On Mon, 2 Nov 1998, Hans Kylberg wrote:

> But isn=B4t a still older method just to grill over the fire,
> wich is very hot? Maybe it was soon found unhelthy (tribes using
> this method unhealthier than other...)

I really don't know.  There is a trade-off here, I suspect,
especially for carrion.  Scorching meats over a fire would help
to kill dangerous parasites that accumulate on the surface of the
meat, without much affecting the nutrient density of the
underlying tissue.  Cooking meat longer would kill more
parasites, but would also destroy more nutrients.

I suppose the result would be that the more nutrients one is
getting from plant sources the more one can afford to cook meats
longer.  And of course, if one is getting few nutrients from
plants then it is riskier to destroy the nutrients in meat by
cooking.

I guess it's not unlike other trade-offs, as with legumes.
Legumes add some protein and energy to the diet, which is good.
They also have a fair amount of nutrients, which is also good.
They contain anti-nutrients, which is not so good, but these are
considerably reduced by cooking.  At what point is it "worth it"
to accept the anti-nutrients in order to obtain the other
advangates?  It's hard to answer that without having fairly
precise measurements of the risks and benefits involved.

Todd Moody
[log in to unmask]