Guest guest Posted May 10, 2009 Report Share Posted May 10, 2009 i think, in theory, it should be fine since we evolved to eat raw food and have only been cooking food for a relatively short period of time. that said, we also evolved with other things that are not really found in our bodies any more, like worms, different bacteria. i think it might take a while to adjust just because our bodies are so used to intaking food a particular way. hopefully, i made sense to somebody. sarah 100% Raw Food Diet? I just attended a workshop by raw food guru Aajonus Vonderplanitz and was pretty impressed with his lecture and his personal story and findings. However, much of it is in opposition to what Sally Fallon writes about (e.g. eating whole raw eggs and not just the yolk, NOT freezing liver or any meat before eating it, etc. etc. etc.). As I'm not a scientist, I do not know if I *should* be eating 100% raw meat or continue to follow the diet of Sally Fallon which incorporates cooked foods such as bone broths. Both Aajonus and Sally say that their assertions are based on good science and by looking at native diets so it's really hard to know. I'd love to hear from the people on this group. Carolee Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 10, 2009 Report Share Posted May 10, 2009 Most people don’t eat raw meat because they can’t stomach the concept. And many people don’t have access to high quality meat that I think is safe to eat raw. When I heard Sally Fallon speak, she said to eat some raw meat every day. Are you certain that Sally would be AGAINST eating 100% raw meat? Kathy From: [mailto: ] On Behalf Of sarahlyao@... Sent: Sunday, May 10, 2009 11:34 AM Subject: Re: 100% Raw Food Diet? i think, in theory, it should be fine since we evolved to eat raw food and have only been cooking food for a relatively short period of time. that said, we also evolved with other things that are not really found in our bodies any more, like worms, different bacteria. i think it might take a while to adjust just because our bodies are so used to intaking food a particular way. hopefully, i made sense to somebody. sarah 100% Raw Food Diet? I just attended a workshop by raw food guru Aajonus Vonderplanitz and was pretty impressed with his lecture and his personal story and findings. However, much of it is in opposition to what Sally Fallon writes about (e.g. eating whole raw eggs and not just the yolk, NOT freezing liver or any meat before eating it, etc. etc. etc.). As I'm not a scientist, I do not know if I *should* be eating 100% raw meat or continue to follow the diet of Sally Fallon which incorporates cooked foods such as bone broths. Both Aajonus and Sally say that their assertions are based on good science and by looking at native diets so it's really hard to know. I'd love to hear from the people on this group. Carolee Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 10, 2009 Report Share Posted May 10, 2009 Sally Fallon says in Nourishing Traditions that raw meat has health benefits that are lost during cooking. There's a couple things I like like about AV. His high honey intake, juicer, and being that it is 100% raw food. It's hard to say if raw meat is all that healthier as I have not tried it long enough. It does have the benefits of probiotics, enzymes, undenatured cystine, and is easier for your body to digest. Our body is not equipped to optimally digest many types of raw produce. It needs to be prepared in order for your body to better absorb it. Honey and fruits are high in fructose and so it's not good for your immune system to have high quantities. IMO, starches are the only carbs you should eat in a higher abundance. I agree that raw eggs are good. It's better to have fertilized raw eggs as they are much lower in avidin. Yours Truly, Dan Holt On May 10, 2009, at 8:58 AM, " ccbmamma " <caroleebol@...> wrote: I just attended a workshop by raw food guru Aajonus Vonderplanitz and was pretty impressed with his lecture and his personal story and findings. However, much of it is in opposition to what Sally Fallon writes about (e.g. eating whole raw eggs and not just the yolk, NOT freezing liver or any meat before eating it, etc. etc. etc.). As I'm not a scientist, I do not know if I *should* be eating 100% raw meat or continue to follow the diet of Sally Fallon which incorporates cooked foods such as bone broths. Both Aajonus and Sally say that their assertions are based on good science and by looking at native diets so it's really hard to know. I'd love to hear from the people on this group. Carolee Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 10, 2009 Report Share Posted May 10, 2009 I meant to say I did not like 100% raw, juicer, or high honey intake. So I think a high fat, moderate carb, low protein ratio optimal. Foods that most people may want to avoid are gluten, soy, and dairy. Foods I feel aren't worth the work: legumes, nuts, and grains. Yours Truly, Dan Holt On May 10, 2009, at 10:28 AM, Holt <danthemanholt@...