Hi Thomas (and Irene),
Thomas E. Billings wrote:
> Irene:
> >> were NO raw vegan cultures at all.
>
> Alan:
> >This is an unproven statement so one should keep an open mind
> >here. What we certainly do know is that one can both survive
> >and thrive on a non-meat diet.
>
> Tom:
> Strictly speaking, you are correct, though that does not support the views
> you espouse (100% raw vegan).
>
I often wonder if some people read posts properly or simply skip
over them before replying. I am not pushing 100% raw vegan at all.
I am relaying information and experience on it from both my point
of view and the point of view of others in our group. The fact
that I do not eat meat has very little to do with any paleolithic
theories (I listed my reasons in another post).
> More accurate:
> There are no KNOWN raw vegan (or cooked vegan) cultures in history, and no
> evidence of same in prehistory.
>
Personally I couldn't care less. Buddhists often live on a meat-free
diet but this is a religeous decision.
> Irene's statement is a negative, which is impossible to prove. It is also
> true that some people can and do thrive on vegan diets (usually less than
> 100% raw).
>
And the reason for this is usually a lack of variety in flavours due to
poor support and poor sources. 100% raw is a difficult diet for modern
humans there is no doubt about that. It needs careful planning and
good guidance if it is to succeed.
> For illustration, here's another unproven statement that is often presented
> as "fact" by raw vegan advocates:
>
> "Anyone can thrive on 100% raw vegan, if they only: eat super-high
> quality food, take care of a long list of trivial details, survive
> intermittent "detox" episodes, get coching from a raw vegan "diet guru",
> have a positive attitude, etc."
>
Where as I would tend to agree with most of this...I would omit the
"anyone" and substitute it with "one". In other words, one CAN but it
is by no means easy unless it is well planned. It is fairly expensive
without one's own garden, for example. It is doomed to failure if
one can not (or not afford) quality ripe produce. It is doomed to
failure if there is not enough variety in the diet. It is doomed to
failure if one binges on one particular fruit or vegetable simply
because it tastes subjectively better than the rest. It is doomed
to failure if people do not recognise uncomfortable symptoms in
the first month or so as detox but rather blame them on the
quality of the food or type of diet they have chosen to eat.
Many will even fail due to not being able to resist the
pressures of society and social life (invitations to dinners etc.)
> The anecdotal evidence is that the above statement, the core philosophy of
> many raw vegan advocates, is false. The failure rate of 100% raw vegans,
> long-term, is very high. As mentioned in previous posts, at least some
> of the claims of success are dubious and lack credibility.
>
I would agree that the failure rate of many (by no means all) long
term vegans was high. Note the word "was". In the past it was much
more difficult to get quality produce and indeed it was not (always)
even recommended. Most raw vegans relied on detrimental raw grains
(particularly the macrobiotic crowd) as well, as well as on the
consumption of those self same vegetables raw that they tended to
grow in their own garden (if they had one). That many common
domestic garden vegetables are toxic or at least a burden on the
digestive system when eaten raw was not known (or liitle publicised)
in the past. Knowledge on pesticides, organic farming and even
on edible plants is now more widespread (e.g. through the web)
and better available and better publicised than ever before.
> A few extra comments on the claims in the statement above:
>
> * quality - those who cling to this excuse will tell you that the food
> you get is literally never good enough. This renders its use as an excuse
> for the failure of raw vegan, logically invalid.
>
The raw vegans that I know (myself included) do not worry too much
about the quality (it is taken for granted as the sources are
known or own produce is self-controlled). The taste is important.
If something doesn't taste very nice, despite being edible, then
it should be either mixed with something that does taste nice and
masks the unpleasant taste, or else eaten for a few months until
it becomes habitual and suddenly does taste nice. This latter aspect
should not be ignored because it is extremely effective. A recent
example here is a colleague of mine at work who used to drink
sweet coffee. Someone told him that green tea was mega-healthy and
he decided to switch. He nearly puked when he first tasted it but
persevered for about a month until he got used to it and actually
enjoyed it. One Monday morning he came to work to find his green
tea had disappeared (some people will steal anything) and so he
decided to have a mug of coffee with his usual four spoonfuls of
sugar. He couldn't drink it..he said it was like drinking
syrup.
> * detox - favorite excuse of the raw vegan diet gurus, and unfalsifiable.
> The honest use a different word to describe "detox" episodes: the word
> is "illness".
>
This was certainly true in the past, no doubt about that. It is
indeed true today with many raw food regimes, i.e. particularly
those which include raw grains and other raw seeds (the "muesli"
crowd). But modern knowledge (last ten years at the most) about
grains and other "foods" has changed the situation dramatically.
Raw foodists (at least here in Europe and certainly within our
group) are advised to fast for two weeks on clean water only
before attempting such a food regime and to also fast at least
once a year whilst on it. This not only tunes the palate to
better accept the "unusual" taste of raw food but it also
gives you experience of a major detox after a couple of days.
The 'flu-like' symptoms (some describe it as a bad hangover)
of a major detox are easily recognised and should, as opposed
to a real 'flu, disappear after not more than 48 hours. This
in not to say, of course that a person will experience perfect
health after such a two week fast, or even after two months on
raw. Everyone is different. Some are exceedingly overweight
and a two week fast followed by two months raw will not bring
down the weight to normal (i.e. empty all the fat cells plus
the toxins stored therein). These people may need three or
four two-week fasting periods throughout the first year.
People who are subjectively and objectively ill with ailments
connected with food metabolism (diabetes etc.) should fast in
special fasting clinics under the supervision of physicians.
> * diet gurus - many are known fakes, and/or lack credibility. Your diet guru
> may promote 100% raw vegan while binge-eating cooked and/or dairy, in
> private.
>
I can assure you he doesn't..and neither do I. He is not my
"guru" BTW, just a pleasant and extremely likeable and
extremely healthy 74 year-old "successful example".
> I will close by mentioning that some folks do well, long-term, on high
> percentage raw diets. Typically the ones with credibility are less than
> 100% raw, and/or are non-vegan.
>
How does one gain this "credibility" Tom. If you are interested in
defending your above claim then why not come and visit us. You,
as well as anybody from abroad who is seriously interested and
engaged in such a regime, are more than welcome.
Best regards,
Alan
|
