To lose weight dont cook your food

excerpt
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/...p?story=473893


The perfect experiment to test Wrangham's hypothesis has been carried
out. Today some Westerners believe that raw food is healthier since
cooking destroys enzymes and vitamins. In a study of Germans who
practised this philosophy, researchers discovered that most long-term
raw foodists (those who stuck to the diet for more than three years)
were suffering from chronic energy deficiency. Many had lost a lot of
weight and about half the women had ceased to menstruate.

A colleague of Wrangham's, Dr Nancylou Conklin-Brittain, calculated
that an average woman on a raw-food diet would have to eat up to 10
kilograms (22 pounds) of food a day to gain enough calories to sustain
her; this is almost a fifth of her body weight. Even Americans who,
during Thanksgiving, can consume up to 7,000 calories, would not then
eat more that 4.6kg of food. Neither, Wrangham thinks, would eating
raw meat help. With considerable difficulty, he has observed how long
it takes chimpanzees to eat a piece of raw meat. It usually takes them
about an hour to absorb 400 calories - the equivalent of a sandwich -
of flesh. For a human being to get his or her calorie intake from raw
meat, they'd have to chew for six hours a day.

In contrast, cooked food is more edible; it's easier to digest because
it's softer, uneatable food is rendered eatable and toxins are
removed. Meat is tenderised by heat because the collagen holding the
fibres together are softened and turned into gelatin. All known human
populations have always cooked most of their food, be it the San
bushmen of the Kalahari, or the Aché of the Americas. But the evidence
for when our ancestors first used fire (and hence may have cooked) is
patchy. Anthropologists estimate that it was between 400,000 to 1.6
million years ago.

Without fossil records for fire, Wrangham puts the date much earlier,
between 1.6 and 1.9 million years ago. It is a dramatic step to take,
posing a date for cooking without the usual scientific evidence, but
Wrangham argues that it was at this point that Homo erectus (also
called Homo ergaster) evolved. This species had a remarkably different
figure from other hominids - it had a body very like our own.

By taming fire and learning how to cook, our ancestor would have had
access to a superior diet. The reason that a better diet could have
changed us is because first, we would not have needed such big teeth
to grind all that raw food, and secondly, we could dispense with
enormous guts. Modern human intestines (in particular, the colon)
occupy only a fifth of our total gut volume, compared with more than
50 per cent in chimpanzees. To give a rather gruesome

To lose weight exercise so you burn more calories than you
take in, and build muscle that will burn calories even in
the rest state.

The RDA was developed based on an eating program including
cooked food. You can get your RDA from cooked food. That
includes fiber, which makes you feel full lessening the
desire to eat. Fiber content depends on the choice of foods,
not whether they are cooked or not, because cooking does not
destroy fiber any more than your digestive system does.

habshi wrote:

excerpt
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/...p?story=473893

The perfect experiment to test Wrangham's hypothesis has been carried
out. Today some Westerners believe that raw food is healthier since
cooking destroys enzymes and vitamins. In a study of Germans who
practised this philosophy, researchers discovered that most long-term
raw foodists (those who stuck to the diet for more than three years)
were suffering from chronic energy deficiency. Many had lost a lot of
weight and about half the women had ceased to menstruate.

"Patricia Heil" wrote in message
...

To lose weight exercise so you burn more calories than you
take in, and build muscle that will burn calories even in
the rest state.


right. however, use plant derived proteins within 45 minutes after finishing
exercise.
do not eat meat.


The RDA was developed based on an eating program including
cooked food. You can get your RDA from cooked food. That
includes fiber, which makes you feel full lessening the
desire to eat. Fiber content depends on the choice of foods,
not whether they are cooked or not, because cooking does not
destroy fiber any more than your digestive system does.

habshi wrote:

excerpt

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/...p?story=473893

The perfect experiment to test Wrangham's hypothesis has been carried
out. Today some Westerners believe that raw food is healthier since
cooking destroys enzymes and vitamins. In a study of Germans who
practised this philosophy, researchers discovered that most long-term
raw foodists (those who stuck to the diet for more than three years)
were suffering from chronic energy deficiency. Many had lost a lot of
weight and about half the women had ceased to menstruate.

