There is an interesting article on raw food diets, in the latest
issue of "Health Science"  (March/April 1998, 21(2): 12-13), published
by ANHS = the American Natural Hygiene Society (Tampa, Florida). The
article was written by James Michael Lennon, Executive Director of the ANHS,
and it is titled: "Much Ado About Raw Food".

Let me quote a few items from the article; note that my clarifying comments
are in brackets [*]:

"ANHS does not recommend a totally raw-food diet [i.e., 100% raw]. Experience
has shown that people typically fare poorly over a long period of time on
such a diet, and as a practical matter, it is extremely hard to implement.

No one claims that eating a totally raw-food diet is absolutely impossible.
But there is no credible evidence to show that a whole-food, plant based
diet that is entirely uncooked is more healthy than one that includes
conservatively-cooked vegetables and starches. By contrast, the diet
that is recommended by most raw food advocates is excessively high in fat
and sugar, two factors that have been associated with a variety of health
problems.

...snipped...

"Fruit is more concentrated", Dr. [Alan] Goldhammer [of the Center for
Conservative Therapy, a fasting center in Penngrove, Calif.] points out.
"It provides about 300 calories per pound. Large quantities of fruit could
provide adequate calories, but such a diet would be very high in sugar
and low in minerals, which would eventually lead to health problems for
many, if not most, people."

The article also says that Dr. Herbert Shelton did not have a 100% raw
diet, and did not use it in his healing work.

I believe that ANHS has a web site: http://www.anhs.org
(If that address is wrong, would someone post the correct address?)

I will add some personal comments to the above. One may encounter
people who characterize cooked food as "addictions" or "mediocre".
Such characterizations are inaccurate or distorted. Isn't your personal
health more important than someone else's dogma about raw vs. cooked?
And should not the diet serve you, rather than you serving the diet?
If you make the goal of 100% raw too important, then you become a servant
of idealistic dietary dogma. I make this statement as one who, years
ago, allowed myself to be dominated by dietary dogma (with harmful effects
on my health).

Regards,
Tom Billings
[log in to unmask]