statistics are an unreliable source of information. The NY times magazine article does a good job of hammering home that idea, and that comes from a journalist (usually another unreliable source)

that being said I totally agree with arugula on at least the following:


>Had you read more about what makes them different and less
>than ideal for human health, you would certainly agree with
>me on this point. And you would probably see the need for
>incorporating more greens, whether or not your body "tells"
>you that they are needed at a particular moment in time.

>>We can
>> learn far more by connecting with our body than by
>> studying fractured research.

>How can you be certain that your body's signals are
>not fractured? Many people are so enamored of the
>idea of raw fruitarianism or some near variant that
>they will propel themselves into a state of disaster
>rather than realizing that they really do need help
>and changing directions. TC Fry, for example, had a
>severe B12 deficiency at his time of death.



eating bread or some other thing the body has cleansed of and weighing the experience of its effects are not the same as introducing something like flax oil.
eating a diet strictly of sweet fruit (not saying anyone here is advocating that) but as an example might just be a streched out analogy of the coffee example, and one might feel good for long periods of time. Most people on a fruitarian diet assume their body is already in some kind of adam and eve state and therefore neglect dealing with the extremely cleansing affect of high fruit diets that their bodies do not eliminate on their own. this is one problem, neglecting supplements or any 'fractured' (i'm assuming this means not found by picking it off a tree) food of any kind (like vegetable juicing) is probably another.

you can't always tell what your body needs based on how you feel currently, I don't know why people keep using that as some kind of logic. its really the same thing as the coffee situation.

"I don't know why people keep using that as some kind of logic. its really the same thing as the coffee situation."

Far from it. If one is really in tune with their body, they will not be able to drink coffee without any adverse effects. Myself, if I have a very small amount of coffee, or even decaf, I get affected, feel stimulated (and uneasy) and won't be able to sleep that night. Of course, trying to rely on one's body in a situation when someone is incapable of hearing body's signals is not something I would recommend. In that case, intellectual argument is a better option, for sure. Nevertheless, I consider relying on natural instincts a far better (even from the numerical complexity point of view ha ha) option. Thankfully, our ability to hear our body does develop as we progress in our raw food journey.


Gosia


RawGosia channel
RawGosia streams

If I may, I would like to make a few remarks about this interesting discussion so far.

<<In statistics, combining the data from various studies is a big unscientific no-no. >>

I thought that in principle this could be done, like in meta-analytical studies, which "combines the results of several studies that address a set of related research hypotheses" (see [en.wikipedia.org] for example). I would guess that it is an application of the central limit theorem.

I would, however, strongly agree with the criticisms of this method and of the scientific community in general (at least when it comes to more industry based science such as medicine, biology, etc..) which are stated in that same article and which I highlight here:

A weakness of the method is that sources of bias are not controlled by the method. A good meta-analysis of badly designed studies will still result in bad statistics. Robert Slavin has argued that only methodologically sound studies should be included in a meta-analysis, a practice he calls 'best evidence meta-analysis'. Other meta-analysts would include weaker studies, and add a study-level predictor variable that reflects the methodological quality of the studies to examine the effect of study quality on the effect size. Another weakness of the method is the heavy reliance on published studies, which may increase the effect as it is very hard to publish studies that show no significant results. This publication bias or "file-drawer effect" (where non-significant studies end up in the desk drawer instead of in the public domain) should be seriously considered when interpreting the outcomes of a meta-analysis.

These criticisms, which I think are the gist of what Bryan and Gosia are saying, are to my mind something to be taken very much into consideration. I am pretty sure, however, that arugula is well aware of this, and in any case knowledge of such things can then enable someone to seek out "genuine" and "valuable" scientifc papers, which, although perhaps few and far between, do exist. So in this sense, a more advanced scientifc and nutritional understanding, being aware of such issues, is a help rather than a hindrance, in my opinion, in the search for the principles of good health.

Cheers,
J

rawgosia,

the coffee example is an ANALOGY about someone in a different state of health. the way you are using it here is still the same as bread, as a substance your body can no longer tolerate. Someone drinking coffee on a SAD will claim that it has certain positive effects, in a sense for there particular system of functioning it does, in a way this has to do with how we might JUDGE them as being out of tune with their bodies

yes we are likely far more intuned with our bodies after being raw. the point is that people assume they are healthy as opposed to not healthy...thinking clearly as opposed to not thinking clearly..when really they are just at a phase closer to such.

your stance of fractured foods clearly stems from ideology and not from experience, which is a totally fine and necessary way to operate, because we DO NOT make decesions purely on how are bodies are functioning. we look to concepts (from others and also onces developed on our own filtered from previous experience and 'knowledge') that gauge how we are feeling.

