Raw food perspective

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 2/26/02 9:17:25 PM Central Standard Time,

kepford@... writes:

> ,

> You wrote:

> " Convincing people of the virtues of butter and lard is a

> difficult task! "

>

> So true!....your comment though caused me to wonder....IS there anyone out

> there in NT land who actually uses LARD? and if so, where did they find it

> and how do you know it's any good. This interests me because of budget

> considerations. I suspect lard would be so much cheaper than alot of other

> things and, living the land of hogs as I do...I could probably have as much

> as I would want...but do I want it?

> Sonja

>

>

hehe Boy do we use lard! We use it for deep frying (am I going to be

crucified?), frying our eggs, and in baking. We've put up about 30 gallons of

the stuff this season. I know it's good because I make it myself. I know

who's in the bucket which makes me feel good.

Belinda

LaBelle Acres

www.labelleacres.com

[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@h...>

> 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.

>

>

>....................ME (Dennis).....Since you " Bianca " can think of

over 200 people who beat cancer with your help, I would like to know

what your relationship is to these people? Do you carry malpractice

insurance? Are these people paying clients? What is your title,

expertise, etc? Not that a title is required but you must have

credentials. If you've covered this previously please refer to

the

message. Thank you. Dennis

>

[Guest guest]

I did. I will have to dig it out of the archives.

On Wed, 27 Feb 2002 01:11:36 -0000 " dkemnitz2000 "

<dkemnitz2000@...> writes:

>....................ME (Dennis).....Since you " Bianca " can think of

over 200 people who beat cancer with your help, I would like to know

what your relationship is to these people? Do you carry malpractice

insurance? Are these people paying clients? What is your title,

expertise, etc? Not that a title is required but you must have

credentials. If you've covered this previously please refer to

the

message. Thank you. Dennis

[Guest guest]

,

You wrote:

" Convincing people of the virtues of butter and lard is a

difficult task! "

So true!....your comment though caused me to wonder....IS there anyone out there

in NT land who actually uses LARD? and if so, where did they find it and how do

you know it's any good. This interests me because of budget considerations. I

suspect lard would be so much cheaper than alot of other things and, living the

land of hogs as I do...I could probably have as much as I would want...but do I

want it?

Sonja

[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

Please provide the reference and I'll look into them.

> 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?

I don't. Raw food isn't one of my issues. Cholesterol is my issue,

and I'll never say anything on the topic without referencing. Raw

food is *your* issue, so I expect references.

If you were to simply say, " I do well on a predominantly raw diet,

but your milage may vary " , I wouldn't call you out for references.

But I hate to think that newbies to Weston Price are reading the list

and thinking this is some nearly all-raw cult.

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

> published.

You did: " Me: Ha! Are you living in dream land?!! Name me one

scientific

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

[Guest guest]

> > " Convincing people of the virtues of butter and lard is a

> > difficult task! "

> >

> > So true!....your comment though caused me to wonder....IS there

anyone out

> > there in NT land who actually uses LARD? and if so, where did

they find it

> > and how do you know it's any good.

Me - I love lard! I think I like it even better than butter. In

fairness, I got my lard from a biodynamic farm that even links to

westonprice.org on their website, but my butter is pasteurized

kerrygolds.

To find lard try:

www.eatwild.com and click the suppliers list

www.biodynamics.com and call the various CSA's

If they have pigs, there is a good chance they'll have lard.

hth,

[Guest guest]

On Wed, 27 Feb 2002 03:37:06 -0000 " justinbond " <justin_bond@...>

writes:

> ,

>

> 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

Please provide the reference and I'll look into them.

Me: Gerson's material is readily available in any bookstore and from the

Gerson Institute. They even have a website. You might start by contacting

them through the website. I got started on Crewe at my university library

back in my undergraduate days. Might be a good place for you to start

sine his work is not readily available.

For a fun read you might check out 's Milk Book, lots of comments

and references within the book to keep you occupied for quite awhile.

> 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?

I don't. Raw food isn't one of my issues. Cholesterol is my issue,

and I'll never say anything on the topic without referencing. Raw

food is *your* issue, so I expect references.

Me: Actually this is the statement by you made in an earlier post:

" On Tue, 26 Feb 2002 20:52:47 -0000 " justinbond "

<justin_bond@...>

writes:

*We all agree that some raw foods

can be beneficial.* " (emphasis added)

That is what YOU said . I was asking where *YOU* got the idea that

raw foods were beneficial since you explicitly stated such. Where is

*your* reference? If its Doc Price then I don't see what all the

commotion is about, since if you are able to use him why can't anyone

else?

And , while cholesterol might be *your* issue, it doesn't figure

prominently in the work of Weston Price, although raw animal foods do,

which is one of his unique insights. His followers have to deal with the

cholesterol issue because of today's current climate about " traditional

foods " . But cholesterol figures about as prominently in his work as the

parasite issue, which is to say hardly at all.

