I have met people who experience states of waking dreams due to their spiritual experience. It does not have to do anything with the diet. I am surprised that this fact seems so strange to some, but I guess that people like to think in terms of what they are able to understand in terms of an ordinary 3D reality.

Anyway, on the actual topic, limiting the experience to that of micro-elements, and assuming that deficiency is the issue in any issue, is over-simplification. If a raw foodist experiences any problems, and I would be causious about the definition what a problem is, the causes can be excess due to over-eating, too much fat, not enough fruit, dehydration, not eating simply, being out of tune with the body's instincts, for example.

I think that it is presumptious to assume that Storm experiences some type of deficiency. Why not ask him directly, or at least wait and see, before making some pseudo-diagnosis here?

Gosia


RawGosia channel
RawGosia streams

Isn't it equally presumptous that he's becoming spiritually enlightened?

No one's making medical diagonoses here, simply suggsting he may want to get his symptoms checked out by a health professional. By his own admission he's not feeling that well. It couldn't hurt to get some tests done.

Narz, you may be mis-interpreting things I said. Note that I suggest opening oneself to including other than only "deficiency" explanation.

Also, if you are concerned about Storm, why not write to him directly to offer your suggestions instead of doing it here?

Gosia


RawGosia channel
RawGosia streams

Maybe I already have.

Anyway, whatever he chooses to do I hope he's honest about it and I'm curious to see what becomes of him.

>Anyway, on the actual topic, limiting the experience to that of micro-elements, and assuming that deficiency is the issue in any issue, is over-simplification.

It's the other way around. Assuming your body will "tell you what it needs" and that all needs will be satisfied by instinct are the oversimplifications.

Nutrition (and metabolism) are exceedlingly complicated. We have only a very crude understanding. But it has been shown that we have certain needs that must be met, and it has also been shown that many raw foodists and vegans run into problems with deficiencies when measured.

Satisfying needs should be the penultimate goal. They are not something that some geeks without life just pulled out of a hat.

[www.nap.edu]
[www.nap.edu]
[www.nap.edu]

"Assuming your body will "tell you what it needs" and that all needs will be satisfied by instinct are the oversimplifications."

You may think so, but it is the nature's way. All animals follow their biologically correct diet without having to do scientific research. Humans are those who defy their nature. The mountains of books and papers amount to hardly anything at all.

By the way, there is scientific research (bravo) that points out to the fact that animals are capable of choosing the foods with the nutrient that they need, without any intelectualization at all, naturally. This is what we call instinct.

Nature is simple. And, complicated, that is, for humans to understand. Well, there is some hope yet.

Gosia


RawGosia channel
RawGosia streams

From: Walford, R, "Beyond the 120-year diet", pp. 68-69

"Many people suppose that animals would instinctively
select what is good for them nutritionally if given
the chance, and that humans would, too, if they were
not heavily influenced by advertising and cultural
and ethical conditioning. This is a delightful idea.
Rousseau would have loved it. But, Dr. Morris Ross's
study on dietary self-selection, aging, and disease
showed it to be quite naive. (Nature, 250:263, 1974).

"In this study, among four populations of rats as follows:

group 1: fed 10% protein throughout life
group 2: 22% "
group 3: 51%
group 4: allowed to select what they wanted from the
three available diets.

"The rats that self-selected, group 4, had the
largest body sizes, grew most rapidly, and
instinctively self-selected food combinations that
would optimize for growth and development, but their
choices resulted in a far higher incidence of
tumors and other diseases. Two-thirds of the
self-selected rats had one or more of cancer,
kidney disease, heart disease, or prostate disease.
Compared to the 10% protein group, incidence of
cancer was more than double, kidney disease, almost
three times higher, heart disease- six times higher,
and prostate disease, over 12 times higher.

"..it seems most unlikely that we can trust our
instincts to select what is good for us as individuals"

Also--


A Pittsburg news report told of the escape of a 150-pound 10-year old female gorilla from her pen. She crossed a wide moat and scaled a 14-foot wall to enjoy nearly an hour of freedom and many foods of her choice. She did not choose salads and fresh fruit, but instead helped herself to muffins, cherry Danish and orange soda.

ref:
Linda Wilson Fuoco and Don Hopey , Pittsburgh zoo denizen makes a break for a taste of freedom and junk food, Monday, February 05, 2001 [www.post-gazette.com]



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/27/2006 02:31PM by arugula.

Thank you Arugula. It is helpful to read that science and evidence gathering are still keys in our understanding of life.

>All animals follow their biologically correct diet without having to do scientific research.

So seagulls eating at the landfill, raccoons, possums and bears eating out of garbage cans -- that is their "biologically correct" diet? Or is your view a NH over-simplification?

>Humans are those who defy their nature. The mountains of books and papers amount to hardly anything at all.

Are you saying that research doesn't matter? Science? Logic? This is unclear.

>Nature is simple. And, complicated, that is, for humans to understand.

True. Animals eating garbage are being opportunists - a powerful survival strategy.

