Re: Raw food perspective

[Guest guest]

Are you responding to some specific post, or is this just thrown out

there?

On Tue, 26 Feb 2002 19:38:56 -0000 " justinbond " <justin_bond@...>

writes:

While all the healthy societies that Weston Price studied

inforporated some raw foods, except for the eskimos none were close

to all-raw. If you like eating that way, that's great. But if you

don't like an all-raw diet, there is *no* reason to do so.

Here's a good article by an ex raw food vegan, debunking the 'cooked

food is toxic' concept:

http://www.beyondveg.com/tu-j-l/raw-cooked/raw-cooked-1a.shtml

Personally, I would hate to see the Weston Price movement descend

into dietary extremism.

[Guest guest]

> Are you responding to some specific post, or is this just thrown out

> there?

>

nope, no specific post or I'd have replied to it. I'm just throwing

that out there.

> On Tue, 26 Feb 2002 19:38:56 -0000 " justinbond " <justin_bond@h...>

> writes:

> While all the healthy societies that Weston Price studied

> inforporated some raw foods, except for the eskimos none were close

> to all-raw. If you like eating that way, that's great. But if you

> don't like an all-raw diet, there is *no* reason to do so.

>

> Here's a good article by an ex raw food vegan, debunking

the 'cooked

> food is toxic' concept:

>

> http://www.beyondveg.com/tu-j-l/raw-cooked/raw-cooked-1a.shtml

>

> Personally, I would hate to see the Weston Price movement descend

> into dietary extremism.

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

-

>But if you

>don't like an all-raw diet, there is *no* reason to do so.

I'm not sure anyone here is advocating a 100%-raw diet. I'm certainly not,

anyway. However, while one can form many different diets from Nourishing

Traditions, since it's a cookbook that covers a wide range of foods and

preparation methods, the larger body of work of Weston A. Price and the

Foundation seem to indicate that healthy traditional cultures did consume a

large portion of their animal foods raw. That percentage varied, but I

think it's safe to say that most of us ought to eat a good deal more raw

than we do.

In my case, I've found that raw or very rare meat make me feel better than

more heavily or even normally cooked meats, so despite the ease and

convenience of preparing a huge pot of stew and then eating a meal of stew

every day for a week or so, I'm going to stop making stew and try to

increase the raw component of my diet. My health is lousy and needs any

help it can get.

That said, I think the raw issue is very different for vegetables. Unlike

just about all meat and dairy, many foods from the vegetable kingdom

contain potent anti-nutrients, indicating that we're not exactly entirely

adapted to eating them and need some help. In some cases these

anti-nutrients are neutralized by soaking the food before eating it, but in

many cases it's done by cooking. So I'd never eat raw broccoli, for

example, and I've become somewhat skeptical of sauerkraut despite its many

obvious virtues since it's apparently not known whether the

thyroid-antagonists in raw cabbage are neutralized by fermentation. And

spinach salad, delicious as it is, is off my table. In fact, I kind of

suspect that the many tales of raw-fooders who lost most or all of their

initial raw-food health gains and returned to a partly-cooked diet might

have been suffering from too many problematic raw vegetables, though of

course the social problem is significant too.

>Personally, I would hate to see the Weston Price movement descend

>into dietary extremism.

In a sense, it already is a form of dietary extremism. Eating a lot of

saturated animal fat and avoiding the large quantities of polyunsaturated

vegetable oils found in so much modern food is an extreme departure from

not only the norm but also the official position on what's

healthy. Convincing people of the virtues of butter and lard is a

difficult task!

Your point is well-taken in that there's no earthly rationale for turning

the movement into a cabal of rabid 100%-raw purists when there's no

evidence that such a narrow diet is required. The debate over how much raw

food to eat, and of what kind, is probably healthy, though, and will

inevitably include a range of opinions.

I may be way, way wrong here, but I suspect that NT was written in such a

way as to be as palatable to modern sensibilities as possible within the

framework of the Foundation's mission. I know that Elaine Gottschall, for

example, soft-pedaled some of the dietary requirements of the SCD diet in

her book _Breaking The Vicious Cycle_ specifically to make it easier for

people to make the transition, so I'd speculate the same might well be true

of NT. It's difficult enough to convince people that saturated fats are

healthy and necessary, for example, without adding a whole bunch of other

extreme divergences from the norm, so it was probably sound reasoning to

largely stick to a handful of raw meat and fish appetizers that people may

already be familiar with instead of getting deeper into the raw

issue. Enough information is in the book to lead people who are interested

further.

