From: Dariusz ROZYCKI <[log in to unmask]>

> Why are there more people who know that exercise is good for them and
> don't exercise than there are those who know it's good for them and do it?

Because exercise demands some effort, and people prefer to watch TV.

> I'm not sure, but I could give you at least a dozen reasons why an
> average person today would not and could not handle switching from a
> mostly cooked to a mostly raw diet and stick to it for a long period of
> time.

There are some social reasons, of course, but for many people, after a
few months/years, they come back to cooked food because their raw
diet didn't provide them the state of health they expected, and
sometimes caused mental problems.

> What do you mean by "mentally healthy?" I'm curious.

Signs of mental unhealthiness: obsession with food, eating disorders,
zealotry/aggressivity about diet, feeling superior to the common
of humankind because of one's diet...

> What's become of most of those former raw-fooders?  Are they still mosty
> raw now?

It depends (isn't my answer obvious?)

> Blaming nature instead of ourselves for our dietery (or otherwise, for
> that matter) problems is a big mistake, IMO.  If there is anything that
> is perfect in this universe (and/or beyond; whichever version you prefer)
> it's got to be "Mother Nature." (...)
> I don't care for 100% raw anymore than you do.  I want optimal health and
> a body functioning at its peak; as it was designed to.  Nothing less and
> nothing more.  I am imperfect not because nature is imperfect but rather
> because nature is perfect, and I (and everyone else) have forgotten about it
> and decided to trust something artificial (and thus imperfect, as
> designed by [currently] imperfect human beings) instead.

And you think you'll become perfect by eating raw? You think that
wild apes are perfect???

> If there were no genetic changes to *suitably* adapt us to foods as
> prepared and altered through the use of man-made tools (not talking about
> a fork here), then I sure as heck will stick to the initial, raw-food-only
> policy that has been and still is followed by all living creatures
> (except us) today.

And we are the only creature that uses chairs, cars, surgery... It is too
simplistic to say that everything artificial is bad. If humans still
lived close to nature, thus using minimal intelligence, they wouldn't
survive. Cooking does have some advantages (improves digestibility of
some foods, destroys some natural toxins/bacteria/parasites...). Maybe
those advantages are not as crucial nowadays than in the past (since
food is now abundant, at least in our countries).

But a question that would be interesting to address: have we kept our
full ability to digest raw food? For instance, do we produce as
much enzymes than our ancestors did 500,000 years ago?


Best wishes,
Jean-Louis