Does the book really present evidence that a raw diet is worse for human health than cooked food? From the table of content and introduction it seems to present a strong case that cooking affected human evolution. But that does not mean that it made humans healthier. For example, cooking could have made long-term health worse, but other benefits coming from increased food availability and shortening time to get it outweighed that.

It's not the main point of the book, but it does describe how it's very hard to live a healthy life on only raw food. I remember it pointing out that about half of women on such diets stop menstruating.

This is something our bodies do out of pretty desperate lack of nutrients, and it's of course devastating from an evolutionary standpoint.

The thesis of the book is that we've cooked food for so long that our digestive system is adapted to it. It even speculates that the shrunken digestive system made our bigger brains possible. All that is far from uncontroversial, but it's a well written and argued text.

You're the 4th or 5th person to recommend this book to me. Guess I have to read it now :)

Actually, I'm one of your previous in person recommenders (didn't notice the user name), so only 3rd or 4th :)

Still a really fascinating and well written book.