If you were to simply say, " I do well on a predominantly raw diet,

but your milage may vary " , I wouldn't call you out for references.

But I hate to think that newbies to Weston Price are reading the list

and thinking this is some nearly all-raw cult.

Me: Why would I say that? I'd be lying. You would be asking me to deny

all my clinical experience which I have no intention of doing. And you

know, if tomorrow Mann, Ravnskov, and others came out and

concluded the exact opposite about cholesterol, it wouldn't matter one

wit. Because my clinical experience and observations and that of many

others (including Price) would contradict such a position. Good science

is not always right science and is not the only kind of research, in fact

it is not even the most important research at a microlevel.

All that can be useful, to a point, but at the end of the day,

particularly if you are sick and dying, and that was predominately the

kind patients I worked with, you better make sure the practitioner in

front of you has more than degrees and a good nose for research. His

primary credential better be that he knows how to help a patient get

well, or all the rest of the stuff won't matter.

And your use of terms and mischaracterization of positions is why this

thread is really not helpful and needs to stop. *All raw cult* is over

the top and as was noted by me and another poster no one is saying this.

But you are back to calling names again and not providing any references

that would back up such characterizations and I for one am tired of the

slander.

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

> published.

You did: " Me: Ha! Are you living in dream land?!! Name me one

scientific

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

Me: The full quote reads:

" 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?*

The point was not that they don't get published (after all how would I

have read Price who was/is clearly a dissident) but that they don't enjoy

much, if any, establishment support. No where in that quote do I mention

anything about not being published. Maybe I'm blind, dull and dense, who

knows but I don't see it in there. I don't know how you come up with

these things but I for one am done with this thread. The last word is all

yours. Good night.

[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

>

> Please provide the reference and I'll look into them.

>

> Me: Gerson's material is readily available in any bookstore and

from the

> Gerson Institute.

by reference I mean peer-reviewed reference. Remember, the onus is on

you to tell us why the occassional bit of raw animal products isn't

enough. Its your case, its your job to support it.

> For a fun read you might check out 's Milk Book, lots of

comments

> and references within the book to keep you occupied for quite

awhile.

I've been keeping an eye out for that one and haven't found it. If

you know where its available, I'd be quite grateful.

> > 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?

>

> I don't. Raw food isn't one of my issues. Cholesterol is my issue,

> and I'll never say anything on the topic without referencing. Raw

> food is *your* issue, so I expect references.

>

> And , while cholesterol might be *your* issue, it doesn't

figure

> prominently in the work of Weston Price,

I don't use Weston Price as a reference talking about cholesterol,

although IIRC he did do a retrospective epidemiological study showing

a correlation between margarine consumption and CHD.

although raw animal foods do,

> which is one of his unique insights. His followers have to deal

with the

> cholesterol issue because of today's current climate

about " traditional

> foods " . But cholesterol figures about as prominently in his work as

the

> parasite issue, which is to say hardly at all.

Who said anything about parasites? I just want a peer-reviewed

reference for why a 50+ percent raw diet is healthier than a 5-10%

raw diet.

> If you were to simply say, " I do well on a predominantly raw diet,

> but your milage may vary " , I wouldn't call you out for references.

> But I hate to think that newbies to Weston Price are reading the

list

> and thinking this is some nearly all-raw cult.

>

>

>

> Me: Why would I say that? I'd be lying. You would be asking me to

deny

> all my clinical experience which I have no intention of doing.

no, I'm asking you to provide at least one peer-reviewed reference

supporting the idea that a diet heavier in raw animal products is

healtheir than one that merely contains occassional raw animal

products.

> if tomorrow Mann, Ravnskov, and others came out and

> concluded the exact opposite about cholesterol, it wouldn't matter

one

> wit.

Of course, the studies are forever a part of the literature.

[Guest guest]

Sonja-

>So true!....your comment though caused me to wonder....IS there anyone out

>there in NT land who actually uses LARD? and if so, where did they find

>it and how do you know it's any good. This interests me because of budget

>considerations. I suspect lard would be so much cheaper than alot of

>other things and, living the land of hogs as I do...I could probably have

>as much as I would want...but do I want it?

Actually, I mentioned lard basically just because it's a traditional

cooking fat. Nowadays pigs are fed the most toxic and disgusting diets of

all meat animals in existence (I'm serious -- it's practically not possible

to overstate the problem!) so I pretty much avoid all pig products except

for the occasional indulgence from a biodynamic farm. I've read a good

deal that troubles me about the lipid profiles of modern lards, and worse

yet, most available lards are now partially hydrogenated (!) so unless you

have a local farmer whom you trust and whose operation you can inspect, and

unless his pigs eat a *really* natural diet -- which I believe would

include absolutely no soy and very, very little grain, or preferably no

grain at all (and honestly, I don't know entirely what that diet would be)

-- I'd say skip the lard.

I know some others here disagree, but that's my opinion. I can post at

least one reference on pig lipid profiles if you're interested -- alarming

stuff.

