Lynton Blair <[log in to unmask]>:
Tom:
>>Let me enumerate some of the damage that excess idealism can cause, in the
>>context of raw foods diets (as follows).

Lynton Blair <[log in to unmask]>:
>which raw foods diets?

Tom:
Primarily raw vegan, BUT some of the criticisms (such as ignoring problems
because they are detox, or due to suspicion of medicine) apply to instincto
as well. Not all criticisms apply to all persons on every raw diet. You
seem to be interpreting every criticism as a direct slam on instincto. Not
so - it is a  summary list of problems that can occur to some people on
some/certain (in some cases, any) raw diet.

re: unrealistic expectations

Lynton Blair <[log in to unmask]>:
>which idealists?
>raw what?
>what diet?

Tom:
ANY/ALL raw diets that are sold as cure-alls. Fry, Shelton come to mind.
If anyone is promoting instincto that way, add their name to the list
as well.

There have been discussions here (in the archives - I encourage you to
check them out) re: the very high dropout rate of instincto.  It does
make one wonder about expectations.

re: perfectionism

Lynton Blair <[log in to unmask]>:
> what "perfect 100% raw diet"

Tom:
Same answer as above - any diet sold as THE ANSWER to all your health
problems. I note that some instinctos can be rather dogmatic at times.
If instincto is sold as perfect, the criticism applies; if not, then it
does not apply (in which case, why are you so upset?).

For example, I have NEVER heard of living foods sold as the perfect
diet or a cure-all. But no Ann Wigmore style living fooders are jumping on
me for potentially defaming their diet - as you appear to be, re:
instincto. They understand that the criticism is a summary and generalization,
and one cannot be completely, 100% precise all the time, and retain
readability. They understand that when I say "raw diets are problematic",
that I mean that "one might encounter problems when following some raw diets",
without being forced to spell everything out every time. And, by the way,
instincto diets have their own set of problems - check the archives for
details.

Lynton Blair <[log in to unmask]>:
>How can the number of successful (long-term) rawists increase if raw doesn't
>work, as you claim?

Tom:
I never said raw doesn't work - 75-90% raw works well for many. It's 100%
raw that seems so difficult. To increase the number of rawists, we need
more 75-90% people.  (I am around 90% raw.)

Lynton Blair <[log in to unmask]>:
>I presume that you consider yourself to be a "rawist", Tom, since you do
>contribute so much to the lists.
>But I call you on your diet and your health. Come clean, because you talk in
>generalities to the point where the important message you have is lost to
>the reader.  I admit being specific takes more self-discipline but the
>effort is worth it.

Tom:
My diet is described in an old EXPO post - look in the archives, June 97,
the Expo Speaker Survey article. I must say that you are too sensitive.
You seem to interpret every general criticism as a specific attack on
instincto. That is not the case - some problems are more common on some diets
than others.  For example, problems with parasites are more relevant to
instincto than to raw veg diets.  As another example, if I said that "cars
often are in accidents", would you interpret it as "your car will be in an
accident soon"? I hope not, but the analogy may apply here.

And, by the way: instincto is NOT perfect. There are wacko/zealot instinctos
too, you know.

Lynton Blair <[log in to unmask]>:
>I now ask you, since you have no experience on RAF yourself, to specify
>100%veg-raw or similar whenever you use the word raw in your comments
>(unless you refer to RAF specifically.
>You mention 100%veg-raw cheats. Well if they are cheating, how do they get
>by? What foods do they add to their professed 100VR diets?  This must be
>part of the secret to obtaining health in the raw, so its very important.

Tom:
I am trying to be more specific - but when/where it makes a significant
difference. When it is not significant, I won't bother. I am human, and
may make some mistakes in this area. By the way, I use raw dairy, which is
a form of RAF.

What do people cheat on (instinctos cheat too, by the way - or so I am
told by some)? Whatever they crave - sugar, salt, starch, fat. There is
no one answer. Fruitarians usually crave salt (lacking in their diets)
or refined sugar (as some are sugar addicts from so much fruit sugar).
People that binge a lot are often in so-so health; it varies a lot. You
can't tell by looking that someone is bulimic, you know.

Lynton Blair <[log in to unmask]>:
>I believe in this approach we will become more realistic.  And good realism
>includes a good dose of idealism in the sense that we can reach out to
>reasonable possibilities.  We are the adventurers here.  Lets make a
>reasonable map of where we've been so we can avoid the same mistakes again.

Tom:
That is what I am trying to do, in part, with my posts: to advise people
of common mistakes, so they won't hurt themselves as many rawists do. And,
for my efforts to help people I am often attacked, threatened, and ridiculed.
Still, I will continue to inform others. Raw diets can be a blessing or a
curse - it depends on your approach and attitude.

Regards,
Tom Billings
[log in to unmask]