> Kirt:
> >  Cooked vegans appear to last longer before they experience trouble.
>
> Carol:
> > I've heard this said many times, but -- and I know I've asked
> > this before just recently -- do you think it's by virtue of the
> > cooking itself, or do you think that the difference lies in the
> > different food choices people make when they're eating raw foods
> > as opposed to cooked ones?  I'd really like to hear more people's
> > thoughts on this question.  I think it's an important one.
>
> Liza:
> Yes, you've now asked this question several times without a
> response! :)

Carol:
Actually, the only other time I remember asking it was when I asked in
response to something Jen wrote, and she wrote me a very nice response.
Anyhow...  Thanks for your thoughts, Liza. :)

> I'm curious, why do you consider this to be an important question?

It seems to me that it's the crux of the whole raw food matter (well..
close to it).  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.  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.

Carol