Thanks for writing
Quote:
Originally Posted by eww  It sounds a bit too anecdotal.
I would give it more credit if clinical and double blind studies were carried out in order to confirm the hypothesis. |
Mariela; sure it would, completely agree. I just read stuff, experience and draws possebilities/views out from that. To me that article was a load of proof, combined with my experences and what I find logical.
Quote:
Originally Posted by eww I would wonder what evidence there was that Raw women ovulate on a regular basis without menstruation. Basing it on whether or not they have, or "can have" children would be far from reliable seeing as all that means is they ovulated at the time of conception. Maybe they never had before and maybe never would after. The only way to know would be extensive monitoring, other than that it's simply conjecture.
And the fact that the article claims that non-human primates are "frugivores" or fruit eaters, which is inaccurate, makes me even more skeptical. Considering that 1) meat was a huge portion (some paleoanthropologist would claim 50-90%) of the diets of our hunter-gatherer ancestors for the vast majority of human history and 2) the advent of cooking technologies drastically changed the physical structure of the human body due to not needing to digest a completely raw diet (this includes brain>jaw ratio lol. we have bigger brains, smaller jaws), most of their "this is natural" claims are debunked.
Not to offend anyone who chooses this as a way of life, if it works for you then great, more power to you but claiming it's "natural", "the way humans were meant to be", "what our bodies were designed to eat" or worse yet "getting back to the way our ancestors ate" is just plain untrue. And it irritates me. If you are going to publish an article based on science and history then actually base it on science and history! You can believe anything you want to believe, but not having basic historical background on the subject you're promoting takes away credibility. At the moment it looks like a scientific paper but without a whole lot of science. I would be interested in looking at the works cited because my suspicion (complete assumption at this point) would be that very few sources outside the raw movement were used. I tried to verify this but the link isn't working for me.
Forgive my little rant there but this is a pet peeve of mine. |
Sure, it's just to test. I just guess there isn't so many who have done reserch/had the money to do big reserch. But one can just take an ovulation test every month, yes. I see your point and all. To me, with the article with peoples testemonials and my own experiences I just don't see the need, personally, to take those kind of test. But yes, ofcourse, if people who don't do these experiences read this, it might sound weird, I see that.
I'm not all into what is right and wrong about what we have eaten before and all. Sure, we have eaten meat a long time and all. But I'm convinced that we are not meat eaters, just because when we compare our bodies to all the other animals bodies, we look like frugivores, and not meat eaters. You know, regardless of how long we have eaten meat and how coocked food developed us..
By the way, what did you mean with this: "the advent of cooking technologies drastically changed the physical structure of the human body due to not needing to digest a completely raw diet" ? I just didn't understand that. The point with raw food is that the body CAN digest it, and that the body can't optimally digest coocked food.. It's not a matter of needing or not. Sure we can eat whatever, but we don't get optimal of that.
Did you mean that you couldn't put a link in here? I didn't understand..
I think the article has some weekneses, like when personal experience is done to a scientific truth. But to me that just goes to stuff like: "You'll be thinner than most people" etc. I'm thin you know, but I have friends who are thinner. So..
By the way, this is an interesting article on the subject, more "humble":
living-foods dot com /articles/
femalebalance.html
Hug it together, i'm not allowed to link yet...