jean-claude:
>I am surprised because i read the french edition and it is giving a rather
>different tone to the discourse

>>"Prior to the widespread use of fire for cooking about 10,000 years ago,
>
>until the regular use of fire for cooking of foods( at the neolithic ) about
>10000 years ago

Well, jean-claude, I am happy to know there are differences, but it still
sounds like he believes that cooking wasn't important until 10,000 years
ago. The two statements above are not very different. And I'm not sure how
you might claim that "I never read anywhere on the instincto litterature
the claim that cooking started 10000 years ago" if you had read the above.
"Started" vs "became widespread" or "regular use" is a difference, I agree,
but the point is that "Maximize Immunity"--instincto literature--feels that
cooking was unimportant until 10,000 ya. That appears as a "fact" Comby is
putting forth based on very little data. Why would hunter/gatherers in
prehistory NOT cook foods?

>>Bryant Dr., Prevention Magazine, September 1979 [Quite a source!!!]
>
>did you read this article what period is it in our evolution?

No I haven't read the article. I don't understand the rest of your
question. Prevention Magazine is a forum for supplement advertisements
IMO--not anything that would prove anything about paleolithic cooking.

>like you might see the translation gave you a different taste than the
>original book
>All what he is saying is that 10000 years ago was a marking point in the
>change toward systematic use of cooking .
>I don't think he will have ever believed than there was no cooking at all
>before the neolithic.

It would fantastic if he did. But even saying "the systemic use of cooking"
does not predate 10,000 ya is unsupported, IMO.

>i have "maximise immunity" published in july 1994 and it is the first
>edition.
>and i have the french version published in Canada in the 4th trimester of 94
>so it seems unless there is a french french edition prior to thoses ones
>that the english came first.

In my copy, the original "Introduction" written by Comby is dated 1989. The
"Introduction to the New Edition" is dated 1994 and says basically that
everything he wrote has been further substantiated since the original.

>>Of course, beyondveg is biased--everything is. What BV is that most
>>everything in the alternative dietary world isn't, is more balanced and,
>>dare I say, more intellectually honest. The article on Maillard molecules
>>is a one of the best examples of this on the site IMO.
>
>still there is a strong tendancy to makes other points of view wrong when
>just stating what is yours will be just enough.

What if the other points of view _are_ wrong? Might not one discriminate?
;) The site acts in part as information which debunks false information.
Perhaps you have information which is contrary and debunks the debunking?
If so, you don't share it. Calling it biased and implying that the 10,000
ya date for cooking was fabricated for some untoward purpose don't really
bring anything forward, does it? Or were you just try to make the other
point of view wrong? ;)

Cheers,
Kirt

Secola  /\  Nieft
[log in to unmask]