-

[Guest guest]

-

>If they have pigs, there is a good chance they'll have lard.

Have you found any from pigs that aren't fed soy, for starters? The kind

of food a pig eats determines the nature of its fat. Someone posted a VERY

interesting URL the other day -- http://www.naturalhub.com/ -- which has a

lot of useful and interesting information. I've barely scratched the

surface, and while they seem to be more in the Loren Cordain low-fat

mono-unsaturated camp, at least there's some data available.

From http://www.naturalhub.com/natural_food_guide_meat.htm there's this

tidbit about pigs and their lipid profiles:

>>The animals whose bodies we eat are either herbivores (cattle beasts and

>>sheep) or more or less omnivores (pigs, chickens).

>>The kinds of fats in their bodies to the greater degree reflect the kinds

>>of fats the animals themselves eat. Only grass fed domestic animals have

>>a 'fat profile' fairly similar to wild herbivores. When animals are fed

>>supplements of grains or compounded feeds derived from a wide variety of

>>plant and animal products and by-products, their body fat tends to

>>reflect the fats present in the grains and feeds they are fed.

>>

>>For example, pigs in America are fed primarily a soya bean/maize based

>>feed. Their back fat, typical of the fat on pork chops, for example, has

>>around 39- 43% oleic acid and 19- 23% palmitic acid.. Adding sunflower

>>oil (higher in monounsaturated fats, particularly oleic acid) to the

>>standard feed increases the oleic acid component of the fat to about 60%

>>and reduces the (somewhat undesirable) palmitic acid to 17%. Making

>>ground up whole sunflower seeds of a 'high oleic' type a major part of

>>the standard soya/maize feed changed the oleic acid content of the back

>>fat to about 67% (olive oil, by way of comparison, is about 72% oleic

>>acids), and the palmitic down to 12%. Pigs are omnivores (as we are), not

>>grass eaters (ruminants) . Therefore their fat profile reflects the kinds

>>of fats they are fed. Our body fat profile also reflects the kinds of

>>fats we eat, and in part, the kinds of fats the pigs we eat, eat!

Pigs, more than cows, are concentrators of the fats they

consume. Therefore I don't want to eat lard and pork from pigs fed grain.

-

[Guest guest]

>But cholesterol figures about as prominently in his work as the

>parasite issue, which is to say hardly at all.

Just a comment on the parasite and pathogen issue, which is that there are

two main possible reasons it wasn't such an issue then and is or could be

now. First, of course, the peoples Price observed eating traditional diets

were much, much healthier than virtually all people today are, and thus

they could better fight off (or regulate, or whatever -- that debate isn't

the point of this observation) those pathogens. And second, the meat

animals raised by the peoples Price studied were themselves much, much

healthier than virtually all meat animals are today, and thus *they too*

could much better fight off pathogens (or regulate them, or whatever -- the

point being that whatever verb you choose, those animals doubtless had much

smaller pathogen loads than modern animals) so that they passed on fewer

pathogens to the people eating them.

Others reasons may occur to me after I've had some sleep, but that's it for

now. <g>

-

[Guest guest]

>I just want a peer-reviewed

>reference for why a 50+ percent raw diet is healthier than a 5-10%

>raw diet.

I'd like to see one too, but I do think it's fair to say that the

healthiest cultures Price observed were almost certainly eating much more

than 5-10% of their animal foods raw, and that's enough for me. As to

what's the healthiest and most practical ratio, and which animal foods are

the best to eat raw, and so on -- that's the sort of information I'd like

to get out of this discussion.

I DEFINITELY don't mean to pick on you particularly (heck, I'm surely

guilty of some obnoxiousness myself!) but I do wish the discussion would be

less personal, less about laying down gauntlets, and more about going over

the reservoir of available facts, examining conclusions and logic and

experiences, and trying to determine what's going to help us enjoy the best

possible health. I'm here because, frankly, my health sucks and I want to

improve it, and in the course of my self-education on diet and health, this

is one useful place I found to hang out and learn more. So if Bianca can

point to her clinical experience with raw foods, well, that has some real

value even if the numbers are fuzzy, as does Dr. Marasco's observation

(which certainly squares with my own experience!) that for people with

impaired carb metabolism, unheated honey is for all intent and purpose just

as bad as other sugars. So does a discussion about how much raw food Price

observed healthy people eating, since the best benchmark of what to eat is

probably what really healthy people ate.

