as usual, this just illustrates points I am not making. I never said anything about instinctos. and the examples I gave had nothing to do with how an instincto person eats, just examples of diets that can be construed 'paleo' but include no foods found in the paleolithic or even recent ancient civilization. The issue I am putting forward that there are other methods to constructing a diet (in reference to wild foods convo) that Vitalis points out as being superior to fabrications claiming as long as things are 'raw' they are therefore healthy. No matter how healthy a diet one can construct thinking this way, the IDEA is wrong and unhealthy and is exclusive of a variety of possibly necessary tools to create health. The only criticism of instincto in regards to this one (too many easy others) is that the diets are obviously not matching up with how a human would eat in nature, and don't provide for the kind of health necessary to actually hunt and kill the foods eaten, so its even more fabricated.
I've come across a very similiar sort of argument where someone erroneously claimed that it was impossible to correctly follow a cooked-palaeolithic diet as we no longer had access to the exact same foods that palaeo peoples had such as a cooked mammoth steak or wild aurochs meat etc. It's a bogus argument, of course, as people are not trying to 100 percent emulate their palaeolithic ancestors(or raw-eating ancestors) in absolutely ALL respects anyway - we hardly are going to strip naked or wear loin-cloths and hunt mammoths nowadays. The whole point is that as long as we follow general principles re our palaeolithic ancestors we will be healthier than if we followed more modern methods such as cooking food(cooking was only invented in the last 10 percent of the palaeo era), or juicing or rendering or drying and the like.
And the claims re people on such rawpalaeo diets not being able to survive and hunt in the wild while following such diets makes absolutely no sense either. Indeed the added burden of having to cook each meat-meal (for a cooked-palaeodiet) would waste a lot of time that could have been spent on hunting/foraging instead.
More to the point, we are NOT just saying that " as long as things are raw, we will be healthy". We are stating that "as long as we are eating raw and palaeo, and not eating grainfed meats, and listening to our bodies' needs etc. etc., we will be healthier than someone eating that same type of diet in cooked form". As for the "variety of tools to create health" comment, we RPDers all accept that some alternative non-dietary methods can help speed up health-recovery if used as well). What it boils down to is that cooking, per se, does not confer any benefits in most cases; and in the cases where it does provide benefits, those benefits are cancelled out by the other damage done by cooking that food.
Without any of these requirements/constant excuses towards objective assessment of health, you have to admit all you have on paper is the idea that raw foods create health, and whatever experiences you have on other approaches tinged by a very critical/skeptical viewpoint on most kinds of healing.
Perhaps you can actually argue against this actual reality without bringing up mystery accounts of people you have read about and just gauge the actual evidence of people who have increased their health when they did not on other raw approaches. This is what I meant by what I said with witnessing others, being a perceptive person not easily swayed by mirrors and magic in real time. I believe that is something that can be gauged without agonizing over plastic surgery.
Anecdotal reports from RVAFers gleaned from 10 years of reading endless posts on other RVAF diet forums are, of course, valid. Besides, there is actually far more additional scientific evidence favouring rawpalaeodiets than there is favouring cooked-palaeodiets, for rather obvious reasons, if you think about it(re additional studies done on the negative effects of heat-created toxins, the hygiene hypothesis theory etc. etc. etc.)
As for claims by cooked-palaeodieters like Art DeVany, they should be treated with just as much suspicion as the claims made by the likes of Aajonus. What we do have as additional evidence is the fact that a large minority of people who eventually go rawpalaeo or for RVAF diets and succeed in regaining their health are people who previously tried and failed miserably healthwise on cooked-palaeodiets like DeVany’s approach(and failed on other cooked diets or the raw vegan/fruitarian diet), myself being just 1 tiny example thereof.
The only thing I will say re DeVany is that there is more emphasis on exercise in his dietary philosophy, and, while exercise is touted by many RVAFers, it should ideally be promoted to the same extent as a healthy diet, given scientific studies attesting to the high level of physical activity in palaeo times etc.
the difference for me is even though I can have some kind of pride in my particular all-raw or virtually all raw program for myself, doesn't mean I can't see the obvious superiority of other programs such as Vitalis or DeVany in creating health to vast permutations of all raw all 'paleo' diets.
Their approaches both have various stumbling blocks. Those facing the standard decline in old-age will not benefit as much from the cooked-aspect of DeVany's diet given the links made between heat-created toxins in cooke foods and age-related decline, those with some form of dairy-intolerance will not benefit much from Vitalis' recommendations to consume raw dairy etc.
