There has been extensive discussion of late on veg-raw concerning a theory
that purports  to prove that raw protein foods are harmful or toxic. That
theory is logically invalid and utterly without merit. The first part of
this post is a revised repost of material from an earlier post, that shows
the logical flaws of the theory. The second part of the post further
demonstrates the absurdity of the theory, by using the logical structure of
the theory to prove that fruit is harmful/toxic!

the following first appeared in a veg-raw post with the title:
Subject: veg-raw: fruitarianism & protein, followup

Now I would like to return to the protein theories expressed in a number of
recent posts. It appears that said theories are logically defective. My
understanding of the arguments given is:

A: Human requirements for protein are very low/small
B: Meat, eggs, cooked protein foods are bad
C: The person expressing the theory has difficulty in digesting protein foods

therefore:
D: Raw protein foods are bad and should not be consumed.

The above argument is invalid or irrelevant in every part, as follows.

B: B is certainly true, but it is irrelevant to the conclusion, D. One post
had a variant of B, including raw protein foods with meat & eggs. That is
logically invalid because it amounts to assuming D, which you are trying to
prove.

A: In isolation, A is 100% irrelevant to D. Also, even the combination of A
and C do not prove D!

C,D: The fact that some have difficulty with raw protein foods does not mean
that the culprit is protein. Also, there are thousands of raw fooders who
regularly eat sizeable amounts of raw protein foods, with no difficulty.
Indeed, many people find the proper consumption of certain protein foods
(esp. sprouts), to be highly beneficial. These raw fooders provide many
thousands of direct counter-examples to D.

Also of relevance are the following alternative explanations for C:
1) Digestive system weakened by a diet of only sweet fruit, or other factors.
2) The individual insists on eating only dry nuts, seeds, when said foods
might be digested better if eaten when soaked/sprouted.
3) The individual fails to use, or refuses to use (because of ideology), some
of the digestive system support tools available: spices, tonic herbs, exercise,
and other tools.

To summarize: A,B,C taken together, even if true, do NOT prove D.
There are thousands of counter-examples to D.
It follows that D is a *false* theory!

Based on the above, it appears that the theory that protein foods are "horrors"
is invalid. In my opinion, those who want to prove that all raw protein foods
are bad, need to present a much better argument, one that is logically valid.

Now to further illustrate the invalid logic of the above theory, let's use the
same structure and logic, to prove that fruit is harmful/toxic!

A: Human requirements for sugar are very low/small
   - proven by an argument based on the fact that human milk is very low in
     sugar. Include lots of calculations and nutritional references, to
     impress the casual reader. Perhaps the reader won't notice the errors in
     logic, if the argument looks impressive enough!

B: Candy, cake, cookies, ice cream, other cooked high sugar foods are bad.

C: The person expressing the theory has problems with sweet fruit:
   - after not eating fruit for months, I ate fruit and it caused problems,
     namely excessive urination, sugar blues, and it stimulated by bowels.
     These problems *must* be the fault of the sugar! (It can't be that I
     overate fruit, I'm too "pure" to overeat!)

therefore:
D: Sweet raw fruits are bad and should not be consumed.
   - obviously, fruits have FAR too much sugar and are harmful! Fruit is toxic!

Of course the above argument is invalid and absurd, but so is the theory that
raw protein foods are harmful or toxic. Any attack on the logic of the above
fruit argument is an attack on the logic of the protein argument (mentioned
in case the protein theory originator tries to attack the fruit argument).

In closing:
* fruits are just seed packages, with limited life force energy; sprouts are
complete life forms with full life force energy - something you don't find in
fruit!
* sprouts and other raw protein foods can be an important part of a raw/living
foods diet. They are very beneficial when consumed moderately; they are not
toxic.
* fruits and raw protein foods are good for you; enjoy them!

I hope this post will end the pointless discussions regarding the false and
invalid protein theory. However, my intuition tells me that might not happen.
With best wishes for all the positive veg-raw readers...

Tom Billings
[log in to unmask]