Origins of cooking foods...

[Externet]

From what I know, early humans were gatherers and their diet was mostly fruit.

 

At what point fire got into the mixture and some foods were needed to be boiled/cooked/burned? What happens if not cooked?

 

Take peanuts or potatoes as example; how nutritive/edible are they raw against cooked in comparison to other nuts/roots eaten raw ? Is it true yams are very poisonous raw?

[ecoli]

people realizing that food like meat were often fatal when eaten raw. Certain combinations simply taste better... As social sophistication increases, and people have more free time, they can develop more intricate cooking techniques and pass them down.

[Dak]

also, cooking does the first stage of breaking down molecules, which would otherwize require that we spend our own energy doing it, thus increasing the overall energy yield of cooked food vs. raw food.

 

as to how people figured this out..?

[doG]

At what point fire got into the mixture and some foods were needed to be boiled/cooked/burned?

 

Fire probably got into the mixture the first time cavemen tasted meat from some of the creatures killed by a forest fire...

[antimatter]

Fire probably got into the mixture the first time cavemen tasted meat from some of the creatures killed by a forest fire...

 

Or maybe they felt the rather unpleasant taste of eating semi-frozen deer meat, and made the correlation between 'warm fire' and 'cold flesh'...

[Donut.Hole]

There's a bit of speculation that Homo Erectus discovered it around 800,000 years ago by roasting their food. No evidence of how they actually figured it out.

 

Fire was being used around then. My guess is that because it played such a vital role as protection and heat, it was probably an accident from some clueless Erectus dropping food in fire and finding it better.

 

Cooking was mostly for meat because it was tough to chew.

[antimatter]

I don't think that it was one of those things that just happened by accident.

If they dropped it into a fire it would've charred in less than a minute.

I'm sure there was some brain work going on, as I mentioned earlier.

I suppose this idea is more feasible than say, d0gs post, but it still seems rather unlikely.

This is all really speculation, there's no sure way for us to know.

[John Cuthber]

Just a thought.

Perhaps they thought that fire was "magic" and heated their homes so they thought they would try this "magic" on their food.

Sounds preposterous doesn't it.

Now look at what they used to do with radioactive chemicals.

http://www.thebakken.org/artifacts/database/artifact.asp?type=category&category=L&id=1874

 

Incidentally, raw peanuts are perfectly edible but I prefer the taste afteer they are roasted.

[antimatter]

Just a thought.

Perhaps they thought that fire was "magic" and heated their homes so they thought they would try this "magic" on their food.

Sounds preposterous doesn't it.

Now look at what they used to do with radioactive chemicals.

http://www.thebakken.org/artifacts/database/artifact.asp?type=category&category=L&id=1874

 

Incidentally, raw peanuts are perfectly edible but I prefer the taste afteer they are roasted.

 

That's almost exactly what I said...just involving 'magic'.

 

Interesting link, btw.

I also prefer roasted peanuts. Now if they're roasted, and salted...that's just great.

[doG]

Roasted peanuts are great, boiled peanuts are not.

[antimatter]

Ugh yeah

boiled peanuts are quite...not...good...at...all...

[Phi for All]

From what I know, early humans were gatherers and their diet was mostly fruit.

Vegetables, roots, tubers, greens, as well as fruit. I think there was always hunting to go along with the gathering. I've never heard of completely vegetarian early humans.

 

At what point fire got into the mixture and some foods were needed to be boiled/cooked/burned?

I'm thinking lightning strike. The original microwave oven zapped a deer or something and the men finally crept out of their hiding places to go over and check it out. Smelled great, tasted even better, didn't cause any stomach pains.

 

The concept of God probably started on the same day.

What happens if not cooked?

Bad microbes. Everything from discomfort to death.

 

Take peanuts or potatoes as example; how nutritive/edible are they raw against cooked in comparison to other nuts/roots eaten raw ?

Many vegetables are more nutritive raw, but as others have pointed out, raw foods require more of the digestive process than cooked foods. I believe with potatoes, most of the nutrition is in the skin, so it depends if the spuds are peeled or not.

Is it true yams are very poisonous raw?

When yams break down, either through cooking or digestion, they create hydrogen cyanide (raw lima beans do this too). The gas escapes when you cut the cooked yam, or as it's boiling in the pot. In your stomach, the gas is absorbed. In small amounts the body can handle it, but if you're eating a lot of raw yams, lima beans, apricot kernels and other substances containing cyanogenic glycosides, you could be in real trouble. It probably varies between people, as with any poison.

[antimatter]

I know this apparently seems like a common belief on this thread, and I'm most likely wrong, considering the majority is against me here; but if say, lightning struck it, or it went on fire, wouldn't it have just charred?

I really think they made that small correlation between warm fire, and cold flesh.

I guess the second option is that they dropped it into a fire.

The idea that it just happened, through nature, doesn't seem right to me.

[doG]

I know this apparently seems like a common belief on this thread, and I'm most likely wrong, considering the majority is against me here; but if say, lightning struck it, or it went on fire, wouldn't it have just charred?

 

If you walk through an area where there's been a forest fire you will be amazed at how much is just barely burned or not burned at all. You could have completely raw animals that simply died of smoke inhalation and didn't get burned at all.

[antimatter]

Okay then, but if they died from smoke inhalation, that doesn't mean that they were 'grilled' or 'cooked', so to speak.

I'm not really sure what you mean...I once went through an area that was ravaged by fire and it was pretty much a desolate wasteland.

Okay maybe not that bad, but I think you've gotten the point.

[doG]

Okay then, but if they died from smoke inhalation, that doesn't mean that they were 'grilled' or 'cooked', so to speak.

