>Amadeus Schmidt <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>On Mon, 27 Mar 2000 14:01:51 -0500, Todd Moody <[log in to unmask]>
>wrote:
> >Yes, that is one possible sort of answer.  Another may be that we
> >are trying for levels of health and vitality that are higher than
> >what was "needed" for our bare survival.
>Humans or humanoids in the wildlife probably need the very best
>level of health and vitality. Otherwise they would be eaten by predators or
>outperformed by fitter contemporaries -
>as happened to the several human predecessor branches like australopethines
>homo erectus, neanderthals... .
>If there was any ability that would have beeen hindered or diminished
>by lack of a food essential, then only the best suited
>beeings would survive at last.


You can't logically deduce that simply because a being survived in the
wild, he had achieved optimal health.  Sometimes the weakest of the litter
will survive, either by pure luck or by help from another.

The cave man had no mechanism to determine what was and was not healthy for
him.  He did not have Linus Pauling's books to read and he didn't have the
internet to look things up on.  He basically ate what he could find and
what he liked and nature took care of the rest.

We, on the other hand, have a plethora of information available to us
backed up by scientific data.  Can Mark McGuire hit more home runs if he
takes Creatine?  Sure looks like it.  Could the cave man have increased his
physical abilities with it?  Seems logical to me.  And by the same token,
we can use our scientific knowledge to improve our physical
health.  Vitamins are simply one way of doing that.

I can't think of any reason to start my day without my Life Extension Mix,
among other things.

--Dena