LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for RAW-FOOD Archives

   

RAW-FOOD Archives

RAW-FOOD Archives


RAW-FOOD@LISTSERV.ICORS.ORG


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

RAW-FOOD Home

RAW-FOOD Home

RAW-FOOD  May 2000

RAW-FOOD May 2000

Subject:

Re: Licorice

From:

"Thomas E. Billings" <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Tue, 16 May 2000 21:17:05 -0700

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (188 lines)

Mike Kinnaird <[log in to unmask]>:
>What does 'Utility argument' mean?

Tom:
As before: it works for me. It's really that simple; nothing
else is required.

Mike Kinnaird <[log in to unmask]>:
>I'm trying to find out what you think is the natural diet of human beings.
>If you accept we have one that is.

Tom:
I don't view humans as having one very narrow/specific natural diet.
Instead there is a wide range of diets that can be considered
"natural" in varying degrees.

Mike Kinnaird <[log in to unmask]>:
>You say you do not advocate any one diet but to my mind that is a cop out.
>You have studied diet extensively - can you not use that information to
>come up with a diet plan that you feel is ideal for our species. Every
>other organism on the surface of the planet has it's own diet - what do
>you think is ours?

Tom:
I will address the "cop-out" part later. The idea that there is one
single "ideal" diet that is best for everyone is:

1. The "holy grail" of dietary idealists
2. A marketing tool used by raw/vegan (and other) diet gurus to
dupe their (idealistic) followers.

As well, look around you - there are folks thriving on a wide range of
diets. "One ideal diet"? Doesn't agree with the available evidence.

Mike Kinnaird <[log in to unmask]>:
>We cannot be absolutely sure of what people do behind closed doors or that
>what they say is the truth. You are the first to crush bad science but yet
>are willing to take the word of a few FTT as evidence that a raw diet is
>unsuitable.

Tom:
Re: closed doors; True - many raw vegan gurus are obvious fakes. :-)

It's not a few FTT: the normal result, long-term, of 100% raw vegan is
FTT. If you would bother to read Beyond Veg, you will note that
vegan promoter Michael Klaper is doing the very first study of
conventional vegan FTT. No studies yet of raw FTT. All we have
is anecdotal evidence: but there  is a LOT of evidence, most of
it negative (in the long-term).

Mike Kinnaird <[log in to unmask]>:
>Most of the people who start on a raw diet are very very sick and are
>looking for there health back. All the people I have come into contact with
>report massive health improvement albeit in the short term. If this diet
can
>do this for the very sickest........My point is that FTT may be that the
>diet did not solve that particular persons problem.

Tom:
I have read of massive health improvements on the Atkins diet: a diet
high in cooked meat. Does that mean you should go Atkins?  :-)
As well, fasting short-term may greatly improve health:
does that mean that you should never eat?  Short-term and long-term
are 2 different things.

Mike Kinnaird <[log in to unmask]>:
>The Pottingers cats show us that we may not be in the best shape
>genetically. We cannot expect diet to cure this is one generation.

Tom:
Something tells me you have not read Pottenger's papers. :-)
Check out:
http://www.beyondveg.com/tu-j-l/raw-cooked/raw-cooked-1h.shtml

Mike Kinnaird <[log in to unmask]>:
>or 3), he disagrees with your conclusions. You may be right Tom and the
>other guy wrong but I think you would agree that looking at our closest

Tom:
Inasmuch as I have had the "proof" reviewed by 4 different
statisticians,
all of whom said the "proof" is utter nonsense (though it is
unintentionally hilarious), and the arrogant, dishonest author of the
"proof" apparently has little if any knowledge of statistics (and
very little aptitude in other areas of science, as shown in his
irrational writings), there is little question that the "proof" is
nonsense.

Mike Kinnaird <[log in to unmask]>:
>Some do kill but as I said
>before, the BBC told me (via a wildlife programme :)) that they did not
need
>to do this!!

Tom:
Hold the above thought -- you contradict it, next (incidental
insects are "not needed" per above):

Mike Kinnaird <[log in to unmask]>:
>1.Intestinal receptors for heme iron-would these not be needed for
>incidental insects and therefore not strong evidence for meat-eating at
all.

