyurl.com/54qeyy

Pennyaline wrote:
>
> We can chew all we want, but we will not break
> down cell walls sufficiently just by chewing.

That's just not true, besides being asinine. You're claiming that
when you chew celery, carrots, apples, oranges no juice is extracted,
for you it's like a termite chewing lumber. duh

Chewing does indeed sufficiently rupture cell walls. And then there
are enzymes produced in the mouth that immediately begin digestion.
And besides, humans have no need to digest all cellulose (most plants
are composed of both water soluable and insoluable cellulose), and all
plants contain different cellulose, humans don't eat grass because our
teeth are not designed to break down that type of cellulose
sufficiently but human teeth do quite well with the cellulose of the
types of vegetation we do choose to eat (I can assure you that when
folks bite into a raw onion they'll know they ruptured cells). And
cellulose in of itself contains very little nutrition (which is why
rudiments need to consume such huge quantites and eat constantly to
survive). And most of the nutrition in vegetables remain no matter
cooked, proteins and minerals do not evaporate, nor do most vitamins,
some vitamins are destroyed by cooking heat but not totally, plus
humans store vitamins in sufficient quantity to survive for a very
long time... most folks who take multiple vitamin tablets are over
dosing, they do more harm than good... if we metabolized all the
available nutrition in all the foods we consume we would die of
toxicity plus we'd weigh a few tons. If one doesn't consume the
cooking liquid then they are far better off eating vegetables raw.
Minimal cooking without added liquid produces the most nutrition, stir
fry is still the best method... and undigested cellulose is extremely
important for keeping the alimentary canal healthy and functioning
properly. Eating raw fruits and vegetables in sufficient quantity is
vital to human health... most folks don't eat nearly enough raw/
unprocessed foods.

"john zeiss" wrote:
> I read recently that the valuable nutrients in tomato is best absorbed by us
> in cooked tomatoes rather than eating them raw.


If you read that recently then you surely would be able to point us to
what you read.

"Sheldon" > wrote in message
...
> "john zeiss" wrote:
>> I read recently that the valuable nutrients in tomato is best absorbed by
>> us
>> in cooked tomatoes rather than eating them raw.

> If you read that recently then you surely would be able to point us to
> what you read.

yep, sorry my aging memory is very scatty, but I'm working on it.

often the trouble is I see stuff on the Internet, read it in magazines etc.,
or hear it via the BBC or the radio. its a case of so much information and
so few brain cells. if it comes back to me I will post. apologies.

On Wed, 12 Nov 2008 15:02:39 -0500, kilikini wrote:

> Pennyaline wrote:
>>
>> Boiling results in less loss, and steaming results in the least loss
>> of nutrients. Raw broccoli is practically nutritionally useless as
>> most nutrients are intracellular and it takes at least parcooking to
>> weaken cell walls, something the human digestive system is incapable
>> of doing.
>> In my opinion, raw broccoli is revolting. All those little flowers
>> rolling around my mouth and stuck in my teeth...ew! Love it cooked,
>> hate it raw.
>
> I'm with you, Pennyaline. I never could stand the flavor of raw broccoli,
> but I love it steamed, in stir-fry, as a soup or baked au gratin style.
>
> kili

i probably eat mine mostly stir-fried, but only briefly and until the
broccoli turns bright green. it's not *bad* cooked further than that, but
not as good. boiling i wouldn't **** with. but raw is o.k with some nice
dip.

your pal,
blake

we gently "steam" our broccoli in the micro.
comes out perfect, each and everytime.

rosie

If you want raw broccoli, here's a recipe that won raves at a recent
meeting I went to. The guy who made it, gave us the recipe.

