Re comment:- "I don't doubt evolution does take millions of years in many cases. I'm 
> just saying it doesn't *have to*. If it did, we wouldn't have 
> antibiotic-resistant microbes."

 

I suppose it all depends on whether one believes in Gould's punctuated equilibrium claims. I don't believe it, though. If evolution takes such a long time for wildlife to adapt fully to different diets, there's no reason to assume that humans are any different from other lifeforms. Plus, there's the fact that full, and maybe even partial,  adaptation to cooked foods may not even be possible given that cooked foods are so wholly different in nature from raw foods. Indeed, the only adaptation I've ever heard about is the decrease in human brain-size  by 11% which occurred after cooking was invented(though, granted, 8% of that  had rather more to do with the introduction of cooked grains and legumes(and possibly dairy, whether raw or cooked) c.10,000years ago when the Neolithic era started.Oh, and then there are some claims by scientists that dental malocclusion and other dental problems unique to humans and domesticated animals(but not wildlife) may all be due to the introduction of cooking.

 

Re comment:- "It seems to me that a lot of the problems with bacterial contamination 
> these days is because of the way the food was raised (overcrowded 
> feedlots, contaminated animal food, improper fertilization, etc). Wild 
> foods would not have these problems, or at least not to the same extent, 
> and would be safer to consume raw."

 

I quite agree. There've been several studies in recent times showing how all those fears re e coli contaminatio/BSE etc. are needless as regards grassfed cattle as the latter are simply not prone to BSE etc. due to not being fed on unnatural grains et al. Wasn't New Zealand  a  country that avoids intensive farming practices  and which is quite devoid of BSE?

 

Re broccoli comment:- I'm not surprised as broccoli is notorious for containg antinutrients and is generally recommended against on rawpalaeo forums. I've tried raw broccoli in the past, many years ago, and it tasted so foul, anyway, that I gave it up.It's supposed to have some nutritional benefits re preventing cancer, though, as long as it's just lightly-steamed, according to some food-scientists.

 

Re "I agree that's absurd. If they needed the fire for warmth, they'd have 
> just sat around the fire. There would have been no reason to throw their 
> food in it."

 

The real problem with the notion of inventing cooking is that Palaeo hominids had no previous example to start from, so that one can safely assume that it would have taken a relatively long time between the invention of fire for warmth and the use of fire for cooking. With electricity, scientists at least had the example of lightning in Nature to follow, the evidence of natural wildfires would have eventually  led to the invention of fire etc etc.. Not so with cooking as no other species ever cooked its own food.

 

I would be the first to agree that cooking was a useful technology by the time of the Neolithic era as it allowed all sorts of highly toxic foods like grains and legumes to be cooked and have some(not all) of  their antinutrients removed, thus allowing us to develop a settled civilisation etc. but there seems no real logic behind the consumption of cooked foods in the Palaeolithic other than what I mentioned above, as Palaeo foods(other than vegetables) are generally worse off, nutrition-wise after cooking lowers their vitamin- etc. levels, especially when one takes into account the additional heat-created toxins/pollutants that are produced from cooking, such as heterocyclic amines, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and advanced glycation end products.


Re  Wild animals don't have grocery stores comment:- Humans may have grocery stores, but they don't necessarily need them. I order my grassfed and wild meats direct from high-grade farms without needing a store as an intermediary(well, except for open-air  farmers' markets but they don't count as stores as the farmers themselves are present). So, one can have technology but still adhere to palaeo guidelines. It just requires better farming practices(and , I suspect) better birth-control given the current massive world overpopulation.


 

Geoff








 
> Date: Fri, 15 May 2009 13:34:42 -0500
> From: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: 1. "Catching Fire: How Cooking Made Us Human" by Richard Wrangham
> To: [log in to unmask]
> 
> On Fri, 15 May 2009 13:00:09 -0500, Geoffrey Purcell 
> <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> >
> > Actually it's a very poor, hopelessly inadequate comparison. For while 
> > modern technology may well have lowered the chance of pedestrians 
> > dying in a car-crash, modern technology has actually made foods far more 
> > deadly to modern humans by adding trans-fats, preservatives/chemicals, 
> > adding pollutants via barbecuing meats, increasing the harm done to 
> > foods by vastly increasing the average temperature of cooking by the 
> > introduction of frying/grilling etc. technology etc. etc.
> 
> I don't argue any of that, though I do still cook most of my food. The 
> only things I eat raw (aside from salad and fruits) are things that I 
> raised myself. That stuff from the grocery store -- who knows where it's 
> been...
> 
> > Re cooking/geneticists:- unfortunately, you're wrong re this point. If 
> > you look at beyondveg.com's site they show a timeline clearly indicating 
> > that it took millions of years for major shifts in dietary patterns 
> > among ancient hominids(wild animals of other species are no different):-
> 
> I don't doubt evolution does take millions of years in many cases. I'm 
> just saying it doesn't *have to*. If it did, we wouldn't have 
> antibiotic-resistant microbes.
> 
> > Plus, Palaeo cavemen didn't go in for fried meats etc.
> 
> It's hard to fry things without a frying pan. ;-)
> 
> > As regards the silly claims made by Wrangham etc. re the so-called 
> > benefits of coooking, mostly all they do is rehash the usual absurd 
> > hysteria re bacteria and parasites.
> 
> It seems to me that a lot of the problems with bacterial contamination 
> these days is because of the way the food was raised (overcrowded 
> feedlots, contaminated animal food, improper fertilization, etc). Wild 
> foods would not have these problems, or at least not to the same extent, 
> and would be safer to consume raw.
> 
> > Then they claim that cooking somehow improves the digestibility of foods. 
> > Yes, if one is thinking of highly unnatural non-Palaeo foods like 
> > grains, rice, legumes etc., but digestibility of meats is reduced by 
> > cooking.
> 
> I recall reading an article once about the nutrient availability of foods 
> in raw vs cooked form -- some came out better cooked, some were better 
> raw. I don't recall the details now, but I remember being surprised that 
> broccoli was more available cooked. I still eat mine raw though (or raw 
> but dipped in boiling water for just a second or two, to make it bright 
> green).
> 
> > The only other one I can think of from the pro-cooked-camp is the notion 
> > that cooked-food was somehow needed for warmth, so was first invented in 
> > more northerly climes. This absurd theory is easily discounted ...
> 
> I agree that's absurd. If they needed the fire for warmth, they'd have 
> just sat around the fire. There would have been no reason to throw their 
> food in it.
> 
> > wild animals do quite well on their natural, raw foods and have done so 
> > for millions of years.
> 
> Wild animals don't have grocery stores. ;-)
> 
> -- 
> Robert Kesterson
> [log in to unmask]

_________________________________________________________________
Beyond Hotmail — see what else you can do with Windows Live.
http://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/134665375/direct/01/