Author Topic: Cooking  (Read 25941 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline PaleoPhil

  • Mammoth Hunter
  • ******
  • Posts: 6,198
  • Gender: Male
  • Mad scientist (not into blind Paleo re-enactment)
    • View Profile
Re: Cooking
« Reply #50 on: November 02, 2014, 02:18:56 am »
I pointed out before that the allegation that all starchy foods or tubers require cooking is a red herring. One of the early tubers that proto-humans consumed going back 2 million years or more requires no cooking at all (sedge grass tubers known as tiger nuts, and a similar sedge grass corm called water chestnut that is edible raw is native to Asia -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eleocharis_dulcis and a somewhat similar water caltrop is edible raw and is native to Europe http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_caltrop). While consuming this tuber, Nutcracker Man's brain didn't shrink--it grew larger. Here again is one of the links: http://drbganimalpharm.blogspot.com/2014/07/legumes-and-potatoes-are-certainly-p-l.html

Iguana is correct that brain and body shrinkage were linked to cooked grains, rather than tubers.
« Last Edit: November 02, 2014, 02:27:50 am by PaleoPhil »
>"When some one eats an Epi paleo Rx template and follows the rules of circadian biology they get plenty of starches when they are available three out of the four seasons." -Jack Kruse, MD
>"I recommend 20 percent of calories from carbs, depending on the size of the person" -Ron Rosedale, MD (in other words, NOT zero carbs) http://preview.tinyurl.com/6ogtan
>Finding a diet you can tolerate is not the same as fixing what's wrong. -Tim Steele
Beware of problems from chronic Very Low Carb

Offline TylerDurden

  • Global Moderator
  • Mammoth Hunter
  • *****
  • Posts: 17,016
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
    • Raw Paleolithic Diet
Re: Cooking
« Reply #51 on: November 02, 2014, 04:59:05 am »
Nearly right! Unfortunately, there are some basic facts you two have overlooked.

Let's check the facts. The "Australopithecus boisei" appeared between  2.3 million to 1.2 million years ago in East Africa.


The Australopithecines are portrayed as having tiny brains(c. 500-550cc)so are not really a good example, to put it mildly.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paranthropus_boisei
 And are obviously not a true ancestor of human beings, given its resemblances to a gorilla mentioned in the article etc.

Then come "true humans" in the form of Homo Habilis, with much bigger brains and who, unsurprisingly, are portrayed as having incorporated  lots of meat into their diet:-

"2,300,000 to 1,500,000 B.C.: Appearance of the first "true humans" (signified by the genus Homo), known as Homo habilis ("handy man")--so named because of the appearance of stone tools and cultures at this time. These gatherer-hunters were between 4 and 5 feet in height, weighed between 40 to 100 pounds, and still retained tree-climbing adaptations (such as curved finger bones)[21] while subsisting on wild plant foods and scavenging and/or hunting meat. (The evidence for flesh consumption based on cut-marks on animal bones, as well as use of hammerstones to smash them for the marrow inside, dates to this period.[22]) It is thought that they lived in small groups like modern hunter-gatherers but that the social structure would have been more like that of chimpanzees."

taken from:-  http://www.beyondveg.com/nicholson-w/hb/hb-interview1c.shtml

And as the timeline shows, the more meat is added to the hominid diet, the larger the brain becomes:-

http://www.beyondveg.com/nicholson-w/hb/hb-interview1c.shtml

So we have the start of the increase of brain-size coinciding with a massive increase in meat-eating in the diet over the millenia and thus, logically, a coinciding reduction in the amount of plants in the diet  including tubers. So we have a clear case in palaeo times  where decreasing tuber-consumption led to an increase in brain-size followed by the Neolithic era where an increase in tuber consumption and other starchy foods like grains led to a decrease in average brain-size.
"During the last campaign I knew what was happening. You know, they mocked me for my foreign policy and they laughed at my monetary policy. No more. No more.
" Ron Paul.

