Geoffrey Purcell wrote:
> Re cardboard comment:- While palaeodieters don't (usually) cook their meats
> well-done, most SAD-dieters do. 
>   
How do you know this? I'm not saying it can't be true, just wondering 
how you know. SAD dieters also eat a lot of other foods besides meat, so 
it's not reliable to use them as a source of evidence for the effects of 
cooked vs raw foods. There's a whole lotta grains, legumes, PUFA's etc 
in the SAD diet.
> 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.
>   
Studies have demonstrated that diluting a food with water (or other 
substance) simply leads to more food consumed in order to achieve the 
calories. I apologize that I can't find the actual study to quote for 
you...I have it here somewhere :) The gist was that rats, when their 
food was diluted with water, clay etc, would simply eat more of it until 
they satisfied their caloric needs. Even if you did get a 'full' feeling 
sooner from food with more water content, it doesn't mean you'll 
necessarily eat less - you'll just be driven to consume more food in 
order to meet your caloric needs, ie: you'll eat your next meal sooner.
> 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.
>
>