Guest guest Posted March 9, 2007 Report Share Posted March 9, 2007 Your dehydrator goes up that high because a lot of people dehydrate things like beef jerky, etc. Foods should not be heated above 118 degrees or you risk losing enzymes. I'll let someone else dig up scientific studies. As far as turning your world upside down w/ kids and changing diet...I have three kids and just throwing fruit in a bag to go away for the day is much easier than trying to pack big lunches and finding a way to reheat food. You will be amazed at all of the extra time you would have to spend with the kids, etc. if you aren't stuck in the kitchen and always trying to plan meals. Good luck in your quest for the truth, it took me a lot of reading but it all makes perfect sense now that I have done the research. Laura kmdaven <kmdaven wrote: HI, I've been reading about raw foods for four or five years now, trying to incorporate raw foods and thinking about going all raw SOMEDAY (just not right now-- I have young children and enough to do without changing my whole world this way). Anyway, one question I have that has been bothering me: What does , ahem, SCIENCE, like real true double-blind placebo-controlled science, have to say about this enzyme issue? Is it Empirical Truth that heat destroys all enzymes? Can anyone refer me to a site showing scientific studies to this effect? And what temperature? For instance, I have this dehydrator my mom gave me that does not have temperature control but it looks like it goes up to 135-140 degrees-- am I cooking all the enzymes out with that? Or just " some " of the enzymes? Ever the skeptic, kristen No need to miss a message. Get email on-the-go with Mail for Mobile. Get started. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 9, 2007 Report Share Posted March 9, 2007 Well those are all very good questions! Like you, I have found it difficult to find really good research on enzymes, their hardiness to dehydration and their reaction to heat. I have read in some places that enzymes will reactivate once placed back in water, so, that's great if it is true. But, if the dehydration kills them because of the heat, then they are just plain dead. Now we're all on this group because we're all aware that eating raw is better than cooked, and hopefully we've experienced this by now in our health and stuff. So it is fairly clear that heat destroys enzymes (or some virtuous quality anyway) in the food...that's pretty well known. Just off the top of my head, I think by the time the temperature is 60 degrees celcius, over 90% or all of the enzymes are dead. I'm sure you've read this too...most raw food books at least comment on this, and thats what I'm quoting. I kind of get the feeling that measureing enzyme activity is a hard thing to do, and, it isn't something well researched in biochemistry circles. ALL the biochemists I know (I know about 20 biochem researchers personally) work on stuff like mutating the ebola virus and sysnthesizing new strains bacteria of modifying viruses to attack bacteria...that sort of stuff. Given the medical science appraoch to health and diet, which is a bit of a joke and mostly ignores the effect food has on health, I don't think very many people, if any, really look at how food enzymes react to heat and whether this reaction affects health and digestion. It is fairly well accepted that science has not yet even classified a large number of enzymes, and even the ones that have been classified we're not exactly sure what they do and how important they are. I will be seeing some biochem friends tongiht for pool and beer, so if you like I can ask them for the name of the journals they publish in. Then it is easy enough to do online searches in the journals keywording " enzymes " , " heat " , etc, and see what articles get returned. Not that that will necessarily help though, because most scientific journals are complete jibberish unless you're already an expert in the field. So, back to looking for answers in more popular works. In any case, it's the old addage: If you eat mostly raw (50%+), then the small amount of cooked food dead enzyme stuff is fine. The more raw you eat, the more your body's enzyme reserve is buffered against dead food. Have a great weekend! Joe rawfood , " kmdaven " <kmdaven wrote: > > HI, I've been reading about raw foods for four or five years now, > trying to incorporate raw foods and thinking about going all raw > SOMEDAY (just not right now-- I have young children and enough to do > without changing my whole world this way). Anyway, one question I have > that has been bothering me: What does , ahem, SCIENCE, like real true > double-blind placebo-controlled science, have to say about this enzyme > issue? Is it Empirical Truth that heat destroys all enzymes? Can anyone > refer me to a site showing scientific studies to this effect? > > And what temperature? For instance, I have this dehydrator my mom gave > me that does not have temperature control but it looks like it goes up > to 135-140 degrees-- am I cooking all the enzymes out with that? Or > just " some " of the enzymes? > > > Ever the skeptic, > > kristen > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 