Offline PaleoPhil

  • Mammoth Hunter
  • ******
  • Posts: 6,198
  • Gender: Male
  • Mad scientist (not into blind Paleo re-enactment)
    • View Profile
Re: Cooking
« Reply #52 on: November 02, 2014, 07:38:59 am »
Nearly right! Unfortunately, there are some basic facts you two have overlooked.
Nice try, Tyler. I didn't overlook anything. You just wrongly assumed I did. Believe whatever you want to believe.
>"When some one eats an Epi paleo Rx template and follows the rules of circadian biology they get plenty of starches when they are available three out of the four seasons." -Jack Kruse, MD
>"I recommend 20 percent of calories from carbs, depending on the size of the person" -Ron Rosedale, MD (in other words, NOT zero carbs) http://preview.tinyurl.com/6ogtan
>Finding a diet you can tolerate is not the same as fixing what's wrong. -Tim Steele
Beware of problems from chronic Very Low Carb

Offline TylerDurden

  • Global Moderator
  • Mammoth Hunter
  • *****
  • Posts: 17,016
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
    • Raw Paleolithic Diet
Re: Cooking
« Reply #53 on: November 02, 2014, 08:22:15 am »
Hmm, so far your claims are even more extreme and wild  than Wrangham's. Even Wrangham had to admit that, for proper digestion of tubers, they needed to be soaked and cooked first, which is why he tried to claim that cooking got started so far back.

 I see you have not  really debunked any of my points. Indeed. on checking further, I see that the Nutcracker Man hominid was an evolutionary dead-end, with an evolutionary split-off (occurring before the advent of the Paranthropus hominids) eventually becoming the species Homo and, ultimately,  us. So Nutcracker Man was not even a direct ancestor of us:-
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1382932/Paranthropus-boisei-Ancient-human-relative-primate-equivalent-cow.html

Quote
"So what of Paranthropus and their grass? Did that influence their brain size? It’s hard to say. What we do know is that their brains never increased in size like ours. They flourished for over a million years, splitting into a range of different species; yet their brains never became larger than 500cc. Meanwhile on the human branch, our brain was more than doubling in size from 400  to 1000cc"

http://evoanth.wordpress.com/2013/07/31/paranthropus-diet-and-their-brain-size/

This seems to contradict the notion in the blogspot article you cited which claimed that NutCracker Man increased vastly in brain-size.

So my point still stands:- as the genus Homo started eating more meat, their brains started growing. Nutcracker Man was just a prior offshoot and ultimately an evolutionary  dead-end, no doubt because of its diet of tubers etc.
"During the last campaign I knew what was happening. You know, they mocked me for my foreign policy and they laughed at my monetary policy. No more. No more.
" Ron Paul.

Offline Eric

  • Mammoth Hunter
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,019
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
    • EricGarza.info
Re: Cooking
« Reply #54 on: November 02, 2014, 08:41:56 pm »
I think it worthwhile to be a bit more openminded about the value of different foodstuffs. A food, a tuber for instance, doesn't have to be digested in our stomach to be useful. That non-digestible starch in the tuber will travel to our large intestine which, if we're healthy, should host a range of bacteria that can digest the starch that's indigestible by us and turn it into a range of fatty acids that our bodies can use. So human use of starchy tubers doesn't depend on us having learned to cook them. I've seen videos of African bushmen digging up tubers and eating them straight away, no cooking at all.

Obviously some roots and tubers are more valuable than others. Some are relatively free of toxic compounds, and those that remain are of low enough concentration and potency that our livers can effectively render them harmless. Others, like cassava, require extensive processing and cooking to render non-toxic enough to eat, so these are much less valuable without cooking.

There's a continuum here, it's not just black and white.
« Last Edit: November 03, 2014, 12:20:45 am by Eric »

Offline PaleoPhil

  • Mammoth Hunter
  • ******
  • Posts: 6,198
  • Gender: Male
  • Mad scientist (not into blind Paleo re-enactment)
    • View Profile
Re: Cooking
« Reply #55 on: November 02, 2014, 11:12:48 pm »
Thanks, Eric, at least you get it.

And as I noted before, it's possible for both meat/fat and tubers to contribute to brain growth. It doesn't have to be an either-or. Humans tend to see things in terms of simple, absolute, binary possibilities ("Should I take the left fork of the trail, or the right?"). Nature is often more complex and subtle than that.

Another complexity re: tubers is that traditional peoples often cook just the outside of certain tubers, leaving the core raw, or nearly so. So this is another area where  it's not a question of simple binary alternatives--there is a continuum of cooking, from thoroughy cooked, to partially cooked, to raw.

