Richard Wrangham, professor of biological anthropology at Harvard University, believes that to be the case.

Julie Powell interviewed Wrangham for a story she wrote for last Wednesday's New York Times Dining section about her recent attempt to eliminate cooking from her life and eat only raw, uncooked and unprocessed foods.

She found it essentially impossible because of the enormous amount of time she spent daily gathering food and eating it.

Wrangham pointed out that "chimpanzees in the wild spend 50% to 60% of their time eating, whereas humans spend only 5%–6%."

He believes the difference lies in the invention and spread of cooking, "the set of technologies that enable humans to efficiently transform food into softer, more easily digestible and less perishable forms."

Powell instantly understood Wrangham's point after her own experience of spending the bulk of her waking life juicing, dehydrating, and consuming massive amounts of raw foodstuffs in an effort to absorb sufficient nutrients from the unprocessed materials.

She wrote in the Times, "In his 2003 paper in the Journal of Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology, 'Cooking as a Biological Trait,' Professor Wrangham writes that just to maintain the minimum necessary caloric intake, a raw foodist must eat 11 to 12 pounds of food every day."

Wrangham's theory is that the invention of cooking, widening the available range of digestible, nutritious foodstuffs, freed pre–humans to spend the time and brain power to do other things that led to becoming their eventually becoming human.

Powell noted with some amusement the irony of how it has come to pass that many people now believe that cooking is harmful, even poison.

As I always say to vegetarians, only because your ancestors were the fiercest of hunters and killers did they survive long and successfully enough to give rise to the offspring that eventually begat you.

Every single human being who walks this planet descends from a long line of blood–on–the–lips, take–no–prisoners carnivores.

It's good to remember your roots every now and then.

btw I don't agree with the above, but I thought it was interesting anyway, just to add some balance.

As if the average American cooks!

Those who can't do profess. heh heh

Here's a link to another article, it's an interesting article if you're into history, anthropology, etc. entitled

"How did the invention of cooking change body size, bring about monogomy and give people bigger brains?"


[www.abc.net.au]#


Here's a synopsis of what's contained therein:

Ancient Cooking and Sex

The invention of cooking sparked the evolution of modern human social and sexual behavior in which males and females pair up, according to Harvard anthropologist Richard Wrangham and colleagues. In a forthcoming issue of Current Anthropology, they argue that cooking arose among early Homo erectus about 1.9 million years ago. Because cooking necessitated collecting food in one place rather than eating it where it was found, there was the risk of theft. When males stole food from females, the latter responded by offering food and sexual favors to males who would protect them.

The first cooking is signaled by the smaller teeth and jaws, larger female body size, and larger brain size of H. erectus compared to its forebears, argue Wrangham and coauthors, as well as by possible hearths suggesting control of fire. In particular, they point out that many tubers, high in energy, are edible only when cooked; this important new food source would have helped H. erectus develop its larger body and brain. While body and brain size have been said to reflect an increase in meat-eating, the authors note that modern African hunter-gatherers eat mostly plants and that among omnivorous animals like chimpanzees, meat-eaters have smaller or only slightly larger bodies than plant-eaters.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/17/2006 09:04PM by sunshine79.

I really would like to know at what point in human evolution did humans start eating meat, or have humans always eaten small amounts of meat? -- I'm talking like, a million years ago, did they eat meat?

I thought that perhaps cooking might've given rise to meat-eating?

Still searching...

Ok I found the best answer currently offered by science, which is that researchers cannot quite agree at this time - but could be that certain branches of the pre-human australopithecines were primarily vegetarian while others ate some meat.

Here's the link if anyone's interested:

[www.stanford.edu]



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 07/17/2006 09:33PM by sunshine79.

thanks for posting this. I had heard there was an article on raw foods in the Times but had not seen it.

Of course, it takes me way less time to "forage" for my food at the grocery store or farmer's market than it would if I were in the wild. I do spend a bit more time than if I were buying quick to make, pre prepared meals, but I am WORTH IT!
I don't dehydrate things myself which does save me time though.

Also, I am finding that after several months of a mostly raw diet I actually need WAY fewer calories per day than when I was on SAD...so I really doubt that I eat 11-12 lbs of food per day. I do, however, drink 8-10 lbs of water

With all the great food places in NY city, I don't think I could be a raw foodist there long term. The culture of eating there contributed to me gaining about 75 lbs over the 7 years I lived there. Also, shopping is not at all convenient in Manhattan at least....especially if you are seeking organic produce.

Hmmm...gets me started thinking that at some point I'm going to have to set up the challenge for myself of a visit to NYC and staying mostly raw. That will be a fun test! Thanks again for putting this out there.

Don't forget to include the time taken to "forage" for the money that will allow you to "forage" for food in the grocery store. ;-)

Ian.

No shite Ian. I just spent five bucks for three organic Fuji apples (the Galas were actually quite a bit more).

