I just heard about this book and read an interview with the author, Michael Pollan, by Amy Goodwin of Democracy Now. Pollan said some really preposterous things that challenges our raw food philosophy at the core. For one thing, he said that cooking "predigests" our food (eeuuuu) so our bodies don't have to work so hard to digest it. (How this can happen without living enzymes, I don't know.) He also said we can't live on flour, even whole grain, but we can live on bread made from the flour because cooking "unlocks" nutriants in the seed. These claims are new ones on me. I was wondering what others think of this man and his ideas.

Haven't read the book, but if you look at it from a traditional nutrition chemistry/biology perspective, Pollan is right: If you are concerned with calories and maybe macronutrients, cooking--because it traumatizes the tissues of the plant or animal food--does expose more inner constituents to our digestive acids and enzymes in a smaller volume of food than a raw foodist would choose. With regard to the grains, say, a bird can swallow rye seed whole and because of its complement of digestive acids and enzymes, can digest it fully. A rodent is different and needs to chew that same raw rye seed to get at its nutritive value. Primates need to chew it and grind it further and make it into a paste with water to activate the proteins and starches. Arguably, this means that primates, unlike the animals whose gut chemistry and dentition allow them to eat the seed "as is," aren't supposed to be eating it. But I keep in mind that conventional thought doesn't go this way; you are only supposed to avoid a food if you, the individual, are allergic to it. They don't think in terms of species. Humans are the only omnivores that will literally put anything in their mouth and eat it. If you don't discern the inherent bizarreness of this, abusing and heating stuff to make it digestible sounds normal. And I write that as a not 100% raw foodist!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/08/2013 01:27PM by Tamukha.

Quote

For one thing, he said that cooking "predigests" our food (eeuuuu) so our bodies don't have to work so hard to digest it.

Yes and no. Eating many raw veggies can be very tough on the digestive system for example, a problem that is solved when they are cooked. However, the cooking process makes them useless because it destroys the enzymes, many of the vitamins, the hormones and the other phytonutrients and makes the minerals more available but less bioavailable (a subtle distinction. You can't get to the minerals in certain raw vegetables very easily because they're protected by hard-to-digest cell walls, but the ones you can get to are easily absorbed and utilized. Cooking breaks the cell walls and frees the minerals, but by "killing" the plant and destroying the organic compounds necessary to utilize the minerals, you still can't absorb or utilize them very well). You've got the choice between a hard-to-digest food or an easily digestible "non-food" (empty calories/junk food). Cooked food also produces an extreme immune response because your body recognizes it for the junk it is, so instead of digesting it with your digestive tract you've got your poor immune system taking on a large part of that burden, and that also uses a lot of energy and makes you much more prone to all diseases and sicknesses.

So, we don't want to eat hard-to-digest food, but we also don't want to eat non-food. What to do? Luckily, Mr. Pollen conveniently forgot to mention that there are two other easy ways to predigest food and one more that also drastically increases the bioavailability of the nutrients while reducing the digestive burden to almost nothing. These are sprouting, fermenting, and juicing. All superior to just regular raw food or cooked food.

Problem #1 solved.

Quote

He also said we can't live on flour, even whole grain, but we can live on bread made from the flour because cooking "unlocks" nutriants in the seed

Also true. He's mentioning antinutrients that are present in many raw foods, such as phytates and enzyme inhibitors. Luckily, sprouting and fermenting also fix this problem, without the need to cook your food. See this thread where I talk about the relation between sprouting and antinutrients in more detail: [www.rawfoodsupport.com]

Quote

I was wondering what others think of this man and his ideas.

He's obviously opposed to raw food, but he is still doing a lot to wake up the average person and get them to eat healthier, local food. So despite our differences I still think he's doing an important thing. Once someone starts to wake up and realize that all the food they're eating is junk, then they will be motivated to learn more about health and some will stumble across raw food, who wouldn't have if it weren't for Michael. He keeps it simpler and easier to relate to, so he makes it easier for people who would be daunted by the task of going all raw at least improve their diets and health a little.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 05/12/2013 01:43AM by Living Food.

I think the author fails to see the problem of food in modern society. It is the opposite of what he tries to say it is. The Hospitals are chock full of people that have Unlocked the calories of cooked food. Barely rarely you will see people going to hospitals because they cannot unlock the calories or nutrients. Thus, the problem tilts towards unlocking too much and not too little. Surely, it makes people feel good when they are told they are the ones without the problem (cooking food is good) but that is just selecting one small thing and blowing it up so as to get claps.

I don't know, Panchito. Michael Pollan is credited with causing a mainstream shift in the way we think about how food is created in the modern era. The average Westerner is NOT going to appreciate raw foodism philosophy, having had a lifetime of brainwashing by Kraft and Nabisco, et al. So it's understandable that people like Pollan advocate taking baby steps to basic awareness about what you put in your mouth.

THe whole world assumes 'raw people' to be wrong because they are different. If a raw foodist goes to a hospital, it comes up in the TV news. Yet, everyday 'cooked people' die in hospitals and that is normal. They may say, but there are different diets inside 'cooked food' diets. Hey, why not the same with raw? I agree it is hard to break beliefs. It is better to replace them. When Sally Fallons comes up in videos, they should put a raw fooder next to her wioth a banner that says CHOSE.