sigh,
Like many people on this forum or other 'health' forums with legitimate experience and with 'unwanted' discoveries, Daniel is an experienced (10+ year) raw fooder that does indeed have experience with raw meat diets, so obviously knows most the arguments for heat created toxins. Many people here also have experiences with 100% raw meat oriented diets, have read the articles on cooked food toxins of course and will concur that cultured, juiced, brewed or cooked vegetables and starches (if not some outright arguing for benefits cooked fats or even meats over a diets high in fruits ) have advantages and value over other unnatural totalities of other raw diets. This is a unknown and open discussion. People can talk about this openly but one does not 'lose' an argument based on which diet has more measurable toxins in it.
One does not have to promote at all that cooking can 'add health' to notice that by at least the conventional definition of the term health.. ..humans have indeed adapted to cooking far better than to other things that are clearly not food, even raw materials, like certain plant matter, minerals directly from rocks, and full on photosynthesis. Unless one is to give a caveat that humans have not evolved to living 100% optimally eating cooked food the evidence currently suggests that people can build tissues with cooked foods that they cannot with things that are obviously not food, even when naturally occurring.
I see that you have deliberately avoided addressing DV's praise of Wrangham's evidence in the face of most other palaeoanthropologists denouncing him as a fraud and providing evidence to debunk his claims(re mentions in articles that he is not a palaeoanthropologist, just a chimp researcher etc. etc.). There can be only two possible conclusions to be draw re DV's support for Wrangham:-
1) DV has done so little research on cooking in general that he just blindly has taken Wrangham's word on it.
2) or DV knows damn well that Wrangham is a scientific fraud, but chooses instead to pretend that Wrangham is correct, as promoting a raw food diet would mean fewer people becoming customers of his products, as raw diets are denounced by mainstream nutritionists on spurious grounds.
Re meaningless lenght of time/experience paragraph:- This is just vague, dubious guesswork on your part. I have in the past come across numerous long-term(decades-long) rawists who either had never read up on the scientific data on the negative effects of cooked foods as they were too new-age-oriented to be interested in facts/logic, or who stated, blindly, that since they (falsely) believed that most scientific studies were somehow "against" them that therefore they didn't believe in any of them at all, and thus chose to never read them, as they paranoidly believed such studies were only ever made by a combination of fake scientists/government conspiracies/industry capitalists out to sabotage the public's health. The cooked-pro-saturated fat crowd are also like that. As for the experience you claim, this is purely based on your own heavily biased notions of what is the "supreme, orthorexic ultra-perfect diet". For example, one of the commonest complaints on a RVAF diet is that peoples' health has suffered if they consumed raw veggie-juice in sizeable amounts each day.
Re cooking paragraph:- Again, you are giving irrelevant examples. Sure, cooked meat is not like granite or sand or whatever, but no one has suggested that cooked-food is not food, we have merely stated that it is not as healthy as cooked foods. And in all those lame examples you can give in which cooking removes antinutrients(applies to grains in particular) and thus boosts the levels of some of the nutrients, there are additional disadvantages created by cooking such as the loss of enzymes, the loss of bacteria and the addition of heat-created toxins via the cooking-process, and, ironically, also a loss of nutrients caused by the cooking process - plus many of those plants which can be improved by cooking, such as grains, re increases in some nutrients, still manage to cause horrible health-problems for people such as IBS/Crohn's etc. etc.. So, it is patently foolish to eat something that may provide a few more nutrients given all the many negative aspects that cooking introduces as well into the bargain. If a particular food cannot be eaten raw and be healthy(eg:- pebbles/grains/cassava or whatever) then it shouldn't be eaten at all(well, unless one is in a desert without access to raw foods or some such siutation)
Many people's health have not increased eating diets devoid of toxins, even people here eating self-described healthy ones that contain the 'right' nutrients'. Because of this - which is one of the only things I can reasonable say in regards to health is a 'fact' right now- one needs to greatly alter this definition of a health forming diet to be inclusive of any strategies that have the potential to create health.
Obviously, it is physically impossible for any diet to cure people 100 percent all the time. Hypochondriacs can, of course, never be cured with people with non-physically-related problems needing other non-dietary help to some extent, and I suspect that people with genetic diseases could only, at best, have some of their symptoms relieved via a diet. Plus, individuals make mistakes and choose foods that are wrong for them re allergies(like my own experiences with raw coconut oil and raw dairy - indeed my own and some others' experience with raw coconut oil just illustrates the point about how even mild processing of a still-raw product can be harmful to one's health. But even taking all those things in account(all equally present in other dietary communities to the same extent), RVAF diets provide far greater, more widespread health benefits than other diets, overall. Now, naturally each individual has to alter their particular raw diet to make it work for them(some find their health actually increases when they up their raw plant food-intake, while others need to increase their raw animal food intake etc.), but that also applies to every other diet, anyway.
200,00o(!) years were not optimally healthy humans.
