I need a reply ASAP :P

[Eduardo]

I need to write a paragraph about science, non-science,and pseudoscience on how it relates to my topic (Raw food vs Cooked food)

I forgot to include a paragraph so she gave me a chance.... here's my raw food vs cooked food paragraph: After that, I am going to post a paragraph and tell if it's correct.

 

Eduardo Lugo

 

Biology

 

11/16/2010

 

Raw food vs Cooked food

My topic is related to science because there have been a lot of studies by scientists about foods. What happens to raw food when it is cooked? Scientist studies show that most of the nutrients are lost due to the heat and enzyme are destroyed if heated above 116 degrees F. What kind of nutrients raw foods contain? Scientist found all the nutrients that our body needs in raw foods except for vitamin B12, they are only found on meats. What are the benefits in raw foods? Scientist found a lot of essential benefits in raw food. I will answer more of these questions in paragraphs.

 

According to Dr. Fuhrman, there are plenty of benefits in raw fruits and vegetables. Those foods supply us with high nutrients and are low in calories which it's essential for the body. Scientist research proves that raw food protects us against cancer and heart disease. Not only that it contains high nutrients and protect us against diseases, it's been proven that there are many other benefits to eating raw foods, including weight lost, more energy, clear skins, and they are rich in enzymes which help us digest our foods properly. In addition, sprouting the nuts or seeds will activate the enzyme, increases the vitamin content, protein quality, and essential fatty acid.

 

Once you cook raw foods, this structure can change, thus, study has shown that you lose at least 50 percent of nutrients. As for vitamins, you may lose up to 80-90 percent of vitamin content once is heated or cooked. Also, you can lose half of protein, might lose some minerals, lose antioxidant, destroy omega 3, and fatty acids. Also, enzymes will be destroyed. That is a lot if you think about it. You can get all the nutrients from raw foods.

 

If you compare raw apple pie versus cooked apple pie, the raw pie has almost all of the nutrients available, but once you cook this pie, it loses all of the amino acids, half of the vitamins, and may destroy a few minerals. Scientists compared many similar food and the results were always almost the same. It is logical if you think about it because they must compare them in order to find the cause and effect which it's their job.

 

In conclusion, prior to doing a little bit of research, I already knew about raw food because I am on a 60-70 percent raw diet. However, I didn't know that half of nutrients are lost when it's cooked, and vitamins lose about 80-90 percent of vitamins content. Also, I didn't know about enzyme being in raw food. Enzyme is destroyed when cooked above 116 degrees F. Now I know the different between raw food and cooked food in nutrients and benefits. Raw food wins when it comes to nutrients. (I wrote the word "I" so she took 5 points off.. , I thought wrong!)

 

 

 

 

 

She said I needed to write a paragraph how my topic relates to one of these ( science,non-science, and pseudoscience) and I needed to differentiate between them. If I do it correctly, I will get an 90 instead of 65. SO please help me.. here's the paragraph:

 

 

 

 

 

 

Authentic scientific studies show that raw food cures diseases and protects against cancer. Another study shows that you will feel more energetic, lose weight, feel younger, and have clear skin by eating raw food, because it has all the nutrients that our body needs. Some pseudoscientific reports, however, have suggested that we won't live longer by eating cooked foods. Another false report shows that fiber is lost while cooking. In fact, studies have shown that boiling increases fiber, lowers cholesterol, and regulates blood sugars. Some doctors are convincing their patients to eat at least 60-80 percent raw foods to eat healthily. Also, they may tell a patient to stop eating a specific food because it's bad for them. People who learn about these may not be scientific, but they start explaining to people that eating healthy prevents diseases, makes them younger, have clear skin, etc. So theirs is speculative thought, rather than factual, until they search on the internet for facts.

Edited December 5, 2010 by Eduardo

[skyhook]

Your last paragraph is still not to the point.

I thought you are supposed to compose something about either of these - (science,non-science, and pseudoscience) ? If that's the case, you should leave out the pseudoscience findings. I don't understand about non-science, I suppose it may be some culture stuff. and you should leave that out too. But if you want to write about pseudoscience, then you should leave out what the scientists say and any non-science findings.

 

 

I think we don't eat raw meat do we ? except beef and sushi perhaps. Raw meat have a lot of parasites in them, got to cook it. there are exceptions to the rule that raw vegs are good. Some scientists say that cooked carrots are better. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2000/09/000904124728.htmSome vegetables have some irritating saps that only be neutralised by cooking it, eg yam.