I read an article last week or so that discussed the obesity problem in America. One of the main reasons cited was that food was so readily accessible as already prepared. No one really has to cook anymore. In my own growing city one of the biggest new thangs is already prepared meals in the little corner grocers and the big chains too. And there are Call In Meal type establishments opening everywhere.

Julie Powell, bless her, is just spoiled, like most of us. It only SEEMED like she was spending a lot of time in the kitchen, when in all actuality, raw fooding is pretty quick and simple...unless you've been living on take-out or instant whatever before going raw.

~Kathleen

Going back to when we started cooking and eating meat - one theory (only a theory but the one I generally accept) is that we were happy forest dwelling fruit eaters (with maybe insects) with big brains. Then some kind of disaster (unknown) happend which destroyed a large amount of the forests we lived in. As adaptable creatures, we went out onto the plains and started eating and cooking meat to stay alive. (Ok, that's a very condensed account, more info at [www.kaleidos.org.uk] )

Rob

--
Rob Hull - Funky Raw
My blog: [www.rawrob.com]

As I understand it, most primates occasionally eat meat, but it is high-cost, high-return food and our bowels still aren't developed in the way that cats or dogs or other predators have them (smooth inards for them, noduled for us). Most likely it would have been insects, sea-food, carrion, baby birds, that kind of thing.

Some people still contend that fish and chicken are healthier than red meats.

I have also heard that most hunter-gatherer peoples are primarily gatherers, simply because hunting is so damned hard. In fact, it could have been ice-age conditions and rapidly depleting food supplies that forced humans to shift to eating large amounts of meat. But by then our brains must already have gone through the necessary advancements to have the technology for successful trapping and hunting. What allowed this?

One theory suggests it was sea-food, those omega oils that are so good for the brain (though we might have been eating seeds for a while, this comes under cooking if we want to get significant amounts of oils from crushing or grinding) and seeing as an ice age is traditionally preceeded by an "heat-age," it would make sense that there was a move toward rivers and sea-shores by humans at some point in our history.

The point about tubers is quite valid, I believe.

Agriculture came much later, but we might have been gathering wild grass seeds and making primitive bread – did the article you quoted mention when this started? – and so grains and pulses could have featured. Rather than look at meat as the only answer, why not examine the possibility that increased protein came from these sources?

Not that vast amounts of extra protein are needed to bring about the none-too-massive increase in possible body size you also mentioned/quoted on. A few more grams of protein makes enough of a – and the only – difference.

To be honest, I think it was the dawn of agriculture that led to a glut of meat in our diets, which we aren't evolved to eat. And it was the dawn of agro-business that lead to the low-quality produce of today, and made eating the animals far, far less acceptable.

"She found it essentially impossible because of the enormous amount of time she spent daily gathering food and eating it."

If grocery stores catered to raw food the same way they catered to cooked foods it would not be a problem. Just because society makes it easier to eat cooked food dosn't mean that we should eat it. It's quite possible to eat raw without spending lots of time preparing food as I'm sure many of you know. This woman was probably preparing complex recipies compared to what most of us eat.


I think our "ability" to eat meat and cooked foods has more to do with our intelligence than what our bodies are actually suited for. Humans are smart enough to hunt an animal using certain tactics and tools, but we lack the claws and teeth to do it ourselves. Just because we are smart enough to hunt and cook food dosn't mean we should do it.

I'm quite new of this forum, but I wanted to mention a theory about the destruction of trees and forests and the successives collapses of civilization. It is presented in several books, like the last one from Jarod Diamond, "Collapse".
The idea is that since the early human discovered fire, they started taking wood and so trees down to make fire. As the civilization increased in number and needs for wood, more trees disappear, and they started to run out of food in their area. So they had to move, and to adapt to less availability of food.
Since the discovery of fire is also linked to the beginning of cooking and consumption of meat (cooking it making it possible to ingest), the disappearance of food from the trees is related to the beginning of cooking.
So cooking was a behavioral adaptation to the destruction of the environment. Lack of proper food forced them to move toward something else, and to transform it.
This pattern still goes on everywhere, for all civilization. On the pascal islands, they cut down all the trees to carry their statues, and ended up with an island they couldn't live on anymore. In Africa, they still cut down trees and extend the desertification because there is no more trees to retain water in the soil. Lebanon used to be a cypress land, and after the phenicians built all their boats to travel, they ended up with a desert almost, and the end of their glorious civilization.
And now, along with cutting down trees, we are also doing the same process with oil...
So for me, human started cooking because they were destroying their food without noticing. And we are still doing so, but now in a more conscious manner, with GMOs and so on.

BTW, since raw, I also spend way less time in the kitchen, because I was always preparing my meals before, and I still do, but it's way faster. And for sure I need less calories than I used to as a cooked vegan or vegetarian.

Stephane

Anthroplogy is a right wing ideology; it always was, and always will be. It is not a measure of human possibility, but of the depleted imaginations of people who lack conciousness.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/18/2006 09:02PM by dream earth.

