Scan barcode
cinchona's review against another edition
3.0
A pretty nice book on human evolution. By halfway through, I was pretty convinced that cooking must have occurred early in human history, and it caused rapid anatomical changes from tooth shape to brain size. The book tells an engaging narrative (an evolutionary just-so story), but backs it up with good research and observations.
Overall, it's pretty qualitative and doesn't go into too much scientific detail, but it was a quick and engaging read. I could see myself getting into a longer, more boringly scientific analysis of research in this field. Either way, it makes great dinner table conversation!
Overall, it's pretty qualitative and doesn't go into too much scientific detail, but it was a quick and engaging read. I could see myself getting into a longer, more boringly scientific analysis of research in this field. Either way, it makes great dinner table conversation!
tyleradavis220's review against another edition
informative
reflective
medium-paced
4.5
A tantalizing paleoanthropological hypothesis about ancestral human use of fire, played out in a particularly entertaining writing style. An easy and fun non-fiction read for those only passingly interested in evolutionary science. Some things are now outdated or contested within the anthropological record so don't take it as absolute truth (that wouldn't be very scientific anyway).
wunderkindl's review against another edition
4.0
So far I am loving this book. The human bodies metabolic response to a raw food diet is well described and super-fascinating. I can't say I agree with all of his conclusions about diet based on limited fossil records of homo erectus, nonetheless a book that give you something to chew.
alboyer6's review against another edition
3.0
This was a great book that discusses a theory that human kind started cooking a lot earlier than previously thought and the nutrition we gained from it and the reduction in time it took us to digest cooked food helped spur on evolution.
cokjahn's review against another edition
4.0
Who knew that evolutionary theory could be so entertaining? I find myself looking at rib cages in a whole new way.
emcastro's review against another edition
3.0
This book is an accessible read for a popular audience about an interesting, relatively new evolutionary theory. As an adult who works in a non-scientific field, I appreciated the chance to update my understanding of new strains of thought within evolutionary science. The cooking hypothesis seems plausible enough to me. I don’t have any particular criteria on which to base this support because, as I mentioned, this is not my field of expertise. I overall found it an interesting read and a good use of time.
I have two points of criticism. First, there’s a long chapter about the ways in which the cooking hypothesis explains traditional heterosexual human couplings. I think there’s a lot of value in examining this topic, but I don’t recall the author adequately stressing that these findings should not be taken as prescriptive for modern human relationships. Perhaps that isn’t necessary, but in the midst of several decades of renegotiation of gender norms and theory in the West, this omission seems like an oversight.
Second, the author generally does not make recommendations for modern dieting practices (except for a grounded critique of raw food dieters) which is commendable. However, I was very disappointed that he spent his afterword on linking his hypothesis to modern obesity rates. Human life and food systems are vastly different than they were for the ancient humans that are his area of expertise. It felt counterproductive for him to write a mostly measured scientific text but to conclude it with fear-mongering language about an already-stigmatized group of people. My guess is that his hypotheses have very limited direct application for modern human food practices, and he doesn’t seem to be a dietician. The chapter felt, frankly, unnecessary and undermined my positive regard for his work.
I have two points of criticism. First, there’s a long chapter about the ways in which the cooking hypothesis explains traditional heterosexual human couplings. I think there’s a lot of value in examining this topic, but I don’t recall the author adequately stressing that these findings should not be taken as prescriptive for modern human relationships. Perhaps that isn’t necessary, but in the midst of several decades of renegotiation of gender norms and theory in the West, this omission seems like an oversight.
Second, the author generally does not make recommendations for modern dieting practices (except for a grounded critique of raw food dieters) which is commendable. However, I was very disappointed that he spent his afterword on linking his hypothesis to modern obesity rates. Human life and food systems are vastly different than they were for the ancient humans that are his area of expertise. It felt counterproductive for him to write a mostly measured scientific text but to conclude it with fear-mongering language about an already-stigmatized group of people. My guess is that his hypotheses have very limited direct application for modern human food practices, and he doesn’t seem to be a dietician. The chapter felt, frankly, unnecessary and undermined my positive regard for his work.