Catching Fire: How Cooking Made Us Human

[Truronian]

A nice article.

In concludes that a mix of raw and cooked foods is probably optimal... luckily thats how most people eat.

 

[Mise]

@Narz:
Here are a list of posts that are correct:

It takes less energy to break down (further).

It was emphasized when I took general biology last year. Cooking food breaks it down, easier digestion means easier nutrition and less energy exerted to get it, which leads to more energy being used to increase brain mass. Without cooking we get hardly any nutrients out of plants the cell walls have to be broken down before the goods inside can be digested.

This is a list of correct posts that attempted to educate you on the subject:

Nah, it is. Heating breaks down the proteins or something like that. I don't remember the specifics, but I'm absolutely certain I've read it was healthier.

But are the nutrients that you refer to vitamins? because I think the aticle refers to energy giving nutrients like carbohydrates and fats.

Cooking makes our food 'high octane' we extract energy from it more efficiently

This enables the body to spend more of it's energy on thinking and less on digestion.

"More nutritious" would also refer to calories, given that the lack of calories was the largest hurdle when learning to conquer the planet. A nutrient deficiency is a much slower acting killer than not getting enough calories.

It's not my argument -

I've re-read the OP and I still have the same impression, that the author of the book is concerned with energy value of the food rather than any other health benefits.

Denaturing the proteins is the exact point. Breaking down the proteins into amino acids before eating them allows them to be useable much sooner (plus it avoids undesirable effects from some active proteins).

Humans assemble their own proteins from amino acids. Heating substances add energy which can activate reactions (ie a denatured protein has had molecular bonds broken apart and is more spread out), thus saving the body from having to do so (the body uses enzymes to cleave peptide bonds, and has more access to an unfolded protein). Intact proteins (raw food) take additional steps to render into usable forms. In some cases, intact proteins even interfere with the body's other metabolic processes.

Biology: proteins are composed of amino acids with peptide bonds, proteolysis
Chemistry: Activation energy, chemical and molecular bonds, catalysts, active site

Edit: To top that off, why do you think the stomach is full of acid?

But that's just it: cooking allows us to get more 'concentrated' food, as you say, that is, more calories from less food. Just how often have you eaten grain raw?

As you yourself say, more 'concentrated food' leads to larger brains - seems to me you've proved the OTs point, rather than otherwise!

Granted, though, 'Cooking increases nutrients' would be an oversimplification - some things are better eaten uncooked: fruits, nuts and some vegetables spring to mind. That doesn't mean that cooking doesn't help with other kinds of food, including those we get the most nutrients from, as a rule, namely grains.

Not more energy when cooked, less energy used by the body to process cooked food.

Wouldn't the theory be that cooking it doesn't provide more energy in the food, but overall makes it easier digest giving it more net calories than raw food when calories spent on digestion are accounted for?

It's not just that it requires less energy to digest the same amount of calories, it also allows more of that food to be digested and absorbed in the stomach and small intestine, rather than ending up being digested by the bacteria in the large intestine and pooped out. The author of the book in the OP suggests that cooking increases the share of food absorbed by 50%-90%. In otherwords, cooking allows the digestive system to release more calories from the same quantity of food -- less food gets wasted.

I should say that the 50%-90% claim is the authors, not mine. For that part, I'm just repeating what he said. But for the first part, it's fairly common knowledge that plant cell walls are broken when heated, making them more porous; this allows nutrients, including calories, to diffuse through cell walls more easily. Again, this can be found in high school biology texts.

The above I've chosen as posts that you would do well to understand. Now for a sample of your posts. I got bored, so while I could easily have chopped up all your posts and categorised them accordingly, I just chose some examples.

These are examples of posts where you've corrected people that didn't need correcting.

It isn't.

Sounds like a marketing pitch. On a general level this is simply not true.

This post is an example of a factually incorrect statement:

Most things are healthier to eat raw

In this post you've got about 10% of the way to a full understanding, but have stopped dramatically short:

The "it's safer" is also a bit misleading (depends on the food, at what temp it's cooked, whether it was safe to begin with, etc.).

The main reasons humans cook is A : it allows many foods inedible raw (potatoes, most beans, many grains) to become edible and B : some stuff just tastes better cooked (ever tried raw chicken? ).

This is an example of posts where you've confused concepts. I'll tell you which parts are confused.

