There probably is not a human being on the planet that doesn't suffer from "confirmation bias" to some degree or other. So it's only natural to sear ch for data which appears to validate our opinions. Staying detached and o bjective is difficult, especially with subjects that are near & dear to our heart. Those that hold what could be called extremest views are often mor e susceptible to "confirmation bias" than most.
Anyway back to the topic at hand, I mentioned before that proteins are bro ken down by stomach acids and don't generally survive the transition to you r intestines intact.
The following site tends to debunk some food myths.
formatting link
The other pages at this site are worth perusing as well.
opinions. Staying detached and objective is difficult, especially with subjects that are near & dear to our heart.
to "confirmation bias" than most.
On the other hand...those that consider some views to be "extremist" may or may not be very sure about the subject in question...or have no money in the pot.
What it tells me is that you introduced a ridiculous example when promoting raw food, because, if you're eating blubber, how you cook it or not probably has little to do with how long you'll live.
Sure. Crocodiles for example. Kill a large animals and than let them rot a bit so it is easier to eat them. Dogs bury food that they don't eat and dig it up later (and I hope that you don't think that buried food stays fresh like it does in the fridge)
But of course most animals don't store food and when their food stocks runs out they either immigrate or starve. Humans, on the other hand "cooks, freezes, seasons, pickles, ferments" or otherwise prevent their food from deteriorating and when the food in the field runs out they eat the stored food.
opinions. Staying detached and objective is difficult, especially with subjects that are near & dear to our heart.
susceptible to "confirmation bias" than most.
Depends on WhICH part of So. Cal you are talking about. Where I live..its considered a Constitutional Right.
In Compton...not so much.
You DO know that most of California is a nice red and conservative state..right?
formatting link
Unfortunately..the blue areas to the north and south are packed Liberal on Liberal...like rats in cage. And thats where the most of the votes come from.
Every so often..they dust off the idea of breaking California into two states..which would be prefectly fine with most of us.
You (and Slocomb) are lost. I never held raw blubber up as a fine food, superior to Plimpton's cooked blubber. Never said anything about omnivore vs. vegetarian either.
And Eskimo life expectancy, by most accounts, is shit.
Since we both apparently read it the same way, that's what you appear to have communicated -- not that it's a fine food, but that it's an example of what's "natural," as in: "Eskimos like their blubbery flesh raw. A natural diet would not be cooked."
It's more "natural" to primitive peoples, it appears. For the most part, cooking food is intertwined with human evolution:
"The shift to cooking is reflected in modern human anatomy. For one, our jaws are considerably smaller?and thus less able to bite into hard foods?than those of our earliest ancestors.
"Also, our gut is not set up for processing raw items as effectively as cooked food."
formatting link
That's not to say that eating raw food is necessarily bad, especially for those who have a weight problem. Eating and digesting raw food is much less efficient, which may not be bad for everyone:
"H. erectus had a large brain and body size, and many believe that the species' hunter-gatherer lifestyle?associated with more cooked meat?fueled its growth." "...Yesterday Richard Wrangham, a biological anthropologist at Harvard University, served up new evidence for his hypothesis: Cooking decreases the energy cost of eating.
"For primates, including humans, "energy is absolutely critical, and [it's] what natural selection is constantly trying to maximize," Wrangham said during a preview of his work at the American Association for the Advancement of Science's annual meeting in Chicago."
(same link as above)
So the chemistry of it may be very controversial, but the point of cooking food appears not to be. If you have a defense for your position it's not what ancient man ate; it's what we need to avoid in our current, overfed culture.
Carry on with whatever works for you. Just don't promote your diet for everyone. There was a bunch on CompuServe who invaded a diabetes forum many years ago (I was a sysop there), and we had to threaten them with legal action before they killed some of our members.
Food fads are personal things. It's best to keep them that way.
I saide no such thing. I said it breaks down cell walls. As the link I provided in another post indicates, the purpose of that is primarily to make digestion more efficient.
Jon, of all the topics in the world that I don't want to hear about, what you've learned about your own body falls somewhere between the art of sewage-plant maintenance and the sexual habits of the ring-tailed lemur.
Not that I wouldn't read about it if there was nothing else left to read at the barber shop. But, please, post it to yourself. You've been doing that a lot lately and it's simplified personal hygiene here on RCM. Please continue.
PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.