Why have we been cooking all this time?

[Hannibal]

Cooking also allows people to make bone broths and get some more nutrition from animal bones and animal parts that cannot be consumed raw. healthy.

Re bones - the only nutrition is in marrow and it is easily consumed in raw state
Which parts cannot be consumed raw, but can be consumed cooked?

[yon yonson]

maybe im just blanking right now but i really can't think of a way to preserve meat by cooking without modern technologies and refrigeration... anyone care to help me out? i mean, smoking is i guess but that's not really cooking (it's akin to drying in my book).

[goodsamaritan]

Re bones - the only nutrition is in marrow and it is easily consumed in raw state
Which parts cannot be consumed raw, but can be consumed cooked?

They say the minerals in the bones can be leached with bone broths.
Also some cartilage are just too tough when raw, but easily consumed cooked.

[alphagruis]

Re bones - the only nutrition is in marrow and it is easily consumed in raw state
Which parts cannot be consumed raw, but can be consumed cooked?

It's the protein part of the hard bone structure. Boiling the bones permits to extract it in the form of gelatine in a broth.

[alphagruis]

http://www.beyondveg.com/tu-j-l/raw-cooked/raw-cooked-3a.shtml

# Typical responses to wildfires by predators and other animals as guide to early primitive human relationship to fire. Based on present-day observations of how animals react and respond to wildfires, which can be used as a behavioral baseline, one can infer that early humans would have exhibited at least as sophisticated responses to it. Typically, predators move in soon after a fire to forage for food among the charred or partially burnt remains. Ruminants later visit to lick at the ashes (for salt), and in general, mammals visiting the site appear to enjoy its warmth at night. Goudsblom refers to these types of behavior as "passive" use of fire. It may also have been at this stage that humans would first have begun to appreciate not just the different and perhaps appealing taste of fired food, but more importantly its effects in preserving meat for later consumption when it would otherwise spoil if not soon eaten--a survival advantage.

Sure, wild fires are a very good opportunity to get easy food on the one hand and on the other hand  wild animals are also tremendously attracted by the addictive Maillard reaction products left after heating the biomolecules in burnt plant or animal remains, as we are, unfortunately.

Yet, this doesn't mean this behavior isn't harmful. And wildfires and relevant orgies are rather rare events and the consequences therefore easily detoxified, a situation that has little to do with the every day cooking practice adopted by modern man.

And once more, as pointed out by Yon Yonson, one cannot see any rational basis for this so-called "preservation of meat by cooking", which is just myth. Exactly the reverse is true actually, raw meat decays more slowly than cooked meat.

Unless the stuff has been completely converted into charcoal, which no more decays indeed, but it's just because !t's no more food

[alphagruis]

.  Cooking seems to be an adaptation to the times of starvation.

So we raw paleo dieters are living our lives in the times of plenty. And in times of plenty we are healthy.

Interesting.

Yet, cooking was initially first used to grill meats rather than cook rice. The latter had rather to wait until the invention of pottery and neolithic revolution.
 
And even in present times of plenty almost all humans still cook their food.

I think that cooking is basically an addictive behavior, our species had unfortunately and inevitably to stumble on and adopt. Until experience and science recently discovered its adverse effects.

On the other hand, cooking is also a big wasting because of the systematic destruction of nutriments it causes. Once on raw food for a while, one eats actually fairly less than on cooked food diets and gets nevertheless much better nutrition. Not to mention the now drastic environmental consequences of cooking in terms of the energy needed to produce the heat (deforestation, massive fossil fuel burning etc)    

[TylerDurden]

On the other hand, cooking is also a big wasting because of the systematic destruction of nutriments it causes. Once on raw food for a while, one eats actually fairly less than on cooked food diets and gets nevertheless much better nutrition. Not to mention the now drastic environmental consequences of cooking in terms of the energy needed to produce the heat (deforestation, massive fossil fuel burning etc)     

Yes, that's something I should mention next time I update rawpaleodiet.com(the reference re cooking destroying the environment via chopping down ancient forests for wood etc.)

[William]

Since there isn't any sane reason for cooking, the answer most likely will be found in the field of psychology, which nobody dares consider.

Carvings attributed to paleoman are at Gobekli Tepes, and compared to the cave paintings of europe, they appear to be a curse applied by standard techniques of magic.
Now we have scare stories of global warming, swine flu, terrorists; then they had unpleasant animals:

"Hodder is fascimated that Gobekli Tepes pillar carvings are dominatrd not by edible prey like deer and cattle but by menacing creatures such as lions, spiders, snakes and scorpions."
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history-archaeology/gobekli-tepe.html?c=y&page=3

[instant]

I think that cooking is basically an addictive behavior, our species had unfortunately and inevitably to stumble on and adopt. Until experience and science recently discovered its adverse effects.

But just because it "may" be addictive doesnt really mean its unhealthy (just basing it off of everything other culture that eats cooked meat that has good health)
Raw meat is superior to cooked meat, but i dont think cooked meat causes health problems;
i still think the sugar is the number one cause of most sickness; this is one thing that all healthy people avoid.

im going on an raw meat diet starting today!