You said that you found the practice of raw on your own. if you actually believe this to be true, it doesn't make sense to argue this further.

but as an example
you could be eating a frutarian diet and feel great and after years of stirring up toxins and not expelling them you could get ill and die. and if at that point you were listening to your body you would have no clue what was going on, you would have to seek out information based on science. at least 'statistics of one' as someone put it. some piece of data that has a history (although not the same as proof) of effecting a situation positively or negatively.

what are the signals your body sends you of a B-12 deficiency?
(even answering this question would confirm that you at some point relied on statistical data to implement how you think and care for your body)

to me the answer would be: I don't know, my body is not remotely in that place yet, so i'm going to listen to what people have to say about it that have long term experience, and try to implement those practices if they seem safe based on whether the concepts make sense at my LEVEL of previous knowledge and also how my body tolerates them

Rawgosia,


Well, for me it is intellect that guides me in the right direction. If it was up to instincts I would still be eating the SAD. Most people listen to their instincts and most such people eat the SAD and most of them notice nothing wrong. Their bodies are not sending them signals they are eating unhealthy. However, if these people picked up a book and did some reading, they will
realize how horrible the SAD is and start making some changes.

However, each to their own. What works for some does not work for others.

By the way, your approach is interesting if you don't mind explained it to us. Whenever you like.

No system has ever as yet existed which did not in some form involve the exploitation of some human beings for the advantage of others. John Dewey 1921.

anaken,

I totally agree with your criticism.

"You said that you found the practice of raw on your own."

I find this hard to believe because we live in a society where cooking is normal and has been around for a very long time. Your body is not going to tell you cooked food is harmful, it will work with whatever you fed it. When I was vegan I never saw any harms in cooking until I discover raw. Now, I am raw vegan.

"what are the signals your body sends you of a B-12 deficiency?"

good question, or how will your body even know b12 exist or what foods contain it without some reading?


Intellect over body is the safe approach.

No system has ever as yet existed which did not in some form involve the exploitation of some human beings for the advantage of others. John Dewey 1921.

anaken, greenman, one can apply what they can understand and are familiar with. There is no way, I could explain to you my approach, without you misunderstanding it or misinterpreting it, like you have, unless you've experienced it yourself. To me, it is like describing an apple to a person who can't see it. No matter how many words I use, there will be always more questions. Yet, when I look an apple, it is so simple to me. My approach is so simple. I eat when hungry, I choose foods that appeal to my body (before AND after the meal), I hear my body signals that guide me in my choices and in my learning, and use my intelligence as a tool to analyze my lessons. That's all. Now, as far as understanding why this works for me, that's another matter. Explaining it could take many words, answering many questions. The simplest, and I am sure not satisfying explanation to you, is that the nature knows best. As I go, I am sure, I will write something up that may be clear to you than this. Not now! Yes, I agree, for you it is better to use intellect over body.

==============================

Jose, as you've noticed, the meta-analysis is a questionable method. Nevertheless, my remark was about common practice, by non-scientists, of taking several studies and making various false remarks based on these, taking averages from various studies (!), or making claims about the whole population based on statistical data that does not satisfy some basic standards (as I've seen done by some nutritionists/raw foodists who actually claim to be scientists!).

I would like to say that the word "scientific" is used too frequently, often for self-gratification or criticism of others by those who have little understanding of the term. Some presume that they behave scientifically if they read and quote published research; and they demand same from others. Often, they misquote and misrepresent the research that they report, and assume more than has been found in that research. Some others think that if they learn biology or chemistry, then they will become truly scientific. However, you will not become a scientist by studying books/articles, not even by quoting/summarizing them. By doing so, you can only become a scholar. To become a scientist, qualities are needed that cannot be acquired by mere studies. These include:
* the ability to think logically,
* the ability to think critically,
* the ability to understand and present research findings in a truthful (as is) and ethical manner,
and above all
* the ability to deliver novel, original and significant results, including methodology, findings and applications, which influence the shape of the current research, and give this research significant new directions.

Because I am a scientist, I do not see being scientific as the ultimate heights of existence. (Saying plainly and rudely - Ooooo, scientific, woooow ... No! Poo poo!) To me, it is only a tool that should be used with intelligence. Intelligence and wisdom is the real heights (yay!).


Gosia


RawGosia channel
RawGosia streams

whatever, your website says you went raw in 2004 after noticing that Demi Moore was a raw foodist.

your approach is fine, except for the fact that you judge things outside the spectrum of your experience, and don't seem to be able to comprehend that this way of operating stems directly from following the principals of natural higene.

if you arn't drawn to vegetable jucing, fine, don't cite it as a fractured food based on your experience of 'feeling good' from eating fruit for 2 years. this in no way is a proof that it servers no purpose in your diet or anyone elses.

I agree, "be your own guru" but many of the leading raw foodists, although easy to criticise have uncovered developments in thought since evaluating that NH is an unsustainable practice. These might not all prove to be right. NH however assumes thats the body is in a place that it is not. you seem to be doing the same and your horse is very high.

anaken,

Its funny, because you share very little of your own personal experience, instead you opt to write about stuff you've read about or stuff that certain raw proponents talk about. Gosia on the other has shared tons about her personal experience with working in mathematics, science, research, and her own personal experience of how her body has healed on the raw food diet.

Because of the way Gosia shares about her experience, you have make the incorrect assumption that Gosia is a Natural Hygienist. Could it be possible that Gosia came to the same conclusions as the Natural Hygiene folk did without reading their material, without being a blind follower of Shelton or Fry, and that perhaps others have come to this same conclusion based on their own personal experience of their own personal healing?