[ahhhhhz]

Your paragraph shows a kind of common naïveté which won't serve you well on your grade. What are "authentic scientific studies?" Answer that with some brevity (and references) and connect it with the raw/cooked question and you will have succeeded.

Edited December 5, 2010 by ahhhhhz

[Eduardo]

I am going to contact my teacher and see what she say about non-science

 

Your paragraph shows a kind of common naïveté which won't serve you well on your grade. What are "authentic scientific studies?" Answer that with some brevity (and references) and connect it with the raw/cooked question and you will have succeeded.

 

So I shouldn't write "studies" For instance, I should write " I believe scientists think that cooked carrot is better than raw carrots" I need examples for pseudoscience.. so when writing, I should say " Pseudoscience thinks that cooking the foods loses all the fiber" etc

 

Your last paragraph is still not to the point.

I thought you are supposed to compose something about either of these - (science,non-science, and pseudoscience) ? If that's the case, you should leave out the pseudoscience findings. I don't understand about non-science, I suppose it may be some culture stuff. and you should leave that out too. But if you want to write about pseudoscience, then you should leave out what the scientists say and any non-science findings.

 

 

I think we don't eat raw meat do we ? except beef and sushi perhaps. Raw meat have a lot of parasites in them, got to cook it. there are exceptions to the rule that raw vegs are good. Some scientists say that cooked carrots are better. http://www.scienceda...00904124728.htmSome vegetables have some irritating saps that only be neutralised by cooking it, eg yam.

 

 

 

She said I need to write a paragraph about science/pseudoscience/non-science. I am suppose to write how many topic relates to any or how it difference.

[lemur]

non-science would be nutritional beliefs that do not rely on scientific terminology such as "enzymes," "vitamins," "exact temperatures in degrees," etc. An example might be like someone I heard saying that he drank an ounce of aloe vera juice each day and the doctor told him he was exceptionally healthy. Pseudoscience used scientific language and scientific-type logics and concepts without actually being subject to critical empiricism, observation, testing, etc. It is difficult to distinguish pseudoscience from true science until you attempt to subject claims to critical scrutiny and find that proponents are more interested in propagating their claims and obfuscating/averting critical discussion. True science is open to critical discourse and seeks information and tests that would call its knowledge into question or shed further light on the subject. Not everyone who believes in the health benefits of raw food is open to studies that would find otherwise. Maybe this is because they don't trust "science" or maybe it is because they are generally dogmatic and recoil at the idea of having their dogmas questioned.

[Eduardo]

non-science would be nutritional beliefs that do not rely on scientific terminology such as "enzymes," "vitamins," "exact temperatures in degrees," etc. An example might be like someone I heard saying that he drank an ounce of aloe vera juice each day and the doctor told him he was exceptionally healthy. Pseudoscience used scientific language and scientific-type logics and concepts without actually being subject to critical empiricism, observation, testing, etc. It is difficult to distinguish pseudoscience from true science until you attempt to subject claims to critical scrutiny and find that proponents are more interested in propagating their claims and obfuscating/averting critical discussion. True science is open to critical discourse and seeks information and tests that would call its knowledge into question or shed further light on the subject. Not everyone who believes in the health benefits of raw food is open to studies that would find otherwise. Maybe this is because they don't trust "science" or maybe it is because they are generally dogmatic and recoil at the idea of having their dogmas questioned.

 

 

Thanks! I am going to write that. Non-science would be nutritional beliefes that do not rely on scientific terminology such as "enzyme," "Vitamins," "Exact temperatures in degrees," etc. I will give at least 2-3 sentence explaining..

Such as drinking green smoothies is vital to get all the nutrients such as vitamins, etc. Also, it makes your skin feel very smooth.

I know this because I drink green smoothie everyday and my skin never felt like this.. I had oily skin, acne, etc..

now all clear... you think I should write this for non-science? I know what to do write for science and pseudoscience, so I should be all set. I am going to write it tomorrow. I hope this is what she's looking for. I want that 90. ha ha.

[Mr Skeptic]

Well, there's a few things to say. First of all, "cooking" is not some generic thing -- there are several types of effects due to cooking, and they depend on the temperatures reached, method of cooking, etc:

1) Chemical damage to fragile chemicals such as vitamins (not proteins or amino acids!)

2) Leaching, if you boil something in water you lose more nutrients than if you steam it, including minerals and other chemicals that would not be damaged by heat

4) Structural changes. Proteins are denatured (folded differently, no damage to the nutritional value but will deactivate enzyme), some structure of the food destroyed. These changes in general make for easier digestion, and probably why our digestive system is comparatively small.

5) Oxidation. Due to the damage incurred and higher temperatures, oxidation can occur more rapidly. Of course, the same occurs in a slice of apple left for a while.

