Denis Peyrat <[log in to unmask]>:
>- Mental hygiene and raw food : yes , of course raw food has definitely
>beneficial effect on mental health. This has been proved again and again at
>the turn of the century by the so called group of  "alienists", french,
>english  and italian psychologists and psychiatrists experimenting the so
>called "synthetic diet" in jailhouses  ( synthetic in the sense of
>synthesis of all necessary nutrients in a meal  not in the sense of
>artificial feeding )  . Eugenist physicians   further amplified these early
>research . I'm simply  amazed to read that raw fooders  should protect
>themselves against the deleterious mental after-effects of raw diet. If
>anything, Tom himself probably didn't protect himself enough from his own
>infringements to the 100% raw diet  ....

Tom:
If you  examine the archives, you will find that 1) the topic of poor
mental health among 100% raw people has been discussed on this list before -
it is "old news", 2) many others make the same observations that I have made,
3) the more diverse the diet, the better the mental health. 100% raw instinctos
and raw dairy users, appear (in my opinion and experience) to have better
mental health than strict, 100% raw vegans/fruitarians. (P.S. in the  case
of raw vegans, the mental problems are speculated as being related to possible
deficiency of essential fatty acids).

Also, I see that you appear to be claiming, in effect, that the "100% raw
diet is perfect, if you (or others) had mental problems, it's your fault -
you infringed on the 100% raw diet" (paraphrased, not a quote). Sorry,
that excuse gets old, quickly.  That's also the kind of thinking that keeps
an ill rawist, from seeking the care of health professionals, when they are ill.

There are no perfect diets, not even among the instinctos. Nature is imperfect,
and so are all diets.  That is reality.

Denis Peyrat <[log in to unmask]>:
>- Definition of Natural Food : Tom wrote something like "foods with which
>we have evolved throughout prehistory" . This is too deterministic in my
>view. I would rather keep to the definition given by a long forgotten
>american naturopath back in 1914 (from heart) : "The natural food is
>whatever  food which , unprocessed, appeals to the sense of sight, smell
>and taste" . There is a fluctuating, undetermined, relativistic sound in
>this definition which brings it closer to the spirit of instinctive
>nutrition. We have not evolved with eggshells as a regular part of our diet
>but eggshells can be excellent when needed (supposedly strong deficiency in
>calcium...)

Tom:
I did not claim that the definition proposed was the only one, just a
powerful one. One can argue that your definition is more subjective,
and puts instinctive nutrition theory before other, perhaps more logical
criteria. If instinctos strive to consume original food, how can you
dislike an evolutionary definition of natural?

Regards,
Tom Billings
[log in to unmask]