Darwinism could apply to the cooking of food?

[goodsamaritan]

Of course cooking is not ideal, but this comment does make some sense.

There was a nice comment in my blog that sounds logical:


...Cooking may also be beneficial for anyone who doesn't slaughter their own meat or procure seafood fresh off the boat since filthy conditions, improper handling, and exposure to air can breed bacteria and fungus in your meat. Living conditions are different than they were for humans thousands of years ago, and many of us act accordingly.

...Did you ever stop to think that maybe darwinism could apply here? Maybe the reason soooo many cultures cook their food is because the ones who cooked their meats didn't die of food borne diseases as often, digested proteins more efficiently, and had more children that they could teach cooking techniques to. Not to mention staple foods like taro, soy, corn, acorns, and a myriad of others that sustained cultures for centuries and are either difficult or impossible to consume and digest without cooking.

[invisible]

Possibly...however I think you would be healthier eating really poor quality meat raw than cooking said meat. And why would wild meat thousands of years ago be of poor quality anyway? I don't agree.

[Iguana]

Of course cooking is not ideal, but this comment does make some sense.

Maybe the reason soooo many cultures cook their food is because the ones who cooked their meats didn't die of food borne diseases as often, digested proteins more efficiently, and had more children that they could teach cooking techniques to. Not to mention staple foods like taro, soy, corn, acorns, and a myriad of others that sustained cultures for centuries and are either difficult or impossible to consume and digest without cooking.

No, it doesn't make any sense at all. This moron is completely out of the window.

[TylerDurden]

We've been over this before. We've shown that (animal) protein is better digested raw than cooked, and virtually ALL of the foods that are improved by cooking(except possibly eggs) are non-palaeo in origin such as grains, which are decidedly unhealthy for humans, even when cooked.

[goodsamaritan]

We've been over this before.

Well. yes and no.  Virtually all cultures cook their food today.  Maybe cooking is a feature of civilization?  Cheap food.  "Good enough" to get to reproductive maturity and reproduce enough for the expansion of civilization.  Not optimal.  Definitely.

I was faced with a dead end living on cooked food when I was struck by disease around age 35.  I already had a couple of kids then.  If I hadn't discovered raw foods maybe I would have expired or stopped reproducing.

Now with raw paleo diet I feel like this is a 2nd life.  The cures to many diseases can only be met with raw foods. 

Maybe the degeneration with cooked food processed food is accelerating.  Maybe the next generations will be be sicker even much younger until they hit that same non-reproductive stage as Pottengers' cats.  Frankly, I think most countries have already hit THAT non-reproductive stage.  Fertility rates are below replacement worldwide in the first world countries.  Not just because they are contracepting, but because their health is so debilitated they can't reproduce.

[William]

  Maybe cooking is a feature of civilization? 

Most certainly, and we can consider it to be a tax on health.

Maybe the degeneration with cooked food processed food is accelerating.  Maybe the next generations will be be sicker even much younger until they hit that same non-reproductive stage as Pottengers' cats.  Frankly, I think most countries have already hit THAT non-reproductive stage.  Fertility rates are below replacement worldwide in the first world countries.  Not just because they are contracepting, but because their health is so debilitated they can't reproduce.

People are showing  diseases in their twenties that never showed before 50, but it's not from cooking, it's from poisoning.
For instance xeno-estrogens are in the municipal water supply of first world countries; they come from the body wastes of people upstream and are not removed by water treatment; they also come from agriculture. These are contraceptives and pesticides/herbicides.
There are many thousands of new poisons in our environment added to the usual ones created by cooking meat.

[carnivore]

No, it doesn't make any sense at all. This moron is completely out of the window.

I agree. I see no reason for our ancestors to cook food, except for survival reasons. Most of the wild plants are inedible raw, but can be eaten thank's to fire.


 

[Raw Kyle]

To me it seems very obvious that cooking spread through conquest, and it wasn't that they conquistadors were healthier, they were just able to support a larger population than paleo eaters. With all the grain of Babylon, etc...and since those foods need to be cooked, it follows they would cook their meats too. If you cook food, you can get more calories out of land, which doesn't translate into health but simply the ability to support a larger population. Darwinian? I suppose so. Relevant to discussion of paleo diet or even health? I would say not.