I watched a documentary on a traditional Inuit tribe, the title of which escapes 
me.   One scene that is indelibly printed in my memory bank is a scene within an 
igloo after a day of hunting.  A group of men are huddled around a boiling  
crude metal pot that is sitting directly atop coals  in a hot fire pit.  I don't 
know what they are burning, but its something flammable... LOL.   One  Inuit 
says out loud to the camera as they are stirring a boiling metal pot containing 
some form of bubbling seal meat:   "we can eat it raw, but we always prefer 
cooking our meat whenever we get the chance its so much more delicous."

Batsheva




________________________________
From: David Harrison <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Sent: Wed, May 25, 2011 10:52:07 AM
Subject: Re: Fire and Cooking and Calories. Old dead animals.

I tend to think of raw-only PALEO as an oxymoron. We know that humans or at
least Neanderthals used fire for cooking at least 100,000+ years ago.
We survived as a species by being able to use fire to be able to extract
calories from parts of animals that would normally not be able to be eaten.

In my opinion, raw only as an evolutionary concept is very
questionable. It is EXTREMELY unlikely we would have survived the ice ages
as a species if we only ate raw. 

I personally think that Garden of Eden eating theories (raw vegetarian or
raw animal foods) where there is some kind of mythical perfect diet under
ideal circumstances are very suspect.

-David