10, 2007 Report Share Posted March 10, 2007 Dr. Joel Fuhrman, author of Eat To Live, a 50-50 raw/cooked diet: http://snipurl.com/1972s (Amazon link) has this to say about the enzyme theory: ( from http://www.drfuhrman.com/faq/question.aspx?sid=16 & qindex=4 ) " Another fallacy promoted in the raw food movement and on the web is that the fragile heat-sensitive enzymes contained in the plants we eat catalyze chemical reactions that occur in humans and aid in digestion of the food. This is not true. Plant foods do not supply enzymes that aid in their digestion when consumed by animals. Our body supplies exactly the precise amount of enzymes needed for digestion; we are not ill equipped to digest normal food. The plant enzymes are broken down into simpler molecules by our own powerful digestive juices and even those that are absorbed as peptide size pieces (or with some biologic function) do not function to catalyze human functions. So it is not true that eating raw food demands less enzyme production by your body. A healthy body produces the precise amount of enzymes needed to digest the ingested food appropriately and the enzymes our body uses for other processes are unique to our human needs and are not present in plants. We make what we need from the proper materials. " -Erin www.zenpawn.com/vegblog rawfood , " kmdaven " <kmdaven wrote: > > HI, I've been reading about raw foods for four or five years now, > trying to incorporate raw foods and thinking about going all raw > SOMEDAY (just not right now-- I have young children and enough to do > without changing my whole world this way). Anyway, one question I have > that has been bothering me: What does , ahem, SCIENCE, like real true > double-blind placebo-controlled science, have to say about this enzyme > issue? Is it Empirical Truth that heat destroys all enzymes? Can anyone > refer me to a site showing scientific studies to this effect? > > And what temperature? For instance, I have this dehydrator my mom gave > me that does not have temperature control but it looks like it goes up > to 135-140 degrees-- am I cooking all the enzymes out with that? Or > just " some " of the enzymes? > > > Ever the skeptic, > > kristen > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 10, 2007 Report Share Posted March 10, 2007 I would highly recommend the book " Enzyme Nutrition " by Dr. Edward Howell. I've got it somewhere just don't know where. I read this book a while ago and it was a real eye opener. According to Dr. Howell's book, the science on enzyme degradation and heat is definitely abundant. There are plenty of references in the book. The highest temperature before enzyme death I've ever heard is 118 degrees. The lowest, 106. I tend to stay on the safe side. The consensus with the raw food experts is that no enzymes = cooked. With your dehydrator you're definitely cooking the food. Paul No need to miss a message. Get email on-the-go with Mail for Mobile. Get started. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 10, 2007 Report Share Posted March 10, 2007 I too am an enzyme skeptic. But if you throw out the dogma around enzymes, there are still plenty of reasons to eat raw foods, based on mainstream science. It is well understood that the more a food is processed and ages the more it loses its vitamins and minerals. It is well understood that applying heat to foods will cause toxins to form, some of them cancerous/ carcinogenic. It is well understood that cooking removes/destroys two other vital nutrients from foods: water and fiber. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 11, 2007 Report Share Posted March 11, 2007 bryan wrote: > I too am an enzyme skeptic. <snip> >It is well understood that cooking removes/destroys two > other vital nutrients from foods: water and fiber. well, Bryan, you could just think about " other vital nutrients " as " enzymes " . that's how I figure it. Margaret Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 12, 2007 Report Share Posted March 12, 2007 Hello Paul, I agree whole heartily with you concerning enzymes. Dr. Howell has tons of scientific data to back up what he has to say about enzymes and proves beyond a doubt that what other doctors thought was totally wrong. He proved that even though our bodies can manufacture enzymes to help digest food it is a huge strain on our bodies and greatly reduces our longevity and exposes us to all diseases. That is why he advocates getting our enzymes from our foods and supplements. I can attest that this works from my own experience and that of others that are close to me. Do you remember what happened to the Primitive Eskimos when they changed from raw to cooked? Raoul ______________________________\ ____ Don't get soaked. Take a quick peek at the forecast with the Search weather shortcut. http://tools.search./shortcuts/#loc_weather Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 12, 2007 Report Share Posted March 12, 2007 Dr. Furhman is actually very supportive of all raw eating. 