You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Why Don’t We Like Eating Healthy?
I would do it the other way round. Traditional societies studied by Weston A Price ate a lot of their animal foods raw. Whereas they usually cooked the plant foods to make them easier to digest.
https://steemit.com/nutrition/@kiwideb/dietary-lessons-from-world-travel-or-why-your-teeth-stick-out
Of course, both your statement and mine are oversimplistic, and both will have exceptions.
Raw meat, bird and even fish, has the potential for too many parasites. Cooking kills them. You never know what critters have eaten if they are free range. (ever own a dog? ewwww)." Cooking the plant foods to make them more digestible" is exactly what I do NOT want to do if I'm on a diet. The idea is to get the satisfaction of eating, but not get any (much) food value from doing so.
So does freezing. You can freeze them for two weeks, then defrost and eat raw.
But surely you want the nutrient value from the plant foods? If you are eating, lets say kale, the calorie value is low anyway. Raw kale is hard to digest, full of oxalic acid which prevents mineral absorption and let's face it is downright nasty. But cooked kale, maybe in a soup, is both more palatable and more nutrient dense.
You could be right but cooking is easier than freezing...lower tech. Better for the planet, less ozone and it's hypoallergenic.
The problem is TOO MUCH not too little.
Cooking breaks down the cellular structure off cellulose and makes it possible for the thingamabob gland to turn indigestible plants into digestible sugar...(I skipped a few steps and didn't use the right names..but you get the idea)....consequently the thingamabob gland is in full military overdrive for your whole LIFE....until you develope Type II diabetes...and die.
Yes, I agree TOO MUCH if we're talking about calories. But TOO LITTLE in terms of nutrients. What I call "Overfed and Undernourished". Anyway, let's agree to differ - the truth is probably somewhere in the middle.