LIFE F0RCE <[log in to unmask]>:
>Do you think that a 'healthy eating movement' already exists? If you do, then
>do you think that the raw diet is a part of it, and just needs more emphasis?

Tom:
In one sense, there already is a healty eating movement. However, it is
segmented into various diets and modalities. What I am talking about is
emphasizing individual health over diet/dietary dogma; that is - promoting
a diet, while admitting that no diet is perfect, so it might be great
for you, but maybe not. Try to see the unity in the diversity of the
different approaches- and honesty and reality (not dishonesty, fanaticism,
plagiarism, or crank science) is the basis  for such a movement. The
style I am thinking of is: here is a tool (raw diets); it might work for
you - try and see, if you think appropriate. It it's not for you, there
are other tools around to try. This may sound wishy-washy to some, but
it does something important - puts the individual in charge, emphasizes
personal health and choice, and respects other approaches. In contrast,
the fanatics make 100% raw, and what is on their lunch plate, into a
dictatorial god that they worship.

>Why do you see raw eating as only a temporary solution - is it because that
>seems to be the way most people handle it? If that is your reason, my comment

Tom:
Yes - I emphasize short-term as it works that way, while the long-term
is quite problematic. I'm simply trying to acknowledge reality. It can be
made to work long-term for some, but the on/off the diet pattern is more
common than strict adherence in the long-term. Basically, everyone cheats
(on the diet) in the long run - might as well admit it. Better to be honest
than to be a slogan quoting, binge-eating hypocrite like some raw "role
models" I know of.

>I'm just wondering again if all raw or a very high
>percent raw is important enough that it can be the emphasis or focus of a
>health-food movement. It certainly seems to be that way for Natural Hygiene. I

100% raw can be, when used correctly, a powerful healing tool. It is too
good a tool to abandon it to the fanatics. I would like to see it promoted
in an honest way - then more mainstream folks will try it, as a short
term healing tool. Instead, 100% raw is used as the basis of a fanatical cult
by dishonest plagiarists and crank science promoters. Some rawists are
actually ashamed to admit they are 100% raw, because of the antics of the
fantics/crank science promoters.

The natural hygiene folks emphasize healthy eating, but there is quite a
bit of dogma in their approach. Also, some hygienists (a very small
minority) fall into the trap of worshipping Herbert Shelton, which is
almost as bad as the"cult of 100% raw" of the fanatics.

>I don't think 'marketable' is the right word - I don't think the concept of
>healthy eating has to be marketed so much as "coalesced" or given more power,
>or given a more clear, unified focus and message. "Marketing" is what the

>affect. Maybe the emphasis on including raw food, whenever possible, is one
>theme that most of the regimens share. What do you think?

Tom:
Within the raw movement, the emphasis on raw is shared. But, of course, there
are lots of healing diets that are not raw: Ornish, McDougall, macrobiotic,
ketogenic, etc. Because of the dogmatism in raw, I think the raw movement
needs a visit from reality to wake folks up a bit. Remember the Vimalananda
saying, that "...WITHOUT FAIL, reality will come to live with you." I think
reality is, figuratively, walking up the doorway to the raw movement, and
will soon be knocking on the door. Reality is coming in - whether invited or
not. I also think this will happen much sooner than folks think it might.
Wait and see on that...:-)

Tom Billings
[log in to unmask]