Diet and Skin Health- Raw? Vegetarian? Paleo?
EDS Skin Care Forums Forum Index » Skin Care and Makeup Forum

free skin care · Thu Feb 23, 2012 4:37 pm

jenp7 wrote:

What I was hoping to discuss was whether or not a raw diet is superior for skin health and vitality over a diet that includes (grass-fed) meat. Anyone have opinions on this? Articles or observations?

I'm sure someone will find some studies for you - but I have a feeling that they will have been conducted by raw food proponents. But realistically, the raw food "fad" is a relatively new innovation. I'm sure that our parent's generation would not have heard of such a thing. As I said earlier, humans have cooked ever since they learnt to rub two twigs together to create fire. Subsequently, every nation has it's own culture based on the art of cooking - in my mind it seems crazy to ignore all of that.

IMO, whether or not a raw diet is better would require studying a large amount of people for a long period of time. We do know that the Japanese are about the healthiest nation - due to their particular diet which is based mainly on fish with less emphasis on meat.

I also don't particularly agree with the theory that our food is all worthless now due to soil depletion and long term storage etc. Obviously, there is some truth in that observation. It's better to eat something totally fresh that has been grown in nutrient rich soil. However, the fact is that we have never had it so good in terms of food supply. Throughout history, famine and starvation have been ever present - and still are in some third world countries. We now have easy access to a wide range of foodstuffs. We don't have to hunt it, grow it or gather it. The choice is endless - trouble is people just make the wrong choices.

As to eating meat - the question is, are humans omnivores or carnivores?

free skin care · Thu Feb 23, 2012 5:09 pm

jenp7 wrote:

I agree that everything in moderation as far as juicing and smoothies are concerned-- most people (including those die-hard raw vegans I go to school with who make smoothies and juicing a larger part of their diets than the average Joe)would not suggest going with one over the other exclusively. They both have their benefits.

What I was hoping to discuss was whether or not a raw diet is superior for skin health and vitality over a diet that includes (grass-fed) meat. Anyone have opinions on this? Articles or observations?

IMHO, I doubt a raw diet is SUPERIOR for skin health. I think that any diet that includes all the vital nutrients is best for overall skin health. A varied diet that includes lots of fruits and vegetables. I think there are probably raw foodists who have great skin and those who don't have great skin. Same with vegans and omnivores. Skin health has to do with a lot of things including environment, heredity and hormones. Sorry I don't have any studies, it's just my opinion.

free skin care · Fri Feb 24, 2012 5:46 am

Firefox7275 wrote:

Again you are using the word nutrients interchangeably with the word micronutrients. I disagree with your value judgement that micronutrients are more valuable/ advantageous/ healthy/ nutritious than dietary fibre and therefore average Joe would be getting the 'full advantages' through juicing. In discarding the soluble and insoluble fibre one discards a raft of health benefits, including feeding the probiotic bacteria that colonise a healthy gut.

The differences between micronutrients and macronutrients is a whole different conversation level in itself. I’m not suggesting people don’t consume fibre, and if they did I would think the smoothies would be a fantastic way of doing so, but what I am suggesting is that if some has digestive issues, or has eaten a lot of unhealthy foods (which most of us have at some point during our lives – myself included) then switching to smoothies may not give them the ultimate benefits because their bodies are unable to digest all the goodies in the smoothies, whereas with a juice they will be able to in comparison because it hits the blood faster. I’m not against smoothies, I’m actually a fan of when they’re used and optimised by the body, but to me saying that smoothies are the best or outweight juicing is a judgement that I disagree with also and variety is the spice after all. I don’t believe it has to be just one way, or the other, it’s the combination of them that will help someone experience the fullness of life and have a healthy body at the end of the day which is what we’re all after. Likewise when people begin smoothies, if they start getting adverse effects whilst their bodies are adjusting to them, its been my experience that they discontinue doing them because of these results.

Firefox7275 wrote:

I am not aware of published research demonstrating that wheat 'clogs the intestines' nor that we beenfit from an 'immediate hit' of vitamins and minerals and would be interested in reading any that you can supply. Obviously we all agree that refined grains are unhealthy, and that nobody should be consuming any one food source too frequently, including wheat. To be clear I subscribe to the official guidelines to eat a variety of foods and urge my clients not to eat any refined grains.