[goodsamaritan]

But just because it "may" be addictive doesnt really mean its unhealthy (just basing it off of everything other culture that eats cooked meat that has good health)
Raw meat is superior to cooked meat, but i dont think cooked meat causes health problems;
i still think the sugar is the number one cause of most sickness; this is one thing that all healthy people avoid.

Cooked meat does cause illness.  Cooked meat cannot cure diseases as well as raw meat.  There are many diseases where cooked meat just will not do. 

The reason I'm on raw paleo is for the awesome curative powers and massive health improvements.

[Hannibal]

They say the minerals in the bones can be leached with bone broths. Also some cartilage are just too tough when raw, but easily consumed cooked.

But many of these minerals are destroyed during cooking, and you've got extra toxins from this procedure.
Re cartilage - is isn't neccesarry to bite it; you can swollow it

[instant]

Cooked meat does cause illness.  Cooked meat cannot cure diseases as well as raw meat.  There are many diseases where cooked meat just will not do.

What type of diseases are these?
Have you met anyone who hasnt cured there disease because they were simply eating cooked then all the sudden were cured from because they switch to raw meat?

[alphagruis]

Yes, that's something I should mention next time I update rawpaleodiet.com(the reference re cooking destroying the environment via chopping down ancient forests for wood etc.)

Yes, Tyler, i think it may be helpful. Often "environmentalists" show a tendency to blame substantial meat or animal product eaters, as we are, for their "carbon footprint" or similar environmental impacts and promote unhealthy necessarily cooked plant based diets as being the more sustainable diets.

Facing such people, it is important for us to be able to give them some "food for thought" and explain them that their position is probably nonsense and they might well be quite  mistaken because of:

-the cooking issue

-the fact that raising grassfed cattle needs very little or no fossil fuel input and no pesticides and is the most environmentally friendly way to get a high quality food, one can think of, even on mountainous or wet land inappropriate for agriculture.

- the fact that grain production needs very large fossil fuel input,  pesticides, fertilizers, water etc and is the least environmentally friendly way to get a low quality unhealthy food, one can think of, and is restricted to cultivable land.

- curing illness or just to care for the sick has also a strong environmental impact

to name just a few points, i can think of.

    

[DeadRamones]

preservation of meat by cooking", which is just myth

Southern way of preserving pork. I forget the name it's given but it's basically fried pork in it's on fat. The muscle meats are fried, the pork fat is boiled in this huge pot. Once rendered the muscle meat is thrown in the mix of fat. Allowed to get to room temperature & then it's preserved. (Almost like pemmican but not dehydrated)

Just a speculation of mine. But I imagine smoking meats were probably first method of cooking rather than on the straight fire.

Also, we all know that raw meat provides the best nutrition. But people have lived healthy lives while mixing raw& cook & even all cooked foods. I strongly believe that grains & sugars/starches are bigger enemies to avoid.

[TylerDurden]

Also, we all know that raw meat provides the best nutrition. But people have lived healthy lives while mixing raw& cook & even all cooked foods. I strongly believe that grains & sugars/starches are bigger enemies to avoid.

It's misleading to suggest that people have led healthy lives while eating cooked foods. There are so many other factors involved which might mitigate against a cooked diet(which no longer feature generally in our modern environment) such as intermittent fasting/caloric restriction or adding some raw animal foods to help counter inflammation/toxins caused by cooking. I mean, hunter-gatherer tribes like the Masai, who WP et al like to point to as mythical examples of so-called "perfect" health, generally turn out to have atherosclerotic tendencies etc. which make them not healthy at all(just "less unhealthy" than Westerners).

[TylerDurden]

But just because it "may" be addictive doesnt really mean its unhealthy (just basing it off of everything other culture that eats cooked meat that has good health)
Raw meat is superior to cooked meat, but i dont think cooked meat causes health problems;
i still think the sugar is the number one cause of most sickness; this is one thing that all healthy people avoid.

im going on an raw meat diet starting today!

An addictive substance is by definition unhealthy. It forces you to eat it to the exclusion of other kinds of foods and the very nature of addiction causes negative influences on the brain re the opioids in cooked foods, fouling up the hormonal system etc.

Secondly, before you start making dubious claims re cooking not being unhealthy, please read the child boards of the general discussions forum(the info for newbies section), where there is a thread which goes into great, scientific detail on the myriad ways that cooked foods harm our health(there are already multiple other studies online, not referenced in the thread, which go into exhaustive detail on the negative effects of cooking, and which incidentally, point to cooked-meat-consumption as being far more unhealthy than just sugar:-

http://www.rawpaleoforum.com/important-info-for-newbies/info-on-toxins-in-cooked-foods/

[alphagruis]

preservation of meat by cooking", which is just myth

Southern way of preserving pork. I forget the name it's given but it's basically fried pork in it's on fat. The muscle meats are fried, the pork fat is boiled in this huge pot. Once rendered the muscle meat is thrown in the mix of fat. Allowed to get to room temperature & then it's preserved. (Almost like pemmican but not dehydrated)

Just a speculation of mine. But I imagine smoking meats were probably first method of cooking rather than on the straight fire.

