Acne Q & A Archive: Evolution and cooking

Back to Main forum index
Back to Current forum index

Author	Topic: Evolution and cooking
engesongwok 03-01-2003 06:32 PM	A friend of mine thinks that evolution has made people NEED some amount of cooked food. That we have adapted to having either animal or vegetable matter processed and heated in someway. So these chemicals produced by heating, in his mind might actually be a sort of vitamin. At the very least, he feels we evolved the capacity to handle heat induced changes. On this board and on others, people have said something similar to the following. "I'm sorry, I'm not a caveman. We invented the fire long ago and we have increased our life expectancy ever since." Where do people get this idea? Is there any supporting evidence for it? A number of people have told me that raw foodism is not scientific, but I find that their criticisms are opinion and not supported by anything other than the hopes of industry, and traditional views of diet. To make matters worse, raw vegans, sproutarians, and complete fruitarians are often lumped together under the blanket lable of 'raw foodists'. Those that include raw animal products and insects or small amounts of cooked food never seem to be included for their contributions. I would like to know where people get the idea that a raw diet that includes animal foods is inadaquate.
Wai 03-04-2003 02:21 PM	quote: I would like to know where people get the idea that a raw diet that includes animal foods is inadaquate from official recommendations we are always advised to eat dairy, grains, vegetables and so on. that we actually NEED these. somehow, little people ask themselves for what nutrients exactly we need these foods they don't tell us, (except for the calcium in dairy) but people still don't question these advises. they also don't wonder how the human race could have developed on a diet that did not comprise these so called essential foods...
ninesky 04-02-2003 10:08 AM	I've been taught that man became intelligent once fire was invented. My deduction has always been that the humans who were genetically more intelligence could reason to create fire.. after that I deduced that there must have been a food shortage; that the ability to use fire was a survival tactic. Maybe there wasn't anything that could be eaten raw anymore.. or very little.. so only the humans who could make fire and turn things that would otherwise be inedible into edible would live long enough to reproduce. And of course I suppose that since then, man has been addicted to the opiodes and beta-carbolines. One might even deduce that foods containing opiodes became thought of as "essential" because of the opiate withdrawl. If a person survives on only cooked wheat.. as I've been told most of poor Europe has for a long time.. could they have the same sort of metabolic standstill and "illness" that heroin addicts have from withdrawl?
ninesky 04-02-2003 10:16 AM	Oh and I'd think that raw vegans would be the inadequate ones. I don't see nearly as many problems posted here as I do at www.rawfoodsupport.com . No one here seems to post about problems related to nutrient deficiency.. of course unless they don't follow the energy requirement guidelines.
engesongwok 04-02-2003 11:29 PM	Well, that particular diet and website seems a little bit too fanatical. I found that many,(but not all)that post there seem to see eating habits as all black or white. Most are vegetarian, vegan and don't seem to be concerned about things that I would take as indications of possible health problems. Usually its passed off as 'detox'. The thing that my friends always point out, is why do the MAJORITY of people on earth eat at least some cooked food? Many people eat exclusively cooked food, and seem to equate it with 'civilization' and humanity itself. Usually grains are also included as a sense of 'progress'. I get rather tired of these notions, as my ancestors did NOT eat grain at all until about 140 years ago. Most food was also eaten raw. Apparently people who do this aren't 'civilized'...but are apparently healthier and more robust than their civilized counterparts. Personally, I think people look to this 'evidence' because they don't want to change, or perhaps they aren't open to new ways of looking at things. I don't see a problem with eating some cooked things on occasion if you REALLY like them, but I don't try to live on them from day to day.
ninesky 04-03-2003 01:58 AM	Don't most societies have some sort of commonly used intoxicant as well? Alcohol, kava, marijuana, tobacco, misc psychoactive herbs and elixirs.. I know that most of the modern "raw food" societies consume cooked meat as often as possible, but it's just not possible to obtain it often enough to cause health problems. Until now I thought that the living-foods.com people represented the majority of raw-foodists, but as always, it's good to be corrected.
engesongwok 04-03-2003 11:31 PM	Good point. A lot of people do a lot of things which aren't necessarily good for them. I am sure that smoking has been around for a very long time, and certainly its very 'common'. Doesn't equal ok or good, or imply genetic tolerance due to exposure. No, not everyone 'into' raw food do the 'living foods' diet.(vegan) There are variations such as the garden diet, and fruitarianism. Then there is the paleo diet, and the traditional Inuit diet.(largely raw meat, some months entirely raw meat). I understand that some religions(hindu & Jain) have a fruit centered diets for ethical reasons.
she 04-29-2003 04:18 PM	As our "ancestors" lived on fruits before, how did they stabilise their glucose level accordingly? Were the availabilities of nuts and other fruits containing fats as easily accessed/found like our civilised world today?
