I find this interesting...
... in view of my earlier comment:Originally Posted by LDG
http://www.beyondveg.com/tu-j-l/raw-...ooked-2h.shtml
Amount of nutrients in a food (the potential "benefit"). First, virtually all foods contain more nutrients in the raw state. On the other hand, the differences are not very great: ranging from approximately 10-25% in the case of most vitamins, while the difference is negligible (almost zero) with respect to minerals.
I'd love to see an authoritative reference on approximately how much each vitamin and mineral is affected by cooking and at what temps.Originally Posted by mschauer
I think most people would agree that deriving nutrients from a natural source (food) is better than getting them from some sort of supplement. And cooking certainly destroys *some* nutrients. But cooked food is far from devoid of nutritional value. For some nutrients the amount destroyed may not even matter. There may still be enough left that the benefit of deriving the nutrient from a natural source remains intact. Even if it is necessary to provide some nutrients in a less natural way I would think that amount would be far less than what would be necessary with a processed diet.