Raw Foods Versus Cooked Foods

Not only do we have Vegetarian versus meat eater,
Vegetarian versus Vegans. We also have Vegans versus
Raw Foodist.So who is right, here is a link to the raw foods
versus cooked food debate.

Raw Foodist claim that raw foods don't harm the enzymes
and cooked foods lose vitamins and other nutrients our
body needs.All foods should be prepared under 118
degrees.

Others claim that we need to eat cooked foods as part
of our natural development. That cooking foods is
what makes us a more highly evolved species. That
we need to cook carbohydrates. Also a raw food diet
doesn't have enough protein.

I don't claim to be an expert on nutrition, but I can
use some common sense.I notice on the net allot of
Vegetarians like to endorse Slow Cookers. Well if a
Slow Cooker retains more vitamins. Then why
wouldn't a dehydrator or not heating at all be even
more nutritional.

Lets say cooking doesn't effect the nutritional value
of foods one way or another.What if cooking versus
raw foods is a tie. Then it is still better to eat more
raw foods. Because if you have cereal and soy milk for
breakfast, bean burrito without cheese for lunch and
spaghetti and a jar of tomato sauce for dinner. That is
a Vegan diet. Is it a healthy diet? Absolutely Not. If
nothing else raw foods forces us to eat better foods.

Dave 4syth