Jump to content
  • Welcome to the eG Forums, a service of the eGullet Society for Culinary Arts & Letters. The Society is a 501(c)3 not-for-profit organization dedicated to the advancement of the culinary arts. These advertising-free forums are provided free of charge through donations from Society members. Anyone may read the forums, but to post you must create a free account.

I'm not a nutrional anthropologist...


Recommended Posts

And I know you're not one either (what exactly do they do anyway?). But I thought you might at least have an opinion about this. My theory (I really haven't done much research yet) is that people developed taste buds way back in the day to tell the difference between good food and bad. (Fresh meat good. Fuzzy meat bad.) And it continued to develop a little more. Am I on the right track here?

Also, is cooked food more nutritious or does it make a difference? (I'm really thinking about the browning effect on meat, but any kind of cooking in general.) Thanks a lot.

-Greg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From what I hear, taste buds did develop to tell us what and what not to eat...though some might argue that the system is backfiring on us a bit today.

The issue of raw versus cooked (the way I understand it at least) comes down to the fact that some nutrients are destroyed by heat while others are liberated and made available by them. I believe that evolution is irrefutable. Cooking is good, cooking works. The raw food movement is, near as I can tell, a very good marketing ploy…except when it comes to sushi.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...