Hi Stephen! And welcome to veg-raw. Again :)

Peter:
>>In some cases small amounts of raw fish or maybe other raw animal foods
>>are OK.

Stephen:
>The key words here are *in some cases.*  For the most horribly-addicted
>consumer of cooked food, raw-animal foods may help them transition into a
>100% raw-plant-food diet.  However, we do not advocate, and have never
>suggested, that raw-aniaml foods be eaten by humans as part of a healthy
>diet.

Thanks for the clarification. You may be interested to know that I have
never known an instincto (including myself) who used RAF to transition to a
raw diet. In fact, it appears to be the opposite: Fledgling instinctos
sniff and chew their way through plant foods, and most, after a time (3 or
4 weeks, but it varies), begin experimenting with RAF once they have
learned to trust that their bodies can choose (better than their ideations)
the best food for them at the time. Once they consume RAF (in addition to
heaps of plant foods) for a while, RAF becomes "no big deal" intellectually
and emotionally--very similar to how children approach the matter in the
absence of vegan and "cooked" conditioning.

One might explain this as a regression to "unnatural RAF" because the new
instincto has no willpower and is corrupted from the poisonous evil of
cooked foods and must resort to the poisonous evil of RAF to compensate.
Alternately, one might accept that RAF is useful to the human organism in
amounts regulated by instinct/sensory pleasure. My own experience, the
experience of human infants, toddlers and children, as well as recent
hunter-gatherers, prehistoric anthro evidence, and the relish with which
our closest anthropological relatives (chimps) eat RAF--all mean more to me
the abstract idea that "RAF is not natural".

As I have shared many times in this forum: I have no debate with folks
eating whatever they want for ethical, philisophical, social, etc. reasons.
But when those aspiring to a 100% raw vegan diet begin to have physical
troubles (which has been seen time and time again), the two solutions which
seem to prevent continued deterioration are to eat cooked vegan foods or
RAF or both (or even cooked animal foods). If down the line, Stephen, one
or more of you exhibit the trouble that most (but not all) raw vegans
exhibit after time, it may be useful to consider alternatives to a 100% raw
vegan diet. Until that time it will be very easy for you to ignore the
experience of many many others who have become seriously unbalanced on a
100% raw vegan diet, or to explain their troubles away as you do below.

>Kirt wrote:

>>These guys have matured a lot in a few months. As I remember it was a 100%
>>fruitarian diet, then vegetables became important, and now RAF in small
>>amounts >may be OK.

>To set the record straight:

>I don't remember ever saying anything about a 100% fruit diet -- although
>if you can do it, it is the most natural diet for the human organism.

It is precisely the statement that "it (100% fruit) is the most natural
diet for the human organism" that I find hard to swallow. To state such and
then say that we can probably not be satisfied on this truly natural diet
((as you (and I and many others) are apparently not, since you eat
non-fruit plant foods)) is frustrating to me.

> I eat fruit, some vegetables, and nuts.  The reason that some people get sick
>on an all-fruit diet is because humanity has become a race of
>cooked-carnivorous mutants and an all-fruit diet is just way too natural
>for them.

Would the same be true for wild primates, none of which eat an all-fruit diet?

The phrase "too natural" is kind of oxymoronic, no? If all-fruit is what
our bodies truly thrive on (is our most natural diet) then our bodies
should truly...well, thrive on it. If it is not what we thrive on, then it
is not natural, is it? The acid test should be human infants raised on
all-fruit, but our species appears to fail that test.

If we have indeed become a race of "cooked-carnivorous mutants" (which
seems to be the case) then haven't we mutated to a different natural diet
than 100% fruit? This is a question very dear to my heart since I still
consider a 100% raw diet (though not restricted to fruit or plants)
superior to a <100% raw diet, at least for myself. Regardless of what I
*consider* I will not know the truth of that matter *for myself* until I
experiment intelligently with cooked foods sometime down the line. The
question of what is the truly natural diet for humans appears somewhat
unanswerable at this point with the precision you (and I) might hope for.

>If one of us did say the words "100% fruitarian diet" when we
>met you, we surely meant 100% raw-plant-food diet.

No, I don't remember you saying that. I am refering to statements like
those above that "it (100% fruit) is the most natural diet for the human
organism".

>Small amounts of RAF
>are *not* OK with us.  But, if you need to eat RAF to feel "balanced,"
>"stable," or whatever -- go right ahead.

Thank you! This is a much more tolerable stance than found in your previous
posts.

>>I commend their willingness to incorporate new information into their
>>>"message."  Such open-mindedness will serve them well in the future.
>>Perhaps >they will move beyond the limitations of their mentor, T.C. Fry.

>He's not our mentor.  We didn't even know who T.C. Fry was until after the
>first draft of our book had been written.  The only thing I've ever read
>written by T.C. Fry was a letter that he sent to us 2 days before he died.

Again, thank you for the clarification. Your message is similar in style
and substance to much of TC's writing. Mentor or not, I am hoping you will
improve on his message as time goes on.

>Kirt wrote:

>>Imagine if their pleasant and enthusiastic persona had made it into their
>>book >as the dominant style instead of the broadside dogma and attack-dog
>>tactics!

>Then our book would be just another boring raw-foods book -- just more of
>the same dross.  How do you "pleasantly" tell someone that they are killing
>their children?  We did something totally different from other raw-foods
>authors.  If you want to get somebody's attention, you can't just tap them
>on the shoulder anymore.  You have to hit them with a sledge-hammer.  Have
>you ever heard the definition of insanity?  "Doing the same thing over and
>over and expecting a different result."  You don't like the book -- that's
>cool.  But alot of people do, and we have been told, hundreds of times:
>"It's about time someone wrote a book like this."  You're more of the
>quiet-approach-type raw-foodist, I'm not.

As I have said, there is room for your approach in this world. But I
disagree that the only way to get someone's attention is with a
sledge-hammer. Nor is it the best, but to each their own...

I have spent the time to respond to your post because it feels nice to have
an exchange with a person instead of an organization, and because you seem
to be using a much more polite manner--both of which are part of the way
the game is played on veg-raw (ideally). I suspect you may not want to get
into a long drawn-out debate over the above points, but I beg you to at
least answer one question:

Many folks on this list (including myself) would love to be 100%
fruitarians and have had the experience of not thriving on all-fruit. In a
way, the failure of an all-fruit diet is almost a rite-of-passage for many
aspiring all-raw folks. At some point they come up against the evidence
that reality doesn't match their simple ideal of frutarianism.

Since you feel that humans are naturally fruitarians I make the following
assumption: you have aspired to that ideal (100% fruit diet) in the past
and met with less than 100% success and began including some vegetables in
your diet. If so, how did you come to (and accept) the conclusion that it
was OK to eat veggies regularily? Did it bother you that you didn't get
along perfectly on 100% fruit even though it was the natural diet for
humans?

Please don't think I'm setting you up for anything or have some ulterior
motive for the question. I am simply interested, since at some time in the
future you may find yourself making another similar adjustment/tweeking to
deal with  the descrepency between what the "ideal diet" might be on one
hand, and what each of us may thrive best on on the other hand.

Again, welcome to veg-raw, Stephen!

Cheers,
Kirt