At 08:51 AM 2/27/97 -0800, Tom and Kirt wrote:
>Tom (re hot peppers):
>Agreed; they are far too strong for most of us. There are a (very) few
>people with incredibly strong constitutions who seem to have a very high
tolerance for them, though. Still, your point is good - those with tolerance
>might be better off with less fiery food.
Well, by golly, we hit a harmonic chord! :)
>Ric:
>...comments on ketogenic diet, snipped...
>Tom:
>Thanks for the add'l info on ketogenic diet. My knowledge of it is limited,
>but I wanted to mention it as it can have a dramatic effect on people's
>health, yet it breaks all the 'rules' of raw-vegan dogma.
But only in respect to the fact that it is able to bring life back towards
"normal" to some extremely sick epileptics whose previous living was on the
SAD dietary. Many flagrant violations or the raw law do likewise...at
least _temporarily_ it seems that way.
>Macrobiotics is
>a mostly cooked food diet that can assist healing, yet it breaks the raw
>'rules' also.
Indeed. It sure does. I was going to bring it up, anyway. Macrobiotics
has helped many a sick individual regain their foothold, but, having
watched it work closely for some 30+ years now, I witnessed, to my own
satisfaction, that, (while it admittedly had some therapeutic value as an
emergency intervention among deathly ill people who had been living long
lives on the SAD diet) continued use of the cooked macrobiotic routine
eventually so depleted the poor devotees, that they soon ended up in far
worse shape. The young MD who wrote the best selling book about how
macrobiotics saved him from cancer is but one more tragic example: he
later died of cancer. But, the law-breaking macrobiotics DID give him a
few more years, no argument. I just wonder what would have happened if he
hadn't become so emotionally tied to his apparent "savior" (macrobiotics);
if he'd, instead, as many of us did, continued in our studies of nutrition
and health from our first "improper" beginnings. What if he'd discovered
the power and natural virtues inherent in Natural Hygiene's more scientific
objectivism?
While the Gerson raw juice therapy can work seemingly miraculous things on
terminal cancer victims, giving them another chance...I strongly suspect
that, similarly, what was good for a therapeutic intervention is not
necessarily a good health maintenance regime. i.e.: You've got a
headache...and it abates quickly with the swallowing of some sort of
salicylic acid compound, but all of us on this list know that the seeming
cause and effect does not genuinely vindicate or justify the rationale that
aspirin is the missing nutrient that rectified the cranial ache...it just
covered up the pain. The raw Gerson juices enable a ruined metabolism to
gain enough energy to clean up much of the damage wrought by the
cancer...but once the foothold is achieved, why don't more of these
devotees start on a more natural diet? In asking many "recovered" cancer
victims this question over the years I typically get an answer that tells
me they are literally afraid to tinker with what they know gave them their
success story...i.e.: if it isn't broken, don't try and fix it.
To me, and I imagine you might agree, this is an emotional issue...nothing
more, nothing less. Good science requires sound objectivity...and that
level of emotional fervor doesn't seem to have room for the kind of
detachment required of sound thinking and free thought. Many of the raw
foodists I know don't have any tolerance for the instincto theology. Maybe
they're new converts, not very secure in their beliefs...who's to say? I
have no trouble with Kirt and his arguments, even as a confirmed Vegan.
I'm pretty confident of the ground I hold, so don't come from the sort of
fear that many of us experience when newly converted to a new was of
perceiving our realities. However, not too sure I would have been able to
be so openly tolerant in my first years with the raw fooding. Back then I
was constantly having to defend myself...especially in regard to how I must
be endangering my own children with this radical and scientifically
"unsupportable" eating life-style. Guess we all go through various stages
in our maturation and personal evolution on these things.
But, back to the present:
Yes, that fatty acid keytogenic approach to epilepsy is fantastic; it
gives the victim another chance...and it also leads an objective (but
nutritionally knowledgeable) observer to wonder if there wasn't some sort
of genetic or other metabolic damage in the victim in the first place; that
this anomaly made them exceptionally needy of certain fatty acids...and in
inordinate amounts...in their diets. I can only speculate, of course, but
where, as usual, are the studies we need, if we're to come up with some
verifiable and replicable answers?
>
snipped out Ric's stuff...
