Tyler you didn't address what I said at all. All one needs is to find one success of someone doing something 'unnatural' to their benefit when they couldn't otherwise following such dogmatic viewpoints to suggest that those viewpoints are totally invalid. My track record is listing these endlessly from raw paleo practices to 'neolithic' or supplementation or otherwise. Often people get boxed in believing they were correct ONLY because they were natural and raw and end up being incredibly unhealthy in comparison to others. Lex and others point out this often other than myself. Why do I have to respond individually to your claims that people emphasize grass-fed or wild? The point is they ain't thinking critically about how food functions in the body, and as per discussion, modern fruits turn to shit internally, and this is widely believed by most (not fringe) health savy people on the planet from vegans to carnivores. The literature and research is endless. and people on any approach whether it is vegan or raw meat can see success limiting sugars from modern fruits compared to when they PERSONALLY ate modern fruits indiscriminately. How this is off topic is besides me.
The claims re modern fruit are usually based on absurdities, such as referring to extreme 100 percent raw fruitarian diets, which are irrelevant to rawpalaeos who eat a wide variety of raw foods. More to the point, in virtually all cases, the studies concerned tend to be completely bogus as they focus on things like highly-refined fructose, such as found in corn-syrup, and then disgracefully try to pretend that fructose in raw fruits is exactly the same as that(Taubes is a classic conman in this regard). The very few studies which are not so dishonest are, unfortunately for you, countered by vast numbers of studies showing health-benefits if one increases one's intake of raw fruit and veg.
Plus, plentiful anecdotal evidence exists among RVAFers to show that the raw aspect is just as important as the palaeo aspect. Some RVAFers have even found the raw aspect to be MORE important than the palaeo aspect for their own health, and happily consume plenty of raw fruits or raw dairy. The experience of Lex and yours, re the palaeo aspect being more important than the raw aspect, so that your lot view the cooked aspect as being largely irrelevant, does not invalidate the experience of the former type. Plus, more and more cooked-palaeos are finding that they need to go raw in order to regain better health than they did on cooked-palaeodiets. Not to mention the fact that many omnivorous rawpalaeos don't like or thrive on raw veg, but do fine on raw fruits, and indeed suffer, health-wise, if they cut out all raw fruits and go raw, zero-carb.
As for "finding one success", like I said before, cooking is by itself a harmful process; the only benefit it gives is that it makes some foods(mostly non-palaeo foods) more bioavailable, thus increasing the nutrients the human body can take in from eating them. So, there will always be a raw equivalent diet which will work better than the cooked equivalent thereof, as long as one listens to ones's body re instincts/sensations ; or at the very least the same, if the cooking-process is only very, very minor etc.etc.You can, of course claim that someone might be irresponsible and only ever eat a raw, 100 percent raw olive-diet, say, but that is very unlikely indeed, and there are so many additional pitfalls associated with non-rawpalaeodiets such as the degree of cooking involved, the extra processing other than cooking that may also be involved etc., that the chances of failure via experimentation on such non-RPD diets are heavily increased by comparison to rawpalaeodiets.
The point is people can not unilaterally pan lifestyles which have the ability to create more health then their own by refrenacing theories that arn't rooted in reality. The reality is fruit does not carry an automatic role of healthfulness just because it is raw, nor is it necessarily more available or preferable to other plant sources nevermind animal food sources.
Well, rawpalaeos, like I said, do not view individual raw foods as being the only essential healthy food. We also focus on a variety of raw organ-meats, on "high-meats" and so on and on. Plus, other raw plant sources can be more problematic than raw fruits. For example, some raw vegetables have too high levels of antinutrients in them for warding off insects, thus causing digestive upset to humans etc.. Raw fruits do not have this problem as they are meant to be eaten.
When you can find plenty of examples of people increasing health doing traditional processes and expanding on their diet choices to include wild foods by any means while emphasising things like low sugar over 'eat whats raw' then any comparison of a single food to another food becomes pointless. That there is enough information to suggest one CANNOT discriminate against processes unilaterally as being bad without resorting to diagrams or comparisons of individual foods.
Ah, I see, you're a believer in Weston-Price's notions, to some extent.That's why all the kerfuffle. The trouble is that Weston-Price made the exact same mistake you are criticising rawpalaeos for, namely suggesting that diet alone would solve all health-problems, that all one had to do was eat foods cooked or processed in certain ways to be healthy. He tried to claim that all these hunter-gatherer tribes were in the peak of health, yet scientists like Mann have since then pointed out that this was a wholly inaccurate claim.He also cited endless different types of diet as all being supposedly super-healthy, yet these diets were often so radically different from each other, that such sweeping claims could not possibly have been true. Plus, he failed completely to realise that there were various non-dietary reasons as to why hunter-gatherers did not have the kind of diseases that modern Westerners had:- for example, heavy amounts of exercise reduces the amounts of AGEs/heat-created toxins in the human body, and so does caloric restriction/Intermittent Fasting, and both exercise and feast/famine/fasting were routinely practised by such hunter-gatherers throughout their lives.Also, those hunter-gatherers did not cook their foods as harshly as modern settled peoples do. So, while some have used Weston-Price to suggest that cooking is OK or can be better than some raw diets, they are mostly wrong, except in the case of really extreme raw diets like raw veganism/fruitarianism.
like with juicing or any other things, you project assumptions about things which are essentially fabrications of your own which you then use to prove things. I've read countless articles on juicing from extreme pro and con and none mention anti-nutrients and almost all the cons (Bee Wilder, Sisson etc..) mention sugar. This is an invention of the raw paleo board as far as I am concerned. One can only possibly take ion more 'antinutriton' by increasing the ammount of vegetables by jucing more than one might eat, the proces itself is incapable of such.
On the contrary, it was mentioned on numerous occasions on quite different RVAF diet forums. We only repeat it, as so many RVAFers have found that they did OK on some forms of raw solid veg, but got nutritional deficiencies from consuming too much raw veggie-juice, in the long-term.
As for the overwhelming evidence against modernt fruits:
You can assess and address this information individually, but at the end of the day you have to respect that people have success doing what they do, and not place superficial caveats like they were damaged by modern foods or something, this is something that effects every human and that is what the data shows.
The point I made was perfectly valid, that some rawpalaeos are very badly affected by any fruits, however raw, while others thrive on them, so that people should choose what works for them within a raw diet, rather than choosing a less effective cooked diet. And the data against fruits is way overshadowed by the much larger number of studies showing that raw fruit is healthy, anyway, like I said before.
