RAW-FOOD Archives

Raw Food Diet Support List

RAW-FOOD@LISTSERV.ICORS.ORG

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Reply To:
Raw Food Diet Support List <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Fri, 20 Nov 1998 16:40:55 -0800
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (66 lines)
Jean-Louis Tu wrote:
>
> > >  1. Outside food, humans do many things that are "unnatural",
> > > including wearing clothes, heating or using air conditioners, using
> > > cars, sending e-mails.
>
> Carol:
> > That's true, but what is the point of saying it?  Are you saying
> > that these other unnatural things are all OK and that, therefore,
> > cooking must be OK too?
>
> Not exactly. My point was that, since some unnatural things are OK,
> the unnaturalness of cooking doesn't guarantee that it is harmful.

True, but I think the reasoning falters a bit due to the fact that
the other unnatural things mentioned are not nearly equivalent to
eating cooked food in terms of invasiveness.  I could be wrong, but
I don't think that riding in a car requires biochemical adaptation.

> > Our biochemistry has had a lot more time to get to know the natural
> > ones.
>
> Except that most of human evolution occurred somewhere in Africa, and
> many plants we currently eat originate from Europe, Asia or America.

Is the biochemistry of the plants of Africa so startlingly different
from that of the plants of Europe, Asia or America?

> > The difference between adapting to some cooked food and developing
> > a need for some cooked food is a HUGE one, don't you think?
>
> Sure. I just said it was a possibility. It is known that cooking
> destroys some anti-nutrients. Suppose that in the past, humans were able to
> neutralize them (by some detoxification pathway), but that they have
> lost that ability, due to a long habit of cooking? Who knows?

I like that theory, because I think it's probably safe to say
that losing an ability is much easier than evolving a new one.

> > Are you saying that some, perhaps many, foods found in our stores
> > have been bred in such a way that they are now more nutritious cooked
> > than they are raw?
>
> Not really. I was saying that, if foods A and B are nutritionally
> equivalent, A being easy to cultivate but inedible raw, and B having
> little commercial qualities but being edible raw, then we are more
> likely to find A in our groceries.

Gotcha.

> > > In many areas of the world, human life would be impossible or
> > > very difficult without cooking, because not enough plants are
> > > edible raw...
> >
> > What areas of the world are we talking about here?  (I just wanna
> > make sure they're not on my "places to go on vacation" list. :D)
>
> I realize I wasn't precise enough. I should have said
>
> "In many areas of the world, human life would be impossible or very
> difficult without TECHNOLOGY (including cooking)".

A very different statement, that; but one I have to agree with. :)

Carol

ATOM RSS1 RSS2