No, it really isn't. I've read a lot about it. Pretty much all methods of cooking produce nutrient loss (some very severe, some less severe but usually about 10-50% of nutrients are lost thru cooking IIRC). Some nutrients (like lycopene) become more bioavailable when cooked but overall the loss outweighs this).

The OP, the book, and everyone else in the thread were talking about calories. You've confused calories with vitamins, minerals, etc, and you've confused vitamins, minerals, etc with "nutrients" more generally -- nutrients include things like calories.

Denatures the proteins. I've heard people claim denatured proteins are more absorbable but haven't seen documentation. And again, even if it's slightly more absorbable whether it is worth it for the nutrient loss is questionable.

As Rashminos says, breaking down chemicals is exactly the point. Refer to his posts above for further elaboration.

You're getting your arguments mixed up, that's the argument as to why concentrated food (meat, dairy, grains, nuts) is better than having to munch leaves all day like gorillas (not to say humans shouldn't eat green vegetables, we should as they are one of the most cancer preventative thing we can eat, especially raw). Even apes who eat more fruit (as opposed to ones who eat mostly less caloricly dense folliage) have larger brains (and more sophisticated social relationships & "language") than apes who have to spend more time eating.

Several people have elaborated (above) on why this actually proves the point of the OP.

As I said though, cooking doesn't add calories, it just adds possible variety. I'm not arguing against cooking, just against cooking "making us human". Cooking helped us "conquer the planet" (especially areas that would be utterly inhospitable without cooking) but it's not some core of who we are & most humans would be better off eating less cooked & more raw food.

Two things here:
1. Nobody said that cooking adds calories. Cooking allows more of the existing calories to be released and absorbed, and allows the digestive system to do this using far less energy. Again, you don't seem to understand what people are saying to you -- and people have attempted to correct you on numerous occasions (see above)
2. The author is arguing from an evolutionary perspective -- what allowed homo erectus to evolve into homo sapien was the ability to cook. From this perspective, cooking did make us human (that is, assuming the author is correct that erectus could cook -- which is not a foregone conclusion). So again, you haven't seemed to understand what the author is saying here.

Examples where you've asked for evidence for things that can be found in textbooks aimed at 16-18 year old high school students:

Everyone keeps saying that with no evidence.

I'm still waiting for someone to show me how cooking meat gives it more energy.

I wasn't sure which category this last one should go into, because it could fall into quite a few. Again, nobody is saying that cooking adds energy (see various elaborations above). Yet again you have failed to understand what people -- several people -- have tried to explain to you. "Gives it more energy"... if you understood even the basic principles involved here, you would realise how cute that sounds!

You failed to understand the OP, you failed to understand the explanations presented to you, and you failed to understand the basic mechanisms that can be found in high school texts -- yet you think you can understand post-doc level research papers?

 

[Masada]

Narz I dare you to try and eat some freshly caught game raw. Lets start with with rabbit, duck, squirrel and quail all of which should be readily available. You'll see why cooking is superior quite quickly.

 

[nonconformist]

@Narz:
SNIP

I endorse this with the power of a thousand suns.

 

[Narz]

A nice article.

In concludes that a mix of raw and cooked foods is probably optimal... luckily thats how most people eat.

Overall, yeah, that is a decent article (though in general the beyondveg site is horribly biased). I eat a mixed diet myself since it ensures me more variety. Ironically since I've been cooking regularly I've also been juicing regularly (which, IMO, is what of the healthiest practices one can do daily, along with exercise).

Interesting to note that the author blamed the Pottenger study's results on the fact that cooking inhibits taurine (a protein) uptake in cats. Which just goes to show protein absorption in mammals is a bit more complicated than certain folks in this thread would like to imagine ("Everything I need to know I learned in 8th grade chemistry class, oh and BTW you hate learning new things!1!11 ")

Re : Mise

Even now you're over simplifying things.

Macro/micronutrient confusion

In the common parlance when someone says nutrients then mean micronutrients so that's what I assumed people were talking about. Certain types of cooking may make proteins may bioavailable (like grinding/blending) but also comes with a host of problems, see this link I previously posted.

I should say that the 50%-90% claim is the authors, not mine. For that part, I'm just repeating what he said.

You should really fact check before you just go repeating things you hear, just FYI. Just because someone's an author doesn't mean they can't skew statistics, cherry pick & paint false pictures based on that.

