There is a book on cooked food called "Catching Fire," published last year and written by Richard Wrangham.
Here is a synopsis of one part on raw food (I am sorry but I could not retrace the online source of this book review):
Even today, when top quality produce is readily available, "raw-foodists" are chronically undernourished. The most extensive research is the Giessen (Germany) Raw Food study of 513 individuals who ate between 70 and 100 percent raw diets. Writes Wrangham, "The scientists' conclusion was unambiguous: 'a strict raw food diet cannot guarantee an adequate energy supply.'" The energy shortage "is biologically significant.... Among women eating totally raw diets, about 50 percent entirely ceased to menstruate.
It overlooks many things about raw food, though it is well-written and persuasive in many ways. It just seems to have the normal blind spots when it comes to raw food, though the author says he considered the evidence very carefully and (like everyone) tried of course to be unbiased.
Bk on cooked food
-
summerwave
- Posts: 274
- https://cutt.ly/meble-kuchenne-wroclaw
- Joined: Sat 13 Sep 2008 22:47
-
summerwave
- Posts: 274
- Joined: Sat 13 Sep 2008 22:47
link
http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/wrangha ... x.html#vid
I find this interesting only in that he has drawn some sweeping conclusions (particularly about women's roles in preparing food) that rest on his initial assertions. If one takes away a few points on which he clearly seems underinformed, it changes his argument quite a lot.
Clearly humans now cook but it is unclear to me when cooking became the predominant method of preparing food.... all humans have pretty much persisted in eating quite some amount of food raw, no matter what their devotion to cooking. I look at the same data and see it differently from the author.
I find this interesting only in that he has drawn some sweeping conclusions (particularly about women's roles in preparing food) that rest on his initial assertions. If one takes away a few points on which he clearly seems underinformed, it changes his argument quite a lot.
Clearly humans now cook but it is unclear to me when cooking became the predominant method of preparing food.... all humans have pretty much persisted in eating quite some amount of food raw, no matter what their devotion to cooking. I look at the same data and see it differently from the author.
Re: link
Not only to you. Nobody knows when.summerwave wrote:Clearly humans now cook but it is unclear to me when cooking became the predominant method of preparing food....
-
summerwave
- Posts: 274
- Joined: Sat 13 Sep 2008 22:47
book
Yes; he's very intelligent!
Naturally, as soon as they could, human beings processed foods for easier consumption. This allowed a higher caloric intake than solely eating raw foods alone could provide, and resultingly, more energy from the superior hormonal/physiological profile this overabundance enabled.
It also created shit like acne, diabetes, probably higher cancer rates(radicals), obesity, etc, etc.
lol
It also created shit like acne, diabetes, probably higher cancer rates(radicals), obesity, etc, etc.
lol
People always look for ways of doing things easier. Cars were invented so we don't have to walk around everywhere, supermarkets were invented so we dont have to farm shit ourselves or w/e. Manipulating the environment to provide advantage is not human evolution in a biological sense.RRM wrote:Yes, but when is that?B-Rad wrote:Naturally, as soon as they could
Technically, they could before they did.
Before they did, naturally, they didnt know they wanted it.
So that it more kind of evolved...
-
summerwave
- Posts: 274
- Joined: Sat 13 Sep 2008 22:47
book
Did you find any parts of the hypothesis of the author persuasive, RRM?
-
summerwave
- Posts: 274
- Joined: Sat 13 Sep 2008 22:47
Book
I liked the part about the Taliban!
-
summerwave
- Posts: 274
- Joined: Sat 13 Sep 2008 22:47
male and female
Surely you could find a lot to like in his theories about the Taliban.. (that polygamy disenfranchises the poorest//least powerful men in a culture, denying them the chance to marry/have children without forcibly subjugating and terrorizing women).
He says to defeat Arab terrorism, the West should work against polygamy.
Also that women are complicit in it, as they aspire to marry men who are wealthy and material, for the sake of their children. Perhaps controversial, but I find this part of the book persuasive. He says that to suggest to such men that women have a choice; can freely choose many things (including who they pursue among men) in a society where it is clear that polygamy will continue to be allowed, it gasoline on the fire... That it effectively threatens completely, rather than 99%, their chances if women could even more transparently choose to marry "upwards." This is why they focus so much toward controlling women, and why in many ways they live in a subsociety of all (desperate) men.
He says to defeat Arab terrorism, the West should work against polygamy.
Also that women are complicit in it, as they aspire to marry men who are wealthy and material, for the sake of their children. Perhaps controversial, but I find this part of the book persuasive. He says that to suggest to such men that women have a choice; can freely choose many things (including who they pursue among men) in a society where it is clear that polygamy will continue to be allowed, it gasoline on the fire... That it effectively threatens completely, rather than 99%, their chances if women could even more transparently choose to marry "upwards." This is why they focus so much toward controlling women, and why in many ways they live in a subsociety of all (desperate) men.
-
summerwave
- Posts: 274
- Joined: Sat 13 Sep 2008 22:47
erratum
I should say "Muslim" with regard to the Taliban-- that is pure error.
The polygamy argument he advances holds true in Arab nations, as well-- he talks about both in terms of their similarity with regard to polygamy.
The polygamy argument he advances holds true in Arab nations, as well-- he talks about both in terms of their similarity with regard to polygamy.
Re: male and female
I think he underestimates the disgust of devote muslims for many aspects of western society.summerwave wrote: He says to defeat Arab terrorism, the West should work against polygamy.
(money and fame are our God, sexual exploitation, hypocracy, life of one westerner is way more important than that of dozens of muslims).
We are the 'evil empire'.