When I read about Natural Hygiene, it matched my personal experience, so I wanted to read more. The more I practiced some of their healthful lifestyle habits, the more my body healed. The thing that all raw proponents that you are listening to hate about Natural Hygiene is that there is no way to make money on it.

When I shared about some of my personal experience of how I could be in the tropics on a hot day without water, you replied that you've read other account of such abilities. This is a level of healing I acquired after being 100% for less than a year. Yet you don't have personal experience of this level of healing, you've only read accounts of this. From what I read of Gosia's experience, I have no doubt that she is experiencing some of the same miracles that I have experienced during my 5 years of being all raw. What I get from reading your posts is that your have an intellectual understanding of how other raw foodists get to this level of health, but you are not experiencing it yourself.

anaken,

Bryan is right on with his comments to you.

You are very adept with the words and your intellectual ability to construct argument. However, the words unrelated to personal experence are simply mental masturbation. The person most likely to be impressed by them is the writer. They bear no fruit.

Bryan is willing to test what he reads against his experience. His growth and learning about raw comes from him testing his edge and making faceplants.

anaken, I went raw in July 2003. So, it is 3.5 years, not 2. Not that it is too important, but I would prefer that you quote the correct numbers. By the way, this was not my first encounter with raw (the first time was about 20 years ago), but the first time I really went for it. As far as your demand that I don't call vegetable juicing a fractured food, I am not going to obey it. No way!

I am not following any principles, apart from the approach that I mentioned. I resist following any externally imposed rules and I explain (to some extent) why is this so on my website. Instead, I prefer to observe the rules that manifest.

Yes, Bryan, isn't amazing that these very rules that we may read in NH literature (I admit I am not an avid student of Shelton or TC Fry, as you have guessed!), can manifest spontaneously. Now, I would expect that they would, as long as one listens intensely to one's body, which is what I've been challenging myself to do. I remember being cheeky three years ago and kind off arguing with you about me loving to eat garlic and saurkraut, when you were patiently explaining why those things may not be the optimal foods. Then, I never thought I would ever change my mind, but I did! Then, no amount of your explaining would make me change my mind (I'm that stubborn he he). However, the experience did. Perhaps the discussions that we have here are sometimes of the similar nature? Perhaps it takes some experience to realize some simple truths, which are so easy once you grasp them, but so hard to explain to those who are unable to understand them because of their lack of that experience?

Another yes, Bryan, is that it is true, I experience more healing as I go. After being raw for 3.5 years, and having found myself drawn to fruit-plentiful raw diet, I now find that I may be ready to live with much less fat than I have before. Which, not long ago, seemed a crazy idea. My whole raw food journey has been like that. Lots of crazy ideas have manifested themselves without me asking. I am not complaining. Lots more to learn, I'm sure.

Gosia


RawGosia channel
RawGosia streams



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/31/2007 08:11AM by rawgosia.

Intuition individualizes Principle. Principle takes precedence, as without principal intuition has nothing to work with.

Let's say that Principle is the head and Intuition is the neck. Intuition therefore mediates between head and body. Cut off the head and intuition is useless.

Many people try to use their intuition without knowledge of principle. I have a friend who is grossly overweight, tired, battling one seemingly minor infection after another who defensively maintains that she "knows what her body needs." This is obviously not true, but no one can convince her otherwise because this is what she believes.

I would love to see someone start an on-line discussion group that focuses on the principles of nutrition and not on "beliefs" or "ideologies"; that discusses nutrition broadly and health more generally. The more we learn the more we can intuit an individualized approach to nutrition. If we are locked into a nutritional belief system we are gonna shut out anything that doesn't accord with that belief system and thereby hinder our learning.

It could very well be that those who are eating a 100% raw diet are evolutionary frontrunners. (It could also be true that they are making themselves pedigree's whose resistance to environmental realities is compromised) But the fact is that those who eat 100% raw represent a very small section of the population (which may indeed be part of the attraction) and there are those of us who are interested in health and wellness for everyone.

There are people that I love who will never eat 100% raw 100% of the time. Should I consider them doomed to an early and suffering death? Should I sit there smugly eating my leaves while they self-consciously eat their beans and rice? I don't think so.

It's just plain silly to identify yourself with what you eat. It's even more silly to use food as yet another means of separation and division among people, not to mention dangerous to your health.

I would start a general nutrition discussion group myself if I were on-line enough, but I'm not. Maybe someone here gets where I'm coming from and has the time and inclination to do so. Let me know.

khale

Bryan, because I don’t post personal data means I don’t have personal experience? I didn’t say that I READ other accounts of such abilities at all

I said:

“I can't say that from your example that being a 80/10/10 puts you in that category anymore than other raw foodists. many people make similar claims about their method of raw…”

I said 'many people claim’ which is a true statement, even if those individual claims were false. It is up to the individual to weigh those claims against your own. To me its important to add that this experience is not a unique to a certain specific element of your practice vs someone elses therefore making it an unsatisfactory way to answer the question.

In that situation I saw nothing to gain by adding my own experience.

