Review of Catching Fire: How Cooking Made Us Human by Richard Wrangham
June 6, 2009
Review of Catching Fire: How Cooking Made Us Human
by Richard Wrangham
(Basic Books, 312 pages, $26.95, June, 2009)
Reviewed by Dr. Fred Bortz
Click to see other reviews at the Science Shelf
Review copyright 2009 by Alfred B. Bortz, all rights reserved.
Buy Catching Fire from Amazon.com and support The Science Shelf Book Review Archive.
Readers of Catching Fire may also enjoy discovering other books on evolution and human origins featured at The Science Shelf.
To hear Harvard anthropologist Richard Wrangham tell it in Catching Fire: How Cooking Made Us Human, "...the transformative moment that gave rise to the genus Homo, one of the great transitions in the history of life, stemmed from the control of fire and the advent of cooked meals" almost two million years ago.
Wrangham looks at the advantages of cooked food from an evolutionary perspective. As a new, brainier species evolves, its body has to reallocate to the brain some of the nutrition and energy consumed by other body parts. For that species to thrive without losing other capabilities, it must extract more net resources from its food.
Cooking makes that possible by transforming food into a form that the body digests more efficiently. The same amount of cooked food can supply not only the nutrition to support the same body that the raw food could, but it can also feed a larger brain.
Wrangham argues that cooking launched early hominids onto an evolutionary path that changed not only brains but also bodies and social lives. Their jaws and digestive systems became smaller, paving the way for the evolution of still larger brains.
At some point, hominid bodies morphed into modern human form, and cooking morphed from an advantageous technology into one that our species could not live without. We became "the cooking apes, the creatures of the flame."
For those readers who argue that we could survive on raw food alone, Wrangham describes the tribulations of people throughout history who have temporarily survived on uncooked or dried foods.
Even today, when top quality produce is readily available, "raw-foodists" are chronically undernourished. The most extensive research is the Giessen (Germany) Raw Food study of 513 individuals who ate between 70 and 100 percent raw diets. Writes Wrangham, "The scientists' conclusion was unambiguous: 'a strict raw food diet cannot guarantee an adequate energy supply.'" The energy shortage "is biologically significant.... Among women eating totally raw diets, about 50 percent entirely ceased to menstruate."
Many of Wrangham's conclusions are bound to be controversial. He devotes two chapters to the social order, including arguments that cooking has led to a sexual division of labor and a degree of male dominance bordering on the abusive.
The epilogue recommends changes in the standard method of computing the caloric content of cooked food. Modern living, including the technology of cooking, has evolved faster than our bodies. His conclusion: "We must find ways to make our ancient dependence on cooked food healthier."
Fred Bortz is the author of numerous science books for young readers.
Printer-friendly versionPermalink
About us
Science Blog was started in August 2002. It lives, breathes and eats press releases from research organizations around the globe. Most of what you read here are press releases from the outfits named in the stories themselves. Got a news story you think belongs here? Let's talk. The other half of the equation is blog posts from readers like you. So if you have an interest in science, please register and join others like you in an ongoing, vibrant dialog about what makes the world tick. Meantime, please take a minute to read our Privacy Policy and Site Disclaimer.Recommended
Andrew Sullivan Dan Sullivan Doug Arellanes Emmanuelle Richard Faith Sullivan Fred Bortz Heather Havrilesky Henry Copeland Kate Sullivan Ken Layne lagreenbean.com LAist.com Maggie Sullivan Matt Welch NewYorkology Opinion L.A. Ron Kaye Slashdot Steve Elzer & Family TheNewsroom.org Thor Garcia Tony Pierce Wonkette OlderThanks CNET for naming Science Blog one of your Blog 100!
Comments
Luigi Fontana's longitudinal raw foodist study?
August 1, 2009 by Anonymous, 16 weeks 2 days ago
Comment id: 39027
A few points:
1. WHERE IS LUIGI IN THIS???
What about Luigi Fontana et al's published papers from their (current and continuing) longitudinal study of raw vegans??
