Paleo Diet: Raw Paleo Diet and Lifestyle Forum
Raw Paleo Diet Forums => Hot Topics => Topic started by: miles on October 30, 2010, 02:48:16 am
-
Does cooking of meat make it more like plants in terms of digestion? Does cooking create a sort of fibre(un absorbable)? Is humans digestive system still best adapted for eating fruit? If some humans moved from an area where they were eating raw meat mostly, but also had access to plants, to an area where there were no plants available, could this have spurred them to cook their meat, in order to make it more like plants, so their digestive system would run better? Raw meat is more bioavailable, but because we changed so fast, could it be that our digestive systems still 'require' plants to function 'well', and for humans who had no plants available, cooking their meat helped make it digest more like plants, as we could not absorb it so well once cooked? So could the fact that cooking meat makes it less bioavailable, actually be the REASON why humans came to do it?
I think I deserve a Nobel prize nojoke. Gief teh 1mil£££ plx. WHO'S THE DADDY!? Go miles, it's your birthday, we gonna party like it's your birthday.
-
I don't think that's a bad theory.
After meat became my only source of solid food my bowel movements have become a lot different. Lots of little hard dime sized 'balls'. It doesn't change much if I cook all my meat.
As far as plants go, we evolved to eat plants and fruit at some point and then we evolved to eat meat. What's the point of taking a step back in evolution when we can be on top of the food chain.
-
Nonsense. Our digestive systems are well equipped to deal with both raw fruits and raw meats. Cooking only got going because many plant foods could only be properly digested if cooked. After people got used to cooking plants, they started cooking meats too, no doubt due to the addictive opioids in them.
-
My digestive system runs great on raw meat, there is no way that we're not adapted to raw meat, it feels like a natural thing for me to eat now.
Mind you I don't get big problems from cooked meat if I don't mix it with the raw meat or anything else, so if I eat a piece of cooked meat alone I only feel slightly more tired/sluggish but otherwise it still digests fine, I don't get any reaction or anything...
Out of raw fruit, raw vegetables, raw nuts, cooked meat and raw meat, I still digest raw meat the best! Fruits and nuts come in second...
We definitely evolved to eat raw meat but I think we are way more omnivorous then some carnivorous people like to think, we can eat everything, but the optimum foods are raw meat and a little fruits :P
-
I came from fruitarianism and I always had digestive problems.
Far more with plants and vegetables.
No problem at all with meat !
-
But... Tyler/Lounna/Yuli aren't eating just meat with nothing else.. You are still eating plants. So you have fibre.
-
i don't eat any vegetables or fruits especially for this winter, but i'm only eating raw proteins and fats. cooked food make me sick at some point. my home, my uncle and aunt are the only people who are using my kitchen to cook as my guest for the past 2 yrs. i'm very unhappy for this and hoping they can afford their own housing soon.
-
But... Tyler/Lounna/Yuli aren't eating just meat with nothing else.. You are still eating plants. So you have fibre.
Fibre is not necessary. Besides, look on wikipedia under raw foodism and you will see studies I put there detailing how meat protein digestibility is reduced by cooking.
-
I'll go along with Miles' humor: Happy Birthday!
-
Fibre is not necessary. Besides, look on wikipedia under raw foodism and you will see studies I put there detailing how meat protein digestibility is reduced by cooking.
That's what I said.
We came from eating plants, which have a lower digestibility than meats, so we had fibre. Cooking meat decreases it's digestibility, making it digest more like plants, because of the lower digestibility. That is the idea. If you're eating some plants it wouldn't matter, but the idea is that maybe people without plants found that they could burn the meat and it made it crisper, less digestible, more like plants and so in the absence of plants, it digested more appropriately for their gut. It is less well absorbed, because of lower digestibility, but perhaps that works better for the human digestive system, when they do not have plants along with their meat to carry out the same function.
It was only an idea I thought up, but no one's yet said anything against this O_O
I'll go along with Miles' humor: Happy Birthday!
ty =D
unrelated: Dayum. Does anyone else get a type-writer like effect when they get near the bottom of their text-boxes? I can only see what I'm typing whilst I'm typing it, then the text-box scrolls up between each keystroke.
-
We didn't go from eating plants to trying to utilise meat somehow though...our ape and prehuman ancestors ate raw meat for millions of years. So there's no advantage in reducing it's digestibility.
