Guest guest Posted July 8, 2001 Report Share Posted July 8, 2001 I appreciate this article. It was not written as a slam at all. It took a very fair-minded approach. I'm sorry that the author had a bad experience with Raw Foods. In fairness we should admit that MOST people do. This also occurred with vegetarianism in the USA over the past 3 decades. Many people, perhaps as much as 50% of the American public have tried vegetarianism, but abandoned it because "it didn't work for me." It is vital that we pursue true nutritional research & knowledge to better understand why Raw Foods works well for some people, and not for others. I believe many people whether trying Vegetarian or Raw Food diets experience some detox symptoms and give up. Clearly, however, more research is indicated. Thankfully, such research is being carried out. In the meantime, we can all benefit by educating ourselves to the extent possible. We should (without cult-like-devotion) align ourselves to the experiences & recommendations of well-known successful rawfoodists like Doug Graham or David Wolfe, both educated researchers who have put the diet to the test for more than a decade. There are 3 primary reasons I conclude that a Raw Food diet is the appropriate diet for humans. 1. What have humans historically eaten? If the raw fruitarian diet is the historical Human Diet--that diet which humans successfully lived on for 99.999999999% of their existence on this planet (as Doug Graham asserts) and as all anthropologists assert (since the groundbreaking 1979 Walker report from John Hopkins University), then it seems likely that we should be able to thrive on the historical human diet. A few thousand years of eating perverted foods is not enough to mutate humans into 'cooked food carnivores' if such a diet could be considered natural or normal in any biologic sense. 2. What does human taxonomy & biological adaption teach us about the human diet? If we investigate human diet in the light of our biological adaption, we again find that we are adapted to eat a raw fruitarian diet. We are primates and are 98% anatomically identical to a chimpanzee. Like our fellow anthropoid apes, our body structures, appendages, dentition, and digestive tract are all designed for a frugivorous diet. 3. What does the best & most current scientific research teach us about diets & human well-being? The comprehensive China-Cornell-Oxford study is the authority. Funded by an honest government & two universities, this study was not 'preaching to the choir' of a corporate sponsor. It's scope and comprehensiveness and significance are unparalleled. Primary conclusion: "There is no threshold of health improvement as one removes animal products from the diet: "Our study suggests that the closer one approaches a total plant-food diet, the greater the health benefit." A 4th point which I have been unable to investigate would be: What is the instinctual Human Diet? Clearly, we are not carnivores. We do not have the blood-lust of a carnivore. I have no desire to run after an antelope and sink my inadequate teeth into it's neck. Nor, frankly, can humans run as fast as most of the animals we eat. In our modern lives with grocery stores and refrigerators we have lost all sense of what our instinctual diet might be. The article submitted by the Sturtevants does correctly point out: 1. Your social life might improve if you go back to eating cooked. 2. There is on the part of many adherents a cult-like devotion to raw foods bereft of intellectual analysis or understanding. 3. Many folks in the raw movement are unable to follow the protocol and really are on a binge diet. 4. Whereas a raw diet has much anecdotal evidence of recovery from many diseases, it should not be promoted as a 'cure-all.' Some people have overcome & will continue to overcome many health problems for which Western 'medicine' has proven ineffective. Yet, there will be situations where a raw food diet will not work the wonders that some lucky folks (like me & many other raw fooders I know) have experienced. 