I was eating arugula salad along with various smoothies the past 2 days and I searched to find about the nutrition info. At the "whfoods" website I didn't find about it, but I found information at another website:
[www.livestrong.com]

To my surprise though, I think there are some things that are not valid.
Quoting:

Quote
livestrong.com on arugula
---"Eating raw arugula will likely provide your body with more of the healthy isothiocyanates than eating cooked arugula. Cooking arugula has its advantages, however. By eating gently cooked arugula, you can absorb more of certain nutrients and carotenoids than you would from raw arugula. Lastly, serve arugula with a little vegetable oil or other fat at times. Scientists believe that certain compounds found in vegetables like arugula are actually better absorbed when cooked and eaten with a little fat."---

What do you think?

Which things do you think are not valid?

>Banana ice-cream rocks!<

Too bad for all the trillions of animals in nature who cant cook their foods to extract more nutrients huh?

@chat, about the cooked part. How could be something that cooked to be more nutritious than in the raw form?

Very easy, often the nutrients in a raw vegetable are less digestible than in the cooked one, which in part explains why people tend to lose weight when they become raw. They eat the same foods in the same amounts but because the foods are now raw, less of their nutrients can be utilised by body as energy. Take carrot or sweet potato for example, off of my head our body can get only 3% of b-carotine out of the raw carrot, and something close to 30% out of the cooked one.

>Banana ice-cream rocks!<

chat Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> They eat the same foods in
> the same amounts but because the foods are now
> raw, less of their nutrients can be utilised by
> body as energy. Take carrot or sweet potato for
> example, off of my head our body can get only 3%
> of b-carotine out of the raw carrot, and something
> close to 30% out of the cooked one.

chat, I am confused.. and first time hearing about this (being new to vegan raw diet myself). From what I knew so far, everyone says that raw food gives you more energy (and I also have noticed that with my 50-70% raw).
So.. if the above is true then why the raw diet is overestimated over the cooked diet?

Because nutrients are just nutrients, if there is less available in the food you merely eat more of that food and the problem is no more.

Raw diet is considered better because often a proportion of nutrients are destroyed by cooking, often a proportion of other healthy elements are destroyed by cooking (such as cancer-fighting elements), often cooking creates harmful elements, and finally some believe in powers of enzymes which are also destroyed by cooking.

That's pretty much all of it as far as I can see, raw food is just another diet it's not magic

>Banana ice-cream rocks!<



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/15/2012 11:22AM by chat.

Quote
chat
Date: July 15, 2012 06:33AM

our body can get only 3% of b-carotine out of the raw carrot, and something close to 30% out of the cooked one.

Quote
chat
Date: July 15, 2012 07:20AM

Raw diet is considered better because often a proportion of nutrients are destroyed by cooking, often a proportion of other healthy elements are destroyed by cooking

chat, still can't follow.. I see the one contradicting to the other..?

Sorry, I don't see any contradiction.

>Banana ice-cream rocks!<

Certain nutrients will become easier to bsorb when cooking, true--but what they fail to mention is that other nutrients decrease in content when cooking, regardless of how easy they are to absorb!

[fresherthanlife.com]

I was reading the articles on this site and I found these interesting parts from the article: Raw Fresh Produce vs. Cooked Food

Quote
When Cooking Is Better? Iron
Some nutritionists and biochemists erroneously claim that raw isn’t always best. Sometimes cooked food gives more nutrients for the buck, say Rutgers University and Taiwanese researchers at the 1999 annual American Chemical Society meeting in San Francisco. They found that the body more easily absorbs iron from 37 of 48 vegetables tested when boiled, stir-fried, steamed, or grilled. Absorbable iron in cabbage jumped from 6.7% to 27% with cooking. Iron in broccoli flowerets rose from 6% to 30%. What the researchers were apparently unaware of, is the potential harm of high inorganic iron absorption.

and

Quote
When Cooking Is Better? Iron, part 2
Cooking DOES NOT increase digestibility of foods. The more a food needs cooking, the further it compromises health: a prime indicator it is NOT one that you are biologically adapted to. This means you should not be consuming it as a major component of your diet. Our society however, is centered round a cooked food lifestyle. You can still enjoy cooked foods and be healthy to some degree. If you eat cooked foods, practice proper food combining.

Food combining allows your digestion to operate smoothly, without food fermenting or putrefying in your digestive tract. Aim for a minimum of 85% raw food of mostly fresh produce. Use transitional cooked food recipes. Enjoy your food, including your cooked food. But don’t kid yourself. You will NOT achieve optimal wellness unless you consume a “Clean--Burning Fresh Produce Diet”.