-
We didn't go from eating plants to trying to utilise meat somehow though...our ape and prehuman ancestors ate raw meat for millions of years. So there's no advantage in reducing it's digestibility.
Yes but they had plants also.
-
@Miles
Yeh I get that typewriter thing you mentioned to. You can only view what you wrote after you stop typing and then when you type again it just goes back to the top right?
About the cooked meat thing. It is a possibility. My personal belief and the belief my anthroplogist teacher said was they probably were cooking undigestable plants and decided to try it with some meat as well. They happened to taste the cooked meat more so kept on doing it.
-
The taste issue is rubbish as cooked-foodists have to add spices all the time in order to enhance taste. There have been studies done showing how chemicals in the brain are influenced by eating junk foods but same also applies to all cooked foods re addictive opioids.
-
The taste issue is rubbish as cooked-foodists have to add spices all the time in order to enhance taste. There have been studies done showing how chemicals in the brain are influenced by eating junk foods but same also applies to all cooked foods re addictive opioids.
I don't think its completely rubbish, there are some very simple cooked foods that taste good and are not addictive IMO (I still try not to eat them though, obviously)....but for example plain cooked buckwheat is delicious and not addictive, same for whole oatmeal, fish simmered in water and soup made with plain chicken bones fat and meat. All those foods are tasty but you will not overeat them either as you would with junk food, they are not optimal foods, but they can't be considered garbage either.
I will definitely feel satisfied if I eat a big bowl of buckwheat in the day (especially if I add a simple fat to it) and have fish stew at night (no spices) but its not optimal (that is of no question). Alternately if I eat cookies, a burger and chips I will definitely end up overeating on that day and not feeling well. This explains why people don't overeat if they eat a healthy partly-cooked paleo diet or a "clean" non-paleo diet (ie simple foods one at a time)...they may not get the benefits of raw paleo, they may develop a disease later in life, but they most likely will be fit, and not overweight or in a state of overeating. So there is definitely a gradient of opioid addiction going on among the cooked foods, I am not arguing you point just saying you don't have to spice some cooked foods and they can still be tasty/satisfying without you becoming addicted.
-
Actually, opioids figure heavily in grains and dairy and to some extent even in lightly cooked foods, not just highly processed cooked foods. Granted, the most highly processed cooked foods are the most addictive, but that's all.
As for other comments, you are over-generalising. Many RVAFers , such as myself, have suffered greatly from cooked-palaeo diets or so-called "clean" l) l) non-palaeodiets. I would scoff myself and be heavily overweight on cooked-palaeo,as well as suffering a great deal of pain(I used to get very painful stomach-aches after eating any cooked animal food whatsoever, no matter how lightly cooked).
-
I seem to throw back whole eggs like nobodies business and all kinds of weird crap, even though a surprising number of people that eat raw will dispose of the whites or avoid other raw 'treats'. I feel very comfortable doubting any human organism prefers raw whole egg in taste to a cooked egg.
Many RAF people who believe in all the advantages of raw over cooked will occasional cook some of those same foods due to more than sheer idiocy, so that is also a worthwhile data point. Some people claim to even process cooked or seared meats better (however I suspect that is some kind of lack of adaption, its still a legitimate taste preference) All things being equal in regards to health/same source/time involved/no condiments or spices..I think people would prefer many things cooked for taste reasons. The original point makes zero sense, but as for the cavemen preferring the taste of cooked meats, I have no idea.
-
Actually, opioids figure heavily in grains and dairy and to some extent even in lightly cooked foods, not just highly processed cooked foods. Granted, the most highly processed cooked foods are the most addictive, but that's all.
Why do I have more likeliness to overeat raw honey, raw nuts, raw fruit then whole oatmeal simmered in water (I just make it a point not to eat it)... to me it tastes pretty good and after a fair sized bowl of oatmeal I can no longer eat more, genuinely full...not wanting more, not addicted. In the past 2 months I tried a bowl of oatmeal and thats the effect I had. Not the same case with chips, get addicted...don't know how else to think of it.
Many RVAFers , such as myself, have suffered greatly from cooked-palaeo diets or so-called "clean" l) l) non-palaeodiets. I would scoff myself and be heavily overweight on cooked-palaeo,as well as suffering a great deal of pain(I used to get very painful stomach-aches after eating any cooked animal food whatsoever, no matter how lightly cooked).