It's also not just a matter of the plant toxins that Paleoists tend to obsess over. The outer part of tubers (and other plants) tends to have larger particles that are reportedly less beneficial when persorbed (absorbed into the circulatory and lymphatic systems), with the best small particles being in the core. Studies have found that large starch particles can become problematic over time if they are not broken down before eating and consumed in excess (they can lodge in and embolise arterioles and capillaries if not broken down soon enough by the amylase in serum and other fluids). Cooking (and probably other forms of processing) breaks down the large particles. (For a summary on the topic, see Persorption of Resistant Starch Granules: Should We Be Worried? by Shmuel HaShual, Monday, March 17, 2014, http://glutinousthoughts.blogspot.com/2014/03/persorption-of-resistant-starch.html).

While later research (K.J. Steffens, Persorption--Criticism and Agreement as Based upon In Vitro and In Vivo Studies on Mammals, 1995, http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-642-79511-4_2#page-1) found the persorption effect to not be as pronounced as early research by Gerhard Volkheimer (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1475370, 1974) had suggested, it's existence was confirmed.

Interestingly, the starch particles in tiger nuts are much smaller than the largest particles in large, mature cooking tubers that are more common in supermarkets. Thus, it's plausible that humans would be better adapted to the small starch particles in ancestral tubers like tiger nuts, and it's not surprising that tiger nuts are quite edible and nutritious raw and fresh, whereas those with larger particles and more toxins tend to be cooked, especially the outer layers that contain more of both the larger particles and plant defense toxins.
« Last Edit: November 02, 2014, 11:33:17 pm by PaleoPhil »
>"When some one eats an Epi paleo Rx template and follows the rules of circadian biology they get plenty of starches when they are available three out of the four seasons." -Jack Kruse, MD
>"I recommend 20 percent of calories from carbs, depending on the size of the person" -Ron Rosedale, MD (in other words, NOT zero carbs) http://preview.tinyurl.com/6ogtan
>Finding a diet you can tolerate is not the same as fixing what's wrong. -Tim Steele
Beware of problems from chronic Very Low Carb

Offline TylerDurden

  • Global Moderator
  • Mammoth Hunter
  • *****
  • Posts: 17,016
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
    • Raw Paleolithic Diet
Re: Cooking
« Reply #56 on: November 02, 2014, 11:42:11 pm »
We've been over this before. The human brain requires a lot of energy to maintain. Tubers, being low calorie,  are not as ideal as meats in this regard. Also, that paranthropus boisei  hominid had evolved specific adaptations re enhanced  jaws etc.  designed to make eating tubers a much easier proposition, whereas regular homo ancestors did not have such adaptations, making tubers a less than ideal food for them. The clincher is that eating tubers did not help paranthropus boisei re gaining brain-size.

Not that I believe that just eating meat led to bigger brains. I just think it allowed our ancestors to have diminished jaws  instead of  larger, gorilla-like ones, thus permitting extra brain-growth to occur, rather than being the direct cause of said brain-growth.
"During the last campaign I knew what was happening. You know, they mocked me for my foreign policy and they laughed at my monetary policy. No more. No more.
" Ron Paul.

Offline PaleoPhil

  • Mammoth Hunter
  • ******
  • Posts: 6,198
  • Gender: Male
  • Mad scientist (not into blind Paleo re-enactment)
    • View Profile
Re: Cooking
« Reply #57 on: November 02, 2014, 11:47:13 pm »
Tyler, Eric's post already addressed that. I don't want to rehash it, so I refer you back to it.
>"When some one eats an Epi paleo Rx template and follows the rules of circadian biology they get plenty of starches when they are available three out of the four seasons." -Jack Kruse, MD
>"I recommend 20 percent of calories from carbs, depending on the size of the person" -Ron Rosedale, MD (in other words, NOT zero carbs) http://preview.tinyurl.com/6ogtan
>Finding a diet you can tolerate is not the same as fixing what's wrong. -Tim Steele
Beware of problems from chronic Very Low Carb

Offline JeuneKoq

  • Chief
  • *****
  • Posts: 520
  • Gender: Male
  • It's french for "Cockerel"
    • View Profile
Re: Cooking
« Reply #58 on: November 03, 2014, 12:03:06 am »
Not that I believe that just eating meat led to bigger brains. I just think it allowed our ancestors to have diminished jaws  instead of  larger, gorilla-like ones, thus permitting extra brain-growth to occur, rather than being the direct cause of said brain-growth.
It is totally wrong to simply link diminishing jaws with growing brains. If you compare Cro-magnon with modern men, the former had bigger jaws...and bigger brains!! Our jaws diminished when we started to replace raw, tough foods like meat and tubers with mushy, soft cooked foods. That's also the reason our brain size diminished, but I guess we already know that.
« Last Edit: November 03, 2014, 12:11:13 am by JeuneKoq »