The positive data from the papers back up the experience of raw foodists.
Luigi's home page: http://geriatrics.im.wustl.edu/faculty/fontana.html
1: Rejuvenation Res. 2007 Jun;10(2):225-34. Links
Long-term low-calorie low-protein [raw] vegan diet and endurance exercise are associated with low cardiometabolic risk.
Fontana L, Meyer TE, Klein S, Holloszy JO.
Division of Geriatrics and Nutritional Sciences and Center for Human Nutrition, Washington University School of Medicine, 4566 Scott Avenue, St. Louis, MO 63110, USA. lfontana@im.wustl.edu
BACKGROUND: Western diets, which typically contain large amounts of energy-dense processed foods, together with a sedentary lifestyle are associated with increased cardiometabolic risk. We evaluated the long-term effects of consuming a low-calorie low-protein [raw] vegan diet or performing regular endurance exercise on cardiometabolic risk factors.
METHODS: In this cross-sectional study, cardiometabolic risk factors were evaluated in 21 sedentary subjects, who had been on a low-calorie low-protein raw vegan diet for 4.4 +/- 2.8 years, (mean age, 53.1 +/- 11 yrs), 21 body mass index (BMI)-matched endurance runners consuming Western diets, and 21 age- and gender-matched sedentary subjects, consuming Western diets. RESULTS: BMI was lower in the low-calorie low-protein vegan diet (21.3 +/- 3.1 kg/m(2)) and endurance runner (21.1 +/- 1.6 kg/m(2)) groups than in the sedentary Western diet group (26.5 +/- 2.7 kg/m(2)) (p < 0.005). Plasma concentrations of lipids, lipoproteins, glucose, insulin, C-reactive protein, blood pressure (BP), and carotid artery intima-media thickness were lower in the low-calorie low-protein vegan diet and runner groups than in the Western diet group (all p < 0.05). Both systolic and diastolic BP were lower in the low-calorie low-protein [RAW] vegan diet group (104 +/- 15 and 62 +/- 11 mm Hg) than in BMI-matched endurance runners (122 +/- 13 and 72 +/- 9 mmHg) and Western diet group (132 +/- 14 and 79 +/- 8 mm Hg) (p < 0.001); BP values were directly associated with sodium intake and inversely associated with potassium and fiber intake.
CONCLUSIONS: Long-term consumption of a low-calorie low-protein [raw] vegan diet or regular endurance exercise training is associated with low cardiometabolic risk. ********Moreover, our data suggest that specific components of a low-calorie [RAW] low-protein vegan diet provide additional beneficial effects on blood pressure.*********
PMID: 17518696 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17518696?ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum
CALORIC RESTRICTION
Also, raw foodists tend to caloric restriction after years on the diet. They still east as much as they like, they just don't need to consume so many calories to be full of energy. Caloric restriction has been shown to reverse primary ageing (interview with Luigi):
The role of caloric restrictions in the ageing of the heart
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/talks/8.30/helthrpt/stories/s1551120.htm
2. HIGH ENERGY!!!
80 year old, 40 year raw vegan, Fred Bisci PhD runs 5 miles per day, works 10 hours per day and sleeps 2-4 hours per day.
http://www.fredbisci4health.com/about.html
Dr Doug Graham has also been raw vegan for decades... he's fit, man! He's coached Martina Navratilova, Demi Moore and loads of professional and olympic athletes.
http://foodnsport.com/
Tim VanOrden was a couch potato until about 38, then went raw. He's won a lot of elite running races. He says that (unlike other elite runners) he stopped going to gym because he puts on muscle too quickly which adds too much weight.
http://runningraw.com/results.html
Me? I'm a typically fit as a raw vegan. I enjoy 8 km hilly runs, and 2 hour swims (mainly freestyle).