6) Sterilization. Properly cooking food kills bacteria.

7) Charring -- burnt food may be slightly carcinogenic

 

Note that some foods may not be eaten unprocessed, as they are poisonous like that. Cooking or other processing can reduce naturally occurring toxins, for example in the staple food cassava, and can increase the nutritional value of food by making it easier to digest. It is a tradeoff though, since it can damage some of the chemicals, especially the vitamins and antioxidants.

 

Not all of the above are for cooking only, but some for processing of food, of which cooking is just one of many possibilities.

 

Oh, and sorry to say but I'd consider your paper to belongs to pseudoscience, it's got more errors than I care to list. I guess you can't really change that though, if you're just adding a paragraph. The difference between science and pseudoscience not just in terminology used, but in the use of the scientific method or not. For example, a controlled study with a group and a control group differing by just one variable, is the hallmark for a scientific study (though not all studies can be done like that).

[Eduardo]

Well, there's a few things to say. First of all, "cooking" is not some generic thing -- there are several types of effects due to cooking, and they depend on the temperatures reached, method of cooking, etc:

1) Chemical damage to fragile chemicals such as vitamins (not proteins or amino acids!)

2) Leaching, if you boil something in water you lose more nutrients than if you steam it, including minerals and other chemicals that would not be damaged by heat

4) Structural changes. Proteins are denatured (folded differently, no damage to the nutritional value but will deactivate enzyme), some structure of the food destroyed. These changes in general make for easier digestion, and probably why our digestive system is comparatively small.

5) Oxidation. Due to the damage incurred and higher temperatures, oxidation can occur more rapidly. Of course, the same occurs in a slice of apple left for a while.

6) Sterilization. Properly cooking food kills bacteria.

7) Charring -- burnt food may be slightly carcinogenic

 

Note that some foods may not be eaten unprocessed, as they are poisonous like that. Cooking or other processing can reduce naturally occurring toxins, for example in the staple food cassava, and can increase the nutritional value of food by making it easier to digest. It is a tradeoff though, since it can damage some of the chemicals, especially the vitamins and antioxidants.

 

Not all of the above are for cooking only, but some for processing of food, of which cooking is just one of many possibilities.

 

Oh, and sorry to say but I'd consider your paper to belongs to pseudoscience, it's got more errors than I care to list. I guess you can't really change that though, if you're just adding a paragraph. The difference between science and pseudoscience not just in terminology used, but in the use of the scientific method or not. For example, a controlled study with a group and a control group differing by just one variable, is the hallmark for a scientific study (though not all studies can be done like that).

 

Oh, OK thanks. I got a good score for my essay even if I lied that it was about science.

 

I need to write this paragraph tonight. Who's going to be here later? Because I need to send it tonight. ANd I want you guys to look at it before I send it to her.

I really want that 90... Because my goal is to get an A for that course. So I need more examples to write. I know this is my own work, but I am asking for help.

 

YOU guys were helpful, so now I know what to write about. So I shouldn't write " Science studies shows that..." etc..

For instance, I should write: It is a fact that enzyme are lost if cooked above 116 degrees F" etc

Edited December 6, 2010 by Eduardo

[Mr Skeptic]

Nope, the enzymes are still there in cooked food -- they are however folded differently, so that they don't have any enzymatic activity. This is called denaturation.

[Eduardo]

Nope, the enzymes are still there in cooked food -- they are however folded differently, so that they don't have any enzymatic activity. This is called denaturation.

 

So I should write that" pseudoscience reports that enzyme are destroyed when cooked. In reality, they are actually denatured when cooked.'

Because I search on Google and it says that enzyme are destroyed when cooked over 116 degrees F. I guess that's wrong.

Edited December 7, 2010 by Eduardo

[Mr Skeptic]

Well, it is vaguely right. After cooking, the enzymes get denatured, which would destroy their enzymatic activity, but not really destroy them. Rather like disabling an opponent and destroying an opponent are both different, but both will make them irrelevant to a fight. A denatured enzyme would be like a generic protein, with all its original nutritional value but no enzymatic activity. As for the temperature cutoff, I heated an enzyme to 167 F for 15 mins, and it did not destroy nor denature the enzyme. Different proteins denature at different temperatures.

 

I guess you could say that it was simplified to the point of being wrong, rather than just plain old being wrong.

