Tom:
> Look around you. People who are 100% raw for long term are rare. People who
> are long-term 100% raw AND mentally healthy are rarer still, in my opinion -
> and experience. If the diet is so great, why aren't there a lot more?
Why are there more people who know that exercise is good for them and
don't exercise than there are those who know it's good for them and do it?
I'm not sure, but I could give you at least a dozen reasons why an
average person today would not and could not handle switching from a
mostly cooked to a mostly raw diet and stick to it for a long period of
time. It's all fresh in my memory, want it?
What do you mean by "mentally healthy?" I'm curious.
> Why are there more former raw-fooders than current raw-fooders? There's a
> lesson here if we can open up and receive it.
What's become of most of those former raw-fooders? Are they still mosty
raw now?
> I have seen reports of people leaving raw, and taking up macrobiotics (and
> other diets), and finding their health improves - especially mental health.
> Raw is best for some, but not all. People are different, so are diets.
> What is best for one may be bad for another. That's life.
You know, as much I don't like what I'm hearing (maybe reality *does*
hurt), I'm starting to believe this ridiculous hypothesis (not yours, of
course) that humanity has actually managed to divide itself into these
subgroups (unlike any other living creature on this planet; including our
closest, non-human relatives), based on what foods are best to sustain their
lives. Hey! only we would have the brains to do it...
> Tom:
> My only dogmas are health and truth. I want you to find a diet that works
> for you - I don't care if it is raw or cooked - that's for you to determine.
> Because I clung strongly to rawist dogma for years when I was 100% raw,
> and even when I was "only" 80% raw, I ignored health problems as "detox":
> the diet is perfect, it must be my fault - that's what the fanatics will
> tell you, and it's what I foolishly believed. I am here to tell you the
> following:
Was it really meant to be this complicated though? I doubt it. Anyone
who dares to go out on a search of a perfect diet (or a diet that works,
these should be equivalent) will, IMO, fail miserably and never find it.
Regardless of what the first people did actually eat, they certainly
never wondered or questioned it anymore than the elephants or tigers did
back then and still do now.
Blaming nature instead of ourselves for our dietery (or otherwise, for
that matter) problems is a big mistake, IMO. If there is anything that
is perfect in this universe (and/or beyond; whichever version you prefer)
it's got to be "Mother Nature."
Does it look like I'm just naively stating my own beliefs here? :)
> You keep asking "why"? Let me turn the question around: why is nature
> imperfect? Why are you imperfect? Why am I, and every reader of this list,
> imperfect? You should be examining your own attitude here - you appear to
> be placing great faith in "100% raw". In an imperfect world like ours, is
> that a realistic idea? Is it a good idea? Please think about these things...
I don't care for 100% raw anymore than you do. I want optimal health and
a body functioning at its peak; as it was designed to. Nothing less and
nothing more. I am imperfect not because nature is imperfect but rather
because nature is perfect, and I (and everyone else) have forgotten about it
and decided to trust something artificial (and thus imperfect, as
designed by [currently] imperfect human beings) instead.
If there were no genetic changes to *suitably* adapt us to foods as
prepared and altered through the use of man-made tools (not talking about
a fork here), then I sure as heck will stick to the initial, raw-food-only
policy that has been and still is followed by all living creatures
(except us) today.
Gosh, don't you wish you could just tell your brain to go for a walk every
once in a while?
|
