axel:
>how do you guys know that the long term track of raw vegan is what you say?

We have heard the stories of many ex-raw vegans, of many aspiring raw
vegans, and very few from mentally balanced "successful" raw vegans. I have
never, ever, heard of a successful raw vegan from birth. I have met a half
dozen raw vegan children over the years. Five of them were very
fragile-looking, undersized, and under-developed. One was only a little
underweight and immediately looked to the ground whan I asked her: "You
mean you've never _ever_ eaten any milk or eggs or _any_ animal food?"

>how many long-term raw vegans are there in the united states, or in the
>world? does anybody really knows?

I would guess zero if we define long term as raw vegan from birth (and now
over, say 15 years old). As for how many people toy with it and for how
long they do so, who knows?

>what percentage of them report their
>state of health to other people?

I would guess 100% since they usually consider it their duty to save the
world. ;)

>when you say raw vegan does not work in
>the long term for many: how many are this many, and what percentage of the
>total world-wide raw vegans represents?

These figures aren't available. It is interesting that you don't make these
demands of Alan, for instance. He will make up some great and positive
numbers for you I suspect.

>there can be valid scientific/empirical health
>reasons not to be raw vegan, but i do not know about this often-repeated
>"bad track for long term raw vegans".

These reasons combined with the poor anecdotal track record and the failure
of most children to thrive on raw vegan--how much more do you need?

>please inform me about just how many
>people do you know that are long term vegans, and if there is some
>approximate idea of how many can be out there.

I know of no raw vegans who aren't emancipated or in serious mental
difficulty or both. I know of dozens of ex-raw-vegans who tell the same
story over again about how they had problems. Cooked vegans appear to last
longer before they experience trouble.

>and also, as usual, if we look at a bigger picture, like exercise,
>emotional health, being outdoors, sunbathing, fullfilling social life,
>spiritual life for those that want it, etc, and also consider the combined
>long term effects of all this, IMHO, it is just IMPOSSIBLE to tell what is
>best in general.

It is probably possible to say what's best _in_general_ but not
specifically. It is interesting that you say the above to Tom who has
repeated this same mantra for a long time now (instead of, say, Alan who
regularly tells what is best for _everyone_).

>some people eat raw vegan, do not exercise, are unhappy,
>etc. some are happy and raw vegan. some are meat eaters. some raw and many
>cooked. of these two groups, some exercise, some do not. some are more
>peaceful than others. some eat more organic than others. some eat some
>cooked food, and do better, but of these, some exercise and some do not,
>etc. so, it sort of hard to tell, don=B4t you think? ;)

Very hard to tell. That's the point.

Cheers,
Kirt

Secola  /\  Nieft
[log in to unmask]