Stefan:

> It is fairly easy to track down the life of famous persons in history if
> there exist written notes. So I think Walter (and the persons doing this
> research) are right here.

I have no time to re-write the various causes of error here. You can
read by yourself.

 Jean-Louis:
> >Check the history of Tai Chi Chuan and you will see masters who died
> >at the early age of 53...

> Now it seems, you   a r e   trusting results of history researches. And
> you are the master who decides which results can be trusted and which
> not. ;-)
> Well, until you give a rational reason for your decision, the whole
> discussion is reduced to a matter of believe then. Not very refreshing,
> especially given your scientific background, Sir!

My rational reason: people can have interest in exaggerating their
age (because ols people are respected, etc...). On the other
hand, Tai Chi is supposed to prolong life, so people don't have any
interest in underestimating their age.

> Perhaps less errors would appear if people wouldn't load their body with
> one kilogram of denatured substances daily. (BTW: 1 kilogram app. 2 lb.)
> Anyway I wanted to point out, that compared to this huge amount of work
> forced to the immune system by the SAD owner of the body, the natural
> influences are tiny.

Tiny? That would have to be proven.

> >Jean-Louis:
> >Would you have enough knowledge to teach for 1000 years??? Honestly,
> >the amount of knowledge accumulated over a few decades is largely
> >enough for survival in Paleo societies.

> You should have given this a "IMHO" or even "IMVHO" (V =3D very). As it
> stands here it is simply ridiculous.
> If you can't figure out which use there might have been in ancient
> tribes for 800 years old people    I     c a n.
> I haven't got it at hand but there is scientific background for my
> claim and you would better study it instead of judging, that some ridi-
> culous decades of experience would have been enough for survival in
> paleolithic times.

But hunter-gatherers in the XXth century don't live 1000 years.
And if there was so convincing scientific background, maybe you
could give me some references?

> You haven't commented my calculation with oxidative stress and life-
> span. And my conclusion, that it might be    v e r y    useful, to go
> 99.99% raw, not only 95%. Any suggestions?

I did comment: animals that get supplements consisting of antioxidants
don't have a higher life-span.

And 2nd comment: there is NO evidence AT ALL that animals eating raw
live longer than animals eating cooked; there is NO evidence AT ALL
that most of the oxidative stress comes from cooked food.

Best,

Jean-Louis