Michael 04-30-2003 06:12 PM	quote: As our "ancestors" lived on fruits before, how did they stabilise their glucose level accordingly? Insects
mjkst27 05-01-2003 05:08 PM	Michael - do you crave insects? Do you have the quickness and dexterity to catch them in significant quantities at will? Didn't think so, I don't either.
Michael 05-01-2003 05:34 PM	quote: do you crave insects? No, and olive oil seems more socially acceptable. quote: Do you have the quickness and dexterity to catch them in significant quantities at will? Yes, if I had to or wanted to. As I understand it they are very nutritious and often tasty. If a chimp can catch them, so can I. http://members.aol.com/keninga/insects.htm http://directory.google.com/Top/Home/Cooking/Wild_Foods/Insects/
mjkst27 05-01-2003 09:03 PM	ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha hee hee hee ho ho ho hummmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
mjkst27 05-01-2003 09:14 PM	Michael In all seriousness, the natural human diet is not about what "foods" we would be forced to collect and eat under adverse situations, i.e. "if we had to..." Every animal evolved to eat and thrive on a certain diet. If that diet ceased to be available, chances are that species dwindled or died off. Now it may be a tribute to the human ingenuity that we were able to survive outside of our natural habitat, but that has no bearing on the discussion at hand, IMO The discussion at hand is, what are those foods that constitute the natural, proper, ecological human diet - those foods that humans evolved to thrive on? While we can derive fat and protein nutrition from insects, I am very skeptical that humans would be able to thrive on these foods. To put this back on course, I believe humans' evolutionary function is to pick fruit from trees, eat it, then deliver the seeds back to earth in a nice package of fertilizer. Nothing less, nothing more. Which begs the question, where did the natural human get his fats from? Were tree fruits in the natural human habitat of far different composition than those we eat today, i.e. higher fat and lower fructose content? I suspect this must be the case. OCICBW.
Michael 05-02-2003 06:50 AM	quote: In all seriousness, the natural human diet is not about what "foods" we would be forced to collect and eat under adverse situations, i.e. "if we had to..." I have made no such claims. You asked what I thought of my abilities and I answered. quote: Every animal evolved to eat and thrive on a certain diet. If that diet ceased to be available, chances are that species dwindled or died off. Insects rarely cease to be available except in cold climates. Where humans dit not evolve. quote: While we can derive fat and protein nutrition from insects, I am very skeptical that humans would be able to thrive on these foods. So you agree we can derive fat and protein from insects and are still skeptical, why? quote: The discussion at hand is, what are those foods that constitute the natural, proper, ecological human diet - those foods that humans evolved to thrive on? "Natural" and "proper" sounds like some kind of moral statement based on yuk-factor. And I doubt our hairy ancestors bothered much about "ecological" products. Insects are and always has been nutritious and easily available. Isn´t that what is important? Aboriginies and other similar cultures eat plenty of fat insects. All apes eat insects. Bears. Probably all cultures except western cultures use insects in various extent. If you find rotting inedible meat you can still eat the maggots on it, kick any old log or lift any stone and there is food. Make some kind of trap, doesn´t seem too difficult. quote: Were tree fruits in the natural human habitat of far different composition than those we eat today, i.e. higher fat and lower fructose content? Do you suggest that oranges were fat? Everything is possible, but I see no evidence for such theories. Where are those amazing fruits now? quote: I suspect this must be the case. It must not, since fat was available in other forms, as in insects. Besides, we manage pretty well for quite a while on a very low fat diet as well. I lived on a zero fat diet for two or three years and felt just fine, until I studied some more and changed again.
