I'm thinking that I need to study the more complicated sciences I neglected in Uniersity(ie physics etc.)

I'm eating a wild-hare carcass(whole, well minus bones).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGh5rM3GWL4&feature=related

Obviously, the ability to handle tools is just as important as  the amount of meat eaten. Currently, however, the DHA hypothesis is the only plausible explanation re humans gaining larger brains(via increased-consumption of meats).

But, yes, carnivores tend to be way more intelligent than herbivores, for obvious reasons.

OK,

So far, I've been trying to post all sorts of useful information on the Raw Foodism entry for Wikipedia. Unfortunately, most editors are anti-RAF, so we need as many people from the RAF community editing/altering data on the Raw-Foodism wikpedia page as possible, once a week, each. The page is here:-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raw_foodism

I'm not asking people to change the whole article, each week, just a paragraph or two, here and there. Feel free to add in scientific studies re the toxic effects of cooking, info on raw foodism in general etc.

It's true that the Jainites(southern Hindus) were practically Vegan(and unhealthy), but I don't think Weston-Price visited them.

My favourite Jackie Chan movie has to be Drunken Master, all about a kung fu folk hero who practised a style of drunken kung-fu:-

http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=Yj4GJfPsk6o&feature=related

I've noticed that certain things keep on improving such as my ability to withstand cold temperatures, and my endurance has increased, even after my various health-conditions were solved.

I can see through walls now and levitate for 20 seconds. I'm trying for a full minute!   

I'm not suggesting that I can sit in a vat of liquid nitrogen without harm or that I can do the Marathon every day without hassle,  but  I do experience gradual, minor benefits each passing year, on top of the health-problems I solved.

Mind you, I was so decrepit, healthwise, pre-rawpalaeo diet(being unable to do any light sport    for more than 10 minutes without collapsing etc. etc.) that my subsequent health-transformation, re exercise-performance,  was pretty impressive, even so,  by comparison.

i do believe cooking gave us our big brains. 

Kyle Inuit ate cooked meats.

basically you have these hunter gather tribes that were completely cut off from the civilized world for thousands of years, have no outside contact. THese people cook most of there meat, although some do eat a decent amount of raw foods, but most are predominately cooked. Now why do they do this? if raw meat was easier to digest, gave them more energy, produced healthy off spring these people would most certainly be eating an all raw diet, but thats simply not the case. this is a reason im having a hard time into doing an all raw diet.

\

Just to clarify, while the Inuit did actually eat large amounts of raw meats including lots of  raw "high-meat"(especially the nutrient-denser organ-meats), they did eat some cooked meat as well- BUT it was boiled, so not heavily cooked. It should also be noted that the partially-raw-meat-eating Eskimos have the largest skulls of modern humans:-

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=mHFsScY8ewMC&pg=PA101&lpg=PA101&dq=inuit+largest+brains&source=web&ots=

The above, along with my points debunking the whole theory in the above link provided further up, should make it clear that the whole notion re cooked-food leading to bigger brains is nonsense. As regards the whole issue re brains, though, it should be made clear that the key nutrient providing for larger brains is meat, as opposed to the whole issue of raw vs cooked. Hominids got larger brains as they increased the amounts of meat in their diet, whether raw or cooked, and there's no such correlation between the advent of cooking and brains.

As regards the Inuit hunter-gatherers, it's  absurd to suggest that they must have turned to cooked meats because were supposedly easier to digest. For one thing, humans do very stupid things such as smoking, taking drugs, consuming alcohol etc., all of which are harmful, so it's not logical to assume that people will follow the healthiest diet around - a far more likely explanation is that the opioids(present in cooked-foods, as well as dairy/grains) made cooked-food more addictive than raw foods, thus encouraging consumption of the former. Plus, there's the extremely cold Arctic  climate, which might force Inuit tribes to cook some of their meats for obvious reasons.

Also, I believe you said you were trying a Wai diet - given all that fruit/carbs I'm not surprised you're not doing well on it. Add some raw animal fats/organs etc., and you'll do much better. After all, it's inconceivable that palaeo humans just ate a little raw fish and lots of raw fruit and raw eggs, and nothing else.

Satya - I just noticed that you referred to Wrangham as a biological anthropologist in that essay. He most certainly is NOT! He's a chimp behaviourist and not an anthropologist at all, I thought I'd mentioned that(oh, well, perhaps only in Wikipedia). Other than making clear Wrangham's so-called "credentials" it should also be pointed out that Wrangham's theories are not viewed as credible by the majority of palaeoanthropologists. Here's a reference to an article where this is pointed out:-

http://cogweb.ucla.edu/Abstracts/Pennisi_99.html

"But Henry Bunn, a paleoanthropologist at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, has a more typical--and skeptical--reaction to the tuber theory. He says Wrangham's team "downplays lots of sound evidence that we have for meat-eating and fire use and accepts at face value problematic evidence." A major problem for the theory, notes Hill, is that where there's cooking smoke, there must be fire. Yet he, Michigan's Brace, and most other anthropologists contend that cooking fires began in earnest barely 250,000 years ago, when ancient hearths, earth ovens, burnt animal bones, and flint appear across Europe and the middle East. Back 2 million years ago, the only sign of fire is burnt earth with human remains, which most anthropologists consider coincidence rather than evidence of intentional fire."

This topic should really belong in the Hot Topics section, given the subject. I'll move it there -  the  General forum already has too many topics, anyway.

Er! Why would the US declare martial law within the US, when attacking another nation(Iran) which is 1000s of miles away? What possible logic is there in that? Where are you based re hurricane issue ? Louisiana?

I'm currently viewing a documentary (by Christopher Frayling?) on the brilliant movie "Once Upon A Time In The West"