>The amount of protein that Schmid advocates is nowhere near
> that of the original eskimo diet which by the way produced no cancer.
> Schmid's regime is an almost all-raw, moderate protein & calorie diet
> and I would like to see the evidence that would suggest that such a
> plan will lead to a shortened life-span.

I hope to find the time in about a week to post on this.

>The facts are that the Vilcabambans have a lot of dental
> problems and high rates of infant mortality & illness, whereas the
> Georgians who have a higher percentage of animal foods in their diet
> do not run into to these problems. This does seem to indicate that
> Scmid is on to something or do you have an explaination that fits better?

Mineralization of the soil in the respective regions.

>>There are certain things which just can not be bred out of a
>>species' metabolic needs, no matter how many generations we
> are talking about.

>Interesting. Can you mention some that might have relevans to
> eating food raw?

I don't know about eating raw, but the first thing which comes to
mind is the Warburg effect (named for its ennunciator, Otto Warburg
the great Nobel laureate biochemist).  If oxygen is prevented from
reaching cells, in order to survive they will revert to anaeorbic
metabolism which was in effect before the first plants evolved & put
oxygen into the atmosphere.  When they are in this state they will
exhibit unconstrained growth, as they did way back when.  This is
cancer.  Eating raw maximizes the body's natural ways of getting
loads of oxygen into all the cells.

 >Does the fact that many people are able to maintain a very
>high state of health on a mostly cooked diet not indicate
> that we have adapted at least somewhat to a cooked foods diet?

I can't answer this.  I'm not so sure that these people would not do
a lot better (i.e. live a lot longer) on all raw, & anyway think
that many can do fine on all raw.  This may only apply to some.  I
just do not know.

>>Let's not forget that all the supposedly magical stuff in
> meats originally came from plants which the animals we are eating
> ingested.

>Tell that to a tiger. ;-) In theory it sounds compelling but
> what really counts is what works. Do not forget that the raw vegan
> diet is for most people just not cutting the mustard.

Just curious, but has anybody on this list eaten foods grown on
highly-mineralized soils, loaded with rock dusts?  I have, & there
is a MAJOR difference.  I strongly suspect that this is where most
of the problems originate, & Weston Price sure thought so too.  It
may be that meats or cooked allows one to assimilate more minerals,
but I seriously doubt it.  And all proteins are acidic, so this is
not going to help in the mineral dept. anyway.  About the only thing
I can think of that RAF might have that plants can't supply is
vitamin D for those living indoors.

--Doug Schwartz
[log in to unmask]