Offline JeuneKoq

  • Chief
  • *****
  • Posts: 520
  • Gender: Male
  • It's french for "Cockerel"
    • View Profile
Re: Cooking
« Reply #59 on: November 03, 2014, 12:18:47 am »
Cro-magnon's brain was bigger:
http://phys.org/news187877156.html

"Although scientists don’t know for sure why our overall brains are shrinking, some researchers hypothesize that our brains are becoming more efficient as they grow smaller."
LOL. Extra LOL  ;D Just like modern technology, I guess  ;)

"One idea is that Cro Magnons needed large skulls because of the difficulty in chewing their food, which included lots of meat such as rabbits, foxes, and horses. Since our food has become easier to eat, we don’t need such large skulls or jaws."



Offline Eric

  • Mammoth Hunter
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,019
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
    • EricGarza.info
Re: Cooking
« Reply #60 on: November 03, 2014, 12:28:24 am »
I don't understand why people make a big deal about the fact that our brains are shrinking. What are the benefits of a larger brain? If having a big brain is so great, why don't blue whales rule the earth? Their brains weigh 15 pounds, much larger than ours.

It's not about how big brains are, but what you do with them and how readily you're able to acquire the food energy needed to adequately power them.

Offline TylerDurden

  • Global Moderator
  • Mammoth Hunter
  • *****
  • Posts: 17,016
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
    • Raw Paleolithic Diet
Re: Cooking
« Reply #61 on: November 03, 2014, 12:32:05 am »
We already started cooking c.250,000 years ago and our brain size did not diminish at that time. It was only when we introduced lots of starchy foods such as grains and tubers  into the diet  that our brain-sizes decreased to a large extent(10%).

As regards, the shrinking human brain-size supposedly making us smarter, that is just typical human hubris. It is highly likely that Cro-Magnon and Neanderthals were more intelligent than us modern humans. After all, they were subject to the theme of the survival of the fittest etc. Neolithic civilisation allowed the less intelligent to outbreed the more intelligent etc.
"During the last campaign I knew what was happening. You know, they mocked me for my foreign policy and they laughed at my monetary policy. No more. No more.
" Ron Paul.

Offline TylerDurden

  • Global Moderator
  • Mammoth Hunter
  • *****
  • Posts: 17,016
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
    • Raw Paleolithic Diet
Re: Cooking
« Reply #62 on: November 03, 2014, 12:35:53 am »
I don't understand why people make a big deal about the fact that our brains are shrinking. What are the benefits of a larger brain? If having a big brain is so great, why don't blue whales rule the earth? Their brains weigh 15 pounds, much larger than ours.

It's not about how big brains are, but what you do with them and how readily you're able to acquire the food energy needed to adequately power them.
You do have a point in that crows, for example, have been shown to be intelligent. So far, with a few exceptions, though, intelligence has been linked to a ratio between brain-size and  size in general.:-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brain-to-body_mass_ratio
"During the last campaign I knew what was happening. You know, they mocked me for my foreign policy and they laughed at my monetary policy. No more. No more.
" Ron Paul.

Offline Iguana

  • Mammoth Hunter
  • ******
  • Posts: 3,034
  • Gender: Male
  • Eating tuna fish
    • View Profile
Re: Cooking
« Reply #63 on: November 03, 2014, 12:46:00 am »
And as I noted before, it's possible for both meat/fat and tubers to contribute to brain growth. It doesn't have to be an either-or. Humans tend to see things in terms of simple, absolute, binary possibilities ("Should I take the left fork of the trail, or the right?"). Nature is often more complex and subtle than that.

Yes, that’s what I tried to explain twice in this thread.

Like most “instinctos” I know, I regularly eat sweet potatoes, and other tubers once in a way. I ordered tiger nuts again some months ago and just ate some today. I knew cassava is said to be toxic raw, but I nevertheless found it palatable when I was hungry on Rambi Island in the Fiji where there was at the time nothing else to eat than that and coconuts plus a few papayas, as there had been a hurricane preventing people to go fishing. Also there was no shop where I could buy food. No ill effects whatsoever from raw cassava.

