>Kirt:
>> Perhaps we not only tolerate cooked meat and veggies
>>but find some amount useful. ???

Peter:
>I find this line of thinking very interesting. I think there can be
>little doubt that we through our ancestors have adapted to eating at
>least small amounts of natural foods cooked

Adaption, adoption, tolerance, necessity? It's a continuum, not a point
positive: frustrating...:( Our genetic inheritance and "instinct" regarding
food is probably a small mess compared to other animals, excepting our pets.

>Logic follows that if this genetic
>adaptation is a reality, a 100% raw diet would be inferior to a diet
>that included at least small amounts of foods cooked.

Yeah, this may well be for most folks, including me, though it is very hard
to evaluate.

>Cooking does
>destroy many naturally occurring toxins & microbes in the foods and
>makes them more easily available by breaking them down and predigesting
>them. Like we have lost our ability to synthesize vitamin C, maybe we
>no longer digest and extract nutrients from raw foods as well as we
>used to or deal with the naturally occurring toxins and microbes as
>effectively as before we starting heating them.

A very interesting idea.

((Using vitamin C as an example is kinda funny since it is destroyed by
heat (isn't it?) so such a lost ability ties us to need at least some raw
food in the diet. I'll always remember the gradeschool story about the old
seafarers delighting in scarfing down raw potatoes after a long on salted
meat and beer--or something like that.))

>Regarding the
>denatured molecules and free radicals that cooking creates, the human
>body could have evolved enzymes and antioxidants to be able to deal
>with them in small amounts. is offset by the

And/or simply a double-edged sword type of thing where there is a cost to
denatured foods that is offset by the benefits of less parasites,
neutralized n-toxins, and the further concentrating of an already
concentrated food such as animal foods. Nevertheless, it is a slippery
slope: which foods are to be cooked, how, and how much eaten.

Gladly, it does put one's food choices squarely in one's own lap, so to
speak. Given the huge variation among our heritages and metabolisms (not to
mention our personal history) it seems very unlikely that any particular
diet can ever be perfect for anyone--and that each of us must finds out
what works for our unique self. Listen more to ourselves and less to the
gurus...

>>I wonder if I can get away with these foods because of my relatively
>>long time exclusively raw--or if the would have worked all along.

>I believe that it would have worked all along. The big question is -
>everything else equal - at what ratio of raw foods to cooked does
>health begin to suffer?

But going all-raw and then backing off is a kinda logical way of
experimenting... almost like tracing the history of our evolution: a
primate diet, to one including more RAF, to one including some cooked, to
dairy and grains (oh no, not the dreaded grains ;)), to fast food and
factory food. Going from the primate diet and then "progressing" to the
point that improvement is noted would work. Fanatically crazy and
back-asswards, of course, but you only live once, eh ;)

>>Melisa has a bun in the oven which will be done
>>in late January. A huge delight to us after two miscarries...

>Congratulations! After having read somewhere - I forget where - that
>raw kefir has shown to be effective in some cases of infertility, I
>cannot help but think that maybe that was what did the trick for you.

Strangely her attraction to kefir has dropped off after pregnancy (which
may support your idea even further--I don't know). It's always pretty tough
to isolate a cause in such a situation (or for any "symptom" really). This
time around she concentrated on RAF esp. lots of fatty fish and cod liver
oil if it was attractive, limited her exercising greatly, and wasn't in a
foreign country--among other tidbits. Who knows?

Cheers,
Kirt