Thanks to Jean Louis Tu for answering most of the questions raised
by Dariusz. I will add a little more information to a few items.
Dariusz ROZYCKI <[log in to unmask]>
>Why are there more people who know that exercise is good for them and
>don't exercise than there are those who know it's good for them and do it?
Tom:
Both diets and exercise take effort, time, and most importantly -
discipline. The point I was making was that if raw diets were truly
the promised land, then more would be willing to make the effort (due
to the big payoff), and exercise the discipline.
Dariusz ROZYCKI <[log in to unmask]>
>What's become of most of those former raw-fooders? Are they still mosty
>raw now?
Tom:
Most have cooked food diets - some SAD, some are veggies, a few are
macrobiotic. % of raw will vary by person, of course.
Dariusz ROZYCKI <[log in to unmask]>
>You know, as much I don't like what I'm hearing (maybe reality *does*
>hurt), I'm starting to believe this ridiculous hypothesis (not yours, of
>course) that humanity has actually managed to divide itself into these
>subgroups (unlike any other living creature on this planet; including our
>closest, non-human relatives), based on what foods are best to sustain their
>lives. Hey! only we would have the brains to do it...
Tom:
Animal diets vary per habitat - you can't eat what is not available in your
habitat - animals can't go to the supermarket for food. Across habitats,
animal diets (same species) are similar, but not identical. Humans, in pre-
industrial time, ate what they could find or grow in their habitat. The Inuit,
Lapps, Tibetans had no choice but to follow non-vegetarian diets to survive.
Their diet was dramatically different from hunter-gatherer societies in
tropical countries, where plant food is more readily availab;e. Same species,
different diet!
The idea that animal diets for a given species are identical, is not accurate.
Remember the ape diet abstracts I posted a while ago? Examine them, and you
may see differences in ape diet per different locations. (If not in there,
check a good biology database for additional articles. I saw abstracts of
articles discussing differences in diets, while compiling the ape diet
abstract post.)
Dariusz ROZYCKI <[log in to unmask]>
>Was it really meant to be this complicated though? I doubt it. Anyone
>who dares to go out on a search of a perfect diet (or a diet that works,
>these should be equivalent) will, IMO, fail miserably and never find it.
>Regardless of what the first people did actually eat, they certainly
>never wondered or questioned it anymore than the elephants or tigers did
>back then and still do now.
Tom:
Nature is not interested in your desire for simplicity. Nature simply IS.
As has been discussed on this list, the first people were apparently
non-vegetarian, eating wild game and wild p;ant foods. That is not the
diet you want - you want raw vegan, with cultivated plant foods, including
grain. Don't reference the "original" diet unless your diet is similar.
Dariusz ROZYCKI <[log in to unmask]>
>I don't care for 100% raw anymore than you do. I want optimal health and
>a body functioning at its peak; as it was designed to. Nothing less and
>nothing more. I am imperfect not because nature is imperfect but rather
>because nature is perfect, and I (and everyone else) have forgotten about it
>and decided to trust something artificial (and thus imperfect, as
>designed by [currently] imperfect human beings) instead.
Tom:
I disagree that nature is perfect. Nature is a series of trade-offs, in
which animals struggle to survive long enough to reproduce. In general
terms, nature wants to kill you - via bacteria, viruses, predation,
starvation. Again, nature simply IS - best not to elevate it to
the level of presumed perfection.
(A recent post here on the reasons some fruits have toxins in them,
provides an excellent example of trade-offs in nature. It is in the
archives.)
Regards,
Tom Billings
[log in to unmask]
|