> wrote: Sally Fallon says in Nourishing Traditions that raw meat has health benefits that are lost during cooking. There's a couple things I like like about AV. His high honey intake, juicer, and being that it is 100% raw food. It's hard to say if raw meat is all that healthier as I have not tried it long enough. It does have the benefits of probiotics, enzymes, undenatured cystine, and is easier for your body to digest. Our body is not equipped to optimally digest many types of raw produce. It needs to be prepared in order for your body to better absorb it. Honey and fruits are high in fructose and so it's not good for your immune system to have high quantities. IMO, starches are the only carbs you should eat in a higher abundance. I agree that raw eggs are good. It's better to have fertilized raw eggs as they are much lower in avidin. Yours Truly, Dan Holt On May 10, 2009, at 8:58 AM, " ccbmamma " <caroleebol@...> wrote: I just attended a workshop by raw food guru Aajonus Vonderplanitz and was pretty impressed with his lecture and his personal story and findings. However, much of it is in opposition to what Sally Fallon writes about (e.g. eating whole raw eggs and not just the yolk, NOT freezing liver or any meat before eating it, etc. etc. etc.). As I'm not a scientist, I do not know if I *should* be eating 100% raw meat or continue to follow the diet of Sally Fallon which incorporates cooked foods such as bone broths. Both Aajonus and Sally say that their assertions are based on good science and by looking at native diets so it's really hard to know. I'd love to hear from the people on this group. Carolee Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 10, 2009 Report Share Posted May 10, 2009 All I can say is I have been on (and off!) Aajonus's diet for over ten years and am currently on it 100% and I know I feel so much better when I am eating raw. It isn't easy because for many reasons, no less social conventions! I find Sally Fallon's diet to be a compromise to modern living. Also, Aajonus is so radical to most people they can't even get their minds behind his work. Try it and see how you do. I remember when I first started I thought it was going to be impossible to eat raw meat (I was a vegetarian at the time), but I have found ways to make it palatable. I tend to eat a lot of seafood which I marinade in lemon for several hours to " cook " it. I still have a problem eating raw fowl, but again, marinading it in lemon makes it much easier to eat. With beef, I tend to buy the most expensive cuts, ie fillet mignon, and slice it very thin. I don't know if you have Aajonus's book, " Recipe for Living Without Disease " as it contains many recipes for sauces to add to raw meat and fish. Deborah On May 10, 2009, at 9:58 AM, ccbmamma wrote: > > > I just attended a workshop by raw food guru Aajonus Vonderplanitz > and was pretty impressed with his lecture and his personal story > and findings. However, much of it is in opposition to what Sally > Fallon writes about (e.g. eating whole raw eggs and not just the > yolk, NOT freezing liver or any meat before eating it, etc. etc. > etc.). > > As I'm not a scientist, I do not know if I *should* be eating 100% > raw meat or continue to follow the diet of Sally Fallon which > incorporates cooked foods such as bone broths. Both Aajonus and > Sally say that their assertions are based on good science and by > looking at native diets so it's really hard to know. I'd love to > hear from the people on this group. > > Carolee > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 10, 2009 Report Share Posted May 10, 2009 I think it's a crying shame that anyone would feel unsure about what to eat based on being a scientist or not. Not to bust your chops or anything - but science is just a baby in nutrition. It is hypothesis heavy and very little consensus on how to interpret the facts even. You are better off trusting what your own body is saying, your common sense, the tradition from your healthy relatives, and then taking the advice of science/gurus/professionals like Vonderplantitx and Fallon as a piece of that. In my humble opinion. Connie > I just attended a workshop by raw food guru Aajonus Vonderplanitz and was pretty impressed with his lecture and his personal story and findings. However, much of it is in opposition to what Sally Fallon writes about (e.g. eating whole raw eggs and not just the yolk, NOT freezing liver or any meat before eating it, etc. etc. etc.). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 11, 2009 Report Share Posted May 11, 2009 i agree with Connie! trust your intuition and feel what is right for you. it will sharpen more and more. I can feel the difference between good food and bad food without even eating it now. Sounds flaky, but literal. Dan -- sorry been busy. call me whenever Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 15, 2009 Report Share Posted May 15, 2009 > > > > i think, in theory, it should be fine since we evolved to eat raw > food and have only been cooking food for a relatively short period > of time. Controlled use of fire dates back hundreds of thousands of years before Homo sapiens even existed. In light of that, it strikes me as highly unlikely that cooking is a recent addition to human nutrition. In fact, some will argue that cooking food was an important element in the evolution of the human brain: http://www.marksdailyapple.com/the-importance-of-cooking-in-the-evolution-of-the\ -human-brain/ http://is.gd/A92y Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 16, 2009 Report Share Posted May 16, 2009 The very idea is utter nonsense. Because-- 1. Life has clearly evolved, for billions of years, from less comples life forms into more complex ones. 2. A large brain is one of the most obvious features of the more complex animal forms, i.e., humans like you and me. Why would life manage to evolve larger and larger grains over millions of years, but suddenly need heated food to make it the next step or two? That's just obviously foolhardy. There's just no question. Please. Next? Mike > > Controlled use of fire dates back hundreds of thousands of years before Homo sapiens even existed. In light of that, it strikes me as highly unlikely that cooking is a recent addition to human nutrition. In fact, some will argue that cooking food was an important element in the evolution of the human brain: > > http://www.marksdailyapple.com/the-importance-of-cooking-in-the-evolution-of-the\ -human-brain/ > > http://is.gd/A92y > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 16, 2009 Report Share Posted May 16, 2009 > > The very idea is utter nonsense. > > Because-- > > 1. Life has clearly evolved, for billions of years, from less > comples life forms into more complex ones. > > 2. A large brain is one of the most obvious features of the more > complex animal forms, i.e., humans like you and me. > > Why would life manage to evolve larger and larger grains over > millions of years, but suddenly need heated food to make it the > next step or two? That's just obviously foolhardy. There's just > no question. Please. Next? Humans and the other great apes branched off from a common ancestor, yet, our raw-food eating great ape cousins don't have brains as highly developed as ours. Organisms evolve in response to environmental variables, and your purely emotion-based dismissal does nothing to refute the idea that cooking food may have played a part in the greater development of the human brain. > > > > > Controlled use of fire dates back hundreds of thousands of > > years before Homo sapiens even existed. In light of that, it > > strikes me as highly unlikely that cooking is a recent addition > > to human nutrition. In fact, some will argue that cooking food > > was an important element in the evolution of the human brain: > > > > http://www.marksdailyapple.com/the-importance-of-cooking-in-the-evolution-of-the\ -human-brain/ > > > > http://is.gd/A92y > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 16, 2009 Report Share Posted May 16, 2009 If eating 100% raw is superior to eating some cooked foods, shouldn't there have been some tribe or culture that figured this out, and survived to modern times? I mean if eating completely raw does incur such great benefits, humans throughout history, at least some of them, would have noticed this very simple fact and adapted back to a raw diet and thrived to the modern day. With their superior health and strength it would have been no problem to fend off the weak humans who decided to cook their food...yet this obviously doesn't appear to be the case. - > > > > The very idea is utter nonsense. > > > > Because-- > > > > 1. Life has clearly evolved, for billions of years, from less > > comples life forms into more complex ones. > > > > 2. A large brain is one of the most obvious features of the more > > complex animal forms, i.e., humans like you and me. > > > > Why would life manage to evolve larger and larger grains over > > millions of years, but suddenly need heated food to make it the > > next step or two? That's just obviously foolhardy. There's just > > no question. Please. Next? > > Humans and the other great apes branched off from a common ancestor, yet, our raw-food eating great ape cousins don't have brains as highly developed as ours. Organisms evolve in response to environmental variables, and your purely emotion-based dismissal does nothing to refute the idea that cooking food may have played a part in the greater development of the human