Well, Tyler, I guess that's not all so unreasonable given this is a "raw paleo" forum.  I guess I was mostly bothered by the acrimony of your earlier post, since clearly Nicola had not intended to stir up trouble.  But to get back to my point about keeping an open mind to things, my biggest frustration with internet health-related forums is that invariably they entail individuals in charge of setting the tone and content of the forum and these individuals invariably attack and call unsubstantial any article or point of view, however substantial or unsubstantial, that strongly deviates from their strongly held views, usually justifying their attacks, derision (and even deletion in some cases--though not here of course) as necessary to protect their membership from bad ideas.  Furthermore, they are usually able to support their polarizing opinion with reams of scientific data and articles which they claim are somehow the only substantial data while all to the contrary is hogwash.  Interestingly, each of these forums seems to have a unique axe to grind, and frequently supports as true beyond a shadow of a doubt what others regard as questionable or even downright false.  I, along with many others I am sure, came to the internet because I didn't trust the orthodoxy of conventional doctors and nutritionists, only to find that the internet is chock full of more of the same--different orthodoxies, but orthodoxies nonetheless.  If orthodoxy were what I was after, I wouldn't be here.  Moreover, given my bad experiences following various individuals and communities orthodox views, I immediately begin to regard as suspicious everything idea you push when it begins to wreak of unquestioning one-sidedness.  Furthermore, my observation has always been that one who is most secure in his beliefs will be very open to new ideas.

Well, I don't really know what to say.  I've I HAVE been reading this forum for several months, DO feel that I have a strong point, And DO NOT believe that I have been clutching to a dead argument--and any open minded, intelligent person who takes the time to read through this thread ought to be able to see that.  That said, I know where I'm not wanted.  I'm tired of wasting my time on people who are only going to shout at me, only half listen to what I am saying, and tell me I don't know what I'm talking about.  I'm done for real this time.

Goodsamaritan, point well taken.  I didn't mean to insinuate that you are a gullible person.  Just recognize that most people do not come from the same sort of background as do you, and will be less inclined than you to tend to see the sense behind the bluster.

RawKyle, you have obviously completely missed the point that I have been trying to make. 

Maybe AV is a double edged sword.
From your POV, you don't like him.
From my POV, I think he's the real deal.  Unfortunately, the raw dairy I get in my country does not work with me or maybe I'm not suited for raw dairy the way he is.  I also like his healing methodology... The recipes in his book are good too.

That's a good way of putting things.  While its certainly true that AV has brought initial attention to RAF--especially amongst people with serious health problems whose terrible experiences with conventional nutrition and health-care have left them inclined to try just about anything new and different--my intuition is that he's far more likely to turn your average person away from the diet.  Tyler assumes that when people start getting sicker and sicker following conventional guidelines, Aajonus will become a more and more attractive alternative.  My problem with this line of reasoning is that their are so many other guru's out there with superficial similarities to Aajonus who really do preach nutritional regiments that will likely only to exacerbate underlying health conditions.  So, even if the whole world does get more and more sick, it will continue to be reticent of following fanatical sounding advise.  A more likely scenario, in my opinion, plays out like this: as the science of nutrition grows and matures, society will slowly come to accept dietary memes more in line with what is actually healthy, but that the presence of AV-like-figures backing sound dietary wisdom will only slow and delay this transition.

And by the way, Goodsamaritan, you come across as a very trusting and accepting individual.  This is a wonderful quality to have, but it is one that most people lack.  Whether or not AV's intentions are pure, you have to understand that the way he comes across will leave many people deeply suspicious of his ideas and of his motives.

Absurd? I have to say I disagree.  Although regardless the size of the group of RPDers who are merely "safeguarding their health," the point is that this group does exist, and I would content that sensationalist guru's like AV scare us away.  Besides, it is precisely my contention that people like Aajonus are partly to blame for the relatively low numbers of individuals adopting RPD for broad and generalized health and wellbeing reasons.  It sounds to me an awful lot like you are begging the question by assuming, based on your sense that very few individuals without health crisis are currently practicing RPD (which I seriously doubt), that this will continue to be the case regardless of the sort of public image we create. 

I know I pledged to stay out of the fray, but Seeker and TylerDurdan's thoughtful comments warrant a response.

