Sorry for the long break, I was sooo busy lately.
In my view, cooking was necessary mainly for two things: making meat easier to digest and making starch (potatoes, wheat, rice, other cereals and grains) easier to digest.
Without a lot of other sources of food, the people had to rely on meat and starch in order to survive, so they had to cook.
When eating those foods, you had to cook in order to absorb maximum energy, not nutrients. There is a significant difference between the two - energy sources are just a part of the nutrients. Cooking makes you get more energy from starch but in the same time it might drastically reduce the amount of vitamins, minerals, useful bacteria, etc that we ingest and make use of.
So cooking was necessary in the past but that's simply not the case anymore. Today we have plenty of sources of food, fruits and vegetables that our ancestors didn't even know they exist. Today we can get enough energy from raw vegetable fat, instead of eating meat and starchy foods.
, as everything in nature, animal brains actually do evolve. The fact that a gazelle can't speak doesn't mean the animal is not learning valuable lessons in it's life and it doesn't mean the animal is stupid. There are numerous examples of animals showing amazing signs of intelligence. We are also better than animals not only because we are more intelligent (the amount of people who seem to be less intelligent than the animals is absolutely staggering by the way), but simply because our body allows us to grab and make use of tools. If we would be able to give to a crow the body of a human being I think we would see fascinating results. Even though the crow has a brain the size of a peanut and eats raw food. Evolution of the physical body (limbs that can grab, mouth that can articulate words) doesn't automatically imply more intelligence and brain energy requirements. How much energy the brain of an intelligent crow needs, comparing to the brain of a retarded human being, by the way? So this is a non argument.
As a raw vegan, I think that the biggest problem in the human nutrition today is the carbohydrates (starch and refined sugars), and that's a far bigger problem than meat. You can get to obesity, high sugar levels in the blood and all kind of troubles much faster by consuming starch than by consuming meat.
Transitioning to whole foods is one of the most important steps towards a healthier life (my view, ofc). But removing carbohydrates from the diet is even better.
Once you drop eating starchy foods (potatoes, cereals and grains), there is actually no need to cook anymore. Except meat, of course.
As for the other nutrients, there are two arguments that I've found until now:
1. Lycopene. Some people say that cooking tomatoes makes Lycopene more available, inducing the idea that you have to eat cooked tomatoes but they forget about basic questions: How much Lycopene we need every day? How many raw tomatoes we have to eat in order to get that amount of Lycopene? And how many cooked tomatoes? How can it be that the people could live for thousands (or millions) of years without cooked tomatoes and even without tomatoes? Were they all sick from any lack of Lycopene? How can it be that actually the vast majority of animals can live without cooked tomatoes and without tomatoes at all? Is there any study showing that people not eating cooked tomatoes get any health problems?
2. Vitamin A and Beta-Carotene. Cooking carrots makes more of it available, some people say. That raises the same questions: entire populations in certain parts of the world could live well without cooked carrots and even without carrots at all. Most of the animals don't need cooked carrots and not even carrots in order to live well. Again, there are no studies (AFAIK
) proving that without cooked carrots, the humans get any health problems
Therefore the idea that we have to cook the vegetables in order to get enough nutrients is absolutely baseless. In fact, it looks more like a scam, and it's presented with an appearance of scientific argument. While in fact there is no science whatsoever in suggesting that we have to cook the vegetables in order to get enough nutrients.
I've also practiced yoga and most of the people that I was practicing yoga along with were not anorexic, they looked absolutely average, and some were even obese.
Frankly, I can't see how it costs more to get enough nutrients by eating raw. But what I do see is that you simply save a lot of time by not cooking.
Our brain needs a lot of energy? Fine, you can get enormous amounts of energy from fat. The fat will be broken into ketones which will feed our brain. The brain can feed with both glucose or ketones, so eating avocado and other vegetable fats is a good and healthy (and intelligent) idea. Finally, the human brain evolved enough in intelligence in order to understand what better feeds it.