1) He prescribes 100% raw in illness 2) He is adament that baked, fried and cooked foods that contain acryamides are harmful and should not be eaten http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acrylamide 3) He says to eat the fruit and 1 lb. of raw vegitables (mostly greens) and the nuts and seeds before attempting the 1 lb. of cooked veggies and if you are at that point too full, the cooked vegitables can be skipped I have been on his plan for over a year and find myself essentially eating 90% raw. I love it. Ann _____ rawfood [rawfood ] On Behalf Of Erin Sunday, March 11, 2007 10:11 PM rawfood [Raw Food] Re: about this whole " enzyme " stuff Dr. Joel Fuhrman, author of Eat To Live, a 50-50 raw/cooked diet: http://snipurl. <http://snipurl.com/1972s> com/1972s (Amazon link) has this to say about the enzyme theory: ( from http://www.drfuhrma <http://www.drfuhrman.com/faq/question.aspx?sid=16 & qindex=4> n.com/faq/question.aspx?sid=16 & qindex=4 ) " Another fallacy promoted in the raw food movement and on the web is that the fragile heat-sensitive enzymes contained in the plants we eat catalyze chemical reactions that occur in humans and aid in digestion of the food. This is not true. Plant foods do not supply enzymes that aid in their digestion when consumed by animals. Our body supplies exactly the precise amount of enzymes needed for digestion; we are not ill equipped to digest normal food. The plant enzymes are broken down into simpler molecules by our own powerful digestive juices and even those that are absorbed as peptide size pieces (or with some biologic function) do not function to catalyze human functions. So it is not true that eating raw food demands less enzyme production by your body. A healthy body produces the precise amount of enzymes needed to digest the ingested food appropriately and the enzymes our body uses for other processes are unique to our human needs and are not present in plants. We make what we need from the proper materials. " -Erin www.zenpawn.com/vegblog rawfood@ <rawfood%40> .com, " kmdaven " <kmdaven wrote: > > HI, I've been reading about raw foods for four or five years now, > trying to incorporate raw foods and thinking about going all raw > SOMEDAY (just not right now-- I have young children and enough to do > without changing my whole world this way). Anyway, one question I have > that has been bothering me: What does , ahem, SCIENCE, like real true > double-blind placebo-controlled science, have to say about this enzyme > issue? Is it Empirical Truth that heat destroys all enzymes? Can anyone > refer me to a site showing scientific studies to this effect? > > And what temperature? For instance, I have this dehydrator my mom gave > me that does not have temperature control but it looks like it goes up > to 135-140 degrees-- am I cooking all the enzymes out with that? Or > just " some " of the enzymes? > > > Ever the skeptic, > > kristen > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 13, 2007 Report Share Posted March 13, 2007 As you may be able to tell by the couple of times I've mentioned Dr. Fuhrman on here, I too have been following his plan for some time. I am probably about 50/50 raw/cooked right now, but am experimenting with increasing the raw percentage. I must respectfully disagree though regarding his support of all raw eating. He has actually written an article on vegsource and often answers questions, as below, with advice to the contrary. For one thing, he recommends a cup of legumes a day on top of the fruits and veggies. As for acrylamides, he suggests steaming. -Erin www.zenpawn.com/vegblog rawfood , " Ann B. Lane " <annblane wrote: > > Dr. Furhman is actually very supportive of all raw eating. > > 1) He prescribes 100% raw in illness > 2) He is adament that baked, fried and cooked foods that contain acryamides > are harmful and should not be eaten http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acrylamide > 3) He says to eat the fruit and 1 lb. of raw vegitables (mostly greens) and > the nuts and seeds before attempting the 1 lb. of cooked veggies and if you > are at that point too full, the cooked vegitables can be skipped > > I have been on his plan for over a year and find myself essentially eating > 90% raw. I love it. > > Ann > _____ > > rawfood [rawfood ] On Behalf Of > Erin > Sunday, March 11, 2007 10:11 PM > rawfood > [Raw Food] Re: about this whole " enzyme " stuff > > > > Dr. Joel Fuhrman, author of Eat To Live, a 50-50 raw/cooked diet: > > http://snipurl. <http://snipurl.com/1972s> com/1972s (Amazon link) > > has this to say about the enzyme theory: > > ( from http://www.drfuhrma > <http://www.drfuhrman.com/faq/question.aspx?sid=16 & qindex=4> > n.com/faq/question.aspx?sid=16 & qindex=4 ) > > " Another fallacy promoted in the raw food movement and on the web is > that the fragile heat-sensitive enzymes contained in the plants we > eat catalyze chemical reactions that occur in humans and aid in > digestion of the food. This is not true. Plant foods do not supply > enzymes that aid in their digestion when consumed by animals. Our > body supplies exactly the precise amount of enzymes needed for > digestion; we are not ill equipped to digest normal food. The plant > enzymes are broken down into simpler molecules by our own powerful > digestive juices and even those that