Re comment:-"I think his point is that cooking (or at least the exposure to
cooking) is part of what helped us make the leap from hominid to human.
(Poor sentence, but I think you get the point)."
No, that's not likely. Wrangham completely ignores the period of 2.3 million
to 1.8/1.9 million years ago, where there was a similiar rate of increase in
brain-size in hominids to the 300cc-increase in the later period(1.9m to
present day) that Wrangham is referring to in his theories. Given that
palaeoanthropologists have noted that both periods in which such increases
in brain-size appeared also coincide with increasingly greater levels of
meat consumption each time, Wrangham's theory looks pretty shaky, so
Wrangham just ignores it and claims that cooking was the primary cause of
hominid brain-size-increase. I don't think, in any of my readings of his
claims that he even once gives credence to the (raw)meat-/larger hominid
brain theory being partly responsible for some of the increase in hominid
brain-size. I wonder, therefore, if Wrangham has vegetarian sympathies.
That's the trouble with Wrangham. He was trying to determine what separated
humans from the apes and, unable to think of anything else, could only think
of cooking and then just chose those facts that suited him while discarding
the rest that were inconvenient(every other aspect of human behaviour like
laughter/tool-use etc. has , of course, already been found in the
animal-kingdom).
Re comment:- ">The problem with the Pringles, et al. comment is that those
"foods" have been so denatured I really don't think they can be cosidered
food (even though the USDA and the snack food industry try to convince us
otherwise). There is *some* difference between a raw vs. baked potato -
there is considerable difference between a raw potato and a can of pringles.
And, I can't even think of a suitable analogy for M&M's :). When taken to
extremes like that, your points are quite valid."
Raw potatoes aren't edible, AFAIK. At least I remember 1 pop-star reporting
that he once went in for eating only raw potatoes for a month and almost
died from malnutrition as a result. No rawist would eat potatoes as part of
their diet, besides it's not palaeo.
That said, I quite agree, it's all down to the level of processing, IMO. I'm
not suggesting that all cooked foods are as bad as pringles or mars bars as
regards causing weight-gain. There's, at the very least, a sliding-scale,
with minimally-processed foods(such as boiled meats?) being somewhere above
raw, and highly-processed foods such as mars bars at the top.
Re cardboard comment:- While palaeodieters don't (usually) cook their meats
well-done, most SAD-dieters do. And, like I said, rawists don't generally
view all cooked food as immediately life-threatening or 100% useless. They
simply view raw food as superior(due to enzymes/bacteria) with
lightly-cooked food being viewed as harmful over longer periods of time
depending on quantity consumed etc., and well-cooked food being seen as
significantly more harmful over time.
Re comment:- ">So, now cooking = food intolerance/allergies? Unfortunately,
people do have food intolerances/allergies to raw foods that disappear when
said food is cooked or even processed in some fashion. "
That I've never heard reliable reports of. On the other hand, I've come
across endless reports on the web re people ceasing to have allergic
responses to a particular cooked food when they switched to a raw
version(raw dairy versus pasteurised dairy being the most common example -
there are plenty such anecdotal experiences found online re this subject).
*I did actually come across 1 guy on an IF-related group who claimed he
developed food-intolerance to raw apples or some such and preferred cooked
over raw, and I'm sure there are a few isolated cases like that due to
unusual modern illnesses appearing due to unhealthy modern lifestyles(eg:-
lack of access to bacteria re hygiene hypothesis theory etc.) but it's much
rarer than the other way round.
Perhaps, when you're referring to allergies, you don't really mean
"allergies" but you're talking about inability to handle antinutrients found
in some raw foods(nuts, perhaps) but which are reduced in cooked versions
thereof. Not the same thing, IMO.
re water-content:- A rawist recently suggested that some of the fat is
rendered off from cooking, so that that is the main reason why raw food has
more calories.
But, yes, increased water-content could result in an earlier "full" feeling.
Geoff
On Fri, 12 Jun 2009 17:52:54 -0600, Day, Wally <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>Unfortunately=2C Wrangham doesn't take into account t=
>>he fact that human brain-size also increased considerably well before the a=
>
>Human-oid brain size.
>
>I think his point is that cooking (or at least the exposure to cooking) is
part of what helped us make the leap from hominid to human. (Poor sentence,
but I think you get the point).
>
>>Re pringles comments etc.:- The point I was making is that the higher a foo=
>>d is processed=2C the more likely it is that people who eat such foods beco=
>>me obese.
>
>The problem with the Pringles, et al. comment is that those "foods" have
been so denatured I really don't think they can be cosidered food (even
though the USDA and the snack food industry try to convince us otherwise).
There is *some* difference between a raw vs. baked potato - there is
considerable difference between a raw potato and a can of pringles. And, I
can't even think of a suitable analogy for M&M's :). When taken to extremes
like that, your points are quite valid.
>
>>nevertheless as it gives an example =
>>of how cooked-food is so poorly absorbed and utilised by the body - so much=
>>for Wrangham's claim that cooked-food is more digestible.
>
>Sounds to me like a warning about overcooking meat rather than just
cooking. I'm pretty sure most of the audience here avoids turning their meat
dishes into cardboard.
>
>> Come to think of=
>>it=2C those RVAFers who aren't rawpalaeo but who consume lots of raw dairy=
>>conversely report weight-gain quite often=2C unlike rawpalaeos and raw veg=
>>ans. I'm just saying that from an anecdotal level it's mostly a lot easier =
><snip>
>
>So, now cooking = food intolerance/allergies? Unfortunately, people do have
food intolerances/allergies to raw foods that disappear when said food is
cooked or even processed in some fashion.
>
>>If one=2C however=2C takes the water-content issue into acc=
>>ount=2C then raw food turns out to have slightly more calories than cooked(=
>>presumably the slight difference in calories is due to the destruction of n=
><snip>
>
>Or, it's quite possible the higher water content of raw food means an
individual gets full quicker. Perhaps the reduced water content of cooked
food allows a greater calorie consumption - not because there are more
calories per se, but because more food is eaten.
|
