Humans have been evolutionarily selected for to eat these types of food.
Crash raised a better point - but I'd like to raise an auxiliary one. Our ancestors could produce their own Vitamin C. Once our ancestors were able to secure for themselves a steady supply of Vitamin C elsewhere (ie diet), then the gene was no longer needed. There was no selective pressure for the gene to function and the broken gene fixated in the population (indeed - using the body's resources to manufacturer Vitamin C might have been slightly more costly than just eating fruit - who knows?).
Similar events might mean that the diet that worked for our ancestors may not work for us today. We may no longer have the same biochemistry as our ancestors and may need to supplement what our body can do with a different diet. Note also that life expectancy has increased considerably recently, partly due to diet I'd wager. If that is the case, then old diets aren't necessarily the good ones. We're not sure how good our ancestors diets were for them - it might have been just good enough to get them to mating age and a little beyond.
He explains that food enzymes which help you digest are killed when you heat food and therefore it costs you more energy to digest cooked food. (I haven't been able to get much scientific information about this other than that it occurs, according to raw food websites)
I've found this:
quote:
Experimental results show cooked starch to be 2 to 12 times more digestible than raw starch. Kataria and Chauhan [1988] provide a direct comparison of starch digestibility in raw vs. cooked mung beans.
quote:
From Bradbury [1984], the protein digestibility of the aleurone layer and grain coat from raw rice was only 25%, but increased to 65% from cooked rice, due to the disruption of the cellulose cell walls at 100C (212F), which was shown by electron microscopy.
The Enzyme claim comes from Howell (Enzyme Nutrition), which is criticised
at this website, where the above quotes also came from (go to next page to see the criticism of Howell's work). The first point made concerns Howell's reliance on old studies, but it goes on to show more specific criticisms.
If your friend in scientifically interested in the diet he has chosen, send him over there and let him judge the counter argument for himself.
5. He distrusts the FDA (worried that the food and drug responsibilities are controlled by the same people) and big businesses in the food market. He likens the big food companies to big tobacco and anti-global warming with massive misinformation campaigns.
And his concerns may have merit. However - that doesn't excuse indulging in a theory that is not endorsed by the FDA. Perhaps he can look to less capitalist countries and see what their advisory boards suggest, or find some truly independent investigators and see what they have to say - not independent in the sense of a maverick, independent and run by a group rather than an individual (so that there is in-house corrections before they become entrenched dogma - we all make mistakes).
6. He also believes pretty firmly in the conscious living life style. He hates the big factory farms and all of the extra energy used in transporting goods etc.
That's good - and eating organically or better yet - fair trade foods, is fine. However, he should not neglect the possibility that he'll have to choose between potentially denying his body the diet it requires to function well and his hitting his conscience from time to time in the interests of health.
His choice, ultimately. It might be worth noting that it wouldn't look good for his cause if people that eat organic and fair trade foods end up getting sick more than those that don't (because some of them also don't eat cooked foods or any 'inorganic' foods at all). It would be a fallacy to conclude that organic food is therefore bad - but if he believes the Big Farm Man will fight back with dirty tricks, that is surely one they will use - and probably successfully unfortunately.
™ Version 4.2