>Tom:
>Having been the target, on occasion, of NFL's hostility/zealotry, I cannot
>share your positive view of them. Their record on this list (available to
>all in the archives), shows that NFL:
>- frequently engaged in rude, arrogant, hostile behavior, against any raw-
>fooders who disagreed with their narrow dogma. Their behavior ultimately
>resulted in their expulsion from this list.
>- posted some chapters of their book, which were thoroughly debunked by list
>members (showing their book has a low factual content.)
Well, if this revelation is true, and I have no reason to not believe you,
I am sorry to hear it...but am also happy I was absent when the alleged mal
behavior occurred. Since they're no longer on this List, I am sadly
deprived of hearing their defense.
>In my opinion:
>- the NFL book is the worst raw food book ever written
>- the NFL book has such a low factual content that it should be sold only as
>fiction - their mindless, hostile behavior is unnecessary and inexcusable
>- their approach to raw foods is negative and counter-productive. They spend
>far more time preaching fear/hatred of cooked foods, than in providing
positive motivation to be a raw-fooder: their mindless slogan, "cooked food is
>poison" neatly summarizes their negative approach. I personally got into
>fruitarianism back in the 1970's, with a negative motivation - the fear of mucus -
>as promoted by the (crackpot) Arnold Ehret.
Tom...this is just my point. You've helped make it better than I:
I also think Ehret was a little touched...that was just my initial reaction
to his first reading, but, by gosh, while he did nothing to stir me up, he
certainly DID stir you up; enough, apparently, that you got into action
about your life and began exploring the connection between your nutritional
habits and your problems. So, bravo for Arnold! :) The guy obviously
made you start thinking more realistically, "crackpot" or not.
>Ultimately I found fruitarianism to be a sham,
>and a very negative experience. That is why I am such a severe critic of
>fruitarianism today. By promoting fruitarianism via fear/hatred, NFL is, in
>a sense, planting "seeds" that will bear very bitter "fruit" for them in the
>future. Unfortunately, they don't understand or realize this.
Guess I'm sitting here on a shaking fence, Tom, but it seems to me that
we're getting ourselves dangerously close here to something outsiders might
interpret as at least potentially hypocritical: I sense an anger in your
remarks about the NFL crew, and yet one of your own major complaints above
about their own m.o. was that it was an engagement in "fear/hatred" and
"hostility/zealotry." To me, at least, don't I detect the very same sort
of anti-fruitarian "hostility" and even "zealotry" in your own tone?
snipped out first retort of Kirt's here....
>>IMHO, NFL has more or less "Oprah-ised" the "raw foods message"--thus
>>assuring that it appears as a fad/gimmick instead of anything less than the
>>lunatic fringe. Perhaps they will make a buck at it. But if they say one
>>more time about how it is their _instinct_ which tells them to eat sweet
>>fruit to the exclusion of "anything with eyes", I may be inspired to buy
>>them a Red Rider BB Gun for April Fool's Day. ;)
>Tom:
>Thanks for the above information, and for your kind words re: my original
>post! I'm happy to hear that people outside the raw foods community can
>recognize the foolishness of the NFL message and diet. Whenever I wonder
>about the motivation of NFL, the title of an old Frank Zappa album comes
>to mind, "We're Only in it for the Money". I wonder why?...
>I agree that the NFL publicity push will ultimately set the raw foods
movement back for years to come. I can imagine serious, sensible raw fooders
>being asked if they think "cooked food is poison" or being asked about the evils of
>masturbation, a topic of interest to NFL.
Ric here, again:
Tom, I really find no pleasure in reiterating this, but: I heard this same
derogatory and negative refrain when my old friend Paavo Airola came out
with several of his very popular books, and again from some in their own
"community" of NH vs. the Diamonds on their first big book.
But, in both cases, after the dust settled, the authors made a lot of
money....AND TURNED LOTS OF PEOPLE ON TO THE IMPORTANCE OF SOUND "NATURAL"
NUTRITION in their lives. To me, it was a win-win deal.
Again, as much as I detested Adele Davis, just last night a dear friend of
mine reminded me that she was turned on to nutrition by that highly
educated lady...and my friend, accordingly, changed the way she raised her
kids; all for the better, because of the lady I saw as somewhat of a
charlatan!
Maybe all these years have seen me mellow a bit...I hope so. I'm far less
inclined to point my fingers at others than was the case in my younger
years;
now I notice that three of them are always pointing right back at me.
Cheers,
Ric
|
