Dariusz ROZYCKI <[log in to unmask]>:
>The remark in question was that 100% raw diets are not for everyone and
>that everyone should eat whatever gives him optimal health. Well, in my
>view, optimal health is very difficult to determine (that's short-term
>health; it becomes nearly *impossible* to anticipate the effects of a
>current diet on one's health on a long-term basis).  A diet that may seem to
>work now, could cause problems to the person's health in the future.

Tom:
It is very true that health, whether optimal health, or perfect health, is
difficult to measure in any objective way as so many factors and variables
are involved. But, in life, you routinely make decisions - partly objective
and partly subjective - on matters that involve many factors and variables.
Diet is the same way - it's another decision, that one must make in the
usual way (with incomplete, imperfect information).

As for not being able to see the future, no one can. That is where one must
rely on info from others (who have "been there, done that"), and any other
info available.  Whether or not one has such info, one must also evaluate
current reality. If you seem to be healthy, then things are OK for now. The
situation may change in the future, so you should NOT wait for potential
health problems, but should research the issue by asking people with long-
term experience. I encourage you to research the topic, which it appears you
are doing! (Keep up the good work!)

Dariusz ROZYCKI <[log in to unmask]>:
>While I agree that no one should view 100% raw as a dogma of some sort, I
>don't find it good advice not to look at other people's experiences and
>strictly do your own.  Simply because this may not produce the desired
>results in the long run.

Tom:
I don't recall advising or suggesting that one should not ask others. I am
critical that one often gets very bad advice from people who present idealistic,
simplistic views of rawism: such nonsense as "raw diets will cure any/all
diseases", and so on.  When procuring information, you must also evaluate
the quality of the information you receive - from anyone (including me). That
is a natural part of the information-gathering process.

Dariusz ROZYCKI <[log in to unmask]>:
>Furthermore, I'm still not sure why there would be a person for whom a
>100% raw diet (a well-balanced one, that is) would not work.  What are
>the basis of the statement "100% raw is not for everyone?"  Is it
>implying people whose health has degenerated to the extent where a raw
>diet might actually cause more harm than good?  Surely, a reasonably
>healthy human being cannot not be able to handle and live on only he
>foods that he's been genetically designed to eat (let's assume that the
>genetics part is true for a moment).

Tom:
I have elaborated in recent posts, which I'm sure you saw, some of the
problems one might encounter on 100% raw. My "problems" talk notes, in
the raw-food archives (maybe I should re-post them here) also adresses
the topic of problems one may encounter on raw. How many times must I
repeat the same information?

Let me give you a short list of problems that one can encounter:
dental damage, eating disorders and behavior, emaciation, severe fatigue/
lassitude, mental problems, and so on.

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 former raw-fooders than current raw-fooders? There's a
lesson here if we can open up and receive it.

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.

Dariusz ROZYCKI <[log in to unmask]>:
>Has a not-all-raw diet become somewhat of a dogma to you perhaps, Mr.
>Billings?  Or if you're speaking purely from experience (which is
>probably the case) then why do people fail on all-raw diets (again,
>*well-balanced* raw diets); put another way: why would there be a *need* to
>eat something that is not raw?

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:

* nature is imperfect, and all diets and health systems are imperfect also
* don't expect perfection in this world - you won't find it
* elevating simplistic, dietary dogma like rawism, until it is more important
than common sense, is a bad idea (and can cause harm)
* do the things necessary to have good health - cooked or raw
* don't obsess on 100% raw, or 100% anything
* don't obsess on the physical - take care of your mental and spiritual
health also.

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...

Regards,
Tom Billings
[log in to unmask]