Foodstuffs that benefit from "treatment"

[Pan]

In the "Tasty Organic Hell" thread, the following exchange took place:

(balex @ May 23 2004, 04:09 AM)

(mudbug @ May 22 2004, 04:56 PM)

[The more refined it is, the worse it is for you as a human being.

...

The closer a food is to it's natural state, the better it is for you, which is why farm fresh produce from local growers is increasingly demand.

The diet isn't a fad, it's what has long been the most recommended way of eating.

This is absolutely false as a general rule.

I will provide three illustrative counter-examples:

1) Processing milk to make yoghurt since many people are lactose intolerant

2) Processing manioc root (which is poisonous raw) to make tapioca

3) Cooking bones for stock.

In all three cases the processed form is clearly much better for you than the "natural" form.

I thought it would be fun to make a list of foodstuffs that are healthier when cooked, fermented, filtered, or otherwise processed.

The first foodstuff that came to my mind was buah berus. When I lived in rural Terengganu, Malaysia in the mid-70s, this bean was eaten in only one form and in only one season: The monsoon season. During the monsoon season, there was no fresh fish because it was impossible for the boats to go out to sea, and transportation overland was difficult because of flooding, so people mostly lived on dried fish and rice for a month or more. This provides basic nutrition but of course is very boring. So with nothing else to do all day but sit in the house and listen to the rain pound the zinc roofs (and read a book, I suppose), girls and young women (I don't remember whether any boys were involved but I wasn't invited on that particular gathering expedition, though I participated regularly in others) put some protective clothing on and went into the belukar (secondary forest) to gather buah berus. That took a while. They came back with baskets full of the poisonous beans, which had to be boiled in 7 different changes of water to be safe for human consumption. Of course, water is something there was plenty of. And there was plenty of time, too. The process took most of the day. Then the buah berus were put in batter, and cakes were made and distributed throughout the neighborhood. At any other time of year, it wouldn't have been worth the trouble to take all the steps necessary to make those cakes, but in the monsoon season, it was all well worth it.

The second foodstuff that came to my mind was quinces. Do people eat them raw? They smell kind of like apples but I didn't find them tasty as raw fruits. But I love them cooked!

[fifi]

Here is one for the deep south of the US... Lima beans. In the olden days, they contained enough cyanogens (cyanide) to kill you if you didn't cook and "process" them correctly. The current day lima beans in the US have been bred to reduce the amount of cyanogens in limas. In some other countries, this is not so and if the beans are not cooked so that the cyanide is cooked off, there can be problems.

[jackal10]

Most beans are poisonous from raw. Ricin, for example, is derived from kidney beans.

Meat benefits from hanging, and is not good fresh. Game especially.

Most grains are not nutritious raw, or without at least threshing and grinding.

Others, such as Quinoa have bitter saponins that must be washed away.

Some fruits, such as persimmons, have mouth puckering amounts of tannins raw.

Others, such as medlars need bletting first.

Many products need a period of fermentation. Even tobacco is fermented and then dried.

[Mabelline]

Poke salad. Another from the South, and a springtime salvation for many after bad winters. It needs several different slow simmers and water changes (3, for tender shoots).

[bainesy]

Most beans are poisonous from raw. Ricin, for example, is derived from kidney beans.

There was a spate of food-poisoning in Britain a couple of decades ago, when 'slow cookers' first came on the scene. People using them to make that retro-staple chili con carne were often eating kidney beans which, though they'd been cooked for hours, had never reached the internal temperature necessary to destroy their toxins.

My nomination is olives - I have vague memories as a child of eating one from straight from a tree, unaware that they need a curing process to make them edible. I wouldn't recommend it.

edit: for spelling

Edited May 23, 2004 by bainesy (log)

[Stigand]

Hakarl - the Greenland shark, somniosus microcephalus, is toxic unless you let it ferment for a few weeks (after which it's merely unpleasant ).

Although the Greenland shark is poisonous if eaten fresh, it is edible when the meat has been dried. The flesh of the shark contains high concentrations of urea and trimethylamine oxide, which is said to be intoxicating, inducing an alcoholic affect. For this reason, natives of Greenland are known to call someone who is drunk "shark-sick." Also, dogs that have been poisoned by the shark's meat are often called "drunk."