are absorbed as peptide size > pieces (or with some biologic function) do not function to catalyze > human functions. So it is not true that eating raw food demands less > enzyme production by your body. A healthy body produces the precise > amount of enzymes needed to digest the ingested food appropriately > and the enzymes our body uses for other processes are unique to our > human needs and are not present in plants. We make what we need from > the proper materials. " Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 13, 2007 Report Share Posted March 13, 2007 Upon looking up Dr. Howell's book on Amazon, I found mostly positive commments, yet one person had a comment that seemed vaguely informed and not so complementary. Any comments about this comment (I've pasted it below and made some comments of my own)? Thanks! Jonathan " " " " A waste of time, unreliable, out of date, August 9, 2003 Reviewer: A reader This book is flawed. It should be read critically because Howell was not a responsible scholar. His logic and his use of references cannot be relied on. His thinking was also extremely out of date. This might be explained by the fact that he himself was 87 when this book was published. Despite the hype, he was not a noted researcher. He was not an enzymologist and did no published research. He is unknown in the biochemical world. Howell's main idea about enzymes can be seen in the excerpts provided here. (on the amazon.com page) He believed that the proteins in enzymes were mere carriers for a 'vital energy' or 'life principle' which he called the enzyme potential. He also believed that we were born with this enzyme potential in a limited lifetime supply. Why did he believe in this bizarre theory? The excerpt provided gives a clue: in a book written in 1985 he was arguing against the enzyme theories of 1880 and 1890. He had missed the huge development in the knowledge about enzymes which had happened after 1950. He was stuck in the past. Much of the material in this book is similar to his first book, " Food Enzymes for Health and Longevity " which was written in 1939 when he was 41. In his first book, he gave some references describing experiments where the enzyme activity appeared to be separated from the protein molecule. If he had stayed in touch with enzyme research he would have known that these crude experiments were disproved with more accurate equipment. In fact, the enzyme activity IS completely explained by the protein molecule. He would have learned about DNA and its role in enzyme production. He would have learned about ATP and its role in providing energy to enzyme activity. There is no 'enzyme potential' needed to explain the workings of enzymes - his theory was based on misinformation. If he had been a true scientist he would have discarded his enzyme potential theory and moved on many years before this book was written. In this book he used faulty logic, drawing unjustified conclusions from bits of information from other people's research. The way he presented information from other sources is also questionable in several cases. It is easy to read his book and get the impression that he had supported his ideas with good references. But if the actual reference is read, it can be seen that he sometimes omitted details which would have weakened his case. For instance he talked about an old experiment by 'Jackson' where rats were fed a diet of 80% sugar and the pancreas size increased. He commented that this was an enzymeless diet, and he exclaimed about the calamitous effects of an enzymeless diet. But he didn't mention the fact that the control rats' diet was also enzymeless cooked food (containing 40% sugar). The difference between the rats on the two diets had nothing to do with enzymes in the food. He also ignored the fact that the paper's authors thought the change in the pancreas weight of those mice might not have been related to diet but to another factor in the experiment. " " " " " Raw food made with love and laughter, alive in the nation's capital! www.myspace.com/lovefoodlane ______________________________\ ____ No need to miss a message. Get email on-the-go with Mail for Mobile. Get started. http://mobile./mail Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 13, 2007 Report Share Posted March 13, 2007 Well, Dr. Edward Howell did the fundamental and some of the most in- depth research on enzymes. And yeah, they die and yeah, it's fairly obvious we do have limited supplies. But I agree that you can be healthier 80% raw and 20% whole cooked vegan than some raw foodists can be at 100%. It's all about common sense. Supplemental enzymes are always good, too. ;-) I don't sweat a cooked meal like I did when I first got into raw, that is for sure. