Kirt wrote: >> >There's no all-raw culture either. Hmmm... Doug: >> Yeah, this may now be true, but was it always true for our species, >> the only one which is not all-raw? How is it that every animal in >> nature can do just fine without eating any cooked food, but we need >> it? I don't buy it. >What about eskimos? It doesn't seem like they would have much wood to >cook things with. >Mike My understanding is that much, if not most, of the Eskimo diet was frozen and thawed during the dark winter months, so at best we could call it a raw/thawed diet, but even so frozen foods were sometimes warmed (over a seal-oil flame). I would say that traditional Eskimos were as close to all-raw as a culture has ever got, unless we go way back, and there is no conclusive data about our formative years as a species about cooking (though there is about the % of animal foods and even whether they were seafood or land animals). Unfortunately they had very limited access to fruit and other plant foods, and their 90+% animal food diet was probably unbalanced to a degree. I think they had a life expectancy of about 60 years, but by all reports they lived a fine fine life in those 60 years. Cheers, Kirt