I’ve had the experience of waking up an exercising for two hours without requiring water or resting. It is clear to me that my body is in a different state than when I needed to rest after every set and also drink water. Is this a proof that it is because I eat x ammout of fruit, or x amount of salt or any one thing? no. It had absolutely no place in that argument. We were talking about how salt affects the body. Your experiences of how you feel with salt vs. without salt prove nothing, theres a million factors involved.

Yes David Wolfe and David favor sell salt, and I can think of many reasons to doubt quite a bit of what they say because of this and for other reasons. Do I believe they sell salt for no other reason than to make money? No. Salt may end up being a hazardous material to my body. But listening to your testimonial (someone who has nothing to gain) isn’t more valuable then theirs for that reason. Giving me an idea of how you see salt functioning in the body gives me a better way to gauge whether salt is better for me or not.

It is probably possible to continue my day without eating or drinking, but I choose to drink vegetable juice after exercising based on a belief that it’s the best way to get nutrients directly to the body without the energy dispensed with eating food. This comes from others as well as my own experience. I would never claim this is a solid fact of the inner workings of the body.

I don’t make assumptions, it says right on her site she was drawn to principles of natural hygiene, whereas she posted here that she has never looked to any theories but her own body, which is itself a theory of natural hygiene

And sure, you can come some conclusions about NH on your own; I’ve come to many of my own as well and embraced certain NH philosophies. But to state that we arrive at ALL of our ideas by listening to our bodies, which is one level of inaccuracy and hypocrisy, and then applying that to judge statistical data or something you have no experience of (like 10-40 years of practicing vegetable juicing) is another level of inaccuracy, was the point of this thread.


Rawgosia,

You’d do better listening to the way you structure what you write:
“Perhaps it takes some experience to realize some simple truths, which are so easy once you grasp them, but so hard to explain to those who are unable to understand them because of their lack of that experience?”

while this is a might be a true statement, its totally condescending. I need to somehow gain faith and accept a simplistic way of seeing a situation that sometimes unmonitored and without the aid of juicing and colonics leads to total failure? I need to have experience of long term failure to decide things intelligently for myself without looking at other examples?

3.5 years and 5 years is not 12 years 40 years or 80 years. If you want to brush your teeth with water, great, don’t claim that this is what your body is telling you, and that you’ve arrived to this conclusion because you are so advanced. If someone follows this advice and their teeth last 20 years and not 60 years, this is on your conscience. I havn’t once made a claim about anything that works for me or others, I have asked a few pointed questions and have cited certain outspoken people with interesting and esoteric opinions. I have never said this is true because so and so says this is true, I simply said hey what about this salt theory. I have much to learn.

>>(It could also be true that they are making themselves pedigree's whose resistance to environmental realities is compromised)

I come to this forum to participate in discussions of concepts like this that I think are interesting, maybe that is an intellectual approach, to me this is preferable to reading a bunch of claims (personal testimonials) of those free of dogma that are in fact enslaved by it.

I’ll repeat
“yes we are likely far more intuned with our bodies after being raw. the point is that people assume they are healthy as opposed to not healthy...thinking clearly as opposed to not thinking clearly..when really they are just at a phase closer to such.”

I think people forget that some people heal themselves on macrobiotics, to experience levels of healing on raw foods in no way proves your method is better than another or that it is sustainable. Therefore to me its totally irrelevant to use such things as an argument to dispute a particular isolated element.

Well, this was an interesting and uninteresting thread.


Rawgosia,

You sound like an arrogant person who knows it all, and did not need any guidance from others because your body tells you all you need. I am to believe your body guided you to raw food. Sounds ridiculous.

Your replies were wishy washy. You have not countered any of the examples I have provided, with your belief. You have not demonstrated why instincts are better than intellect as a guide. Why people should follow their bodies instead of their intellect but you seem to be too self-absorbed to think about that.

Your argument is basically it works for you, who cares about others. Well, that is great and counterproductive to the existing of this forum. People come here to discuss, share ideas and theories not shout and repeat it works for me but I cannot explain why. Telling someone cooked food is bad for them because your personal experience or your body said so is likely not going win them over. But if you tell why cooked food is bad and why they should avoid it, that will likely win them over. Cooked food is just harmful for you even if your body and personal experiences do not tell you so.

Last example, most people eat fast food and their bodies like it that is why they eat it again and again. How come their bodies aren't telling them to stop eating that junk you are killing me or sending them signs it is harmful? Oh, I know they have not learned to master their bodies and listen to their bodies. Bs, what they need is knowledge.

No system has ever as yet existed which did not in some form involve the exploitation of some human beings for the advantage of others. John Dewey 1921.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/31/2007 08:49PM by greenman.

I read a lot of papers. Some of them are clinical trials, some of them are reviews, some of them are letters to the editor, some of them are totally speculative without experiment, some of them are food science papers that do not examine effects on the body, some of them are on animals, some of them are meta analyses (which are truly fraught with peril for a number of reasons), some of them are purely observational, some of them are on isolated nutrients, some of them are on combinations of isolated nutrients, some of them examine specific foods, some of them examine dietary patterns, some of them examine populations, some of them examine the body as a whole, some of them examine effects on specific organs or systems in the body, some of them examine the effects at the celluar level, some of them examine the effects at the subcellular level, some of them examine effects within living bodies and some of them examine effects on living cells taken outside from the body. There is an endless number of possibilities that have been and remain to be examined by a wide variety of methods.