I can only share what I’ve been shown, and whilst it may not be published research, I do know when I worked as a nutritionist (and I went on a course and was also insured to treat people with nutrition) that I often found that digestive troubles from both wheat and dairy is so common and what I’ve been finding is that even though there isn’t fully conclusive proof that this is so, many people who I consider to be in the know have started saying things about this. What is wonderful about EDS is that people can share ideas and then do their own research on them.

Firefox7275 wrote:

Most nations official guidelines are specifically designed to be accessible and not confusing. From what I see at work, the problems arise with the public knowing a little about numerous commercial/ fad diets from the media and using a pick'n'mix strategy to combine them. I am unsure what you mean by too challenging for their bodies, do you mean more than the recommended intake of fatty/ sugary/ refined/ processed food? I see client after client on diets that eliminate food groups without choosing a suitable replacement, diets that are deficient in one or more macro and/ or micronutrients. For example many that believe the UK guidelines are ideally five portions of fruit and veg a day instead of at least five portions. Many that limit or avoid grains without increasing their intake of pulses and root veg, many that do not like oily fish and do not eat 'fattening' nuts and seeds.

With national guidelines, depends on who is writing them, what their experience is based in (pharmaceuticals, medicine, statistics etc), what areas they’re working on, and of course we’ve not even mentioned yet pharmaceutical backings etc which all have a huge impact on guidelines too. I worked with a variety of people in practice and have to say everyone was unique and different in what they presented to me, and their issues or goals. All I’m suggesting purely and simply is that juicing isn’t worth writing off simply because it doesn’t have fibre. When I say challenging for their bodies, I mean that they’re body may be dealing with some issues already and then suddenly switching to a fad diet, or even something like smoothies can present further issues at that point in time and it can range from anything from gas, bloating, skin eruptions. Sure we could say these are detox symptons, but they might also be reactions from whats being used.

Likewise as I said previously, I’m a fan of smoothies but even when you compare them, smoothies can be quite thick whereas juices generally tend to be more liquidy and so can be easier to drink, but using either is a great way of ensuring people get at least 5 portions of fruit and veg (and I also think that berries are worth of their own category too).

I guess we’re just going to have to call it a day, but I hope I’ve managed to clear up any confusion in my messages that you’ve seen.

free skin care · Fri Feb 24, 2012 5:58 am

I HAVE to ask. What did everyone have for dinner tonight? I cooked Hungarian Goulash with pureed cauliflower, baby squash and brussels sprouts. Desert was one piece of dark chocolate and half an apple!

Ok, whose next?

free skin care · Fri Feb 24, 2012 6:07 am

Well here in the UK its lunch time, so I'm going to have a lovely raw salad, with some alfafa and mungbean sprouts, kale, lettuce, tomatoes, beetroot, cucumber and celery alongside some deeply dense pitta bread I bought from planet organic with maybe some almond butter.

free skin care · Fri Feb 24, 2012 11:17 am

jenp7 wrote:

I think what makes me question the need for meat is that we cannot get B12 (easily- I think there are vegan sources, like yeast) nor a complete protein from anything but meat. Additionally, I believe I read that heme iron is only available from meat. So, if we need to pair foods for protein or we need to supplement a diet, it seems that approach to eating is more "troublesome" and thus less intuitively natural than if we just ate meat and didn't have to worry about protein, iron and B12 levels.

I know this is a simplistic look, but just playing devil's advocate Smile

You have identified a few nutrients (protein, iron, B12) which may be missing or inadequate in a strict vegan diet, but according to this article there may be others:

Protein/amino acids
Iron
Zinc
Calcium
Long-chain omega-3 fatty acids (DHA, EPA)
B12
Vitamin D
Vitamin A (preformed)
Riboflavin (?)

