Jean-Louis:
>No matter how much supplements of antioxydants we take (to fight
>free-radical damage), the biological clocks are still ticking, and our
>maximum life-span will still be about 120 years (unless sciencists
>discover telomere treatments). But well before reaching that age,

So we all know the maximum lifespan of humans now, thanks to this para-
graph from you, Jean-Louis. 120 years and that's it. :-(
I wonder, why I haven't read this number in publications about aging
before. Did I overlook it? Did my subconscious make me blind to the
sheer facts because they are unacceptable for my psyche?

I think, there is a flaw in your conclusions, and it becomes clear
when reading this:

Jean-Louis:
>It is known that most cells of our body can only divide a finite number
>of times. The "clocks" are the "telomeres", i.e. the ends of the
>chromosomes. Each chromosome has 2 telomeres, thus each cell has
>46*2=3D92 clocks, all of which have a different hour. Each time a cell
>divides, a new chromosome is formed from an old one, the new telomere
>is slightly shorter than the old one. Some chromosomes are thus older
>than others, and some cells are older than others.

Yeah!!! That's somehow what I remember to have read also. I didn't
know of telomeres (or forgot) but the number of possible cell divi-
dings is limited; that seems to be commonly accepted in science (until
disproven, as always... ;-))

But, hell, who says,    w h e n   a cell divides???
If my memory serves me right, one reason for dividing is oxidative
stress. Another might be a virus, intruding in the cell.
Now, if there is no reason to divide, the cell   w o n ' t  do it!

And this means, that the human lifespan can be much more than those
ridiculous 120 years, if and only if the cells of humans are dividing
only at very rare occasions.

Assuming, that some milligrams of oxidative substances from our pol-
luted environment are much less problematic, than one kilogram of oxi-
dated and denatured substances from "normal" nutrition (SAD respective
GBK - the latter a german acronym for "gutbuergerliche Kueche" meaning
the same as SAD) it seems to be possible, to lower the oxidative stress
of our cells significantly by omitting substances, that cause such a
stress. In other words, to turn to raw nutrition.
Of course, smoking would contribute a lot of oxidative stress. On the
other hand, smoking seems to become disgusting when turning to raw
nutrition.
Having eliminated the stress from bad nutrition one might want to eli-
minate environmental stress by moving to a better environment and wor-
king on abandoning its pollution.

Based on the above paragraphs I give a challenging hypothesis here:
I guess, that the average human lifespan of raw eaters in, let's say
at least tenth generation is something around 980 years!

And personally I hope to live app. 150 years and    w i t h o u t
"the dysfunctions of the body make it more and more vulnerable to
injuries, viruses; blood supply is less efficient, arteries stiffen,
etc." (Again quoted from Jean-Louis).

Instinctively aged wishes and cheers on our next century of raw living,

Stefan
E-Mail: [log in to unmask]