brain. > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 16, 2009 Report Share Posted May 16, 2009 I just don't believe the fact that historically, 'tribes and cultures' would experiment like that, and revert back to a way of eating that (I think most agree) is less satisfying. Quite obviously, any benefits to eating raw are not that dramatic, and it's just hard for me to imagine people making these changes unless they saw something that was just to blatant to ignore - a neighboring tribe living to 150 (exaggeration), or whatever.... I mean, we pretty much agree here that they were eating a pretty good diet in the first place. Sometimes it sounds here like people believe that tribes hundreds or thousands of years ago were using the scientific method... > > > If eating 100% raw is superior to eating some cooked foods, > shouldn't there have been some tribe or culture that figured this > out, and survived to modern times? I mean if eating completely raw > does incur such great benefits, humans throughout history, at least > some of them, would have noticed this very simple fact and adapted > back to a raw diet and thrived to the modern day. With their > superior health and strength it would have been no problem to fend > off the weak humans who decided to cook their food...yet this > obviously doesn't appear to be the case. > > - > > > > > > > > The very idea is utter nonsense. > > > > > > Because-- > > > > > > 1. Life has clearly evolved, for billions of years, from less > > > comples life forms into more complex ones. > > > > > > 2. A large brain is one of the most obvious features of the more > > > complex animal forms, i.e., humans like you and me. > > > > > > Why would life manage to evolve larger and larger grains over > > > millions of years, but suddenly need heated food to make it the > > > next step or two? That's just obviously foolhardy. There's just > > > no question. Please. Next? > > > > Humans and the other great apes branched off from a common > ancestor, yet, our raw-food eating great ape cousins don't have > brains as highly developed as ours. Organisms evolve in response to > environmental variables, and your purely emotion-based dismissal > does nothing to refute the idea that cooking food may have played a > part in the greater development of the human brain. > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 16, 2009 Report Share Posted May 16, 2009 The idea that cooking food, like eating meat, is connected to the evolution of larger brains has a lot of support. The shrinking of the gut, made possible by calorie-dense meat and cooking, made possible the expansion of the brain, which otherwise would have been too metabolically expensive. The evolution of the hunt is the key adaptation here that makes the larger brain useful, particularly hunting in the heat of the day, chasing faster prey until their exhaustion by collectively following tracks and so forth. For a fascinating discussion, see Mark Eberhart, _Feeding the Fire: The Lost History and Uncertain Future of Mankind's Energy Addiction_. Another interesting thing he notes about cooking is that it begins the process whereby humans are able to tap energy sources outside of those that they take in directly from food. Before that time, all food ingested needed to be broken down via those same ingested calories. Cooking--like fermentation, I would think-- " predigests " food so that more calories can be ingested and less calories need to be deducted for digestion. Also key here is the evolution of brain-cooling techniques, sweating, and the like. Bill > > > > > > > > i think, in theory, it should be fine since we evolved to eat raw > > food and have only been cooking food for a relatively short period > > of time. > > Controlled use of fire dates back hundreds of thousands of years before Homo sapiens even existed. In light of that, it strikes me as highly unlikely that cooking is a recent addition to human nutrition. In fact, some will argue that cooking food was an important element in the evolution of the human brain: > > http://www.marksdailyapple.com/the-importance-of-cooking-in-the-evolution-of-the\ -human-brain/ > > http://is.gd/A92y > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 16, 2009 Report Share Posted May 16, 2009 Another reason for humans to evolve into the most intelligent species is that fact that we don't use nearly the amount if energy animals do. When we became bipedal we not only decreased the amount of sun that hits us but we also use far less energy while we are mobile. Clothes also helped because now we can trap in the energy of the body so it does not escape and can be recycled. Yours Truly, Dan Holt On May 16, 2009, at 12:00 PM, " lynchwt " <lynchwt@...