Seeker mentions of the diversity of non-primal dietary paths that have lead people to the discovery raw paleo.  I, for one, transitioned to raw paleo via cooked paleo.  Eating meat raw made a lot of sense to me from an anthropological standpoint, and I realized that I could save a whole lot of time and energy by foregoing cooking.  For me, the science of nutrition is fascinating.  I want to be healthy, but what is really fueling my willingness to go out on a limb and try new and unfamiliar dietary regiments is intellectual interest nutrition.  Unlike Tylerdurdan, I had no underlying health condition before turning to raw paleo, and haven't noticed any particularly stunning improvements in health since taking up the diet.  Tyler contends most individuals are too closed minded to make the transition to raw paleo in absence of serious health problems.  This is essentially the same argument that Aajonus makes, and it is one of which I am extremely skeptical.  After all, my experience alone proves that this is not the case with everyone, and my sense is that my experience pretty closely resembles that of about half of the people who post on this forum.  While TylerDurdan, Lex and Goodsamaritan, just to name a few, may have a history of health issues, my impression is that this is not the case with others (Sully and Boxcarguy come to mind).  Like me, a lot of people here seem to have elected to eat raw paleo based on a dedication to taking charge of their health even in absence of crippling medical conditions.

Certainly Western culture imposes numerous barriers to acceptance raw paleo dietary wisdom, but I think Tyler is too quick to dismiss its potential for broader appeal.  At least in America, health consciousness is increasingly in vogue.  Americans have demonstrated an incredible capacity to transform their diet and lifestyle on the basis of health considerations.  That most of these transformations have been misguided (i.e. margarine, high carb, low fat, vegetable oil) does not undermine the basic fact that culture in the information age is incredibly flexible and fast changing, especially with respect to dietary advise.  What's worth noting is that most of the major developments in conventional dietary dogma have taken place through a top down process with well esteemed professionals with broad and mainstream appeal pushing their views by way of conventional outlets.  A perfect example is Ancel Keyne's debut of his anti-saturated fat campaign on the front page of Time magazine.  Over time, the pharmaceutical industry may have provided some of the momentum beyond his low fat, anti-cholesterol views as they developed drugs to sell based on these notions, but any rational analysis of the situation recognizes that low fat propoganda initially went mainstream not on account of money or commercial interest but because a reputable, grandfatherly  doctor had given these views his blessing and had provided some sketchy data with a veneer of scientific validity to back it up.  If Raw paleo is to grow beyond its tiny circle of ardent followers, it needs the attract the attention of intelligent, scientifically minded individuals with broad public appeal.   On the other hand, so long as people like AV continue to have the loudest voice in the raw community, we will continue to scare away potential converts to the raw paleo way of eating.   My sense is that AV is a bit of a megalomaniac and likes being treated like a god on earth by his small following, and that for this reason he would actually prefer to keep Raw paleo style diets on the fringe and out of the mainstream since broader public appeal would ruin his cult status.  When Tylerdurdan voices almost word for word Aajonus' view that only those with serious medical conditions would be willing to attempt raw paleo, I can't help but feel concerned over the pervasiveness of AV's problematic influence.  And even if TylerDurdan's represents just one voice on the matter, his is an authoritative one within this community, and so I tend to assume that his views are probably shared by a number of others. 

I believe not only that we have potential mainstream appeal, but that it would be deeply irresponsible of us not to make good with it.  I believe that we hold the key to good health, and that it would be truly selfish and wrong of us not to share our knowledge and wisdom with all who are willing to listen.  The first step is making sure we don't allow AV's disdain for the mainstream color our public image.

Does raw kyle, or anybody on this forum for that matter, actually know personally somebody who has been miraculously cured by Aajonus? 

"recognizing" Jesus Christ for his "healing works" makes a person a faithful of christian dogma because it means he believes the word of the bible in spite of the fact that he has no first person evidence to back it up.  So, when Raw Kyle recognizes Aajonus for his "healing works" without having any first hand evidence of these "healing works" (if I'm wrong about this, please clarify Raw Kyle), that makes him a faithful of the Dogma of AV as far as I'm concerned.  Some people believe only some parts of the bible, but we still call them Christians.  Raw Kyle may not beleive everything that Aajonus says, but I would content that his decision to believe in AV's miracles on an article of faith is damning evidence that AV exerts an influence (however weak) over him.