5. The raw food diet is not a cure-all to all mankind's problems. It might improve health which would improve quality of life and standard of living. It might improve the ecology and livability of our planet. It might end world hunger. It might obviate the need for our toxic, wasteful, and corrupt 'health' care system. But, there are many problems it would not address, such as ignorance, greed, and crimes committed by governments, and other criminal agencies or people. It might go a long way to restore world health. This might help the standard of living of all people markedly (if the medical industrial complex wasn't siphoning off so much money in collusion & graft with corrupt governments like the USA). It might re-empower & re-challenge people to become responsible for their own life & health, which might direct societies away from the hopelessness & dependency & despondency of the welfare-state mentality. If a sizable percentage of the world returned to a mostly-raw diet, the ecological benefits would be profound. This is well-documented in any number of books (see Harvey Diamond's "Your Heart, Your Planet" for starters). The quality of life would improve markedly as health improves. (49% of American Adults have at least 1 chronic disease. 70-80% are overweight, 80 million are obese. 200 million have at least one drug habit. 600 Billion cigarettes are smoked in the USA each year. According to the 1992 health abstract, only 3.5 million Americans are healthy: that is only 1.5% of the population! The room for improvement is profound. In past decades of American life families were able to pass on inheritances thereby greatly helping the receiving generations. Now with our deplorable health and toxic, ineffective & vastly expensive & corrupt Medical Industrial Complex, this happens with much less frequency. Estates are wiped out as medical care in the twilight years siphons out lifetime savings. Monies invested in disease care do NOT benefit the overall economy in the same way that purchasing a car would. When our government adds the money spent on healthcare to the GDP they distort the truth. When we spend money on disease care no roads are built, no consumer goods are created, no benefit to society results. An utterly massive portion of the USA GDP is wasted on disease care. If this parasitic drain on our economy & standard of living was removed, life in America could be affordable again. People could take vacations again, send their children to good private schools, people could buy their dream home more easily, etc., etc. (So, while I agree that there are many problems in society which a raw food diet might not help, there are a number which it could, if partially or largely embraced. My examples are not comprehensive). The article "Gullibility and Dietary Snake Oil" should be taken in a constructive light. It does correctly point out some philosophical traps into which raw fooders can fall. It is useful in this regard. I have re-examined the premise on which I continue as a raw fruitarian, and appreciate this opportunity to fine-tune how I 'cast' this diet to new-comers. I wish it's author the very best! My Thoughts! -Mark Blackburn Christian's Dad (from Sacramento) -------- sturtevants [sturtevants]Saturday, July 07, 2001 11:53 PMRawSeattle Subject: Re: [RawSeattle] Re: Gullibility & Snake Oil article?Here is the original message that I received. It is a bit long. Enjoy.RamonaI got this article from an acquaintance of mine and thought you allmay want to peruse it. Just to know what is being said out there.Eric.GULLIBILITY AND DIETARY SNAKE OIL:The claims regarding raw diets that sound too good to be trueAs mentioned above, those who believe the claims that raw diets willcure any/all diseases, solve all the world's problems, and so on,certainly expect a great deal from what is on their lunch plates--i.e., embody unrealistic expectations. Such wild and fanciful claimsare similar to those made by the unscrupulous peddlers of patentmedicines in the U.S. in the late 1800s and early 1900s, from whichthe term "snake oil" comes. (Similarly, one can find some peddlers ofmulti-level-marketed supplements making wild verbal claims nowadaysabout their products.) Because they are making similar claims, butabout diets, it is not unreasonable to characterize the dietaryextremists who promote "cure-all, perfect, and/or ideal" diets aspromoters of dietary snake oil.It should be noted that not all promoters of dietary snake oil--maybenot even most--are motivated purely by greed. Some of the currentdietary snake oil peddlers are people who: (1) went on a diet, andthen (2) experienced great improvement in health and/or healing onthe diet. Said individuals then: (3) mistakenly believe that theirshort-run healing diet is also an ideal long-term maintenance diet(for everyone!), with the result that (4) they become "missionaries"for their diet.In other words, some peddlers of dietary snake oil have, in fact,duped themselves (via ignorance and failing to think clearly) intothe false belief that their diet is the "one true