O.K. We don't heat our food because it denatures enzymes but please tell me, what are those enzymes that are in the food.

My brother-in-law, who is a D.D.S., asked me what enzymes have to do with digestion. "Everything" is the correct answer!

I even know which enzymes the body produces to digest carbs, fats, and proteins but I really don't know if these are the same enzymes that we are preserving by not cooking our food. Can anyone tell me?

rlt

Enzymes are a raw food myth. It is not the enzymes in raw foods that makes you healthy, but rather the lack of toxic by products of cooking in the raw foods. Cooking creates carcinogens from fats (acrolein, nitrosamines, hydrocarbons, and benzopyrene), denatures protein (they coagulate), and creates the carcinogen acrylamide from starches. Starches are caramelized, making it impossible to be broken down into sugars. Cooking also reduces the vitamins and minerals in foods, as well as softens the soluble fibers such that they are no longer useful for cleaning the digestive system. Cooking removes the water out of food, such that the foods become dehydrating.

Yeah, what Bryan said. Most enzymes in plant foods will not survive the low pH of stomach acids and only a few of them have been shown to be benefial intact (those that do survive, as in pineapple and papaya).

But, all enzymes are proteins. Enzyme damage before eating is just a marker for damaged protein/food before eating.

That's very interesting, Brian. Too, it does make sense to me that enzymes would not survive the high acidity of the stomach. So what function then do the enzymes in foods serve?

Enzymes are not raw food myth.
The law of adaptive secretion of digestive enzymes was discovered and verified at Northwestern university. The body secretion of digestive enzymes is in relation to food being digested. Being raw is not enough if the food cannot be digested.

i think the field of human nutrition is in its infancy, and we actually know precious little about the things that we think we know everything about. sure, we know about vitamins and minerals, but the importance of all the cofactors (pre-cursers, enzymes, co-enzymes, trace-element activators, amino-acids, co-vitamins, co-minerals, essential fatty-acids and numerous other naturally occurring synergistic phyto-nutrients and micro-nutrients) is not well understood, and the way they interact with each other to prevent disease, heal, nourish and energize the body is a mystery. whole raw foods are more than just the sum of their parts, which is why an apple is 1000x more nutritious for you than a piece of vitamin-fortified Wonder(tm) Bread.

for example, researchers at johns hopkins u found that taking a beta-carotene supplement (which the body converts into vitamin-A) in isolation, without its full spectrum of co-factors (alpha, beta, gamma and delta-carotenes, lycopene, lutein, zeaxanthin, cryptoxanthin, phytoene, phytofluene, neurosporene etc.) can have a less than beneficial effect. consider a vitamin-C supplement (as the synthetic ascorbic acid or ascorbate)--in nature, vitamin C is only ever present along with its co-factors, which include various bioflavinoids, copper, rutin, k-factors, j-factors, p-factors, tyrosinase, terrosenase (a copper enzyme needed to make hemoglobin and prevent anemia) and other components that have not yet been researched. i find that medical professionals will often throw the "nutrients in many cooked foods are more bio-available" argument at you, but the fact is that cooking kills off some of these synergistic co-factors, makes some things more bioavailable and others less -- it subverts the BALANCED synergistic nutrition of whole raw foods PLUS creates toxic by-products that the body must expend energy dealing with.

i suspect that the enzyme theory will be vindicated eventually, and also that the esoteric "life force" of live foods will come to have a scientifically quantifiable importance (there is another thread on here about the frequency, in terms of Hz, of raw foods versus cooked -- but we have no understanding of how THAT functions in the body). while it is true that there is as yet little evidence that enzymes in food are important to digestion, that lack of evidence does not make enzymes a myth, it makes it ripe for study. there is some evidence that enzymes play a role in "pre-digestion" (and that the body holds back on secretion of powerful stomach acids where whole food enzymes are present), or that they are deactivated by the acidity of stomach acid but reactivated in the alkaline small intestine. if enzymes were total bunk, digestive enzyme supplements wouldn't work at all, but the fact is that they do work for many people (in my SAD vegetarian days, i often used digestive enzyme supplements to help with acid reflux and other digestive ailments, and it was helpful. of course, not nearly as helpful as eating raw foods, which has eliminated all of my digestive troubles).

When I first learned about raw foods, the enzyme theory was the most talked about reason to consume raw foods for better health. Then, later, I found out that there was an opposing view that food enzymes weren't really what was causing the increase in health for those eating raw foods. Which theory is right?

