Mime-Version: |
1.0 (Apple Message framework v752.2) |
Sender: |
|
Date: |
Sat, 2 Dec 2006 18:42:28 -0800 |
Reply-To: |
|
Subject: |
|
Content-Transfer-Encoding: |
7bit |
In-Reply-To: |
<004201c7166a$39407ae0$6701a8c0@tower> |
Content-Type: |
text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed |
From: |
|
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
On Dec 2, 2006, at 3:33 PM, Philip wrote:
>
> COOKING STILL HAS BEEN AROUND LONG ENOUGH FOR DIGESTIVE ADAPTATION
> So if you accept only the most cautious estimates of when cooking
> became
> widespread (around 125,000 ya), it doesn't predate the origin of
> anatomically modern humans, but it still allows plenty of time for
> humans to
> have adapted to digesting cooked foods.
This supposes we have actually adapted. I find it completely possible
that cooking was - and remains - a compromise, nutritionally, and
that high levels of ingestion of cooked food create a suboptimal, but
not so much as to wipe us out, state of health.
What are that figures on the advent of cooking vis-a-vis the advent
of grain culture? The anthropological records which show
deterioration concurrent with the dawn of agriculture?
It should be easy to put some sort of qualitative analysis on
digestion of various raw and cooked - efficiency of absorption,
metabolization of waste, etc. How about a comparison of gut flora? I
have seen so many animals and humans start to thrive beyond any
expectation to the extent that cooked foods are avoided that I would
have a bit of trouble saying that any of those species have adapted
to a cooked diet.
ginny
All stunts performed without a net!
|
|
|