religion andscience of perfect health." Clearly, such dietary snake oil peddlersare not motivated only by the desire to exploit others (and perhapsmay not even be aware that that characterizes part of what they aredoing)--but they are still snake oil peddlers. So... be wary of wildclaims: they may be coming from very sincere people, which in itselfdoes not prove anything although it certainly increases theseductiveness of the claims made. Sincerity is fine and needed inthis world. It does not, however, guarantee anything.An obvious answer to the question of why people are seduced bydietary snake oil is that the same reasons apply as for traditionalsnake oil. Some relevant reasons are:We want a quick/easy fix for our problems--a magic pill, or a magicdiet. We want an easy fix because we want to avoid the task ofaddressing the serious (and challenging) underlying mental,emotional, spiritual, or external factors (job, family, environment,other potential stress factors) that may well predispose us to illhealth over and above simply diet. Similarly, we want the fix to bequick, as our society and technology encourages us to want thesolution yesterday, if not sooner.From a certain spiritual viewpoint, one can characterize the demandfor a quick/easy fix as a form of laziness and greed. In demanding aneasy fix, not only are we lazy, but we are also thinking only ofourselves--we want healing right NOW, this instant. And we do notconsider that a full solution, obtained by addressing the underlyingproblems, might actually benefit others (especially our families: ifwe become calmer, more positive people, and work to reduce stress inthe home, the entire family will benefit), our community, and eventhe world. The world can be fixed, but only one person at a time.We don't want to face reality--life, and ourselves--as they reallyare. We don't want to face the reality that regardless of our diet,drugs, lifestyle, or other factors, we ultimately don't have completecontrol over our fate. It's easier to live in denial, and to thinkthat the "magic pill" or "magic diet" will solve (all) our problems,and thereby empower us with the ability to fully control our fate. Itcan be very difficult to face the issue of our own mortality.The issue of control here is relevant and interesting, becausecontrol is regarded as a major underlying factor in eating disorders,especially anorexia nervosa. Those with anorexia often feel that evenif they can't control other factors of their lives, the one thingthey can control is what, and how much, they eat. Similarly, there isa proposed new eating disorder: "orthorexia nervosa" (see the articleHealth Food Junkie on this site for details). Orthorexia nervosa isan inordinate obsession with dietary purity--with the quality of whatone eats. So, by obsessing over the quality of one's diet, andstrictly controlling one's diet according to the simplistic raw vegandogma promoted by dietary extremists, one may gain a (false) sense ofcontrol over life as well.Some folks in ill health are desperate. They have "tried everything,"nothing helped much, and they will now "try anything." Such folksneed our encouragement and support. In their favor, raw diets have anexcellent anecdotal record of healing and health improvement, in theshort run.Gullibility. The issue of gullibility underlies some of the abovepoints. Many of us really do want to believe that perfection--perfecthealth or a perfect world--are quickly and easily available, as thedietary snake oil peddlers claim. Or if not quickly and easily, atleast surely and certainly available (eventually) if one follows therules. This gullibility is also what keeps many dietary snake oilpeddlers/extremists in operation. P.T. Barnum reportedly once saidthat "there's a sucker born every minute." In the context of dietarysnake oil and extremism, we could restate Barnum as: "Eating raw isNOT the law, but there are a lot of suckers around who might believeit anyway and spend money on books and tapes."Side notes:The criticism above of a "quick/easy fix" to health problems shouldbe considered in context: the advantages of finding long-term solution(s) for health problems. There are times when a "quick fix" isdesirable and/or necessary. Examples include: relief from severepain, when necessary to save a life (e.g., heart attack), whennecessary to prevent long-term damage to vital bodily systems (e.g.,demyelinative disorders of the central nervous system such asmultiple sclerosis), and so on. The criticisms above should not deterone from seeking a "quick fix" when appropriate. The object of thecriticism above is to alert readers to the limits and constraintsinherent in "quick/easy fixes."Raw vegan diets have an impressive anecdotal record of success asshort-term healing diets. (In the long run, the record as amaintenance diet is rather dismal.) The point is that raw diets maybe healing for some in the short run, but they are not for everyone,and they are not cure-alls. The claim that raw diets are cure-alls(or even nearly so, since overidealism may be more believable if atleast a few exceptions to an all-powerful cure-all are admitted) isclearly in the realm of dietary snake oil.