engesongwok 05-11-2003 05:13 PM	I made this originial post under "fish and dried insects" Well, here is some information about california Indians. (There is a section about Insects-most of them are roasted-so I guess that isn't very helpful) http://hearstmuseum.berkeley.edu/outreach/pdfs/teaching_kit_low_resolution.pdf Some information about Alkali Flies or "kutsavi". http://www.thesierraweb.com/sightseeing/monolake/flies.html I am reposting it as there was some question as to the availability of insects, and human ability to collect them. These particular insect larva are EASY to collect and were once very abundant in Mono Lake, when it was healthier. The biggest thing that keeps people from eating insects is CULTURE. We are taught to hate 'bugs', that they are pests, carry disease and are only worthy to be sprayed. Not a very healthy outlook, as insects are so important to the ecological health of the planet. Particular insects might carry disease, not taste good and be difficult to catch, but this isn't true of all insects! another website, with an interesting quote reguarding "Kutsavi". http://www.monolake.org/naturalhistory/kutzadikaa.htm#kutsavi "Kutsavi, or alkali fly pupae, were a significant source of food for the native people of the Mono Basin. Each summer the Kutzadika’a people would harvest the alkali fly pupae from the shallow waters of Mono Lake. The pupae are rich in fat and protein necessary for the metamorphoses of the adult fly. With approximately 15 calories per pupae (about the size of a grain of rice), kutsavi was an excellent source of food than could be stored easily. William Brewer of the California Geologic Survey remarked of the food in 1863, “The Indians come far and near to gather them. The worms are dried in the sun, the shell rubbed off, when a yellowish kernel remains, like a small yellow grain of rice…The Indians gave me some; it does not taste bad, and if one were ignorant of its origins, it would make fine soup.” The thought of eating insects seems disgusting to most people, but in the context of sociological and cultural comparisons, we can contrast modern American culture with historic Kutzadika’a culture and ask ourselves a fair question: Why do we choose to eat food predominantly low in nutrition, requiring tremendous energy to produce and process, instead of eating of food produced naturally, higher in energy and nutrition?" . THIS THREAD CONTAINS MORE THAN ONE PAGE >>>
RRM 05-15-2003 09:45 AM	Thank you! This is very interesting. RRM
moydodyr 05-22-2003 07:53 AM	Lets not forget that in cavemen times, average life expectancy was like, 30-35 years. That wasnt from a good life and good diet as to what the optimal diet is.... I dunno, I suspect its an individual thing... the eskimos have never seen fruit in their life, but they are healthy...
moydodyr 05-22-2003 08:14 AM	quote: Originally posted by Pimplefaced Assassin: Lets not forget that in cavemen times, average life expectancy was like, 30-35 years. That wasnt from a good life and good diet as to what the optimal diet is.... I dunno, I suspect its an individual thing... the eskimos have never seen fruit in their life, but they are healthy... I also think that humans have evolved to be machines for digestion of anything remotely digestable... what I mean is, I dont think our ancestors were too picky what they stuff in the mouth, because food was very scarse, the ones who could digest the widest variety of foods survived best. There are some native tribes (African I think) that can digest freaking wood logs (some parts of it anyway). Thats also the reason for fire and cooking and freezing. They didnt care much for pimples and cellulite, conservation of food and minimising risk of disease was the top priority...
RRM 05-22-2003 09:08 AM	quote: Lets not forget that in cavemen times, average life expectancy was like, 30-35 years. That is a HUGE generalisation: What caveman time are you referring to? A few hundred thousand years ago? Over a million years ago? And in what area? Africa? Northern Europe? Asia? And under what conditions? (lots of fruits available? hardly any easy to digest foods available?) RRM
moydodyr 05-23-2003 03:08 AM	quote: Originally posted by ReformedRobotMan: quote: Lets not forget that in cavemen times, average life expectancy was like, 30-35 years. That is a HUGE generalisation: What caveman time are you referring to? A few hundred thousand years ago? Over a million years ago? And in what area? Africa? Northern Europe? Asia? And under what conditions? (lots of fruits available? hardly any easy to digest foods available?) RRM Yes, a big generalisation but a fair one. Life expectancy has only really gone up in the last 500 years. Before that, malnutrition, diseases and bad hygiene was the way of life everywhere. Still today the lowest rates of life expectancy are found in populations that live in the wild - average life expectancy of wild australian aboriginals is 20 years (!) lower than their white civilised buddies that live on a diet of cigs, beer, burgers and sodas. I am not saying the difference is because of the diet, its a lot of things, what I am saying is, we shouldnt idolise the way wild humans eat, it isnt neccessarily the best or healthiest.
