[log in to unmask] writes:
 > >Kirt:
 > >
 > >>> Further, cooking may have been a part of the human diet for tens of
 > >>> thousands of years. To what degree the cooking was beneficial is
 > >>> arguable, but is too often dismissed by rawists.
 >
 > JL:
 > >IMO, cooking is advantageous only when the biotope doesn't provide a
 > >balanced food supply. Cooking eliminates some anti-nutrients in
 > >vegetables, so it allows to eat more. Similarly, when the only food
 > >available is meat, cooking it eliminates parasites, so that eating in
 > >high quantity is "safe".
 >
 > I thought this too at one point. Now I'm not so sure. It _sounds_ good, but
 > that isn't really much to go on...
 >
 > >Having taste stops is not enough, the question would be whether the
 > >stops are efficient or not. Let me quote Christian Schlepphorst (an
 > >old post, Thu, 23 Jan 1997 11:17:05 +0100 (MET):
 > <snip>
 >
 > I would quote Christian's other story regarding the snail-eating youngster
 > who showed great improvement once he started eating steamed veggies. And
 > remind you that there is probably great individual variance in such matters.

He now eats steamed vegetables very seldom (and nearly 100% raw). His
mother told me, that from time to time, he demands steamed zucchini,
about every other week or so. But he is very keen on raw mackerels!

 >
 > It probably isn't as simple in the real world as it is in Burger's
 > theoretical one...
 >

Maybe there is more into the human type classifications from ayurveda
or other eastern sources than most raw food propagandists want to see.

But of course, most of these nutrition systems are against eating a
greater percentage of raw food...

Best regards

Christian