Peter:
>>Peter then said: " It is very understandable you feel this way as you
obviously have
>>benefitted greatly from their [the gurus] teachings.  But I fear you are
a part of a >>minority and that most of us  in many ways would have been
better off had they chosen >>different paths."

Rex:
>What "different paths"?  Does this suggest eating oneself silly on damaged
food and >hanging out with the AMA/ADA?

God forbid.  I hope that I did not in any way encourage such black and
white thinking.

>Well, count me in the maligned "minority."  The gurus, who I also
celebrate, developed >their following because they formulated and
communicated ideas that made sense
>to people.  What else could account for the reprint after reprint after
reprint of >their messages?

I ask myself the same question when I see reprints of Ehret's books in all
the health food stores.  Could it be that somebody is just trying to make a
buck? ;-)

>Is it possible Peter's strange message is rooted in ancient history going
back to the >much-whispered NFL wars?

If NFL had produced any original thought, you might have had a point. ;-)

Christopher:
>Ah, the health gurus!  What a fascinating Rorschach test they are, tidily
polarizing us >into to two camps -- those who Bless the gurus and those who
Damn them.

I would like to think that I am guilty of neither but judging by your
reaction, I seem to have failed in conveying this sentiment. :-(

>Now our esteemed Moderator, despite a few grudging concessions to the gurus,

My "concessions" were sincerely meant.

>maligns them in a way that cries out for reply.

That you feel the need to come to their rescue like you do surprises me.
If you are privileged to some undisclosed information that would put their
performances in a more favorable light, please share it.

>Peter, it is curious to note your defensive posture on behalf of Kirt.  He
is well able >to speak for himself, as we know.

Yes, and a hell of a lot better than these health gurus whose poor track
records you seem so bent on defending. ;-)

>Perhaps he had good reason for letting me go uncontested when I pointed
out his recent >(as you term it) "ideological u-turn."

Yeah, he is probably having an emergency session with his primal therapist
as we speak trying to recover from the blows you have dealt him. ;-)

>Kirt's change of heart is a fact, Peter, not an baseless barb on my part
as you >suggest.  Having withdrawn an adulatory book manuscript about
Burger and two other >gurus, Kirt now, as I understand it, styles himself
an "ex-Instincto."  When you >suggest I was unfair to him, you are unfair
to me.

If Kirt has had some change of heart all the power to him.  It takes
courage to take a good look at the ideas that we cherish the most.
Besides, even if he was less critical of instincto and primal than he is
now, he was/is an original thinker in his own right which the manuscript he
co-wrote clearly showed and even more important, he openly invited critical
feedback which is why you received the manuscript in the first place.

>Next you declare that fasting, for "most people," has done more harm than
good.  On >what evidence?

I have none.  My opinion is based on the many people I have met over the
years who have done a lot of fasting.  They seem always to be preparing
themselves for the next (and last) fast that will finally purge them of the
consequences of all their previous dietary indiscretions.  It is my belief
that fasting for some conditions can be a powerful therapeutic tool but
that people with eating disorders and blood sugar problems in particular
(which seems to be the majority of those who fast) would be better off if
they abstained from it. The European tradition of juicing I think is a
better way to go but even that should be IMO be applied with moderation.  I
would love to see some long term follow-up studies on the effects on both
fasting and juicing.

>If I were to recommend any on fasting it would be Fuhrman.

No argument here.

>Does it surprise you to know that Kirt, whose independent-mindedness you
applaud, >endorsed fasting?  In his 1997 manuscript, he ranked it second to
Burger's >instinctotherapy -- his gold standard in those days.

If he indeed did revise his position on fasting, it showed that he was not
resistant to growth and change.

>In your zeal to tar the gurus, Peter, they can't win for losing.  When
their ideas are >not eccentric and unproved, they are old-hat and unoriginal.

I find myself wanting to agree even though I do not quite understand your
cleverly tailored words. ;-)

Peter:
>> Many before Ehret were aware of the connection between diet and health. >>

>Maybe so, but it was charismatic gurus like Ehret, not doctors and
scientists, who >brought this life-changing message home to me -- and to
many others.

The message being - eating a fruit based diet?

>Yet when we testify to our transformed lives, you brush it off:

We? I recall only one testimonial (yours) which I in no way brushed off.

>The gurus, you complain, have "a chip on their shoulder" (necessary,
perhaps, to defy >Establishment dogma?) and they are "dangerous."

A lot of their criticism of the established ways is right on but a greater
part of their recommendations just do not hold up to scrutiny.  Is it
tragic the amount of people who have wrecked their health trying to follow
Ehret's fruitarian regime.  As for the chip on the shoulder and the
sacrifices and misunderstandings they so often claim to have endured, I
believe these more often than not are cop-outs.  The exception would be the
many true holistic practitioners who have stuck out their neck and risked
persecution by the FDA.

>So Peter, shall we repudiate the gurus and trust YOUR advice instead?

Modesty prevents me from answering this one. ;-)

>Just like Kirt, all of us need to learn the fine art of honoring a teacher
without >lapsing into cultic servility ... or its flip side, jaded cynicism.

I agree.  So why are you coming off with such cultic servility, yourself? ;-)

>Sure there are mountebanks and quacks (even in the AMA!).

Who comes to mind?

> But inspiring, charismatic teachers have opened doors and turned lives
around.

Apart from yourself where are all these turned around lives?  They surely
do not belong to the circle of people you have introduced me to. ;-)

>Join me, Peter, as several others have done, in the toast I raise again:
Three cheers >for the health gurus and the beacons they light for us all!
May we never follow them >blindly, but may their tribe prosper.

And stick my head in the sand and deny all the casualties of instincto,
natural hygiene and primal?  That would be very elitist.  All three schools
of thought have been incredibly inspiring to me and delivered a lot of
enticing food for thought but let us not forget that their actual track
record is terrible and that they as movements have been complete failures
now on the verge of obscurity.

Best, Peter
[log in to unmask]

PS. I am having problems with misplaced tabs (">") in my posts.  If any of
you use Eudora Pro and think you can help me out, please contact me off the
list.