That is true I am not denying that. But still many people can do well on a clean partially cooked paleo, providing they are healthy to begin with, there is no denying that (forget about that they get sick in their 80's or 90's - I mean before that)...theres many examples of people doing well on such diets, they are fit, they look great, feel good, what more do they want. No matter how I imagine things, when I am hungry and given cooked meat (not overcooked) I get no problems and I get sated, am I supposed to develop problems, after raw meats, cause I don't, I can eat both still, raw and cooked, not at the same time though (again I just try to minimize the cooked as much as possible, maybe couple times a week, and I LOVE eating raw meats)... l) Is it possible many RAFers don't "suffer" from eat cooked meat or heated animal fat? I think it is...what amount of people here don't have issues eating a piece of non-overcooked meat alone? Perhaps we should have a poll...
I feel very comfortable doubting any human organism prefers raw whole egg in taste to a cooked egg.
I feel like your doubt is well placed, raw egg whites (not yolks) are FUKKIN NASTY to me. They will always be, I can eat raw rotting meat and not raw egg whites....lol...even if I was in starvation, I'd eat raw egg whites and still find them NASTY! but give me any raw meats, raw fish, raw fat yum! How you explain that....do I have to adjust myself to not like cooked egg whites and like raw ones even though eating cooked egg whites gives me no problem...no...obviously I am SOMEWHAT evolved to eat a bit of cooked egg white, who cares if its not raw paleo, I can't deny that I don't process it well either can I?
I love raw paleo, but I am not going to pretend that a sunny side up egg is making me feel ill, cause it frikkin isn't lol...
Anyways I am just talking from my personal experience...this could not apply to many people!
-
Why do I have more likeliness to overeat raw honey, raw nuts, raw fruit then whole oatmeal simmered in water (I just make it a point not to eat it)... to me it tastes pretty good and after a fair sized bowl of oatmeal I can no longer eat more, genuinely full...not wanting more, not addicted. In the past 2 months I tried a bowl of oatmeal and thats the effect I had. Not the same case with chips, get addicted...don't know how else to think of it.
That is true I am not denying that. But still many people can do well on a clean partially cooked paleo, providing they are healthy to begin with, there is no denying that (forget about that they get sick in their 80's or 90's - I mean before that)...theres many examples of people doing well on such diets, they are fit, they look great, feel good, what more do they want. No matter how I imagine things, when I am hungry and given cooked meat (not overcooked) I get no problems and I get sated, am I supposed to develop problems, after raw meats, cause I don't, I can eat both still, raw and cooked, not at the same time though (again I just try to minimize the cooked as much as possible, maybe couple times a week, and I LOVE eating raw meats)... l) Is it possible many RAFers don't "suffer" from eat cooked meat or heated animal fat? I think it is...what amount of people here don't have issues eating a piece of non-overcooked meat alone? Perhaps we should have a poll...
I feel like your doubt is well placed, raw egg whites (not yolks) are FUKKIN NASTY to me. They will always be, I can eat raw rotting meat and not raw egg whites....lol...even if I was in starvation, I'd eat raw egg whites and still find them NASTY! but give me any raw meats, raw fish, raw fat yum! How you explain that....do I have to adjust myself to not like cooked egg whites and like raw ones even though eating cooked egg whites gives me no problem...no...obviously I am SOMEWHAT evolved to eat a bit of cooked egg white, who cares if its not raw paleo, I can't deny that I don't process it well either can I?
I love raw paleo, but I am not going to pretend that a sunny side up egg is making me feel ill, cause it frikkin isn't lol...
Anyways I am just talking from my personal experience...this could not apply to many people!
Cooked eggs almost always make me feel very stressed out while raw eggs calm me. I agree cooked eggs taste much better but I don't handle them very well. As has been brought up before, maybe we aren't well adapted to eggs in general. I do consume them regularly though because they are a very clean source of energy for me when I eat them raw. I do know that different persons react differently to them so I'm not condemning them cooked.
I also agree that the human species has some level of adaptation to cooked food in general. However, I believe raw foods are almost always superior to our health and well-being at this stage of evolution. Appreciate the discussion :)
-
I think I deserve a Nobel prize nojoke. Gief teh 1mil£££ plx. WHO'S THE DADDY!? Go miles, it's your birthday, we gonna party like it's your birthday.
Happy Birthday, M-tang... I hope you had a wonder-full, amazing, magical birthday! :)
-
Yuli, as usual you are over-generalising. First of all, many people turn to RVAF diets precisely because they do badly on cooked animal foods, that is why so many of us are former raw vegans/fruitarians. With some the effect is near-instant, with some it is gradual. For example, while my own problems with cooked animal foods are less worse than they were pre-RPD diet, I still become heavily overweight if I eat them.