And yes, if there is an actual peer-reviewed paper on the subject, that

could be even better yet, but the body of medical literature out there is a

minefield. A tremendous number of papers offer conclusions that directly

contradict their data, and all the peer review in the world fails to

rectify this. _Cholesterol Myths_ is a heck of a good illustration of the

phenomenon. It's often extremely difficult to pick through the spin and

other nonsense to detect the underlying assumptions and the real conditions

of the studies behind the papers. I'm reminded of a paper sponsored by the

olive oil industry designed to show that polyunsaturates and saturated fats

are harmful but monounsaturates -- i.e. olive oil -- are great, but if you

examine it hard enough you see that it shows nothing of the kind and is

basically junk science that, if anything, probably suggests saturated fats

are best. I can well imagine someone performing a study to demonstrate the

harm of a raw food diet by feeding subjects or test animals nothing but raw

soy beans and raw lard from sick pigs fed exclusively on raw soy

beans. And while that may seem like a ridiculous exaggeration, it's really

not. The pseudoscience that's palmed off as science every day is sickening

and often seems like a really bad joke.

Anyway, I don't know, maybe I'm just contributing more to the acrimony, but

I hope not. I think the discussions about microbes/pathogens and raw foods

are potentially very valuable. For example, though I haven't come close to

reading all of _Nourishing Traditions_ yet, so far all the raw-meat and

raw-fish recipes I've seen involve acid marinades... presumably to kill

pathogens, right? But while I don't buy the notion that an acid marination

is equivalent to cooking, I am interested to learn whether such marination

reduces the benefits of the raw food -- or whether, because unlike cooking

acid marination mimics the action of the stomach, it's neutral or even

beneficial, at least to those with impaired stomach acid production. All

of this strikes me as very topical.

-

[Guest guest]

>

> >I just want a peer-reviewed

> >reference for why a 50+ percent raw diet is healthier than a 5-10%

> >raw diet.

>

> I'd like to see one too, but I do think it's fair to say that the

> healthiest cultures Price observed were almost certainly eating

much more

> than 5-10% of their animal foods raw, and that's enough for me.

Were they? Were the Dinku's eating more than 5-10% of their fish raw?

Weston Price specifically praised them over the Masai, for being

stronger and better proportioned.

The only real seperator among the cultures that met the standards of

being healthy primitives seemed to be those that were nearly

vegetarian, e.g. the Bantu, weren't as healthy as those that had a

more balanced diet or those that were nearly carnivorous.

> I DEFINITELY don't mean to pick on you particularly (heck, I'm

surely

> guilty of some obnoxiousness myself!) but I do wish the discussion

would be

> less personal, less about laying down gauntlets, and more about

going over

> the reservoir of available facts, examining conclusions and logic

and

> experiences, and trying to determine what's going to help us enjoy

the best

> possible health.

That is my whole purpose for this thread. I still haven't gotten an

answer.

> And yes, if there is an actual peer-reviewed paper on the subject,

that

> could be even better yet,

That is the only evidance that actually matters. Bear in mind that as

we speak, similar conversations are taking place on vegan message

boards. Just substitute 'all vegan' for 'all raw'. That's why real

evidence is important, and the only evidence so far has been the URL

I provided which discusses several studies showing that cooking food

does not produce toxins.

> but the body of medical literature out there is a

> minefield. A tremendous number of papers offer conclusions that

directly

> contradict their data, and all the peer review in the world fails

to

> rectify this.

I agree, but the answer isn't turning your back on that body of

research and sticking to theoretical concepts that you only test in

an anecdotal way.

_Cholesterol Myths_ is a heck of a good illustration of the

> phenomenon.

This is why you have to provide the reference - so people can check

out the way the study was done. If diet-heart supporters

said 'cholesterol will kill you', you can't rebut it. But if they

say, the 'results of the LRC-CPPT trial prove that cholesterol will

kill you', then you can rebut the statement by pointing out that the

LRC-CPPT study was a prospective clinical study that failed to show a

benefit for cholesterol reduction, so it got turned into a

restrospective study that did. So in actuality, the LRC-CPPT supports

the idea that cholesterol is not a killer.

If Ravnskov's opponents didn't provide references, he would never

have been able to critique their work. Let me emphasize this:

******************************************************************

References are not a trump card to bolster your case. They are

provided them so that others can examine them and see if

they support your case. In other words, references are a way to

falsify your argument. You make an assertion, provide references, and

if the references don't check out your argument is nullified. Making

an assertion without references means you've made an assertion that

cannot be nullified.

******************************************************************

[Guest guest]

> -

>

> >If they have pigs, there is a good chance they'll have lard.

>

> Have you found any from pigs that aren't fed soy, for starters?

Yup, I got the lard from were from a biodynamic farm that is into

Weston Price. They don't use soy for anything. The only thing I

remember them saying that they gave the pigs was skim milk. They gave

me the mini-tour of the farm, but there was too much information to

absorb in that time, so I don't recall all the details.

If you go through eatwild.com and biodynamics.com you've got a good

shot at finding quality food, although I'm sure merely being listed

there won't guarantee that its quality.

[Guest guest]

This argument seems to be going around in circles, to no avail.

What I think we have to appreciate is that everybody is doing the best that

they can to nourish themselves, as they see fit with current understandings

and situations (e.g. economic, geographic).

My first and still biggest astonishment upon reading things at the WAP

website and in NT was that fat is beneficial!! In fact, that we need good,

animal fat!