tasya 05-23-2003 04:56 AM	Still today the lowest rates of life expectancy are found in populations that live in the wild - average life expectancy of wild australian aboriginals is 20 years (!) lower than their white civilised buddies that live on a diet of cigs, beer, burgers and sodas. quote: I don't know the aborigines living in the wild that you're talking about. The much lower life expectancy of aborigines who live in rural areas is well-known and is believed due to the high level of alcohol abuse which causes diabetes, heart disease and so on (and also their bad diet of white flour, and highly processed foods, which is sad because before white colonization their diet was alot better). And even so if there are aborigines living in the wild living exclusively off "bush tucker" they would be eating cooked witchety grubs and cooked meat, something that Wai's diet does not recommend. To be honest I am not turned off by the thought of eating insects or grubs (just not earthworms!). It's cultural conditioning which makes me feel strange doing it. But if I had to eat a grub say in a "Survivor" immunity challenge situation I would be able to eat it without revulsion (so long as it was dead first). It's not a matter of idealizing any diet, it's a matter of investigating what diet we are adapted to, and whether we have evolved as much as we think we have to the point that we can eat foods that our ancestors did not eat, without ill consequences. Looking at our society and the amount of ill-health present it looks like we haven't.
Wai 05-23-2003 11:02 AM	quote: PimpleFacedAssassin wrote: a big generalisation but a fair one. Life expectancy has only really gone up in the last 500 years. the last 500 years is not the last millions of years, at all we simply know waaay too little about human being millions of years ago just as we have always assumed that human beings only have grown taller through time; which appeared to be absolutely false later... quote: the lowest rates of life expectancy are found in populations that live in the wild that doesnt mean that the composition of our diet contributes to this! healthcare, housing, the availability of enough food all the time etc. etc. im sure that if we all followed the 100% strict diet, life expectancy would rise greatly... http://www.waisays.com/LiveLonger.htm quote: Tasya wrote: we shouldnt idolise the way wild humans eat no, we should check our diet for toxins... trans fats, oxysterols, heterocyclic amines etc. right?
Michael 05-25-2003 04:12 PM	quote: Lets not forget that in cavemen times, average life expectancy was like, 30-35 years. 30-35 years? A highly questionable number, and it seems like you those born year 1550 cavemen, hmm... And also an average value, making it useless to compare with present conditions. Children dying, infections, wars, accidents, wild animals and all sorts of dangers associated with living under primitive conditions lowers the life expectancy. If you only look at those who reached the age of for example 14 you would probably see a higher life expectancy than today in western society, if you disregard those that got eaten by lions, grizzly bears and crocodiles.
moydodyr 05-25-2003 11:36 PM	quote: Originally posted by Michael: quote: Lets not forget that in cavemen times, average life expectancy was like, 30-35 years. If you only look at those who reached the age of for example 14 you would probably see a higher life expectancy than today in western society, if you disregard those that got eaten by lions, grizzly bears and crocodiles. Anyone living to 45 was considered a tribe elder and a wise man to have survived so long... the biggest factor was not so much the predators, but the disease and hygiene... and food was a big factor in that. When you eat untreated wild meat, you pick up all the parasites and the diseases, from the pork especially. Untreated water, no plumbing, mice and lice... truth is, caveman life wasnt too healthy.
Wai 05-26-2003 11:56 AM	quote: PFA wrote: Anyone living to 45 was considered a tribe elder who says so? what people are you talking about? what time span? what area of the world?
moydodyr 05-26-2003 10:49 PM	quote: Originally posted by Wai: quote: PFA wrote: Anyone living to 45 was considered a tribe elder who says so? what people are you talking about? what time span? what area of the world? Just about everywhere in the world until the last couple of centuries. For example, archeos digged out a burial ground in Illinois with 800 bones of native indians dated around 1100 AD. The average age was found to be 26 years. In other places it was as low as 19 years. We dont even have to go that far, life expectancy in Europe in 1600 was 26-29 years. This is recent times and well documented in writing. If factor out all the child deaths, it was somewhere in the 30's.
