https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/05/07/what-life-would-actually-be-like-without-any-processed-food/

While slicing vegetables didn’t have as much of an impact as slicing meat, cooking vegetables did. Uncooked veggies might take longer to chew, and require more energy to digest, but it’s this very quality that probably makes us more mindful about how much of them we eat.

Of course, there is a tipping point. A world without any extra-oral processing would mean a world in which we spend way too much time with bits of food in our mouths. It would probably also mean a food world without much variety.

dv said:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/05/07/what-life-would-actually-be-like-without-any-processed-food/

While slicing vegetables didn’t have as much of an impact as slicing meat, cooking vegetables did. Uncooked veggies might take longer to chew, and require more energy to digest, but it’s this very quality that probably makes us more mindful about how much of them we eat.

Of course, there is a tipping point. A world without any extra-oral processing would mean a world in which we spend way too much time with bits of food in our mouths. It would probably also mean a food world without much variety.

Variety. It is the very thing that forms one of the first arguments about how boring and nutritionless a diet without meats, processed or otherwise.

You know it is a rubbish argument.

roughbarked said:

Variety. It is the very thing that forms one of the first arguments about how boring and nutritionless a diet without meats, processed or otherwise.

You know it is a rubbish argument.

They’re not just talking about meat. They’re talking about raw foods with zero processing apart from chewing. Obviously extra processing introduces a far greater variety of foods and eating experiences.

Bubblecar said:

roughbarked said:

Variety. It is the very thing that forms one of the first arguments about how boring and nutritionless a diet without meats, processed or otherwise.

You know it is a rubbish argument.

They’re not just talking about meat. They’re talking about raw foods with zero processing apart from chewing. Obviously extra processing introduces a far greater variety of foods and eating experiences.

And tooth decay, other health ailments.

Tip for roughy. Read the article, THEN comment on it.

dv said:

Tip for roughy. Read the article, THEN comment on it.

:) later. Work now.

dv said:

Tip for roughy. Read the article, THEN comment on it.

That’s not the forum way dv.

poikilotherm said:

dv said:

Tip for roughy. Read the article, THEN comment on it.

That’s not the forum way dv.

Just to pull the string… chewing is processing.

roughbarked said:

poikilotherm said:

dv said:

Tip for roughy. Read the article, THEN comment on it.

That’s not the forum way dv.

Just to pull the string… chewing is processing.

Is digestion processing? Perhaps all metabolism is processing.

dv said:

roughbarked said:

poikilotherm said:

That’s not the forum way dv.

Just to pull the string… chewing is processing.

Is digestion processing? Perhaps all metabolism is processing.

Indeed but such things work better if the food being processed has had less pre-processing.

We already waste huge amounts of food, how much more would be wasted if we didn’t process foodstuff to preserve them.

Cymek said:

We already waste huge amounts of food, how much more would be wasted if we didn’t process foodstuff to preserve them.

About the same. You forget that we produce way more food than can actually get to a market.

roughbarked said:

Cymek said:

We already waste huge amounts of food, how much more would be wasted if we didn’t process foodstuff to preserve them.

About the same. You forget that we produce way more food than can actually get to a market.

riiiggghhhhttt, if we didn’t preserve food no more would be wasted than when we do.

AwesomeO said:

roughbarked said:

Cymek said:

We already waste huge amounts of food, how much more would be wasted if we didn’t process foodstuff to preserve them.

About the same. You forget that we produce way more food than can actually get to a market.

riiiggghhhhttt, if we didn’t preserve food no more would be wasted than when we do.

you read questions differently to me. This seems clear. Sorry you can’t tug my strings that way.

Cymek’s point was that a lot more food would be wasted if we did not use preservation methods.

dv said:

Cymek’s point was that a lot more food would be wasted if we did not use preservation methods.

More than we already use?

roughbarked said:

dv said:

Cymek’s point was that a lot more food would be wasted if we did not use preservation methods.

More than we already use?

More than we already waste.

dv said:

roughbarked said:

dv said:

Cymek’s point was that a lot more food would be wasted if we did not use preservation methods.

More than we already use?

More than we already waste.

Yes, as quite a large amount of food would spoil, when if preserved it lasts long enough to get to the various markets and consumed

dv said:

roughbarked said:

dv said:

Cymek’s point was that a lot more food would be wasted if we did not use preservation methods.

More than we already use?

More than we already waste.

Which also implies more than we already process.

Cymek said:

dv said:

roughbarked said:

More than we already use?

More than we already waste.

Yes, as quite a large amount of food would spoil, when if preserved it lasts long enough to get to the various markets and consumed

Remembering that what we currently waste is also surplus to what we currently process.

of course one of the advantages of preserving food is that it allows for a large scale, decentralised, industry that can accommodate transport of good to remote locations

diddly-squat said:

of course one of the advantages of preserving food is that it allows for a large scale, decentralised, industry that can accommodate transport of good to remote locations

Yet we still waste humungous amounts unopened.

roughbarked said:

diddly-squat said:

of course one of the advantages of preserving food is that it allows for a large scale, decentralised, industry that can accommodate transport of good to remote locations

Yet we still waste humungous amounts unopened.

Well an enormous amount of food is still wasted before preservation, for various political and economic reasons.

The Russians destroyed a large amount of illegally imported Western food last year.

dv said:

roughbarked said:

diddly-squat said:

of course one of the advantages of preserving food is that it allows for a large scale, decentralised, industry that can accommodate transport of good to remote locations

Yet we still waste humungous amounts unopened.

Well an enormous amount of food is still wasted before preservation, for various political and economic reasons.

The Russians destroyed a large amount of illegally imported Western food last year.

Men’s mighty mine machines
digging in the ground
stealing rare minerals
where they can be found

While a starving frightened world
fills the sea with grain… 1969, the Moody Blues.

There was a time when “chewing” was a fad.

“Horace Fletcher (1849–1919) was an American health food enthusiast of the Victorian era who earned the nickname “The Great Masticator”, by arguing that food should be chewed about 100 times per minute before being swallowed: “Nature will castigate those who don’t masticate”. He made elaborate justifications for his claim.”
(more on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horace_Fletcher)

More recent scientific evidence has shown that the value of excessive chewing is negligible. For more on Horace Fletcher and the scientific debunking of his work see the chapter on chewing in the book “Gulp” by Mary Roach.