I think we all have different ways to approach the discoveries of Weston A.

Price, so that what we are doing here is increasing our knowledge. Great!

I find it interesting that what Chi finds and emphasizes in " Nutrition and

Physical Degeneration " (i.e. " soil fertility is our biggest problem "

--forgive me if I am making generalizations here) is different from what

Bianca finds and emphasizes (raw animal foods), which is different from

what I find and emphasize (good, animal fats).

Of course, I am making efforts to find food from good, fertile soil; of

course, I am making efforts to put raw animal foods into my family's diet

(not easy, let me tell you!), but what is most obvious to me recently is

the need to switch from our lowfat, vegetable-based diet of not-so-long

ago, to something fattier, and animal-based (with all the other goodies as

much as possible).

Are we gaining any further understanding from this argument, or simply

going around in circles around a basic agreement?

Thanks!

" justinbond "

<justin_bond@ho

tmail.com> cc:

Subject: Re:

Raw food perspective

02/26/2002

09:37 PM

Please respond

to

native-nutritio

n

> 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?

I don't. Raw food isn't one of my issues. Cholesterol is my issue,

and I'll never say anything on the topic without referencing. Raw

food is *your* issue,...

This transmission may contain information that is privileged, confidential

and/or exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the intended

recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution,

or use of the information contained herein (including any reliance thereon) is

STRICTLY PROHIBITED. If you received this transmission in error, please

immediately contact the sender and destroy the material in its entirety, whether

in electronic or hard copy format. Thank you.

[Guest guest]

-

>That [peer-reviewed studies] is the only evidance that actually matters.

That I can't agree with. The truth, whatever it is, is a property of the

real world, and is thus amenable to observation. While peer-reviewed

papers describing scientific studies *can* be the most definitive and

rigorous explorations of that truth, they are often distorted and only

pseudoscientific*, and other means of examining the real world, while less

ideal, are nonetheless available and useful. Given that none of us are

able to fund and/or execute peer-reviewed studies, we're limited to dealing

with whatever information is available as best we can, and since the body

of peer-reviewed knowledge (and bogus information) is simply not broad or

large enough to answer all dietary questions, we're forced to look

elsewhere too. (_Nutrition And Physical Degeneration_ is just such an

alternate source, BTW.)

>Just substitute 'all vegan' for 'all raw'.

Of course, but there's a difference: there's abundant evidence (though much

of it isn't peer-reviewed) that a vegan diet is extremely harmful,

especially in the long term. Devoted vegans suffer from severe

hypoglycemia, vitamin deficiencies, etc. Some of this can be determined by

examining the available body of literature, and some of it is known from

observation and even testimonial. Where is the similar body of evidence

that eating a lot of raw animal food is harmful? On the contrary, Dr.

Price's observations of primitive cultures indicate that eating a

substantial amount of RAF is in fact very healthful, and there is abundant

other information to back him up. In fact, the only significant

anti-nutrients I know of in the entire RAF universe are in egg whites,

which makes perfect sense, since eggs function rather like seeds and face

similar challenges in nature. Contrast that with the tremendous universe

of compounds in the raw vegetable world we're not adapted to eat.

To get back to the RAF issue, there are other reasons to ponder how much we

need. There's Dr. Howell's work, for example, which suggests that large

amounts of foods deprived of their natural enzyme content (e.g. by cooking)

are harmful in the long run. There's the fact that cooking is a fairly

recent invention and that (to my knowledge) no other animal in the entire

history of evolution on earth has cooked its food, meaning that essentially

the ENTIRE evolutionary adaptation to cooking would have had to happen

within our species within, at most, a couple hundred thousand

years**. Probably not sufficient, IMO. Furthermore, that beyondveg

article to the contrary, the evidence on maillard compounds formed by

cooking is contradictory.

Again, note that I am not advocating a diet in which 100% of the animal

foods consumed are raw. I'm not advocating any particular percentage, in

fact, though I think the percentage should almost certainly be high. I'm

trying to find out what the percentage SHOULD be.

-

*If you want to throw up, read a book called _Trust Us, We're

Experts_. It's all about how industry uses PR, fraudulent experts,

fraudulent studies and so on to distort the public's perception of the

truth. Ironically, the authors assume that the low-fat doctrine is correct

and thus attack industry for attacking CSPI, but nonetheless, the book is

excellent. (I should note that I'm only about a third of the way through

it, but still, I recommend it very highly. Just knowing about the

cholesterol scam won't prepare you for what you'll read.)

**Are there any animals adapted to eating forest fire-cooking

carcasses? That could be one exception, but I can think of precious few

possibilities.

[Guest guest]

, I understand your frustration. Your wish for a peer reviewed study

about RAF is poignant because it will probably never happen. Nowadays such

a study it would be considered " unethical " by the scientific community.

Scientific knowledge progresses through history and our society is very much

in the dark with respect to the science of health and wellness. If you had lived

pre-Mendel, no amount of begging could have gotten anyone to explain

genetics to you, because the science simply did not exist in society at that

time.

