Recently some posts seem entirely focused on bashing others because although identifying themselves as raw they:

use supplements;

add b12 to their diet;

use a high volume of nuts;

eat all fruit;

eat no fruit;

eat all vegetables;

use honey;

acknowledge they likely have nutritional deficiencies;

eat fruits that may have almost microscopic insects on them;

actually have the nerve to die due to the effects of a disease;

etc, etc.


Where did a sense of balance run away to?

What about common sense?

Why has the chopping board become a tool of choice?


If a person has been making a gradual transition and is now 98.7654321% raw, are they allowed to identify themselves as raw or do they have to wait until the rest of the .012345679% of their diet is also 100% raw to earn a certificate allowing them to use the 'raw' credentials?

Then even so, which "authority figure" has finally conquered, overcome and subdued the other "authority figures" and is now the supreme guru with all the vested powers to dictate what can be eaten to still meet the "official" criteria of rawness?

I do hope that both common sense and balance are willing to return and bring along a sense of respect for the choices of others instead of the chopping board to dice and mince others being used at the tool of choice,because their views doesn't necessarily agree with ours.

Wishing you vibrant health

>Then even so, which "authority figure" has finally conquered, overcome and subdued the other "authority figures" and is now the supreme guru with all the vested powers to dictate what can be eaten to still meet the "official" criteria of rawness?

There is no central authority in raw. It is decentralized. Hence the question is not "what is the single standard" but instead "what is the most common practice (or commonly-agreed-to definition)?".

The latter question can be answered as:

A diet is raw if and only if >= 75% of the diet is raw foods, by weight, where raw means it has not been heated above a temperature in the 110-118 degree F range.

The arguments re: honey, supplements, sprouts, ferments, non-vegan foods, and the numerous other items held in disdain by various (natural hygiene) fundamentalists, are really peripheral. They are about the content of raw, not the %.

>I do hope that both common sense and balance are willing to return and bring along a sense of respect for the choices of others

The things you list (common sense, balance, respect) are rare in raw food diets. The raw/natural hygiene fundamentalists claim to have the ONE TRUE DIET, and anyone eating anything else is either deluded or an apostate. Pretty strange attitude, given that natural hygiene is dysfunctional, a failure in practice, and based on astounding ignorance about nature and reality.

Longtimeraw:

My post was not specifically targeting followers of NH principles. Rather, it was aimed at the apparent negative tone some of the postings were taking on, with a tendency towards putting down others because one approach to raw/uncooked eating did not match the other's -- almost like a holier than thou or rather a rawer than thou attitude.

There is obviously no one absolute 'right' way to this lifestyle/ way of eating. There's nothing wrong with agreeing that it's okay to disagree on views, but this can be done without the need to tear the other person's approach apart.

Wishing you vibrant health

From:

[www.rawfoods.com]

What is a Living Foodist or Raw Foodist?
A person who eats 75% or more living/raw food.. The more, the better. Optimally one should eat 100% raw and living foods if it feels right for them.

Pistachio Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Longtimeraw:
>
> My post was not specifically targeting followers
> of NH principles. Rather, it was aimed at the
> apparent negative tone some of the postings were
> taking on, with a tendency towards putting down
> others because one approach to raw/uncooked eating
> did not match the other's -- almost like a holier
> than thou or rather a rawer than thou attitude.
>
> There is obviously no one absolute 'right' way to
> this lifestyle/ way of eating. There's nothing
> wrong with agreeing that it's okay to disagree on
> views, but this can be done without the need to
> tear the other person's approach apart.

Pistachio, I couldn't agree with you more on this subject. We are all human beings, and the personal attacks that some people post on here are truly sad. It's like all their compassion is gone out the window as soon as someone is not either 100% raw or vegan. Or maybe the compassion just isn't there?? I don't know....I just really dislike personal attacks! They are never necessary and they never really accomplish anything.

Read carefully what I wrote. No personal attacks of any kind. But there is sharp criticism of the natural hygiene and fundamentalist raw approaches, for very good reasons. Those approaches can lead people to harm, and to make things worse, natural hygiene is full of itself. NH puports to be based on reason when in fact it is based on emotion, misinformation, intellectually dishonest pseudoscience, and is a cult of personality that worships Shelton and/or Fry.

Given that there are no actual rules for eating healthy, I think everyone should do what makes them happy, try things out and see what works.

This Elitist view a some of people take is pretty typical they think the way of life they have subscribed to is the right and anyone not doing what they are doing is wrong.

I have tried to be 100% raw so many times but the funny thing is, I crash horribly everytime and end up eating lots of cooked food until I can't stand it anymore and I go back to raw.

When I am eating 90% Raw is when I maintain best, I still consider myself a raw foodist.

It has been said on here time and time again, it is about your own personal health and wellbeing first. Some individuals miss that and feel the need to slam people because they eat a little cooked here and there, or some other food they don't quite agree with.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/08/2006 03:55PM by jadedshade.

For me, when I think of 100% raw, I feel sick, because I was getting pretty sick on 100% raw. I still eat raw, but not 100% anymore. Infact, I am eating a balance in alkaline-acid vegaterian diet now so I can get my strenth back so I don't feel like I'm dying anymore. I feel tons better. I think balance is the key. A person individually should seek it out on their own on the raw foods diet. There is so many opinions and I have followed a few of them, including Fred P. but none of them worked, so it is up to the individual to sense things out on their own. It is their own health to worry about anyway. Also everyone has a different matabolism, so how can one say eat a certain way? I can't digest acids very well as I recently learned, and I have acidosis even worse now. Now I eat a lot of vegatables and steamed potatoes to alkalize my body.





Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 11/09/2006 09:37PM by shep252.

what's wrong with natural hygiene?
its the most uncluttered
simple
cheapest
of all the other raw vegan diets
its like the kinda diet that u could live off
if u had a plot of land
and no supplement stores or online shops to get extra raw stuff

what gives?

i think its a two way street
i've seen an equal amount of attack on natural hygiene
as i have on non natural hygiene

but what they hey

to each their own

Shep, I'm happy for you that you are feeling better. I was worried about you and kept checking back to see how you are doing. =)

Rawrrr! Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Shep, I'm happy for you that you are feeling
> better. I was worried about you and kept checking
> back to see how you are doing. =)

Thanks Rawrrr,
I've got tears in my eyes, now. Thanks for caring. (Happy tears of course.)

la_veronique Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> what's wrong with natural hygiene? its the most uncluttered
> simple cheapest of all the other raw vegan diets
> its like the kinda diet that u could live off

> but what they hey to each their own


La V.:

I couldn't agree more. Some of the initial books I read on a more natural way of eating were by NH authors, including T.C. Fry, Shelton and others. Coming from a typical SAD diet and its typical digestive problems, I experienced significant positive changes in a fairly short time by applying information I read in those publications. In one instance, by implementing suggestions on food combining at the very next meal, I did not have the usual indigestion issues. I never implemented the NH way of eating 100%, but saw benefits in what I did choose to incorporate.

In any dietary system if someone looks hard enough they'll be able to find flaws or something that doesn't agree with everyone--whether it's raw, vegan/vegetarian, meat based, macrobiotics; or Atkin's, Gabriel Cousens' or Doug Graham's versions. The obvious thing is that if a specific dietary format is not working as expected and is possibly affecting one's health adversely, then tweak it and make modifications as needed.

No one is baptized as a member into a food cult (NH or other) with a high priest standing over with a pitchfork and an eternal roasting fire, threatning condemnation if that specific dietary perspective is not adhered to.

Wishing you vibrant health

I don't know about the patent on raw, but the trademark on "living foods" is owned by the Ann Wigmore institute.

hey dudettes ( and dudes)

don't u ALL know that it is I alone that holds the patent on the definition of raw?

yep, that's right

u heard it here

la_veronique Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> don't u ALL know that it is I alone that holds the
> patent on the definition of raw?

My agent told me that I held the patent. I will have to get my private investigator on to this one

I'll just have to get MY sherlockholmes to check this out as well

something tells me that something very FUNKY is going on

Funky Rob Wrote:

> My agent told me that I held the patent. I will
> have to get my private investigator on to this one

Sorry Rob, La V. bid for office first, and she seems 'naturally ' ready for the role she's been cultivating'.

As such, I hereby officially proclaim, along with full support by the living foods found in nature (Bryan didn't say that this group was already trademarked) the individual named below as the warden of the garden, with accompanying proof of why she deserved it:

Lettuce (let us)
accede:

Vegans
romaine
nifty
queen

While La V. is tending to the raw world on this side of the 'pond', ye sir Rob are dutifully assigned all territories east of the pond. And of course I'll collect royalties from both sides into perpetuity. Sounds very fair to me and all will benefit from the patent business.

longtimeraw Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> >Then even so, which "authority figure" has
> finally conquered, overcome and subdued the other
> "authority figures" and is now the supreme guru
> with all the vested powers to dictate what can be
> eaten to still meet the "official" criteria of
> rawness?
>
> There is no central authority in raw. It is
> decentralized. Hence the question is not "what is
> the single standard" but instead "what is the most
> common practice (or commonly-agreed-to
> definition)?".

Follow WHO dietary guideliness for your diet-- that is a single vested authority with the highest standards. And make most of your kcals raw. Do those two things and you'll be less likely to run into trouble than by following some guru telling you that sweet fruit is a deadly poison or that you need to take maca or whatever.

full report
[www.who.int]

executive summary
[www.who.int]