Most of you have probably already read Daniel Vitalis' post on "Vegans vs Carnivores":
http://www.danielvitalis.com/2010/05/vegans-vs-carnivores/It is a nice article that I mostly agree with. We as human beings need balance of veggies (for cleansing, detoxifing purposes) and meats (for building tissues). What makes me think though is his point that we humans adopted to Fire:
"Even more so than animals like the Bear that, while omnivorous, lack Fire, the Elemental tool that renders the inedible edible. Sorry Rawfooders! We are a unique species, specifically adapted as omnivores, and with modifications to our anatomy that attest to this. In fact, it seems to me that our anatomy demonstrates that we have adapted to Fire in the same way an organism like a fish might adapt to the Water, or a bird has adapted to the Air. Our lack of hair being just one example. Another is the fact that we have the smallest mouths and stomachs (compared to our body size) of any of the great apes seems to indicate a selection towards those who ate the softest and most condensed food sources.
A brief survey of those humans we call the “Indigenous” of the world, especially those who were Hunter/Gatherers reveals a diet that, while varying in the ratio of animal to plant food, still always contains both in ample degrees. These people are always cooks, in that they are never found on “Raw Food Diets”. They eat a mix of raw and cooked foods, as well as balancing animal foods against plant foods. I know of no culture that is based solely on plant food, nor one built exclusively on animal foods."
If I understand it correct he suggests that we can thrive on meats as long as they are not overcooked. It is ok in his opinion to eat slightly processed meats (for example steamed salmon steak).
Is it really that straightforward as we think on this forum, that the less processed meat the healthier it is? Or maybe Daniel has some vaild points that meat is healthy as long as it is not cooked over some threshold of time&temperture?