Recipe for broccoli slaw

2 bags broccoli slaw
1 bag broccoli flowerets
1 bag mild shredded cheddar
1 bag craisins
5 slices cooked bacon, crumbled

Dressing

1 small jar mayonnaise
1/2 cup rice wine vinegar (for salads)
2 Tablespoons Splenda--to taste

Mix up slaw ingredients and pour dressing over top.
---------------------------------------------------

Denise

john zeiss wrote:
>
> > > Bearing in mind the above information, what would be the most healthy
> > > way to
> > > eat broccoli, raw or microwaved? ?Thanks for advice.
>
> We eat quite a lot of lettuce in salads, from what i have just learnt in
> these posts; I am now wondering if I should be cooking lettuce as well ?

There isn't much nutrition in lettuce, so not much
reason to cook it. And you'd lose the crispness
which is just about the only reason to eat lettuce.

On the other hand, I've heard that in China people
rarely eat any vegetables raw. The idea of eating
a raw salad is abhorrent, because of the widespread
use of "night soil" as fertilizer.

OOOOH! OOOOH! I know this!

Whatever the stuff is in broc that keeps you from getting cancer is 100
times MORE present in broc SPROUTS!!!
I think I heard this from Dr. Oz on Oprah....

So, I ordered a pound of broccoli seeds from an on-line company called
seedsofchange.com.They are organic.

Nothing is easier than getting them to sprout. Take a Tbs. or so of
seeds and put them in a strainer. Rinse them with cold water and let
them drain. Toss them into a clean glass jar and put the lid on.

Now sort of roll the jar around to get the damp seeds UP on the sides of
the jar. The dampness will make them adhere pretty well. Put the jar
in a warm spot in the kitchen. The point of this is, you want them to
be damp but not sitting in water.

Every day, open the jar and add water enough to swish around and get
all the seeds OFF the sides of the jar and pour the whole works thru the
strainer again. Put the newly-dampened seeds BACK in the jar, close the
lid. DO THIS DAILY.
The point of this is to make sure they are always damp with CLEAN water.

After 3-5 days, they will begin to sprout. KEEP doing the rinse and
replace thing another day or two. By then your sprouts should be an
inch long and fill up most of the jar. Stick the jar in the fridge and
add a palm-full to a sandwich or salad.

For the cancer-preventing "dose", we should eat a handful of the sprouts
daily.

I find it's best to keep ONE jar of already sprouted seeds in the fridge
WHILE getting another jar started on the counter. This way, Im never
without sprouts.
They taste fantastic, too---kind of peppery.

For cooking broccoli, I like to use my bamboo steamer. Never tried to
microwave it---sounds like a good idea, tho.

As I recall, the pound of seeds cost about 20 bucks, but it lasts a LONG
long time.

Regarding the raw tomato vs. cooked....Dr. Oz says either way, they need
a bit of olive oil to make the cancer-fighting element complete. He
suggests just eating a Tbs. of any kind of tomato PASTE daily for a
concentrated dose of the anti-cancer stuff, with a small splash of olive
oil.

Im not a big fan of tomatoes (I know---Im weird) but even I can force
down a Tbs. of tom paste for the curative/preventative power of the
stuff.

Im a big believer that for every "natural" disease we've got, we also
have a natural cure. I understand blueberries, fresh or frozen, almonds
and cranberries are also loaded with antioxidents. A handful of each
every day along with a Tbs. of tom paste and some sprouts.... good
grief, we'll live forever.

There's also something in Flax seeds...I think it's Vitamin E.? Anyway,
I make a breakfast smoothie by putting a banana, a tsp of Flax seeds, a
handful of blueberries, a handful of almonds, one cup of orange juice
and a splash of skim milk in the blender. Add honey to sweeten to your
taste.

It's quite tasty and if you also toss in two square inches of Tofu,
surprisingly filling.

LassChance

"john zeiss" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Sheldon" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "john zeiss" wrote:
>>> I read recently that the valuable nutrients in tomato is best absorbed
>>> by
>>> us
>>> in cooked tomatoes rather than eating them raw.
>
>> If you read that recently then you surely would be able to point us to
>> what you read.