But for the first part, it's fairly common knowledge that plant cell walls are broken when heated, making them more porous; this allows nutrients, including calories, to diffuse through cell walls more easily. Again, this can be found in high school biology texts.

As you could learn if you wanted to that is not the only side-effect of cooking.

You're confused... you don't understand... textbooks aimed at 16-18 year olds

I do understand, I've made an attempt to engage with people & learn things & post a few articles on the subject. Meanwhile you've just got your jollies trying to belittle me while contributing absolute zero. See how ElMac and I were interacting? That's how intelligent people are supposed to behave towards each other. I understand it helps your ego to behave this way but there's got to be more healthy ways...

One more bit of clarity

2. The author is arguing from an evolutionary perspective -- what allowed homo erectus to evolve into homo sapien was the ability to cook. From this perspective, cooking did make us human (that is, assuming the author is correct that erectus could cook -- which is not a foregone conclusion). So again, you haven't seemed to understand what the author is saying here.

No, you're mistaken. I do understand what he's saying & have no problem with him saying that cooking allowed us to become who we are but then he goes on to try to see we must continue cooking, that it's an absolute necessity to us now and goes on to try to attack rawfoodists (even though he doesn't seem to understand that there are hundreds of different types of raw diets or perhaps he just doesn't care). This is what pissed me off & where he showed his true colors. He wasn't content just to support his evolutionary argument. To be extra edgy he had to try to make another (faulty) one that cooking continues to be an essential part of who we are & we must continue lest our ovaries/testicles dry up.

This is the main thing I continue to have a problem with. Hopefully you can understand & appreciate that. If not, whatever, it still stands.

Narz I dare you to try and eat some freshly caught game raw. Lets start with with rabbit, duck, squirrel and quail all of which should be readily available. You'll see why cooking is superior quite quickly.

Again, I don't really eat meat but hunters do occasionally eat some raw meat on the spot before bringing the rest back for cooking. Bone marrow comes to mind for one. Another thing hunter-gatherers (and other cultures) do that modern man doesn't is eat the whole beast. The muscle meat is actually not nearly as nutritious as many of the organs. My housemate gets hearts, livers, kidneys (which he says are the least appetizing) and bones (for the marrow). I'll probably try some bone marrow, maybe a little heart (my cats love it ) but I don't plan to become a raw paleo myself because even uncooked I don't think raw meat is healthy as a staple. Of course I'm not going to argue with my housemate cause A : he's so chill and B : he owns the place .

To make it real clear for those still confused (not necessarily you Masada ) I'll summarize my points :

1. I acknowledge that cooking proteins may increase caloric absorption by a modest amount. (thx for reminding me about that article ElMac )
2. However due to the negative side effects of cooking protein & fat it's probably not a good idea to do so much anymore (now that we know better & have so many other options).
3. Player-haters and non-contributors are a plague. But I'm building up immunity.

Let me know if you have any problems with those.

 

[nonconformist]

Narz, it's a pretty fundemental tenet of biology that Taurine is practically useless for human beings, so I don't see why you're bringing that into this.

 

[Narz]

Narz, it's a pretty fundemental tenet of biology that Taurine is practically useless for human beings, so I don't see why you're bringing that into this.

From wiki : "There is also evidence that taurine is beneficial for adult human blood pressure and possibly, the alleviation of other cardiovascular ailments (in humans suffering essential hypertension, taurine supplementation resulted in measurable decreases in blood pressure).[14]"

My point was that it's not necessarily as simple as heat protein = good, not heat protein = bad, not necessarily specifically about taurine. I do have vague memories of my 3rd grade biology teacher mentioning about taurine being totally worthless though. It was on our first test, it was "fundamental tenet #7" IIRC.

 

[nonconformist]

Do you not understand that as a protein, Taurine can be synthesised by amino acids?

 

[Narz]

According to wiki taurine isn't a protein itself, it's a derivative of cysteine (and thus is synthsized by it, yeah). I can't claim to really understand the process but then again it appears even scientists don't understand it that well (again according to wiki).

My point is that we're only just beginning to understand how various forms of processing (including varous forms of cooking) effect each nutrient. I can go along with the fact the cooking gave us adaptive advantages however many thousands of years ago but the author's arguments that now we can't live without it are weak at best. That's all I'm saying.

 

[nonconformist]

"According to wiki"

The body can synthesise loads of crap, unless you think that we have to ingest hydrocloric acid on a regular basis just to be able to digest

 

[Narz]

Yeah, I know, that's why it's not considered an essential amino acid.

