At 11:29 14/08/97 +0000, Stefan wrote:
Jean-Louis:
>>BTW, you have seen the picture of G. C. Burger, after 33 years raw:
>>his skin looks exactly as the skin of a man of his age [and my uncle,
>>who eats 90% cooked and has the same age, has a smoother skin]. I can
>I don't think the decision to improve one's nutrition should be made
>dependent of Mr. Burger's skin. :-)
The very thought of Mr Burger's skin repulses me, let alone his poor brain.
>Jean-Louis:
>>Red blood cells are renewed every 120 days on average. It seems very
>>dubious to me that with raw food they would be renewed every 1200 days.
>I'm no physician but aren't these cells produced (created from scratch)
>by other cells in our bones? I don't think our blood renews by the blood
>cells dividing.
>The question would be then, if the producing cells have limited capaci-
>ty. This I don't know.
Neither do I, but it seems that the quality of poor blood can be greatly
enhanced by fresh chlorophyll, whose molecule is almost the same as the heme
molecule but for the Magnesium atom vs the Iron atom. So eat up your fresh
raw organic green leaves !!
Jean-Louis:
>>molecules or whatever, but unless you live in an absolutely sterilized
>>environment, you WILL need an immunological system.
>Yes, but compare the amount of offending substances. With SAD: one kilo-
>gram daily. With 100% raw: only environmental substances can intrude in
>your body (polluted water, air) and viruses/bacteria (micrograms of ma-
>terial). How much the immune system is concerned with raw food remains
>questionable. I think some work remains. But this will be the work
>nature designed the system for.
There are also lurking in some foods various agents such as phytic acid (
all seeds/nuts) and other enzyme inhibitors, amino acids that need to be
detoxified (as in raw grains and milk) and other toxins, even tho at a minor
level usually (eg alkaloids). These the body must deal with, and probably
can better on raw than SADly cooked.
Jean-Louis:
>>Nature doesn't care about keeping you alive once you have reproduced
>>and raised your children. On the evolutionary point of view, living
>>120 or 1200 years don't make any difference. I admit that it's not
>>a powerful argument, though.
>Not even that. It's simply wrong. I don't remember, if it was here or
>on the paleofood-list but there is definitively a function for grand-
>parents. The tribe/society benefits from their knowledge and wisdom.
>There could be a big advantage if there are some centuries old people
>in tribes. They would have knowledge about rare events and would
>know how to deal with them.
Its even better when the grandparents are fit and well, and able to
recognise situations and remember what to do about them.
Jean-Louis:
>>If we consider than the length of life is proportional to the period
>>prior to adulthood (which is 18 years for humans), and we observe
>>chimpanzees and other close apes, we see that humans cannot expect much
>>more than 120 years.
>That period is subject to degeneration and is decreasing still now.
>Perhaps it is 25..30 years for humans. That would speak for a higher
>lifespan than 120 years.
Jean-Louis:
>>As for animals, no mammal I know lives more than about 1 century.
>Aren't there turtles living in deep sea which reach several hundred
>years? I'm not sure about that.
Perhaps those of us that get to 120 can review whether it was worth it then?
Personally, being healthy now (ongoing ...now) is more important than to try
to reach any particular age.
My uncle just celebrated his 90th by having lunch on the Concorde. What a
way to go (not my cup of coffee tho). He still loves life I'm pleased to
say :>))
Regards,
Lynton
|