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2912628/?tool=pmcentrez

Perhaps some of those missing or inadequate nutrients would affect the skin in a noticeable way. Adding meat and animal products (milk, eggs) as well as fish to the diet would help eliminate any shortfall, but making good choices when following a vegan diet would ensure a person can get adequate nutritional intake from their chosen diet. I think the problem is most vegans/vegetarians don't really monitor their nutritional intake; they just avoid animal products and consider themselves healthy. Personally, I think the "stressed, lined and dehydrated" skin you notice in your strict vegan associates is due to fat loss in the face due to inadequate caloric intake (if they are on the thin side). It may be partially due to not getting enough of the above-noted nutrients though.

BTW, I can't really find any good articles on "vegan diets, nutrition and "skin" on PubMed; all the references seem to be unrelated to skin (guess that's not really a medical concern). I did find this article (for an oral supplement) which identifies a few nutrients which may impact skin (but isn't really about vegan/vegetarianism):

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2836433/?tool=pmcentrez

It's from L’Oréal and Nestlé researchers, but reminds me of the Dove Spa supplement (made by Unilever)?

free skin care · Fri Feb 24, 2012 11:22 am

grilled jumbo shrimp
grilled tomatoes
chunks of feta over arugula
with lemon and olive oil.

BFG

free skin care · Fri Feb 24, 2012 11:41 am

Barefootgirl wrote:

grilled jumbo shrimp
grilled tomatoes
chunks of feta over arugula
with lemon and olive oil.

BFG

LOL! I got an email from Kimberly Snyder yesterday listing 7 foods you should never eat and one of them was shrimp.

From the newsletter:

6. Shrimp

Shrimp from around the world is unhealthy and loaded with chemicals. Shrimp from outside the US may be high in antibiotics banned in the United States, such as chloramephnicol, which can cause aplastic anemia. Shrimp from the United States isn’t much better. It is very low quality and contains the highest levels of toxins in the world.

I had chicken salad with romaine, spinach, carrots and avocado for dinner last night.

free skin care · Fri Feb 24, 2012 12:06 pm

I tend to follow Mark Sisson's 80/20 plan which I agree with - eat "clean" 80% of the time so that when you are out and about with others and cannot control your environment (the other 20%), you can deal without becoming OCD.

BFG

free skin care · Fri Feb 24, 2012 12:11 pm

Such healthy meal choices from everyone! I am making lunch now, and that will most likely by a spelt tortilla filled with raw veggies, some pesto, hummus and (maybe!) small amount of chicken or beef. Not all raw yet!

Btw, I juiced for breakfast: carrots, celery, apple, cucumber. And had some red clover/raspberry leaf tea.

I plan on having a coconut milk, banans spirulina smoothie later today Smile

free skin care · Fri Feb 24, 2012 12:40 pm

Dinner last night: A soup that was yummy, but doesn't have a name.ingredients: onions, butter, red wide, veal, beef stock, soup bones.

One of my boys loved it. The other decided it was poison. I liked it.

Not sure what I'm having tonight. It's a no meat night. And I don't want fish. Nothing sounds good! I guess I'm not hungry enough.

free skin care · Fri Feb 24, 2012 1:08 pm

OK, found this in one of the articles posted by Lacy53:

"In 2001, Purba et al. described that actinic damage especially skin wrinkling may be associated with food habits. In this study, high intake of vegetables, legumes and olive oil seem to be protective against cutaneous actinic damage.51 In another paper, higher intakes of vitamin C and linoleic acid and lower intakes of fat and carbohydrates were shown to be associated with better skin appearance.52 Beside the traditional use of topical care, nutritional supplements have emerged as a new strategy to improve skin beauty."

Also, I have been surfing through multiple articles showing a direct connection between fasting and shifts to vegetarian diets as improving inflammatory conditions in both skin and joints... thoughts anyone?

free skin care · Fri Feb 24, 2012 3:30 pm

jenp7 wrote:

OK, found this in one of the articles posted by Lacy53:

"In 2001, Purba et al. described that actinic damage especially skin wrinkling may be associated with food habits. In this study, high intake of vegetables, legumes and olive oil seem to be protective against cutaneous actinic damage.51 In another paper, higher intakes of vitamin C and linoleic acid and lower intakes of fat and carbohydrates were shown to be associated with better skin appearance.52 Beside the traditional use of topical care, nutritional supplements have emerged as a new strategy to improve skin beauty."