As for understanding nature, the view of nature promoted in natural hygiene is: inaccurate, false, based on pseudo-science, and an over-simplification. NH is an insult to your intelligence.

longtimeraw Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> So seagulls eating at the landfill, raccoons,
> possums and bears eating out of garbage cans --
> that is their "biologically correct" diet? Or is
> your view a NH over-simplification?

But they don't make that food, if it wasn't for humans, that stuff wouldn't be there and therefore they wouldn't eat it!

Rob

--
Rob Hull - Funky Raw
My blog: [www.rawrob.com]

While at times it might seem like other posters might be attacking you, and I have seen instances where people were less than diplomatic in their phrasing, generally I would say this forum has very polite posters. I have been debated several times and so long as I was well-mannered, I felt I was treated fairly.

To add to the discussion, if Storm truly does not supplement at all, it would be very interesting and perhaps educational to see how he fares over the next years of his life. I hope, like Narz, that he is very honest about what he is doing and keeps us up to date.

arugula, just because something is published, does not mean it is correct. This is by the way a well-known, well-evidenced fact. Old theories become irrelevant, and are replaced by new discoveries, and this does not stop here. For example, in relation to the work published in 1974 that you mentioned, see [www.bio.com].

Anyway, I am quite happy to accept that everyone follows the path that they are comfortable with. As I am happy to accept the path that I am following. I find it most enjoyable, effortless (and mathematically most effective). I am happy to share, naturally.

Back to the original topic, I agree that it would be interesting and educational to see how Storm does in the not so distant future. Also, it would be interesting to see how others who do not supplement and follow a raw vegan diet, do. Unfortunately, there is no database of all such people. I know of at least several non-supplementing long-term raw vegans. Also, I read of a family of non-supplementing family of three generations (cooked) vegans who do well. I wish cases like this were available in a transparent and honest manner, for everyone to see.

Gosia


RawGosia channel
RawGosia streams

Yes, I had read about that one.

But that does not deny the fact, which has been replicated in many animals, that they will choose in disease-promoting ways, when given the choice. They will overdo it with protein and fat if they have the choice. I see this with my dogs, even. We are hard-wired to prefer the calorie-dense, lower fiber, easier to eat choices usually, or whatever tastes better.

But we are not necessarily drawn to turnip greens when our bone mineral density is abnormally low. If we were, we wouldn't have so many osteoporotic people at relatively young ages. We wouldn't have so many elective pathologies. 6-n-propylthiouracil (PROP) tasters, who inherit a sensitivity to bitter tastes, for example, consistently reject green vegetables. But they might have higher risks for cetain types of cancers compared to people who tolerate and enjoy green vegetables. (PMID: 15810630, PMID: 7661111)

It is probably true that much research is garbage. This is especially true in molecular biology, where there is a great deal of speculation and jumping on the bandwagon of the day.

[medicine.plosjournals.org]
[www.pnas.org]

It may also be true for much of the work in nutrition.

But it doesn't mean that we discount everything wholesale. Far from it. We have to weigh the evidence: possible, probable, unlikely, based on the body of work that precedes, and accompanies it.

Substances have earned the name "vitamins" becuase they are vital to our functioning. We will get sick if we don't get enough of them (or too much, or in the wrong proportions).

We are probably not going to get enough of them if we are contaminated with magical thinking and a distrust of the scientific method so strong that we reject it entirely.

There are some fundamentals that have held up pretty well, and they continue to undergo fine tuning. It doesn't make sense to throw them in the toilet and say they are worth nothing when the continue to have an impact on our healthspans.

Intuitively many people here feel and "know" that raw is better although the reasons that they state might be wrong or inadequate to describe the changes that they observe in their bodies. Or their time frame is too short.

It will be papers that elucidate the reasons why. It will be papers that get the government agencies to make appropriate general recommendations to the public. It might take another 10-20 years but it will happen.

In the meantime, I want to see what happens first! That's why I keep reading the papers, pretty much as soon as they come out or as soon as I am able to access them.

I read somewhere(on their website, I think) that Jinjee said Storm eats very little and mostly drinks orange juice.So it could be a deficiency of some sort.I hope everything turns out okay.

Sure, it does not make sense to throw all the research away. I am quite interested in the research too (being a scientist ha ha). What I do not want to do is treat the published research as an absolute guide. Published research is only the image what the scientists currently understand, by no means it is the final and correct answer. I like to rely on my body and am interested in research that explains truths that are in synch with what my body-and-mind tells me.

I will say the research has accomplished a fair bit in nutrition, when the raw food diet becomes the officially recommended one. I may not live to see this, but at least I have the pleasure of participating in the exploration of it, and pass what I learn to my kids. I would like the scientists to take notice, and learn from our experience by studying it and analyzing it to their hearts content. Good start is better than nothing.

Gosia


RawGosia channel
RawGosia streams

Hulaqueen:

Great name FYI. Awesome post - thank you. Will refer clients to the blog. They need to FEEL his energy sometimes when the going gets tough.

Blissed be,

Annie

Anne Kaspar
BodyByBliss.com
bodybybliss@gmail.com
505.690.0169