I have read enough papers to have a feel for which ones are junky and which ones are probably good, which ones are important, which ones are only tweaking things that are already pretty well established. If the paper is seriously flawed, it is easy enough to poke holes in it when you actually read the full paper. It is almost impossible without reading it. Also, one gets better at it the more one reads.

I have also read and continue to read papers in a diverse group of fields, examining a diverse group of inputs and a diverse group of outputs that cut across several fields using different methodologies.

Willett, for example is probably the most highly esteemed nutritional epidemiologist in the world. But his group is putting out a lot of garbage lately that many nutritionists have noticed as garbage. That doesn't mean his entire output is garbage. He must have some motivation for approving some of the final papers, although such is not clear to me at the moment.

Just because recent Western nutritional epidemiology isn't so hot as a basis for generating sound nutritional advice (people lie, fail to comply, render the study useless) doesn't mean that the entire body of nutrition literature is garbage. That is only a very small part of it.

I feel that incorporating a lot of raw plant food in the diet is an important aspect of sound nutrition. It is not the only aspect, however! But apparently for many of the science bashers, it is the only one. I am afraid that such a line of thought can't be corrected. It is based on religion and not science.

Arugula, I see as a religion following the belief in nutritionism, and the belief that the word "scientific" is equivalent to "true". I prefer analyzing those who have complete understanding of health, than those who have some understanding of some aspects of it. For example, someone who lives a healthy lifestyle is far more interesting for me than a person who knows a lot about vitamins, but nothing about how to live healthily. I am interested in applied science, not hypotheses. And a clarification: I do not advocate dismissing ALL published research. I am interested in sensible (note the subjective term) research findings. I still like to debunk the unwarranted glamorization of anything that has been created by scientists or those who claim to be ones, as well as misrepresentation of the published work.

Anaken, I see nothing arrogant about noticing that lack of experience is a barrier in communicating some truths that can be easily understood when a person experiences them. I see as arrogant to think that a person has nothing to learn. My attitude is that of a learner. I do not consider myself to have grasped all the knowledge that is out there to grasp. Nevertheless, I also observe that some simple truths that I could not grasp three years ago, became effortless to understand with experience, and I can understand why it is so difficult to explain them, as has been evidenced above. As it can be for me to understand things that are effortlessly clear to others, with more experience than me. People who eat junk foods are so insensitive to the distress signals that their body sends, that they do not hear them. Becoming a raw foodist has an excellent avenue to develop that sensitivity.

greenman, apart from being on these boards, I also live my life. I am not going to spend my time answering every single question that I am asked here, unless this was the court and I was an accused. I am happy to share, of course. As far as your request that I demonstrate that relying on instinct is better than relying on intellect, note that I never made a claim that you wish me to demonstrate. What I say is that it is far better to rely on my body's signals, which I analyze with my intellect (and so my brain is very much used), than to rely on my intellect with the exclusion of the body (as I used to do until I finally connected). Also, I see this approach as the best way of ensuring good nutrition. For example, it does not make sense to me to feed my body X because I read that I should, when what my body wants is Y. Sensitivity that I developed over the years, allows me to read my body signals, unlike in the past. In the past, I could eat cooked foods with "no problem". These days, I FEEL the effect of it on me. In the past, I could have garlic. These days, eating it disturbs me. In the past, I had to drink coffee during work so that I could focus. These days I can't have coffee or I will not sleep, and I stay fully alert during the long hours of mental activity. In the past, I did not care too much for fruit and nagged my husband if he undercooked the vegies in the stir-fry. These days cooked food tastes blunt and fruit is the most appealing food. Spices/herbs negatively affect my sleep. Etc etc. It is not an approach for everyone, of course. I definitely could not have done it 20 years ago, when all I was ready for, was to rely on my intellect only. Yep, I WOULD think that this approach was ridiculous.


Cheers,
Gosia.


RawGosia channel
RawGosia streams

What I see in common between Arugula and anaken is their acceptance of external authorities, to a point of being religious. Greenman is showing a tendency to want to understand from an intellectual point of view without the benefit of experience. But no matter how much explanations are passed his way, without the experience Gosia has, all those explanations might as well be Greek.

Gosia has chosen to become her own authority. She opts to not give her power away, but to learn from her personal experience. Not only that, but her commitment to her process over the course of her raw diet has given her new tools that were not available when she started this diet. That she can draw on what her body is telling her is healthful versus not is a state of health that all of us were born with, but with the constant barrage of life deadening foods we experienced in our earlier lives, this ability was taken away.

But it can come back. It came back for me. It came back for Gosia. There is nothing special about me or Gosia that made this happen to us. We provided the conditions for healing in our bodies, and our bodies healed. And so can yours.

