It takes me 5 minutes to cook a steak. Just saying :) Remove from
fridge, throw in pan, flip, plate, eat.
Also a fire, once lit, can be a) kept going indefinitely, as long as
fuel is available and it's protected from things like rain and b)
transported from place to place, as long as fuel is available and a
method of transport secured (ie: torch, seal oil lamp, etc) Fire also
has other uses, such as warmth, protection, etc.
I'm not arguing for or against raw or cooked. Just saying.
Tracy
Geoffrey Purcell wrote:
> Re 100 figure:- Given that there are so many other factors re longevity such as smoking/drinking etc., it would be difficult to ever give exact figures. But, generally, the enzymes in foods would help prolong lifespan.
>
>
> Re cooking:- My experience is that almost all cooking requires recipes of some sort. This is partly because cooked-food is actually very bland in taste, so requires lots of extra sauces and spices to make it taste better, but also even the slightest cooking requires some preparation time. When I prepare raw foods, in 95%+ of cases, it takes a couple of minutes to prepare, maybe 5. With a standard cooked-meal, it took 30+ minutes at the very least(assuming no highly-processed microwave-ready meals were available).
>
>
>
> Then one has to take into account that lighting a fire in those palaeo days, as well as building up the fire and doing the actual cooking, would have taken absolutely ages by comparison to modern times.Palaeo humans, unlike us, weren't able to simply light up with gas/electricity and sustain a sizeable fire in a split-second in the way we can. So, timewise, cooking is a terrible waste of one's time, and certainly not opportunistic. One can save hours of free time every week by just going raw.
>
> Geoff
>
>
>
>
>
>> Date: Mon, 1 Jun 2009 12:31:08 -0600
>> From: [log in to unmask]
>> Subject: Re: Enzymes and cooking (was Re: PALEOFOOD Digest - 29 May 2009...)
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>>
>>> So while RVAFers do claim that cooked-food-eaters will progre=
>>> ssively overburden/weaken their enzyme-producing organs and digestive syste=
>>> m over the years by eating enzyme-deficient cooked-foods(resulting in the b=
>>> ody being forced to make extra efforts re enzymes production etc. to help d=
>>> igestion)=2C there is no suggestion that cooked-food-eaters will die overni=
>>> ght.
>>>
>> So, it sounds like you are indicating some sort of cut-off point or ratio. If 10% of
>> my diet is cooked, then I would only be overburdening my "enzyme factory" by
>> 10% (adjusted, of course, for whatever enzyme is required at that point)?
>>
>> But then, how would that compare based on someone who embraces cooking
>> and/or SAD. In other words, if my potential lifespan is 100 and by cooking
>> nearly 100% I deplete my enzyme factory by the age of 80, would that mean
>> if by cooking only 10% would that effective age be inceased to - say, 90 or 95?
>>
>> (I'm throwing the 100 number out there as a goal :)
>>
>>
>>> After all=2C coo=
>>> king involves a tremendous waste of time re preparation of foods
>>>
>> No, recipes require preparation time. Cooking could be as simple as jamming a
>> piece of meat on a stick and securing over a fire with a rock. Hardly any time at all.
>>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Share your photos with Windows Live Photos – Free.
> http://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/134665338/direct/01/
>
|
