Matt,

Based on the questions that I have asked in the past, this is the last
list
I would look for "valid comments" on anything. I asked for a
comparison between
raw verses macrobiotics and got thing back like Michio Kushi is a
chain smoker
and eats junk food, therefore macrobiotics is no good (Michio didn't
invent
macrobiotics). Macro does not have a scientific basics (what is the
scientific
basis for raw?). Macro causes bad teeth. My favorite reply was that
one person
did not like macro because you had to chew your food (I guess you
don't need to
chew your food if it is raw). One person even asked me to look up the
differences
and report back to the group.

Personally, I think being fanatical about any diet is bad. It makes
more
sense to me to rotate your diet and monitor your vital signs; Eat for
optimal
health, what ever that is for you. When I ate only raw foods, I
developed severe
gastrointestinal problems. I find that partly raw and partly cooked
works best
for me. I am very suspicious about "one size fits all" approaches.

You will probably see a whole bunch or emotional replies defending raw
after
this message gets posted.

Best of Luck,

Don

Matthew Holt wrote:

> Hello,
>
> I am new to the raw food list and have a question to ask. I have just
> searched through medline and found that there seem to be some real concerns
> with a high raw diet. These are:
>
> Dental decay (Ganss C et al: Caries Research. 33(1):74-80, 1999)
> Amenorrhea and excessive weight loss (Koebnick C et al: Annals of Nutrition
> & Metabolism. 43(2):69-79, 1999)
>
> Happy news was that there were some positive studies as well. But they did
> not cross over with these concerns.
>
> Does anybody have any really valid comments on these studies. Given the high
> sugar content of raw food and the obvious rapid weight loss, both of the
> above could be obvious problems. Most raw food lit. I have come across were
> too hyped to trust on such important issues.
>
> Regards
>
> Matt