Mike Kinnaird <[log in to unmask]>:
>2.B-12 an essential nutrient - Where do the non-killing primates get their
>b12. This is not evidence for meat eating. My info is that pernicious
>anaemia is more common in meat-eaters. B12 comes from bacteria - in meat
yes
>but also on plants and is also made inside a *healthy* gut.

Tom:
Yawn. When are you going to read more of the site? B-12 is discussed
in depth there. Start at:

http://www.beyondveg.com/billings-t/comp-anat/comp-anat-1a.shtml

Mike Kinnaird <[log in to unmask]>:
>I haven't the time to answer every single point on your conclusion but I do
>agree that if we use primates as a model, then you can't ignore the animal
>products. Of course, primates don't cook, I don't fancy bugs or raw cow so
>what to do?

Tom:
Trying to address the conclusion/summary without reading the source
material
is inappropriate. Read the source (on BV) and come back when you have
intelligent questions and comments.

Mike Kinnaird <[log in to unmask]>:
>Thanks Tom, you have my address, I'm eager to know.......

Tom:
I will get around to it in the next few days. Things are very hectic
for me now. This discussion, which is frankly showing signs of
circularity, is a serious time drain. Please read more of the site and
come
back later with rational questions.

Mike Kinnaird <[log in to unmask]>:
>What is the failure rate exactly Tom and what is the diet that failed.
>That's not science is it Tom? I am cautious which is why I'm talking to you

Tom:
The fact that there are no published scientific studies on raw FTT
is mentioned over and over on the site. It follows then that
your statement "That's not science" is 1) somewhat misleading,
2) does not say much, 3) is a poor reflection on you: you really
should
read the site.

Mike Kinnaird <[log in to unmask]>:
>Fair enough - What is your diet specifically in detail and how did you
>arrive at those choices.

Tom:
My 1997 diet is described in an article titled something like
"1997 Raw Expo Speaker Survey" in the articles section of
http://www.living-foods.com. The current diet is similar but includes
a
small amount of dairy, plus more cooked. PS this is a boring and
irrelevant question. Repeat after me: Tom is NOT a diet guru. :-)

Mike Kinnaird <[log in to unmask]>:
>Not recommending a diet is a cop
>out IMO. Saying here's lots of information now you decide is also a cop
out.
>Do you expect everyone to go into all this in as much detail as you? and if
>so then that is just asking for a food obsession!

Tom:
Your attitude is revealing. I refuse to advocate any one diet for many
reasons. What you call a "cop out" is rooted in a profound respect for
the dignity, individuality, and intelligence of other people. Unlike
the diet gurus, I do think that people are smart enough to decide
how to run their own lives. (This respect applies in other spheres of
life:
politically I am a minarchist libertarian.)

By being an info source rather than a diet guru, I am neutral and can
reach
a much wider audience.

Material above written by Tom Billings is copyright 2000, all rights
reserved. Do not crosspost without permission.

Tom Billings
http://www.beyondveg.com

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

August 2011
January 2009
April 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
January 2006
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003
December 2002
November 2002
October 2002
July 2002
June 2002
May 2002
April 2002
March 2002
February 2002
January 2002
December 2001
November 2001
October 2001
September 2001
August 2001
July 2001
June 2001
May 2001
April 2001
March 2001
February 2001
January 2001
December 2000
November 2000
October 2000
September 2000
August 2000
July 2000
June 2000
May 2000
April 2000
March 2000
February 2000
January 2000
December 1999
November 1999
October 1999
September 1999
August 1999
July 1999
June 1999
May 1999
April 1999
March 1999
February 1999
January 1999
December 1998
November 1998
October 1998
September 1998
August 1998
July 1998
June 1998
May 1998
April 1998
March 1998
February 1998
January 1998
December 1997
November 1997
October 1997
September 1997
August 1997
July 1997
June 1997
May 1997
April 1997
March 1997
February 1997
January 1997
December 1996
November 1996
October 1996
September 1996
August 1996
July 1996
June 1996
May 1996
April 1996
March 1996
February 1996
January 1996
October 1995
September 1995
August 1995
July 1995
June 1995
May 1995

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTSERV.ICORS.ORG

Secured by F-Secure Anti-Virus CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager