I'm aware of that, and the fact also is that "majority" is not all and you know full well that there are multiple members here who don't do well on carbs, so please show a modicum of courtesy by stating "majority" if you mean it--especially here in the ZC forum. Frankly, at times you've used language that is decidedly unfriendly toward VLCers and ZCers, whether you mean to or not. I like having someone to debate with when I'm looking to explore a new or not fully hashed out subject, but it doesn't have to come with overly broad-brush or otherwise inconsiderate language. Sound arguments don't need that.
Well, you've also used such language as regards carb-eaters. That is inevitable since I've had bad experiences on RZC and you've had bad experiences on raw omnivorous. As for the issues re "majority", it's not necessary to mention such as I was talking in a general sense re the whole of humanity - obviously, in endless cases, there are always exceptions - for example, I could state, merely in passing, that it is characteristic for humans to have 2 legs and 2 arms, and get unfairly criticised by amputees, in a similiar fashion.
Besides, this was meant originally as merely a sticky topic for Stefansson's work, not as a discussion really, and should have been locked a long time ago(my fault). I only included the Stefansson reference as he is zero-carb and there are no raw, zero-carb gurus at present(well, Lex hasn't written a book as yet). Stefansson made many errors, including clearly deliberately false claims re the proportion of raw foods in the Inuit diet, and was ultimately a pro-cooked-food advocate.
Again, most is not all. Not everyone does as well as you on raw fruits/vegetables, nor does everyone do as well on ZC/VLC as people like Pioneer, Katelyn, Lex, William and me. All I'm asking is that you acknowledge the existence of people like us when you make statements about who does well/better on what.
Perhaps you'll understand what I mean if I reverse the language: I would not use the reverse broad-brush language of "someone eating mostly traditionally low-heat-cooked animal fat and only a little unrefined raw carbs would be far better off, healthwise, than someone eating mostly raw carbs and only a little traditionally cooked/processed fat." I would qualify it by referring only to myself or use other qualified language like "some people," or at least "most". You know that carbs vs. ZC/VLC is a contentious issue here and by using broad-brush language you encourage ZC proselytizers like Katelyn and William to make the opposite claims from yours. In other words, in addition to being inconsiderate, unqualified language incites your counterparts and starts up the old debates about carbs again.
Again, most is not all. If you mean most, then please say so in the future. I could live with that (even though I'm skeptical of the claim) and that's all I'm asking. I don't see it as a difficult request. An occasional ommission is understandable, but I've been here long enough to see that it has been a pattern for you to make statements that ignore the existence of people who do better on raw ZC/VLC than other raw diets. If you will not do it, that is your right, but it will signal that you do not wish to make ZCers/VLCers feel welcome here.
Well, William and others have already used terms such as "evil carbs" and the like, in a rather more vehement way than raw omnivores have done as regards raw zero-carb. More to the point, I was merely stating a simple fact, that while everyone does worse with cooked foods to some extent, re increased aging spurred on by heat-created toxins etc., there are only a few who are affected badly by raw,unprocessed carbs. That was to show that cooking is a far bigger problem than carbs as such.And, incidentally, what about the minority who can handle carbs fine but who can't handle any fats at all? There are certain conditions which make that possible. Now I could, long-windedly qualify every statement I make by including every possible exception in my statements but that doesn't change the point, that the exceptions prove the rule.
The simple point is that my experience, along with a number of others, has been decidedly negative re RZC, so it is essential for such as us to warn about issues re such diets. Similiarly, some others, such as Lex and yourself, have not experienced the full benefits when eating raw carbs, so it is essential for you also to warn that raw carbs don't work for everyone. Either way, people benefit therefrom from 2 different viewpoints.
My experience is similar to Lex's on this--if anything, he has reported fewer benefits from raw than I have. If the animal foods were cooked using traditional methods my guess is that I would fare better on that than on a diet high in raw carbs, based on my experience. In my case, eating raw instead of low-cooked provides a small additional benefit, but it doesn't come close to the benefit I've experienced by dramatically cutting down on plant carbs. You seem to find this hard to believe, but I believe you when your reports of your experience and try to show some civility by taking you at your word and I hope you will return the favor.
As for "well-done"--you didn't specify that (you wrote "only a little cooked/processed fat", which is what I was responding to) and I wasn't cooking well done before I went raw, it's unnecessary when cooking and even most many SAD advocates say not to overcook food, so it's irrelevant to my simple request on multiple counts. Changing the subject doesn't address my request.
My challenge was actually quite appropriate. Simply put, a pro-cooked-food-advocate should be fine with "well-done" meats - any suggestion that "well-done" wasn't OK would imply cooking was bad. And the whole issue of the past argument in this thread re pioneer etc. is not what you suggest above but actually either that raw is always better than cooking/processing, no matter how processed/cooked that diet may be, or that even highly-processed/cooked meats are always better than carbs, however raw. I seriously doubt you would be fine with hydrogenated lard or heavily hot-smoked meats, for example.
OK, thanks. I'm trying to get some sense of how other folks do on raw honeycomb and raw honey vs. raw fruits and where I fit in the spectrum of responses. Are there any differences between how you do on honey vs. fruit? Have you measured your 1 or 2 hour postprandial BG after eating either? I didn't buy any berries this week, so I didn't get a chance to test my PP BG after eating them, but still plan to do that.
I don't believe in measurements of the body as I don't believe they are of any real use, given all the widely different interpretations. As for fruit, I have only issues with tropical fruits, unless I go VLC for very long periods, in which case, my ability to handle fruits goes way down as the relevant bacteria etc/ are missing. Oh, I do get some sort of sudden shock to my mouth if I overindulge in raw honeycomb - feels as though my nerves are affected.
Wow, that's actually more than I expected. How much do you pay for raw honeycomb (and sorry if you told me before)?
c. 3 pounds sterling 50 pence per 8 ounces.