engesongwok 05-27-2003 01:01 PM	Hello All, Excuse me, but I am one of those 'wild humans'(Inupiaq Eskimo)I have heard of such low 'average life expectancy' rates. Don't forget that this is an AVERAGE, and that infant mortality has GONE DOWN significantly especially in the last century. Perhaps life is a bit easier with guns to hunt animals, central heating, sewage processing, and hot and cold running water, and general advances in medical care. Even with all these things to 'make life easier' and 'civilized' I am not so sure that all the negative things associated with easy living are so great...pesticides, overcrowding of people, job stress and boredom, artifical ingredients in food... My great-grandparents lived to be over a hundred. A VERY old lady set a north american record in Alaska at 127, she was still hauling her own water up until a week before she died. Don't be fooled by the figures of life expectancies...it could be that maybe more people died when they were a baby so long ago.
Michael 05-29-2003 01:13 PM	quote: Just about everywhere in the world until the last couple of centuries. Seems wildly exaggerated, or vague. I have been looking for some information about the life expectancy of people from times more than 4000 years ago. I have not been able to find anything substantial. I would guess they don´t find that many skeletons from hunter/gatherers dying of old age. One must remember that those type of people tend to live in groups of 20-40 people, without buildings, advanced tools and probably not burying rituals leading to the preservation of skeletons. The preserved skeletons you find are probably therefore from accidents or other extreme events, which are more likely to happen to young people. quote: For example, archeos digged out a burial ground in Illinois with 800 bones of native indians dated around 1100 AD. The average age was found to be 26 years. Hmm, 800 bones, or 800 people? Obviously not from a typical smaller group of hunter/gatherers. Sounds like some kind of mass grave. Mass graves are usually caused by famine, natural disaster, disease or war. Extreme events and nothing to use for evaluating the nutritional value of their diet. quote: We dont even have to go that far, life expectancy in Europe in 1600 was 26-29 years. This is recent times and well documented in writing. If factor out all the child deaths, it was somewhere in the 30's. Yes we do have to go that far. Life expectancy in Europe in 1600 is completely irrelevant to this discussion. No one here has to my knowledge claimed their diet was any good.
moydodyr 05-30-2003 08:37 AM	quote: Originally posted by Michael: I would guess they don´t find that many skeletons from hunter/gatherers dying of old age. One must remember that those type of people tend to live in groups of 20-40 people, without buildings, advanced tools and probably not burying rituals leading to the preservation of skeletons. Burying ritual is very ancient and present in most cultures and is basis for many religions. They find buried skeletons from 10 000 years ago, with full funeral memorabilia - tools, clothes, gems, weapons, drawings and other stuff. You dont need advanced tools to make a grave, just put a bunch of stones together, and you have a mausoleum... and I dont see why bones of younger ones should preserve any better than the old ones. If life expectancy was truly high, they should find older bones as well. But they dont... quote: Hmm, 800 bones, or 800 people? Obviously not from a typical smaller group of hunter/gatherers. Why not? Just because they walked around in groups of 20, doesnt mean the graves should be in groups of 20. They had cemeteries just like us. When someone died, they would carry him to the common burial place and put together with other people who died 50, 100 years earlier. For religious and hygienic reasons. quote: Yes we do have to go that far. Life expectancy in Europe in 1600 is completely irrelevant to this discussion. OK, Europe was not a relevant example. How about african/american/oceanic natives 100 years ago? They still lived hunter/gatherer life up to the very recent times. A lot is known about them. Their life expectancy isnt any better.
RRM 05-31-2003 02:35 PM	quote: They find buried skeletons from 10 000 years ago That is from the times people first found out about agriculture. That is RECENT history; a second away; 10,000 years ago is less than 1% ago in time of our history as human beings. Human beings were already over 6 feet tall 1.6 million years ago (Kenya). In recent history, they were MUCH smaller. quote: OK, Europe was not a relevant example. How about african/american/oceanic natives 100 years ago? WHAT??? That is less than nothing in time! And they were not raw foodists. If you want to take a look at real raw foodism, you need to go back over 0.5 million years ago (before the use of fire to cook food was discovered) RRM .