 

Some in the heart of the fire would be good and crispy, some would be raw and some would be somewhere in between. I've actually been into an area and helped to relocate animals that survived.

[Phi for All]

Regardless of how the meat got cooked the first time, it seems likely that the smell of roasted meat was what got early man to try out cooking. I know vegetarians that love the smell of a well-grilled steak, and for a meat-lover the smell makes it hard to avoid your own drool.

[CDarwin]

also, cooking does the first stage of breaking down molecules, which would otherwize require that we spend our own energy doing it, thus increasing the overall energy yield of cooked food vs. raw food.

 

as to how people figured this out..?

 

You also don't have to chew cooked meat nearly as much as raw meat. Chimpanzees will spend hours just masticating the meat they catch. They couldn't subsist on it as a main party of their diet just because it would take so long to consume. Richard Wrangham, who's an anthropologist of some repute, makes a lot out of cooking meat to chew quickly in his notions of human evolution. It supposedly would have allowed Homo ergaster to have gathered enough calories to develop large brains. Cookings also breaks down toxins in plant materials, though, so it's really impossible to say whether meat or plants were the first foods to be put into fires.

 

Vegetables, roots, tubers, greens, as well as fruit. I think there was always hunting to go along with the gathering. I've never heard of completely vegetarian early humans.

 

Austrolopithecus at least wouldn't have been able to process a lot of meat because it's teeth weren't up to the task. And even after them dedicated "hunting," which I would imagine would be the most conducive to preparation with fire, is a bit difficult to track down. Early Homo probably scavenged mostly for its big prey and just 'gathered' small animals like rabbits and squirrels as it was collecting vegetables. My guess is that those were the first animals to be cooked, probably around the time humans started roasting their plant fodder.

 

If we want to get really imaginative, early humans almost certainly consumed a fair amount of insect protein (as many modern cultures do today). The first cooked meal might well have been an insect that flew into a fire and was subsequently eaten. Early firekeepers might have intentionally attracted and consumed insect this way for some time before someone thought to stick some of this other food they were eating into the firepit too. But that's totally speculative and unsubstantiable.

 

The lightening-strike thing is a bit far-fetched, though, if you already have fires for for protection, warmth, and light. But of course, cooking probably originated in many different locations at different times and potentially with different causes.

Edited May 29, 2008 by CDarwin
multiple post merged

[ecoli]

Regardless of how the meat got cooked the first time, it seems likely that the smell of roasted meat was what got early man to try out cooking. I know vegetarians that love the smell of a well-grilled steak, and for a meat-lover the smell makes it hard to avoid your own drool.

could that have been a trait selected for, after we had already started to eat cooked meat though?

 

Do chimps or bonobos drool?

 

Austrolopithecus at least wouldn't have been able to process a lot of meat because it's teeth weren't up to the task. And even after them dedicated "hunting," which I would imagine would be the most conducive to preparation with fire, is a bit difficult to track down. Early Homo probably scavenged mostly for its big prey and just 'gathered' small animals like rabbits and squirrels as it was collecting vegetables. My guess is that those were the first animals to be cooked, probably around the time humans started roasting their plant fodder.

.

Did late austrolopiths also scavenge? (I can't remember) Or was it only homo (habilis?) the only ones that could use tools to break bones apart and suck out the delicious, nutrient rich marrow.

Edited May 29, 2008 by ecoli
multiple post merged

[CDarwin]

Did late austrolopiths also scavenge? (I can't remember) Or was it only homo (habilis?) the only ones that could use tools to break bones apart and suck out the delicious, nutrient rich marrow.

 

Well, its obviously hard to know, but they didn't have shaped tools and their teeth were broad and flat and seem to have been mainly for grinding and smashing tough foods like seeds and roots and tubers. There's a misconception that Australopithecus were just chimpanzees who could walk upright, but their teeth were pretty different and they were adapted to a different ecological role on the forest edge.

[iNow]

I know vegetarians that love the smell of a well-grilled steak, and for a meat-lover the smell makes it hard to avoid your own drool.

 

could that have been a trait selected for, after we had already started to eat cooked meat though?

 

I had a very similar thought when reading Phi's comment.

 

It's rather possible that those who were "attracted" to cooked foods and its scent... those who used their olfactory systems to recognize and act on odors wafting through the air, follow them, and then engage in the act of devouring the source of the smell... did better evolutionarily than those who did not.

 

Hence, the trait of having the "drool response" to the scent of cooked meat became a successful advantage.

 

 

I don't really have any data to support the above, but it does seem to me as a well reasoned speculation.

[Mr Skeptic]

Seems to me that cooking would have been discovered mostly by accident. Perhaps someone dropped food in a fire and it got cooked but not burned by the time they fished it out. Perhaps someone found roasted nuts/tubers after a forest fire. Perhaps someone figured out that if they broke through the charred outside of an animal burnt in a forest fire, some of the meat inside was cooked but protected from the fire by the charred outside. Or maybe they found that some plants (incense, resinous woods) smelled really good when burnt in the fire, and decided to try it out on food. As Phi said, the smell of roasted meat would be a good candidate too.

[antimatter]

Once again, it's really all speculation, there is no sure-fire way of knowing,

though all the ideas sound possible...except the one about 'magic'.

[CDarwin]

Once again, it's really all speculation, there is no sure-fire way of knowing,

though all the ideas sound possible...except the one about 'magic'.

 

*giggle giggle*

[Mr Skeptic]

So, what is the advantage associated with cooking? Breaking down cell walls? Denaturing proteins? I can't imagine too many nutrients that could be broken down by heating without destroying them, except perhaps starch. Maybe denaturing structural proteins? What is it that makes cooking make food more digestible?