-

[Guest guest]

> -

>

> >Personally, I would hate to see the Weston Price movement descend

> >into dietary extremism.

>

> In a sense, it already is a form of dietary extremism. Eating a

lot of

> saturated animal fat and avoiding the large quantities of

polyunsaturated

> vegetable oils found in so much modern food is an extreme departure

from

> not only the norm but also the official position on what's

> healthy. Convincing people of the virtues of butter and lard is a

> difficult task!

Yes, but at least it has a ring of common sense to most people, and

the science behind cholesterol, or rather the lack therof, is

extensive and well documented.

> The debate over how much raw

> food to eat, and of what kind, is probably healthy, though, and

will

> inevitably include a range of opinions.

Good point.

> I may be way, way wrong here, but I suspect that NT was written in

such a

> way as to be as palatable to modern sensibilities as possible

within the

> framework of the Foundation's mission. I know that Elaine

Gottschall, for

> example, soft-pedaled some of the dietary requirements of the SCD

diet in

> her book _Breaking The Vicious Cycle_ specifically to make it

easier for

> people to make the transition, so I'd speculate the same might well

be true

> of NT.

Maybe Sally could comment on that. But remember that the grandaddy of

them all isn't NT, as wonderful as it is, but Nutrition and Physical

Degeneration. The healthy diets that Weston Price surveyed all

incorporated some raw foods, but except for the eskimos none were

predominantly raw.

[Guest guest]

On Tue, 26 Feb 2002 19:38:56 -0000 " justinbond " <justin_bond@...>

writes:

While all the healthy societies that Weston Price studied

inforporated some raw foods, except for the eskimos none were close

to all-raw.

Me: Okay I will reply specifically to yours.

The first half of your sentence is vague and misleading, since *some raw

food* doesn't tell us anything, except that it is not *all* raw food. I

don't think you would find anyone on this list disagreeing, you simply

are restating the obvious.

Part of the threads that have appeared on the list have dealt

specifically with Sally's recommendation (50-60% IIRC), with what

constitutes a " raw fooder " (85%) and how many, if not most, who are a

part of the " Weston Price Movement " don't come anywhere close to either

of those percentages. So if by " some " you mean we all should just ignore

the raw food threads, dismiss them as " dietary extremism " and go back to

business as usual, then you are sadly mistaken, since the need for more

raw foods is what is actually being addressed, and if most folks aren't

anywhere near even Sally's recommendation, then it is something that

needs to be explored.

A number of the raw food threads also dealt with the reversal of disease,

and perhaps increasing raw foods when their own NT approach isn't

working. That too is a fruitful thread and one that deserves something

other than the simplistic dismissal of " some " and " extremism " .

The second half of your sentence is just blatantly wrong. The Masai come

to mind as do other groups whose diets had a LARGE portion of raw animal

foods although not as high as the two groups mentioned above. I posted a

message about that in relation the parasite issue.

Notice as well that many who fit in the raw animal food camp don't eat

100% raw, and would probably be put to shame by two of the groups that do

fit within the Weston Price paradigm.

If you like eating that way, that's great. But if you

don't like an all-raw diet, there is *no* reason to do so.

Me: No reason? Sheer speculation (and highly inaccurate) on your part.

Here's a good article by an ex raw food vegan, debunking the 'cooked

food is toxic' concept:

http://www.beyondveg.com/tu-j-l/raw-cooked/raw-cooked-1a.shtml

Personally, I would hate to see the Weston Price movement descend

into dietary extremism.

Me: Your logically fallacious reasoning has now turned into name calling

so as to further attempt to discredit the arguments attached to the

benefits of raw food. unfortunatley you inadvertently undermining the

" Weston Price Movement " since many folks consider the eating of ANY raw

animal products *extreme*, whatever the percentage.

Nevertheless, given the fact that there are several groups who clearly

fit into the raw fooder category, and who are favorably written about in

Dr. Price's book and on the WAP website, on what logical basis can you

label them as " extreme " ? Seems to me they fit equally as well under the

banner you have dubbed the " Weston Price Movement " your attempts to

narrow it down nothwithstanding.