From Greenland shark info.

Edited May 23, 2004 by Stigand (log)

[CompassRose]

Although if you buy into the Paleolithic Diet notion, the whole human race started to go to pot when we learned to process things that are poisonous into edible form. Once poisonous, always poisonous, apparently. And they'll make you fat if it's not something you can pluck/kill and immediately eat.

[aidensnd2]

I'll throw my vote in for rhubarb. Not too tasty raw but damn good when cooked....

Also, any meat.

[foodgeek]

Olives. You don't want to eat them raw, but once brined they are edible (and tasty).

[Cusina]

How about hopps? Can't do much with them raw... but beer definitely has it's charms.

I'm not likely to chow down on raw coffee beans either or cocoa beans.

[Stigand]

How about hops? Can't do much with them raw... but beer definitely has it's charms.

Isn't there an argument that agriculture was invented (or at least popularised) largely because people wanted grains to brew into beer? I can't remember where I read this but I like the idea that civilisation is based on booze.

[Mabelline]

Peanuts. Make mine boiled,salted, roasted,etc.

[Mabelline]

Lordy, I'm getting senile...corn! Native Americans nixtamalized corn to add the necessary nutrients to make it viable to the body. When the Europeans exported corn, but not the alkaline process, they introduced whole populations to pellagra and kwashiorkor.

[andiesenji]

How about the Italian chameleon, the lupini bean.

They can be a shock to someone who simply cooks them. The incredible bitterness is awful and is difficult to get out of your mouth. When I was taught to cook them I had to taste one so I would know. They do contain alkaloids that can make one ill. Also, the invasive crop has to be kept away from areas where animals feed.

After cooking they have to be throughly rinsed in fresh water then placed in the fridge in salt water that must be changed daily for five or six days (I was told in Italy they used to put them in mesh bags and place them in a stream for a couple of weeks.) to get rid of the bitterness. At the end of the process they have changed into a tough skin containing a sweet, nutty snack that is unlike any other bean. To me the flavor is reminiscent of chestnut.

They are available already prepared in jars. It seems odd that a foodstuff that requires so much preparation would be popular but it has been around for at least two thousand years. There is mention of them in Roman literature.

[JAZ]

Spinach contains a chemical that keeps its nutrients from being absorbed by humans. Cooking kills it, so cooked spinach is actually more nutritious than raw spinach.

[bleudauvergne]

We wouldn't have pasta, bread, and cake without having processed wheat to make it.

edited to add: Cheese.

Edited May 23, 2004 by bleudauvergne (log)

[Mabelline]

Grape to wine to vinegar. To go with bleu's bread and cheese.

[Yuki]

Chinese Fermented(or is it Perserved?) Tofu

Dried Salty Fish

Deep Fried Pork Fat - this is so good on rice with soya sauce or put into stock to make noodles.

I am sure none of those food get any healtheir from the treatment, but they sure are much more tasty. Those food are usually served to poor people in the past, now everyone is on the "healthy" diet and is getting hard to find any deep fried pork fat in restaurants anymore(I make it at home ).

[balmagowry]

I'll throw my vote in for rhubarb. Not too tasty raw but damn good when cooked....

Actually - I recently learned from The Boy, who explains it all by reminding me that he gres up in Wisconsin, that raw rhubarb can be pretty good. You have to wet it and dip it in sugar, and then it's quite tasty and refreshing, both crunchy and juicy. I think I prefer it cooked, but raw makes a nice change once in a while.

And now for something completely... subjective: lutefisk. Once was enough, as far as I was concerned - and of course it doesn't really count because the processing it goes through to prepare it for serving is largely intended to undo the processing it went through to prepare it for storage. Doesn't much matter, as nothing I can think of would make it palatable. Poor little cod - it didn't taste bad when it was fresh. Anyway, for those who actually love lutefisk - and yes, I have met one person who sincerely did - it sorta kinda qualifies for this category. You sure couldn't eat it while it's still full of lye....

In fact, now I think of it, I suppose you could say the same about haggis. Not that I like haggis, mind you - I've made it, so by definition I can't also like it - but even I have to admit the final version is less revolting, more palatable, and yes, probably more healthful, than the, er, raw materials.