I read that NY Times article when it came out.

Basically, the author was spending all her time in the kitchen bc she was eating only recipes, gourmet-type meals that had tons of ingredients. It was a completely unrealistic portrait of what a typical rawfooder eats.

We talked about this briefly in my anthropology class. According to the lecture, humans actually began to grow quickly, and develop coherant thought/language/culture after eating meat. Meat--as we all know--provides certain amino acids all in one place, which doesn't happen often in plants. There are a few amino acids that the human body doesn't produce itself; those have to be supplemented, or found in food. Because humans started eating meat, they got those amino acids, and started moving forward along the evolution chain. My teacher said that the meat/amino acids created powerful thinking, etc. But the meat was still hard to come by, and not the center of the human diet. Only after cooking was discovered did meat become truly easy to eat and chew and digest, and then it increased in the diet. But I think even though our ancestors ate meat doesn't mean we have to. Now that we know where else to get those amino acids, etc., we can do just fine without it. Plus, our ancestors didn't torture animals, or de-beak their prey, or slit the throats of animals and leave them hanging upside down to die, etc., before eating them. I don't agree with that on ANY level!

Shoot 'em full of spears!

Still doesn't explain why humans suddenly went woosh! while other primates who eat meat (chimpanzees for instance) remained perfectly sutied for the life they lead without having to evolve.

Sound like that anthropolgy lecture was "old news."

The brain is mostly fat, omega fat. There's no correlation between a high protein diet and a high IQ.

Low omega oils, however, bring about significant mental impairment. I'm still more convinced by the sea-food theory. How does the anthropologist in question explain that most hunter-gatherers still gather nearly all their food, rather than hunt it?

I'm not sure that anthropology class lecture is sound science - a conclusion (people became smarter) is based upon an assumption (meat increases brain power) - but does it really?

What if people became smarter (i.e. brain size increased) simply as a result of natural selection? If cooking led to monogamy, that would in turn lead to choosier women - if women are going to choose just one mate, they'll pick the best of the best. To me this seems a more plausible explanation for the sudden increase in brain size after the invention of cooking. Women are choosing the smartest men.

As for why women became larger but men didn't, that could be the result of fashion - imagine the elite novelty of cooking when it was first invented - and if the first women to cook were getting bigger as a result of the cooking, that could've started a trend. Again, with the advent of monogamy, now you have pickier men, as well - they're going to choose as their mate the most "beautiful" woman they can get, according to whatever a particular era's definition of beauty may be.

The thing I was really wondering was, did cooking lead to our increased appetite for meat by destroying available nutrients and plant proteins - did people then start craving meat more?

I think the answer might be that humans, up until very modern times, never ate much meat period, that most of the diet always came from plants whether cooked or raw, and that humans have always eaten very small quantities of meat from time to time. This would also explain why we need so little vitamin B12, the only vitamin that's not found in plant sources but is nevertheless essential. You could eat meat, what, like once a month and still get your vitamin B12 requirement?

And ancient dental records don't seem to support the notion of our ancestors having been carnivore savages feasting on a mostly-animal flesh diet, they would have to have had larger canine teeth like dogs and cats.

sunshine79 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I think the answer might be that humans, up until
> very modern times, never ate much meat period,
> that most of the diet always came from plants
> whether cooked or raw, and that humans have always
> eaten very small quantities of meat from time to
> time.

I think that is prety much true. I don't know how much meat, but definatly a lot, lot less than in the last 100 years or so.

Rob

--
Rob Hull - Funky Raw
My blog: [www.rawrob.com]

sunshine79 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> I think the answer might be that humans, up until
> very modern times, never ate much meat period,
> that most of the diet always came from plants
> whether cooked or raw, and that humans have always
> eaten very small quantities of meat from time to
> time. This would also explain why we need so
> little vitamin B12, the only vitamin that's not
> found in plant sources but is nevertheless
> essential. You could eat meat, what, like once a
> month and still get your vitamin B12 requirement?

It really depends on the tribe. Certain humans ate lots of meat, others less. Certainly during the ice ages humans ate mostly meat.

sunshine79 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> And ancient dental records don't seem to support
> the notion of our ancestors having been carnivore
> savages feasting on a mostly-animal flesh diet,
> they would have to have had larger canine teeth
> like dogs and cats.

I haven't seen any of the ancient dental records so I can't judge.

Adding to Stephane's comment:

> And now, along with cutting down trees,
> we are also doing the same process with oil...

I am not aware of much discussion of the dangers of the latest step in this process: Now that fossil fuels are at a premium, we want to start burning up our organic earth in a new way, in the form of bio-fuels. We will no longer wait for the organic matter to become fossilized. We will process it directly into fuel and burn it right up so that it does not get returned to the earth - at least not for a long long time.

Once we start growing food to burn, how long will it take us to deplete our precious soils? We will need to create some other medium from which to grow our food.