> wrote: The idea that cooking food, like eating meat, is connected to the evolution of larger brains has a lot of support. The shrinking of the gut, made possible by calorie-dense meat and cooking, made possible the expansion of the brain, which otherwise would have been too metabolically expensive. The evolution of the hunt is the key adaptation here that makes the larger brain useful, particularly hunting in the heat of the day, chasing faster prey until their exhaustion by collectively following tracks and so forth. For a fascinating discussion, see Mark Eberhart, _Feeding the Fire: The Lost History and Uncertain Future of Mankind's Energy Addiction_. Another interesting thing he notes about cooking is that it begins the process whereby humans are able to tap energy sources outside of those that they take in directly from food. Before that time, all food ingested needed to be broken down via those same ingested calories. Cooking--like fermentation, I would think-- " predigests " food so that more calories can be ingested and less calories need to be deducted for digestion. Also key here is the evolution of brain-cooling techniques, sweating, and the like. Bill > > > > > > > > i think, in theory, it should be fine since we evolved to eat raw > > food and have only been cooking food for a relatively short period > > of time. > > Controlled use of fire dates back hundreds of thousands of years before Homo sapiens even existed. In light of that, it strikes me as highly unlikely that cooking is a recent addition to human nutrition. In fact, some will argue that cooking food was an important element in the evolution of the human brain: > > http://www.marksdailyapple.com/the-importance-of-cooking-in-the-evolution-of-the\ -human-brain/ > > http://is.gd/A92y > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 16, 2009 Report Share Posted May 16, 2009 > Controlled use of fire dates back hundreds of thousands of years before > Homo sapiens even existed. In light ofthat, it strikes me as highly > unlikely that cooking is a recent addition to human nutrition. In fact, > some willargue that cooking food was an important element in the > evolution of the human brain: > > http://www.marksdailyapple.com/the-importance-of-cooking-in-the-evolution-of-the\ -human-brain/ There are so many flaws with Wangham's " logic " that it's laughable, from the underpinning acceptance of the flawed " calories in-calories out=weight change " theory to the idea that denaturing proteins makes them easier for the body to process to the fact that he completely ignores what heat does to other vital nutritive factors such as vitamins, enzymes, cofactors, and water content. This man arrived at the right conclusion: processed foods are responsible for the obesity epidemic. But he did so only serendipitously through a long chain of wrong ideas. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 16, 2009 Report Share Posted May 16, 2009 curious... does cooking really breakdown the food in the same way fermentation does? cooking is typically heat based... fermentation is time based.. in fermentation there is the natural cycle of decay, which breaks down the food particles. can heat do the same or be nearly as effective as the process of fermentation? i have noticed better energy levels when digestion is easier on my system... and i am a lot more sluggish when my body is workin' hard to digest foods ingested. Kelvin On Sat, May 16, 2009 at 12:00 PM, lynchwt <lynchwt@...> wrote: > > > The idea that cooking food, like eating meat, is connected to the evolution > of larger brains has a lot of support. The shrinking of the gut, made > possible by calorie-dense meat and cooking, made possible the expansion of > the brain, which otherwise would have been too metabolically expensive. The > evolution of the hunt is the key adaptation here that makes the larger brain > useful, particularly hunting in the heat of the day, chasing faster prey > until their exhaustion by collectively following tracks and so forth. > > For a fascinating discussion, see Mark Eberhart, _Feeding the Fire: The Lost > History and Uncertain Future of Mankind's Energy Addiction_. Another > interesting thing he notes about cooking is that it begins the process > whereby humans are able to tap energy sources outside of those that they > take in directly from food. Before that time, all food ingested needed to be > broken down via those same ingested calories. Cooking--like fermentation, I > would think-- " predigests " food so that more calories can be ingested and > less calories need to be deducted for digestion. Also key here is the > evolution of brain-cooling techniques, sweating, and the like. > > Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 16, 2009 Report Share Posted May 16, 2009 --- In , " son " <essense@...