Cooking got started c.250,000 years ago, well before the Neolithic era..

Yes, we can’t know exactly, but it could be even earlier, perhaps 300 or 350,000 years ago. The point is that it was certainly not generalized until much later, at the beginning of Neolithic.
« Last Edit: November 03, 2014, 12:51:11 am by Iguana »
Cause and effect are distant in time and space in complex systems, while at the same time there’s a tendency to look for causes near the events sought to be explained. Time delays in feedback in systems result in the condition where the long-run response of a system to an action is often different from its short-run response. — Ronald J. Ziegler

Offline JeuneKoq

  • Chief
  • *****
  • Posts: 520
  • Gender: Male
  • It's french for "Cockerel"
    • View Profile
Re: Cooking
« Reply #64 on: November 03, 2014, 01:52:38 am »
We already started cooking c.250,000 years ago and our brain size did not diminish at that time.
Do you have any info to back this up? If not then this is just your opinion, plus you're basically saying that cooked paleo diet feeds the brain as much as RPD, which I doubt.
It was only when we introduced lots of starchy foods such as grains and tubers  into the diet  that our brain-sizes decreased to a large extent(10%).
"Lots" is the key word here. As Iguana pointed out, it is rather the over-consumption of tubers, and the consumption of tubers and grains that are not originally edible raw, that most likely led to diminished brain size.
« Last Edit: November 03, 2014, 03:04:03 am by JeuneKoq »

Offline PaleoPhil

  • Mammoth Hunter
  • ******
  • Posts: 6,198
  • Gender: Male
  • Mad scientist (not into blind Paleo re-enactment)
    • View Profile
Re: Cooking
« Reply #65 on: November 03, 2014, 02:12:19 am »
I doubt that cooked tubers were the culprit behind diminished brain and body size. Grains are more likely.

The dose is the poison. Since sweet potatoes and cassava aren't normally consumed raw and raw consumption of them hasn't been thoroughly studied, one is taking an unknown risk by eating them raw more than on rare occasion. I don't eat much in the way of raw sweet potatoes, though I have tried it a few times. If I ate more, I would try to keep the particle size and toxin level down by eating the youngest, smallest, tastiest ones I could find and soak them first.

I do eat a completely raw young, small starchy potato now and then without soaking, which is something my grandfather and other Irish people used to do, and it is more palatable to me without soaking than sweet potatoes (though maybe that's because I haven't tried a small sweet potato yet). I haven't tried cassava raw. Cassava is reportedly much more toxic than those and other tubers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cassava#Food_use_processing_and_toxicity), which is probably why Tyler likes to use it as an example of a tuber.  l)  ;D

Unfortunately, I don't have as easy, cheap and plentiful access to high quality ancestral starchy foods that are edible raw, such as tiger nuts, water chestnuts and water caltrops, as my ancient ancestors did. The starchy foods that require cooking or other processing are replacements for the ancestral starchy foods that are less available outside of ancient human habitats. I wouldn't assume that the later starchy foods can simply be eaten completely raw like the early ones with the same results, and I also wouldn't assume that just avoiding all starchy foods completely will produce the same results as a more ancestral diverse diet. Humans have been working out various compromises for thousands of years to try to fill the needs that ancestral foods provided. A good GI microbiome can help with this.
>"When some one eats an Epi paleo Rx template and follows the rules of circadian biology they get plenty of starches when they are available three out of the four seasons." -Jack Kruse, MD
>"I recommend 20 percent of calories from carbs, depending on the size of the person" -Ron Rosedale, MD (in other words, NOT zero carbs) http://preview.tinyurl.com/6ogtan
>Finding a diet you can tolerate is not the same as fixing what's wrong. -Tim Steele
Beware of problems from chronic Very Low Carb

Offline TylerDurden

  • Global Moderator
  • Mammoth Hunter
  • *****
  • Posts: 17,016
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
    • Raw Paleolithic Diet
Re: Cooking
« Reply #66 on: November 03, 2014, 08:02:27 am »
I merely cited cassava as it was the most toxic cited among those many tubers which need to be throughly cooked and processed.Cassava is known to routinely cause cyanosis etc.  There are, of course, some tubers which are probably low enough in antinutrients  to be edible without issues,  and then there are those many tubers which are just barely edible but which are high enough in levels of antinutrients so as to not be truly suitable foods at all. The way I see it, in order for humans' digestive systems etc.  to be designed to eat tubers in general, we would have had to be very similiar to paranthropus boisei in terms of having massive jaws needed to masticate tubers properly etc. Plus, the very fact that some tubers have to be cooked in order to be edible does strongly suggest that they were not a significant part of the hominid diet until after the advent of cooking, and even then likely only after the Neolithic when agriculture came into being.