Have been looking, this for instance in new york times:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/17/health/17real.html

The Claim: Microwave Ovens Kill Nutrients in Food


By ANAHAD O’CONNOR
Published: October 17, 2006
THE FACTS They are a staple in kitchens everywhere, but for about as long as
microwave ovens have been around, people have suspected that the radiation
they emit can destroy nutrients in food and vegetables.


Leif Parsons
Readers’ Opinions

Forum: Fitness and Nutrition

According to most studies, however, the reality is quite the opposite. Every
cooking method can destroy vitamins and other nutrients in food. The factors
that determine the extent are how long the food is cooked, how much liquid
is used and the cooking temperature.

Since microwave ovens often use less heat than conventional methods and
involve shorter cooking times, they generally have the least destructive
effects. The most heat-sensitive nutrients are water-soluble vitamins, like
folic acid and vitamins B and C, which are common in vegetables.

In studies at Cornell University, scientists looked at the effects of
cooking on water-soluble vitamins in vegetables and found that spinach
retained nearly all its folate when cooked in a microwave, but lost about 77
percent when cooked on a stove. They also found that bacon cooked by
microwave has significantly lower levels of cancer-causing nitrosamines than
conventionally cooked bacon.

When it comes to vegetables, adding water can greatly accelerate the loss of
nutrients. One study published in The Journal of the Science of Food and
Agriculture in 2003 found that broccoli cooked by microwave — and immersed
in water — loses about 74 percent to 97 percent of its antioxidants. When
steamed or cooked without water, the broccoli retained most of its
nutrients.

THE BOTTOM LINE Microwave ovens generally do not destroy nutrients in food.

"john zeiss" > wrote in message
...
>
> "john zeiss" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Sheldon" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> "john zeiss" wrote:
>>>> I read recently that the valuable nutrients in tomato is best absorbed
>>>> by
>>>> us
>>>> in cooked tomatoes rather than eating them raw.
>>
>>> If you read that recently then you surely would be able to point us to
>>> what you read.


And this in Newsweek:

http://www.newsweek.com/id/123325

Do Microwaves Zap the Nutrients in Vegetables?
By Temma Ehrenfeld | Newsweek Web Exclusive
Mar 14, 2008 | Updated: 4:31 p.m. ET Mar 14, 2008

a.. It may seem hard to believe, but microwaving is one of the two best
ways to cook veggies and retain the nutrients inside. (Steaming is the
other.) Cooking methods like baking or grilling that expose foods to higher
temperatures and more cooking time are much more destructive. For instance,
in studies at Cornell University's division of nutritional sciences,
Gertrude Armbruster and her colleagues have shown that on the whole,
microwave cooking of vegetables and fruits was least destructive of vitamin
C compared to other methods. (Because it is both water-soluble and
heat-sensitive, vitamin C is considered a good marker for judging overall
nutrient retention.)
Microwave ovens radiate electromagnetic waves (of the same frequency on
which many cordless telephones operate), a band of the energy spectrum that
is absorbed by water molecules inside food, which heat up. The heat then
spreads to other parts of the food. Because nutrients are scarce in water
content, they are likely to survive the process, says Nicholas Vacirca, a
researcher in microwave engineering at Drexel University. You also needn't
worry about radiation seeping out from the oven, he says: the energy is kept
safely inside by a layer of mesh in the glass door.

The key to cooking vegetables in your microwave? Go easy on the water. When
researchers at the University of Murcia in Spain added 10 tablespoons of
water to two cups of broccoli and cooked it in a microwave, they found that
the broccoli lost nearly all its nutrients. That's because whenever
vegetables are immersed in cooking liquid, water-soluble nutrients such as
folic acid and vitamin C leach out of the food and into the surrounding
liquid. To keep the nutrients intact when microwaving, you need only a
couple of tablespoons of water to cook raw vegetables; frozen ones need no
extra liquid at all.

blake murphy wrote:

> i probably eat mine mostly stir-fried, but only briefly and until the
> broccoli turns bright green. it's not *bad* cooked further than that, but
> not as good. boiling i wouldn't **** with. but raw is o.k with some nice
> dip.


