Bk on cooked food

If your interest doesn't fit anywhere else, leave it here.
summerwave
Posts: 274
https://cutt.ly/meble-kuchenne-wroclaw
Joined: Sat 13 Sep 2008 22:47

Bk on cooked food

Post by summerwave »

There is a book on cooked food called "Catching Fire," published last year and written by Richard Wrangham.

Here is a synopsis of one part on raw food (I am sorry but I could not retrace the online source of this book review):

Even today, when top quality produce is readily available, "raw-foodists" are chronically undernourished. The most extensive research is the Giessen (Germany) Raw Food study of 513 individuals who ate between 70 and 100 percent raw diets. Writes Wrangham, "The scientists' conclusion was unambiguous: 'a strict raw food diet cannot guarantee an adequate energy supply.'" The energy shortage "is biologically significant.... Among women eating totally raw diets, about 50 percent entirely ceased to menstruate.

It overlooks many things about raw food, though it is well-written and persuasive in many ways. It just seems to have the normal blind spots when it comes to raw food, though the author says he considered the evidence very carefully and (like everyone) tried of course to be unbiased.
summerwave
Posts: 274
Joined: Sat 13 Sep 2008 22:47

link

Post by summerwave »

http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/wrangha ... x.html#vid

I find this interesting only in that he has drawn some sweeping conclusions (particularly about women's roles in preparing food) that rest on his initial assertions. If one takes away a few points on which he clearly seems underinformed, it changes his argument quite a lot.

Clearly humans now cook but it is unclear to me when cooking became the predominant method of preparing food.... all humans have pretty much persisted in eating quite some amount of food raw, no matter what their devotion to cooking. I look at the same data and see it differently from the author.
User avatar
Oscar
Administrator
Posts: 4350
Joined: Mon 15 Aug 2005 00:01

Re: link

Post by Oscar »

summerwave wrote:Clearly humans now cook but it is unclear to me when cooking became the predominant method of preparing food....
Not only to you. Nobody knows when.
User avatar
RRM
Administrator
Posts: 8164
Joined: Sat 16 Jul 2005 00:01
Contact:

Post by RRM »

Its nice reading...
summerwave
Posts: 274
Joined: Sat 13 Sep 2008 22:47

book

Post by summerwave »

Yes; he's very intelligent!
B-Rad
Posts: 73
Joined: Tue 18 Dec 2007 04:47

Post by B-Rad »

Naturally, as soon as they could, human beings processed foods for easier consumption. This allowed a higher caloric intake than solely eating raw foods alone could provide, and resultingly, more energy from the superior hormonal/physiological profile this overabundance enabled.

It also created shit like acne, diabetes, probably higher cancer rates(radicals), obesity, etc, etc.

lol
User avatar
RRM
Administrator
Posts: 8164
Joined: Sat 16 Jul 2005 00:01
Contact:

Post by RRM »

B-Rad wrote:Naturally, as soon as they could
Yes, but when is that?
Technically, they could before they did.
Before they did, naturally, they didnt know they wanted it.
So that it more kind of evolved...
B-Rad
Posts: 73
Joined: Tue 18 Dec 2007 04:47

Post by B-Rad »

RRM wrote:
B-Rad wrote:Naturally, as soon as they could
Yes, but when is that?
Technically, they could before they did.
Before they did, naturally, they didnt know they wanted it.
So that it more kind of evolved...
People always look for ways of doing things easier. Cars were invented so we don't have to walk around everywhere, supermarkets were invented so we dont have to farm shit ourselves or w/e. Manipulating the environment to provide advantage is not human evolution in a biological sense.
User avatar
RRM
Administrator
Posts: 8164
Joined: Sat 16 Jul 2005 00:01
Contact:

Post by RRM »

B-Rad wrote:Manipulating the environment to provide advantage is not human evolution in a biological sense.
This is what i wrote:
RRM wrote:So that it more kind of evolved...
summerwave
Posts: 274
Joined: Sat 13 Sep 2008 22:47

book

Post by summerwave »

Did you find any parts of the hypothesis of the author persuasive, RRM?
User avatar
RRM
Administrator
Posts: 8164
Joined: Sat 16 Jul 2005 00:01
Contact:

Post by RRM »

Persuasive?
Not really, but i loved reading the observations regarding similarities
between us and 'our relatives', and the differences between them.
summerwave
Posts: 274
Joined: Sat 13 Sep 2008 22:47

Book

Post by summerwave »

I liked the part about the Taliban!
summerwave
Posts: 274
Joined: Sat 13 Sep 2008 22:47

male and female

Post by summerwave »

Surely you could find a lot to like in his theories about the Taliban.. (that polygamy disenfranchises the poorest//least powerful men in a culture, denying them the chance to marry/have children without forcibly subjugating and terrorizing women).

He says to defeat Arab terrorism, the West should work against polygamy.

Also that women are complicit in it, as they aspire to marry men who are wealthy and material, for the sake of their children. Perhaps controversial, but I find this part of the book persuasive. He says that to suggest to such men that women have a choice; can freely choose many things (including who they pursue among men) in a society where it is clear that polygamy will continue to be allowed, it gasoline on the fire... That it effectively threatens completely, rather than 99%, their chances if women could even more transparently choose to marry "upwards." This is why they focus so much toward controlling women, and why in many ways they live in a subsociety of all (desperate) men.
summerwave
Posts: 274
Joined: Sat 13 Sep 2008 22:47

erratum

Post by summerwave »

I should say "Muslim" with regard to the Taliban-- that is pure error.

The polygamy argument he advances holds true in Arab nations, as well-- he talks about both in terms of their similarity with regard to polygamy.
User avatar
RRM
Administrator
Posts: 8164
Joined: Sat 16 Jul 2005 00:01
Contact:

Re: male and female

Post by RRM »

summerwave wrote: He says to defeat Arab terrorism, the West should work against polygamy.
I think he underestimates the disgust of devote muslims for many aspects of western society.
(money and fame are our God, sexual exploitation, hypocracy, life of one westerner is way more important than that of dozens of muslims).
We are the 'evil empire'.
Post Reply