"william" wrote:

> Lest we resume the raw vs cooked debate on the wrong foot, I suggest you
> read the archives on this subject. It has been extensively discussed.
>
> There are also the archives of the primal diet list and the live food list,
> both on yahoo groups, however I personally am not aware of any _evidence_
> that supports the idea that cooked food promotes health.

Quite a stunning admission of ignorance. Unfortunately, it says
more for your own lack of education than any implied superiority
of raw food. I suggest you go to Google and search on "low-carb"
and "research". I personally am not aware of any "evidence" that
supports the idea that raw food promotes health. I submit to you
that any health improvement comes from other factors besides raw
food. Naturally, refined sugars, white flour, hydrogenated oils,
and other processed foods are unhealthy. But cooking is the very
LEAST of the problem there.

The following study may help you grasp the fact that people have
been improving their health with cooked foods for many thousands
of years. New York City, Bellevue Hospital, 1929-1930. Vilhjalmur
Stefansson and Karsten Anderson eat an all-meat, all-cooked diet.
(Stefansson specifically denied rumors that they would be eating
raw meat.) The men were monitored around the clock, subjected to
endless tests, and observed for all symptoms of trouble. Judging
by objective measurements and their own perceptions, the health
of the men improved greatly and no deficiencies occurred.

http://www.biblelife.org/stefansson1.htm
http://www.biblelife.org/stefansson2.htm
http://www.biblelife.org/stefansson3.htm

A classic study defending meat-based diet. Duplicated thousands
of times by other low-carb and/or animal-based diets. For you to
claim ignorance of "evidence that cooked food promotes health"
makes you look woefully uninformed. Some people try to dismiss
the Stefansson study by claiming animals weren't fed any grains
in New York City in 1929. A lie. Animals have been fed grain in
the U.S.A. since 1909. Grains aren't a valid criticism of this
study. Nor of the thousands of modern low-carb studies.

Bruce Kleisner