It is good stir fried. It's also good boiled, but only for three
minutes. Cooking it longer than that gives it a limp texture and nasty
taste.

"blake murphy"
-0500, kilikini wrote:
>> I'm with you, Pennyaline. I never could stand the flavor of raw
>> broccoli,
>> but I love it steamed, in stir-fry, as a soup or baked au gratin style.
>>
>> kili
>
> i probably eat mine mostly stir-fried, but only briefly and until the
> broccoli turns bright green. it's not *bad* cooked further than that, but
> not as good. boiling i wouldn't **** with. but raw is o.k with some nice
> dip.
>
> your pal,
> blake

Trust me, blanched broccoli is much nicer than raw.

On Nov 14, 4:37�am, "Giusi" > wrote:
> "blake murphy"
>
> -0500, kilikini wrote:
> >> I'm with you, Pennyaline. �I never could stand the flavor of raw
> >> broccoli,
> >> but I love it steamed, in stir-fry, as a soup or baked au gratin style..
>
> >> kili
>
> > i probably eat mine mostly stir-fried, but only briefly and until the
> > broccoli turns bright green. �it's not *bad* cooked further than that, but
> > not as good. �boiling i wouldn't **** with. �but raw is o.k with some nice
> > dip.
>
> > your pal,
> > blake
>
> Trust me, blanched broccoli is much nicer than raw.

Nonsense. You have to autoclave your veggies, in Italy they're grown
in raw sewerage.

On Nov 13, 2:16*pm, (Lass Chance_2) wrote:
> OOOOH! *OOOOH! *I know this!
>
> Whatever the stuff is in broc that keeps you from getting cancer is 100
> times MORE present in broc SPROUTS!!!
> I *think I heard this from Dr. Oz on Oprah....

I don't care. For the most part, I eat for pleasure, although I try
to
make sure to eat a nice variety of food each day.

> Regarding the raw tomato vs. cooked....Dr. Oz says either way, they need
> a bit of olive oil to make the cancer-fighting element complete. *He
> suggests just eating a Tbs. of any kind of tomato PASTE daily for a
> concentrated dose of the anti-cancer stuff, with a small splash of olive
> oil. *
>
> Im not a big fan of tomatoes (I know---Im weird) but even I can force
> down a Tbs. of tom paste for the *curative/preventative power of the
> stuff.
>
> Im a big believer that for every "natural" disease we've got, we also
> have a natural cure. *I understand blueberries, fresh or frozen, almonds
> and cranberries are also loaded with antioxidents. *A handful of each
> every day along with a Tbs. of tom paste and some sprouts.... good
> grief, we'll live forever.

I believe that cancer is a natural disease for which there is no
natural
cure. The statistics bear this out.

You can't live forever. You and everybody else is going to die
someday.

> There's also something in Flax seeds...I think it's Vitamin E.? *Anyway,
> I make a breakfast smoothie by putting a banana, a tsp of Flax seeds, a
> handful of blueberries, a handful of almonds, one cup of orange juice
> and a *splash of skim milk in the blender. *Add honey to sweeten to your
> taste.

If you don't know whether it's Vitamin E, then you're indulging in
cargo cult
behavior.

> It's quite tasty and if you also toss in two square inches of Tofu,
> surprisingly filling.

If chewing is not required, it's not a meal. The whole smoothie
concept is
lost on me. As far as I can tell, they're some kind of elaborate
variation on
a milkshake. As a snack, they're way too high in calories. As a
meal, they
just don't measure up.