You say raw vegans have to supplement to be healthy and in other threads say that supplements are useless.
Inaccurate. I said that raw vegans have to supplement in order to REMAIN healthy in the long-term, after some years of doing the diet.I also stated that going raw vegan does benefit people a lot in the short-term, health-wise, as they directly benefit from not consuming heat-created toxins from cooked foods after that point.
I did state that I thought supplements were useless; perhaps I should have said "partially useless", though, as what I meant was that rawpalaeo foods will always be superior to supplements in the long run, but I have previously acknowledged that some unusual people with very severe vitamin-/mineral-deficiencies might be more quickly helped by taking heavy dosages of supplements in the very short-term rather than slowly building up reserves with rawpalaeo foods. Also, while I specifically found that I didn't properly absorb the vitamin pills I used to take(I experienced frequent urination, which was a dead giveaway), I do accept that other people can absorb nutrients from supplements, albeit not as well as with rawpalaeo foods, and taking supplements after 5-10 years of being raw vegan is better than taking no supplements at all.
The only thing I will say re DeVany is that there is more emphasis on exercise in his dietary philosophy, and, while exercise is touted by many RVAFers, it should ideally be promoted to the same extent as a healthy diet, given scientific studies attesting to the high level of physical activity in palaeo times etc.
You say juice tastes bad like its some kind of law, and yet one of the main criticisms among raw vegans critical of juicing is that it is 'too sweeet' and therefore makes i easy to 'overeat' vegetables.
In my raw vegan days, there were very, very few veggie-juices which were deemed to be too sweet, mainly raw carrot-juice being singled out.
Also, its impossible to create more nutrition in a vegetable.
I actually stated that juicing shreds the cell-walls of plants, thus releasing more nutrients for consumption.
Most importantly, you You totally discount that MOST long term vegans are against the sugar in fresh modern fruits, have the lab work to back it up, and do far better on what amounts to neolithic forms of carbs, sprouting, processing and fermentation than fresh whole and raw fruit.
There are many subsets of the raw vegan movement, fruitarians being one very large subtype thereof, who definitely do NOT agree with the above claim re sugar in fruits. As for sprouts, people in palaeo times would sometimes have eaten sprouted plants, nothing neolithic or processed about that. Fermentation, such as „high-meat“ and fermentation of plant foods would have been a basic part of palaeolithic life for an obvious reason( no refrigerators at the time)? So are „palaeolithic“.
As for processing such as drying, that depends on the raw vegan, plenty are against processing fruits – certainly, there is a lot of info online re the negative effects on health of dried fruits. Some go in for highly processed stuff such as almond butter and similiar nonsense, with cooked-vegans going in for tofu etc. But those are hardly healthy, and don’t compare too well with those eating raw solid fruits. Fermentation of raw fruits is also not generally practised: well, except those wishing to make some form of alcohol therefrom , of course.
This when you acknowledge that cooked palaeos can do better according to you than raw vegans (but are still massive failures- of course!).
Not really. I have previously pointed out that raw vegans can easily do better than cooked-palaeos in the short-term, simply because they are not consuming high levels of heat-created toxins such as the cooked-palaeos are doing. The only catch with a raw vegan diet is that raw plant foods are not complete foods, so that , in the long-term, despite the fact that the body is ingenious at creating substitutes for various nutrients, a raw vegan will slowly get nutritional deficiencies. A cooked-palaeodiet, while unhealthy in that it contains a lot of heat-created toxins derived from cooking, will not have that aspect of raw veganism as animal foods are „complete foods“, providing all the nutrients the human body needs.
SO obviously there is some other chain of command to raw fruits > anything not raw, and even cooked wild foods < anything raw. I believe that is where the discussion is and has nothing to do with anything else you have made it out to be.
The trouble is that you are over-simplifying things as usual. After all, the whole point of a raw, palaeolithic diet is that different (rawpalaeo) foods provide for different needs. Some people might benefit from raw, zero-carb, others from raw omnivore, I have even come across 1 or 2 people stating that they did better with far more raw plant foods in their diet than raw animal foods.
Plus, the comparison(<>) you gave above is invalid. A fair comparison would be between raw wild game and cooked wild game, or raw fruit and cooked fruit etc., if you want to suggest that cooking is better. After all, people absorb different foods for different purposes.
