Jean-Louis:
> Don't forget the numerous writers, poets who were alcoholic or drug-addicts.
> And in general, many well-known people had health problems. And the
> obvious: all past philosophers, artists, etc... were cooked food eaters.

Like I said, some people are born with good genes.
But an average joe is not.  That's why you only get a handful of
"achievers," or people who leave a mark, per century or so; out of a few
billions, that's a pretty bad statistic.

Besides, those who did do well while having health problems, could have
done probably much better had they not had them.

> The problem is: will you become significantly more physically and
> mentally healthy? You won't increase you physical fitness by eating
> raw (the body has no interest in building muscles that you don't
> use). And to be mentally healthy, you need social interaction, which
> is more difficult when you eat raw.

It's whatever works for you.  You can't apply any of the above to
everyone.

My definition of physical health has surely nothing to do with "muscle."
If my body has no interest in building any, then all it means is that I
don't NEED any.  Physical health is: going through life, on a daily
basis, without ever feeling any pain or discomfort in any part of your body.
Similarily, mental health has (well, for MOI) nothing to do with
interacting with mentally unhealthy people.  If there is no mentally
healthy people around you, then you are probably better off not
interacting with anyone at all.  In fact, it is at that stage that you
must/should do all you can to educate people around you; to create a better
or healthier environemnt for everyone to "interact" in.