Paul

> 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.

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).

But even "raw greens" is too variable a description, which is why I
asked for which ones.

What concerns me is the eating of raw cruciferous (cabbage, etc),
which
are supposed to have thyroid inhibitors.

The question of calories does baffle me, though.  I would have thought
that eating greens mainly would require eating most of the day, or for
several hours anyway.

As for someone eating a bit every few days, well why bother? Food for
her must be unneccessary ;)
At the very least her digestive system would be incompletely utilised
;)

THis is not mean as criticism or that I'm coming from any particular
point of view.

Lynton