"habshi" wrote in message
...
excerpt
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/...p?story=473893


The perfect experiment to test Wrangham's hypothesis has been carried
out. Today some Westerners believe that raw food is healthier since
cooking destroys enzymes and vitamins. In a study of Germans who
practised this philosophy, researchers discovered that most long-term
raw foodists (those who stuck to the diet for more than three years)
were suffering from chronic energy deficiency. Many had lost a lot of
weight and about half the women had ceased to menstruate.

A colleague of Wrangham's, Dr Nancylou Conklin-Brittain, calculated
that an average woman on a raw-food diet would have to eat up to 10
kilograms (22 pounds) of food a day to gain enough calories to sustain
her; this is almost a fifth of her body weight. Even Americans who,
during Thanksgiving, can consume up to 7,000 calories, would not then
eat more that 4.6kg of food. Neither, Wrangham thinks, would eating
raw meat help. With considerable difficulty, he has observed how long
it takes chimpanzees to eat a piece of raw meat. It usually takes them
about an hour to absorb 400 calories - the equivalent of a sandwich -
of flesh. For a human being to get his or her calorie intake from raw
meat, they'd have to chew for six hours a day.

If you eat raw meat, you'll risk getting diseases and parasites that are
normally killed in the cooking process. You'll lose weight in the process
of being very, very ill! You might even die if the disease is that
particularly nasty strain of e-coli than killed many people a few years ago.
I'd rather be chubby and alive than skinny and dead.

Tonia

This would probably work, but how many people could stick to it for a lifetime?

(habshi) wrote in message ...
excerpt
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/...p?story=473893


The perfect experiment to test Wrangham's hypothesis has been carried
out. Today some Westerners believe that raw food is healthier since
cooking destroys enzymes and vitamins. In a study of Germans who
practised this philosophy, researchers discovered that most long-term
raw foodists (those who stuck to the diet for more than three years)
were suffering from chronic energy deficiency. Many had lost a lot of
weight and about half the women had ceased to menstruate.

A colleague of Wrangham's, Dr Nancylou Conklin-Brittain, calculated
that an average woman on a raw-food diet would have to eat up to 10
kilograms (22 pounds) of food a day to gain enough calories to sustain
her; this is almost a fifth of her body weight. Even Americans who,
during Thanksgiving, can consume up to 7,000 calories, would not then
eat more that 4.6kg of food. Neither, Wrangham thinks, would eating
raw meat help. With considerable difficulty, he has observed how long
it takes chimpanzees to eat a piece of raw meat. It usually takes them
about an hour to absorb 400 calories - the equivalent of a sandwich -
of flesh. For a human being to get his or her calorie intake from raw
meat, they'd have to chew for six hours a day.

In contrast, cooked food is more edible; it's easier to digest because
it's softer, uneatable food is rendered eatable and toxins are
removed. Meat is tenderised by heat because the collagen holding the
fibres together are softened and turned into gelatin. All known human
populations have always cooked most of their food, be it the San
bushmen of the Kalahari, or the Aché of the Americas. But the evidence
for when our ancestors first used fire (and hence may have cooked) is
patchy. Anthropologists estimate that it was between 400,000 to 1.6
million years ago.

Without fossil records for fire, Wrangham puts the date much earlier,
between 1.6 and 1.9 million years ago. It is a dramatic step to take,
posing a date for cooking without the usual scientific evidence, but
Wrangham argues that it was at this point that Homo erectus (also
called Homo ergaster) evolved. This species had a remarkably different
figure from other hominids - it had a body very like our own.

By taming fire and learning how to cook, our ancestor would have had
access to a superior diet. The reason that a better diet could have
changed us is because first, we would not have needed such big teeth
to grind all that raw food, and secondly, we could dispense with
enormous guts. Modern human intestines (in particular, the colon)
occupy only a fifth of our total gut volume, compared with more than
50 per cent in chimpanzees. To give a rather gruesome

On 17 Dec 2003 11:48:42 -0800, (Brad Sheppard) wrote:

This would probably work, but how many people could stick to it for a lifetime?

