> > Carol:
> > The only way to determine if raw is better for people
> > would be to do something like Pottenger's cat experiments -- but on
> > people.  As far as possible, the raw/cooked factor should be the only
> > variable.  In other words... Someone who goes raw and ends up eating
> > a very different selection of food items is changing much more than
> > just how much heat they apply to those items.  In that situation, it
> > cannot be concluded that changes they observe in their health have
> > anything whatsoever to do with raw vs. cooked.

> Liza:
> The only way that it would be possible to study the real,
> long-term effects of a raw vegan diet on human health would
> be to find a population that ate this way.

Carol:
Of course! :D  Since grabbing a big bunch of people and putting them
in cages to control their environment etc. is generally not considered
cricket, that would be the only way to do it that would be ethically
acceptable to most of us (I assume).

> Liza:
> Other than that, there are just too many confounding factors to
> come to any kind of an intelligent conclusion about whether the
> rawness makes any difference or not.

Carol:
Unless we're talking about someone experimenting on their own self,
that is.  Self-experimentation can be done well and can yield results
more meaningful to the person doing the experimenting than any
population study can.

> > Carol:
> > That is *not* to say that raw vs. cooked *couldn't* have anything
> > to do with changes in their health, but such a conclusion would be
> > unfounded in such a situation.

> Liza:
> Oh noo-ooo!!! It's the hilarious logic thing, starting
> again!! :D heeee heeee ...

Carol:
I'm sure I come across as geeky when I talk like that, but I'm just
trying to avoid the misunderstandings that I think are most likely,
to nip them in the bud.  :)