>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.