There are various issues. First of all, people in the Palaeolithic were subject to a much harsher environment than nowadays(harsher, IMO, than the Inuits). Plus, they died earlier as they, unlike Neolithic peoples, didn't have the know-how to heal broken bones. Plus, having a mean-age of 35 doesn't mean anything as that includes a very high childbirth-casualty-rate - it took until the Bronze-Age(c.2-3,000 years before Christ) before longevity-rates/height-rates recovered after the Palaeolithic, which rather indicates the superiority of a Palaeolithic Diet even when cooked:-
http://www.beyondveg.com/nicholson-w/angel-1984/angel-1984-1a.shtmlAll one can say with certainty, given the archaeological record, is that, due to the physical activity(and diet) of our Palaeo ancestors, they were far fitter/stronger than their 20th/21st century descendants, and, very likely, even fitter/stronger than our Neolithic ancestors. This was inevitable as , unlike in the Neolithic, they had no domestic animals to do much of their work for them etc.
Re aging:- Most rawists mention looking c.10(biological) years younger than their cooked-food-eating contemporaries of the same (physical)age, after doing the diet for years. That's unsurprising as skin regains its elasticity etc. when going raw and so on .....