[Guest guest]

>

>

> On Tue, 26 Feb 2002 19:38:56 -0000 " justinbond " <justin_bond@h...>

> writes:

> While all the healthy societies that Weston Price studied

> inforporated some raw foods, except for the eskimos none were close

> to all-raw.

>

>

> Me: Okay I will reply specifically to yours.

>

> The first half of your sentence is vague and misleading, since

*some raw

> food* doesn't tell us anything, except that it is not *all* raw

food. I

> don't think you would find anyone on this list disagreeing, you

simply

> are restating the obvious.

If you read NAPD, it is clear that the the healthy primitives are not

eating a diet that approaches being predominantly raw. It was not one

of the patterns that Weston Price found among healthy primitives.

>

> A number of the raw food threads also dealt with the reversal of

disease,

references from the scientific literature, please. Specifically,

references that include quanitity. We all agree that some raw foods

can be beneficial.

> The second half of your sentence is just blatantly wrong. The Masai

come

> to mind as do other groups whose diets had a LARGE portion of raw

animal

> foods although not as high as the two groups mentioned above.

The Masai only include a large proportion of raw food because much of

their diet comes from raw dairy products. Liver, the most sacred of

all foods to the Masai, is mentioned by Weston Price as being eatan

both raw and cooked. He does not specify proportions.

> If you like eating that way, that's great. But if you

> don't like an all-raw diet, there is *no* reason to do so.

>

> Me: No reason? Sheer speculation (and highly inaccurate) on your

part.

Sheer speculation? Give me one scientific reference demonstrating the

toxicity of cooked food. You've posted whole threads talking about

toxins (from cooked food) weakening this and harming that, without a

single reference from the scientific literature.

> Here's a good article by an ex raw food vegan, debunking

the 'cooked

> food is toxic' concept:

>

> http://www.beyondveg.com/tu-j-l/raw-cooked/raw-cooked-1a.shtml

>

> Personally, I would hate to see the Weston Price movement descend

> into dietary extremism.

[Guest guest]

On Tue, 26 Feb 2002 20:52:47 -0000 " justinbond " <justin_bond@...>

writes:

><snip>

If you read NAPD, it is clear that the the healthy primitives are not

eating a diet that approaches being predominantly raw. It was not one

of the patterns that Weston Price found among healthy primitives.

Me: I have read NAPD, once a year for the last ten years to be exact. And

several times before that. So again you are wrong. Some of them did eat

predominatley raw, I mentioned two..

But the point was that no one on this list would have disagreed with your

original statement, you were only restating the obvious.

>

> A number of the raw food threads also dealt with the reversal of

disease,

references from the scientific literature, please. Specifically,

references that include quanitity. We all agree that some raw foods

can be beneficial.

Me: Ha! Are you living in dream land?!! Name me one scientific

undertaking seeking to display the power of raw foods?! The " scientific "

world thinks Dr. Price is nuts, despite his observations and clinical

experience (say in the reversal of tooth decay). You think, Gerson, Page,

Crewe (and others) and their work are likely the subject of modern

scientific inquiry? You think any establishment organization wants to

follow up on the work and advice of Aajonus Vonderplanitz? Sounds like

you need a good lesson in the politics of nutrition. Nevertheless, there

is work being done out there in the hinterlands but I'll let you do the

legwork, you might find it educational.

> The second half of your sentence is just blatantly wrong. The Masai

come

> to mind as do other groups whose diets had a LARGE portion of raw

animal

> foods although not as high as the two groups mentioned above.

The Masai only include a large proportion of raw food because much of

their diet comes from raw dairy products. Liver, the most sacred of

all foods to the Masai, is mentioned by Weston Price as being eatan

both raw and cooked. He does not specify proportions.

Me: Who cares *why* they include it. That wasn't the point. You misspoke.

If you want to know more specifics you do the legwork. The info is out

there.

> If you like eating that way, that's great. But if you

> don't like an all-raw diet, there is *no* reason to do so.

>

> Me: No reason? Sheer speculation (and highly inaccurate) on your

part.

Sheer speculation? Give me one scientific reference demonstrating the

toxicity of cooked food. You've posted whole threads talking about

toxins (from cooked food) weakening this and harming that, without a

single reference from the scientific literature.

