Alan,
> > This is fine, but when he states the way things happen in an absolute
> > way, for example how on his program hunger diminshes and you get by
> > on less and less food, he seems to extrapolate this to a universal
> > result. Many people have reported the opposite, that they start to
> > feel they are starving.
>
> I think you being very unfair to Loren here. As I recall
> someone asked how many 100% raw foodist there were on this
> list, and Loren, among others, simply told his experience.
> I didn't see any attempt to convert anyone. However, very
> quickly several rabid people jumped on his case in what I'd
> call a very dogmatic and uncivilized manor, calling Loren
> a liar. I just think that we can and ought to behave a little
> more dignified than that.
>
Personally, I never once called Loren a liar. Tom or others may not
agree
with me, but Tom is presenting reasons for his disbelief that should
be
considered and I feel that is justified.
My position, to clarify and use the blunt word 'liar' that if I'm not
mistaken you first introduced here, is that I hope Loren is not a
liar, but
he may or may not be, or may be shading his truth or maybe not - it is
just
hard for me based on my limited knowledge level to know. What I am
saying is
that even if he is being truthful that he is making black and white
statements about the results people will get as they apply his
'program'.
As an example of what I'm saying, consider this. When I eat cooked
vegetables I get a headache. When I keep the diet clean and avoid
hormone
and antibiotic laden meats and eat all vegetables raw, I don't have
headaches. But I would not say to in a message to anybody 'avoid all
cooked
vegetables and commercial meat and if you have headaches they will
disappear'.
Loren can say that he found that he was able to eat less and less over
time
and stay nourished and not get hungry if that was the case, but he
should
not report that as something that, just because it was his experience,
it
would be my experience or everybody else's, like some sort of
raw-vegan
eating law. The projection of these certain ideas as absolutes, like
'milk
is unfit for human consumption' fuels my skepticism because I have
heard so
many others report benefits from high-quality raw milk (even as the
one raw
cows milk source I tried did not work for me).
> > As far as the other practices (exercise, sunshine), aren't they
> > just obvious irregardless of the diet? So here is a possible scenario
> > - someone like Loren is doing well on a raw-vegan diet because they
> > have a certain constitutional makeup and are doing all these other
> > wonderful things as well, then, because they don't follow a rigid
> > dogma, decide to experiment and feel even better with a few fertile
> > raw eggs. How does that sound?
>
> I personally have a diet that includes fertile raw eggs.
> Does that mean that I should behave like a total jerk to
> someone that doesn't? I'm personally interested in hearing
> what his experiences are. If animal food has something essential,
> how has Loren and his friends (and many others I've heard
> about) survived? Perhaps we can all learn something important
> -- but not if we immediately castigate people that may have
> experience a little different from our own!
>
If you think I'm behaving like a total jerk, I'm sorry you feel that
way.
I'm just expressing my skepticism and doubts (which again, maybe are
not
all justified; I simply don't know).
> > I can't see the Hunzas diet being way better than, for
> > example, the Loenschental Swiss, since they also were
> > essentially free of chronic disease.
>
> To say this, you'd have to know what a good diet is. I feel
> fairly confident that no one knows that. We are guessing,
> and experimenting, and analyzing to try to discover what a
> good diet is. If the Loenschental Swiss enjoy the same
> quality of health and longevity, then perhaps one might
> postulate that the diets are equivalently good -- but of
> course that also neglects non-dietary factors to health.
> I'll admit that I don't know much about the Loenschental
> Swiss, and would be delighted if someone would pass along
> some good pointers to references.
>
To me, a lot is known about what a good diet is - consists of a
variety of
completely natural foods, at least some and probably mostly raw,
usually
including plants that grow on mineralized soil, a balance of protein,
carbs
and unheated fat that allows a person to not overeat and be satisfied,
and
probably at least a small amount, but even moderate to large amounts
in some
circumstances, of animal-source foods from healthy animals. The
Loenschental Swiss' diet fulfills these requirements. Granted this is
a bit
vague, but clearly any diet that is natural and totally devoid of the
modern
junk and provides a balance of all the essential macro and
microutrients,
but also, importantly, adequate complete protein, I would consider
healthy.
Weston Price describes the Loenschental Swiss' diet in detail in
'Nutrition
and Physical Degeneration'. I don't think he mentions their longevity.
> > It should also be noted that the Hunzas were not 100%
> > vegetarian (no native cultures were/are).
>
> The Hunzas have never been 100% vegetarian, which is a
> possibly important fact, but they are very close to 100%
> vegetarian. They rarely ate meat, dairy products, or eggs
> -- they simply didn't have the resources to support enough
> animals to eat. Consequently, they ate meat and butter
> pretty much only at a yearly festival. The truth is that
> we don't know how important this extremely low level of
> animal food is to their health -- this is why I'm personally
> intrigued by the experiences of people like Loren.
>
The experiences, and pictures, from Price, of peoples consuming
moderate
to large amounts of animal-source foods, and showing wonderful
dentition
and bodily structure - and his reports that many of the peoples that
ate
very little animal-source foods, while not suffering from obvious
modern
degeneration, were not as large, did not have as good teeth or dental
arches, or as robust health, as those eating more high-protein foods -
are convincing to me.
> > I personally don't mind if Loren stays around at all.
>
> Nice enthusiam. With that sort of attitude, I'd be surprised
> if Loren did stay around.
Well, that is how I feel at this point. Why should I feel enthusiasm I
don't have? I am very enthusiastic, in my own way, about raw-foods in
general, and also open to new ideas and changing my viewpoints, which
is a reason why while I simply am very skeptical of much of the
content
in his messages, I also don't have a problem with his being here. But
if he stays, he should certainly expect his viewpoints to be
challenged
by some who see things differently. Because what he advises
nutritionally
is quite a bit different than what I do or would comfortably recommend
to someone unfamiliar with natural diet (and is easily within the
guidelines for this list), it is not for me to be a cheerleader for
him.
> Ok, fine. It's probably fair to say that some people may
> not be able to enjoy the success that Loren has, but I
> think it's quite a different matter to out-right call
> someone a liar, when there isn't really any evidence that
> the person is lying.
Again to clarify, I don't know how truthful he is. But in my mind
there is
some reason for questioning his veracity, given peoples normal
experience
and how hungry they usually get eating so few calories. The question
is
whether in fact a person can get by on the limited amount of
low-protein
food he eats. I know at this time if I tried it I would feel like I'm
starving within a week. And I know he would say I'm not cleaned-out
enough.
Is he correct???? <shrug>
> Loren has every right to here and to participate. Loren has
> also distinguished himself from the other participants in that
> thread by being extremely tolerent and polite despite the
> rudeness shown to him.
He has been tolerant and polite, and I give him credit for that. But
again
he should expect his ideas and absolute pronouncements to be
challenged -
and if for example Aajonus or anyone else committed to various certain
'truths' was to join the list and pronounce his theories the same
could be
expected, while hopefully postively contributing to discussion and
supporting others and not getting chased off the list unless
personally
attacking others.
> I wonder how many others there are that
> might have had something interesting to share that will not post
> now because the rudeness some here have exhibited?
I hope thats not the case. But IMO much of his information mirrors
well-known (in raw-food circles) but scientifically-disputable
raw-vegan
dogma. So should I be castigated for expressing my personal
skepticism?
Paul
|