Cindy Hamilton

Giusi wrote on Fri, 14 Nov 2008 10:37:45 +0100:

> "blake murphy"
> -0500, kilikini wrote:
>>> I'm with you, Pennyaline. I never could stand the flavor of
>>> raw broccoli, but I love it steamed, in stir-fry, as a soup or baked
>>> au gratin style.
>>>
>>> kili
>>
>> i probably eat mine mostly stir-fried, but only briefly and
>> until the broccoli turns bright green. it's not *bad* cooked
>> further than that, but not as good. boiling i wouldn't **** with.
>> but raw is o.k with some nice dip.
>>
>> your pal,
>> blake

>Trust me, blanched broccoli is much nicer than raw.

Many vegetables are good both raw and cooked but some just have to be
cooked or blanched. IMHO, asparagus, artichokes and beets are certainly
among them. Some things, raw or cooked like the subject title, I will
not mention! I'd say potatoes have to be cooked tho' my sister used to
like small pieces raw.

--

James Silverton
Potomac, Maryland

Email, with obvious alterations: not.jim.silverton.at.verizon.not

On Nov 14, 9:19�am, "James Silverton" >
wrote:
> �Giusi �wrote �on Fri, 14 Nov 2008 10:37:45 +0100:
>
>
>
>
>
> > "blake murphy"
> > -0500, kilikini wrote:
> >>> I'm with you, Pennyaline. �I never could stand the flavor of
> >>> raw broccoli, but I love it steamed, in stir-fry, as a soup or baked
> >>> au gratin style.
>
> >>> kili
>
> >> i probably eat mine mostly stir-fried, but only briefly and
> >> until the broccoli turns bright green. �it's not *bad* cooked
> >> further than that, but not as good. �boiling i wouldn't **** with.
> >> but raw is o.k with some nice dip.
>
> >> your pal,
> >> blake
> >Trust me, blanched broccoli is much nicer than raw.
>
> Many vegetables are good both raw and cooked but some just have to be
> cooked or blanched. �

In Italy all veggies need to be well cooked, they're grown with human
waste... and they don't have refrigeration, the veggies sit out in the
hot sun all covered with flies. Where sanitation is concerned Italy
is a third world country.

In article >, Sheldon > wrote:
>Pennyaline wrote:
>>
>> We can chew all we want, but we will not break
>> down cell walls sufficiently just by chewing.
>
>That's just not true, besides being asinine. You're claiming that
>when you chew celery, carrots, apples, oranges no juice is extracted,
>for you it's like a termite chewing lumber. duh
>
>Chewing does indeed sufficiently rupture cell walls. And then there
>are enzymes produced in the mouth that immediately begin digestion.
>And besides, humans have no need to digest all cellulose (most plants
>are composed of both water soluable and insoluable cellulose), and all
>plants contain different cellulose, humans don't eat grass because our
>teeth are not designed to break down that type of cellulose
>sufficiently but human teeth do quite well with the cellulose of the
>types of vegetation we do choose to eat (I can assure you that when
>folks bite into a raw onion they'll know they ruptured cells). And
>cellulose in of itself contains very little nutrition (which is why
>rudiments need to consume such huge quantites and eat constantly to
>survive).

Actually, ruminants do quite well on grass because they are designed
as a sort of fermentation chamber where bacteria convert otherwise
indigestible material into stuff a mammal can use. They also don't
"eat constantly to survive" -- in fact they typically spend long
periods cud-chewing (i.e. re-processing the stuff they have eaten
before it passes further down the digestive tract).

It's the horse and similar monogastric animals (like us) that have
trouble living on stuff like grass and have to eat a hell of a lot of
it to maintain health and provide for growth.

>And most of the nutrition in vegetables remain no matter
>cooked, proteins and minerals do not evaporate, nor do most vitamins,
>some vitamins are destroyed by cooking heat but not totally, plus
>humans store vitamins in sufficient quantity to survive for a very
>long time... most folks who take multiple vitamin tablets are over
>dosing, they do more harm than good... if we metabolized all the
>available nutrition in all the foods we consume we would die of
>toxicity plus we'd weigh a few tons. If one doesn't consume the
>cooking liquid then they are far better off eating vegetables raw.
>Minimal cooking without added liquid produces the most nutrition, stir
>fry is still the best method... and undigested cellulose is extremely
>important for keeping the alimentary canal healthy and functioning
>properly. Eating raw fruits and vegetables in sufficient quantity is
>vital to human health... most folks don't eat nearly enough raw/
>unprocessed foods.