The argument that most people do well on clean cooked-palaeo falls flat when one looks at the
evidence. Sure, some cooked-palaeos do report minor benefits re fitness, but a cooked-palaeodiet is rarely able to cure serious health-problems, usually only providing minor improvements to existing conditions and that's it. As for the absurd 80-90 figure, that is, of course, quite wrong. Most people start really suffering from cooked-food-related issues by the time they reach 40 or thereabouts, with an increasing minority having issues before that stage due to asthma/allergies etc. etc. etc.. By the age of 40, as a result of cooked diets, one's ability to produce enzymes starts to malfunction, one ages much faster as the body no longer is young enough to ward off some of the damage to the body done by cooked foods. It is no coincidence that a common remark by middle-aged RVAFers is that they look c.10 years younger, on a biological level, than people of the same chronological age who are on cooked diets. This is because heat-created toxins, such as AGEs/advanced glycation end products, slowly build up in the body over time due to cooked foods being consumed, and it is well known that these toxins are heavily implicated in the various age-related conditions such as atherosclerosis, arthritis, type 2 diabetes, cancer etc. etc.
-
Regarding the taste issue, a lot of RAFers seem to presuppose that cooked food is somehow tastier...well there might be issues about opioids or concentrating the flavour, but it seems to me that the simplest explanation is just that those flavours are what we've got used to associating with meat, fat and carbs from a young age.
-
Regarding the taste issue, a lot of RAFers seem to presuppose that cooked food is somehow tastier...well there might be issues about opioids or concentrating the flavour, but it seems to me that the simplest explanation is just that those flavours are what we've got used to associating with meat, fat and carbs from a young age.
Yes, habit is a primary factor. I now find that most of the cooked foods I found tasty pre-rpd diet I now find taste awful, while I find most raw foods more tasty than before.
-
Regarding the taste issue, a lot of RAFers seem to presuppose that cooked food is somehow tastier...well there might be issues about opioids or concentrating the flavour, but it seems to me that the simplest explanation is just that those flavours are what we've got used to associating with meat, fat and carbs from a young age.
ironically, much of the truth in this applies to things like fruit and veg, which have much more distinct flavors in their raw state which are notably changed with cooking. While all the RAFer's (or raw vegans) who claim not to 'have' this conditioned preference you speak might appreciate a variety of tastes and textures in raw animal foods, I' say all things equal like I suggested, more often then not they would prefer the taste of many of the same things cooked to raw wheres plenty non-rawists prefer many fruits and veg raw to cooked. Regardless, it seems far easier for the very few to appreciate the tastes of RAF then to depreciate in taste for the same foods cooked.
even if one could subjectively dispute this, obviously since many of the other common theories for cooking (bacteria, spoilage etc..) do not apply way back into the distant stoneages before crowded towns and so forth, it is clear that even the cleanest of humans did not find the taste of cooked meat to be significantly worse than raw, and likely found the opposite and an incentive to do so. Other then the fact that no one really knows, going by the logic (and behaviors of even wild animals and so forth), I'd say taste being a factor or the factor has a high probability of being correct.
-
Well like you said we don't know, but I feel there must have been an external factor that made cooked logistically better for some reason. It seems so obvious from our side of the fence that cooked meat is not objectionable, but I think it could well be if you haven't conditioned yourself to like it.
People who've been brought up in different countries have different tastes...I was raised on edam and cheddar and they tasted like the best thing in the world despite not being a human food, but people from India often can't stand hard cheese...and in Korea they eat kebabs so overcooked they're like charcoal and they love it.
-
The theory re taste does not make sense since taste is governed by habit to a great extent. For example, babies in the womb are more likely to prefer unusually sharp tastes, such as aniseed, if the mother is fed aniseed during pregnancy.
The real problem is that the first people who transitioned to cooked for the very first time would have started having various issues re the lack of water-content in cooked foods etc. in a sharper way than what happens when we transition to raw. So, realistically speaking, the likelihood is that we turned to cooked foods at first solely because big game was disappearing in areas so that we hominids had to turn to eating plants which were only properly edible when cooked. After that, the opioids in cooked meats etc. could have made us addicted to cooked foods.