Also frustrating are the limitations of an email forum: we don't even *know*

the people presenting strong anecdotal evidence. We have to use our best

judgement, based on the intelligence and apparent integrity of the posts.

Personally, while I've yet not taken the RAF plunge, I have a hunch it's the

way to go as I get older (I'm early 30's now.) Yet I have to convince myself

and my spouse-to-be before I go there. Over a year or two, I plan to read

every source that has been cited by RAF proponents on this list, and will make

a judgement from there.

So if the " hard " science is not available that does not mean the theory is

incorrect; it just means the " hard " science hasn't been done. Meanwhile we all

have to make judgements about what to eat, based on the best information

available.

BP

> -

>

> >That [peer-reviewed studies] is the only evidance that actually matters.

>

> That I can't agree with. The truth, whatever it is, is a property of the

> real world, and is thus amenable to observation. While peer-reviewed

> papers describing scientific studies *can* be the most definitive and

> rigorous explorations of that truth, they are often distorted and only

> pseudoscientific*, and other means of examining the real world, while less

> ideal, are nonetheless available and useful. Given that none of us are

> able to fund and/or execute peer-reviewed studies, we're limited to dealing

> with whatever information is available as best we can, and since the body

> of peer-reviewed knowledge (and bogus information) is simply not broad or

> large enough to answer all dietary questions, we're forced to look

> elsewhere too. (_Nutrition And Physical Degeneration_ is just such an

> alternate source, BTW.)

>

> >Just substitute 'all vegan' for 'all raw'.

>

> Of course, but there's a difference: there's abundant evidence (though much

> of it isn't peer-reviewed) that a vegan diet is extremely harmful,

> especially in the long term. Devoted vegans suffer from severe

> hypoglycemia, vitamin deficiencies, etc. Some of this can be determined by

> examining the available body of literature, and some of it is known from

> observation and even testimonial. Where is the similar body of evidence

> that eating a lot of raw animal food is harmful? On the contrary, Dr.

> Price's observations of primitive cultures indicate that eating a

> substantial amount of RAF is in fact very healthful, and there is abundant

> other information to back him up. In fact, the only significant

> anti-nutrients I know of in the entire RAF universe are in egg whites,

> which makes perfect sense, since eggs function rather like seeds and face

> similar challenges in nature. Contrast that with the tremendous universe

> of compounds in the raw vegetable world we're not adapted to eat.

>

> To get back to the RAF issue, there are other reasons to ponder how much we

> need. There's Dr. Howell's work, for example, which suggests that large

> amounts of foods deprived of their natural enzyme content (e.g. by cooking)

> are harmful in the long run. There's the fact that cooking is a fairly

> recent invention and that (to my knowledge) no other animal in the entire

> history of evolution on earth has cooked its food, meaning that essentially

> the ENTIRE evolutionary adaptation to cooking would have had to happen

> within our species within, at most, a couple hundred thousand

> years**. Probably not sufficient, IMO. Furthermore, that beyondveg

> article to the contrary, the evidence on maillard compounds formed by

> cooking is contradictory.

>

> Again, note that I am not advocating a diet in which 100% of the animal

> foods consumed are raw. I'm not advocating any particular percentage, in

> fact, though I think the percentage should almost certainly be high. I'm

> trying to find out what the percentage SHOULD be.

>

>

>

> -

>

> *If you want to throw up, read a book called _Trust Us, We're

> Experts_. It's all about how industry uses PR, fraudulent experts,

> fraudulent studies and so on to distort the public's perception of the

> truth. Ironically, the authors assume that the low-fat doctrine is correct

> and thus attack industry for attacking CSPI, but nonetheless, the book is

> excellent. (I should note that I'm only about a third of the way through

> it, but still, I recommend it very highly. Just knowing about the

> cholesterol scam won't prepare you for what you'll read.)

>

> **Are there any animals adapted to eating forest fire-cooking

> carcasses? That could be one exception, but I can think of precious few

> possibilities.

[Guest guest]

Comments below

-B

On Wed, 27 Feb 2002 22:29:04 -0000 " biophile410 " <biophile410@...>

writes:

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

study

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

such

a study it would be considered " unethical " by the scientific community.

Scientific knowledge progresses through history and our society is very

much

in the dark with respect to the science of health and wellness. If you

had lived

pre-Mendel, no amount of begging could have gotten anyone to explain

genetics to you, because the science simply did not exist in society at

that time.

Me: Hi BP,

Thanks for your comments. I have hesitated to comment about this given

the dynamics of the earlier posts regarding this subject. While I'm

certainly up for a challenge using terms like " all raw cult " and

" dietary extremism " don't normally lead to civil conversations. And

further being accused of dismissing *all* scientific evidence doesn't

help either. And having to chase down rabbit trails, re-post my own words

and the poster's own words in order to remind him of what was actually

said...well the misrepresentation gets old, people get confused and

irritated, and not much is accomplished. So I have given my last word to

, if he wants to continue to comment on that particular thread he

will do so without any interaction from me.

