>> Is this just your pet theory, or do you have any information that backs
>> this up?
>Use search terms "acid alkaline ash", I like to use experience rather than
>theory.

I'm not interested in reading about "acid alkaline ash". I'm interested in
your
(apparent) suggestion that eating cereal grains causes one to eat cooked
meat
which (apparently) leads down the road to obesity. How can you possibly tie
all
of those statements together? First, you suggest that dogs like cooked meat
because
they eat commercial 'grainy' dog food. Then you say that eating too much
acid-forming
food causes us to reject other acid-causing food. Then you lump cereal
grains
into the same category with cooked meat, which suggests that if you eat
cereal
grains you should NOT want to eat cooked meat (and vice-versa).

What is your point?

>Try anopsology, it can't hurt.

Tried it for a period of time right after my experiment with a mostly raw
Natural
Hygiene vegan diet. If anything, anapsology seemed even 'less' natural to
me than
NH did. The 'rules' seemed quite arbitrary. And, like NH, were not based on
real
data, but rather, some kind of psuedo-scientific notion of "common sense".

>> Again, references?
>Again, experience of thousands of people seems better than theory.

I'm not asking for more theory - you've already provided quite enough of
that. I'm
looking for 'solid evidence' that your claims, whatever they may be, are
true. You
keep making statements that apparently cannot be supported by evidence, and
you are
presenting them as "truth". I find that disingenuous at best.

I have no problem with anecdotal evidence. But at some point you have to
bite the
bullet and at least attempt to prove a theory. Cause and effect, eh?

>> I don't think you have more or fewer dead cells than anyone else. Cells
die
>> and
>> are replaced daily. It's a part of life.
>So are poisons part of life, if you so choose.

And your response means what....? You maintain that the parasites attack
only dead
cells (a very Natural Hygiene-ish idea), of which you have very few. I
maintain
that you probably have just as many dead cells as the rest of us - it's the
'natural' way an organism replenishes itself and grows. Again, what
evidence do you
have to support your theory that you should have fewer dead cells? Or
better yet,
that the number of 'dead' cells should matter?