Lynton,

> > I am sure that if LaLanne felt his optimal
> > health was achievable by a 100% raw-vegan diet he would be
> > eating that. In any case, his example means a lot more to me than
> > yours because it is totally credible.

> I would have thought the same, but there are two things here:
> 1   different people have different makeups, so its possible
>     that a diet that's good for one person "could" be detrimental
>     or even fatal to another.

You may or may not be right, but if you are, I don't see Loren
recognizing
it - if he is saying that the all-raw vegan diet is right and perfect
for
all, then I disagree. Whatever Loren's true health and dietary status
is,
the fact that other individuals, like LaLanne, have thrived for many,
many
years, projecting every evidence of unusually vibrant health (for our
culture) and lack of disease on a diet that does include animal-source
foods
we are supposedly unsuited for, in my mind 'proves' that Loren's
beliefs are
at best not applicable for everybody.

BTW, I love to use LaLanne as a health example because he always tells
his
story how he was a sickly kid (weak constitution), and you can
actually see
it in that although he built his body up with nutrition and exercise,
he
still has the narrow frame of a weak kid.

> 2   two diets could be called "raw vegan", and yet be completely
>     diffenent mixes of foods.  One reason that I'm willing to give Loren
>     the benefit of the doubt is his reliance on raw greens, as I believe
>     them to be the better nutrition (along with meat, in my case).

Adding meat is a huge difference, obviously.

I feel that anyone else should think long and hard, and read Weston
Price's 'Nutrition and Physical Degeneration', read the articles and
testimonials on www.beyondveg.com, then consider Loren's experience
along with others in that context.

Paul