>Plus, predigestion with foods already rich in enzymes means that the
>relevant food can take a shorter time to
>digest(partially-raw/partially-cooked RVAFers commonly report that
>cooked-food takes much longer to digest than raw foods).

My point is this: If (and that's a big IF) enzymes from the food source itself are REQUIRED for proper digestion (note that I did not says preferable), then all of the "cookers" should be dead. Since that is not the case (and other than fruit many cultures do, in fact, cook almost everything. Macrobiotics(ists?) eschew any raw food - expecially fruits - as being to yin or yang or whatever).

Plus, I can't fathom any paleo analyzing their food and making the determination that "hmm, If I cook this it will kills enzymes, which is bad." Paleos would have had no choice but to eat whatever they could, whenever they could, however they could. Everything would have been "fair game".

The problem I have with the raw-foodists and instinctos (by the way, anyone hear from Jean-Claude?) is this whole premise that paleos lived some sort of idealistic, "perfect" noble-savage lifestyle, when all of the fossilized and historical evidence indicates otherwise.