Bob wrote:
>it does seem to me that the zeal with which the instinctos are
>preaching RAF (sounding at a higher decibel level to me than even the 3
>Dudes) might be born of a guilty conscience.  It's sort of like, "We
>gotta convince all these vegans it's OK so we won't have to feel guilty
>about what we're doing ourselves."

>Of course, it might just simply be an honest attempt to say, "Hey, look
>what we found!  Life is great with this, not so great without it!"  Since
>I can't read your minds, I don't know which it is, but I can't help being
>suspicious.

I admire your healthy skepticism.  Perhaps there is some entertainment
value in this "shouting match" between the instinctos and the NFL/vegan
camp but I feel a larger point has been missed.  I don't believe the
instincto viewpoints expressed (correction:  personal viewpoints expressed)
are meant to convert others or defend a guilty conscience.  I see
intelligent challenges and thought provoking arguments in these posts.  I
can use the ideas (or not) to apply to my own eating practices and notions
of health, a highly subjective experience.  I'm wondering if you are trying
to "stir the stew" more than anything else.

Very simply, my personal experience with RAF (mostly seafood) has been
instructive.  I have gone months without it but end up feeling unsatisfied
or craving cooked exceptions.  With it on a more regular basis, I feel more
balanced and relaxed.  To me and for now, this is worth it.  I fully expect
to modify my eating practices as my experience changes, etc.  We all have
our personal evolutions...

A lurker,
Melisa Secola