There are so many theories/debates about raw food: enzymes, quantity of fruits and/or fat, temperatures for dehydrating, organic/nonorganic, number of meals/day, etc. I'm all for experimenting and seeing what works best/feels best for myself. Currently, I'm working on reducing fat and working toward the 80/10/10 theory to see if it feels good.

In the end, we all agree on one thing: cooking our fruits, veggies, nuts and seeds is less healthy than eating them in their raw states. Maybe we'll never fully understand what it is about consuming them in their raw states that gives us such health benefits, but at least we know to not heat them any longer! :-P

Lots of love to all of you,

Wendi
XOXOXO

There are plenty verifiable scientific reasons for the health benefits of raw foods. Obviously there are other reasons, still unknown or unverified, but I don't see the point in focusing on those reasons, when they might not be true at all. We can talk about what we know for now, and speculate, but we don't need to pretend that unverified things are proven.

Quote

Posted by: GypsyArdor (IP Logged)
Date: April 09, 2008 05:35AM

but at least we know to not heat them any longer

Eating the foods fresh raw and natural and listening to my body as my food coach works for me and I try not to complicate my lifestyle any more then is necessary.

I am wondering this - are digestive enzymes found in food, especially amylase and lipase? Too, can pepsinogen be found in food?


One thing I think contributes to the overall improvement of health that we see in people who eat raw food is the way it cleans out the intestinal tract and so absorption of nutrients is naturally improved.

For sure there is a lot of stuff we have no clue about yet. We know we need vitamins, minerals, EFAs, AAs, and fibers. We know we need calories.

But some stuff we are only just starting to get a clue about: net acid production, phytochemicals, glycotoxins.

It takes time. We are pioneers here. We jumped on the bandwagon before the establishment did.

In my mind (perhaps unscientifically): The benefit of raw foods is that they contain the enzymes to break THEMSELVES down. As a consequence....when eaten singly....these foods tend to digest more readily and thoroughly. As a wise man once said (paraphrase): "Health is a lot less about what we are intaking, and a lot more about whether we are properly and thoroughly eliminating."

-David Z. Mason

WWW.RawFoodFarm.com

I like DZM's "theory", it makes sense intuitively--they feel clean and easy toi break down.

I just don't like ideas presented in pseudo-scientific terms

I totally get why food in its purest, whole, raw form is better for our bodies, and the earth too on a zillion levels. But is the damage done to VERY lightly steamed, oh say broccoli, for example, so great as to render it void of any nutritional value?

I've been 90 to 95 percent raw, give or take, for going on a year now (and this after many, many as vegan) but still find it hard to eat a lot of the more cruciferous vegetables without suffering extreme gastric distress (i.e. gas, bloating). I've eliminated some of the worst offenders, like raw onions and green garlic (which I LOVE) but still having difficulty. Is this normal for the first year?

I thought that minimally steaming some of the harder foods as I transition was the answer but after reading everyone's input, worry that I'm just continuing an unhealthy dependence rather than helping my digestive system to adjust. Maybe I should just bite the bullet until it settles in on its own. Don't know. A belly full of raw vegetables can be pretty uncomfortable for me sometimes.

I love what Mark Twain said, "To eat is human, to digest, divine." (-:

~lanie

Hi all,

Would really love some input on how to deal with digestive woes on raw, if anyone can relate to my prior post. Don't know if what I'm doing is helping or hurting...or if I should just throw out my steamer altogether.


Thanks!!

~lanie

I love lightly steamed veggies--there's no reason to stop eating them, unless you can see it will be better for your health. If not, I don't think you need to do it for the sake of a label (100% raw). But I do know some raw foodists don't eat raw cruciferous for that reason, or massage and marinate things like kale.

Thanks rost0037. You make me feel a little less compulsive. I know there are no rules around here but I guess I just want to feel like I'm still getting good nutritional value out of food despite some of the steaming.

Never heard about massaging kale but makes sense. Marinating's a really good idea too, which hadn't occur to me either for some strange reason. Think I'll give it a try for dinner tonight with the beautiful red russian kale I just bought!!

~lanie

If you desire them and the only way you can eat them at this point is lightly steamed, then maybe it's good that you eat them that way. ;-) It's not like you are battering them and then sticking them into the deep fryer before consuming them. ;-)

The cleaner your digestive system is, the easier it is to digest things like broccoli (that's been my experience, anyway). When my stomach is completely empty and I consume raw broccoli I'm okay. However, if I have just had a fruit smoothie and then some broccoli sometimes I get bloated.