--FALSE SENSE OF SECURITY:Claims that the diet is perfect, ideal, and/or most naturalThe false sense of security imparted by simplistic dietary dogmafollows from being "sold" a false naturalism/model of nature thatsupposedly supports the diet. Further, the "sale" of such dogma maydepend, as discussed above, on the idealism and gullibility of thepotential follower of the dietary extremists. The security comes frombelieving that the diet is one or more of the following, according tothe dogma: best, ideal, most natural, perfect, cure-all, solution toall problems, and so on. Needless to say, such claims are false,hence the sense of security is false, but this does not matter to the(uninformed) follower, and the extremists are generally pleased tohave uninformed followers (though they of course may not considerthem to be so) who buy their books, tapes, newsletters, and so on.Certain other aspects of raw dietary dogma promote a false sense ofsecurity as follows:Claims that the diet is based on "eternal health truths" or "eternalhealth principles." One would expect "eternal" claims about somethingphysical (health) to have some rational proof, but such is usuallynot the case. Instead, such claims are often treated as, in effect,theological principles, which are allegedly self-evident, so do notrequire proof.On the other hand, one can find other extremists promoting theirdiets based on "scientific" proof of their claims. Examples hereinclude such claims as: "protein is toxic" (in the sense that itsmetabolic by-products are allegedly harmful), "fruit is just likemother's milk," and so on. Many of these claims areexamined/discredited on this site. However, crank science can andoften does look like real science, and some people are duped by crankscience. If one believes crank science to be real science, one maythink their diet is the most "scientifically correct," which mayimpart some sense of security.To summarize this section: a sense of security, of knowing that yourdiet is "right" or "best" (even if the belief is false), is a veryattractive and seductive part of simplistic dietary dogma.--SOCIAL ASPECTS: Uniqueness and attentionIndividual reaction to the social impact of a raw vegan diet can varyby individual preference. That is, the raw vegan diet may presentsocial opportunities, or be socially isolating. Thus the socialaspect may be an incentive (part of the seduction) or a disincentive,to raw diets.First, raw vegan diets are relatively rare. They make a person standout in modern society, and hence provide a certain uniqueness to theperson following the diet. Further, as many social events revolvearound food, the raw vegan may be the focus of considerable attentionat social events (because of the uniqueness of the diet). Thisprovides those with the "missionary" mindset many opportunities totalk about what are usually their favorite subjects of discussion:their raw vegan diets, and themselves. (In my experience, these twoare often correlated: raw/restricted diet and big egos).Of course, one may be challenged about one's diet, but the missionarymentality views such events as opportunities to preach the virtues ofthe "one true religion and science of perfect health, the raw-fooddiet." (On the other hand, challenge an extremist and you willprobably be the target of attacks and hostility.) Thus, that rawvegan dogma provides an opportunity for dietary "missionary work" isattractive to some rawists, and part of its seductive nature.Side note: the above is intended as criticism of those who takesimplistic dietary dogma and elevate it to the level of religion. Itis not intended as criticism of legitimate, established religionsthat include a dietary component, e.g., the Hallelujah Diet, perhapsothers, etc.On the other hand, many rawists eventually tire of the hassle ofexplaining their diet, and/or lack the social skills to handleinquiries about their diet, due to immaturity in some cases, andlunch-identification--the