There is plenty of evidence re this addiction as regards junk food already:-
http://www.highlighthealth.com/diet-and-nutrition/is-junk-food-addictive/
And this article explains, indirectly in a way, just why so many SAD-eaters are repelled by the notion of eating raw meats:-
http://www.naturalnews.com/029382_junk_food_rats.html
-
Hmm, I do need to add an article re addiction to cooked foods on rawpaleodiet.com.I am already overdue for at least 5 or 6 essays.
-
josh, my point was that I don't have to speculate really in re: cooked meat being objectionable by taste alone, because if it really was, i'm pretty sure it would not have taken off considering the detriments we also associate with it.
Its possible that like Golem, cavemen found cooking at first to be revolting and 'ruined', but given the effort involved I consider this to be wishful thinking.
as for people's tastes change (particularly away form raw tastes) that is very well true but doesn't really defeat what I am saying, since if people can noticeably measure their taste changes in raw fruit, veg, and perhaps meats, and possibly loose tastes for spicy over-processed things, the simple act of cooking - an egg like I said - still seems to stir up far more taste sensations than a raw one, even in one with large sensitivities towards raw tastes.
particularly since we as a community often reference the fact that many raw dishes are seen as delicacies around the world (among largely cooked eaters), and the two largest traditional consumers of close to a raw paleo diet - the Inuits and the Native American (guts and greasers) cooked some meats in addition to eating some raw - this also calls this idea into question. Granted perhaps many of these people had more lax goals about being 100% healthy all the time or in need of such a thing per their level of health, there seem to me - obvious - reasons as to why they cooked some foods and not others, even tho partly it remains mysterious.
While we do not know, the taste argument still seems fairly prominent, if we arn't to accept the 'traditional' digestibility and evolutionary claims made by cooked fooders. I consider addictive properties/sensations to be the same as taste, after all these are essentially the same kind of pleasure receptors.
-
In the case of the Inuit, cooking is a hassle given the ubiquity of ice/water, unless in an igloo with cooking utensils. It makes more sense for them to eat frozen meats without cooking or to eat the carcass raw immediately after catching it, like they often do with fish. Purely a case of convenience, nothing to do with health.
-
josh, my point was that I don't have to speculate really in re: cooked meat being objectionable by taste alone, because if it really was, i'm pretty sure it would not have taken off considering the detriments we also associate with it.
Can you not imagine a situation where people ate whatever they had to in order to survive then their kids grew up used to it?
I mean it's possible I'm wrong and cooked food is naturally delicious, but I think you should see it's very open to speculation.
-
In the case of the Inuit, cooking is a hassle given the ubiquity of ice/water, unless in an igloo with cooking utensils.
not to mention the lack of firewood or other fuel...
-
Yuli, as usual you are over-generalising. First of all, many people turn to RVAF diets precisely because they do badly on cooked animal foods, that is why so many of us are former raw vegans/fruitarians. With some the effect is near-instant, with some it is gradual. For example, while my own problems with cooked animal foods are less worse than they were pre-RPD diet, I still become heavily overweight if I eat them.
...
The argument that most people do well on clean cooked-palaeo falls flat when one looks at the
evidence....
What about Mark Sisson? He seems to be doing fairly well....
I found adding a bit of cooked meat on some days feels slightly heavier then raw meat but still digests fine, maybe because I am young still, or that I don't eat it all the time, I don't know...
Also about RAF'ers claiming to look 10 years younger at 40, that could be, but I have seen many people looking younger at around 40 too. I'd like to see some photos of RAF'ers in their 40's and 50's and see how young they look, do you have some photos like that? I know one raw paleo guy on you-tube who does look very young for his age, but I'd love to see more real photos, especially of people in their 40's, 50's and 60's. Most of the people that posted their pics here are young so it makes it hard to judge, because I know already people in their 20's and 30's on a regular diet and they look young because they are fit/healthy anyways, its easier to judge when you see older people l)
Another thing, why are we trying to prove if cooked foods taste better then raw foods to RAFers and regular folks or not? Isn't it dependent on taste? Isn't that also generalizing? I mean like some cooked foods taste better then some raw foods and some raw foods taste better then some cooked foods. Also I know some people who eat cooked foods and their favorite foods are sashimi! Some Japanese love all kinds of raw meats but still eat cooked cuisine too, its all about taste. You can learn to recognize if a food is tasty because its really tasty or because its an addictive junk food, and you can learn to recognize that with cooked foods too, its just a little more difficult. Example: baked potato = not addictive, fries and chips = ADDICTIVE! Both are forms of cooked potato, but have different levels of addiction, if there are baked potatos around I can eat just one and I am happy, if I had a bag of chips...that bag will be finished -\ better of course to avoid it all together.
