If we see food as nutrition, however, cooking is only useful for extending the possibilities of vegetables and grains. In doing so with the latter, though, we risk overdoing the carbs.

{;¬0

For a good resume of what – i believe – is actually “Neolithic” as opposed to modern, see http://gutenberg.net.au/ebooks02/0200251h.html. Almost no tribe studied in the last 100 years is not Neolithic.

Generally, Neolithic peoples were settled hunters, who grew some grains, veg and domesticated animals as well. I call it an “extension” because they generally extended, and made more locally reliable, the range of what hunter gatherers had been doing. They did add grains – but these were nothing like as extensive as in poor or rich Westernised countries today. A good example of the Neolithic advanced dairy diet is the traditional mountain Swiss. They ate mainly dairy with a few home grown veg and rye. They not only lived longer than most, but were so physically impressive that the Pope employed their young men as Pontifical guards (the famous Swiss Guards). The book cited above (http://gutenberg.net.au/ebooks02/0200251h.html) has a good section on the Swiss.

Grain based diets on a large scale is a later phenomenom – generally speaking – culminating in post industrial modern farming. The exception in early times may the the Middle East and Egypt where “larger” scale grain farming originated – but we shouldn’t generalise their experience to the rest of the Neolithic world.

For me, poverty and large populations subsisting on cheap grains -rice etc – and modern Western junk carb diets are where the main problems arise. We aught agree on this Mark.

I’m not sure we can say anything very solid on “Paleo-cooking” either way – not much use for me or you i think. The evidence is too scant to interpret usefully.

The only use for cooking, nutritionally speaking as far as i can see, is for: searing the outside only for meat to ensure killing pathogens – raw meat is better for you (complete proteins – taurine – easier to digest etc); and cooking veg – i.e. tomatoes are more nutritionally viable cooked than raw.

PS – i don’t support the over-hyped pork is a risk if uncooked malarkey. In fact, most gourmets teach that beef, duck and some other meats are better rare than cooked.

We highly regard cooking, I’ll wager, because that’s our culture – we associate it with safety, flavour and aesthetic taste- but it’s not scientific.

If we see food as nutrition, however, cooking is only useful for extending the possibilities of vegetables and grains. In doing so with the latter, though, we risk should not overdo the carbs.

M

GG

As for your comment about vegetables, I agree…we probably should not consume vegetables that can’t be consumed in the raw state (but that means grains, legumes, potatoes, etc). So, yes, you DO hear objections to eating the ones that NEED to be cooked. That doesn’t mean we can’t cook the acceptable ones, though (carrots, squash, tomatoes, celery, kale, etc).

Finally, paleo cooking existed for maybe 500,000 years or more, so it’s likely that our genes had more time to adapt to cooking than in the 10,000 years we’ve had (only) since neolithic times.

Should not the Primal Blueprint be about whatever food is COMPATIBLE with the Paleolithic – and therefore biologically appropriate – dietary models for humans.

The Neolithic model was in many respects an extension of the primary model and not a contradiction – nutritionally speaking. I do not hear any objections to many types of vegetables that need to be cooked do I? These are relatively recent Paleolithic foods as some of them can only be made digestible through cooking (processing).

If you draw the line at the Neolithic era, why then and not the era of Paleo cooking?

Milk is arguably the most nutritious food out – a complete meal (as the Masai and other herding peoples prove).

Yes, a minority of people may be “genuinely” irreversibly lactose intolerant. But many can be weaned on to milk as the body can adapt by producing lactase. A lot of “allergics” to milk and other products are actually phobic, studies suggest.

WHOLE milk and it’s products (albeit even pasteurised) that are not homogenised remain a complete balance in line with Paleo principles, and, along with coconut fat, have extremely useful medium chain saturated fatty acids which kill bacteria and viruses – among other nutritious qualities.

I think we ought to judge foods by their nutritional balance, not simply because they were literally “wot Grok ate”. I think food should be judged on whether it contains a similar balance to the Palo MODEL – the spirit of the law not the letter.

If the objections to dairy are about over-processing and hormones etc, the issue is quality (real, unpasteurised is best in my opinion – see WestonPrice Foundation site) – not the food per se.

I am not criticising Mark in this – i think he does a terrific job in getting a vital message across to many people, i am attempting to argue that whole, well sourced dairy is in line with his Paleo model.

M

so obvious. so NOT a phrase Id ever even thought of.

(oh and I adore the jerky/nuts as well and totally, for what it’s worth, echo your sentiments about sticking to that type of snack lessening your sugardesires. and I was a die-hard oreo lover.)

M.

So if you want to add a little honey to your primal diet try to buy from places like Really Raw Honey or other vendors that sell honey pulled from the hive and totally unprocessed.

I wouldn’t recommend that anybody use the standard store-bought honey that has been heated to a high temperature and filtered.