process of identifying with one's lunch--inother cases. (See Functional and Dysfunctional Lunch-Attitudes onthis site for details.) When that happens, the usual result is thatthe rawist avoids social events that include food--i.e., most socialevents. In that situation, the diet can be very socially isolating,and can even promote a negative mentality: "me (raw)" vs. "them(cooked world)," which can promote further isolation. Even worse,when your diet controls your social agenda and social life, then theraw vegan diet is (figuratively) eating you, when it should be theother way around!In this situation, rawism and raw dogma can be social impediments,and this can be a disincentive to raw (i.e., anti-seduction). One ofthe things that I personally found very welcome when I discontinued100% raw and resumed eating some cooked food was how relaxed--andpleasant--social events became, and how much of life I was missing byavoiding social events because the food (vegetarian, by the way)was "cooked." [Personal note to socially isolated, emaciated, 100%raw vegan fanatics: gaining some weight, and allowing yourself thefreedom to eat some cooked food, might actually improve your social--and sex--life! :-) ] Basically, you should set the social agenda, andnot surrender that part of your life to the dictates of narrow,simplistic dietary dogma.To summarize this topic: the uniqueness of raw vegan dogma can be anincentive to those who wish to promote the diet (and usually,themselves, at the same time), but can be a disincentive and sociallyisolating for others.--SELF-RIGHTEOUSNESS AND REALLY BIG EGOS:The perils of assigning moral values to dietIt is appropriate to begin this section with a quote from thearticle, "The New Food Anxiety," by Paul Roberts, from the April 1998issue of Psychology Today (vol. 31, no. 2, pp. 30-38, 74). From p. 38:...the psychological appeal of such diets has almost nothing to dowith their nutritional benefits; eating the right foods is for manyof us very satisfying.... In truth humans have been assigning moralvalues to foods and food practices forever.... Numerous studies havefound that eating bad foods...can cause far more guilt than anymeasurable ill-effects might warrant, and not just for those witheating disorders.The morality of foods also plays a huge role in how we judge others.In a study by Arizona State University psychologists Richard Stein,Ph.D. and Carol Nemeroff, Ph.D., fictitious students who were said toeat a good diet...were rated by test subjects as more moral,likeable, attractive, and in-shape than identical students who ate abad diet....It comes as no surprise to learn that raw-fooders often assign moralvalues to their "ideal, perfect, most natural" diets. Indeed, it canbe hard to resist the temptation to consider yourself morallysuperior when your lunch is fruit or sprout salad, and the lunchof "other people" is hamburgers and chocolate-chip cookies. Afterall, the fruit/sprouts are: fresh, live, enzyme-rich, whole,unprocessed, organic, and other superlatives. Meanwhile the hamburgerand cookies are: cooked, dead, fractionated, processed, non-organic;furthermore hamburgers and chocolate-chip cookies might violatethe "holy sacrament of food combining." :-) The raw-fooder takesfurther satisfaction from knowing that he or she used to eatsuch "degenerate" cooked foods, but has since broken the chainsof "cooked-food addiction" (according to rawist dogma), and become abetter(!?), more disciplined, and hence, MORALLY SUPERIOR person.In reality, what actually happens is that the rawist, believing falseraw dogma, sets out to accomplish a bit of discipline--throughdisciplined eating, namely a restricted diet of raw foods. Then, onaccomplishing this discipline, the rawist may reap the common result:an inflated, inflamed ego, accompanied by massive self-righteousness.(The same thing often happens to those who follow conventional,cooked-food vegan diets.) What is ironic about this situation is thatthe self-righteousness of raw dogma is far more addictive than cookedfoods may or may not be. How many people are self-righteous becausethey eat cooked foods, rather than raw? (Maybe a few extremistmacrobiotics, but they are a tiny minority.)And yet, the evidence available suggests that some (many) of the self-proclaimed "100%-raw" role models do not strictly follow the dietthey promote, and instead binge-eat (often in secret, and on cookedfood!), while selling themselves to the world as supposedlysuccessful, 100%-raw role models (or "experts"). The relevant termhere is "raw