And there are other long term raw foodists who are saying the same things Gosia and I are saying. They have found a way to live on an all raw diet and to feel great on it, without needing the stimulation of animal products or supplementation or superfoods. And all these people who "get it", their body communicate with them in ways that Gosia and I have described. But until you experience it, it isn't going to make much sense.

Bryan wrote:

"And all these people who "get it", their body communicate with them in ways that Gosia and I have described. But until you experience it, it isn't going to make much sense."

I understand what Bryan and Gosia are saying. But in their excitement over their new found abilities to hear their bodies they seem to have forgotten that everybody's body speaks.

All symptom is communication from the body. Heartburn after a Big Mac is communication. Crankiness and defensiveness after a day of sweet fruit is a communication.

The body is also constantly changing. What is good for it for a period of days, weeks or months is not necessarily good for it now. It is also constantly adapting. If one eats nothing but fruit for months then of course a chunk of bread is gonna be difficult to digest. This does not mean that bread is universally bad. This is the point. It is unwise to assume that where one is now is optimal for everyone. Gosia demonstrates this in sharing how at one point in her transition she would have fought tooth and nail for what she now eschews. This is just human nature. Wherever we find ourselves now has to be right or, god forbid! we're wrong.

The challenge in nutrition (and maybe life in general) is being able to discern what other individuals need without assuming or insisting that it be what you need now. There are some here who eat primarily fruit after a long transition who will recommend primarily fruit for those just starting out. This is nothing but a projection of ones own needs onto others. For some, just transitioning from SAD and suffering a symptom or two (the bodies communications), a primarily fruit diet could be disastrous.

This is why a study of principles is so important to those who wish to counsel others, formally or informally. One has to be able to meet people where they are and to be able to recognize what their bodies are communicating to them without imposing ones' own personal messages.

And as far as religious zeal goes...both Arugula and Gosia are guilty. They just belong to different denominations. We are all prone to this, maybe myself more than others. The key is to avoid identifying with your own point of view. If you fall into the delusion that you are your point of view, about food or anything else, then you are gonna be defensive when someone elses point of view differs.

khale

I’m interested in your experiences, just not as proofs of particular phenomena. Assuming that I don’t see or share those experiences because I question them as well…

If something feels good to me, is working for me, yet I’m informed of something by a third party with 30 years more experience and a great deal more of ‘knowledge’ that I might want to be considering other things, I’m going to consider them and ask others about them. That isn’t analogous to religion at all.

That being said theres a lot of ‘knowledge’ out there. I, like most people, probably find much of it overwhelming and in most cases useless or harmful. Becoming your own source of wisdom is best, but the jury is still out on many things. Like I said 3.5 years or 5 years is not 12, 30 or 80 years. I agree with much of your wisdom Bryan, I just don’t think personal experience will ever trump EVERY rule, so it cant easily be used to prove one thing over another especially when they are two separate things. That being said I do believe in the possibility of individuals escaping all bodily paradigms, ironically, maybe this would make their knowledge less usefull to us.

“I do not consider myself to have grasped all the knowledge that is out there to grasp.” To me in affect you have, by labeling something a fractured substance like jucing, you’ve asserted yourself as an authority over something you have limited or no experience with. That really is my only issue, sorry for blowing this out of proportion. And I never used the word arrogant.

Maybe intuition and intellect are equally important.

I would add one more: observation (in terms of looking, feeling, and listening).

Perhaps each of those three are of little use without the two others.

I think I'll also add that in my experience, one of the pitfalls of discovering something joyous and wonderful is the temptation to think there's nothing more that's important to learn. We are so stoked to reach the plateau, that we are not mindful of the mountain ahead.

And sometimes we learn the most from those whom we think know the very least.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/01/2007 09:29PM by suncloud.

"Maybe intuition and intellect are equally important.
I would add one more: observation (in terms of looking, feeling, and listening).
Perhaps each of those three are of little use without the two others."

Yes, yes, yes!!! lol


"by labeling something a fractured substance like jucing, you’ve asserted yourself as an authority over something you have limited or no experience with."

anaken, I consider the juices a fractured substance based on my experience. We have a juicer at home, which we got as a wedding gift seven years ago. During our raw food journey, we used juicing quite often in the first year of raw. However, gradually, we lost interest in juicing. Juices do not appeal to me. I feel absolutely no desire for them. I do not salivate at the thought of them. However, I do salivate at the though of fruit. Our juicer has been put away, along with our cooking utensils.


RawGosia channel
RawGosia streams

>I prefer analyzing those who have complete understanding of health, than those who have some understanding of some aspects of it.

Define "complete understanding of health." Please be specific.

>For example, someone who lives a healthy lifestyle is far more interesting for me than a person who knows a lot about vitamins, but nothing about how to live healthily.

Why would you even consider that knowledge necessarily leads to unhealthy living? Or assume that an unhealthy lifestyle negates the quality of any scientist's work? My point of view is completely opposite: that lack of knowledge can lead to unhealthy living, even with the best intentions, and that to express disdain or disregard for such good work is a mistake.

>I am interested in applied science.

