They don’t cook their food, but if you ate something youjust killed, even raw it’s a lot warmer than taking it out of the fridge…
If it’s warm-blooded. I don’t think even just-killed fish is terribly warm. And that STILL doesn’t speak to herbivores.
Hmmm. Setting aside nutrient leach, debacterialiation, cell structure breakdown, steam carried scent enhancement, and the greek humors (Gosh, I love this site) might there not be some benefit in the actual heat energy carried in the hot food? I mean, heat = energy, right? Isn’t a calorie a measure of heat energy? In a cold climate doesn’t the body spend a certain ammount of it’s resources just maintaining it’s temperature? Does heating food increase its calorie content? Am I on the verge of some rediculous fad diet?
Oh and comparing my diet to that of a cow ain’t comparing apples and oranges, it’s comparing apples and oragutans.
Ooh, I like that turn of phrase, do you mind if I plagiarise it?
Well, it’s all about dissemination, idn’t it? I heartily give you permission to use my phrase, but I also charge you to work the words omniguous and sigmatism into your work as well. I haven’t, however, figured out what the second of those means yet, so good luck with that.
1 calorie (small c) is enough energy to heat 1cc of water 1 degree Celcius. 1 Calorie (big C) is enough to heat 1000cc (1L) of water 1 degree Celcius. Thus, 1kg of food at 50C would have roughly 30 more Calories than the same amount at 20C. This roughly equivilant to about 8 grams of carbs or 4 grams of fat. In other words, less than a teaspoon worth of fat.
The heat is not being produced by the food. It was added by an external force. While you may be on to something about the body managing to burn less calories to keep warm when hot food is eaten, the heat in the food itself adds no value to the food. In other words, melted chocolate would not be more fattning than cold chocolate.
It depends on what you mean. Eating melted chocolate will raise your body temperature which means that you need to burn less calories to keep yourself warm which means you store more calories as fat and gain weight.
Still, I imagine the difference would be so infantesimal as to be nearly non-existant. Most people don’t eat chocolate sitting on an ice block in an igloo. 
If you’re in a temperate location, like your house, it wouldn’t matter anyway.
I suppose if you are in an igloo, it might make a tiny difference, but we’re talking percentages of calories-- no one has ever suggested standing outside in the winter wearing a bathing suit as a way to lose weight. You don’t burn* that* many calories trying to stay warm.
I think it also depends on what you’re eating. Is it unhealthy for humans to eat uncooked chicken? Very possibly. We’ve been cooking for a long time; long enough to lose the protective enzymes/bacteria/little gut beasties that other creatures have to kill off the bad stuff lurking in our food. So depending on what you’re eating, it could be quite unhealthy to eat it before cooking it.
Well, yes. But the SDMB is nothing if not a place to point out theoretically existing, but actually immeasurable, effects.
As Shalmanese pointed out, by eating 2 pounds of food hot instead of cold, you’ve added the calorie value of 1* teaspoon* of oil.
Is it unhealthy to never eat a meal, the temperature is relatively insignifigant!
For some reason, I think you’re wrong about how much energy it takes to stay warm. I think it’s considerable. But I haven’t done the research and it’s kinda OT anyway. (But someone undoubtedly knows!)
My impression in hearing this Hungarian and Brazilian talk was that warm food is somehow better for your stomach.
Hogwash?