I do think this could help explain why I see less of a difference between AV's Primal Diet and NH than you: I find that healing protocol stuff to be one of the least interesting and important aspects of AV's approach for me personally. I skipped most of his section on healing protocols in my first reading, in part because most of them don't apply to me anyway. I don't see it as a major deal, but someone who does would of course see more differences between AV's Primal Diet and the Primal version of NH.
phil, Its important to realize how much these concepts exist in parallel competing universes.
While one does not have to prove that the practices of healing in Primal or Ann Wigmore or Gabriel Cousens or any other raw 'cleansing/healing' approach are all positive, the very possibly of any of the principles being superior to the systems of nature are basically devastating to 'natural health'.
The reason I used 'house of cards' earlier is:
If one think of the basic idea of 'medicine' one thinks of ancient systems of TCM or Ayurveda or systems based on people that are in history already removed form the ways of nature. The state of nature requires nothing other then perhaps rudimentary medicine, so it is interpreted that even with present inherited conditions and health, that there are no tools or discoveries of man that are useful at all in reversing disease. often the way one gets around any 'observed' improvement of therapies while keeping this ideology is to claim that people either 'remove' symptoms and thus the processes themselves are largely detrimental long term..or that the person got well IN SPITE of this intervention.
Again, in hygiene or similar philosophies, if health can be distilled completely to removing the causes of disease, there is no possible therapy other than providing the basic essence of raw material for the body to do its own thing.
It is concluded then that just as it impossible for even a natural food (but certainly a combination of natural or perhaps unnatural food like dairy) to cleanse the body in ways of which is does not do naturally, it is equally impossible that juicing, fermenting, blending or mixing of foods can add anything but detriment to natural processes. Accepting otherwise means that nature is either not perfect (can be improved by tools) OR that it is not enough just to follow nature to be well. both being quite devastating to these philosophies. From what I understand about the more alchemical aspects of Aajonous..alot of the way he 'uses' foods has very much to do with their ability to act as soaps (detoxes) lubricants (fats) and alcohols for dissolution (fruits). It also impacts his decisions to avoid water (solvents of healthy minerals). These of course are ridiculous to the hygienist as animals certainly do not eat for these purposes.
Anyway, this is why its quite common for instance for fruitarians in particular - other then the vegan issue- to attack other WOEs, because unlike peoples variations here on raw paleo, other peoples successes totally
invalidate their rationale and definitions for health.
even in non frutarians you can see this same logic unfortunately
"in spite of X" or "people can be healthy even eating x." without ever acknowledging the foods or routines could be an essential part of the purifying/healing etc...that can not be created any other way.
