Skinny guys are exempt from science

**Res Judicata** · Posted On: 4/12/2010 10:37pm

It's not that we've lost the ability to process raw, uncooked foods -- we haven't. It's just that we've developed the technology to extract more energy from food and to eat food we wouldn't normally be able to eat in its raw state.

Cooking food is an evolutionary advantage for humans. Humans have, evolutionarily speaking, pretty high energy demands (much of that to power our big brains) and we don't have much else going for us in our natural state. Those brains enabled technology which enabled more energy from food which enabled bigger, smarter brains.

Essentially, there's a positive feedback loop between the development of our smarts and our ability to acquire nutrients from food separate from our ability to get food. Our ability to break open bones with tools to get at the energy and nutrient rich marrow as one factor. Cooking food is another -- in enables us to eat things that we would not normally be able to eat safely and get more nutrients from the food we eat. That's a massive advantage - more bang for the buck. For example, the increase in bioavailablity noted above is enormous -- it's almost 2 for 1.

Bread and beer (yes really) are later developments along the same lines.

**Kid Miracleman** · Posted On: 4/12/2010 11:10pm

Wow, I had no idea that practicing Silat made one so irrational and thoroughly unhinged.

Then again, perhaps certain individuals are drawn to Silat because they are already irrational and/or unhinged...

**kwan_dao** · Posted On: 4/13/2010 2:25am

Originally Posted by JohnnyCache

I dunno I don't know if it's so much of a loss/gain thing as an ability to utilize more things as food - Cooking Man can eat apples and pigs, Picking Man can only eat apples. I don't think there was a time when homo sapiens could just nom raw red meat or poultry with the assurance of safety, was there?

Some more examples of how cooking broadens our spectrum of what we can eat/digest:

Yam - The yam root is poisonous if eaten raw. Cooked/roasted it feeds half of africa and south america.

White cabbage - While white cabbage can be eaten raw, it is practically undigestible. The nutritional value of raw white cabbage is nearly zero. Thats why we germans make ze sauerkraut and cook it. Besides preservation of course.

Just a few examples that sprung to my mind immediately. That list could be perpetuated almost endlessly. There is a huge lot of food-resources which only become available through cooking.

Its mostly about vegetable resources though. Really fresh meat can be eaten raw, even if it poses some more risks then cooked. My granny really liked "Mettbrötchen" - bread with fine-minced raw pigs-meat. Got more then eighty years old despite that habit.

Here is a picture :-)

**Permalost** · Posted On: 4/13/2010 5:19am

Ew, my cultural relativism is fading.

**adouglasmhor** · Posted On: 4/13/2010 7:27am

Originally Posted by kwan_dao

Some more examples of how cooking broadens our spectrum of what we can eat/digest:

Yam - The yam root is poisonous if eaten raw. Cooked/roasted it feeds half of africa and south america.

White cabbage - While white cabbage can be eaten raw, it is practically undigestible. The nutritional value of raw white cabbage is nearly zero. Thats why we germans make ze sauerkraut and cook it. Besides preservation of course.

Just a few examples that sprung to my mind immediately. That list could be perpetuated almost endlessly. There is a huge lot of food-resources which only become available through cooking.

Its mostly about vegetable resources though. Really fresh meat can be eaten raw, even if it poses some more risks then cooked. My granny really liked "Mettbrötchen" - bread with fine-minced raw pigs-meat. Got more then eighty years old despite that habit.

Here is a picture :-)

That Mettbroetchen and Rühershinken and similar things are the reason you get toilet pans in Germany with a shelf you **** on so you can check your stool for worms.

Yeuch!

**Matt Phillips** · Posted On: 4/13/2010 7:34am

Again, I tend to agree with what is being posted. The point I wanted to make is that Homo Sapiens must be able to do just fine without cooking. If He couldn't we wouldn't be here. Cooking helps, but it also helps you eat things, like soy, that you really shouldn't be putting in your body.

Those brains enabled technology which enabled more energy from food which enabled bigger, smarter brains.

That's a hell of a claim. Do you have some evidence for this?

**Craig Jenkins** · Posted On: 4/13/2010 8:12am

Quote:
Those brains enabled technology which enabled more energy from food which enabled bigger, smarter brains.
WW: That's a hell of a claim. Do you have some evidence for this?

I am not a scientist, and almost certainly out of my depth with WarWheel on this, but food for thought:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0810064914.htm
http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...-bigger-brains

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...e1894e1f5372fb

http://anthropology.net/2008/08/12/a...man-evolution/

**Res Judicata** · Posted On: 4/13/2010 8:16am

Originally Posted by War Wheel

Again, I tend to agree with what is being posted. The point I wanted to make is that Homo Sapiens must be able to do just fine without cooking. If He couldn't we wouldn't be here. Cooking helps, but it also helps you eat things, like soy, that you really shouldn't be putting in your body.

That's a hell of a claim. Do you have some evidence for this?

It's the thesis of a recent book from a Harvard anthropology professor, although I wasn't aware of the book when I wrote that. It's something I recalled from ... well, I don't remember where. It's a different variant of the theory that the addition of meat to the diet allowed the development of humanity but has the same theoretical basis -- more energy from less time and work. Our brains are incredibly energetically expensive and there has to be some evolutionary explanation for that.

Drawing on a wide body of research, Wrangham makes the case that cooking makes eating faster and easier, and wrings more caloric benefit from food. Moreover, he writes, cooking is vitally important to supporting the outsize human brain, which consumes a quarter of the body’s energy.

By freeing humans from having to spend half the day chewing tough raw food — as most of our primate relatives do — cooking allowed early humans to devote themselves to more productive activities, ultimately allowing the development of tools, agriculture, and social networks. Cooked food is also softer, meaning the body uses less energy digesting what it takes in.

Since physical remnants of fire tend to degrade rapidly, archaeological evidence of fire and cooking dates back only about 800,000 years. Wrangham looked to biological evidence, which shows that around 1.8 million years ago, Homo erectus arose with larger brains and bodies and smaller guts, jaws, and teeth — changes consistent with the switch to a more tender and energetically rich diet of cooked food.

http://www.harvardscience.harvard.ed...ew-book-argues

http://www.perseusbooksgroup.com/bas...sbn=0465013627

**kwan_dao** · Posted On: 4/13/2010 8:46am

Originally Posted by adouglasmhor

That Mettbroetchen and Rühershinken and similar things are the reason you get toilet pans in Germany with a shelf you **** on so you can check your stool for worms.

Yeuch!

Kind of a derail, but I just have to answer, sorry.

I admit what you say is true. At least its one reason for that kind of toilets. The other is we do not splash our behinds with dirty water full of the last visitors debris by shitting directly into the water :-)

We have very strict food regulations which have been in place for decades. Whenever an animal is butchered, the meat is inspected by a state licensed veterinarian. The process is called "Fleischbeschau". Meat infected with worms or other unpleasentries is taken out of the food chain at that point. Otherwise "Mett" and its beef counterpart "Tatar" would probably be forbidden by now.

Here is a nice plate of "Tatar", complete with raw egg and onions. :-)

Most worm infections nowadays come from houshold animals. Dogs and cats for example.

BTW, I have recently heard from a biologist that there are studies putting doubt on worm infections beeing purely parasitic. It seems those little pests strengthen our immune system in return for participating in our meals.

**Matt Phillips** · Posted On: 4/13/2010 8:58am

Originally Posted by Craig Jenkins

Quote:
Those brains enabled technology which enabled more energy from food which enabled bigger, smarter brains.
WW: That's a hell of a claim. Do you have some evidence for this?

I am not a scientist, and almost certainly out of my depth with WarWheel on this, but food for thought:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0810064914.htm
http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...-bigger-brains

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...e1894e1f5372fb

http://anthropology.net/2008/08/12/a...man-evolution/

It all comes down to this: Were our brains roughly their current size when we mastered fire?

Widespread fire useage begins around 100,000 years ago. Now that's not an insignificant amount of time, but it's a fairly short time to radically redisign the animal.

As for being out of your depth, I don't think there is an evolutionary biologist on the thread yet. This is not my area either, and I'm just going on general scientific reasoning here. Please don't defer to me on this :)