Much of what you say here is reasonable, but you are still looking at it very much on how things are on paper as individual foods, and not as a 'diet' or healing system. There are within the raw vegan community itself people who have lived decades on raw vegan foods themselves who will suggest SERIOUS problems with various raw vegan foods whether they be fruits or plant fats or whatever, some of them, like Fred Bisci, Gabriel Cousens, and Brian Clement with 30-40 years research each 'proving' such.
I already referred to the point that raw vegan diets are not complete foods, so that people going years/decades on raw vegan diets will usually end up with nutritional deficiencies. As for fruits/plant-fats, other than some people who, due solely to decades on cooked/processed diets(!) have developed an unusual intolerance to carbs, there are no particular immediate problems. By contrast, cooked, low-carb diets have appalling accounts re nasty side-effects and and long-term failure re health.
You've used SD in a few examples recently, but pretty sure he does not eat a high fruit diet,
Incorrect. He has said many times that he eats raw plant foods most of the time, with a raw-animal-food day every so often(I recall it being something like 3 days raw plant foods to 1 day raw animal food or maybe a 4 to 1 ratio?). But anyway, irrelevant since many Instinctos have done fine on 10 percent raw animal foods/90 percent raw plant foods
and like I have already said many things factor into health, so one can't unilaterally say diets meeting certain nutrients will be by default healthy because interactions of food in the body are complex. It may be that his particular diet is very healthful, but someone simply trying to add the same amount of meat (and lack of other animal food) to their particular mostly fruit/veg diet will not be as successful. Plenty of long term raw vegans can be tested more or less positive for fulfilling basic nutrition, such as SWD eaters might potentially do. The issue is certain people will need raw proteins/fats etc.,..to correct a variety of issues that perhaps traditional people did not need and these go beyond basic bodily needs. Others who do not have these requirements - like those who can survive all kinds of awful diets - are the ones who are the real outliers I believe.
So what if there are a few exceptions which prove the rule that raw is better? Obviously, there will be situations where someone whose body is so wrecked that they need stomach-surgery rather than a raw diet or whatever.And, even some unhealthy cooked diets can cure some specific problems re diabetes or whatever, but still be unable to ward off various age-related conditions like atherosclerosis(I previously pointed out how the Masai were pitted with atherosclerosis, according to Mann's study etc.)
The problem is that people can do much better on meat-deprived cooked veg and vegan diets than numerous raw permutations, so while that doesn't prove cooked food is 'good' it means that issues can arise even with the expected more nutrient dense foods/lack-of-toxins in the same amount of animal food deprivation. Just because some might have success just adding the minimal needed animal proteins does not mean that this applies to everyone, which is the very reason why tallow or raw butter might have value..the way I see it.. over foods distinctly paleo or raw because these foods might present their own problems or are not available in modern times in the same quantity or quality nutritionally as might be needed and supplied by them (T + B). This can apply to similar things that seem less optimal or destructive like salt.
The trouble is that the cooked food substitute may work but still add other problems, long-term re heat-created toxins.
The issue really is even though one can find results on paper as to why tallow or butter would be inferior to many individual raw foods, its doesn't proove that a diet that is largely raw and healthful that includes these foods can't be superior than a variety of all raw approaches.
It is reasonable to assume, given studies proving the harm of heat-created toxins and personal anecdotes from RVAFers, that alternative sources of raw fats, such as raw marrow would be superior to tallow or butter. Tallow and butter could only be "less worse", not better. The exceptions I can think of are things like grains which are indeed significantly improved by cooking, but grains still cause a number of problems when cooked. Granted, raw veg can also be improved by cooking re removing antinutrient levels thus boosting nutrients(presumably only if lightly-cooked), but that effect is, at least, cancelled out by the addition of heat-created toxins derived from cooking.
disregarding the whole issue of anti-nutrients, you can't just say an apple is healthy, and a cow is healthy therefore its healthy to eat cows and apples in any quantity and since it is free of toxins and can be rounded out nutritionally with a few other things, that this will guarantee health or even better health than on something clearly less optimal. This is true whether we are comparing to a toxic SWD diet or a cooked paleo diet because that is what is simplifying ultimately. To me its not too mysterious that one individual can have better results on a cooked LC paleo/primal than on 'anything raw' diet if that diet isn't really all that considered, without conceding any real triumphs to cooking or processing tallow or to neolithic foods.
The point is obvious:- as long as one takes care to eat all the nutrients one needs, one can be fine on a raw diet, and never need cooked foods like tallow.
