Originally Posted by Emjay
I really enjoyed the Dec. 31 entry on Steve's blog. Very thorough and interesting.
A point I've noticed through my years as a vegetarian, vegan, and now, raw vegan, is how funny it is that people scrutinize, analyze, criticize, and cross-examine the possible downfalls of a healthy diet, often using the standard questions we all hear as background noise but don't really research (how do you get your protein, what about B12, what about calcium...) BUT many of the same people eat the standard junk/chemical/additive-filled processed food diet and don't bat an eyelash at that. As if to do something good for oneself requires years of advance research and a team of experts, but to continue in the same unhealthy, tiring habits is beyond scrutiny. Does the person on the SAD (Standard American Diet) pose the same questions about their own intake? I think not. And what puts a person more at risk? I really think we get this backwards.
I'm at a point where I don't mind the standard questions at all (I had them all myself once), but it would be interesting to have the SAD person turn their nutritional questions onto their own diet and see what they come up with.
And, as always, use your own health, weight, level of vitality, and lab results as the measure of your success.
~~Melissa RAWintuition: my transition into the raw diet
That is a right on quote Melissa. It's exactly what I've been thinking. I believe that the people who want the studies are really saying is that they can't really imagine giving up their favorite cooked foods.
It likely has little to do with a search for truth and more to do with insulating them from the truth that they are doing great harm to themselves with their current diets.
Any kind of logic could dictate that eating grapes is healthier than Doritos, pastries, high salt soups, caffeine, hot dogs, chocolate cakes, hamburgers, etc. Anyone who denies this is in my opinion, just not thinking straight.
Sure they may make some kind of (false) blood sugar issue argument. But all of those foods are cooked, highly processed and have all sorts of chemical additives.
If we ran a test of 100 people and 50 of those had to eat only Big Macs and the other 50 could only eat grapes every day for 2 weeks. Who do you think would have the better health results?
Or what if you took 100 people and had 50 eat only brown rice and the other 50 only eat bananas for 2 weeks. Which group do you think would get the better results.
If it was an unbiased test, I'd put all of money on the raw fruit group in each and every instance. Not to say we don't need other foods, but in comparison to Big Macs and brown rice, fruit is much better for us.