|
|
|
Since minerals remain better preserved than vitamins (especially if steaming is used instead of boiling), other factors than cooking, such as variety in the diet and (perhaps) soil mineralization and fertilization, are more important in ensuring adequate mineral intake.
Again, the table below represents mineral content but not bioavailability: some antinutritional factors in plants must be taken into account in this regard, such as phytates (which are present in unsprouted grains) and oxalates (present in spinach and rhubarb). Another example is iron, which is more available in heme form (as in red meat) than in non-
Food
Water Content
Mineral Assay (all amounts = mg)
Ca
Fe
Mg
P
K
Na
Zn
Cu
Mn
91%
48
.88
25
66
320
27
.40
.045
.23
91%
46
.84
24
59
290
26
.38
.043
.22
69%
6
6.8
19
320
320
73
3.9
3.3
.26
66%
7
6.8
20
400
230
70
6.1
4.5
.41
56%
11
6.3
23
460
360
110
5.4
4.5
.42
88%
27
.50
15
44
320
35
.20
.047
.14
87%
31
.62
13
30
230
66
.30
.13
.75
4%
270
3.7
290
520
730
11
2.9
.94
2.3
3%
280
3.8
300
550
770
11
4.9
1.2
2.0
90%
13
.91
21
54
150
6
.41
.16
.19
94%
12
.65
14
28
101
10
.47
.12
.14
94%
5
.45
11
24
220
6
.09
.074
.10
92%
6
.56
14
31
280
11
.11
.093
.13
63%
12
1.6
76
220
310
90
.63
.073
.01
53%
15
1.6
97
280
400
83
.94
.090
.02
We can note in the above table that in a number of cases the values for minerals are higher in the cooked food than when raw (even allowing for differences due to water loss). As with the earlier table on vitamins, some inconsistencies in this regard are unavoidable, since different varieties of a food may have differing mineral contents, and differing samples may have been used. Since one would not expect cooking to increase mineral content (obviously impossible), we can safely assume that such differences are due to such variation in the food samples measured. This in itself is quite interesting, however, for the following reason.
Mineral losses from cooking are so low that they are overshadowed by background variation in nutrient samples. Whatever actual differences there may be between raw and cooked foods with respect to minerals, the data available here shows that in many cases they are simply not significant enough to be clearly distinguishable against the background level of variation and sampling error that normally exists between food samples. It appears, then, that mineral content of a food is probably more variable from sample to sample (according to season, horticultural practice, climate, soil, etc.) than whether or not it is cooked or raw. Hence, we see that under close examination, the alleged huge differences between raw and cooked foods--
GO TO NEXT PART OF ARTICLE
Return to beginning of article
Back to Research-Based Appraisals of Alternative Diet Lore
(uncorrected for water loss)
(Note: Amounts are expressed in units per
In the table below, "boiled" = boiled, drained, without salt.)
Broccoli, raw
Broccoli, boiled
Beef liver, raw
Beef liver, braised
Beef liver, pan-fried
Carrots, raw
Carrots, boiled
Almonds, dried
Almonds, dry roasted
Mung bean sprouts, raw
Mung bean sprouts, boiled
Tomatoes, red, raw
Tomatoes, boiled
Mackerel, Atlantic, raw
Mackerel, cooked, dry heat
(Does Cooking Render Minerals "Inorganic" or Less Assimilable?)
SEE TABLE OF CONTENTS FOR: PART 1 PART 2 PART 3
GO TO PART 1 - Is Cooked Food "Toxic"?
GO TO PART 2 - Does Cooked Food Contain Less Nutrition?
GO TO PART 3 - Discussion: 100% Raw vs. Predominantly Raw