engesongwok 05-31-2003 08:38 PM	Examples of 'raw foodists' might be found in copper Eskimos. NOT 100% raw, but a large portion of the food eaten was uncooked marine animal meat. These people did not eat much cooked food until about 200 years ago.
moydodyr 06-03-2003 11:33 AM	quote: Originally posted by ReformedRobotMan: That is from the times people first found out about agriculture. You mean when SOME people started agriculture. 10 000 years ago small groups around Iraq, Israel, Egypt, that small area, has been agricultural, the rest lived by hunter/gatherer rules. Some still do. Australian natives never farmed anything. All these african and south american people... engeswok is right about eskimos too, they never farmed any grain or rice. quote: OK, Europe was not a relevant example. How about african/american/oceanic natives 100 years ago? quote: WHAT??? That is less than nothing in time! And they were not raw foodists. If you want to take a look at real raw foodism, you need to go back over 0.5 million years ago (before the use of fire to cook food was discovered) OK, no fire is a hard one... how about chimps? millions of years ago humans were closer to them than to us. Chimps are still more than 95% genetically similar to us. The average life of a chimp is something like 40 in captivity and much less in the wild.
Wai 06-06-2003 03:51 PM	quote: You mean when SOME people started agriculture that is why RRM used the word "first"... quote: All these african and south american people they all cook quote: how about chimps? millions of years ago humans were closer to them than to us no, no, no!!! that is certainly not true the humanoids that were 6 feet tall were homo erectus (1.6 million years ago); very much identical to us, and faaaaar less identical to chimps! for that you need to go back many more millions of years
Michael 06-08-2003 03:39 PM	quote: Burying ritual is very ancient and present in most cultures and is basis for many religions. They find buried skeletons from 10 000 years ago, with full funeral memorabilia - tools, clothes, gems, weapons, drawings and other stuff. You dont need advanced tools to make a grave, just put a bunch of stones together, and you have a mausoleum... and I dont see why bones of younger ones should preserve any better than the old ones. If life expectancy was truly high, they should find older bones as well. But they dont... You are speculating so wildly it´s getting ridiculous. You, nor anyone else, knows much at all about religion or cultural practices for let´s say 10000 years ago. And as I explained earlier, it is not strange at all that they mainly find skeletons from young people. If we look at the hunter/gatherers in my block, the Sami people, their practice until recently was to never leave anything behind. One doesn´t find any graves, skeletons or any remains what so ever from them, and they are supposed to have lived here from the last ice age. quote: Why not? Just because they walked around in groups of 20, doesnt mean the graves should be in groups of 20. They had cemeteries just like us. When someone died, they would carry him to the common burial place and put together with other people who died 50, 100 years earlier. For religious and hygienic reasons. I guess you can always speculate some explanation to support your pet theory. But it just doesn´s seem that probable. I have never heard of practices like that among known groups of hunter/gatherers. quote: How about african/american/oceanic natives 100 years ago? They still lived hunter/gatherer life up to the very recent times. A lot is known about them. Their life expectancy isnt any better. Really? I doubt that. According to some book I haven´t read, "Paleopathology at the Dawn of Agriculture" people were a lot healthier and more long lived than after the arrival of agriculture. And as long as someone living as a hunter/gatherer can find enough food, I see no reason that he should not be in excellent health, as long as he is smart enough not to eat too much parasite infested intestines and spoiled meat.
Michael 06-08-2003 03:53 PM	quote: how about chimps? According to what I´ve understood the life span of various species is related to the average risk of sudden unexpected death from predators and accidents. The lower the risk of such sudden deaths, the better the immune system and anti aging properties are. For example birds live a longer time than rodents, since they have an easier time to escape predators. Tortoise and shellfish live long, since they have excellent defense systems against predators. If you can be killed at any time in your youth, there is not much point in planning for your old age, is there? Chimps live more dangerous lives than humans, and therefore it is not genetically motivated for them to develop the same strong immune system and anti aging properties as humans. As we humans start living less dangerous lives we should expect a genetic pressure towards longer reproductive lives, slower aging and better immune systems since the evolutionary advantages of such properties is getting bigger. So your comparison to chimps is irrelevant. Diet has nothing to do with it. According to the same reasoning, even if life expectancy was lower in the infancy of homo sapiens, it does not have to be related to diet. They might very well have lived more dangerous lives, and therefore were aging faster.