I find that diet bashers can be helpful when they provide a different perspective that includes some data, as in the case of the article Miles cited, rather than just assumptions, insults or straw men arguments.
This appears to be the key bit in the article regarding raw diets that include animal foods: "the addition of raw meat to the diet did not change the odds of ovarian suppression" (
http://www.radiancenutrition.com/2011/08/19/put-down-that-kale-smoothie-why-you-should-cook-your-food)
This appears to be what she is referring to:
"Vegans had no significantly higher odds of underweight than vegetarians or meat eaters." (Koebnick, C., Strassner, C., Hoffmann, I., Leitzmann, C., 1999. Consequences of a long-term raw food diet on body weight and menstruation: results of a questionnaire survey. Ann. Nutr. Metab. 43, 69–79.)
If so, it would be more accurate to say that the "inclusion" of meat in the raw diets did not change the odds of ovarian suppression, rather than the "addition."
The only meat eaters mentioned in the survey study report were those following "instinctotherapy" diets containing "large amounts of fruits." While it's just a survey, which is possibly the weakest form of dietary study of all, the results fit with what I've seen over the years as the 4 biggest long-term pitfalls of raw diets:
1) undereating
2) not enough starchy foods (accumulating evidence suggests that our Stone Age ancestors ate underground storage organs raw, before the advent of cooking, but there aren't many available in supermarkets today)--especially ZCers or near-ZCers that avoid animal starch as well as plant starch
3) too much sugary fruits or honey (usually sugary fruits) and not enough antioxidant/detoxifying nutrients in the body, like B6, glutathione, Mg, zinc and iodine, to deal with the stress from chronic high sugar intakes
4) not enough organs, connective tissues, bones, blood, fermented foods and other foods commonly eaten in the past but rarely eaten nowadays
The reports I've seen suggest that these are general tendencies of Instinctos (not all), and it seems to stem in part from their emphasis on eating what tastes good to them and often not having much experience with or knowledge of traditional foods that are unpopular today. I suspect that those fruit-heavy Instincto-type raw dieters who eat a very restricted diet that has one of these four problems and who also refuse to get their nutrient levels checked or take any foodlements/supplements are at greatest risk of problems.
On the other hand, one thing the survey report didn't address, which raw vegans and GCB rebut with, is the possibility that some of the self-reported "amenorrhea or menstrual irregularities" could be healthy covert menstruation. At first, that counterargument seemed too convenient to me, but there is some science supporting the possibility (see Periods - They May Be 'Normal', But Are They Healthy?
http://debbietookrawforlife.blogspot.com/2009/04/periods-they-may-be-normal-but-are-they.html)