There may be some evidence that vegetables, legumes, olive oil, vitamin C and linoleic acid (found in various vegetable oils) are either protective against sun damage or result in better skin appearance, but I would think vegans get plenty of those things in their diet already. It doesn't really address your personal observation that many vegans have "stressed, lined and dehydrated" skin.

free skin care · Fri Feb 24, 2012 4:55 pm

Lacy53 wrote:

jenp7 wrote:

OK, found this in one of the articles posted by Lacy53:

"In 2001, Purba et al. described that actinic damage especially skin wrinkling may be associated with food habits. In this study, high intake of vegetables, legumes and olive oil seem to be protective against cutaneous actinic damage.51 In another paper, higher intakes of vitamin C and linoleic acid and lower intakes of fat and carbohydrates were shown to be associated with better skin appearance.52 Beside the traditional use of topical care, nutritional supplements have emerged as a new strategy to improve skin beauty."

There may be some evidence that vegetables, legumes, olive oil, vitamin C and linoleic acid (found in various vegetable oils) are either protective against sun damage or result in better skin appearance, but I would think vegans get plenty of those things in their diet already. It doesn't really address your personal observation that many vegans have "stressed, lined and dehydrated" skin.

Vegans should be getting enough fat from the "good fats" such as nuts, avocados, olive oil etc. But in an effort to avoid too much fat intake the good fats are often sacrificed. I do know that there has been a huge improvement in my own skin by applying topical oils - I also eat allot of nuts and avocados and cook in olive oil.

With regard to inflammation (I have arthritis) my GP told me to try and avoid the Nightshade group of foods which include potatoes, tomatoes and eggplant. (So far, I haven't taken his advice).

free skin care · Fri Feb 24, 2012 5:24 pm

Keliu wrote:

Vegans should be getting enough fat from the "good fats" such as nuts, avocados, olive oil etc. But in an effort to avoid too much fat intake the good fats are often sacrificed. I do know that there has been a huge improvement in my own skin by applying topical oils - I also eat allot of nuts and avocados and cook in olive oil.

Avocados and olives are good sources of monunsaturates but not of EFAs: most nuts and seeds are good sources of monounsaturates and omega-6s, which can be pro-inflammatory (GLA is not). There are no long chain omega-3s in vegan wholefoods and the conversion rate from short chain to long chain can be as low as 10% (depends on the diet as a whole) and the ratio of O-6 to 0-3 is as important as the totals ingested. The best source of short-chain omega-3s is flax, which means using raw oil or adding raw ground seeds to your meals which taste like sawdust! To compound the problem short chain omega-3s easily oxidise so the seeds need to be freshly ground or frozen, and the oil needs to be packaged and transported carefully then refrigerated once opened .... IMO both vegans and vegetarians should be supplementing with a marine algae extract.

free skin care · Sat Feb 25, 2012 12:58 pm

onmyboat wrote:

And I was under the impression that there's a lot of nutrients we get from meat that are not as readily available in other food groups. For example, omega-3s found in fish oil are thought to be better than those found in flaxseed oil since fish oil has more EFA and DHA. Then you've got nutrients like B12 or astaxanthin, found mostly in meat.

Lacy53 wrote:

You have identified a few nutrients (protein, iron, B12) which may be missing or inadequate in a strict vegan diet, but according to this article there may be others:

Protein/amino acids
Iron
Zinc
Calcium
Long-chain omega-3 fatty acids (DHA, EPA)
B12
Vitamin D
Vitamin A (preformed)
Riboflavin (?)

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2912628/?tool=pmcentrez

Lacy has provided a good list of the main nutrients that some vegans do not get enough of, due to insufficient planning and nutritional knowledge.

However, there is one and only one nutrient that you absolutely (based on the current consenus) cannot get even from a well-planned vegan diet: that's vitamin B12.

