The New York Times recently ran a story about how best to prepare vegetables. It turns out that raw foods and vegetables aren’t necessarily better for you than they would be if you cooked them — and sometimes they’re worse. Tara Parker-Pope writes:
The amount and type of nutrients that eventually end up in the vegetables are affected by a number of factors before they reach the plate, including where and how they were grown, processed and stored before being bought. Then, it’s up to you. No single cooking or preparation method is best. Water-soluble nutrients like vitamins C and B and a group of nutrients called polyphenolics are often lost in processing. …
Fat-soluble compounds like vitamins A, D, E and K and the antioxidant compounds called carotenoids are less likely to leach out in water. Cooking also breaks down the thick cell walls of plants, releasing the contents for the body to use. That is why processed tomato products have higher lycopene content than fresh tomatoes.
In January, a report in The Journal of Agriculture and Food Chemistry concluded that over all, boiling was better for carrots, zucchini and broccoli than steaming, frying or serving them raw. Frying was by far the worst.
Surely it’s a good idea to make an effort to include some raw vegetables in our daily consumption. It’s interesting to note, though, that the conventional wisdom that raw is better is not true in all cases. Some people, however, take that supposed wisdom to an unhealthy extreme. The “raw food diet”, typically also vegan, is about the strictest interpretation of all-natural eating. As this About.com summary explains, followers of this diet avoid eating anything heated to over 116° F (47° C).
On face it seems a little silly to me that in the search for the most supposedly natural lifestyle, some people have chosen to go back to before the discovery of fire. But then, even About.com has filed this article in the alternative medicine category, along with articles about acupuncture (equally effective when you’re pretending to do it) and homeopathic remedies (which are based in part upon the premise that diluting something makes it more potent).
Of course, even those of us who don’t follow extreme diets like this one fall prey to this simplistic sort of thinking all the time. Grocery stores can charge higher prices for organic food because so many of us assume that if it’s organic it must be worth the extra cost. And sure, pesticides and other chemicals used on food can be dangerous in large quantities, but worm-filled or mold-covered food isn’t exactly healthy either. (I’m reminded of the Vital Signs podcast from last February that described the case of an infant who contracted botulism from some natural honey.) The healthiest lifestyle is actually a happy medium between limiting the “unnatural” chemicals we consume and avoiding the all-too-natural ways of getting sick.
I believe this highlights a major fallacy in the popular conception of health: that things are better for you if they’re more natural. First of all, “natural” isn’t even an adjective that can be clearly defined, given that we can’t exactly return to some sort of Hobbesian state of nature to look around and take notes. But also, many things commonly viewed as “unnatural” such as technological and chemical advances have actually vastly improved our lives. I’m happy to live in a world with telephones, penicillin, electricity, printing presses, the wheel… and I’m also glad we have pasteurized and vitamin-fortified milk, irradiated meat, and rice genetically modified to have 20 times the beta carotene.
At the end of the day, I think we just have to remember that the story is always more complicated than it seems at first. It’s appealing to think there are clear cut rules for how to live the healthiest life, but following a rule like “natural equals good for you” can actually be detrimental to your health. A little bit of critical thinking can go a long way.