hypocrisy." Further, raw dogma is often far morerestrictive than cooked food dogma ever was; an apt metaphor for rawdogma is that of a "golden cage," because the rawist happily acceptssevere restrictions on his/her diet and life. (See the book TheGolden Cage: The Enigma of Anorexia Nervosa, by Hilde Bruch, 1978,Harvard University Press, for the motivation for the metaphor).Certain extremists actually promote the idea that eating 100% rawmakes you (genetically) "superior" to others. Such sentiments arenothing but bigotry, partially hidden behind a "smoke screen" ofcrank science and dietary dogma. The analogy to racism is obvioushere. Shame on the extremists who promote this as a reason to becomerawists!To summarize: because of the discipline required to comply withnarrow, restrictive rawist dogma, self-righteousness and inflatedegos are risks and/or occupational hazards on the raw path. Once aperson is tainted by self-righteousness, raw dietary dogma has a firmgrip on them--it is very seductive indeed.--SELF-IDENTIFICATION WITH DIET AND MOVEMENT:Something larger than yourself to believe inBecause raw diets are promoted via a false naturalism that claimsthey are "most natural," and the claim is very attractive toidealists, it is very common for those who follow raw diets todevelop what could be referred to as lunch-identification. Thishappens when one identifies strongly with their diet; when the dietand its dogma become an important part of the individual psyche. (Seethe article, Functional and Dysfunctional Lunch-Attitudes on thissite for a fuller discussion.) One way to characterize this isthat "I'm a raw-fooder" can be more important than "I'm a humanbeing," to a person afflicted with lunch-identification.Further, while those attracted to raw diets self-identify with thediet and its simplistic dogma, they are usually also attracted tothe "raw movement." One can define the raw movement as the collectionof individuals and groups promoting raw-food (vegan) diets. Strictlyspeaking, it is really a collection of small groups that oftendisagree with one another on the details of the diets. Further, thes often compete with, or even conflict with, one another (e.g.,there is an extremist raw/fruitarian wing that is extremely hatefuland dishonest, in my opinion and experience). However, the idea thatthere is, in effect, a unified raw movement is appealing toidealists, as it gives them something larger than themselves tobelieve in. It gives them the hope for a "brave raw world" (a laAldous Huxley's Brave New World), which some of the extremists claim(often in a hateful manner) will be a "paradise" with no sickness orsocial problems of any kind.Side note: the contrast between the hateful fanaticism of the lunaticfringe of the raw/fruitarian movement, and the peaceful raw paradisethat they claim will result if the world follows the diet theyadvocate or claim to follow is quite amazing. If the mind/bodyconnection works as the extremists imply it will, and the dietchanges your mindset, then the evidence--the hateful, hostilebehavior of the extremists--suggests that if you follow their diet,then you too, will become a hostile, mentally unbalanced fanatic! :-)The idea that a raw movement exists also provides some comfort tolonely, socially isolated rawists, who strive to be raw inthe "cooked" world. As discussed earlier, such attitudes reflect moreaccurately on the social maladjustment that raw dogma indirectlypromotes, by placing very high value on being raw, and low value onother things. The idea that somewhere there are "people like me" iscomforting to the isolated rawist. Side note: while it is difficultto be 100% raw and have a social life in this world, it is prettyeasy to have a social life if you are 75-95% raw. Is 100% raw reallyworth it? As a former long-time 100% raw person, my personal answeris a clear and emphatic: NO--there are many things in life that aremore important than what is on your lunch plate!To summarize: to a limited extent, the idea that there isa "glorious" :-) raw-food movement that one can be a part of is apart of the seduction of raw dietary dogma, since:It appeals strongly to idealists, and,To a certain extent, it counters the social isolation that rawistsoften experience in the "cooked" world.