Interestingly, with B12, once people stop eating it, most people have enough stores to last a few years; however, this is very variable, as some people run out within a year and others can make it 30+ years before running out. Why the huge range of variability? Well, here the story for this nutrient gets interesting. Our daily needs are something like 2 micrograms / day. Well, the body can recycle up to about 0.7 micrograms a day, so about 40% of this amount. Then on top of this, it appears that sterile conditions and pesticides reduce that amount of B12 that we probably naturally get. For example, primates kept in captivity have about 35-40% lower vitamin B12 than their wild counterparts. Finally, if you go based on primate evolution, they eat more insects (6% of their calories) than they do meat (2% on average), so insects were likely to provide a substantial fraction of B12 needs, too. So combining all this and the fact that B12 is synthesized by bacteria, it seems that in an evolutionary context, most of our B12 likely came directly from bacterial ingestion, insects, and salvaging/recycling pathways in the body, with probably smaller amounts coming from animal products. That said, there's absolutely no doubt in my mind that vegans should supplement with B12, based on the best available science out there.

As for all the other nutrients listed, these can be obtained in a vegan diet with a little planning. The problem is just that many don't examine their diets to ensure enough balance. Oh, and Vitamin D can be obtained from the sun (or if you eat dairy products, you are likely getting it through fortification of dairy products). But if you want to avoid the sun at all costs, then of course, you'll need to supplement or eat fortified foods.

Barefootgirl wrote:

Also keep M. Pollan's words in my head - something about not eating very much, mostly plants.

I think Pollan is absolutely right. That's the 20% of the effort that gives you 80% of the results.

Keliu wrote:

But realistically, the raw food "fad" is a relatively new innovation. I'm sure that our parent's generation would not have heard of such a thing.

So technically, the resurgence of interest in raw foods has its roots in the late 19th century.

Keliu wrote:

As I said earlier, humans have cooked ever since they learnt to rub two twigs together to create fire. Subsequently, every nation has it's own culture based on the art of cooking - in my mind it seems crazy to ignore all of that.

IMO, it's far more complicated than that. All species ate raw foods (with the potential exception of humans) throughout evolution, which in many cases means millions of years or longer. In this light, I think it is off-base to think that we have no evolutionary adaptations to raw foods. Moreover, our last common ancestor with modern-day chimps was about 5.5 million years ago. We've been cooking for 200,000-800,000 years, if you go with the range of consensus estimates. The tripling in brain size that we identify and thinks makes us human occurred in the range of 1.6 - 1.9 million years ago, which is well before cooking was invented. Moreover, when fire was used for cooking, only some foods were cooked. And also, evolutionary adaptations take a long time to evolve. For example, ethnicities that have been consuming dairy for 50,000 years have evolved the ability to breakdown milk and dairy products, but still do not have the ability to tolerate high amounts of dairy without negative health effects. So where you do draw the line as to the start of the human species? What adaptations to we have to extracting nutrients from cooked food and what adaptations do we have to extracting nutrients from raw foods? I don't think we know very much about this yet at all.

Now, many people will cite the fact that lycopene becomes more bioavailable when you cook it. However, the majority of nutrients become less bioavailable when cooked, e.g., vitamin C can be degraded by ~35%, etc. Moreover, lycopene is not an essential nutrient, whereas vitamin C and the B vitamins are essential nutrients that become less available. Finally, the reason why lycopene becomes more bioavailable when cooked is that it converts from the cis- form (which is less bioavailable) to the trans- form (which is more available), so in essence, it's a structural chemical change, rather than a simply making the same compound more extractable by the body. (I hope I explained that clear enough!)

And I won't even get into the stuff on about some of the toxic compounds produced by cooking (e.g., acyrlamide), although some/many of these can be avoided by low heat cooking.

My suspicion is that the role of cooking in human evolution is that it played a critical rol in allowingse our species to survive by widening the types of foods that we can eat (e.g., ever try eating raw grains?) in times of severe climate change and food scarcity.

So all I'm saying is that it's far more complex that most people on either side of the fence will tell you.

Keliu wrote:

I also don't particularly agree with the theory that our food is all worthless now due to soil depletion and long term storage etc. Obviously, there is some truth in that observation. It's better to eat something totally fresh that has been grown in nutrient rich soil. However, the fact is that we have never had it so good in terms of food supply. Throughout history, famine and starvation have been ever present - and still are in some third world countries. We now have easy access to a wide range of foodstuffs. We don't have to hunt it, grow it or gather it. The choice is endless - trouble is people just make the wrong choices.