3. BODY WEIGHT
Raw vegans are slim - the WHO recommends that people be at least as slim as raw vegans. The average BMI of the rawfoodist in Luigi's longitudinal study is 20.5, compared to an average of 25 for individuals eating a standard American diet.
Raw vegan women are fertile. Many of them finally fall pregnant AFTER going raw vegan. However excessive menstruation, like excessive body weight, is unhealthy. Fertility is marked by OVULATION! Get it right! :-)
4. EATING RAW IS EASY
My dinner was blended broccoli with flax oil and seaweed. About 3 minutes to prepare go to whoaa (rinsing the blender). The meal used to take a lot longer to prepare when it was cooked.
5. WHY DIDN'T RICHARD WRANGHAM EVEN *TRIED* EATING RAW BEFORE WRITING THE BOOK??? I FIND THAT EMBARRASSING. ARGH.
Compare with innovative raw researcher Victoria Boutenko who TRIES everything!!! She does PRIMARY research.
6. RAW FOODISTS AREN'T IDEOLOGUES
Most aren't 100% raw and don't want to be. They are maybe 80-90% raw, and keep their favourite cooked old treat foods. However once you've been on a close to 100% raw diet for a while, your body strongly dislikes cooked food.
Blended Green smoothies, with nutrient-dense ingredients like kale and fruit are a staple food for most raw foodists. They're delicious - everyone likes them whether they normally eat raw or cooked.
7. I liked Richard's work on monkeys self-medicating with bitter herbs. Says a lot about their intelligence and the abundance of nature.
Re: Fontana's research
August 1, 2009 by Fred Bortz, 16 weeks 1 day ago
Comment id: 39224
Wrangham cites Fontana's research as favoring his conclusions:
p.26: "Recent studies indicate that low bone mass in the backs and hips of raw-foodists was caused by their raw diet." This result is attributed to Fontana, et. al.
p. 215, notes to page 17: ...Fontana et. al. (2005) studied raw-foodists and controls matched by age and height. Women who ate raw food weighed 12.6 kg. (27.7 lb.) less than their counterparts who ate cooked food while the equivalent drop for men was 17.5 kg (38.5 lb.) [This represents nearly a quarter of total mass and is cited in the section where the review notes the unambiguous scientific conclusion that a strict raw food diet cannot guarantee an adequate energy supply.]
There are other citations to Fontana's research as well, which you can find by following the link to the book at Amazon.com in my review, and then using the look within the book function with a search on Fontana.
In other words, Wrangham considers Fontana's research as supporting his conclusions.
Your statement about "excessive menstruation" does not match what Wrangham describes, which is amenorhea--absence of menstruation. Normal menstruation is a sign of fertility. No menstruation means no fertility.
But a true believer will accept distortions to support his/her beliefs.
In any case, Anonymous' argument is with Wrangham, not me, so I'll step aside with this partial response.
As I've already noted in this thread and in another review on a different medical area, true believers can get themselves in trouble by ignoring the evidence.
This anonymous poster, to whom this reply is directed, appears to be a true believer who is running risks s/he doesn't recognize, despite the evidence.
Fred Bortz
EDIT ADDED:
I decided to do a little web surfing, and I found one of the items that Anonymous is touting. Fontana notes that the bones may be healthy despite their low density. A useful summary appears here: The key paragraphs are these:
That's hardly a rousing endorsement of raw-foodism.
Accolades!
June 8, 2009 by Anonymous, 23 weeks 6 days ago
Comment id: 37121
It is so refreshing to see a book such as this book! All to often the focus is on popular diets and weight loss methods, drugs, rubs, lotions, potions, programs, pills and books of “secrets”! The results have been dismal! The statistics bare this truth.
• The USSG reports that over 65% of Americans are overweight to obese.
• The UCLA RAND Center found that obesity raises a person’s health care costs by 36% and medication costs by 77% and they have 30% - 50% more chronic health problems.
