To continue the debate,

At 09:59 13/08/97 -0700, Tom wrote:
>Mark Hovila <[log in to unmask]>:
>>But why do very few people manage to stay 100% long-term?  How many find it
>>problematic and give up because of social pressures, the power of old
>>habits, etc., and how many give up because they gave it a good shot and
>>found that their health did not improve?

Tom:
>Good questions, for which there are no definitive answers. Let me give
>my views on some of the reasons why 100% raw diet works for so few:
>1) the world likes cooked food and meat - there is a lot of social pressure,
>and 100% raw is just plain inconvenient and impractical,
>2) because of 1), powerful discipline (in other words, fanaticism) may be
>required to stay 100% raw,
>3) the diet is promoted with over-optimistic, unrealistic claims - creating
>disappointment when the real diet does not meet the marketing hype,
>4) it's simply not necessary: once can have excellent health on 75-90%
>raw, an easier and more practical diet for most,
>5) the diet simply does not work, or is too hard for many people
>6) the diet worked for a while, but problems arrived (a visit from reality).

A problem with this list is that it is directed too generally.  As a
relative newby to eating raw, I can only say that since I included RAF in my
meals I have become stronger and have more energy.  This doesn't mean that
everyone else would, not does it give any real clue as to what foods my diet
consists of, nor the sources of those foods.
By 'too generally' I mean that a person could eat anything that's raw and
claim 100%raw.  There are so many foods to choose from.  IMO if a person
tries 100%raw fruitarian ( and which fruits ???) and then says "100%raw
doesn't work" - thats not a scientific statement, it is an error.

I can agree on all 6 of the points you make above, if you qualify them to
apply to fruitarian or vegan.
However, for me and for RAF, point 1 is still a difficulty which I am coming
to terms with slowly.  The other points are not true for me:
(2) I need very little dicipline
(3) I don't care about the marketing hype - to me its an experiment with
specific outcomes : health and vitality.
(4) I have no need to cook anything, why should I?
(5) well as I improve on it  _my_diet_  is working better and better for me.
(6) the problems are being solved - though I don't know what further
problems might arise in future.

Please, there is a great difference between 100%rawFruit, 100%rawVegan,
100%rawOmni.
Maybe we could use CF,CV, CO  ( where C=100%, F=fruit, V=vegan, O=omni)?
And this is only the beginning - the range of foods etc can make all the
difference.
For example
CO-RAF some might be eating rawcheese to put them into this category, other
fish, others meat, other eggs, aother all and sundry.  The difference might
make all the difference.
CF some tropical fruits, some temperate, some mixed.
CV roots, leaves, sprouts, unsprouted seeds, nuts (most of which are not raw
anyway).

And there are other main food classifications that could make all the
difference:
Organic vs typical commercial;
Low vs High Carbohydrates
Juiced or Whole;

And also, lets say that the person is a Fruitarian:  if CF doesn't work,
then what do they cook? Lets say 75%raw would be good (your figure from
above) then say they eat lots of avocado, do they cook every forth one to
achieve 75%raw?  (I'm sure that this is not your intention - but then if its
not, then its not stated correctly, is it?

>Tom:
>Many of them enjoy good physical health, but in my opinion, some of them
>display serious mental problems - this is especially common among 100%
>raw vegans (particularly fruitarians).

This is good, being more specific.

>When I was a fruitarian, 100% raw (for 8+ years), my physical health was
>fantastic for the first few years. Then reality came for a long, unpleasant
>visit in the form of health problems: dental (tooth and gum) problems,
>emaciation and fatigue, eating disorder behaviors (cravings, binges),
>and other problems. Those who brag about their great health on 100% raw,
>have no basis to brag unless they have been on the diet for a while (min.
>of 5-6 years, without break), and are mentally healthy as well. Even then,
>if they are fruitarians, there is reason to question the reliability of
>their claims: former fruitarians routinely report lying about their
>diets (and their many binges) while on the diet.

Thanks for the personal experience.

Regards,
Lynton