Lots of love to you,

Wendi
XOXOXO

it is true what bryan said about cooking foods will cause carcinogenic by products

but that is not mutually exclusive from the fact that the enzymes themselves HELP in breaking down the food itself

arugula says that most enzymes won't survive the low pH in the stomach

however, PRIOR to getting to the stomach acids, perhaps it does help in breaking it down

besides... most people's stomach acid levels and ability are compromised so much to begin with due to years of SAD that all the help is welcome

howdy rlt! ( hands waving)

long time no see

welcome back

Interesting thread on a very complex (and far from completely understood) topic!

Raw foods almost always digest better than cooked foods. PART of that is due to enzymes in the foods themselves, which help break them down. While it is true that stomach acids will denature (break down) some/many enzymes, it does not immediately destroy all of them. Some are inactivated and only partly broken down, and the body then re-constructs them from the pieces that remain available and are absorbed after passage through the stomach.

Enzymes are not just confined to DIGESTIVE enzymes you hear about or may take as supplements. There are also HUNDREDS of METABOLIC enzymes inside of cells, which facilitate all the complex reactions by which cells do their jobs. It is these which we should worry most about losing through cooking. Yes, stomach acid will damage and destroy many of them, but some still pass through into the intestine and are absorbed, or are easily re-built from the fragments which are absorbed, and therein lies some of the "magic' of raw foods --on top of the absence of cooking-created toxins which was already mentioned (and which is VERY true).

Production of harmful substances aside, FOR CERTAIN FOODS, light cooking (such as steaming) or other forms of processing may improve them. An example of this would be almonds and some other seeds/nuts, which contain enzyme inhibitors that prevent them from sprouting until they are wet for a while. Soaking them de-activates the enzyme inhibitors, just as rainfall in nature would do. If we do not soak these first, the enzyme inhibitors may tend to inhibit our own enzymes. Similarly, there are substances in some vegetables which act as natural insecticides or preservatives, or which seriously impair the absorption of certain nutrients, or which otherwise may not be so beneficial to us, at least when consumed in significant quantities. For these few foods, some light steaming --while it has some negative effects-- may have positive effects, just as soaking nuts does. There are trade-offs.

One might say that these foods are "borderline" foods or "supplementary" foods. At one extreme, there are very safe, easily-digested foods (including many fruits and berries). At the other extreme, there are non-food plants such as poisonous mushrooms, which are completely unacceptable for our species. Some of the foods we eat are probably partway in-between on the scale of digestibility/appropriateness, and some of these may "benefit" from some kind of processing, if we choose to eat them.

Eating them without processing certainly won't kill us, but we get the good with some bad. If we heat/cook them, we eliminate one "bad" aspect, but replace it with another. We simply need to determine which "bad" is more acceptable/better for us. In the absence of really sound scientific information on which to base the decision, it becomes a personal decision probably best based upon (1) one's own physiological reactions to the foods, and (2) ones beliefs/priorities.

IN MOST CASES, I prefer to take the risk of eating the foods raw, but in some cases I find light cooking seems to have much better results for my body (apparently easier digestion and freedom from symptoms), so for those foods, I still eat them slightly cooked (steamed or quickly stir-cooked), or else I limit the consumption to small amounts. Broccoli is one such food I eat both ways: sometimes raw in salads, but I often heat it lightly first, hoping to render it safer without denaturing it too much or creating too much toxicity. Seems to work okay for me that way.

Not all here will agree with this, but that is my take on it. If something gives you cramps or gas raw, and seems okay cooked, then perhaps it's okay (IMO) to cook it lightly if you choose to keep eating it. For me, as long as 75-80 percent or so of my diet is raw, I feel great; on 1005 raw, I tend to feel not quite as good, possibly because of some of the factors mentioned above.

WOW...thanks for all the great feedback. I'm sure that as my digestive health improves things will even out and I'll be able to tolerate more of my favorite foods (i.e. broccoli) raw. At least, that's the plan. In the meantime, like was said, listening to what my body's telling me is a good first step.

Lots of interesting info all around. You guys rock!!!

~lanie

I have the same problem with cruciferous vegetables but am fine with them in low amounts finely chopped. You might try that? But I think light steaming is fine if that's what you want!

Hello Veronique!

I'm still around! Have you eaten any mangosteens yet?

I sometimes have problems with cruciferous veggies too but like you Utopian Life, if they're chopped first, they're easier to digest. Hmmm.

