Loren: >I read the entire Beyond Veg site, and find nothing but opinion backed by >partial information. > >I certainly wouldn't recommend anyone take this site seriously, or >recommend anything written there as being the least bit authoritative or >conclusive. In fact, this may well be the most poorly supported material >I've ever seen. Tom: Readers are invited to check the 3 core articles on the site: Paleolithic Diet vs. Vegetarianism http://www.beyondveg.com/nicholson-w/hb/hb-interview1b.shtml Is Cooked Food Poison? http://www.beyondveg.com/tu-j-l/raw-cooked/raw-cooked-1a.shtml Comparative Anatomy and Physiology Brought Up To Date http://www.beyondveg.com/billings-t/comp-anat/comp-anat-1a.shtml Click on the above URLs and scroll down to the bottom of the pages. Then click on the reference list/bibliography. You will see that these articles - unlike the typical rawist books and web sites - are based on extensive research published in peer-reviewed scientific journals. More importantly, I have heard a number of vague claims such as yours, that the scientific info on Beyond Veg is somehow wrong or unreliable. To date, no one making such claims has presented any peer-reviewed, scientific information to support their position. Do you have any peer-reviewed, scientific information that disputes the material in the above 3 major articles? If you do have it, then present it here (with the identifying reference citations available in full as is done on Beyond Veg) so that the rest of us can examine it. The coin of scientific exchange is to provide cited evidence, not simply casting vague aspersions that something is supposedly "unscientific," which is all that has been presented here so far. Loren: >I believe what I believe, and you believe what you believe. I won't waste >any time trying to convince you of anything, and you might want to save your >time as well. Tom: Then why the reply? My last post was simply a short list of URLs that provide scientific critiques of your claims. You could have easily ignored it. Loren: >My beliefs are formed not just from my own opinion from one failed personal >experiment, as yours seem to be, but from years of personal experience, >both with my own health, and with the many people I have worked with. Tom: Your assumption about me is false. I have seen many folks fail on 100% raw vegan diets, in the long term. Indeed that is the usual outcome. Then I look at the claimed successes and they are usually dubious, per the info available to me. My conclusions are based on extensive experience: over the last 25+ years I have been a vegetarian (8 years fruitarian, later hygiene-style, and other variations including raw lacto-veg currently). As well, I have been active in SF-LiFE (a raw vegan support group) for over 5 years, and have observed and discussed the experiences of many others in this time. Finally, I have been contacted (on Internet) by many folks who tried raw vegan, and it didn't work for them despite making major efforts. Loren: >You could find some help from a practitioner who understands the body's >needs and physiology, and figure out and remedy those issues. Tom: The extensive information available to me suggests that such a practicioner clearly won't be a fruitarian. :-) Loren: >Alternatively, you could wage a disinformation campaign, and focus the >attention on the "shortcomings" of the diet/lifestyle, rather than looking >honestly at your self. But you've already done that. Tom: If I want disinformation, I need only read any of numerous rawist books. :-) Loren: >As I mentioned recently, during and after your recent personal attacks, I >heard from many people directly, several of whom said they have also been >raw vegan for a while, and have also reduced their daily caloric intake to >"impossibly low levels." These people did not write through the network >because they were not willing to be targets of personal attacks by you and >others. Tom: I was below starvation levels for some time when I was a fruitarian. It worked short-term but it didn't work long-term - there are lower limits, and I found out the hard way. Over and above my own experience, I have been consulted by a number of people over the years who were emaciated and could not gain weight on 100% raw regimes (this after trying the advice of numerous raw "experts"). Also, in an earlier post I mentioned a recent discussion over on the main bulletin board at living-foods.com, where a raw-friendly nutritionist (a registered dietician, who is also a raw vegan/natural hygienist) reported that all of the (many) rawists he has seen over the years lose weight if their calorie intake is much below the "standard" levels. Loren: >For those of you out there who may be a bit more open-minded than Tom, I >simply say that there is a wealth of research to back up the points I've >made which Tom disputes today. Tom: Then why not present it? Loren: >If you haven't already looked at the Beyond Veg website that he keeps >referring to, and you have an hour or so to kill (literally), and you'd >like a good laugh, take a look at the "science" that "proves" his points. Tom: If you only spend an hour on the site, you won't get the "flavor." Plan on reading for a few days - it is big. As for science, you have presented none so far. In contrast, there is plenty of actual, peer-reviewed legitimate science on the Beyond Veg website: http://www.beyondveg.com Tom Billings