Troublemaker. -----Original Message----- From: Johnny Battle [mailto:[log in to unmask]] Sent: Monday, February 25, 2002 3:08 PM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: Jim discussing fat Oh. Sorry. I should read the FAQs for closely. I must say, though, that I don't completely buy into that idea. Fire has been around long enough for us to evolve around its use (unlike cultivated grains consumption). One of its values is to make some things edible that are otherwise inedible, and it seems clear to me that we have adapted somewhat to that. For example, the acid levels in a dog's stomach makes it much safer for them to eat raw meat than it is for humans. A quick purification by fire and most of the bacteria and paracites in fresh meat are killed and the cooked meat digests really well in our own system's juices. But if this raw food thing is one of the basic tenets of the list, I won't argue with it. :-) John Battle Richard Geller wrote: > From: "Johnny Battle" <[log in to unmask]> > > > But why would "edible raw" be a requirement? Paleolithic man (and indeed, > > pre-man) had fire and most likely cooked with it. > > It is the definition used on this list for paleo -- something you could eat > raw, if you are "naked with nothing but a sharp stick". > > The idea is that although fire has been around a long time, we are best > adapted genetically to foods that are edible raw because we were most likely > eating them for potentially millions of years. > > --Richard