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]