Me: I deliberately avoided your link and reference to cooked food, since

no one was disagreeing with your original statement about the raw/cooked

combo. Your reference to it was a straw man you set up only to

conveniently tear down and didn't need to be addressed.

As for those whole posts you are talking about, put the thread in the

post, then we will see if we have something to talk about.

[Guest guest]

-

>The Masai only include a large proportion of raw food because much of

>their diet comes from raw dairy products. Liver, the most sacred of

>all foods to the Masai, is mentioned by Weston Price as being eatan

>both raw and cooked. He does not specify proportions.

Don't they also consume fresh blood, often mixed with fresh, raw milk?

-

[Guest guest]

>

> Me: Ha! Are you living in dream land?!! Name me one scientific

> undertaking seeking to display the power of raw foods?!

Read the article I posted from beydonveg.com. The effects of cooked

food have been studied and they are not toxic. If you are familiar

with the literature, dissidents are often well published. For

example, saying that cholesterol is not a killer is heretical, but

Uffe Ravnskov has published many critical articles on the subject.

>The " scientific "

> world thinks Dr. Price is nuts, despite his observations and

clinical

> experience (say in the reversal of tooth decay).

That hasn't stopped Sally and from putting together and

extremely well referenced scientifically website. By contrast, your

endorsement of raw food is strictly dogma.

> Nevertheless, there

> is work being done out there in the hinterlands but I'll let you do

the

> legwork, you might find it educational.

In other words, you've created a non-falsifiable hypothesis:

1. You dismiss the entire scientific literature - even though Sally

and certianly don't!

2. You won't refuteven acknowledge studies that are contrary to your

point of view, even to refute them (the studies mentioned in the

beyondveg.com article)

3. You will make the observation that cooked food is toxic, but you

won't supply any references, instead you state that the onus is on me

to find them. If you make an assertion, you should be prepared to

back it up.

[Guest guest]

> -

>

> >The Masai only include a large proportion of raw food because much

of

> >their diet comes from raw dairy products. Liver, the most sacred of

> >all foods to the Masai, is mentioned by Weston Price as being eatan

> >both raw and cooked. He does not specify proportions.

>

> Don't they also consume fresh blood, often mixed with fresh, raw

milk?

The Masai actually culture their milk. What I don't know is whether

they heat it like yogurt, or culture is unheated like keffir.

[Guest guest]

On Tue, 26 Feb 2002 21:44:50 -0000 " justinbond " <justin_bond@...>

writes:

>

> Me: Ha! Are you living in dream land?!! Name me one scientific

> undertaking seeking to display the power of raw foods?!

Read the article I posted from beydonveg.com. The effects of cooked

food have been studied and they are not toxic.

Me: I've read that article and many more at the website. You still do not

get it since none of us were talking about cooked food, only the benefits

of raw food and adding more to our diets (except for the parasite thread

which was going on between and ). Then all of sudden this

posts shows up as no specific reply to anyone. Which is why I asked my

initial question as to whether you were replying to someone or just

throwing it out there. Just throwing it our there was your response.

answered rather nicely, I answered it more provocatively, nevertheless

our response was the same, that is no one was saying what you suggested

in your opening sentences about all raw. Not to mention you simply

glossed over most of my original responses.

If you want a thread dealing with the toxicity or non toxicity of cooked

foods, then start one. If you want to discuss the beyondveg article in

particular, start that thread. You might be better served on the raw food

list since no one here is probably going to disagree with you, since we

all recognize that NADP/NT allows room for cooked and raw food.

You are either mixing up posts, unable to follow an argument, or itching

for a fight.

If you are familiar

with the literature, dissidents are often well published. For

example, saying that cholesterol is not a killer is heretical, but

Uffe Ravnskov has published many critical articles on the subject.

Me: You really are living in a dream world. " Dissidents " are rarely well

published, end up in obscure journals, or even worse, particularly for a

scholar, largely ignored. When the " establishment " magazines start

regularly publishing and endorsing the good doctor then we might talk

about being " well published. " As it turned out he had to resort to his

own website to get his work noticed, and which was later picked up on by

Sally Fallon.

>The " scientific "

> world thinks Dr. Price is nuts, despite his observations and

clinical

> experience (say in the reversal of tooth decay).