I do not get this impression from your input here. But it may be your choice to convey your preferences as such and not my interpretation based on how others are reading your posts.

khale Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> I understand what Bryan and Gosia are saying. But
> in their excitement over their new found abilities
> to hear their bodies they seem to have forgotten
> that everybody's body speaks.

Well, I suppose that not having gone through a
"bad health" stage and a subsequent "healing" stage
that there is an element of the religious aspect of
the raw diet that completely escapes me.

> And as far as religious zeal goes...both Arugula
> and Gosia are guilty. They just belong to
> different denominations.

No. I am not a religious person and I'd prefer not to
be described as such just because I am well informed
regarding some aspects of nutrition and also take some
pleasure in learning new things about it, which I occasionally
share. Just as a well-ripened peach can make me drool,
so can a good abstract.

I see room for debate with some issues, and many are overtly
debatable, but not with others. We are not living in
preagricultural edens where just about anything we choose
will be good enough. No, we are living in a perverted
society with perverted foodstuffs and perverted agricultural
practices and depleted soils, etc. etc. It takes more
care to get it right these days and we have better means
of measuring how to get it right these days. Why anyone
would deny these means escapes me completely.

Arugula,

When I think of a religious person, what I see is a person whose view of god is defined by an external authority, namely the church.

There are spiritual people who are not religious, and they may even have the same view of god as a religious person, but their view comes from personal experience of god, as opposed to a belief system set in place by an external authority.

When I read quotes like this from you:

Quote

No, we are living in a perverted society with perverted foodstuffs and perverted agricultural practices and depleted soils, etc. etc.

Quote

The oceans are dying. 90% of the big fish are gone. The glaciers are melting. The aquifers are drying up. The topsoil is vanishing. The rain forests are shrinking. The deserts are expanding. And nobody gives a darn enough to stop.

We have entered an era of unprecedented destruction. How can this be perfect?

Your view of reality, based on what I read in your writing, is a view you derived from external authority, stuff that you read or stuff that people told you.

In this acceptance of external authority when it comes to reality, I see you as no less religious than a person who accepts an external authority on the nature of god.

For myself, I look to experience as my teacher, not external authority. Have you actually ever been to an organic farm to observe their farming techniques? Have you ever put your hand into the soil of rich organic dirt where you could feel the life and energy of the dirt in your hand? I have. What you say about depleted soils is all in your head, and is not a reflection of reality. Again, I look to give my experience a higher level of input than I do from external authorities. Based on your explanations of reality (and a painful reality I must say), I see that you do not.

I guess I wasn't finished saying what I wanted to say.

The view of reality that you describe is a small box. And in that small box, you might be feeling a bit squeezed.

It seems to me that your view of reality has darkened your heart. For me, the world exists to be discovered. The world exists to set me free. I am experiencing joy and freedom in my world. Are you?

Arugula, the path that you are on, I was on about 20 years ago, when I my early 20s and used to rely on facts and figures that I read, and was even able to cite by heart daily requirements of every micronutrient imaginable for women, men, children and pregnant women, as well as where those micronutrients were available and in what quantities. I lost interest in that path when I found something far more interesting. The path of learning to read the nature directly, which I am on these days, is a far more enlightening experience for me.


Gosia


PS These measurements that you like to quote and rely on, are completely inaccurate, arbitrary, based on averages obtained from unhealthy population and in my view useless. Growing my own food is a far better investment for me than hours spent reading fractured nutrition findings.


RawGosia channel
RawGosia streams

Bryan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Your view of reality, based on what I read in your
> writing, is a view you derived from external
> authority, stuff that you read or stuff that
> people told you.

Your view of reality is a microcosm, based only
what is in your immediate vicinity. You know the
saying: Think globally, act locally. How can it
be better to turn your back on the rest of the
world and to choose not to inform yourself?

> In this acceptance of external authority when it
> comes to reality, I see you as no less religious
> than a person who accepts an external authority on
> the nature of god.

You are somehow implying that ignorance of the state
of the world is preferrable to knowledge. I disagree
completely.

> Have you actually ever
> been to an organic farm to observe their farming
> techniques? Have you ever put your hand into the
> soil of rich organic dirt where you could feel the
> life and energy of the dirt in your hand? I have.

Yes, and my backyard is like that, after 10 years
of hard work. My soil is like chocolate cake.

> What you say about depleted soils is all in your
> head, and is not a reflection of reality.

Bryan, you can't be serious. There might be very
small pockets of the planet that buck the trend.
But the overall direction is alarming.

Your premise is flawed. You and Gosia both assume
that knowledge somehow implies a lack of
experience. There is no such relationship.

And further, you are somehow implying that knowledge
is a bad thing. You can't be serious. Is your life
entirely book-free?

Arugula, I think that Bryan talks here not about you reading books per se. We all read books, of course. It is about you giving your power away to the presumed (by you) authority of whoever publications you read. Like in the example above, where you quote some hypotheses about walnuts, taking them as facts and mistakenly believing that they are proven truths.

