I'm sure I'm going to get a lot of flack for making this post, especially since I'm pretty new here, but hell, I'm going to speak my mind: I don't think we raw meat eaters market ourselves well.  While I appreciate the open mindedness on this forum, and certainly don't want to slam anyone's views, I can't help but recoil at the apparent zealotry I frequently witness on these forums.  I understand everyone's enthusiasm with finally having found a diet that works so well and that seems so common sense in retrospect, but as someone (relatively) new to these ideas, I can attest that when people start peddling the views of gurus like Aajonus as if they are indisputable facts, I start getting a seriously cultish vibe.  This is not to say that those ideas are not worth serious consideration and thought, I just don't think that anyone can legitimately pretend, for example, that the whole raw detox is theory is true beyond a shadow of a doubt and that food poisoning is total BS.  Last I checked, Aajonus hasn't any specialized knowledge about the human body than the rest of us do not. 

My feeling is that there is enough to recommend this diet without reverting to the unsubstantiated theories of celebrity seeking gurus.  I know that its a natural inclination for movements to find leaders to attach themselves to, but honestly, as charismatic as figures like aajonus may be, they can also be pretty damn intimidating and generate a pretty strong nutcase response from people new to his ideas.  I mean seriously, this guy claims that he discovered his diet after being led to a dead carcass by a tribe of foxes (or something like that).  I can't help but worry that the odd mix of pseudoscience, cultism, and spiritualism that Aajonus has managed to market so successfully to his niche community of followers has been more of a liability than an asset to the public image of RAF.   My feeling is that if we want to attract attention to and build credibility for our views on nutrition, we would be better off sticking to the more substantiated, scientific side of the RAF debate, at least publicly.

I realize that this forum is basically a private group of like minded individuals, and I don't mean to suggest that we ought to completely mute our discussion of these sorts of ideas. I just think that its worth keeping in mind that at this point in time, information supporting the dietary views that we support are pretty scarce.  In most parts of the developed world, the sight of a person eating raw meat is more likely to give the impression of psychopathy than superior health.  Being one of the few public communities on the net, I think we would be wise to keep in mind the impression we inevitably have on the outside world, especially open minded individuals who are considering a RAF diet.

I hope I did not offend anybody.  I am indebted to this community for expanding my horizons nutritionally speaking, and the last thing I want to do is to step on the feet of those who have been so helpful me.  I just want to shed some light on the sorts of things that a newcomer to the idea of RAF finds potentially outputting (speaking from experience) so that others like me are not turned away from the great health advantages eating this way confers.

I second what TylerDurden said. Really spot-on, detailed response. Nice one TD

I know that there is a lot of science to back up this diet.  That is why I eat this way!  Moreover, I totally agree that what comes out of conventional dietary literature can be pretty damn wacky sometimes. Further, I recognize the emotional element of diet for a lot of people, and I can understand the natural tendency to cling to figures like Aajonus.  I guess I just worry that for a lot of people, like me, Aajonus is strongly ofputting.  I feel like he turns a diet with a whole lot of scientific merit into some sort of a cult or a religion.  While this may be emotionally comforting to some who are willing to accept his dogma, for those who are not (which I tend to think represents the majority of people in the world), we take one look at the sorts of things he is saying and run the other way.  Like I mentioned in my previous post, I discovered this way of eating not on account of somebody like Aajonus, but rather because of people like the members of this forum who have taken strives to make the scientific literature more available.  

Understandably, a great number of people on this forum accept a lot of what he says, whether straight out or in some sort of a modified way.  After all, in adopting this style of eating, many of us have had to sever all sorts of emotional attachment comfort foods and emotionally related dietary practices that we have grown up with.   As far as I see it, Aajonus is really the first person who has come along to fill that void in a compelling, and understandably has made an impression on many for that reason.  I recognize that many of you have taken a toned down sort of approach to his "primal diet", in so far as you have made modifications based on personal experience, which suggests you are not the sort to blindly buy into some one elses dogma.  But even so, the so many of the basic opinions and views put forth on this forum seem to stem, either directly or indirectly, from the, shall I say, fanaticism of guru's like Aajonus.  Many of the people on this forum have come from other diets with there own sets of gurus making claims of healing all sorts of degenerative diseases and basically offering the fountain of youth (for only 5 easy payments of 99.99).  Is it really so difficult to see the similarities between those gurus you have formerly rejected and those you now basically subscribe to (with modifications).  It is important to recognize that people new to these ways of thinking see people like Aajonus as being equally wonky as people like david wolf with his kirlian images.  