> wrote: > > > > Controlled use of fire dates back hundreds of thousands of years before > > Homo sapiens even existed. In light ofthat, it strikes me as highly > > unlikely that cooking is a recent addition to human nutrition. In fact, > > some willargue that cooking food was an important element in the > > evolution of the human brain: > > > > http://www.marksdailyapple.com/the-importance-of-cooking-in-the-evolution-of-the\ -human-brain/ > > > There are so many flaws with Wangham's " logic " that it's laughable, > from the underpinning acceptance of the flawed " calories > in-calories out=weight change " theory to the idea that denaturing > proteins makes them easier for the body to process I don't know if the same holds true for meat, but cooked eggs are significantly more digestible than raw eggs: http://jn.nutrition.org/cgi/content/short/128/10/1716 Digestibility of Cooked and Raw Egg Protein in Humans as Assessed by Stable Isotope Techniques Manuscript received 6 October 1997. Initial reviews completed 18 November 1997. Revision accepted 3 June 1998. Pieter Evenepoel, Benny Geypens, Anja Luypaerts, Hiele, Yvo Ghoos, and Rutgeerts Department of Medicine, Division of Gastroenterology and Gastrointestinal Research Centre, University Hospital Leuven, B-3000 Leuven, Belgium Egg proteins contribute substantially to the daily nitrogen allowances in Western countries and are generally considered to be highly digestible. However, information is lacking on the true ileal digestibility of either raw or cooked egg protein. The recent availability of stable isotope-labeled egg protein allowed determination of the true ileal digestibility of egg protein by means of noninvasive tracer techniques. Five ileostomy patients were studied, once after ingestion of a test meal consisting of 25 g of cooked 13C- and 15N-labeled egg protein, and once after ingestion of the same test meal in raw form. Ileal effluents and breath samples were collected at regular intervals after consumption of the test meal and analyzed for 15N- and 13C-content, respectively. The true ileal digestibility of cooked and raw egg protein amounted to 90.9 ± 0.8 and 51.3 ± 9.8%, respectively. A significant negative correlation (r = -0.92, P < 0.001) was found between the 13C-recovery in breath and the recovery of exogenous N in the ileal effluents. In summary, using the 15N-dilution technique we demonstrated that the assimilation of cooked egg protein is efficient, albeit incomplete, and that the true ileal digestibility of egg protein is significantly enhanced by heat-pretreatment. A simple 13C-breath test technique furthermore proved to be a suitable alternative for the evaluation of the true ileal digestibility of egg protein. Key words: egg protein, digestibility, stable isotopes, food processing, humans. The Journal of Nutrition Vol. 128 No. 10 October 1998, pp. 1716-1722 Copyright ©1998 by the American Society for Nutritional Sciences Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 17, 2009 Report Share Posted May 17, 2009 I think the key point is that cooking makes some foods digestible that we couldn't otherwise eat. Think raw potatoes versus cooked. And in general, breaks down big molecules into smaller. Without needing to ferment stuff in our stomachs, like cows. Bill > > > > > > The idea that cooking food, like eating meat, is connected to the evolution > > of larger brains has a lot of support. The shrinking of the gut, made > > possible by calorie-dense meat and cooking, made possible the expansion of > > the brain, which otherwise would have been too metabolically expensive. The > > evolution of the hunt is the key adaptation here that makes the larger brain > > useful, particularly hunting in the heat of the day, chasing faster prey > > until their exhaustion by collectively following tracks and so forth. > > > > For a fascinating discussion, see Mark Eberhart, _Feeding the Fire: The Lost > > History and Uncertain Future of Mankind's Energy Addiction_. Another > > interesting thing he notes about cooking is that it begins the process > > whereby humans are able to tap energy sources outside of those that they > > take in directly from food. Before that time, all food ingested needed to be > > broken down via those same ingested calories. Cooking--like fermentation, I > > would think-- " predigests " food so that more calories can be ingested and > > less calories need to be deducted for digestion. Also key here is the > > evolution of brain-cooling techniques, sweating, and the like. > > > > Bill > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 17, 2009 Report Share Posted May 17, 2009 Yes, exactly, Eberhart discusses the bipedal stance, the lack of body hair, sweating, and something about how our skulls cool our brains (I forget the details). Bottom line, we can have a long chase in extreme heat and just wear out the faster prey who need longer times to recover from their sprinting. Bill > > > > > > > > > > > > i think, in theory, it