 

[nonconformist]

It's not an amino acid at all


And this is why we suggested simple Bilogy and Biochem textbooks to you.

 

[Narz]

Right, amino-acid derivative. No need to be a jerk. It's late & I'm only half paying attention to you.

Also, if you're gonna be a smart ass you should at least pay attention to your own usage of words.

Do you not understand that as a protein, Taurine

It's not an amino acid at all


And this is why... [I'm an ******e].

bolding mine.

don't trip on your way out the door.

 

[Tabster]

Also, if you're gonna be a smart ass you should at least pay attention to your own usage of words.

20 August

taurine (a protein)

22 August

taurine isn't a protein

 

[Narz]

Um, yes, I know I screwed up but so did NC.

 

[nonconformist]

Right, amino-acid derivative. No need to be a jerk. It's late & I'm only half paying attention to you.

Also, if you're gonna be a smart ass you should at least pay attention to your own usage of words.




bolding mine.

don't trip on your way out the door.

Amino acids aren't proteins at all, proteins are synthesisted, in vitro, from the basic building blocks of amino acids, so no, they are not at all the same thing at all, no matter how hard you try to say it.

Seriously, Mise has given you the basic reading for this kinda debate, why don't you take his advice and you know, read up on fundamental biochemisty?

 

[Narz]

Taurine isn't a protein & you said it was, why don't you read up on your basic biochemistry.

Man, this thread is a joke. I've said all I've needed to and since no one seems to honestly care to try to engage me besides on a nitpicky level I think I'll depart.

 

[Mise]

Man, this thread is a joke.

Yeah, asking for proof of how cooking adds calories after it was explained to you so many times that it doesn't add calories was pretty hilarious! Even leaving aside your lack of knowledge on biology, which might be understandable if you just didn't pay attention in school, you still appear to lack the ability to understand what's being said to you, such as understanding the many, many different explanations for the mechanisms described by the author.

And the thing is, "cooking is more calorifically efficient" is not even the author's main point! That's just a well established scientific fact. What is not well established -- and what separates the author's theories from most contemporary theories -- is how long ago homo started cooking food. Though there is no firm theory, most popular ones put it at more or less the same time that homo sapiens first started appearing -- i.e. far too late for it to affect the evolution of homo sapiens significantly. The author contends, however, that it occurred far, far earlier -- around 1.5-2 million years before homo sapiens evolved, which would be more than enough time to be evolutionarily significant. He contends, therefore, that homo sapiens evolved as a direct result of the calorific advantage presented to earlier homo species by cooking; he uses cooking as an explanation for how and why homo sapiens evolved.

There is very good reason to be skeptical -- putting the development of cooking 1.5 million years earlier than his contemporaries should certainly ring alarm bells. Unfortunately, that wasn't why you were skeptical. You were skeptical about the basic facts of biology described in the article. And, despite repeated attempts to explain those facts in more detail, you still fail to understand them. Instead of talking about calories, you talk about vitamins, minerals, etc; instead of talking about increased absorption rates and less energy being used in absorption, you talk about cooking "adding calories" (I still can't get over how cute that is!); instead of talking about the huge advantage of cooking breaking down indigestible compounds within foods into digestible compounds (I will use the word "compounds" lest I be accused of nitpicking ), you talk about the various insignificant examples of "nutrients" being "denatured" by cooking; instead of talking about the evolution of homo, you talk about the marginal outlier effects of cooking on modern diets -- using that as evidence that cooking is explicitly not healthy!

In short, the reason people are no longer engaging you is because you have said nothing true or relevant that we could possibly engage in.

 

[El_Machinae]

Amino acids aren't proteins at all, proteins are synthesisted, in vitro, from the basic building blocks of amino acids, so no, they are not at all the same thing at all, no matter how hard you try to say it.

I think everyone screwed up a little bit on taurine. But since we're nit-picking, I produce my proteins in vivo!

Narz, thanks for clarifying that you see how cooking was essential to becoming human.

My main reason for thinking humans didn't start cooking too early is because the Neanderthals seem not to have used cooking. You'd think there would be technology transfer in that regard, like there probably was for clothing (though, it seems Neanderthals might not have used bones or rocks as awls.)

 

[Tabster]

the Neanderthals seem not to have used cooking.

Could this have played a part in their eventual extinction? They couldn't get enough calories to survive when resources became scarce?