goodsamaritan, you mentioned that we shouldn't miss out on the teachings of any of these gurus. You suggest that we take something away from what each of these raw icons have to say.  I guess this is one way of dealing with the reality that all of these guru's phrase their teachings in such a way as to preclude all other dietary philosophies (If one truly believes in what Aajonus has to say, he cannot also believe in philosophies of the wei diet for example).  Most of these figures are promoting "comprehensive doctrines" that don't allow for alternative viewpoints.  In other words, by "cherry-picking", you are effectively bleaching out the elements of fanaticism in many of these dietary dogmas.  My feeling is this, why not bleach reference to these figures out of our discussion altogether, since even making reference to them creates the appearance of fealty to these individuals and their empires of fanaticism?  I'm not sugesting we wholsale reject all of their ideas, just that we be careful not to sound too much like we are blindly following profiteering gurus with no background in science.  When I see threads gushing about an Aajonus meet up, I can't help but worry about the impression we are giving off.

Why not give someone the benefit of the doubt who cures people of cancer? You'd rather just attack people who make claims not mainstream to be safe? Everyone on this board is discussing what they have experienced and believe to be true, I'm really surprised that someone is suggesting this board is dogmatic. Have you ever read other diet boards? I wouldn't be the least insulted if you were suggesting this at one of the raw vegan boards I've read, or maybe some hardcore AV board, but I have no idea where you're coming from. Maybe you could quote one thread or even one post that blindly supports AV or other dogma? Many of these people are scientists, I'm a biologist by training and don't see anything suspect or anti-science going on here.

Raw Kyle, I don't mean to be offensive.  I'm sorry if I've managed to insult you.  I'm just trying to be as honest as possible about how I feel.

If I were against everything non-mainstream, I would not be eating raw paleo, and I would not be posting on these message boards.  Futher, I recognize that this fourm is very much non-dogmatic compared with a lot of other online message boards I have seen in the past.  I just see small elements of this dogmatism working its way into the discussion from time to time, and frankly it bothers me just a little.  And for the record, I don't give Aajonus the benefit of the doubt for the same reason I don't give the street preacher who claims to be the next coming of christ the benefit of the doubt, I have no strong evidence that any of his claims are true.

Also, I'd rather not go through these forums and give examples because I would innevitably end up singling people, hurting feelings, and pissing people off.

I know that there is a lot of science to back up this diet.  That is why I eat this way!  Moreover, I totally agree that what comes out of conventional dietary literature can be pretty damn wacky sometimes. Further, I recognize the emotional element of diet for a lot of people, and I can understand the natural tendency to cling to figures like Aajonus.  I guess I just worry that for a lot of people, like me, Aajonus is strongly ofputting.  I feel like he turns a diet with a whole lot of scientific merit into some sort of a cult or a religion.  While this may be emotionally comforting to some who are willing to accept his dogma, for those who are not (which I tend to think represents the majority of people in the world), we take one look at the sorts of things he is saying and run the other way.  Like I mentioned in my previous post, I discovered this way of eating not on account of somebody like Aajonus, but rather because of people like the members of this forum who have taken strives to make the scientific literature more available.  

Understandably, a great number of people on this forum accept a lot of what he says, whether straight out or in some sort of a modified way.  After all, in adopting this style of eating, many of us have had to sever all sorts of emotional attachment comfort foods and emotionally related dietary practices that we have grown up with.   As far as I see it, Aajonus is really the first person who has come along to fill that void in a compelling, and understandably has made an impression on many for that reason.  I recognize that many of you have taken a toned down sort of approach to his "primal diet", in so far as you have made modifications based on personal experience, which suggests you are not the sort to blindly buy into some one elses dogma.  But even so, the so many of the basic opinions and views put forth on this forum seem to stem, either directly or indirectly, from the, shall I say, fanaticism of guru's like Aajonus.  Many of the people on this forum have come from other diets with there own sets of gurus making claims of healing all sorts of degenerative diseases and basically offering the fountain of youth (for only 5 easy payments of 99.99).  Is it really so difficult to see the similarities between those gurus you have formerly rejected and those you now basically subscribe to (with modifications).  It is important to recognize that people new to these ways of thinking see people like Aajonus as being equally wonky as people like david wolf with his kirlian images.  

