Yes, the point Wrangham makes re raw foodists mostly losing weight is 
reasonably true, judging from frequent reports from the RVAF world(with some 
inevitable exceptions, though). However, that doesn't mean that they all end 
up with their ribs sticking out, like Wrangham seems to imply. Most RVAFers , 
when starting the diet, have become so obese after being years on cooked 
diets, that the resulting weight-loss is actually a major benefit to them, 
leaving them with a more normal weight. 
There've been a couple of theories put forward re this phenomenon:- either 
that eating cooked-food leads to greater water-retention in the body, thus 
resulting in larger weight; or that the body tends to store the toxins from 
cooked-foods in the fat-cells, thus resulting in bigger bellies etc.

Geoff


On Tue, 9 Jun 2009 14:29:34 -0600, Day, Wally <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>Not taking a side here one way or another....
>
>>The use of fire sets humans apart. 
>
>Can't argue with that - for good or for bad.
>
>>This familiarity with fire, Burton argues, changed the hormonal
>>cycles that depend on light and darkness: light from nightly bonfires
>>may have caused a change in the nocturnal flow of melatonin.
>
>Kinda broaching another subject here, but this has always been my beef with 
the "Lights Out" crowd. I'm really doubtful that "modern" cavemen regularly 
went to bed at sundown and got up at sunrise (well, maybe the sunrise 
part :) I'm pretty sure once fire was tamed they would have spent plenty of 
time dreamily looking into the fire at night and talking about the "lights in the 
sky", etc. Just as many of us "moderns" do.
>
>> Wrangham disagrees, arguing that humans cannot easily digest raw meat
>
>I'm not sure if "digest" is the appropriate term here. Perhaps they are trying 
to say assimilate? (Of which I cannot judge one way or another)
>
>> Followers of a strict raw-food diet invariably lose weight. 
>
>Is this a truism? If so, it would go a long way toward explaining many facets 
of obesity.