-
I've seen many comments on social media by people arguing over the raw diet and one claim which has always been brought up (by non-primals) is that humans started cooking their food with fire hundreds of thousands of years ago and even millions.
Is this a fact or is there any objective evidence that this is false/what's your counter argument?
@01 It's simple. Cooking meat destroys vital enzymes and water soluble vitamins. These are good for digestion. Usually slow digestion is linked with low nutrient absorption. Because our ancestors eventually cooked meat doesnt mean we became somehow intolerant to raw meat. It has only begun when we started eating industrialized slop. So a cooked meat diet is still good, but raw meat has way more nutrients.
Fuck the mainstream goydoctors
-
@01 It's simple. Cooking meat destroys vital enzymes and water soluble vitamins. These are good for digestion. Usually slow digestion is linked with low nutrient absorption. Because our ancestors eventually cooked meat doesnt mean we became somehow intolerant to raw meat. It has only begun when we started eating industrialized slop. So a cooked meat diet is still good, but raw meat has way more nutrients.
@Hunterskull I'm not claiming that cooking meat is good, I'm asking what do you think about the claim which is argued by people that humans started cooking meat hundreds of thousands of not millions of years ago.
Also can you backup your claim that cooking only started during the industrial revolution with evidence?
-
@Hunterskull I'm not claiming that cooking meat is good, I'm asking what do you think about the claim which is argued by people that humans started cooking meat hundreds of thousands of not millions of years ago.
Also can you backup your claim that cooking only started during the industrial revolution with evidence?
@01 All you need to answer to these non primals is how raw meat is still better than cooked meat. Nothing else. They don't care about the "ancestors cooked meat" argument anymore when they know that their argument is true, so they will use it to prove cooked is better than raw. Find other ways to prove raw is better than cooked by saying something like "raw meat has higher nutrient density and the enzymes are good for digestion".
-
@Hunterskull I'm not claiming that cooking meat is good, I'm asking what do you think about the claim which is argued by people that humans started cooking meat hundreds of thousands of not millions of years ago.
Also can you backup your claim that cooking only started during the industrial revolution with evidence?
-
I've seen many comments on social media by people arguing over the raw diet and one claim which has always been brought up (by non-primals) is that humans started cooking their food with fire hundreds of thousands of years ago and even millions.
Is this a fact or is there any objective evidence that this is false/what's your counter argument?
@01 imo they started using it to preserve meat, like they did with air-dried meat.
When the archeologists or whatever the fuck type of scientists provided the information that we started cooking meat 1 to 2 million years ago, most people started believing that thats when we went cold turkey with the raw meat and started eating cooked meat, therefore we dont actually know when we proceeded to mostly eat cooked meat rather than raw.period blood connoisseur
-
@01 imo they started using it to preserve meat, like they did with air-dried meat.
When the archeologists or whatever the fuck type of scientists provided the information that we started cooking meat 1 to 2 million years ago, most people started believing that thats when we went cold turkey with the raw meat and started eating cooked meat, therefore we dont actually know when we proceeded to mostly eat cooked meat rather than raw. -
@01 All you need to answer to these non primals is how raw meat is still better than cooked meat. Nothing else. They don't care about the "ancestors cooked meat" argument anymore when they know that their argument is true, so they will use it to prove cooked is better than raw. Find other ways to prove raw is better than cooked by saying something like "raw meat has higher nutrient density and the enzymes are good for digestion".
-
@Hunterskull It's not about arguing or one winning an argument. I'm trying to find out when humans started cooking meat.
-
@01 the claims about when we started cooking is pieced together guesses, they found burned bones, campfire that are called hearts (they believe it was specifically built for cooking because of the structure of it) and there is microscopic evidence such as changes in bone crystals caused by heat. the earliest "evidence" like these go back to 780,000 years ago. And those retarded scientists say "uhhh we didnt find the earlier evidences but surely there are earlier evidences!!!" so they claim we started cooking around 1 - 2 million ago.