Keliu, I couldn't agree more with all your points in this paragraph…in that, while soil depletion is a problem, a lot of the time it is being used to scare people into thinking they can't get what they need from food, and moreover, we have to remember that the availability of a wide variety of foods today is staggering. We are soooo lucky, compared to our ancestors!

Keliu wrote:

As to eating meat - the question is, are humans omnivores or carnivores?

Definitely not carnivores. The question is my mind is how little / how much meat, animal products, insects, and/or bacteria do we need to consume to survive before the advent of supplements.

jenp7 wrote:

I think what makes me question the need for meat is that we cannot get B12 (easily- I think there are vegan sources, like yeast) nor a complete protein from anything but meat. Additionally, I believe I read that heme iron is only available from meat. So, if we need to pair foods for protein or we need to supplement a diet, it seems that approach to eating is more "troublesome" and thus less intuitively natural than if we just ate meat and didn't have to worry about protein, iron and B12 levels.

Complete protein is so over-rated, but honestly, protein is really not a concern for the vast majority of vegans. For example, I read a study in the scientific literature where they fed men rice protein. They found that they could feed the men as little as something like 38 grams of protein, with 75% of it coming from rice, before they ran into problems with protein insufficiency/incompleteness (as measured by urinary nitrogen excretion = nitrogen balance). That a small amount relative to U.S. protein recommendations! So it's really quite easy to get the right balance and enough protein on a vegan diet, even with just a few different types of foods. I think these days, vitamin B12 and D (plus some of the other nutrients on poorly planned diets) tend to be bigger issues.

Keliu wrote:

Vegans should be getting enough fat from the "good fats" such as nuts, avocados, olive oil etc. But in an effort to avoid too much fat intake the good fats are often sacrificed. I do know that there has been a huge improvement in my own skin by applying topical oils - I also eat allot of nuts and avocados and cook in olive oil.

Avocados and olives are good sources of monunsaturates but not of EFAs: most nuts and seeds are good sources of monounsaturates and omega-6s, which can be pro-inflammatory (GLA is not). There are no long chain omega-3s in vegan wholefoods and the conversion rate from short chain to long chain can be as low as 10% (depends on the diet as a whole) and the ratio of O-6 to 0-3 is as important as the totals ingested. The best source of short-chain omega-3s is flax, which means using raw oil or adding raw ground seeds to your meals which taste like sawdust! To compound the problem short chain omega-3s easily oxidise so the seeds need to be freshly ground or frozen, and the oil needs to be packaged and transported carefully then refrigerated once opened .... IMO both vegans and vegetarians should be supplementing with a marine algae extract

Vegans get plenty of quality fat, but their omega-3 to omega-6 ratios tend to be a bit worse than those of meat eaters, who by the way, also on average have appallingly bad omega-6 to omega-3 ratios.

Interestingly, there was a study in the past 2 years showing that vegetarians on average tend to convert short chain omega-3 fatty acids into the long-chain omega-3 fatty acids (DHA, EPA) better than meat eaters. So all this hearsay about vegans/vegetarians needing to supplement with DHA and EPA or being inferior in omega-3 fatty acids appears to be unfounded. In other words, the evidence suggests that vegans/vegetarians are just fine, as long as they curtail eating excessive amounts of omega-6s, which is something that most meateaters also need to do.

Btw, all the stuff I mentioned I read in scientific articles (and is not from self-appointed people who think they know a lot about nutrition). My apologies for not citing particular articles, but it would take me a long-time to relook everything up. But if there is definitely something you want a reference to and can't find it, let me know Smile

free skin care · Sat Feb 25, 2012 1:00 pm

P.S. My apologies for the multiple typos...had to type that up in a rush!

free skin care · Sat Feb 25, 2012 1:20 pm

Great information! I just read another article citing that most likely humans ate everything raw, even meat, in the beginning of our evolutionary path- and evidence indicates that cooking grains and beans (and meat,etc) is a relatively new way for humans to process food.

