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