--RAW DOGMA AND CULTS: The cult of 100% rawIf one happens to follow the wrong dietary extremists, one may findthe raw experience to be cult-like. For many people this is adisincentive, hence anti-seduction. For others, the cultish aspectsare part of the seduction, as cults usually promise great things ifyou follow their teachings, and provide a well-defined group toidentify with. Below are a few of the cult-like aspects of raw dogma.Belief that the cult has all the answers to your problems in life.The extremists who teach that raw diets are the underlying answer toall life's problems are prime examples of this; also, thoseextremists who market 100% raw as some kind of "promised land."Belief that the cult's teachings are (1) eternal, true, and/or (2)best/optimal. The extremists who claim they are teaching "eternalhealth truths" that they have discovered are good examples of (1);those who promote the diet based on crank science are examples of (2).Deification of the cult leader. This usually happens after the cultleader is dead. Examples in raw foods include those naturalhygienists who effectively worship Herbert Shelton as the "greatsaint of health," and regard his writings as, in effect, holyscriptures. Another example is provided by those who follow maverickhygienist/fruitarian T.C. Fry, despite the fact that Fry passed awayat age 70 of cardiovascular disease--very hard to explain if youbelieve that fruitarianism is the best/optimal diet. (Of course, somewill say that Fry did not sufficiently practice what he preached, butthis just illustrates in another way how unrealistic false idealismis, when even its leaders cannot or do not adhere to it.)Adulation of the cult leader. This may occur when the cult leader(s)is/are alive. Here the diet guru(s) encourage you to look to them asultimate authorities, even though they may have little experience, befakes, plagiarists, binge-eat in secret, etc. Those diet gurus whorely on crank science as their marketing tool may denigrate all otherscience as invalid, usually based on weak rationalizations andinvalid logic. That is, the diet gurus who rely heavily on crankscience may claim to have the only "true" science, or the onlycorrect interpretation of it.Cults often have "sacred" rituals or objectives. In raw diets, theprime objective, often viewed with the reverence appropriate forsacred things, is "100% raw" and/or "100% raw fruit," and foodcombining serves as a method of ritual eating.A conversion experience (or ritual) is required or encouraged incults. The adoption of a 100% raw diet often causes a short-termimprovement in individual health. This often "confirms," in a way,the wacky teachings of the dietary gurus (i.e., in effect it is aconversion experience). The improvement in health makes theindividual think the dietary gurus know something. What theindividual does not know here is that the improvement in health dueto 100% raw is usually short-term, and the long-term is veryproblematic. (Note: see The Psychology of Idealistic Diets andLessons Learned about Successes and Failures of Vegetarian Diets onthis site for more information on the conversion effect. Also see thearticle Troubleshooting: Avoiding and Overcoming Problems in Raw andLiving-Foods Diets on the site for insight into the problems that canoccur on raw diets.)Just as some rawists identify with the (whole) raw movement, and findsome comfort in that, other rawists may identify with the groupsurrounding their diet guru(s). In some cases, these groups arefanatical and very cult-like, and the cultish nature/aspects areattractive, or seductive, to some.Finally, some readers may note that some of the "cult" aspects abovecan be used to describe religions as well. That is true, but there isa big difference between a legitimate religion that has love at itscenter (at least in theory), and the negative teachings of some raw-food extremists. The dietary extremists promote pathological fear ofcooked food, protein, mucus, and/or the idea that eating raw makesyou "superior." Religions promote placing love at the center of yourlife (and some legitimate religions have dietary teachings); whileraw dietary extremists want you (without themselves realizing this iswhat they promote) to place obsessive fear, food obsessions, and/orcrank science at the center of your life.--Other reasons for the seductiveness of raw dietsPart of the attraction (or seduction) of raw diets comes not from thedogma itself, but from the claims of god-like health made by thedietary extremists. As mentioned previously, raw vegan diets have anexcellent anecdotal record as short-run healing/health-improvementdiets, while the long-run record is not very good (there are very fewlong-time raw vegans).However, there are many reasons to seriously question the honestyand/or reliability of some of the claims of long-term success. For adiscussion on this, refer to the article Assessing Claims andCredibility in the Realm of Raw and Alternative Diets on this site.