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. There never has
been such a group to study (one wonders why). 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. (Other factors include
food selection, psychological factors, rest and sleep,
activity level, overall health and disease status, genetic
and ethnic makeup, social factors, and so many more).

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 ...

By the way, I sent a copy of that entire conversation
(without names, of course), including your friend's and
Jean-Louis' comments, to my Dad, who loves logic problems.
He thought it was hysterical, too, and thought everyone
speaking was very patient, ernest, and good-natured. :D lol
lol. I crack up every time I think about it.

Love Liza

--
[log in to unmask] (Liza May)