>Actually=2C the "garden of eden" myth is usually mostly only held by raw ve=
>gans/fruitarians. Many RVAFers recognise that some aspects of palaeo lifest=
>yle were nasty=2C brutish and short. William=2C I guess is an exception.

I'm glad you stated that. I tried to follow the Natural Hygiene/Fruitarian
ideal many years ago until it made me feel and funtion worse than when I ate 
SAD. Their idealism turned out to be a big disappointment. A few years ago
I checked on my former NH hero TC Fry and discovered he died at the ripe
old age of 63 from dietary deficiencies.

>So while RVAFers do claim that cooked-food-eaters will progre=
>ssively overburden/weaken their enzyme-producing organs and digestive syste=
>m over the years by eating enzyme-deficient cooked-foods(resulting in the b=
>ody being forced to make extra efforts re enzymes production etc. to help d=
>igestion)=2C there is no suggestion that cooked-food-eaters will die overni=
>ght.

So, it sounds like you are indicating some sort of cut-off point or ratio. If 10% of
my diet is cooked, then I would only be overburdening my "enzyme factory" by
10% (adjusted, of course, for whatever enzyme is required at that point)?

But then, how would that compare based on someone who embraces cooking
and/or SAD. In other words, if my potential lifespan is 100 and by cooking
nearly 100% I deplete my enzyme factory by the age of 80, would that mean
if by cooking only 10% would that effective age be inceased to - say, 90 or 95?

(I'm throwing the 100 number out there as a goal :)

>After all=2C coo=
>king involves a tremendous waste of time re preparation of foods

No, recipes require preparation time. Cooking could be as simple as jamming a
piece of meat on a stick and securing over a fire with a rock. Hardly any time at all.