About the 780,000 years ago claim, this is probably true with some margin of error. How they find the age of the called "evidence" is with a lot of techniques and shit like stratigraphy, radiometric dating, luminesence dating, radiacarbon dating and so on. Look it up if you want to
Conclusion is yet again we will never know when we actually started to eat mostly cooked rather than raw meat in this day and era
period blood connoisseur
-
@01 the claims about when we started cooking is pieced together guesses, they found burned bones, campfire that are called hearts (they believe it was specifically built for cooking because of the structure of it) and there is microscopic evidence such as changes in bone crystals caused by heat. the earliest "evidence" like these go back to 780,000 years ago. And those retarded scientists say "uhhh we didnt find the earlier evidences but surely there are earlier evidences!!!" so they claim we started cooking around 1 - 2 million ago.
About the 780,000 years ago claim, this is probably true with some margin of error. How they find the age of the called "evidence" is with a lot of techniques and shit like stratigraphy, radiometric dating, luminesence dating, radiacarbon dating and so on. Look it up if you want to
Conclusion is yet again we will never know when we actually started to eat mostly cooked rather than raw meat in this day and era
-
@01 the claims about when we started cooking is pieced together guesses, they found burned bones, campfire that are called hearts (they believe it was specifically built for cooking because of the structure of it) and there is microscopic evidence such as changes in bone crystals caused by heat. the earliest "evidence" like these go back to 780,000 years ago. And those retarded scientists say "uhhh we didnt find the earlier evidences but surely there are earlier evidences!!!" so they claim we started cooking around 1 - 2 million ago.
About the 780,000 years ago claim, this is probably true with some margin of error. How they find the age of the called "evidence" is with a lot of techniques and shit like stratigraphy, radiometric dating, luminesence dating, radiacarbon dating and so on. Look it up if you want to
Conclusion is yet again we will never know when we actually started to eat mostly cooked rather than raw meat in this day and era
@piss Is 780,000 years enough for the human body to adapt to cooked foods? I guess in a sense it already has adapted because the body utilizes things positively.
If this is true, isn't the claim which non-primals make that there's no point in eating raw foods correct? They would be mistaken still though no?
-
Yes, it is absolutely true. And there is nothing wrong with it. Fire was always a tool, not a necessity. Raw is still superior. Our amcestors would also hang raw meat in nature for hours to leave it to rot, and the consume it as an elite food/reward, because they know how rich it was for gut bacteria and whatever. They knew better than modern scientists, lol. Anyways, there's nothing wrong with using a tool our ancestors have used for potentially a million years ago. But there is no point to doing it when you can have clean source of raw food today.
-
@piss Is 780,000 years enough for the human body to adapt to cooked foods? I guess in a sense it already has adapted because the body utilizes things positively.
If this is true, isn't the claim which non-primals make that there's no point in eating raw foods correct? They would be mistaken still though no?
@01 yeah we were probably adapted to cooked meat a long long time ago, even before we switched to mostly cooked meat over raw meat.
also, i want to put ötzi the iceman here. He lived around 5,000 years ago and this was his last meal
Hmm.... I wonder why he continued to eat raw meat after cooking meat was a thing 780,000 years ago... Oh yeah, it was mostly to PRESERVE the meat and was used very rarely (again this is guess but a pretty logical one) because its inferior to air drying and rotting meat. Who the fuck would prefer car tire meat to raw juicy meat anyway??
So yeah, when some ignorant tiktok user says "even caveman cooked their meat bro
" just show them what ötzis last meal was 5,000 years agoperiod blood connoisseur
-
@01 yeah we were probably adapted to cooked meat a long long time ago, even before we switched to mostly cooked meat over raw meat.
also, i want to put ötzi the iceman here. He lived around 5,000 years ago and this was his last meal
Hmm.... I wonder why he continued to eat raw meat after cooking meat was a thing 780,000 years ago... Oh yeah, it was mostly to PRESERVE the meat and was used very rarely (again this is guess but a pretty logical one) because its inferior to air drying and rotting meat. Who the fuck would prefer car tire meat to raw juicy meat anyway??
So yeah, when some ignorant tiktok user says "even caveman cooked their meat bro
" just show them what ötzis last meal was 5,000 years ago -
I've seen many comments on social media by people arguing over the raw diet and one claim which has always been brought up (by non-primals) is that humans started cooking their food with fire hundreds of thousands of years ago and even millions.
Is this a fact or is there any objective evidence that this is false/what's your counter argument?
