Jean-Claude:

> The fact that actual hunter gatherers cook their  meat might be the reason
> why they tried to get it everyday (denatured molecules are quite addictive
> in themselves because not totally satisfying to the cells needs)

The fact they can manipulate fire enables them to eat lean parts when
their instinct would stop them if they had to eat raw. Killing thus
becomes more efficient energy-wise (the amount of edible flesh in an
animal becomes larger). But the same applies to tubers (which are
usually cooked as well); even some fruits can be cooked. My guess is
that before the discovery of fire, humans had to work harder to get
their food; probably, the proportions of each food category was
different, but I see no evidence that meat was eaten as sparingly as
now recommended by G. C. Burger and politically correct instinctos.

Concerning the possible addictive character of cooked foods (let's say
of cooked meat). Here, we shall say that a food is addictive if:

 1. It produces a compulsive need.
 2. The amount that one tends to eat is usually too large.
 3. Physiological symptoms are observed upon withdrawal (but disappear
after a while).

Water is not addictive (doesn't satisfy criteria 2 and 3). Sugar and
coffee are addictive.

Now, I don't think cooked meat is addictive because:

 1. I have recently eaten cooked for a few days (when travelling
abroad), and then come back to raw without any cravings or withdrawal
symptoms.
 2. If 65% animal foods was really too much, one would expect
hunter-gatherers to suffer from metabolic disorders, but it doesn't
seem to be the case.

[Note that I am not claiming one should eat 65% animal foods: humans
have a high degree of adaptability, and can thrive on more and on less
than that.]

--Jean-Louis Tu <[log in to unmask]>