Cheers, Phred.

--
LID

On Nov 14, 9:34�am, (Phred) wrote:
> In article >, Sheldon > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >Pennyaline wrote:
>
> >> We can chew all we want, but we will not break
> >> down cell walls sufficiently just by chewing.
>
> >That's just not true, besides being asinine. �You're claiming that
> >when you chew celery, carrots, apples, oranges no juice is extracted,
> >for you it's like a termite chewing lumber. �duh
>
> >Chewing does indeed sufficiently rupture cell walls. �And then there
> >are enzymes produced in the mouth that immediately begin digestion.
> >And besides, humans have no need to digest all cellulose (most plants
> >are composed of both water soluable and insoluable cellulose), and all
> >plants contain different cellulose, humans don't eat grass because our
> >teeth are not designed to break down that type of cellulose
> >sufficiently but human teeth do quite well with the cellulose of the
> >types of vegetation we do choose to eat (I can assure you that when
> >folks bite into a raw onion they'll know they ruptured cells). �And
> >cellulose in of itself contains very little nutrition (which is why
> >rudiments need to consume such huge quantites and eat constantly to
> >survive). �
>
> Actually, ruminants do quite well on grass because they are designed
> as a sort of fermentation chamber where bacteria convert otherwise
> indigestible material into stuff a mammal can use. �They also don't
> "eat constantly to survive" -- in fact they typically spend long
> periods cud-chewing (i.e. re-processing the stuff they have eaten
> before it passes further down the digestive tract).

Cud chewing is still eating, that they eat the same food 2, 3, 4 times
is still eating. Herbivorous animals eat constantly, unless they are
sleeping or in flight from danger. Does are great multi-taskers, they
eat while nursing. And I don't think any animal processes more
vegetation for its size than Canada geese.

On Fri, 14 Nov 2008 10:37:45 +0100, Giusi wrote:

> "blake murphy"
> -0500, kilikini wrote:
>>> I'm with you, Pennyaline. I never could stand the flavor of raw
>>> broccoli,
>>> but I love it steamed, in stir-fry, as a soup or baked au gratin style.
>>>
>>> kili
>>
>> i probably eat mine mostly stir-fried, but only briefly and until the
>> broccoli turns bright green. it's not *bad* cooked further than that, but
>> not as good. boiling i wouldn't **** with. but raw is o.k with some nice
>> dip.
>>
>> your pal,
>> blake
>
> Trust me, blanched broccoli is much nicer than raw.

to be honest, it's something i might eat a piece or two of at a party, not
something i'd make at home.

your pal,
blake

Sheldon wrote:
> Pennyaline wrote:
>> We can chew all we want, but we will not break
>> down cell walls sufficiently just by chewing.
>
> That's just not true, besides being asinine. You're claiming that
> when you chew celery, carrots, apples, oranges no juice is extracted,
> for you it's like a termite chewing lumber. duh
>
> Chewing does indeed sufficiently rupture cell walls. And then there
> are enzymes produced in the mouth that immediately begin digestion.

Oh god, Shel. Did you forget again who you're talking to?

The human saliva supplies enzymes that break down sugars and simple
starches. That's all. Polysaccharides, fats and proteins are digested
via enzymatic activity in the stomach and small intestine.


> And besides, humans have no need to digest all cellulose (most plants
> are composed of both water soluable and insoluable cellulose), and all
> plants contain different cellulose, humans don't eat grass because our
> teeth are not designed to break down that type of cellulose
> sufficiently but human teeth do quite well with the cellulose of the
> types of vegetation we do choose to eat (I can assure you that when
> folks bite into a raw onion they'll know they ruptured cells).