I had paleo times in mind re meat preservation by cooking.

Rendered fat is indeed a traditional way to preserve meat after frying or cooking but it is a neolithic practice that needs pottery. Here in France they traditionally preserve duck or goose in their own rendered fats; the basis of a famous dish called "confit de canard ou d'oie"  

[instant]

Message deleted due to trolling - just mindless, rude blatherings promoting  Gary Taubes' cooked views and stupid, ignorant condemnations of all rawists as  being supposedly extremists and sickly etc. I mean, these anti-raw fanatics simply cannot accept the fact that no one would touch this type of diet unless they'd tried everything else and this diet alone worked for them.There are too many social restrictions against raw-foodism for there to be any other reason.*tylerdurden*

[TylerDurden]

Well, I was right when I posted a cautionary e-mail re the above troll(Instant) to the moderators earlier today. Turns out he's an out-and-out troll, like I guessed, earlier today, and I suppose when I called him out earlier, he realised he couldn't get away any more with such ill-informed anti-raw utterings. The only thing of substance he said(other than the anti-raw abuse against members claiming they were all ill, without evidence etc.) was a stupid, ignorant claim derived from that dodgy guru Gary Taubes, claiming that cooked meat digested better. In fact, as shown in the thread below, there are links to 2 studies which show that cooked meat is, in fact, less digestible than raw:-

http://www.rawpaleoforum.com/important-info-for-newbies/info-on-toxins-in-cooked-foods/

 I've posted the troll's original deleted post to the moderators forum so as to make my reasons clear.But, given the abuse involved, I don't think it's worth keeping here on open forum, trolls post such unpleasant texts solely to disrupt the forum and waste other peoples' time). While questioning raw diets in a civilised manner is fine as it allows some flexibility, outright attacks and virulent public condemnations of all raw diets(with no  evidence) is absolutely unacceptable, as this is a forum meant for support for rawists, not a mainstream forum including SAD diets and whatever else.

[goodsamaritan]

What type of diseases are these?

Any disease you can name.  Any disease unnamed as of yet.

Have you met anyone who hasnt cured there disease because they were simply eating cooked then all the sudden were cured from because they switch to raw meat?

I am one them.  My children are some of them. 

After a long and winding diet hopping journey I landed in what is labeled today as raw paleo diet.  Detoxes and cleanses and herbs fall short.  The correct diet must be found.  And I found it for me.  It just happened to be called raw paleo diet.  Lucky coincidence. I used to have eczema, wrecked digestive system, liver stones, etc.

My 8 year old boy was diagnosed with tuberculosis.  Raw, rare, bloody beef for him.  So far so good.

My 6 year old boy a year ago had bad eczema and painful on his hand and ears.  Just 1 week of raw paleo diet cured him.

If you check out the cooked meat eaters at zero carb forum on psoriasis:

"I have been 100% beef and water ZC since April 17th, but no improvement in my psoriasis (shins, elbow, scalp, in ears)."

If the man turned to fully raw paleo diet he will have great results.  And for healing I suggest you open to the broad range of raw paleo diet.  The broad range of fruits, vegs, meat and ratios of whether high fat or low fat. 

Some carnivores have good results like the bear only eats seared meats so most of it is still raw.

Raw is the bomb.  Raw is curative.  Food is your best medicine and raw paleo diet is it.

[wodgina]

I think raw fat is the key

[goodsamaritan]

you are right, raw fat is the key.
i believe what they sell in the market in those tiny capsules are raw fats
like fish oil, lyprinol, oleaia, etc.

[RawZi]

i believe what they sell in the market in those tiny capsules are raw fats
like fish oil, lyprinol, oleaia, etc.

    What is oleaia?

[DeadRamones]

I believe fish oil caps(depend on brand) Is not raw. I read it has to get extracted (most from fish heads) filtered & spun(I think it's a form of sterilizing). Not so sure if it gets heated.

[DeadRamones]

It's misleading to suggest that people have led healthy lives while eating cooked foods. There are so many other factors involved which might mitigate against a cooked diet(which no longer feature generally in our modern environment) such as intermittent fasting/caloric restriction or adding some raw animal foods to help counter inflammation/toxins caused by cooking. I mean, hunter-gatherer tribes like the Masai, who WP et al like to point to as mythical examples of so-called "perfect" health, generally turn out to have atherosclerotic tendencies etc. which make them not healthy at all(just "less unhealthy" than Westerners).

Yea it was misleading, since it can have different meanings upon each individual. Maybe Lengthy lives would be a better word. Since there is a thread discussing centenarians who don't follow a strict raw diet. Your right about the other factors as well. unfortunately I wish there were more modern or long term studies done with an all RVAF diet. I do admire WP for his work but I'm also aware of the possibility that most of it could of been distorted.