>BTW, you have seen the picture of G. C. Burger, after 33 years raw:
>his skin looks exactly as the skin of a man of his age [and my uncle,
>who eats 90% cooked and has the same age, has a smoother skin]. I can
I don't think the decision to improve one's nutrition should be made
dependent of Mr. Burger's skin. :-)
>Red blood cells are renewed every 120 days on average. It seems very
>dubious to me that with raw food they would be renewed every 1200 days.
I'm no physician but aren't these cells produced (created from scratch)
by other cells in our bones? I don't think our blood renews by the blood
The question would be then, if the producing cells have limited capaci-
ty. This I don't know.
>molecules or whatever, but unless you live in an absolutely sterilized
>environment, you WILL need an immunological system.
Yes, but compare the amount of offending substances. With SAD: one kilo-
gram daily. With 100% raw: only environmental substances can intrude in
your body (polluted water, air) and viruses/bacteria (micrograms of ma-
terial). How much the immune system is concerned with raw food remains
questionable. I think some work remains. But this will be the work
nature designed the system for.
>Nature doesn't care about keeping you alive once you have reproduced
>and raised your children. On the evolutionary point of view, living
>120 or 1200 years don't make any difference. I admit that it's not
>a powerful argument, though.
Not even that. It's simply wrong. I don't remember, if it was here or
on the paleofood-list but there is definitively a function for grand-
parents. The tribe/society benefits from their knowledge and wisdom.
There could be a big advantage if there are some centuries old people
in tribes. They would have knowledge about rare events and would
know how to deal with them.
>If we consider than the length of life is proportional to the period
>prior to adulthood (which is 18 years for humans), and we observe
>chimpanzees and other close apes, we see that humans cannot expect much
>more than 120 years.
That period is subject to degeneration and is decreasing still now.
Perhaps it is 25..30 years for humans. That would speak for a higher
lifespan than 120 years.
>As for animals, no mammal I know lives more than about 1 century.
Aren't there turtles living in deep sea which reach several hundred
years? I'm not sure about that.
Instinctively long living wishes,
E-Mail: [log in to unmask]