From: gts (gts_2000@yahoo.com)
Date: Tue Apr 15 2003 - 18:18:23 MDT
Brian Atkins wrote:
> gts wrote:
>>
>> On the other hand I do know some paleodiet purists who are willing to
>> risk infectious disease by eating raw meat. Evidence that we are not
>> adapted to cooked meat: meat produces carcinogenic heterocyclic
>> amines when cooked over a fire. Paleodieters who prefer cooked meat
>> (most of them) therefore try to broil or boil it, or at least to
>> cook it very slowly and lightly over a very low fire so as reduce
>> the production of heterocyclic amines.
>>
>
> I don't think that qualifies as evidence.
No? If a substance causes cancer in humans then how can you say humans are
adapted to it?
> Evidence as presented at the
> following URL for instance says that homo sapiens were likely cooking
> meat and otherwise using fire right when they were first evolving
> 125k+ years ago.
Yes but our genetic past stretches back several million years (actually
billions of years, though most prefer to draw the line at early hominids).
Fire-cooking is relatively recent on that time-scale, though I will agree
that we are probably *almost* adapted to it.
> http://www.applesforhealth.com/WomensHealth/redmeacolc4.html
I don't see any problem with the conclusions in that article:
"As to why the Western-style of diet might increase colon cancer risk, Fung
said it might be a combination of factors. Processed meats and red meat
cooked at high temperatures contain chemicals that can increase cancer
risk,..."
This is exactly my point. "Processed meats and red meat cooked at high
temperatures contain chemicals that increase cancer risk."
I will agree with you however that the subject of fire-cooking is still very
much open to debate, even among serious paleodieters. This is due mainly to
fact that we can't be quite sure when fire-cooking first appeared. Some say
it happened as recently as 50,000 years ago, while others such as those you
quote think it happened more like 125,000 years ago. It is also possible
that hominids have been eating plenty of the cooked meat left over from
forest fires for much longer than 125,000 years. The further back we push
the date, the more acceptable it looks.
As for studies which purport to show that HCA's are not carcinogenic in the
first place, this is a perfect example of the ambiguity and contradictions
in modern nutritional science. Some say HCA's are carcinogenic, some say
otherwise. Paleodiet theory attempts to settle the debate with archeology
and evolution science rather than nutritional science.
-gts
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Apr 15 2003 - 18:24:45 MDT