But since others have picked up on this post I thought I would offer a

few comments.

It is not entirely true that there are no peer reviewed studies dealing

with RAF. There are, they are just old and rather obscure. I spent many

an hour tracking down info in the early stages of my work, when I thought

it important to convince others of the theoretical basis of what I was

doing. I later gave that up as a hopeless enterprise, an enormous waste

of *my* time better left to others with less pressing concerns, and a

matter of spitting in the nutritional and medical wind.

I'm reminded of Dr. Melvin Anchell's intro to his book, The Steak Lovers

Diet,

" While I go to some length to explain the scientific foundations...this

is not a theoretical work. The researchers and scientists...have the

freedom to engage in great intellectual works of theoretical cause and

effect. I do not have that luxury. As a general medical practitioner, I

must do what works for my patients or they won't get well...this book is

a reflection of work done over a 40 plus year period...While I was

started on this course...by the research of others, I have verified that

research through the treatment of thousands of patients...Anything else

that may be said...is secondary to this singular fact. "

I could echo this with quotes from Price, Gerson, Osler, but I think the

point is clear. What was happening clinically became far more important

(though not to be ignored) than what was being debated theoretically.

The work of Dr. Gerson has been per reviewed, but unfortunately most of

it is in German. At great expense (at the time) I procured some copies of

his material. I can't read German anymore but perhaps someone will one

day give us the benefit of translating his work into English. Or maybe it

has already been done. I don't know.

The work of J.C Crewe has also been peer reviewed though largely ignored.

In fact there is much to be found on the whole medical milk phenomenom.

His work on medical milk therapy greatly influenced me in my early days

because the idea of raw meat and fish was out of my frame of reference at

the time. I know also that Mann has done some work on the value of

milk in lowering cholesterol. I neither have the time or inclination to

go searching once again for these largely ignored sources and then post

them to an email group. I simply note their existence. If someone is so

inclined they can look up the specific references. I'm sure it would be

helpful to many on this list. But to think that we can pop these names

into an Internet data base and get what we want is rather naive.

Crewe and Gerson's own comments on their work are sufficient for me at

this point, although as I state below I am in the process of flushing

them out.

Had either of these gentleman lived in the day of the Internet their work

would be much more readily available to us all. And because of the

Internet perhaps one day it will. Like Dr. Ravnskov, where the Internet

certainly brought his work to a much wider audience and eventually led to

Sally publishing his book.

There are also several studies dealing with the effects of raw or very

rare meat on cancer. As time allows I will look all of these up. I have

been searching for some time on the reviews of Crewe's work because I

would like to use it in my book. Unfortunately I don't have a staff of

researchers at my beck and call to ease this task.

So even folks like me, who take Dr. Price's studies of predominately or

nearly all raw fooders, and uses them to apply to reversing the diseases

of civilization, are not without their " scientific " antecedents.

[Guest guest]

> , 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 Wed, 27 Feb 2002 12:02:40 -0600 leslie_kosar@... writes:

This argument seems to be going around in circles, to no avail.

What I think we have to appreciate is that everybody is doing the best

that

they can to nourish themselves, as they see fit with current

understandings

and situations (e.g. economic, geographic).

ME: Agreed

My first and still biggest astonishment upon reading things at the WAP

website and in NT was that fat is beneficial!! In fact, that we need

good,

animal fat!

ME: It is a revelation indeed! I once went into this place called Two

Bells Tavern with some friends. I was determined to not be an outcast. I

had brought my own butter and coconut oil and avocado (with garlic) with

me (hiding in my pocket). I slipped backed and told the cook I was on a

very special diet for health reasons and could she possibly accommodate

me. Much to my surprise she said SURE! I said I would like two handmade

hamburgers cooked very rare in this special oil. I handed her my coconut

oil. And oh could you put this on top of my burger. The upshot is I had

avocado, butter, and raw garlic sitting on top of this meat barely seared

in coconut oil. My friends thought I was a walking advertisement for a

coronary. Little do they know.

I think we all have different ways to approach the discoveries of Weston

A.

Price, so that what we are doing here is increasing our knowledge.

Great!

ME: Agreed

I find it interesting that what Chi finds and emphasizes in " Nutrition

and

Physical Degeneration " (i.e. " soil fertility is our biggest problem "

--forgive me if I am making generalizations here) is different from what

Bianca finds and emphasizes (raw animal foods), which is different from

what I find and emphasize (good, animal fats).

ME: Actually RAF/NT folks are BIG on fats, especially raw fats from

animal foods. So while it might not sound like it in this forum, when we

mention raw animal foods we are most definitely placing a *huge* emphasis

on fats, particularly raw fats. I think soil fertility is the foundation

of it all, but that was learned therapeutically. There is a varying

emphasis among folks regarding fertility.