• According to the American Diabetes Association obesity and sedentary lifestyles are the primary cause of type II diabetes which now affects over 7 percent of the total population.
• Federal projections estimate that by 2050close to 1/3 of the population will have type II diabetes, with all its complications in tow, such as blindness, hearing loss, kidney disease, nervous system disorders and amputations of extremities.
• The World Health Organization reports that over 72% of all deaths in U.S. are the result of heart disease, lung disease, diabetes & degenerative diseases.
Questions need to be asked about these methods.
• Is the absolute truth about health, diet and weight loss programs, pills and “secrets” that they do not work for most people?
• Are these approaches a waste of money and potentially detrimental or harmful to health?
• Does the average/typical lifestyle waste money, ruin health and cut life short?
• Can healthy lifestyle changes be done gradually and simply without spending money on expensive programs or pills?
• Can these lifestyle changes be easily continued for life?
• What types of changes in health care insurance might be ahead?
• How will these changes affect health care costs?
There is a far more sound approach. Living a healthy lifestyle and achieving good body composition focusing on changing lifestyle priorities and habits in a simple and gradual manner.
Having overcome childhood obesity, I have experienced what I talk and have “walked the talk” of this approach for over 25 years.
Sincerely,
Dr. David Robinson
New Bedford, MA
www.DrDavidRobinson4Health.com
Hooked on Cooked.....
June 7, 2009 by Anonymous, 24 weeks 1 day ago
Comment id: 37088
How in the world did every living creature survive for billions of years on raw unaltered uncooked foods and all the sudden it isn't possible anymore? Humans are fat and sick and are destroying themselves. If you burn the seeds that produce the next generation of foods you are insane. Cooked food eating is not sustainable. Just look around you. Have any of the people that write these ridiculous books about cooked foods making us smarter ever even tried a raw food diet for any length of time? Of course not! Therefore you have no experiential subjective observations with which to support your conclusions. I have eaten raw foods exclusively for 8 years and let me tell you cooked food not the way to go. Eat raw foods, lose weight and gain energy rarely experienced in today's cooked food world.
Anonymous "raw-foodist" is clearly an exception
June 7, 2009 by Fred Bortz, 24 weeks 1 day ago
Comment id: 37090
Without reading the book, Anonymous asks
and then states
The theme of the book is the answer to the first question, and I hope my review conveys author Richard Wrangham's point clearly.
We are not talking about "every living creature," but rather one particular early hominid or pre-hominid species that developed cooking. The advantages of cooked food for extracting nutrition enabled that creature to evolve a larger brain. By the time that creature had evolved into genus Homo, cooking was part of its cultural environment. As in any case of evolution, what begins as a beneficial circumstance in that creature's environment can become a necessity. Wrangham argues that human survival as a species now requires cooking.
As for the second point, Wrangham does not say that it is impossible for an individual to live on a raw food diet. In fact, today's agricultural and food preparation technology makes it even more likely that a person can find the nutrition needed.
But for the species overall, and for many individuals, becoming "raw foodists" does not appear to be a successful strategy. In my review, I discuss this point as presented by Wrangham:
So the anonymous commenter may be surviving or even thriving on a raw food diet, but according to this book, s/he is an exception, and has apparently become a zealot for the cause.
I am always wary of zealots, and this is certainly no exception.
Fred Bortz
Science books for young readers
and
Science book reviews
Catching FIre
June 13, 2009 by Anonymous, 23 weeks 1 day ago
Comment id: 37238
I agree with Wrangham and Bortz on this. I am a nutritionist (M.S. degree from Virginia Tech) and am reading Wrangham's "Catching Fire" right now. One thing that Wrangham doesn't mention (at least so far) is the greater caloric needs of pregnant and nursing mothers. So if you have about 50% of the females experiencing amenorrhea in the first place, thanks to the raw-foods diet hypothesis, then you actually have some of the females get pregnant, give birth, and nurse babies, AND having to forage on top of that, well, I am afraid that the raw-foods idea just can't fly. Wrangham mentions that people eating raw food today are buying food, not raising it (for the most part) AND they are not foraging, thus not burning up precious calories by foraging as early humans did. It IS true that cooking allows more energy to be made available to the eater, even though sometimes (chiefly with vitamins like C) that heat will destroy other nutrients. The key need for humans, at least until now, has been calories. What we see today with the plentiful food (e.g., calories especially) available in grocery stores and all is very, very unusual in the history of humankind.