[Eduardo]

Well, it is vaguely right. After cooking, the enzymes get denatured, which would destroy their enzymatic activity, but not really destroy them. Rather like disabling an opponent and destroying an opponent are both different, but both will make them irrelevant to a fight. A denatured enzyme would be like a generic protein, with all its original nutritional value but no enzymatic activity. As for the temperature cutoff, I heated an enzyme to 167 F for 15 mins, and it did not destroy nor denature the enzyme. Different proteins denature at different temperatures.

 

I guess you could say that it was simplified to the point of being wrong, rather than just plain old being wrong.

 

You seem to know a lot. Perhaps you can help me. I got a 65 because I didn't include a paragraph how my topic (raw food vs cooked food) relates or differentiate to science,pseudoscience, and non-science.

IF I do it right, I can get an 90! This is what I wrote so far.. Oh, and you're welcome to edit and fix my grammar. That would nr nice of you. I would do the same if you needed help. I want to send the paragraph to her today or tomorrow morning. So please help me. I am so stressed because I am falling back behind for my other classes. I want to get this done. I am still writing , but I want to know how if this is what she's looking for.

 

Science is able to use method to test a specific food and find the cause-and-effect, whereas pseudoscience is not able to do that. They are usually false. For instance, they reported that all fiber is lost when cooked, but they have no proof. Also, they reported that you won't live long if you eat cooked foods. Science does a controlled study with a group and a control group differing by just one variable, is the hallmark for a scientific study, although not all studies can be done like that. They could take years to study a specific food to find the facts. According to scientist, it is true that raw foods, such as vegetables/fruits, nuts/seeds, and sprouts are better for you than cooked food. They do protect us against cancer heart diseases, have more energy, and lose weights. Enzyme is destroyed when heated above 116 degree F, but that's wrong. Enzyme actually don't get destroyed when food is been heated.

Edited December 7, 2010 by Eduardo

[Mr Skeptic]

Well, your grammar is horrible but that is up to you to fix, that would be the main point of making you writing a paper after all. Try to make it look less like you copy-pasted sentences from all over the place into one paragraph.

 

And as for the bit about enzymes, sorry for confusing you. Most enzymes are denatured and deactivated when food is cooked, so it would be vaguely accurate to say they are destroyed, enough so that saying the opposite is even more wrong. I'm not aware of enzymes having any different nutritional value when cooked (they get disassembled at the molecular level during digestion, just like any other protein), though most of them won't act as enzymes anymore. Mostly I see the whole enzyme thing as rather irrelevant to the topic of nutrition.

 

But at least most of the science parts of that paragraph are OK.

[Eduardo]

Well, your grammar is horrible but that is up to you to fix, that would be the main point of making you writing a paper after all. Try to make it look less like you copy-pasted sentences from all over the place into one paragraph.

 

And as for the bit about enzymes, sorry for confusing you. Most enzymes are denatured and deactivated when food is cooked, so it would be vaguely accurate to say they are destroyed, enough so that saying the opposite is even more wrong. I'm not aware of enzymes having any different nutritional value when cooked (they get disassembled at the molecular level during digestion, just like any other protein), though most of them won't act as enzymes anymore. Mostly I see the whole enzyme thing as rather irrelevant to the topic of nutrition.

 

But at least most of the science parts of that paragraph are OK.

 

Ouch! I don't like that word " Horrible " ha ha.

That's alright, I was doing free writing because I was in a hurry to leave, so I had like a minute to write and think a little bit.

Thanks for everything! I am going to fix my grammar and send it to my teacher.

Edited December 7, 2010 by Eduardo

[lemur]

Thanks! I am going to write that. Non-science would be nutritional beliefes that do not rely on scientific terminology such as "enzyme," "Vitamins," "Exact temperatures in degrees," etc. I will give at least 2-3 sentence explaining..

Such as drinking green smoothies is vital to get all the nutrients such as vitamins, etc. Also, it makes your skin feel very smooth.

I know this because I drink green smoothie everyday and my skin never felt like this.. I had oily skin, acne, etc..

now all clear... you think I should write this for non-science? I know what to do write for science and pseudoscience, so I should be all set. I am going to write it tomorrow. I hope this is what she's looking for. I want that 90. ha ha.

 

Yeah, the smooth skin thing is a great example of a product claim that doesn't rely on scientifiç language at all. Pseudoscience would be saying something like, "X results in smoother skin because of its unique combination of vitamins, nutrients, and enzymes," without actually doing any research into what vitamins, nutrients, and enzymes it actually contains or how those would affect the skin. I am a little stricter than most, though, in that I don't view statistical correlations without causal explanations as sufficiently scientific. In other words, I don't really care that someone finds a correlation between drinking dehydrated grass juice and having smoother skin. I want to know how it would have that effect and how they know.