--EpilogueAs long as one is gullible and reason is impaired by excessiveidealism (or high blood sugar from a fruit diet :-) ), there areplenty of dietary "experts" and "gurus" who may seem very attractive,some of whom are dubious peddlers of dietary snake oil, and who areanxious to sell their diets, books, tapes, and newsletters to you.The object of this site is to encourage you to start thinking--clearly, carefully, and critically--about the claims of the so-calleddietary experts/gurus. If you do that, then you will have reducedyour gullibility and idealism, and will see that some of the (raw)dietary gurus are extremists, promoting simplistic dietary dogmaand/or crank science. Remember: if the claims about a diet sound toogood to be true, then chances are good that they probably are.I hope this article has given you some "food for thought." I wish yougood health, and good thinking!--Tom BillingsBefore writing to Beyond Veg contributors, please be aware of our Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 8, 2001 Report Share Posted July 8, 2001 Mark, Thanks for your thoughts. Well said. I do have a few comments. Jeff > we have lost all sense of what our instinctual diet might be. When I am shopping, or even visiting gardens or farms, I am strongly drawn to fruits, and sometimes to greens. I don't recall ever feeling that excitement for flesh foods, whether live or wrapped in a refrigerator unit. > >The article submitted by the Sturtevants does correctly point out: Correctly for some, perhaps, but not all. >1. Your social life might improve if you go back to eating cooked. In terms of quantity, yes, but like Norm mentioned, I have met wonderful people among the raw food community. Not to judge anyone, but I have felt stronger connections with those among this community than elsewhere. Similarly, I felt stronger connections with the vegan and vegetarian (cooked) communities than the flesh eating communities. I feel it has to do with spiritual connectedness and connection with the planet, etc. >2. There is on the part of many adherents a cult-like devotion to >raw foods bereft of intellectual analysis or understanding. Perhaps, but I haven't experienced it. > >My Thoughts! > >-Mark Blackburn Christian's Dad (from Sacramento) > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 8, 2001 Report Share Posted July 8, 2001 Jeff, I have a strong innate tendency to believe that my instintual food of choice is Fruit. However, I realize that a cooked meat eater would say I was unfairly biased. Hence, if possible we really need to subject the question to a completely unbiased double-blind study. Such a study would be difficult to construct, but I'd love to see it done. I have a strong hunch it would confirm what many of us eating raw foods intuitively know. Thanks for your remarks about social life. I agree again. Your points are well-taken. -Mark ----Mark Blackburn, MBADatabase AdministratorTel: 916-444-6500Reply to:mark_blackburn"Health is so essential to the duties and pleasures of living that the crime of squandering it is greater than the folly." Jeff Rogers [soystache]Sunday, July 08, 2001 10:44 AMRawSeattle Subject: Re: [RawSeattle] Gullibility & Snake Oil article? > ResponseMark,Thanks for your thoughts. Well said. I do have a few comments.Jeff we have lost all sense of what our instinctual diet might be. When I am shopping, or even visiting gardens or farms, I am strongly drawn to fruits, and sometimes to greens. I don't recall ever feeling that excitement for flesh foods, whether live or wrapped in a refrigerator unit. The article submitted by the Sturtevants does correctly point out:Correctly for some, perhaps, but not all. 1. Your social life might improve if you go back to eating cooked.In terms of quantity, yes, but like Norm mentioned, I have met wonderful people among the raw food community. Not to judge anyone, but I have felt stronger connections with those among this community than elsewhere. Similarly, I felt stronger connections with the vegan and vegetarian (cooked) communities than the flesh eating communities. I feel it has to do with spiritual connectedness and connection with the planet, etc. 2. There is on the part of many adherents a cult-like devotion to raw foods bereft of intellectual analysis or understanding.Perhaps, but I haven't experienced it. My Thoughts!-Mark Blackburn Christian's Dad (from Sacramento) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.