-
Can you not imagine a situation where people ate whatever they had to in order to survive then their kids grew up used to it?
I mean it's possible I'm wrong and cooked food is naturally delicious, but I think you should see it's very open to speculation.
Compared to anything else one might talk about in the universe, I don't think it is any more open to speculation no - as there is no reason one would need to cook meat to survive, unless one is conceding to the basic cooked fooder type arguments. Unless they had to go to some kind of paleolithic Walmart where everything was already cooked and processed, they had to have an additional reason for the act of cooking it in the first place which is what we are discussing. So if the first generation of cooked eaters found cooked meat to be repulsive in taste due to their refined raw palate, they wouldn't have expended the effort of doing it and passing it to their children, no. If someone disagrees, surely they have the opinion that there is some other advantage to cooking that has nothing to do with 'settling' for something mediocre.
As for the Inuit, not only do the comments totally skirt the fact that people are known to consume both raw and cooked animal food, the Inuits indeed cooked some of there food, so whether it was a nuisance or not only hammers home the fact that there was a huge preference for doing so, and other rudimentary peoples given the opportunity cooked (meat) even more.. Having studied assumptions about the later paleolithic peoples that consumed cooked foods, one would guess they still maintained a good amount of raw animal foods which carried over into traditional neolithic peoples. When people congregated into villages, the issue may have indeed been rot and smell, but certainly prior to that there have to be reasons for adding activities and processes to ones daily routine, particularly if they yield worse results. Its either that or the results are not as noticeable in healthy people as some would suggest. I don't really see how it can be interpreted otherwise.
-
Yuli,
I am not disputing the fact that some people have better genes for longevity and a few might be slightly better able to detox toxins derived from cooking on a daily basis. But, look around at the American citizens of your acquaintance and compare them to photos of hunter-gatherers who a) eat only lightly-cooked food b) do more daily exercise and c) eat some raw animal and raw plant foods too, and you will see a whopping difference already - one can see that people hardly eating/not eating cooked foods at all would have an even lower toxin-load than HGs(provided they do not indulge in raw dairy if they happen to be allergic to it etc. etc.)
I can only go by other middle-aged RVAFers who regularly visit primal potlucks and the like who have reported back re middle-aged RVAF diet companions looking much younger than SAD-eating friends of a similiar chronological age,
( of course the UK RVAF diet scene is by comparison nonexistent as a community so I do not have a lot of personal experience of RVAFers ). But, having myself visited the USA and seen truly shocking and common
sights such as truly obese 19-year-old American girls who looked like they had twice the weight and biological age their same-aged contemporaries had in Europe, I have good reason to note that the more highly processed a diet is, the less healthy a person will be.
Whatever the case, while there are always exceptions such as genes, SAD-eating people generally start developing health-problems at an accelerating rate past the age of 40.
As regards baked potatoes, I am very much addicted to them. They were one of the few things I liked at school pre-RPD. Chips(aka french fries) I have always hated by contrast. But I agree to some extent that some raw animal foods often taste better raw than cooked and vice-versa. I cannot imagine anyone liking scallops cooked, I reckon? And what they call a "stelze"(pigs trotters) is unlikely to be tasty when raw!
-
First off, addiction is not really the same as taste. I mean people can get addicted to smoking but hate chewing tobacco, for example.
The argument that cooking was done in harsh times out of necessity works extremely well in the case of plant foods. One common argument is that as the Palaeolithic neared its end, HGs, due to famine, had to resort to finding other plants that they could only eat if they were cooked.Now, assuming the usual traditional meals involving mixing both meats and veg together, one could assume that they mainly did the cooking for the veg but just cooked the meats along with them to avoid hassles and separate dishes.
Oh, and also cooking does add some nutrients in specific circumstances, in the form of bone-broth(?) so people in desperate times might have gotten the notion of bone broths and just continued with that.
Lastly, just because something is harmful does not mean that humans would have had the sense to get rid of it - there are too many examples of humans doing foolish things such as heavy smoking or heavy drinking to counter that notion.
I wonder if cooking preserves meat for a little longer due to loss of water-content or whatever? I know salt was used but that seems to have been of a Neolithic invention, not Palaeolithic.