Lets talk the whole notion of detox for example.  Has detox ever been seriously validated in scientific literature.  Not that I'm aware of, except maybe in a more or less round about way.  But more specifically, has science ever validated a mechanism for detox even remotely similar to the sort described by Aajonus.  Again, not that I'm aware of.  Like Tyler mentioned, almost all "fringe" diets involve some sort of a detox mechanism.  Deep down, I think that the whole detox philosophy touches on some really deep seeded human emotions and feelings that help to explain why people go looking for out of the ordinary diets in the first place.  As I see it, people frequently cling to the idea of detox because they have some deep seeded disdain for either themselves or for the rest of society, and they want to somehow purify themselves emotionally and so use food (or lack of food in the case of natural hygienists) as a proxy.  Alternatively, detoxers may just want to feel like the they are substantively different and better than the rest of society, and so think that by making there bodies cleaner, they are somehow becoming better people (almost like going to catholic confession).  In any event, what I am really suggesting is that perhaps this idea of detox is something that operates on a higher plane than science.  

You mentioned your critical views on much of what Aajonus has said in cases where the things he has said have been blatantly misguided.  This I know to be true.  I may be new to posting, but I am a long time lurker of these boards and am very well aware of the general tone of things.  However, what I see that concerns me is how he tends to be given the benefit of the doubt.  It is like he is the basis off of which everything is judged.  When something that he says doesn't work, or is just completely off base, it is considered as questionable (i.e. dairy, massive quantities of raw honey, juiced veggies).  But when something he has suggested does seem to make some sense, it is accepted without question that not only is the dietary reccomendation spot on, but that all of the psuedoscientiic/fanatical theory that he has built around it must also be true.

For example, to go back to the example of detox vs. food poisoning.  I fully agree that conventional wisdom on food poisoning is absurd.  However, this does not prove Aajonus theories on detox to be true.  My sense is that people on this diet do get mild food poisoning from time to time, especially early on, and pass this off as "detox".  Now, I'm open to the idea that bacteria has a lot of positives.  I'm even open to the idea that when we get sick, the body may in some fundamental way be reparing itself or undergoing an improvement for the better.  But their is this strong distinction drawn between food poisoning and detox that is just not born out by the scientific evidence as far as I'm concerned.  Aajonus claims that when we feel gross after eating raw food, its because we are undergoing a quasi-magical detox of heavy metals and other mysterious toxins due to finally eating the nutrients our bodies have been deprived of, and so activating internal mechanisms for cleansing.  This theory sounds great and all, but really??  I mean, really??  as far as I'm concerned, these magical nutrients that allow our bodies to understand its time to clean up have never been identified.  I'm sure I haven't gone into enough detail explaining the mechanisms of an Aajonus type of a detox, but I just fail to think it makes a lot of sense to support his medical views word for word just because they are corroborated on a superficial level by experience.  

Let me just make one final example.  Suppose I were to claim that plants grow because they desire to re-unite with their mother, the sun.  I could probably even build a small religion around this idea if I were more imaginative.  Some people who are, for whatever reason, open to suggestion on the subject of tree growth and with little background in science may very come along and, seeing that plants do, indeed, grow when exposed sunlight, hail my views as correct beyond a shadow of a doubt and take me as their leader.  However, most people will hear what I am saying, call me a crackpot, and go looking for someone else to listen to and take ideas from.  When I start hearing blatantly aajonusesque views being touted around as if they were fact, I can't help but worry that this is what is going on.  I think we have such a good thing going here, and I don't like to think that we are turning others away with the sort of psuedo-religious undertones that have lead so many to reject other fringe dietary regimes.  So long as we cling publicly to these views, I fear that it will be impossible for the raw paleo paradigm to ever go very mainstream (or if it does, that it will be in spite of us, not because of us).  

Again, no offense intended.  I know this is a sensitive subject, and even you all disagree with me, I hope you can see where I'm coming from here.

Why not give someone the benefit of the doubt who cures people of cancer? You'd rather just attack people who make claims not mainstream to be safe? Everyone on this board is discussing what they have experienced and believe to be true, I'm really surprised that someone is suggesting this board is dogmatic. Have you ever read other diet boards? I wouldn't be the least insulted if you were suggesting this at one of the raw vegan boards I've read, or maybe some hardcore AV board, but I have no idea where you're coming from. Maybe you could quote one thread or even one post that blindly supports AV or other dogma? Many of these people are scientists, I'm a biologist by training and don't see anything suspect or anti-science going on here.

Timmypatch, woooo, good post - "detox" has always been my  :' . I look at the goats, sheep and other animals (I do go out every day) and ask my self if they count bowl movements, do liver, colon and other clean outs or eat "special" items for this and that reason. I bet they don't plan to change their diet because of Christmas .

Nicola