THE STARCH FOODS

Hutt News, Volume 13, Issue 22, 8 November 1939, Page 1

THE STARCH FOODS

(By H. K. and D. W. Adamson),

In dealing with our correspondent's request for information about starch foods in our notes of last week, lack of space compelled us to hold over that portion of ner query regarding the necessity for cooking starch foods, and also, their fattening properties.

Should starch foods be cooked? Well, so far as their digestibility is concerned, starch foods need not be cooked, as various experiments have proved, but there is no' question that, advantageously or not, cooking * greatly increases their palatability. Of course, we could dismiss this question as being fit only for ultra-faddists to- consider, for who but the greatest extremists would choose to eat raw starch food in preferenec to cooked, viz., raw grains to wholemeal breads or

raw potatoes to cooked one's/ Even the extremists' tastes would be better served with the various sweet fruits as carbohydrates. However, as one never knows when life may depend upon a handful of grain or a raw potato or two, and as the question brings back to mind some experiments on this question of some years ago l , a little information on the relative merits of cooked versus uncooked starch food will all help to further our knowledge of food values and nutrition. When the present head of the Bernarr Macfadden Nutrition Department (Milo Hastings) was associated with the State of Kansas Agricultural College, he was concerned with some of the earliest experiments on this subject. Although the investigation was primarily concerned with the view of applying the results to the better feeding of animal stock, the iniormation gathered had an intimate bearing upon human nutrition as well. In a subsequent report of the work and of further experiments, by Milo Hastings, the following facts regarding the digestion of starches were established. First of all, it might be mentioned that the experiments were conducted for 1 the purpose of determining the effects of digestion upon the various grains, pulses and seeds, both cooked and uncooked. The laboratory examination of the various undigested remnants revealed the following interesting facts: Pieces of raw potato, polished rice grains and almond kernels were all completely digested. Pieces of walnut, hazel nut, soy bean and harricot beans were almost entirely digested. But wholewheat, nulled barley, rye, whole beans, including soy beans, were passed through the alimentary tract without being acted upon by the digestive juices at allTheir protective coverings, viz., the hull of the various seeds, possessed sufficient resistance to the digestive juices to allow _ them to pass through unaffected, which emphasises the need for thorough mastication of all whole grains. When, however, these various grains were all split or broken up

(Dietitians.)

in such a way as to permit the access of the various digestive agents to their enclosed starches and other contents, their digestion was practically complete.

The next and more interesting experiment from the point of view of the advocates of "raw" food, consisted of splitting the various grains or seeds in half and cooking one half and administering the

other half raw. In the case of each grain tested (all those enumerated above) it was established tiat there was practically no difference in the degree of digestibility. Both the cooked and the raw starch

was digested with equal facmiy. Chemical analysis of the residues revealed that the digestion of the starch of the various grains, whether cooked or raw, had been practically complete.

Milo Hastings goes on to say:— "The complete digestion of all starch in both the cooked and raw diets may seem to the reader not to be a complete argument upon either side of the question. These experiments do not indicate that cooking renders starch indigestible, and that the process of cooking only disturbs Nature's plan without any corresponding benefits. The cooking of starches discourages mastication, increases fermentation (raw starches being practically unfermentable) and needlessly increases the bulkiness of the meal."

Coming now to the fattening pro. perties of cooked starches, there is much to be said in their disfavour. Cooked starches are more fattening than uncooked starches. At first sight this statement appears to be a gross contradiction of the facts established by the foregoing experiments, but, owing to the greater palatability" of the various cooked starches, there is a far greafpr tendency to eat them to excess. Also, as some of the basic mineral elements and most of the viiamins are destroyed in the preparation and cooking of the cereals, the weightregulating mechanism and other functions of the body are the more disturbed. Some cases of excessive fat are due to glandular trouble admittedly, but the vast majority are directly due to. the excessive consumption of the heating or fatforming foods of which the starches are the chief offenders. No one is

likely to over-eat raw grains, no matter how hungry he may be, but let them be cooked, especially in the manner of the modern cookbook —in the form of cakes, pastry and similar dainties —and the desire to> eat them becomes an insatiable greed for more and still more. We are not inferring that one must eat raw starches in order to maintain a slender figure. We are merely stating a few facts, and those who prefer their cereals raw are quite entitled to their fancy. We prefer them cooked, but then it is merely a matter * habit and upbringing.