Are cooked vegetables all that bad?

[Ferocious]

Tyler,Humans have no useful physical adaptations to facilitate killing a beast which could weigh thousands of pounds.

Uhm yes we do, our brain.

[TylerDurden]

*Moved back to hot topics where this subject belongs*. Cooked vegetables-oriented subjects do not belong in the raw, omnivorous forum at all.

[TylerDurden]

Tyler,Humans have no useful physical adaptations to facilitate killing a beast which could weigh thousands of pounds. All we have is fisticuffs vs. a woolly rhinoceros, in addition to our ferocious chompers of course. Even if you managed to slay the beast, you would still need a sharp blade to dress the carcass and extract the meat. The point is cognitive ability and technology allow us achieve goals that are otherwise biologically or naturally impossible.

Dead wrong, there. First of all, most anthropologists point out that mass hunting only really appeared towards the tail-end of the Palaeolithic era. Before that point, hominids were primarily scavengers who waited until after predators had had their fill before  scavenging the rotting remains. Indeed, it is theorised that because they ate high-grade nutrients the predators left behind(specifically brains and marrow) their hominid brains thereby increased in size as a result. So no need for them to have used knives or any other tools for cutting up meats etc. Cooking is only necessary for dealing with low-quality foods that should be avoided anyway.

The WAPF tries to be moderate and sensible in my opinion. According to the WAPF, humans can be healthy and strong on a variety of diets which contain high quality natural foods, much of it raw.

  Unfortunately, the WAPF and WP make themselves ridiculous by suggesting that all sorts of HGs on quite different diets to each other were all universally healthy. This is ridiculously unlikely. And there is really no proof of any validity to back WP/WAPF's claims. Indeed, there is evidence, here and there, to suggest that HGs were by no means perfect paragons of health, being merely "less unhealthy" than modern peoples on SAD diets.

Theoretically the exclusive consumption of the best (raw) foods is good; however, one issue I have is that many raw dieters report improvements in physical performance with the inclusion of cooked starches. For me, a fully raw diet would be realistic if there was a practical source of raw non-fruit starch.

  While a few sickly people have suggested resorting to cooked starch, I have serious doubts that it works. Certainly not for me, I do better on raw meats and raw fruits re physical performance, just feel bodged on cooked starches.

[Muhammad.Sunshine]

So, hominids used other predators as a proxy for obtaining meat. That backs up what I was saying.

Hominids lack the physical characteristics to hunt animals, using predators to hunt for you is the same principle as using a spear: they are both cognitively devised technologies which achieve goals beyond your physical (bodily) capabilities.

Just to clarify, this is not about actually eating meat, nor is it about ancient hominids; it is about modern human beings and the use of cognitive power to overcome the limitations imposed by nature.

Tyler, you mentioned you get sufficient energy for physical performance with raw meat and fruits. How much fruit do you consume on average?
Are there any concern about fructose? There are conflicting opinions about the subject.

[TylerDurden]

Palaeo humans did not need to  be hunters of big game. They could harvest clams or kill and eat smaller animals without any need for claws, spears, intelligence or whatever. Plus, I am not convinced that humans were unable to hunt and carve big game without knives or use of fire etc. Humans were pretty clever even then.

[goodsamaritan]

How easy it is to:

- Persistence hunt (try this with your dog, you will always win)
- Scare them off a cliff.
- set up a trap, pit, etc.

[sabertooth]

David Attenborough - African Kalahari Desert Kudu Persistence Hunt

This explains how humans were designed to hunt.

A guy from my church did an entire homily on the subject.
It basically explained how we evolved from more primitive hominids who learned to gather and scavenge animal foods, which sparked the great leap in brain growth. That larger brain needed more and more animal foods to support, which drove us to evolve  to be capable of tracking and running down animals on foot until the animal is exhausted and easily killed with a stone, or stick.

[cherimoya_kid]

Re: Dr. Price saying that all HG diets are equivalent for health--no he did NOT.  You have to read fairly carefully, but he specifically mentions that diets that included significant amounts of seafoods as being the best. He specifically mentions the Peruvian Indians and the Maori as having the best teeth, especially the Maori.  Both of those groups emphasized seafoods for health.  He mentions that the Maasai had the best teeth of all the African groups he studied, and he attributes that to their consumption of large amounts of cattle products, both meat and milk.  He very specifically points out that the groups that ate more grains/carbs did NOT have as good teeth or bone structure, like the Swiss and the Bantu.

He mentions that the Eskimos had the most robust skeletons and jaw structure and largest brains, and attributes that to the seafoods in their diet, although we know now that their extremely strong jaws and larger brains are probably genetic, at least somewhat.

 

[HIT_it_RAW]

Nice to see the rest of the world is slowly catching up with Dr weston price:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-15823276
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2011/11/15/1113050108

Although I think they interpreted the research results wrong.

[PaleoPhil]

More primitive animals than hominins, like chimps, baboons, tarsiers and lorids, hunt little critters and some of them even hunt some surprisingly large game. Hunting is rather common among primates.

[Muhammad.Sunshine]

Persistence hunting utilizes bipedal locomotion and bodily energy stores; you can hunt with your own body this way, cool. I was wondering how a human could hunt with only their natural physical endowments, other predatory animals use their fangs, claws, or brute strength.

Cherimoya_kid, you are correct. Dr. Price found that African tribes who consumed more animal products tended to be stronger and have better teeth. Interestingly, the Dinka tribe had .2% incidence of caries compared to the Masai who had .4%. The Dinka tribe ate liberal amounts of fish and whole grains.

[TylerDurden]

Actually, it's surprising how little animals make use of their natural weapons. For example, a very large number of predators(eg:- cheetahs/crocodiles etc. etc.) prefer to go in for suffocating their prey to death, as steadily mauling them to death with their claws is far too time-consuming, and even somewhat risky.

[PaleoPhil]

There is plenty of info in this forum on how humans and other animals can hunt insects, grubs, lizards, eggs, and even large game without using fangs, claws, or brute strength and it doesn't take a lot of imagination to think of ways of doing so, so I'm left wondering how anyone could be snookered by the vegetarian arguments on the topic.

The tarsier is an obligate carnivore. Here is an image of one:

Does it look like the tarsier uses big fangs, claws, or brute strength or that one needs these in order to eat a carnivorous diet?

[cherimoya_kid]

Actually, it's surprising how little animals make use of their natural weapons. For example, a very large number of predators(eg:- cheetahs/crocodiles etc. etc.) prefer to go in for suffocating their prey to death, as steadily mauling them to death with their claws is far too time-consuming, and even somewhat risky.

Excellent point.  The more thrashing around, the more both prey and predator can get hit.