Jo,

> My raw diet does not include animal products and
> the only "substantiated" comment I have would be that I have never felt
> better physically

yes, that's something everyone starting a raw diet experiences, and every book
about raw food will insist on that point, but they will never say that *some*
raw diets are imbalanced and can lead to problems after a few years. I think
it's important to understand the benefits *and* the possible dangers of eating
raw. Some of the explanations I found are:

 -Benefits: vitamins, minerals and other nutrients are preserved; absence of the
toxic compounds created by cooking, salt, refined sugar, processed foods,
trans-fatty acids; less grains; more fiber, more unsaturated fat. In addition,
any change of diet is beneficial because the body gets new nutrients, and
because of the placebo effect.

 -Dangers: deficiencies due to an excessively restricted diet, inability of the
digestive system to handle too much roughage, excess of sweet fruit; excessive
concern about diet or "purity", fanatism.

> and that I will endeavour to monitor every aspect of my
> well-being over the long-term. I'm not hooked on labels (Natural Hygienist,
> fruitarian, raw fooder, Instincto, et al) and I'll make the necessary
> adjustments when needed.

> Also, diet alone will not ensure, for me, overall health. We could discuss
> B12 analogs till our faces turn blue but I'd rather be trail running at the
> crack of dawn.

Seems a reasonable attitude. I am not in principle against 100% raw and/or
complete exclusion of animal foods. But I am definitely against such statements
as: "Eating 100% vegan will ensure perfect health because cooked food is poison
and humans are natural frugivores".

Best wishes,

Jean-Louis
[log in to unmask]