Peter:
>What I do find surprising is that you are only able to
>increase your intake of these foods significantly by eating them heated -
>not raw.  It could be that the reason you are getting earlier stops with
>raw meats and vegetables than when eating them heated is that man through
>genetic adaption has developed a lower threshold to the natural toxins in
>these foods.

Interesting idea. What are the hypothetical natural toxins in meat (besides
parasites) I wonder?

>Also, an explanation for the earlier stops that you are
>experiencing with raw muscle meats could be that you need to increase your
>intake of the raw organ meats (ROF's) instead,

Perhaps you are right. (I'm guessing that shellfish are the equivilant--or
superior--to organ meats though. I have access to freely gathered urchin
and more expensive oysters--both of which are tasty regularly.) I have yet
to get some organs from the pastured cattle here but will report when I do.
Unfortunately it is liver and kidneys which are most easily available (both
which have never been more than edible to me--but practice makes perfect,
eh?). I prefer pancreas and/or brains since I have had more pleasure with
them in the past, but I must make the effort now the I have a source of
high-quality cattle parts...

>and that the only natural
>way for you to keep up your intake of vegetables is to forage wild greens.

Hmmm...  I would guess my intake of veggies would _drop_ significantly if I
ate only wild greens, notorius in my experience for quick and strong
stops). But perhaps if I cooked them? Is that what you're implying?

>So far I have only known one RAF eater who has an adequate intake of ROF
>and only one or two who eats wild greens on a regular basis and none who
>eats both.

Perhaps this, at long last, is your niche, Peter. ;)

>These foods are not easy to come by especially not organically
>but I doubt that heated muscle meats can substitute ROF's completely if an
>optimal state of health is the goal - naturally, setting aside the side
>effects such a quest might have on mental health and thereby on physical as
>well.

Yeah. My bubble is pretty well burst on raw foods I guess. Whether a 100%
raw low-carb diet would be better than an 70-80% raw low carb one is an
interesting question--and one I won't be able to answer for myself until I
try 100% again (but low carb). I'm not holding my breath though. This food
stuff has been too big a part of my life for too many years. When is enough
enough, I wonder?

>Maybe eating raw muscle meats will be easier for you if try a low
>carb diet that will put you in and out of ketosis. I look forward to
>hearing more from your adventurous on-going dietary experiments.

How are you doing including RAF these days? It's been awhile since we had
an update...I am quite interested.

Kirt:
>>It may be that there is a pyschosomatic component to the hardcore
>>instinctos' claim of 100% or nothing. Karl, you clearly BELIEVE that the
>>slightest of denatured food must cause you all sorts of ills, and perhaps
>>it does, but you may be fulfilling your own "placebo expectations" in the
>>process.

Peter:
>This is probably the most common pitfall for people on radical diets.

I sure wonder how much of my own assessment of my health (or perhaps even
my health itself!) during instincto was tainted by such expectations.
Perhaps what has surprised me most about experimenting with a
conservatively cooked paleo-diet is that I was _sure_ I would have all
sorts of bad symptoms--but had to admit (almost begrudgingly) that I was
better off on a less than 100% raw diet.

The answers to the details of "The Ultimate Diet" will probably forever
remain out of clear focus. Even if we put chimps on various versions of raw
and paleo diets we would have no info about human dietary uniqueness. And
doing a double blind longetudinal study on humans is nearly impossible. And
even if it weren't, individual variation assures that one diet/approach
will never fit all. In the end, it is each fellow for him- or herself.
Hopefully the folks around him/her will be helping one take an honest look
at one's diet and its relationship to one's health--and not so much
reinforcing a particular idealogical dietary bent. The hardcore paleo-diets
are not much better in this regard than the hardcore raw diets. I am coming
to see the ideology as the static between the channels of interesting
information/experience in human dietary endeavor.

These mailing lists are pretty invaluable in that regard, and perhaps it is
time to say thanks to all those folks who do more than lurk here. Thanks
for posting all.

Cheers,
Kirt