Well, for many foods this is 100% true. For instance, it's not the same eating raw garlic, than freshly smashed garlic (<10mins), than garlic smashed 20 minutes ago... because allicin (main active compound of garlic) is unstable and quickly degrades into another compounds...
Here's a more concrete analogy-- sawdust is highly flammable. Many times more so than regular old wood. Why? Better oxygenation, higher surface area, lower per-unit thermal mass (which means less energy required to get a particular chip of wood to its combustion point).
When I first got my Vitamix, I did some cursory web "research" which seemed to imply that blending made no substantive difference in nutritional value of fruits. Do you have a citation for this conclusion?
(Caveat: nutritional science is very much in the wild wild west days. It's a jungle out there, even in peer-reviewed research.)
People love to extrapolate that to "garlic prevents colds", but it doesn't follow. I'm not going to pay to read the full article in this case but you at least have to be careful about this.
Many of this properties are well known (not so well understood). I posted a random quick example, but there are also studies in vivo (rodent models and humans).
"Although it is shown that garlic may have a significant clinical potential either in their own right or as adjuvant therapy in different disorders, however, due to some issues, such as methodological inadequacies, small sample sizes, lack of information regarding dose rationale, variation between efficacy and effectiveness trials, the absence of a placebo comparator, or lack of control groups more standard experiments and researches are needed to confirm the beneficial effect of garlic in various diseases."
Then it must be a cultural thing... =) If you read the first sentence in the abstract you can read: "Throughout history, many different cultures have recognized the potential use of garlic for prevention and treatment of different diseases.".
Here in the Mediterranean, garlic is known to be really healthy (along with red wine and olive oil). Many people eat garlic in the morning just for the health benefits, and we even have (famous?) smashed garlic dishes: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aioli
> My point was that you have to be careful in general.
Agree. Sometimes more context/evidence is required. My point is that the bioavailability of compounds in food might differ if the food is presented in raw or elaborated/processed form.
It is also "known" that being physically cold causes colds (Mediterraneans are especially paranoid about this in my experience). The majority of studies show this to be either untrue or borderline.
I do agree that there is clear potential for chopping food to affect it's nutritional value. I would expect chopping alone to be of minimal impact in most cases if no other evidence was available. Elaborate processing is rather different.
(Honestly asking, I have no idea.)
The first issue is that you don’t immediately consume it after blending, but wait a few minutes or hours.
The second issue is that the grinding with teeth requires you to spend energy, which reduces the energy you gain from the food.
"An active ingredient (AI) is the ingredient in a pharmaceutical drug that is biologically active. " Does it also reduce the amount of rainbows and unicorns? Your own wikipedia link does not say eating garlic is helpful to humans.
> Your own wikipedia link does not say eating garlic is helpful to humans.
As you may know, you shouldn't look in wikipedia for that kind of information... here you go:
"Recent studies support the effects of garlic and its extracts in a wide range of applications. These studies raised the possibility of revival of garlic therapeutic values in different diseases. Different compounds in garlic are thought to reduce the risk for cardiovascular diseases, have anti-tumor and anti-microbial effects, and show benefit on high blood glucose concentration."
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4103721/
But the point here is (in case you missed it): eating smashed food != eating raw food
OP was talking about the differences between eating a certain food and eating that same thing after liquifying it as a whole.
I would! I tend to go overboard on fruit if I don't stop myself. Apples, oranges, blueberries, cantaloupe, all so delicious...Not always pleasant for digestion and probably a bit of sugar rush, but do you know of any more serious health effects?
Buying "smooth" (no "bits") juice I would assume is missing most of the fibre.
Surface area of absorbing fructose could logically affect your body (think Higher GI), as could enzymes in saliva. So while it's the same stuff you might well absorb it in worse ways for your body...
[0] https://www.quora.com/Does-blending-reduce-the-nutritional-c...
[1] http://www.livestrong.com/article/548978-does-fruit-lose-its...
Point to research or I'll assume you are just making things up! Just to be clear I'm not saying I'm right I'm saying I doubt we have proved it...
> The first sake, kuchikami no sake, (口噛みの酒) or "mouth-chewed sake," was made by people chewing rice, chestnuts, millet, and acorns and spitting the mixture into a tub, where the enzymes from saliva converted the starches to sugar. This sweet mixture was then combined with freshly cooked grain and allowed to naturally ferment.
It might seem like a disgusting practice to contemporary eyes, but it does show the power of human saliva and how one should not discount the process of chewing food. Drinking a liquid vs actively chewing, imbibing the chewed food with your saliva, definitely does not lead to the same thing.
[0] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7854587
[1] http://americannutritionassociation.org/newsletter/review-ex...
Anyone can join the American Nutrition Society as a professional member. Minimal checks are made of professional registration - you just need to paypal the fees.
Russel Blaylock's wikipedia article says:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell_Blaylock
> Blaylock has endorsed views inconsistent with the scientific consensus, including that food additives such as aspartame and monosodium glutamate (MSG) are excitotoxic in normal doses and that the H1N1 influenza (swine flu) vaccine carries more risk than swine flu itself.
> Advertisements selling the 'Blaylock Wellness Report' at newsmax.com contain claims of additional health dangers, including fluoridated drinking water, fluoridated toothpaste, vaccines, dental amalgam, cholesterol drugs, pesticides, and aluminum cookware.[23]
> In April 2013, Dr. Blaylock entered his endorsement of the chemtrails conspiracy theory on an internet radio program called Linderman Unleashed Radio Show where he cited increased levels of aluminum in water bodies and nature with his common sense observations of the skies. He proposed the conspiratorial and criminal aircraft spraying by governments of nano toxins for some supposed global, emergency purpose
This is a laundry list of woo topics, and it should be obvious that he's no longer a credible source for anything.
http://www.ada.org/en/science-research/ada-seal-of-acceptanc...
The most significant benefit from brushing comes from the mechanical action, not from the toothpaste or any compound within. Personally, I use fluoridated toothpastes, but I can understand people who don't.
People like to point to scientific consensus as proof (by authority), but consensus changes with time: Trans fats are no longer good. Fats are no longer bad. Stomach ulcers are now caused by bacteria. Cholesterol intake no longer matters. Dinosaurs are no longer extinct (they are birds now), and had features. Patient zero did not bring HIV to the US.
I know unfluoridated toothpastes are clinically proven to work in cleaning your teeth. But I need anti-cavity protection too.
(My mom's a dental hygienist. She'd kill me if she found a cavity.)
Even though we've had "normal diets" for way longer, it is impossible to study those effectively without first closely defining the diet in question (which is effectively the same as feeding Soylent, minus the powderization and conservation).
Following that, it should be much easier to closely examine the effects of Soylent on people than it is to study any other non-standardized form of nutrition. And yet every "fact" about Soylent you read is purely anectodal.
And these increased pesticides often also cause several reactions in humans.
But the main one I want to call out is "Ensure is well-researched", which seems to have reached self-perpetuating status. Go ahead, type terms related to Ensure into PubMed or Google Scholar. I would cite a particular one if any of them turned up anything. The most prominent independent examination of Ensure's nutritional value (that I've found) came when Abbott was forced to settle with the FTC in the late 90s for falsely advertising Ensure as doctor-recommended and useful to drink with an already healthy diet.[0] If you're not interested in reading it, the FTC's main complaints were over false claims about doctor recommendations and the fact that Ensure's advertising compared a single can to a multivitamin.
[0] https://www.ftc.gov/sites/default/files/documents/cases/1997...