That hasn't stopped Sally and from putting together and

extremely well referenced scientifically website. By contrast, your

endorsement of raw food is strictly dogma.

Me: And you really don't know how to follow an argument either. First

things first though. Having a " well referenced " website does not

constitute acceptance by the " establishment " nor is such necessary to

validate one's work. Neither by the way is self-publishing your own book,

which Sally did, which is something dissidents are often forced to do

because they can't get " well published " . And the huge amount of

epidemiological evidence that the " Weston Price Movement " is based on

doesn't normally get one accepted in established circles.

You also ignored again my responses to your original and secondary posts

regarding this.

Since my endorsement of raw *animal* food stems largely from the

inspiration of Price and others I would hardly call it dogma, assuming

that we understand dogma to mean the same thing, which we probably don't.

And further, since I have spent many years helping folks heal themselves

from so-called incurable diseases of all stripes, using the very

endorsement of raw foods you dismiss as " dogma " , I dare say that hardly

puts me in the position of spouting " dogma " and most certainly puts me in

a very different position than you, and Sally and for that matter.

Not to mention again the people I mentioned earlier who in their clinical

experience did exactly the same thing, which you have conveniently

ignored.

So if my embracing of Price, others and their clinical experience, and my

own clinical experience, constitute dogma, so be it. I stand guilty as

charged. Of course I won't bother to point out again how your assertions

continue to undermine your own argument.

> Nevertheless, there

> is work being done out there in the hinterlands but I'll let you do

the

> legwork, you might find it educational.

In other words, you've created a non-falsifiable hypothesis:

1. You dismiss the entire scientific literature - even though Sally

and certainly don't!

Me: Like I said, you either are in dream land, can't follow an argument,

or simply itching for a fight. The entire scientific literature? Are you

smoking or something? Where did you find this in my post? Oh, you must be

referring to that beyondveg article which apparently embraces the " whole "

of scientific literature as you understand it.

2. You won't refuteven acknowledge studies that are contrary to your

point of view, even to refute them (the studies mentioned in the

beyondveg.com article)

Me: ly , I don't think you know what my point of view is.

3. You will make the observation that cooked food is toxic, but you

won't supply any references, instead you state that the onus is on me

to find them. If you make an assertion, you should be prepared to

back it up.

Me: Clinical experience matters greatly and if this post wasn't so long I

would put up two quotes by Price and Gerson attesting to that fact.

Second, when you make an argument and attribute something to me, give me

a specific reference to what I said, and this is the second time I have

asked, otherwise as far as I'm concerned you are just blowing

smoke...errr dogma.

[Guest guest]

Here are the published studies of Uffe Ravnskov, perhaps the most

notorious diet-heart dissident:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?CMD= & DB=PubMed

Here are the studies of Enig:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?CMD= & DB=PubMed

Mann:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?CMD= & DB=PubMed

Stehbens:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?CMD= & DB=PubMed

I could go on, but hopefully that establishes my point - all of these

scientists are taking the onpopular view that cholesterol is not a

killer. Certainly it's an uphill battle to have a skeptical

viewpoint. IRCC, Enig lost her grant money for studying trans-

fats. But the studies are out there. If you can't find the ones that

support your theories, then you really need to take a hard look at

your theories.

I'll enjoy talking to you whenever you feel like substantianting your

claims.

[Guest guest]

,

Until you answer me about Crewe (Mayo Clinic) and his " clinical studies " ,

about Gerson and his " clinical studies " you are just blowing smoke as far

as I'm concerned and don't understand what constitutes research. I will

post several quotes later tonight that you might find of interest. Unless

of course you believe that being on the front lines and healing people

doesn't count as much as lab/library research. I would name two other

people (living) but you will probably just ad hominem them to death since

they are " lay people "

And since I can think of over 200 people who beat cancer with my help

using my " dogma " I think I will sit tight with my type of " clinical

research. " Once I commit it to a book with all the files referenced I'll

send it to you for review, to make sure it pasts muster. Until then you

go on enjoying " some " of your raw foods (whatever that might mean) and I

will go on enjoying lots of my raw foods (which I defined in previous

posts).

Just curious, how do you know that raw foods are beneficial (which you

stated earlier)? I hope it is not based on the " clinical studies " or

experience of Dr. Price. We can't have that now can we?