Cell walls are not comprised of water-soluble cellulose, Shel. If they
were, they wouldn't be the sturdy rigid structures that they are. Time
for you to go back and hit the books. Or the bricks. The choice is yours.


> And
> cellulose in of itself contains very little nutrition (which is why
> rudiments need to consume such huge quantites and eat constantly to
> survive).

"Rudiments," Shel? Rudiments?! How in hell am I supposed to have an
intelligent argument with you now? Rudiments!! ROTFL!!



> And most of the nutrition in vegetables remain no matter
> cooked, proteins and minerals do not evaporate, nor do most vitamins,
> some vitamins are destroyed by cooking heat but not totally, plus
> humans store vitamins in sufficient quantity to survive for a very
> long time... most folks who take multiple vitamin tablets are over
> dosing, they do more harm than good...


Actually, the vitamin content of vegetables can be cooked down to
useless levels.

The human body "stores" only the fat-soluble vitamins A, D, E and K. The
rest are water-soluble and are lost with normal body fluid loss,
sensible and insensible. The body does not "store vitamins in sufficient
quantity to survive for a very long time." Symptoms of vitamin
deficiencies begin to appear quite quickly when intake through diet or
supplementation is compromised.



> if we metabolized all the
> available nutrition in all the foods we consume we would die of
> toxicity plus we'd weigh a few tons. If one doesn't consume the
> cooking liquid then they are far better off eating vegetables raw.
> Minimal cooking without added liquid produces the most nutrition, stir
> fry is still the best method...

Steaming is best. No added fat.



> and undigested cellulose is extremely
> important for keeping the alimentary canal healthy and functioning
> properly. Eating raw fruits and vegetables in sufficient quantity is
> vital to human health... most folks don't eat nearly enough raw/
> unprocessed foods.

Yes, Shel, for the cellulose content that provides fiber. But not for
the other nutrients contained in them, because we get very little of them.

But all in all, Shel, it's not worth the time it takes to respond to
you. You have a little knowledge. A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.

In article >,
Pennyaline > wrote:

> Sheldon wrote:

> Oh god, Shel. Did you forget again who you're talking to?

> > cellulose in of itself contains very little nutrition (which is why
> > rudiments need to consume such huge quantites and eat constantly to
> > survive).
>
> "Rudiments," Shel? Rudiments?! How in hell am I supposed to have an
> intelligent argument with you now? Rudiments!! ROTFL!!

Did you forget who you were talking to?

:-)

> > And most of the nutrition in vegetables remain no matter
> > cooked, proteins and minerals do not evaporate, nor do most vitamins,
> > some vitamins are destroyed by cooking heat but not totally, plus
> > humans store vitamins in sufficient quantity to survive for a very
> > long time... most folks who take multiple vitamin tablets are over
> > dosing, they do more harm than good...

> Actually, the vitamin content of vegetables can be cooked down to
> useless levels.
>
> The human body "stores" only the fat-soluble vitamins A, D, E and K. The
> rest are water-soluble and are lost with normal body fluid loss,
> sensible and insensible. The body does not "store vitamins in sufficient
> quantity to survive for a very long time." Symptoms of vitamin
> deficiencies begin to appear quite quickly when intake through diet or
> supplementation is compromised.

Very true. Take vitamin C for example. It is lost very quickly. The
average person only has a 90 day supply stored in their body. That's
why British seaman were called "limeys". When their trips took longer
than a few months, they started showing symptoms of scurvy. The
solution was to take limes on the trip and eat them regularly. Vitamin
B12 lasts a little longer. The average person has a three year supply
stored up in their body.

> But all in all, Shel, it's not worth the time it takes to respond to
> you. You have a little knowledge. A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again. Sheldon has a tremendous
amount of knowledge. The problem is figuring out what is correct.

--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA