On Fri, 8 Feb 2002 14:56:12 -0600, Jim Swayze <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>Jim Cales >"If we define paleo foods as edible raw then why do we fuss over
>the cooking aspect so much?  I mean if paleo people used fire to cook and I
>believe they did, then why would edible raw even have any meaning?"
>
>Cooking came on the scene so late that we haven't had time to adapt to
>those foods that only became edible by the cooking process.  Thus foods
>edible raw is a primary requirement for paleo.

Cooking was a food technology utilized from 200,000 years ago, and
may have played a critical role in human adaptations, so I would not say
"edible raw" is required.

   http://www.beyondveg.com/billings-t/comp-anat/comp-anat-6b.shtml



Philip Thrift
http://www.geocities.com/paleofitness