ON THE EDGE OF EXTINCTION - D - THE LEOPARD (Panthera pardus)

[Pckts]

(11-07-2016, 10:05 PM)Polar Wrote:

(11-07-2016, 08:20 PM)Pckts Wrote: I'm not sure where you heard the bili ape never existed?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/a...lions.html

I think I already posted this but here is a comprehensive study on cooked vs raw meat and how it changed us.
http://www.preparedfoods.com/articles/11...s-raw-meat

Cooked meat will yield more energy/calories than raw meat.

I seldom trust news sources, especially latest "fashion/gossip" news sources like Daily Mail, Huffington Post, LiveScience, or other major article publications: too many "studies show" and not enough actual citations to the study or the scientific studies themselves. This is why I look for direct, first-hand evidence such as scientific studies/literature.

There is an extreme abundance of evidence to prove that chimpanzees, even within a much smaller group number, have much more genetic diversity than all the human population combined. Here is a scientific study explaining this: Divergence Population Genetics of Chimpanzees (Won et. al 2005). Perhaps this could explain why these supposed "lion-eating chimps" could have vastly different physiological traits from other chimps? Regardless, though, I don't see a primate hunting a predator anytime soon, nor do I believe that a chimp can somehow grow to sizes near that of a fully-grown female Eastern Lowland Gorilla (~220-pounds).

I didn't see any indication that "more energy" equated to "more nutrients" in the article, all I saw was how the greater energy output from cooked meat let the Homo genus grow larger in both body size and brains. To me (and this is only my personal opinion), raw meat gives off better-preserved animo acid chains, which results in a better protein absorption, a better iron absorption (due to fresh blood on meat), and possibly a better saturated fat absorption (if the raw meat is of a fatty animal such as wild boar).

I have no problem with skepticism but it certainly hasn't been "proven false" like you stated.


In regards to the "nutrients," I think you're focusing too much on that word.  The cooking of food improves digestion and increases absorption of nutrients.

"Nutrient Content is Often Altered During Cooking
Cooking food improves digestion and increases absorption of many nutrients (1, 2).
For example, protein in cooked eggs is 180% more digestible than in raw eggs (3)."



"Yet there were signs that cooking did affect the calorie counts of some foods. Starches, for instance, like those in wheat, barley, potatoes, and so on, are composed mostly of two sugar-based molecules, amylopectin and amylose, which, when raw, are tightly packed and inaccessible to digestive enzymes. Studies have found that cooking gelatinizes starch, which means that amylopectin and amylose are released and exposed to enzymes. Thus, cooked starches yield more energy than raw ones.
To study how cooking (and processing, like pounding or chopping) affected calories, we turned to mice. They are a good species for this because their diet choices are rather similar to human food preferences. They like grains, roots, fruits and even meat; in the wild, there are populations of mice that get most of their food by eating live albatrosses [video]. Rachel Carmody led a study in which mice were given regular mouse pellets for six days at a time, interrupted by four days of eating sweet potatoes or beef. Half the time the sweet potato or meat was presented raw, and half the time cooked; half the time it was also pounded and half the time unpounded. She and Gil Weintraub carefully measured the exact amount of food eaten by the mice, and then calculated the animals’ gain or loss of weight over four days as a function of the weight of food eaten, using both wet weights and dry weights of food to check the results. For both meat and sweet potato, Rachel found that when the food was cooked the mice gained more weight (or lost less weight) than when it was raw. Pounding had very little effect.
We suspect that there are two major reasons for cooked beef providing more calories than raw beef. In cooked beef, the muscle proteins, like the sugars in cooked starch, have opened up and allowed digestive enzymes to attack their amino acid chains. Cooking also does this for collagen, a protein that makes meat difficult to chew because it forms the connective tissue wrapped around muscle fibers. However, we do not know the exact mechanisms. What we do know, though, is that the mice had a spontaneous preference for eating cooked meat over raw meat, and their choice made sense, given that they fared better on it."
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/crux/2...CC20cmozeE


However, cooking can decreases SOME water soluble vitamins and fat soluble vitamins and some minerals
But overall, the benefits for man eating cooked meat over raw is probably the building block to the modern man. Reply