And lastly, no one ever said that " dissidents " can't or don't get

published. Clearly they do or we wouldn't be reading any of their work,

past or present. Take a deep breath and go back and read what I actually

said. And while you are at, dig up some of those old posts of mine you

keep talking about

..

On Tue, 26 Feb 2002 23:16:34 -0000 " justinbond " <justin_bond@...>

writes:

Here are the published studies of Uffe Ravnskov, perhaps the most

notorious diet-heart dissident:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?CMD= & DB=PubMed

Here are the studies of Enig:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?CMD= & DB=PubMed

Mann:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?CMD= & DB=PubMed

Stehbens:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?CMD= & DB=PubMed

I could go on, but hopefully that establishes my point - all of these

scientists are taking the onpopular view that cholesterol is not a

killer. Certainly it's an uphill battle to have a skeptical

viewpoint. IRCC, Enig lost her grant money for studying trans-

fats. But the studies are out there. If you can't find the ones that

support your theories, then you really need to take a hard look at

your theories.

I'll enjoy talking to you whenever you feel like substantianting your

claims.

[Guest guest]

I think the sarcasm really doesn't have a place here. We are all entitled to

our opinion and to challenge others. And to everyone who answered about my

muffin dilemma, thanks. I'll try again. My daughter didn't like this batch,

but said " that's o.k. mommy " with a pat on my back when I apologized for getting

her hopes up. Gooey muffins were certainly worth that.

----- Original Message -----

From: bianca3@...

Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2002 4:16 PM

Subject: Re: Re: Raw food perspective

,

Until you answer me about Crewe (Mayo Clinic) and his " clinical studies " ,

about Gerson and his " clinical studies " you are just blowing smoke as far

as I'm concerned and don't understand what constitutes research. I will

post several quotes later tonight that you might find of interest. Unless

of course you believe that being on the front lines and healing people

doesn't count as much as lab/library research. I would name two other

people (living) but you will probably just ad hominem them to death since

they are " lay people "

And since I can think of over 200 people who beat cancer with my help

using my " dogma " I think I will sit tight with my type of " clinical

research. " Once I commit it to a book with all the files referenced I'll

send it to you for review, to make sure it pasts muster. Until then you

go on enjoying " some " of your raw foods (whatever that might mean) and I

will go on enjoying lots of my raw foods (which I defined in previous

posts).

Just curious, how do you know that raw foods are beneficial (which you

stated earlier)? I hope it is not based on the " clinical studies " or

experience of Dr. Price. We can't have that now can we?

And lastly, no one ever said that " dissidents " can't or don't get

published. Clearly they do or we wouldn't be reading any of their work,

past or present. Take a deep breath and go back and read what I actually

said. And while you are at, dig up some of those old posts of mine you

keep talking about

.

On Tue, 26 Feb 2002 23:16:34 -0000 " justinbond " <justin_bond@...>

writes:

Here are the published studies of Uffe Ravnskov, perhaps the most

notorious diet-heart dissident:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?CMD= & DB=PubMed

Here are the studies of Enig:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?CMD= & DB=PubMed

Mann:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?CMD= & DB=PubMed

Stehbens:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?CMD= & DB=PubMed

I could go on, but hopefully that establishes my point - all of these

scientists are taking the onpopular view that cholesterol is not a

killer. Certainly it's an uphill battle to have a skeptical

viewpoint. IRCC, Enig lost her grant money for studying trans-

fats. But the studies are out there. If you can't find the ones that

support your theories, then you really need to take a hard look at

your theories.

I'll enjoy talking to you whenever you feel like substantianting your

claims.

[Guest guest]

Just a favor folks. When you have small comment on top of a big comment,

could you try snipping it somewhat. I know I have been guilty of that in

the past and will work on doing better.

And Dana, thank you, your criticism is duly noted.

Bianca

On Tue, 26 Feb 2002 16:29:39 -0800 " Dana Milmeister "

<danamilmeister@...> writes:

I think the sarcasm really doesn't have a place here. We are all

entitled to our opinion and to challenge others.

[Guest guest]

,

You wrote:

What I have learned is that I'm in the minority on this one, I kind

of assumed that a lot of people felt like I do. Clearly that is not

the case,

I don't know about the majority, but I for one certainly DO feel like you do

even though I have not enjoyed such good health (probably just a function of

age).