C. Bertelsen
Gherkins & Tomatoes: Food History & Culture
http://gherkinstomatoes.com
Re: Catching Fire
June 13, 2009 by Fred Bortz, 23 weeks 1 day ago
Comment id: 37240
After very nicely recapitulating Wrangham's arguments about the reasons a raw food diet could not work for the species as a whole, C. Bertelsen concludes:
That ties in very nicely with Wrangham's epilogue as i discuss it in my review:
In any case, I'm delighted that my review has led to a spirited and interesting discussion.
Fred Bortz
Science Books for Young Readers
and
Science Book Reviews
Fun playing with knowledge...
June 7, 2009 by Anonymous, 24 weeks 18 hours ago
Comment id: 37096
Also, eating raw unaltered foods can help heal eyesight and premature balding. Nutrients are destroyed by heat, your a scientist, I mean come on that is simple chemistry.
Human cells function just like any other animals cells function.
June 7, 2009 by Anonymous, 24 weeks 18 hours ago
Comment id: 37095
I am not an exception. There are thousands of successful raw food eaters in this world in fact all animals eat their food raw and unheated. Humans are still animals. And cells function in one animal as in any other. Why are people so sick? And why do ALL my patients who eat raw food or a high raw food diet get well and the people who cannot eat fruits and vegetables rarely get well? We have seen clinically for the last 37 years that people who eat fruits and vegetables eliminate cancer and a host of other degenerative diseases. If cooked food is so healthy then why is everyone so sick? Because everyone eats cooked food and the body cannot eliminate the metabolic wastes fast enough! Dead animal bodies leave behind tons of acidic by products which in turn creates acidosis and inflammation and pulls calcium and magnesium from the system in order to buffer the negative effects acids have on cell function. The gluten in wheat is used to bind shoes to the rubber sole in Jamaica, what do you think that does to to the arteries of a human? After spending tens of thousands of dollars and being bled dry by the medical cartel to heal numerous deadly illnesses guess what finally enabled me to regain my health? You guessed it, apples, oranges, bananas and lettuce also known as raw food! I am a zealot! Everyone I know says I am the healthiest person they have ever known! I am a fanatic! I tried everything you can imagine to get well because I did not want to give up eating cooked food. Desperation and facing death was the only thing powerful enough to get me to wake up and change my life. My mind did not function on cooked food. You would not believe the mental clarity that one can experience on 100% raw and living foods diet! Perhaps when you are facing your own demise due to the obstructions cooked food leaves behind in your body, impeding the flow of blood, nerve and lymph systems you will remember this day and I will have helped to save your life just like so many people who have decided to eat the way nature intended have been helped in the past. Your a scientist so do an experiment: eat only raw uncooked foods for the next 7 years and then get back to me. You WILL be converted!!!
P.S. I read the book and the arguments were incredibly weak. Academia has hit the skids!
Dan McDonald
Trueradianthealth@Gmail.com
646-706-1844
Beware of zealots, even those who admit to being ones!
June 7, 2009 by Fred Bortz, 24 weeks 17 hours ago
Comment id: 37098
All I can say to the rest of the readers is to beware of people who propose unconventional cures instead of scientifically established ones.
Unless our friendly zealot, Dan, (FZD) has some peer-reviewed science that refutes the data cited in the book (and the review), such as the 50% cessation of menstruation, he shouldn't expect to persuade many people.
