Catching Fire: How Cooking Made Us Human by Richard Wrangham. A study of cooking serves up some tasty morsels, but also empty calories. In this stunningly original book, Richard Wrangham argues that it was cooking that At the heart of Catching Fire lies an explosive new idea: the habit of eating. But in Catching Fire, renowned primatologist Richard Wrangham presents a startling alternative: our evolutionary success is the result of cooking.

Author: JoJojinn Kajora
Country: Singapore
Language: English (Spanish)
Genre: Automotive
Published (Last): 1 April 2010
Pages: 471
PDF File Size: 16.6 Mb
ePub File Size: 16.30 Mb
ISBN: 256-9-94541-476-8
Downloads: 87454
Price: Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]
Uploader: Jugal

Catching Fire: How Cooking Made Us Human by Richard W. Wrangham

Studies fiire ileal digestibility show that we use cooked starch very efficiently. We use fire, Darwin seemed to imply, but we could survive without it if we had to. Softer food makes you gain weight easier. The shifts in food preference between chimpanzees and humans suggest that our species has a reduced physiological tolerance for foods high in toxins or tannins. Dogs tend to keep food in the stomach for two to four hours, and cats for five to six hours, before passing the food quickly through the small intestine.

Mar 27, Amy Raby rated it it was amazing.

Book Review — Catching Fire, by Richard Wrangham | Savage Minds

He has argued that cooking food is obligatory for humans as a result of biological adaptations and that cooking, in particular, the consumption of cooked tubers, might explain the increase in hominid brain sizes, smaller teeth and jaws, and the decrease in sexual dimorphism that occurred roughly 1. All in all, I really thought this was a great read.

Cooking increases the glycemic index of starchy foods. Owners of obese pets who recognize this connection and see cooked food as a health threat sometimes choose to feed raw food to their beloved ones to help them lose weight.

Again, the predictable physical changes in food that are associated with cooking account readily for our weak chewing and small teeth. It also conflicts with various contrary conclusions fi”om nutritional science. Raw intestines may seem a startling preference in view of the potential for parasites to be present.

Catchint or gorillas would have loved it and would have grown fat on a menu that was certainly of higher quality than they could find in the wild. It can burn carbohydrates.


The spontaneous benefits of cooked food explain why domesticated pets easily become fat: Among hunter-gatherers, gathering is mostly done by women and is often responsible for half the calories brought to canp. Furthermore, among chimpanzees if a low-ranking individual manages to kill a small animal a higher-ranking individual will likely steal it.

We also have diminutive muscle fibers in our jaws, one-eighth the size of those in macaques. According to Marco Polo, Mongol warriors of the thirteenth century supposedly rode for ten days at a time without lighting a fire. Why, given all the obvious advantages of being able to extract large amounts of energy from raw food, have humans lost this ancient ability?

In humans, by contrast, our jaw muscles normally reach barely halfway up the side of our heads.

And I also notice that I enjoy the option of eating warm foods regularly. The quirky nutritionist Howell thought so. What if the raw food movement is another dietary fad that is the answer to the high caatching of refined, chemicalized, pesticide-ridden, homogenized, and heavily processed foods.

But no wrangha habitats produce such foods in abundance all year. This “resistant starch” is vivid testimony to the deficits of a raw starch diet, explaining why we like our starch cooked and contributing to the weight loss that raw-foodists experience.

Catching Fire: How Cooking Made Us Human by Richard Wrangham

These are core questions Man-the-Hunter leaves unanswered. The only problem was that nine-year-old Neil, despite being given extra portions of bone marrow, was disturbingly thin. In a scene captured by anthropologist Jiro Tanaka, the! Indeed, their diet suited them so well that by the cwtching of their ordeal, Robertson reported that their physical condition was actually better than when they had begun their journey. The other ten ate a version of the standard food that was modified in a fjre way: They provide the data for our food labels.

You are absolutely correct that the focus on meat consumption in human evolution has eclipsed the role of vegetable matter in human diets. Researchers collect the ileal effluent from this bag. The difference in mouth size is even more obvious when we take the lips into account. Energy also is conserved in physiology — all animals across all species and genus with access to easily digested food have reduced gut size wrxngham put all that energy into increased brain cavity.


It made us into consumers of external energy cagching thereby created an organism catcning a new relationship to nature, dependent on friel.

Raw-foodism seems to be an increasingly popular habit, but if raw diets are so challenging, why do people like them? Warburgia fruits contain a spicy compound reminiscent of a mustard oil. The Standard American Diet laden with meat and animal products left the United States feeling clogged and sluggish.

I have a hard time believing I have found the very rare ones. If not powdered, entire pieces remained long undissolved in the cahching and yielded slowly to the action of the gastric juice. Too many evolutionary advantages match with the archeological evidence.

According to the meat-eating scenario, as increased amounts of meat were eaten by habilines and their descendants, modifications must have evolved in the mouth and digestive system Physical anthropologist Peter Ungar reported in that the molars chewing teeth of very early humans were somewhat sharper than those of their australopithecine ancestors. But fite the idea of a “life force” in “living foods” is not accepted by physiologists, it persuades many raw-foodists to persist in their diet.

This might help e? They sniffed at several fi”uits, one at a time, to allow their bodies to decide what would suit them best “by instinct,” they said. The Inuit probably ate more raw animal products than other societies, but like every culture the main meal of the day was taken in the evening, and it was cooked. By fifteen weeks the growth curves of the two groups had visibly separated, and by twenty-two weeks the group curves were significantly different.

Their diet included peppers, melons, cucumbers, tomatoes, carrots, broccoli, grapes, dates, walnuts, bananas, peaches, and so on — more than fifty fie of finits, vegetables, and nuts. Koebnick’s team found that about 30 percent wrwngham the subjects’ calories came fi-om these lipids, a valuable energy source that would not wrajgham been available to hunter-gatherers.