You further wrote:

It will only alienate regular people who come across the main website

and think to themselves 'Grandma was right all along!'

I am far from a " regular " person, having studied nutrition for 20 years,

starting with Adelle and on to vegetarianism, at times embracing the raw

food kind. I've worked hard not to eat the SAD diet all those years. But as so

many others on this list have expressed, vegetarianism let me down. As I

started reading the Weston Price stuff, I felt both betrayed at having spent so

many years of my life doing the wrong thing when I was so earnestly trying to do

the right thing and determined not to be mislead by any more radical, fringy,

cultish (sorry, but I just can't find another word to express what I feel here)

ideologies. Then when I started trying out the recipes in NT I experienced

jubilation: Grandma WAS right!! Imagine, healthy food can taste GOOD. It was

so difficult to get those low-fat regimens to taste good. Now when I eat a rare

steak with a dark reduction sauce poured over the meat and (a very small serving

of )potatoes, I feel like I have gone to heaven as I consider all the minerals

concentrated from that broth I made.

This thread, however, has considerably reduced my certainty. Am I just buying

into another ideology to replace the one that didn't work? I don't have another

20 years to spend finding out. Thanks to Bianca's posts, instead of feeling good

about my increased use of butter, I get to have a twinge of doubt everytime I

put a gob into the cast iron skillet. It has been the articulate,

knowledgeable, balanced, and tactful posts of Kroyer that have kept me

reading this long. I am grateful to Roman and you for bringing up these topics

because it has fleshed out many issues I was groping to understand in my

previous time on the list. But I am mourning the loss of my jubilation.

It's a good thing that the 85% to 100% raw animal food people sound so

ideological, because if I thought they were right, I'm afraid I would have to

finally give up my quest for good health. When faced with a choice between

endless meals of such things as raw eggs & cold, raw flesh and bad health, I'm

afraid I'm such a coward I would have to choose bad health.

RAF wimp

----- Original Message -----

From: justinbond

Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2002 6:40 PM

Subject: Re: Raw food perspective

> , I understand your frustration. Your wish for a peer

reviewed study

> about RAF is poignant because it will probably never happen.

I've never been interested in diet or nutrition until coming across

the Weston Price stuff. I'm not overweight, I don't have any chronic

diseases and am athletic and in good health, and was before. I spent

2 years as a vegetarian in college, but I never even read an article

about vegetarianism - it was mostly one of the college 'stretching'

kind of things. Up until a year ago, for the past 5 years, I lived on

fast food and 7-11 with no problems. I was probably off the charts in

terms of trans-fat consumption, but I was a ski bum and mountain

biker and pretty physically fit.

But now I'm hooked on the subject - I have no idea why. I spent some

time reading vegan website and vegan message boards and they are very

ideological. I didn't think the Weston Price movement was the same

way, but now I'm having my doubts. If this is representative of the

larger Weston Price movement, then it will never be mainstream. It

will only alienate regular people who come across the main website

and think to themselves 'Grandma was right all along!'

Now, if there were a compelling reason to eat all raw or nearly so as

opposed to simply eating raw dairy and perhaps the occasional

marinated fish dish, then so be it. You can't argue with the real

world. But there is no such reason being offered. I've asked and I've

asked and I've asked. The only studies brought up in this thread are

the ones discussed in the beyondveg article, which refute the idea

that cooked food is toxic, and no refutation of those studies are

being offered.

What I have learned is that I'm in the minority on this one, I kind

of assumed that a lot of people felt like I do. Clearly that is not

the case, and I will defer to the groups judgement.

[Guest guest]

On Thu, 28 Feb 2002 23:16:46 -0600 " Dennis "

<nancydancy@...> writes:

When faced with a choice between endless meals of such things as raw

eggs & cold, raw flesh and bad health, I'm afraid I'm such a coward I

would have to choose bad health.

RAF wimp

,

Faced with a life long choice like that (raw eggs and cold raw flesh), I

might wimp out as well. Probably depends on how sick and tired I was of

being sick and tired. Fortunately, that isn't the case, as several of our

recipe posts testify. And if you ever make it to the 50-60% level it is

said that Sally recommends, you will probably be just fine.

Bianca