should be fine since we evolved to eat raw > > > food and have only been cooking food for a relatively short period > > > of time. > > > > Controlled use of fire dates back hundreds of thousands of years before Homo sapiens even existed. In light of that, it strikes me as highly unlikely that cooking is a recent addition to human nutrition. In fact, some will argue that cooking food was an important element in the evolution of the human brain: > > > > http://www.marksdailyapple.com/the-importance-of-cooking-in-the-evolution-of-the\ -human-brain/ > > > > http://is.gd/A92y > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 17, 2009 Report Share Posted May 17, 2009 hmmm.. ic.. one can argue what is digestible and what is pallatable... both are not necessarily the same. raw can take a short period for our system to adapt to (like I had experienced when I tried going raw)... almost similar to how western diet person might need to adjust to a far east type diet (ie, e.indian or asian diet) vice versa. a raw potato can be as digestible as a cooked potato, but not necessarily as pallatable or preferred. that said, there are some herbs or vegs that are not as digestible (ie, items that have bark). just my 2cents... kelvin via cell On 5/16/09, lynchwt <lynchwt@...> wrote: > I think the key point is that cooking makes some foods digestible that we > couldn't otherwise eat. Think raw potatoes versus cooked. And in general, > breaks down big molecules into smaller. Without needing to ferment stuff in > our stomachs, like cows. > > Bill > > >> > >> > >> > The idea that cooking food, like eating meat, is connected to the >> > evolution >> > of larger brains has a lot of support. The shrinking of the gut, made >> > possible by calorie-dense meat and cooking, made possible the expansion >> > of >> > the brain, which otherwise would have been too metabolically expensive. >> > The >> > evolution of the hunt is the key adaptation here that makes the larger >> > brain >> > useful, particularly hunting in the heat of the day, chasing faster prey >> > until their exhaustion by collectively following tracks and so forth. >> > >> > For a fascinating discussion, see Mark Eberhart, _Feeding the Fire: The >> > Lost >> > History and Uncertain Future of Mankind's Energy Addiction_. Another >> > interesting thing he notes about cooking is that it begins the process >> > whereby humans are able to tap energy sources outside of those that they >> > take in directly from food. Before that time, all food ingested needed >> > to be >> > broken down via those same ingested calories. Cooking--like >> > fermentation, I >> > would think-- " predigests " food so that more calories can be ingested and >> > less calories need to be deducted for digestion. Also key here is the >> > evolution of brain-cooling techniques, sweating, and the like. >> > >> > Bill >> > > > -- Kelvin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 17, 2009 Report Share Posted May 17, 2009 The emotion I'm experiencing right now is laughter, at YOU. My post is based on THAT emotion. Seriously, what's next? Are you going to call the local insane asylum to come get me, the men in white coats? You didn't even TRY to address my point. My very obvious point. Seriously, if life evolved from single-celled organisms with no brains to invertebrates with SMALL brains, and then vertebrates with LARGER brains, all without the benefit of cooked food, why would proto-humans need cooked food (unlike any other evolutionary leap that has EVER happened) to evolve to what we are today? Hmm? Also, if I understand correctly, human brain size has actually DECREASED by about 8% over the last 10 thousand years or so. That doesn't support your little hypothesis, does it? Flail! Flail, my friend! Maybe flailing will save you from losing this debate! LOL Hey, how about accusing me of being on drugs? Or maybe you could accuse me of being mentally retarded, or mentally ill? Why stop at telling me I'm being emotional? Go all the way! LOL Mike > > Humans and the other great apes branched off from a common ancestor, yet, our raw-food eating great ape cousins don't have brains as highly developed as ours. Organisms evolve in response to environmental variables, and your purely emotion-based dismissal does nothing to refute the idea that cooking food may have played a part in the greater development of the human brain. > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 17, 2009 Report Share Posted May 17, 2009 I have no idea what apes evolved from, but I bet it had a smaller brain than an ape. It's a good thing those early proto-apes learned to cook their fruit, or they'd never have evolved into chimps, etc. They'd still have smaller brains, right? LOL Dude, come on. Stop the bleeding and give up. I don't like ripping into people like this. Mike Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 17, 2009 Report Share Posted May 17, 2009 I thought my biology class a good 10 years ago basicly said all mammals evolved from rodents. Yours Truly, Dan Holt On May 16, 2009, at 9:44 PM, " michael g " <tropical@...