Kirt wrote:
>There must be an overall positive trade-off toward cooking or it wouldn't
be so prevelant.

Going with this "logic", can one also assume that there must be an overall
positive trade-off toward eating SAD fare, or it wouldn't be so prevalent
(all over the world at this point -- not just North America)? Ditto for
alcohol consumption, tobacco use, drug use (both hallucinogenic and
pharmaceutical), etc, etc. etc.?

Gary wrote:
>Imagine if you will, a proto human, eating all raw foods (whatever they
>are).  This human is accessing all of the locally available foods that are
>palatable raw, and thriving.  Then, suddenly, or gradually, those foods
>that are palatable raw are not available.  (let's assume that controlled
>fire exists).  The human is left with foods that for good reason he/she did
>not eat raw, and finds that they are edible cooked.  This human survives.
>This is your overall positive tradeoff.  Survival.  I hope you're not
>basing your diet on this logic, what with all the negative aspects/effects
>that are introduced by cooking, unless you are in this same sitation?

This makes sense. For example, if you're starving, and all you have
currently available is some very tough, hard-to-digest vegetation (wild
tubers, etc) and/or grains/legumes, then obviously it would be very tempting
to cook such food and eat it to nourish your body.

In the bigger picture, add in the factor of humanity's developed attachments
to cooked foods, and that brings further understanding of the issue.
Additionally, 99% of humanity is raised, starting at a very young age, on
cooked food nutrition, and knows no other alternative (except for the small
percentage of the population that learns about and applies raw food
nutrition, to at least some degree).

As for Hunter/Gatherer tribes, and the question of "why do they do all that
cooking", a possible answer could be: perhaps much of the food they have
available is inedible/indigestible/unpalatable raw, and/or they developed
attachments to cooked foods. And perhaps they would find it extremely
difficult to maintain (palatability-wise) a diet that high in raw animal
foods, and cooking is necessary in order to biochemically change the food to
make what would be otherwise inappropriate to eat in high amounts in the
natural raw state, into something that is "appealing" and "palatable". H/G's
are not a model of optimal health and longevity. They are certainly
healthier, on average, than people who eat SAD, but to me, they are not at
all a model of what is optimum.

Wes