[fifi]

Spinach contains a chemical that keeps its nutrients from being absorbed by humans. Cooking kills it, so cooked spinach is actually more nutritious than raw spinach.

Yep... Oxalic acid. It complexes with the calcium and iron in the spinach to form an oxalate that is not absorbable. It will also tie up calcium and iron that you are getting from the other foods in your meal. Don't go eating too much raw spinach.

Here is one that will probably come as a shock to some folks: White flour is more nutritious than whole grain. All of this talk about white flour being the evil product of the industrial age is just not true. (Well, I will conceed that bleaching seems to be an unnecessary process. I just buy unbleached.) Mankind has been processing flour for, oh... about 9000 years, maybe more. It is just in recent years (19th century?) that our "evil industrial" processing has been able to accomplish quickly and efficiently, what used to take a lot of labor. In the later 19th century, two gentlemen named Graham and Kellogg were bleating about the benefits of fiber. (Can you guess why? Do those names look familiar? Can we make a buck off of a by-product?) The mania for emptying the bowls to prevent "intestinal toxemia" took over in a wave of enthusiasm that makes the current Atkins phenomenon look like a passing notion that bell bottom pants are cool. This carried over into the 20th century in susbsequent waves of enthusiasm where I think we are now. We have turned our perception of the staff of life on its head. What used to be the nutritional privilege of the upper classes for millenia has now reversed. The privileged now turn up their collective noses at that nutritious loaf of white bread and hie ourselves off to that artisnal baker for those lovely brown breads with enough rough grain to rip our gums to shreds. The accumulated peasants from the first civilizations in Mesopotamia to the 18th century are probably looking down on us and laughing their collective asses off.

The good news is that in this day and age, our diets are incredibly varied compared to the situation for most of the population for most of our history so the nutritional deficit doesn't hurt us. We can indulge in those brown breads because they taste good.

Here is the science from McGee:

As it turns out, fiber is not a panacea. As for whole wheat in particular: it is true that whole grain flour contains more protein, minerals, and vitamins than refined flour, including as it does the nutritionally valuable germ and aleurone layer, as well as the mostly indigestible bran. But it is also true that some of these nutrients pass through the digestive tract unabsorbed because the indigestible carbohydrates complex with them and speed their passage out of the system. The nutrients in white bread do not suffer such losses. In normal diets, this drawback is negligible and probably leaves us ahead in protein and vitamins, but for people on marginal diets, whole grain bread can have disasterous consequences. We have already mentioned the epidemic of rickets that struck the children of Dublin after three years of wartime rations of dairy products and whole wheat bread. The combination of marginal supplies of calcium and vitamin D and the calcium complexing activity of phytic acid, which is concentrated in the aleurone layer, was enough to tip the balance from health to serious disease. Similar problems with iron and zinc metabolism have been studied among the poor of Egypt and Iran. The moral: unrefined does not automatically mean healthful. Not all of us can afford to eat "naturally".

Sorry for the long post but the sociological aspects of food choice is one of my favorite subjects. The whole grain versus refined flour issue over the millenia is something I find fascinating.

[Mabelline]

fifi, I can imagine the many things our 'savage', 'uncivilized' forbearers laugh at us about! But the flour thing in particular....most people had their teeth ground to nubbins just past twenty from grit-munching. And I at so sorry, but I do not like whole wheat grains in my bread. They feel like lil' ole rocks...sunflower, yep, okay, but the wheat's just too hard to me.

[KAB]

Fiddleheads and cashews.

Fiddleheads can cause a bad reaction - similar to food poisoning - in some people if not thoroughly cooked and cashews can cause blistering if not processed.

Karen

[Mabelline]

It's real weird this came up, because last week I finally got to the library, and one of the books I picked up was "Wild Fermentation: the Flavor, Nutrition, and Craft of Live-Culture Foods," by Sandor Ellix Katz. It has plenty of food history, and a lot about how the author has survived 15 years longer with HIV than the doctors thought he would. It has some cool VINEGAR recipes, which is where I found it. Read it if you get the chance...you will get caught up by it!

[fifi]

I had forgotten about the fiddlehead problem. Seems like the great "they" don't know what the problem is.

[Pan]

Thanks for all your posts, everyone. A couple of requests for definitions:

From Mabelline: "nixtamalized"=?

From jackal10: "bletting"=?