Loren:
>I read the entire Beyond Veg site, and find nothing but opinion backed by
>partial information.
>
>I certainly wouldn't recommend anyone take this site seriously, or
>recommend anything written there as being the least bit authoritative or
>conclusive. In fact, this may well be the most poorly supported material
>I've ever seen.
Tom:
Readers are invited to check the 3 core articles on the site:
Paleolithic Diet vs. Vegetarianism
http://www.beyondveg.com/nicholson-w/hb/hb-interview1b.shtml
Is Cooked Food Poison?
http://www.beyondveg.com/tu-j-l/raw-cooked/raw-cooked-1a.shtml
Comparative Anatomy and Physiology Brought Up To Date
http://www.beyondveg.com/billings-t/comp-anat/comp-anat-1a.shtml
Click on the above URLs and scroll down to the bottom of the pages.
Then click on the reference list/bibliography. You will see that these
articles - unlike the typical rawist books and web sites - are based
on extensive research published in peer-reviewed scientific journals.
More importantly, I have heard a number of vague claims such as yours,
that
the scientific info on Beyond Veg is somehow wrong or unreliable. To
date,
no one making such claims has presented any peer-reviewed, scientific
information to support their position. Do you have any peer-reviewed,
scientific information that disputes the material in the above 3 major
articles? If you do have it, then present it here (with the
identifying
reference citations available in full as is done on Beyond Veg) so
that
the rest of us can examine it. The coin of scientific exchange is to
provide cited evidence, not simply casting vague aspersions that
something
is supposedly "unscientific," which is all that has been presented
here so
far.
Loren:
>I believe what I believe, and you believe what you believe. I won't waste
>any time trying to convince you of anything, and you might want to save
your
>time as well.
Tom:
Then why the reply? My last post was simply a short list of URLs that
provide scientific critiques of your claims. You could have easily
ignored
it.
Loren:
>My beliefs are formed not just from my own opinion from one failed personal
>experiment, as yours seem to be, but from years of personal experience,
>both with my own health, and with the many people I have worked with.
Tom:
Your assumption about me is false. I have seen many folks fail on 100%
raw
vegan diets, in the long term. Indeed that is the usual outcome. Then
I look
at the claimed successes and they are usually dubious, per the info
available to me.
My conclusions are based on extensive experience: over the last 25+
years
I have been a vegetarian (8 years fruitarian, later hygiene-style, and
other variations including raw lacto-veg currently). As well, I have
been
active in SF-LiFE (a raw vegan support group) for over 5 years, and
have
observed and discussed the experiences of many others in this time.
Finally, I have been contacted (on Internet) by many folks who
tried raw vegan, and it didn't work for them despite making major
efforts.
Loren:
>You could find some help from a practitioner who understands the body's
>needs and physiology, and figure out and remedy those issues.
Tom:
The extensive information available to me suggests that such a
practicioner
clearly won't be a fruitarian. :-)
Loren:
>Alternatively, you could wage a disinformation campaign, and focus the
>attention on the "shortcomings" of the diet/lifestyle, rather than looking
>honestly at your self. But you've already done that.
Tom:
If I want disinformation, I need only read any of numerous rawist
books. :-)
Loren:
>As I mentioned recently, during and after your recent personal attacks, I
>heard from many people directly, several of whom said they have also been
>raw vegan for a while, and have also reduced their daily caloric intake to
>"impossibly low levels." These people did not write through the network
>because they were not willing to be targets of personal attacks by you and
>others.
Tom:
I was below starvation levels for some time when I was a fruitarian.
It worked short-term but it didn't work long-term - there are lower
limits, and I found out the hard way. Over and above my own
experience,
I have been consulted by a number of people over the years who were
emaciated and could not gain weight on 100% raw regimes (this after
trying
the advice of numerous raw "experts"). Also, in an earlier post I
mentioned
a recent discussion over on the main bulletin board at
living-foods.com,
where a raw-friendly nutritionist (a registered dietician, who is also
a raw vegan/natural hygienist) reported that all of the (many) rawists
he has seen over the years lose weight if their calorie intake is much
below the "standard" levels.
Loren:
>For those of you out there who may be a bit more open-minded than Tom, I
>simply say that there is a wealth of research to back up the points I've
>made which Tom disputes today.
Tom:
Then why not present it?
Loren:
>If you haven't already looked at the Beyond Veg website that he keeps
>referring to, and you have an hour or so to kill (literally), and you'd
>like a good laugh, take a look at the "science" that "proves" his points.
Tom:
If you only spend an hour on the site, you won't get the "flavor."
Plan on reading for a few days - it is big. As for science,
you have presented none so far. In contrast, there is plenty of
actual, peer-reviewed legitimate science on the Beyond Veg website:
http://www.beyondveg.com
Tom Billings
|
