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.
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