> wrote: I have no idea what apes evolved from, but I bet it had a smaller brain than an ape. It's a good thing those early proto-apes learned to cook their fruit, or they'd never have evolved into chimps, etc. They'd still have smaller brains, right? LOL Dude, come on. Stop the bleeding and give up. I don't like ripping into people like this. Mike Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 17, 2009 Report Share Posted May 17, 2009 Humans became organized into hierachies so a good portion of the population was deprived of good nutrition. This probably led to smaller brain size. After that people probably foregot how to listen to their instincts for nutrition with our highly analytical society and so everyones brains shrank. Only thing I can't figure out is how come the Eskimos brains aren't bigger than ours with their high fat raw meat diet? One thing the humans have over every mammal is our ability to survive in any environment and make compromises with it. There's certain foods that have to be cooked such as starches and it's a great source to utilize so we don't use up all the livestock in that region. Yours Truly, Dan Holt On May 16, 2009, at 9:41 PM, " michael g " <tropical@...> wrote: The emotion I'm experiencing right now is laughter, at YOU. My post is based on THAT emotion. Seriously, what's next? Are you going to call the local insane asylum to come get me, the men in white coats? You didn't even TRY to address my point. My very obvious point. Seriously, if life evolved from single-celled organisms with no brains to invertebrates with SMALL brains, and then vertebrates with LARGER brains, all without the benefit of cooked food, why would proto-humans need cooked food (unlike any other evolutionary leap that has EVER happened) to evolve to what we are today? Hmm? Also, if I understand correctly, human brain size has actually DECREASED by about 8% over the last 10 thousand years or so. That doesn't support your little hypothesis, does it? Flail! Flail, my friend! Maybe flailing will save you from losing this debate! LOL Hey, how about accusing me of being on drugs? Or maybe you could accuse me of being mentally retarded, or mentally ill? Why stop at telling me I'm being emotional? Go all the way! LOL Mike > > Humans and the other great apes branched off from a common ancestor, yet, our raw-food eating great ape cousins don't have brains as highly developed as ours. Organisms evolve in response to environmental variables, and your purely emotion-based dismissal does nothing to refute the idea that cooking food may have played a part in the greater development of the human brain. > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 17, 2009 Report Share Posted May 17, 2009 Evolutionary arguments do not take the form of universal statements describing when some trait will change in some fashion. Bigger brains, over the whole history of life, have happened for all kinds of reasons. Bigger brains are also not " fitter " for all possible organisms at all possible times. As I pointed out, you have to consider the tradeoffs involved in any option that could be selected for--larger brains require more energy, which have to come from somewhere. So there is absolutely not a general evolutionary trend for larger brains, and certainly not when you are starting with primates with rather large brains to begin with. So when scientists identify a period when human brain size increased, all candidate explanations must begin by looking at what elements in that particular environment selected for which kinds of traits available in that population. Ape brains and their size are completely irrelevant to that question--you would need to look at when their brains evolved as they did and find a different explanation for that context. I don't know about brains shrinking in the last 10,000 years, but as this is roughly the time period of the neolithic revolution, it is completely irrelevant to why humans evolved the bigger brains to begin with. If the cause is not simply dietary (decreased nutrition that came with agriculture), then you would have to look at what aspects of that environment selected for smaller brains. Bill > > I have no idea what apes evolved from, but I bet it had a smaller brain than an ape. > > It's a good thing those early proto-apes learned to cook their fruit, or they'd never have evolved into chimps, etc. They'd still have smaller brains, right? LOL > > Dude, come on. Stop the bleeding and give up. I don't like ripping into people like this. > > Mike > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.