Lets talk the whole notion of detox for example.  Has detox ever been seriously validated in scientific literature.  Not that I'm aware of, except maybe in a more or less round about way.  But more specifically, has science ever validated a mechanism for detox even remotely similar to the sort described by Aajonus.  Again, not that I'm aware of.  Like Tyler mentioned, almost all "fringe" diets involve some sort of a detox mechanism.  Deep down, I think that the whole detox philosophy touches on some really deep seeded human emotions and feelings that help to explain why people go looking for out of the ordinary diets in the first place.  As I see it, people frequently cling to the idea of detox because they have some deep seeded disdain for either themselves or for the rest of society, and they want to somehow purify themselves emotionally and so use food (or lack of food in the case of natural hygienists) as a proxy.  Alternatively, detoxers may just want to feel like the they are substantively different and better than the rest of society, and so think that by making there bodies cleaner, they are somehow becoming better people (almost like going to catholic confession).  In any event, what I am really suggesting is that perhaps this idea of detox is something that operates on a higher plane than science.  

You mentioned your critical views on much of what Aajonus has said in cases where the things he has said have been blatantly misguided.  This I know to be true.  I may be new to posting, but I am a long time lurker of these boards and am very well aware of the general tone of things.  However, what I see that concerns me is how he tends to be given the benefit of the doubt.  It is like he is the basis off of which everything is judged.  When something that he says doesn't work, or is just completely off base, it is considered as questionable (i.e. dairy, massive quantities of raw honey, juiced veggies).  But when something he has suggested does seem to make some sense, it is accepted without question that not only is the dietary reccomendation spot on, but that all of the psuedoscientiic/fanatical theory that he has built around it must also be true.

For example, to go back to the example of detox vs. food poisoning.  I fully agree that conventional wisdom on food poisoning is absurd.  However, this does not prove Aajonus theories on detox to be true.  My sense is that people on this diet do get mild food poisoning from time to time, especially early on, and pass this off as "detox".  Now, I'm open to the idea that bacteria has a lot of positives.  I'm even open to the idea that when we get sick, the body may in some fundamental way be reparing itself or undergoing an improvement for the better.  But their is this strong distinction drawn between food poisoning and detox that is just not born out by the scientific evidence as far as I'm concerned.  Aajonus claims that when we feel gross after eating raw food, its because we are undergoing a quasi-magical detox of heavy metals and other mysterious toxins due to finally eating the nutrients our bodies have been deprived of, and so activating internal mechanisms for cleansing.  This theory sounds great and all, but really??  I mean, really??  as far as I'm concerned, these magical nutrients that allow our bodies to understand its time to clean up have never been identified.  I'm sure I haven't gone into enough detail explaining the mechanisms of an Aajonus type of a detox, but I just fail to think it makes a lot of sense to support his medical views word for word just because they are corroborated on a superficial level by experience.  

Let me just make one final example.  Suppose I were to claim that plants grow because they desire to re-unite with their mother, the sun.  I could probably even build a small religion around this idea if I were more imaginative.  Some people who are, for whatever reason, open to suggestion on the subject of tree growth and with little background in science may very come along and, seeing that plants do, indeed, grow when exposed sunlight, hail my views as correct beyond a shadow of a doubt and take me as their leader.  However, most people will hear what I am saying, call me a crackpot, and go looking for someone else to listen to and take ideas from.  When I start hearing blatantly aajonusesque views being touted around as if they were fact, I can't help but worry that this is what is going on.  I think we have such a good thing going here, and I don't like to think that we are turning others away with the sort of psuedo-religious undertones that have lead so many to reject other fringe dietary regimes.  So long as we cling publicly to these views, I fear that it will be impossible for the raw paleo paradigm to ever go very mainstream (or if it does, that it will be in spite of us, not because of us).  

Again, no offense intended.  I know this is a sensitive subject, and even you all disagree with me, I hope you can see where I'm coming from here.

mushrooms are not fruit, nor are they vegetables.  In fact, mushrooms aren't even plants---they belong to the fungus kingdom.  Genetically speaking, they are more closely related to animals than fruits or vegetables. 

make sure you are drinking plenty of water.  dehydration is the most serious threat posed by gastroenteritis (which you probably have) since you are essentially purging your bowels every 20 minutes.  I've been in your place a couple of times myself in the last couple of years and what I find works best is fasting until the problem clears up.  The first time I got the stomach flu I was paranoid about not getting enough nutrition since I could hold very little down and what I did manage to keep down came right through me within a matter of minutes.  As a result, I would continuously try to force myself to eat food whenever possible, and a ended up taking weeks to finaly get better.  I ended up losing about 12 pounds.  When I had began to have the same issues a year later (same severity) I simply stopped eating until I felt better which took about 3 days, never relapsed, and only lost a couple pounds.