I was getting sick a lot and had heard about eating raw. so I went for it. man
I felt so good and had so much energy. it really showed me how foods made me
feel. If I ate grains they made me tired. I learned to eat a low carb diet. well
I should say low sugar low grain if any diet.
for some reason I also started eating less food. this started to be a problem
as I was not eating enough I was not hungry though.
it sure helped the way I ate. stopped eating grains for the most part and not
much sugar. though once I stopped eating the gains I now find I am allergic to
them.
but it made it far easier to keep loosing weight as I had cut way down on the
amounts of food I now eat.

--
Knight-Toolworks & Custom Planes
Custom made wooden planes at reasonable prices
See http://www.knight-toolworks.com For prices and ordering instructions.

I am into raw food lately. It is tdelicious rendy too.

Five years ago the moderator of an anger management group suggested it
and I was really hostile to the idea expecially when she died of
pancreatic cancer. She never disclosed her condition.

Now I've attended several raw food workshops and the food was divine.
However, because I have a gastric condition, cooked food is best for
killing bacteria. It's fine to have some raw and I am buying a good
juicer.

I have a file of raw recipes and of course they often take longer to
prepare than cooked food. A good juicer and dehydrator are required and
both expensive and space hogs.

There is a Live Food Cafe nearby and I grab an energizing "Green Kick"
almost daily

Green Kick

Water
dandelion greens
Kale
fresh ginger
a fesh pear
ginseng



In article , Brad
Sheppard wrote:

This would probably work, but how many people could stick to it for a
lifetime?

(habshi) wrote in message
...
excerpt
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/...p?story=473893


The perfect experiment to test Wrangham's hypothesis has been carried
out. Today some Westerners believe that raw food is healthier since
cooking destroys enzymes and vitamins. In a study of Germans who
practised this philosophy, researchers discovered that most long-term
raw foodists (those who stuck to the diet for more than three years)
were suffering from chronic energy deficiency. Many had lost a lot of
weight and about half the women had ceased to menstruate.

A colleague of Wrangham's, Dr Nancylou Conklin-Brittain, calculated
that an average woman on a raw-food diet would have to eat up to 10
kilograms (22 pounds) of food a day to gain enough calories to sustain
her; this is almost a fifth of her body weight. Even Americans who,
during Thanksgiving, can consume up to 7,000 calories, would not then
eat more that 4.6kg of food. Neither, Wrangham thinks, would eating
raw meat help. With considerable difficulty, he has observed how long
it takes chimpanzees to eat a piece of raw meat. It usually takes them
about an hour to absorb 400 calories - the equivalent of a sandwich -
of flesh. For a human being to get his or her calorie intake from raw
meat, they'd have to chew for six hours a day.

In contrast, cooked food is more edible; it's easier to digest because
it's softer, uneatable food is rendered eatable and toxins are
removed. Meat is tenderised by heat because the collagen holding the
fibres together are softened and turned into gelatin. All known human
populations have always cooked most of their food, be it the San
bushmen of the Kalahari, or the Aché of the Americas. But the evidence
for when our ancestors first used fire (and hence may have cooked) is
patchy. Anthropologists estimate that it was between 400,000 to 1.6
million years ago.

Without fossil records for fire, Wrangham puts the date much earlier,
between 1.6 and 1.9 million years ago. It is a dramatic step to take,
posing a date for cooking without the usual scientific evidence, but
Wrangham argues that it was at this point that Homo erectus (also
called Homo ergaster) evolved. This species had a remarkably different
figure from other hominids - it had a body very like our own.

By taming fire and learning how to cook, our ancestor would have had
access to a superior diet. The reason that a better diet could have
changed us is because first, we would not have needed such big teeth
to grind all that raw food, and secondly, we could dispense with
enormous guts. Modern human intestines (in particular, the colon)
occupy only a fifth of our total gut volume, compared with more than
50 per cent in chimpanzees. To give a rather gruesome

--
Diva
*****
The Best Man for the Job May Be A Woman