The point is that our bodies are not well designed to deal with the antinutrients found in plants like tubers. A herbivore usually has several stomachs and countless extra enzymes etc. which are all needed to properly digest such items in full. The antinutrients block uptake of nutrients plus the tubers are low in nutrient value anyway.  I do not deny that tubers are seen as fallback foods. Indeed,   after a little more  checking  l) ;D, increasingly, Nutcracker Man and other hominids are cited as using tubers only as fallback foods when other foods were not as available, or not really eating tubers at all, eg:-
Quote
However, research on the molar microwear of P. boisei[8][9] found a microwear pattern very different from that observed for P. robustus in South Africa which is thought to have fed on hard foods as a fallback resource.[10] This work suggests that hard foods were an infrequent part of its diet. The carbon isotope ratios of P. boisei suggest it had a diet dominated by C4 vegetation unlike P. robustus in South Africa.
taken from:-

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

So we have a long period of  increased meat-eating  and less plant food in later Palaeolithic times, and likely only minimal tuber-consumption in the hominid  given recent findings such as above.
Quote
I doubt that cooked tubers were the culprit behind diminished brain and body size. Grains are more likely.
What I have established, though, is that tubers could not have been responsible for greater hominid brain-growth as increased meat-consumption(and, logically, by extension, decreased tuber consumption) was shown to be responsible for that.
Given that tubers are starchy foods like grains, really the only difference between them is that grains, even when cooked, contain  even more antinutrients in them compared to most tubers.

Just goes to show, one should never take anything other people state for granted, even if it sounds plausible or backed up by scientific data, as more recent data can debunk older data easily, given new evidence.
"During the last campaign I knew what was happening. You know, they mocked me for my foreign policy and they laughed at my monetary policy. No more. No more.
" Ron Paul.

Offline PaleoPhil

  • Mammoth Hunter
  • ******
  • Posts: 6,198
  • Gender: Male
  • Mad scientist (not into blind Paleo re-enactment)
    • View Profile
Re: Cooking
« Reply #67 on: November 03, 2014, 10:52:08 am »
I merely cited cassava as it was the most toxic cited...
Of course.
>"When some one eats an Epi paleo Rx template and follows the rules of circadian biology they get plenty of starches when they are available three out of the four seasons." -Jack Kruse, MD
>"I recommend 20 percent of calories from carbs, depending on the size of the person" -Ron Rosedale, MD (in other words, NOT zero carbs) http://preview.tinyurl.com/6ogtan
>Finding a diet you can tolerate is not the same as fixing what's wrong. -Tim Steele
Beware of problems from chronic Very Low Carb

Offline TylerDurden

  • Global Moderator
  • Mammoth Hunter
  • *****
  • Posts: 17,016
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
    • Raw Paleolithic Diet
Re: Cooking
« Reply #68 on: November 03, 2014, 03:15:56 pm »
Do you have any info to back this up? If not then this is just your opinion, plus you're basically saying that cooked paleo diet feeds the brain as much as RPD, which I doubt."
I am NOT claiming that cooked-palaeo feeds the brain per se, merely that  meat, whether raw or cooked, helped feed the brain. Although, given other data, it seems that the more one processes(eg:- cooks) the meat, the less intelligent people become(and therefore vice versa), according to recent studies, so maybe HGs in palaeo times only rarely cooked their meat.:-
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2805706/

My original point that cooking got started c.250,000 years ago is commonly stated all over the web in many scientific resources so I am surprised why you challenge me on this, just google. Only Wrangham has tried to claim that cooking got started even earlier(he claims 1.8 million years ago) and he himself has admitted that there is no palaeoanthropological proof whatsoever  to support his claims. The beyondveg.com link I already provided has a vast resource page and links to scientific studies, and it was already pointed out in that beyondveg.com article that the average hominid brain-size was still growing.

Lots" is the key word here. As Iguana pointed out, it is rather the over-consumption of tubers, and the consumption of tubers and grains that are not originally edible raw, that most likely led to diminished brain size.
[/quote]
"During the last campaign I knew what was happening. You know, they mocked me for my foreign policy and they laughed at my monetary policy. No more. No more.
" Ron Paul.