Veronique (and everyone else too and maybe this should be another post) I have to do a talk on raw to a group of budding vegetarians. I've got lots to say but Veronique, I know you've got a lot of experience in this and so I ask you...would you say that of all the different approaches to raw regime, the greener the diet, the healthier you become?

rlt

arkay says:

<<Enzymes are not just confined to DIGESTIVE enzymes you hear about or may take as supplements. There are also HUNDREDS of METABOLIC enzymes inside of cells, which facilitate all the complex reactions by which cells do their jobs. It is these which we should worry most about losing through cooking>>

this is extremely key

rlt:

hey rlt
i drank some mangosteens... it tasted like mangoes

as far as the greener the diet, i really do believe in the power of chlorophyll
and my favorite approach is to drink it ( broccoli, kale, parsley, celery, dandelion greens etc etc)

i feel that : drink your greens and eat your fruits is what i like best

i also think that one's "faith" ( that is what one feel in one's heart to hold true... including diets) is also pivotal

if someone things that greens are "BAD" but feel coerced to eat them... their stress levels will rise and ( partially) be self defeating

if someone thinks that consuming boiled porcupine spine is "GOOD", their entity will probably align themselves to MAKE it good ( partially)

so... i never felt it was just the food

food is VERY important

but as far as "healthier you become".. it has to be aligned with pursuing the things you love , leading a fulfilling life... then the diet just keeps that life
burgeoning

La Veronique says:


"if someone things that greens are "BAD" but feel coerced to eat them... their stress levels will rise and ( partially) be self defeating"




Hmmm. What an interesting thought. No doubt attitude does play a role.

My experimenting leads me to think that chlorophyll makes me feel very energized.

Popeye was on to something!

I feel more energized after consuming a green smoothie..My problem is that the taste & smell of even the mildest green smoothies makes me nauseous & or triggers my gag reflex..As a result I have stopped trying to incorporate greens in smoothies..In addition, my stomach rebels, from mild to severe, when drinking the majority of pure vegetable juices..

In the past when I attempted to become raw I forced myself to consume green smoothies & veggie juices, even though I disliked them..After 2 years of failures, I decided that forcing myself to eat these things was contributing to my continually falling off the raw wagon..So I stopped..

Any others have, or experience this problem??..Suggestions??..

Conversely, I really enjoy the taste of almost all raw vegetables; & am able to consume fairly large quantities of them..Like many others, my digestive system does not react well to any of the members of the cruciferous family, whether cooked or raw..Eating the members of the allium family raw also seems to upset my newly raw stomach (16 days & counting!!!!!); so I've stopped eating onions & garlic..

What proportion of greens to fruit to fats is good for a 5 ft. 9 in., 53 year old man with a starting weight of 234.6 lbs. in a transition diet??..I've lost 19.8 lbs. in 16 days..

Thanks for any input..

Bruce

[What proportion of greens to fruit to fats is good for a 5 ft. 9 in., 53 year old man with a starting weight of 234.6 lbs. in a transition diet??..I've lost 19.8 lbs. in 16 days.. ]

The only dietary fat you really need is essential fatty acids, maybe 3-4 g of omega3 and 3-4 times as much of omega6. You can let your body metabolize your excesss fat stores for the rest. But if this is too spartan (it is for me) use additonal fats sparingly. If it helps to keep you high raw and on the right track, and it's something good like avocado and you are also meeting your vitamin and mineral needs it will probably not do much harm if you take in excess monounsaturated fats. And even a bit of a saturated fat like coconut. I used a tsp of fresh coconut meat in my fruit salad today. It adds a little bit of oomph without too much damage.

hey rlt

popeye really was onto something... the NEW popeye is fueled by RAW spinach (yeah!)

yeah, its good when one's faith and one's penchant is aligned
greens have always worked for me

To add a conflicting opinion!

I very strongly dislike bitter greens right now. But I started taking wheatgrass to help a mouth crisis I was having, and even though I despised the taste (shudder), it worked like a charm. Okay, despised is a strong word. But every time I drink the stuff I still shiver and make a loud, "OOUUUGGGHHHH." The aftertaste really kills me, and sometimes I get a stomachache.

I don't care for it at all, but I very concretely know it's doing good for me, so I continue to drink it. I appreciate what the grass is doing for me. I also seem to be requiring a lot less food because I am assimilating better, which I heard has to do with magnesium reserves--and the grass has probably done wonders for my magnesium stores.

I suppose the difference is I came to the grass with an open mind. As much as I didn't like the taste, I felt what is was doing topically instantly (for my mouth at the start), and just stuck with it. So, I ultimately don't know how that aligns or runs contrary to my faith/beliefs/goals.