Thanks for those interesting links, Tom.

Quote :
"Wrangham takes an extreme position: he postulates that cooking food
over fires began by about 1.6 million years ago, and was an innovation
so important that it allowed the evolution of /Homo erectus"
(...)/
"People who think that meat dominated the diet of early /Homo /may well
be right," he says, "but they would have to have spent five hours a day
just chewing. Raw meat is very hard to chew, and presumably raw /wild
/meat is even harder."
---------------
Ah, it's very hard to chew and*presumably* wild meat is even harder !

Presumably !

I'm flabbergasted by the fact that a guy doesn't hesitate to jeopardize
his health with an experiment consisting to eat all his meals at
McDonald's for a month, and that on the other hand professor of
anthropology Richard Wrangham elaborates a whole revolutionary theory
without performing the most simple, harmless and easily feasible
experiment which would tend to confirm or invalid his theory...

The fact that a theory was conceived by a guy who has credentials and
training in science doesn't mean such a theory is right, especially when
the author hasn't done the most simple and easiest experiment which
would somehow validate or invalidate at least a part of this theory.

I've done such an experiment for 17 ½ years. Tonight it took me 5
minutes and 47 seconds to thoroughly chew and consume a delicious one
pound raw Australian horse steak. I've eaten as well tons of raw
venison, chamois, stag, wild boar, kangaroo and lamb meat of reliable
sources during all these years and never had the smallest problem. These
raw meats are always tender, unless very much aged and dry.

Regards,
François

Thomas E. Billings wrote:

>an interesting article from the current issue of "Harvard Magazine"
>that discusses America's dietary habits, including a short discussion
>of Wrangham's research indicating that humans are naturally adapted to a
>cooked food  diet:
>
>http://www.harvard-magazine.com/on-line/050465.html
>
>and here's a supporting/background article on Wrangham's research
>from an earlier issue:
>
>http://www.harvardmagazine.com/on-line/1100110.html
>
>PS Some raw vegan advocates have attacked Wrangham's research -- even though
>it appears that they haven't even read the published journal articles! This
>intellectually dishonest practice is standard behavior for some raw vegan
>promoters, in particular the raw vegan pseudoscience fakes. (Many of the
>raw vegan pseudoscience promoters have no credentials or training
>whatsoever in science - keep that in mind when you read their claims.)
>
>Tom Billings
>
>
>