I couldn't "digest" that nutrients could be absorbed easier from cooked foods, happy to find that info.

~~~
Each inhalation brings the outside world inside and each exhalation brings the inner world outside. You are bridging two worlds. Maintaining your balance you proceed further to the subtler realms ~

<<<raw food is just another diet it's not magic>>>

Raw Food is White Magic and Cooked Food is Black Magic!

It all has to do with the EPR Paradox.

SkyFeather,

fresherthanlife is right that, according to research, certain nutrients are rendered more bioavailable after cooking, not the least reason for which is that heat exposure ruptures cell membranes where nutirients may be stored. But this does require compromising other nutrients that are better consumed raw--I await news that lycopene supplements are not proving efficacious because, unlike in a ground up raw tomato, the supplement has no bioavailable Vitamin C, which I suspect is a cofactor in the lycopene uptake process.

From an anthropological perspective, cooking, because it makes food more concentrated, makes it more "digestible," as the quacks used to say. BUT "digestible" is not the same as "nutritious." This whole "we are meant to eat food cooked" hypothesis is based on the fact that cooking concentrates calories, which are, of course, not equivalent to a food's nutrition quotient, and that increased uptake of calories is still imperative in the developed world. We know from our obesity crisis that this is an absurd thing to argue, yet people are taking this not-really-well-examined proposition by Richard Wrangham, et al, and running with it. Like they're running away from a saber tooth tiger, LOL.

Actually, it's not funny. It's disturbing, frankly, because it is going to lead to more meatist propaganda being disseminated as though it's truthful "information." It's inevitable.

the cell wall of all cruciferous vegetables - arugula is a cruciferous vegetable- must be ruptured or broken to allow the enzyme myronaise - heat sensitive- to combine with glucosinolates to produce chemicals like sulforaphane. If arugla is heated in anyway prior to the breaking of the cell wall, the enzyme cannot do its job. Eating arugla raw is the best way.

Paul

Hey chat,

What is the EPR Paradox and how does it relate to White Magic and Black Magic?

Here’s a hint - you won’t find the Answer on Wikipedia.

Answer this question and maybe you will live up to what you claim you are - a researcher!

Here’s another hint before you go looking up the EPR Paradox - what’s faster than the Speed of Light?

Bless you John, is your mental health in good order? Honestly not a sarcasm, but your obsessive behaviour just makes me wonder. Rest in peace however you are though.

>Banana ice-cream rocks!<

Hey chat,

There’s a BIG difference between you and me and everyone here knows it. I have EMPATHY and you have NONE.

That's fantastic so just go on being emphatic, what on earth are you doing jumping out of your trousers trying to push your ideas of EPR or whatever else you come up with? If people are interested they will notice you, if not - no amount of jumping will help!

>Banana ice-cream rocks!<

WOW!!! Not only do you Not have any Empathy, but you don’t even know what the word means. You asked me why I brought up the EPR Paradox and it’s because I have Empathy and if you could relate in any way to what it means to have any Empathy, then you would know why the EPR Paradox is so important.

Once again, you have proven yourself to be a Dis-Honest Skeptic and are Not interested in the Truth or in putting an end to all of the needless suffering on this planet. And then, to top it all off you are extremely predictable using one Straw Man Argument after another.

Im not sure i've ever had Arugula hmm, maybe i have in some salads and not noticed.

Anyone else in the UK and know where to find Arugula?

[www.vegankingdom.co.uk]

Arugula is rocket in English


John Rose, will you get a grip on yourself, no one cares what you think, you are being pathetic.

>Banana ice-cream rocks!<



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/21/2012 07:36PM by chat.

Once again, very predictable changing the focus from you to me.

Here’s a little insight for the rest of us…

The Psychopath’s Modus Operandi

One weakness Psychopaths have is that once one studies them and begins to understand them, they become predictable. While tactics vary from one to another, most Psychopaths follow a similar Strategy when Conning either an Individual or an Organization.

All Psychopaths are Con Artists and they are Masters of Illusion or Masters of Mis-Direction. Notice how chat keeps changing the focus from her to me.

Gosh, you are sick

>Banana ice-cream rocks!<

Once again, very predictable changing the focus from you to me.

Yeh right, anything else?

>Banana ice-cream rocks!<

chat Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Arugula is rocket in English

Haha you know i kept looking at the pictures and thinking this is just rocket salad green but it never twigged.

[www.vegankingdom.co.uk]

John, for Pete's sake, does that stuff have to make an appearance in every single thread?! We are trying to help the original poster figure something out that is immediately vital to their life. I get that this is your MO, but not every post requires that we battle for the soul of mankind.


P.S. chat, I don't think you lack empathy, as you were actually trying to address the OP's query

Tamukha Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> John, for Pete's sake, does that stuff have to
> make an appearance in every single thread?! We
> are trying to help the original poster figure
> something out that is immediately vital to their
> life. I get that this is your MO, but not every
> post requires that we battle for the soul of
> mankind.

Thanks.
Opinions are only useful if they lead to a fertile dialogue. We are all here to learn from each-other.

~~~
Each inhalation brings the outside world inside and each exhalation brings the inner world outside. You are bridging two worlds. Maintaining your balance you proceed further to the subtler realms ~

What the @$($*@(*+! is going on here? The subject of the thread is ARUGULA cooked vs.raw fer cryin' out loud! What would a newcomer to this forum think? PLEASE, this is no place for personal attacks.


My favorite raw vegan

If people want to fight, I don't see why they can't do it via the PM function. Why do they always want/need an audience???

Ok re Rocket. I reckon raw is best, simply cause that's what's natural. And what no-one has pointed to yet is our RDA. For example, just because a food releases twice as much of a certain nutrient cooked than when eaten raw, does it really matter if we don't need much of that nutrient anyway!!!

jalan