5 ms·

Honestly, whatever form of cooking gets you to eat them is probably the best preparation. Some nutrients in some vegetables are diminished by cooking (https://

Honestly, whatever form of cooking gets you to eat them is probably the best preparation. Some nutrients in some vegetables are diminished by cooking (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1750-3841.2009.01091.x https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1750-3841... for example). Some are also enhanced. For example: lycopene from tomatoes. Overall, it seemed to me that cooking often harms nutrition more than it helps.

verbify 8y ago
This isn't my area, but I've heard that cooking is part of digestion. I know evolutionary biology isn't as intuitive as people always assume, but theoretically this fits within my model - digestion burns precious calories (at least in a world with too many calories), breaking down the food using fire somewhat allows for the body to spend less calories on breaking it down itself. So our ancestors who used fire to cook had an advantage because they could spend less calories on digestion. Archaeological evidence suggests that humans can control fire between 700,000 years ago and 120,000 years ago. There's also a hypothesis that the nutritional changes allowed through cooking increased our brain size - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Control_of_fire_by_early_humans#The_cooking_hypothesis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Control_of_fire_by_early_human.... But fundamentally, I wonder if we cook too much. Some compounds are very fragile, and cooking would harm nutrition (as you said). As I said, not my field, but I try to stick to a lot of leafy greens as is recommended by health services, and the occasional cooked proteins.
- goldenkey 8y ago
  The hydrochloric acid in the stomach is pretty strong, about 1.5 ph. Cooking is mild for most compounds compared to dissolution in strong acid. I don't think we cook too much. Like you said, it is mostly just predigestion.
  - echlebek 8y ago
    Cooked food provides more energy than raw food. http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/crux/2011/12/08/why-calorie-counts-are-wrong-cooked-food-provides-a-lot-more-energy/ http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/crux/2011/12/08/why-calori...
    - staplers 8y ago
      "some foods" - from the article itself FTFY.. it's a bad idea to make absolute statements like that
    - jessaustin 8y ago
      Is that something that most people on HN want? More energy from their food?
      - SmellyGeekBoy 8y ago
        It would mean that they could eat less to get the same number of calories?
        dtech 8y ago
        Food is currently so abundant that getting too much calories/obesity is large problem for both indiduals and society as a whole. People want to eat more and get less calories, not the other way around.
scythe 8y ago
>Some nutrients in some vegetables are diminished by cooking (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1750-3841.. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1750-3841.... for example). It's not clear that this is relevant to heart disease. Vitamin C, for example, is degraded by heat, but has no role in preventing heart disease. "Antioxidants" is the smoke signal of the woo practitioner. >Overall, it seemed to me that cooking often harms nutrition more than it helps. This is such a common and annoying myth that I need to call it out as such. Humans literally evolved to eat cooked food. http://img2.timg.co.il/forums/1_142929513.pdf http://img2.timg.co.il/forums/1_142929513.pdf http://symposium.cshlp.org/content/early/2009/10/19/sqb.2009.74.019.short http://symposium.cshlp.org/content/early/2009/10/19/sqb.2009... https://www.karger.com/Article/Abstract/16498 https://www.karger.com/Article/Abstract/16498 https://www.karger.com/Article/Abstract/12770 https://www.karger.com/Article/Abstract/12770 https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullarticle/486478 https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullar... Also, lycopene is not a "nutrient".

verbify 8y ago

This isn't my area, but I've heard that cooking is part of digestion. I know evolutionary biology isn't as intuitive as people always assume, but theoretically this fits within my model - digestion burns precious calories (at least in a world with too many calories), breaking down the food using fire somewhat allows for the body to spend less calories on breaking it down itself. So our ancestors who used fire to cook had an advantage because they could spend less calories on digestion. Archaeological evidence suggests that humans can control fire between 700,000 years ago and 120,000 years ago. There's also a hypothesis that the nutritional changes allowed through cooking increased our brain size - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Control_of_fire_by_early_humans#The_cooking_hypothesis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Control_of_fire_by_early_human.... But fundamentally, I wonder if we cook too much. Some compounds are very fragile, and cooking would harm nutrition (as you said). As I said, not my field, but I try to stick to a lot of leafy greens as is recommended by health services, and the occasional cooked proteins.

goldenkey 8y ago
The hydrochloric acid in the stomach is pretty strong, about 1.5 ph. Cooking is mild for most compounds compared to dissolution in strong acid. I don't think we cook too much. Like you said, it is mostly just predigestion.
- echlebek 8y ago
  Cooked food provides more energy than raw food. http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/crux/2011/12/08/why-calorie-counts-are-wrong-cooked-food-provides-a-lot-more-energy/ http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/crux/2011/12/08/why-calori...
  - staplers 8y ago
    "some foods" - from the article itself FTFY.. it's a bad idea to make absolute statements like that
  - jessaustin 8y ago
    Is that something that most people on HN want? More energy from their food?
    - SmellyGeekBoy 8y ago
      It would mean that they could eat less to get the same number of calories?
      - dtech 8y ago
        Food is currently so abundant that getting too much calories/obesity is large problem for both indiduals and society as a whole. People want to eat more and get less calories, not the other way around.

scythe 8y ago

>Some nutrients in some vegetables are diminished by cooking (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1750-3841.. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1750-3841.... for example). It's not clear that this is relevant to heart disease. Vitamin C, for example, is degraded by heat, but has no role in preventing heart disease. "Antioxidants" is the smoke signal of the woo practitioner. >Overall, it seemed to me that cooking often harms nutrition more than it helps. This is such a common and annoying myth that I need to call it out as such. Humans literally evolved to eat cooked food. http://img2.timg.co.il/forums/1_142929513.pdf http://img2.timg.co.il/forums/1_142929513.pdf http://symposium.cshlp.org/content/early/2009/10/19/sqb.2009.74.019.short http://symposium.cshlp.org/content/early/2009/10/19/sqb.2009... https://www.karger.com/Article/Abstract/16498 https://www.karger.com/Article/Abstract/16498 https://www.karger.com/Article/Abstract/12770 https://www.karger.com/Article/Abstract/12770 https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullarticle/486478 https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullar... Also, lycopene is not a "nutrient".