Har du mer informasjon om opptak av kjøtt i rå vs. kokt tilstand. Angående opptak av rått kjøtt så har jeg lest at når man tygger rått kjøtt og det arbeides med i magen så dannes det en "colloid suspension" som gjør at det blir en slags matrise som gjør det enkelt for enzymene å komme til.
Her er en studie på emnet publisert for noen uker siden:
"The cooking of food is hypothesized to have played a major role in human evolution partly by providing an increase in net energy gain. For meat, cooking compromises the structural integrity of the tissue by gelatinizing the collagen. Hence, cooked meat should take less effort to digest compared to raw meat. Likewise, less energy would be expended digesting ground meat compared to intact meat. We tested these hypotheses by assessing how the cooking and/or grinding of meat influences the energy expended on its digestion, absorption, and assimilation (i.e., specific dynamic action, SDA) using the Burmese python, Python molurus. Pythons were fed one of four experimental diets each weighing 25% of the snake's body mass: intact raw beef, intact cooked beef, ground raw beef, and ground cooked beef. We measured oxygen consumption rates of snakes prior to and up to 14 days following feeding and calculated SDA from the extra oxygen consumed above standard metabolic rate. Postprandial peak in oxygen consumption, the scope of peak rates, and SDA varied significantly among meal treatments. Pythons digesting raw or intact meals exhibited significantly larger postprandial metabolic responses than snakes digesting the cooked ground meals. We found cooking to decrease SDA by 12.7%, grinding to decrease SDA by 12.4%, and the combination of the two (cooking and grinding) to have an additive effect, decreasing SDA by 23.4%. These results support the hypothesis that the consumption of cooked meat provides an energetic benefit over the consumption of raw meat."
Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology - Part A: Molecular & Integrative Physiology
Volume 148, Issue 3, November 2007, Pages 651-656En kamerat av meg gidder ikke å spise kokte grønsaker, fordi han sier at da forsvinner alle de viktige vitaminene osv...
Glemte å svare på det med grønnsaker. Råe grønnsaker er som regel best i de fleste fall, men forskjellen er nok ikke særlig stor. Det er bare å koke dem med god samvittighet.
"This review of the medical literature from 1994 to 2003 summarizes the relationship between raw and cooked vegetables and cancer risk and examines whether they may affect cancer risk differently. Twenty-eight studies examined the relationship between raw and cooked vegetables and risk for various cancers. Twenty-one studies assessed raw, but not cooked, vegetables and cancer risk. The majority of these assessed risk of oral, pharyngeal, laryngeal, esophageal, lung, gastric, and colorectal cancers. Most showed that vegetables, raw or cooked, were inversely related to these cancers. However, more consistent results were found for oral, pharyngeal, laryngeal, esophageal, and gastric cancers. Nine of the 11 studies of raw and cooked vegetables showed statistically significant inverse relationships of these cancers with raw vegetables, but only 4 with cooked vegetables. The few studies of breast, lung, and colorectal cancers also suggested an inverse relationship with both raw and cooked vegetables, but these results were less consistent. In the two studies of prostate cancer, there was no association with either raw or cooked vegetables. One of two bladder cancer studies found an inverse relationship with cooked, but not raw, vegetables. Possible mechanisms by which cooking affects the relationship between vegetables and cancer risk include changes in availability of some nutrients, destruction of digestive enzymes, and alteration of the structure and digestibility of food. Both raw and cooked vegetable consumption are inversely related to epithelial cancers, particularly those of the upper gastrointestinal tract, and possibly breast cancer; however, these relationships may be stronger for raw vegetables than cooked vegetables."
Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2004;13(9):1422–35)