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 14, 2007 Report Share Posted March 14, 2007 Hey Erin, You are right...100%. I guess I see him as being supportive of all raw in times of sickness and to consider nearly raw diets acceptable if not optimal. Below is his quote from January's newsletter that informs my view on this. His protocol is to eat 1 lb of raw veggies and unlimited fruit everyday...in my opinion, after that there is little room for anything else. In the end though, your references are irrefutable. Thanks for your comments. Ann Feed a Cold and Starve a Fever? In acute illnesses, such as colds and flu, the symptoms - such as fever and cough - are the best remedies for the virus. The fever encourages the brain to secrete interferon, which then further activates white blood cells to fight the virus. The cough aids in expelling the mucus and preventing it from settling within the lung. The body has the innate intelligence and power to heal itself from within, if not hampered. We assist this renewal by thorough rest, which includes not eating much or not eating at all. We naturally lose our appetite when we are ill. When ill with a typical viral syndrome, it is best to rest, drink water, avoid cooked food, eat lightly and only consume fresh fruit, raw vegetables, or steamed greens if hungry. Fasting when ill speeds recovery, reduces mucus production, and activates the immune system's defenses to rapidly and dramatically eliminate the viral load. _____ rawfood [rawfood ] On Behalf Of Erin Monday, March 12, 2007 7:56 PM rawfood [Raw Food] Re: about this whole " enzyme " stuff As you may be able to tell by the couple of times I've mentioned Dr. Fuhrman on here, I too have been following his plan for some time. I am probably about 50/50 raw/cooked right now, but am experimenting with increasing the raw percentage. I must respectfully disagree though regarding his support of all raw eating. He has actually written an article on vegsource and often answers questions, as below, with advice to the contrary. For one thing, he recommends a cup of legumes a day on top of the fruits and veggies. As for acrylamides, he suggests steaming. -Erin www.zenpawn.com/vegblog rawfood@ <rawfood%40> .com, " Ann B. Lane " <annblane wrote: > > Dr. Furhman is actually very supportive of all raw eating. > > 1) He prescribes 100% raw in illness > 2) He is adament that baked, fried and cooked foods that contain acryamides > are harmful and should not be eaten http://en.wikipedia <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acrylamide> ..org/wiki/Acrylamide > 3) He says to eat the fruit and 1 lb. of raw vegitables (mostly greens) and > the nuts and seeds before attempting the 1 lb. of cooked veggies and if you > are at that point too full, the cooked vegitables can be skipped > > I have been on his plan for over a year and find myself essentially eating > 90% raw. I love it. > > Ann > _____ > > rawfood@ <rawfood%40> .com [rawfood@ <rawfood%40> .com] On Behalf Of > Erin > Sunday, March 11, 2007 10:11 PM > rawfood@ <rawfood%40> .com > [Raw Food] Re: about this whole " enzyme " stuff > > > > Dr. Joel Fuhrman, author of Eat To Live, a 50-50 raw/cooked diet: > > http://snipurl. <http://snipurl. <http://snipurl.com/1972s> com/1972s> com/1972s (Amazon link) > > has this to say about the enzyme theory: > > ( from http://www.drfuhrma > <http://www.drfuhrma <http://www.drfuhrman.com/faq/question.aspx?sid=16 & qindex=4> n.com/faq/question.aspx?sid=16 & qindex=4> > n.com/faq/question.aspx?sid=16 & qindex=4 ) > > " Another fallacy promoted in the raw food movement and on the web is > that the fragile heat-sensitive enzymes contained in the plants we > eat catalyze chemical reactions that occur in humans and aid in > digestion of the food. This is not true. Plant foods do not supply > enzymes that aid in their digestion when consumed by animals. Our > body supplies exactly the precise amount of enzymes needed for > digestion; we are not ill equipped to digest normal food. The plant > enzymes are broken down into simpler molecules by our own powerful > digestive juices and even those that are absorbed as peptide size > pieces (or with some biologic function) do not function to catalyze > human functions. So it is not true that eating raw food demands less > enzyme production by your body. A healthy body produces the precise > amount of enzymes needed to digest the ingested food appropriately > and the enzymes our body uses for other processes are unique to our > human needs and are not present in plants. We make what we need from > the proper materials. " Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 14, 2007 Report Share Posted March 14, 2007 rawfood , " Ann B. Lane " <annblane wrote: > > Hey Erin, > > You are right...100%. I guess I see him as being supportive of all raw in > times of sickness and to consider nearly raw diets acceptable if not > optimal. Below is his quote from January's newsletter that informs my view > on this. > > His protocol is to eat 1 lb of raw veggies and unlimited fruit everyday...in > my opinion, after that there is little room for anything else. Don't forget the lb of cooked and the cup of beans. The part he finds optional is the serving of grains or starchy vegetable. > In the end though, your references are irrefutable. > > Thanks for your comments. > > Ann Thanks. Any time. For those interested, there is an E2L group at Eat-2-Live/ It is quite active with newbies these days as I'm sure is this Raw Food list. There is a tred afoot. -Erin www.zenpawn.com/vegblog Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.