You think that what you read in nutrition is knowledge, despite the fact that all the papers in nutrition say things like "maybe", "perhaps" and give probabilities rather than certaintities. You even misquote what you read by changing word from "may have" to "had" for example, because you think that they are proven truths. Note that in the paper above no-one says that they no for sure anything at all. So, where is the knowledge? When you quote figures from fit-day or similar places, do you ever stop to think whether there is any accuracy in them at all?

How long have you been raw, or have you been raw at all? What is your diet? How natural is your diet? Do you grow any of your foods? Can you post some pictures of you? What is your story? To me, these would be things that I could learn from you far more than from the second-hand quotes that you give. Give us the real stuff, and then perhaps the quotes as well. Without the real stuff, the quotes have no interest to me.

========================

khale, I read a little bit about you on another thread. Now I see why you would say that bread is not bad. Your delivery of the verdict "both guilty" was quite cute. What's the punishment? Can I get a lifetime of hard work in the orchard pretty pleease?


Gosia


RawGosia channel
RawGosia streams



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/02/2007 10:56PM by rawgosia.

>How long have you been raw,
About 3 years

>What is your diet?
Fruits, vegetables, nuts, seeds, legumes, occasional grains. Supps for D2 and B12.

>How natural is your diet?
I don't eat any wild foods. But I try to incorporate the available cultivated foodstuffs to make a diet that more closely approximates the wild one. I could not do this without food tables and papers.

>Do you grow any of your foods?
Yes, some greens.

>Can you post some pictures of you?
No. I am not considered to be unattractive, though. A lot of people would like to think so, judging from the comments.

>What is your story?
I am interested in making a good thing better. I didn't have any health problems to propel me into a state of religious fervor. It's mainly curisity and desire to learn more, and to apply what I learn to myself, and to share what I learn with others.

>To me, these would be things that I could learn from you far more than from the second-hand quotes that you give.

I don't think so! Telling you about myself is irrelevant. Telling you about interesting things I've found is more interesting. I occasionally provide personal experience with various experiments on a subject of one.

>Give us the real stuff, and then perhaps the quotes as well. Without the real stuff, the quotes have no interest to me.

That's an odd position for you to take. I could care less who provides the info, as long as it is good interesting info, I will take what I can get from it. The peer review process does not require a certificate of health from the people who write papers, or any other subjective determinations of health, or photos or anything personal like that. Why would I be any different? Why would you? I really don't understand your point of view. Is this the Raw Nazi party: we will accept info only from healthy, attractive, youthful looking people? Then you'd have to reject a lot of the raw foodist propaganda.

I don't mean to take sides here, but I would like to address a couple of the issues regarding soil depletion and its connection to loss of nutrients in our food.

It's very true that overall, and especially here in the US, we have been losing topsoil at an alarming rate.

But for many years, concerned individuals have also labored to study and incorporate methods for improving and building organic soils, and with the help of modern information technology and internationally recognized standards for organic farming, those methods are being utilized by organic farmers throughout the world. And the organic industry continues to grow.

So we have 2 ongoing trends: one bad and one good. Kind of a battle between good and evil.

The more we personally support the good trend towards farming organically, the better our chances for reversing the bad trend towards depleting (and poisoning) our topsoil. I like Gandhi's saying: "We should be the change we want to see in the world."

One way to help reverse the trend is to grow as much of our own food organically as we possibly can - just as Rawgosia and Arugula are doing. Another is to buy organically whenever we can afford it.

When planting our gardens, if we have the room, we might also consider that growing tree foods (fruits) is naturally conducive to soil conservation. Besides the fact that planting trees requires no plowing or turning of the soil - potentially a major factor in soil depletion - trees bind the soil with their roots, helping to prevent runoff during flooding, etc. And the leaves from trees supply a natural layer of alluvial soil.

AND, tree foods suffer less from nutrient deficiencies in the soil because once trees are established enough to put out fruit, they are retrieving more nutrients from deep inside the earth than from the topsoil.

Fruits DO suffer from one particular practice that will certainly negatively affect the quality of fruit nutrients for many generations to come. That practice is GRAFTING. Grafted trees are similar to clones. Farmers graft their fruit trees so that they can be sure of what kind of fruit they will get, since most fruit tree varieties do not bear true to seed.

Nature, in her wisdom, had some reasons for making each seed a little different. One big reason is that diversity is a first line of defense against disease. Trees, just like animals, are at times vulnerable to diseases. When all the trees are the same, exposure to disease can wipe out all of them. But when they are a little different, the disease has to change a little for each tree, and often the disease will die out before it's able change enough to continue to do harm.

Another problem with grafting is that it makes weaker trees. Whereas apple orchards planted from seedling can live over 100 years and continue to bear fruit, grafted apple trees will live just a few decades at best. Weaker trees again are more vulnerable to disease, require more sprays, etc., and produce fruits that have less nutrients.

As the trees weaken from generation to generation, so does the seed from grafted trees. And stocks of original seed will dwindle. So, it's important, if we want the seventh generation after us to have these trees, that we plant ungrafted fruit when we can. There are still old orchards out there, many of them abandoned. And wild fruits, like those beautiful wild yellow plums in California. Whenever we can, we need to get their seeds and plant them.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 02/03/2007 04:07AM by suncloud.