We did discuss in class that there are at least a couple aboriginal tribes that still eat raw, meat included, and they are a long-living, healthy group of people.

Could deficiencies in B12, D and Omega 3s be responsible for dehydrated, stressed skin? I would guess the omegas have something to do with hydration, but what role do D and B12 play in the skin?

free skin care · Sat Feb 25, 2012 3:00 pm

Concerning vitamins and nutrients: anyone have thoughts on this excerpt from an article by Susun Weed:

"Cooked plants are far more nourishing than raw plants, whether we look at vegetables, fruits, nuts, grains, or pulses (beans). Cooking not only breaks the cell wall, liberating minerals to our bodies, it actually enhances and activates many vitamins.

This is true especially of the carotenes, used to make vitamin A, and other antioxidants in plants. Research found that the longer the corn is cooked and the hotter the temperature, the greater the amount of antioxidants in the corn.
This also applies to vitamin C. A baked potato contains far more vitamin C than a raw potato. And sauerkraut (cabbage cooked by fermentation) contains up to ten times as much vitamin C as raw cabbage.

Some vitamins do leach into cooking water. Cooking with little or no water (for instance, steaming or braising) reduces vitamin loss in vegetables such as broccoli from 97% to 11%.
Note, however, that the vitamins aren't lost or destroyed, but merely transferred to the cooking water. Using that water for soup stock, or drinking it, insures that you ingest all the nutrients, and in a highly absorbable form.
Transferring nutrients into water, such as by making nourishing herbal infusions and healing soups, and then ingesting them is far more effective, in my experience, than wheat grass juice, green drinks, or any kind of nutritional supplement. It is, in fact, one of the best ways to optimally nourish oneself that I have found in three decades of paying attention to health.

Even if some vitamins are lost in cooking, people absorb more of what is there from cooked foods. Several recent studies measured vitamin levels in the blood after eating raw and cooked vegetables.

"Subjects who ate cooked veggies absorbed four to five times more nutrients than those who ate raw ones," reported researchers at the Institute of Food Research in 2003.

free skin care · Sat Feb 25, 2012 6:04 pm

jenp7 wrote:

Concerning vitamins and nutrients: anyone have thoughts on this excerpt from an article by Susun Weed:

"Cooked plants are far more nourishing than raw plants, whether we look at vegetables, fruits, nuts, grains, or pulses (beans). Cooking not only breaks the cell wall, liberating minerals to our bodies, it actually enhances and activates many vitamins.

This is true especially of the carotenes, used to make vitamin A, and other antioxidants in plants. Research found that the longer the corn is cooked and the hotter the temperature, the greater the amount of antioxidants in the corn.
This also applies to vitamin C. A baked potato contains far more vitamin C than a raw potato. And sauerkraut (cabbage cooked by fermentation) contains up to ten times as much vitamin C as raw cabbage.

Most of the studies that I've seen on the effects of cooking on nutrients have reported a loss of nutrients, not a gain (although this happens in a few cases).

Plus, there have been a couple meta-analyses done by scientists on the anti-cancer effects of fruits and vegetables that found a stronger anti-cancer effect for raw fruits and vegetables than for their cooked counterparts.

So this to say, if I may be blunt, I think Susun is incorrect in some of things she says.

For example, I just went on PubMed to look up vitamin C losses in cooked potatoes. I saw a few articles saying that cooking substantially reduces vitamin C content in potatoes, and only one article saying that there's no effect (but that was with deep frying...not sure why that would be though). This contradicts what Susun claimed.

However, Susun seems to be on to something with regards to cooking cartenoids increase their concentration in corn:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19003733

And now that you mention it, I think I do recall vitamin A (a carotenoid) being the one essential vitamin I know whose bioavailability does improve in response to cooking, due to cooking breaking down cell walls...but I don't know very much about this one...

Interestingly, I should add that vitamin B12, in particular, is quite susceptible to being damaged by heat.

Quote:

Some vitamins do leach into cooking water. Cooking with little or no water (for instance, steaming or braising) reduces vitamin loss in vegetables such as broccoli from 97% to 11%.
Note, however, that the vitamins aren't lost or destroyed, but merely transferred to the cooking water. Using that water for soup stock, or drinking it, insures that you ingest all the nutrients, and in a highly absorbable form.