There's a difference between alternative medicine and complementary medicine, as discussed in Trick or Treatment: The Undeniable Facts About Alternative Medicine by Simon Singh and Edzard Ernst, M.D. The link here takes you to my review of that important, dare I say lifesaving, book.
Another lifesaving book that I reviewed in tandem with Trick or Treatment is Anticancer: A New Way of Life by David Servan-Schreiber, M.D., Ph.D. It discusses cancer and nutrition in a much more balanced and informative way than FZD does.
Fred Bortz
Chemotherapy kills more people than cancer!
June 7, 2009 by Anonymous, 24 weeks 13 hours ago
Comment id: 37104
Dr. Servan-Schreiber does NOT encourage cancer patients to reject their doctors' advice concerning surgery, chemotherapy, and radiation treatments. However, he does believe that there is nothing to lose and everything to gain by making changes in one's diet, level of physical activity, psychological attitude, and environment.
A clarification
June 8, 2009 by Fred Bortz, 24 weeks 2 hours ago
Comment id: 37111
To clarify, that commenter is misrepresenting my statement. My concern is not with Servan-Schreiber but with our friendly zealot Don (FZD), who seems to be saying that raw foods cure cancer while conventional medicine does not. As someone who knows many cancer survivors of many years (even decades), I would respectfully disagree.
If you read the linked review, you will see that I explicitly say that Dr. Servan-Schreiber knows he owes his life to conventional "evidence-based" medicine. After making sure readers know that radiation, chemo, and surgery are the major lines of defense against cancer once it occurs, he then spends much of his book discussing the science behind his complementary nutritional and other health-related recommendations. Those approaches may prevent cancer in the first place or keep it at bay. He calls that approach "integrative medicine."
If FZD wants to recommend raw food as a complement to conventional cancer treatment, I am not concerned (unless specific foods interfere with the conventional treatment). But if he recommends it as an alternative to replace conventional treatment--and his language suggests that he may--he is telling his patients to risk their lives. It is those people who need to hear my warning about Don's zealotry.
Fred Bortz
Scientism is very limited!
June 7, 2009 by Anonymous, 24 weeks 14 hours ago
Comment id: 37102
Fred c'mon man there are no scientifically established cures. Medical doctors and scientists only know how to suppress symptoms. There is no motivation for them to cure anything because there is just too much money to be made on the sickness of the humans on this planet. There is only one disease. If you want to get healthy you have to remove the obstructions to the flow of energy, and you can never do that by applying pharmaceutical isolates, which coincidentally come from raw plants. Why not eat the whole plant and keep the body chemistry balanced. Also when a woman becomes truly healthy there will only be a small amount of mucus along with the unused egg. Why would nature get rid of the most precious fluid in the body every month? You may have read a lot of books but it does not sound like you have much experience. You can read every book ever written about cats, but you still wouldn't know what it is like to BE a cat.
P.S. You are doing great work!
Purity in all things
June 11, 2009 by Anonymous, 23 weeks 4 days ago
Comment id: 37206
Absolutely. All things from the bosom of nature as close to their natural goodness as possible; free nature take to its course and natural selection works, improving fitness. Eliminate the effects of impure technology upon the purity of nature by not using vaccines, cooking or refrigeration. In their place, use natural exposure, natural drying, natural fermentation or consume raw, conserving energy and natural resources. For example, tobacco in its natural state is actually therapeutic and is used that way by indigenous peoples; one might suspect that it is the processing by the large companies spreads its harm. No doubt the result is increased fitness!
Another fanatic has surfaced
June 11, 2009 by Fred Bortz, 23 weeks 3 days ago
Comment id: 37208
This anonymous poster uses the language of a fanatic.
Natural selection produced the human species, whose fitness (judged by reproductive success and geographic spread) depends on technology.
You can't deny that human technological ability is a result of natural selection, so why is it impure?
I'm deliberately provoking this discussion, though I probably won't waste too much time with it. Have fun everyone!
Fred Bortz