Of course, I am making efforts to find food from good, fertile soil; of

course, I am making efforts to put raw animal foods into my family's diet

(not easy, let me tell you!), but what is most obvious to me recently is

the need to switch from our lowfat, vegetable-based diet of not-so-long

ago, to something fattier, and animal-based (with all the other goodies

as

much as possible).

Are we gaining any further understanding from this argument, or simply

going around in circles around a basic agreement?

Thanks!

ME: I think there is some basic agreement but there were some differences

as well, which is what the thread was all about.

Bianca

[Guest guest]

--- justinbond <justin_bond@...> wrote:

> 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.

, I do not feel this (assuming you mean all the

discussion going on here lately about an almost- or

completely-raw diet) is representative of the WAPF

message. Totally aside from the relatively small

number among the cultures studied by Price who may

have been completely raw or close to it, the message

of the WAP Foundation is not about eating all raw or

even 85% raw. I believe Sally (who is the driving

force behind the foundation) recommends approx. 50%

raw to shoot for, taking into account that a great

deal of that should be raw dairy for those who can

tolerate dairy (for a relatively healthy person, I'm

not talking about healing a messed-up body, and I

haven't heard or read Sally address healing with an

all-raw diet, don't recall anything in NT about it nor

on the website, so I have no idea of her views on

that). Based on what I've read, I think a large part

of her advocating that much raw has to do more with

boosting enzyme intake than with any belief that

cooked proteins or fats are toxic in any way. Other

interpretations of Price's work exist, I suppose, but

most of us have been introduced to it or are

interpreting it through Sally's and Enig's work.

Don't paint the entire WAPF membership with the broad

brush of the recently-active members of this list. I

have no problem with those of you promoting your views

of all- or mostly-raw, but I don't feel you represent

the " movement " at large, as is questioning.

> It

> will only alienate regular people who come across

> the main website

> and think to themselves 'Grandma was right all

> along!'

I agree.

> 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.

You are not in the minority, the WAPF is not about

all- or mostly-raw, and this list is not about that

either (at least, it wasn't until the last week or

so). It just happens that the most active posters on

this list lately have been debating the raw issue.

Most of us here, I think, are taking care of a family

or are otherwise very busy, so we haven't gotten

involved in these lengthy discussions, making us

appear invisible.

Aubin

__________________________________________________

[Guest guest]

--- bianca3@... wrote:

> I know also that Mann has done some

> work on the value of

> milk in lowering cholesterol.

Here's a reference (about more than milk) I found at

http://www.health911.com/bookreviews/bookr1.htm. This

may not be what you meant, though:

" The Masai [of Kenya] drink 'only' half a gallon of

[whole] milk each day...Their parties are sheer orgies

of meat; on such occasions four to ten pounds of meat

[eaten] per person is not unusual, according to

Professor [] Mann [of Vanderbilt University in

Nashville, TN, USA]. If the diet-heart idea were

correct, coronary heart disease would be epidemic in

Kenya. But Professor Mann found that the Masai do not

die from heart disease - although they might die from

laughter if they heard about the campaign against

foods containing cholesterol and saturated fat. But

this was not the only surprise. The cholesterol of the

Masai tribesmen was not sky-high as Mann had expected;

it was the lowest ever measured in the world, about

50% lower than the value of most Americans. "

Mann, G. V. et al., " Atherosclerosis in the Maasai " ,

Am. J. Epidemiol. 95:6-37, 1972 may be is where the

quote is from.

Roman

__________________________________________________

[Guest guest]

Roman,

I read that somewhere. I think Dr. 's milk book. Good reference.

But there is a study he did where people were drinking like 4 quarts a

day and reduced their cholesterol by 25%.

Bianca

On Wed, 27 Feb 2002 18:28:26 -0800 (PST) Roman <r_rom@...> writes:

--- bianca3@... wrote:

> I know also that Mann has done some

> work on the value of

> milk in lowering cholesterol.

Here's a reference (about more than milk) I found at

http://www.health911.com/bookreviews/bookr1.htm. This

may not be what you meant, though:

" The Masai [of Kenya] drink 'only' half a gallon of

[whole] milk each day...Their parties are sheer orgies

of meat; on such occasions four to ten pounds of meat

[eaten] per person is not unusual, according to

Professor [] Mann [of Vanderbilt University in

Nashville, TN, USA]. If the diet-heart idea were

correct, coronary heart disease would be epidemic in

Kenya. But Professor Mann found that the Masai do not

die from heart disease - although they might die from

laughter if they heard about the campaign against

foods containing cholesterol and saturated fat. But

this was not the only surprise. The cholesterol of the

Masai tribesmen was not sky-high as Mann had expected;

it was the lowest ever measured in the world, about

50% lower than the value of most Americans. "

Mann, G. V. et al., " Atherosclerosis in the Maasai " ,

Am. J. Epidemiol. 95:6-37, 1972 may be is where the

quote is from.

Roman

__________________________________________________