Offline PaleoPhil

  • Mammoth Hunter
  • ******
  • Posts: 6,198
  • Gender: Male
  • Mad scientist (not into blind Paleo re-enactment)
    • View Profile
Re: Cooking
« Reply #69 on: January 17, 2015, 10:03:52 pm »
Here is some more info on why the Hadza (Hadzabe'e) have been studied by scientists (it's not that their diet is proclaimed as supreme, it's that a group of them are one of the last remaining mostly-HG communities left in the world and they are living in an area where humanoids have lived for millions of years, and where they themselves may have lived for tens of thousands or possibly even hundreds of thousands of years, according to a scientist in the video):

The Hadza Last of the First Documentary
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qwibguSYCW0

Unfortunately their way of life is changing, so scientists are trying to gather as much info as they can before their society is destroyed, and some are trying to help the Hadza preserve some of their land and way of life. It's interesting that so much effort has been put into preserving wild animals, and so little into preserving (semi-)wild humans.
« Last Edit: January 17, 2015, 10:09:40 pm by PaleoPhil »
>"When some one eats an Epi paleo Rx template and follows the rules of circadian biology they get plenty of starches when they are available three out of the four seasons." -Jack Kruse, MD
>"I recommend 20 percent of calories from carbs, depending on the size of the person" -Ron Rosedale, MD (in other words, NOT zero carbs) http://preview.tinyurl.com/6ogtan
>Finding a diet you can tolerate is not the same as fixing what's wrong. -Tim Steele
Beware of problems from chronic Very Low Carb

Offline TylerDurden

  • Global Moderator
  • Mammoth Hunter
  • *****
  • Posts: 17,016
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
    • Raw Paleolithic Diet
Re: Cooking
« Reply #70 on: January 18, 2015, 12:49:47 am »
The point is that the Hadza no longer have access to the vast areas they had even a few centuries ago. Plus, constantly changing climates over the eons  would have led to vastly different types of diets even in the same location etc. So, the Hadza are not  good examples of Palaeo HGs who had access to large megafauna etc.
"During the last campaign I knew what was happening. You know, they mocked me for my foreign policy and they laughed at my monetary policy. No more. No more.
" Ron Paul.

Offline PaleoPhil

  • Mammoth Hunter
  • ******
  • Posts: 6,198
  • Gender: Male
  • Mad scientist (not into blind Paleo re-enactment)
    • View Profile
Re: Cooking
« Reply #71 on: January 18, 2015, 04:15:03 am »
The point is not that they are a perfect example, but they are one of the least bad examples we have left, which is why scientists study them.

I wish I could also share the Medicine Men Go Wild episode on the semi-traditional Chukchi, but I found nothing about it on the Internet any more. Luckily I bought a CD of that show. It was interesting and it also would probably be more popular with LC proponents.
>"When some one eats an Epi paleo Rx template and follows the rules of circadian biology they get plenty of starches when they are available three out of the four seasons." -Jack Kruse, MD
>"I recommend 20 percent of calories from carbs, depending on the size of the person" -Ron Rosedale, MD (in other words, NOT zero carbs) http://preview.tinyurl.com/6ogtan
>Finding a diet you can tolerate is not the same as fixing what's wrong. -Tim Steele
Beware of problems from chronic Very Low Carb

Offline TylerDurden

  • Global Moderator
  • Mammoth Hunter
  • *****
  • Posts: 17,016
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
    • Raw Paleolithic Diet
Re: Cooking
« Reply #72 on: January 18, 2015, 05:12:23 pm »
The point is not that they are a perfect example, but they are one of the least bad examples we have left, which is why scientists study them.
"Least bad" example is just not good enough.  For all we know, palaeo HGs likely cooked much less than the Hadza, and so on and on. It seems extraordinarily  likely that the Hadza diet and lifestyle was way different 100s of thousands of years ago than in modern times, partly because human interference with Nature has become ever greater since the invention of fire. Also, relying on the Hadza  reminds me too much of the Noble Savage theory. For all we know, the Hadza may be incompetent HGs compared to most others etc.
"During the last campaign I knew what was happening. You know, they mocked me for my foreign policy and they laughed at my monetary policy. No more. No more.
" Ron Paul.

 

SMF spam blocked by CleanTalk