That's actually not true. Yes, the some of the nutrients leaching into the water is certainly a big factor, but much of the losses are permanent losses due to the vitamins being oxidized or destroyed by the heat and rendered unusable.

However, these things are very variable, e.g. for some nutrients in some foods, the changes due to cooking are not really significant. It depends on the food, the cooking method, the cooking time, etc.

Quote:

Even if some vitamins are lost in cooking, people absorb more of what is there from cooked foods. Several recent studies measured vitamin levels in the blood after eating raw and cooked vegetables.

"Subjects who ate cooked veggies absorbed four to five times more nutrients than those who ate raw ones," reported researchers at the Institute of Food Research in 2003.

Do you have a reference that study? Just curious, because I've never heard of a difference that large in all or most nutrients. I've only heard of large increases in a couple of instances, e.g., lycopene.

Finally, I wanted to better spell out that three of the most important reasons for cooking (at least certain foods) are

(1) To reduce bacteria and other pathogenic organisms

(2) To inactivate anti-nutrients in foods (this one is really important)

(3) To dramatically increases the types and volume of food we can eat (better diversity and more food available to eat)

I think there are three of the most compelling arguments for the benefits of cooking.

This is just to indicate that there are a lot of complexities in making a straightforward argument on raw vs. cooked....

free skin care · Sun Feb 26, 2012 10:29 am

The best books on all that's been discussed so far:

Nutritional Typing- blood type diet/what to eat:
http://dadamo.com/

Juicing/Raw Food-- The Water Secret by Howard Muard, MD:
http://www.thewatersecretbook.com/

Intermittent Fasting for insulin control/wrinkle prevention/increase HGH-- Fast 5 by Bert Herring, MD:
http://www.acrobatplanet.com/non-fictions-ebook/pdf-ebook-fast5-diet-and-fast5-lifestyle.html

Grain Free/Primal approach- especially for blood type Os-- Mark Sisson's Daily Apple:
http://www.marksdailyapple.com/#axzz1nVSmuz1d

Be Sexy Forever with hormones, diet & juicing-- Healthy Happy Sexy by Nancy Deville:
http://nancydeville.com/

Nancy had a video up last year about eating a pound of butter a week the last 15 years. I've recently tried this and it has helped me.

I don't personally juice, just doesn't fit my current lifestyle but I combine all the above approaches. I'm looser about my food but don't eat grains daily or even weekly often & try to eat some raw food daily. I don't function without animal protein, I'm a blood type O.

free skin care · Sun Feb 26, 2012 1:47 pm

Gretchen,

I hadn't heard of Nancy Deville before, so I looked her up. WOW!!!! She looks amazing. I can't believe that she's 60!!!

So it sounds like she's big into diet and bioidentical hormones. Do she have other secrets or tricks for looking young? Does she use fillers or botox or lasers? Have you read her book? Was it good and lay out what she does in good detail? Because she looks unbelievable to me!!

free skin care · Sun Feb 26, 2012 5:37 pm

This may answer some of your questions about Nancy Deville:

http://www.essentialdayspa.com/forum/viewthread.php?tid=42350&highlight=nancy+deville

free skin care · Sun Feb 26, 2012 6:03 pm

If you're interested in Paleo... Sean Croxton of Underground Wellness is hosting an online Paleo Summit. It's 8 days of videos to educate. Each video will only be online for 24 hours.

The first of which have already been launched.
Looks like these videos could give a person a pretty good idea of the topic.

http://www.paleosummit.com

free skin care · Sun Feb 26, 2012 9:47 pm

I'm sure I read Nancy had a facelift.

Automatic Message

If this is your first visit to the EDS Forums please take the time to register. Registration is required for you to post on the forums. Registration will also give you the ability to track messages of interest, send private messages to other users, participate in Gift Certificates draws and enjoy automatic discounts for shopping at our online store. Registration is free and takes just a few seconds to complete.

Click Here to join our community.

If you are already a registered member on the forums, please login to gain full access to the site.