Again, the 200,000 figure is irrelevant in the light of the fact that other animals have failed to adapt even to another type of raw diet in millions of years(the giant panda example I gave earlier). As for people not succeeding on a diet, so what, the failure-rates on cooked diets are far greater with people on cooked VLC diets being notorious for quitting within weeks of doing such a diet etc.And the potential health-benefits are greater for rawists than for cooked-foodists, given anecdotal and scientific reports re collagen etc.
as I tried to point out quite clearly, the issue of integrity is that you are doing precisely what you are accusing those who promote cooking as acceptable: you are citing a theory of why people should be healthy rather than providing any actual evidence of health people actually exhibit, other than what people including myself usually claim which is that raw or all-raw can be used as a tool to increase health. Anyone who presents vitamins and drugs could also easily use this mode of 'scientific' reasoning if we are not actually looking at the results of such practices.
All we really have available to us re analysing/checking health is either scientific studies(mostly favouring us as regards the issues of heat-created toxins etc.) or anecdotal reports from other RVAFers or our own individual experiences via experimentation with certain foods/diets or reports of blood-pressure tests/other medical tests from RVAFers like Lex Rooker. I presume you consider only the last category to have any validity, which is, of course, absurd. One problem with relying solely on medical tests is that the science behind these medical tests is still pretty dodgy(an example being the cholesterol-issue which is still being heavily debated). Also, focusing too much on artificial methods, such as counting calories or measuring one's body-fat, leads to excess obsession. Plus, I, like many RVAFers, have had too much previous contact with self-proclaimed "health-experts"(ie "doctors") who were so incompetent despite their medical degrees, that they failed to diagnose or properly treat many RVAFers' conditions.
You make wide reaching comments all over this thread as per usual like your recent cold defies what all the /raw food/instincto/Primal/theories of illness as detox, which again no one can label as 'wrong' but obviously is neither a open, genuine, or scientific form of reasoning, never-mind one that most 100% raw camps and individuals here would agree.
It is perfectly OK to express an opinion based on one's personal experience, especially when the issue has not been fully resolved either way - the whole point of this forum is that people read about others' experiences/opinions and compare them to their own experiences/opinions in order to find what works for them. In my own case, I freely accept that others have differing views on this issue. I even accept that it is possible(though unlikely) that my occasional intake of cooked foods here and there might set off a detox.
As for my other comments on Wrangham/heat-created toxins, these are not opinions but facts based on scientists' data/studies etc.
You refer to ZC diets as viable strategies when it is convenient for an argument (at least for people that 'don't handle carbs well') whatever that means ..and just above say all ketogenic diets are harmful even though all zero carbs diets, and many of the diets practiced on this page are ketogenic or at least in ketonuria. So obviously based on your arguments with many people eating such diets, you don't particularly respect those as optimal strategies -particularly when they embrace cooking. I cited an argument that suggested very few of the people that are 'omnivores' including VLC dieters eat a high percentage of their foods as fruit sugars, and you gave a bunch of really outright incorrect information as to why people did that or what percentages they were based on the number of people identified as ZC'ers.
First of all, my data was correct, unlike yours and you are , as usual, missing the point. I strove to point out , via a poll you clearly never had bothered to previously read, that there were far more raw omnivores than RZCers. This clearly demonstrated that there were far fewer of those here who couldn't handle raw plant foods at all. Now, if your thesis that raw plant foods need to be cooked for health-reasons was correct(you suggest that raw fruits are super-bad and that one should eat cooked starches instead and such nonsense), then it is logical to assume that the RZC component of rawpaleoforum should instead be much larger than the raw omnivore component, with the RVLC component being somewhere inbetween. Yet, when one looks at RVAF diets as a whole(not just this meat-heavy forum), one actually finds far more people eating raw plant foods and only a few raw animal foods than the other way round. As for the absurd claim that I don't respect RZCers' choices, that's not true, of course - I have always happily accepted that some people thrive better on only raw animal foods. My own RZC experiment never worked, but that doesn't change the fact that everyone has a different health-background/bodily-processes. As for the ketogenic diet references, I should have made it clearer that I was specifically referring only to the cooked ketogenic diet which is a very artificial diet involving artificial sweeteners etc. has been used to treat epileptics and has resulted in numerous nasty side-effects such as kidney-stones etc.
FYI Fred Bisci is a 40+ year 100% raw foodist that does not recommend a ketogenic diet like you say above, so I will continue to believe that you have actually never invested in studying any of those individuals writings or studies on high fruit diets in regard to the blood and tissue qualities. He is someone who observed that people eating 100% raw 'pure of toxin' fruit oriented diets can become so blood toxic that they become incapable of building health, that are then reversed without adding any animal foods but going off such diets completely, and not just adding more varieties of foods. Ditto all the other people mentioned including Aajonus, who obviously uses additional nutritional tools.
Oh, I merely googled him after hearing you mention him, I loathe gurus, and my own experimentation with raw veganism mainly concerned the actual scientific data/studies behind raw veganism:fruitarianism and what benefits I might get from them etc. rather than the gurus' many silly claims. You do appear to have a very unhealthy obsession with diet gurus re the need to worship your particular guru of the moment etc. It's a strategy designed for failure as no one person can ever be 100 percent correct.
