Deborah Boyar <[log in to unmask]>:
>As I wrote in a private post to Kirt last week, I was trying to think of
>the most emotionally healthy and well-adjusted people I know (few though
>they be), and then, I thought of all the really self-disciplined, 100%
>party line (of whatever ilk) food purists I know (there's a few more of
>them).  None of these two sets intersect!  Of course, I fall into neither
>category, though I aspire towards the former, and usually end up in the
>latter...  :-D

Tom:
I agree with your observation. Some of the "100% raw NOW" people seem
to have very serious mental problems - hostile zealotry, full-blown eating
disorders, lunacy, etc. (This list has seen examples of hostile zealotry.)
Some other "100% raw" people display symptoms of less serious mental
impairments: mental spaciness, emotional fragility (just challenge their diet -
you will see this very quickly), sugar addiction, eating disorder behavior
(binge eating, cheating, lying about eating, obsession with food and its
"purity"), adherence to crackpot conspiracy/environmental schemes, emotional
immaturity, and so on.

The people who are less than 100% raw, seem to have less mental problems
than the 100% group. I am not 100% raw - I eat steamed veggies on occasion.
I tell people this because some of the "100% raw" people display very
poor mental health, and I don't want people to associate me with the
"crazies".

Of course, "100% raw" people are rare as so many of us occasionally indulge
in cooked or processed food.

Is it possible to be 100% raw and be mentally/emotionally healthy? In theory,
yes. In practice, it seems rare. The poor mental health of the raw zealots
contradicts their claims that their diet gives "perfect" health.

The interesting question here is whether the diet merely attracts fanatics,
or does the diet "make" (or promote) fanatics? In my opinion, both factors
are relevant.

Comments/discussion on the above is welcome.

Regards,
Tom Billings
[log in to unmask]