Author Topic: Explain Instincto Diet Fully #2  (Read 119257 times)

0 Members and 7 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline goodsamaritan

  • Administrator
  • Mammoth Hunter
  • *****
  • Posts: 8,830
  • Gender: Male
  • Geek Healer Truth Seeker Pro-Natal Pro-Life
    • View Profile
    • Filipino Services Inc.
Explain Instincto Diet Fully #2
« on: June 21, 2010, 08:19:08 am »
The Instincto forum is meant primarily for discussing the Instincto diet in a positive, constructive way and that anti-Instincto posts should be made in the Hot Topics forum.

Thank you for the wonderful discussions, we just need to tidy up things.
« Last Edit: July 14, 2010, 03:38:41 pm by Iguana »
Linux Geek, Web Developer, Email Provider, Businessman, Engineer, REAL Free Healer, Pro-Life, Pro-Family, Truther, Ripple-XRP Fan

I'm the network administrator.
My business: Website Dev & Hosting and Email Server Provider,
My blogs: Cure Manual, My Health Blog, Eczema Cure & Psoriasis Cure

alphagruis

  • Guest
Re: Explain INstincto Diet Fully #2
« Reply #1 on: June 21, 2010, 03:54:31 pm »
The Instincto forum is meant primarily for discussing the Instincto diet in a positive, constructive way and that anti-Instincto posts should be made in the Hot Topics forum.

Thank you for the wonderful discussions, we just need to tidy up things.


OK, GS no problem. Let's "thrive" the instinctos here.  :)

I suggest the moderators put all my posts removed by Iguana in a hot topics thread entitled "Instincto debunking". Maybe some forumers are interested in a really independant, not pro-instincto moderated thread. Maybe I'll sometimes contribute to it.



Offline Iguana

  • Moderator
  • Mammoth Hunter
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,049
  • Gender: Male
  • Eating tuna fish
    • View Profile
Re: Explain INstincto Diet Fully #2
« Reply #2 on: June 21, 2010, 05:04:17 pm »
I won’t remove your posts, Alphagruis, as long as they are free from personal attacks, slander, insults and defamation. Well argued and polite critiques are welcome.

If you can’t refrain from slander, try to group it somewhere in your post in such a way that we can delete it selectively while we keep the courteous and interesting part of the post.

 ;)
Cause and effect are distant in time and space in complex systems, while at the same time there’s a tendency to look for causes near the events sought to be explained. Time delays in feedback in systems result in the condition where the long-run response of a system to an action is often different from its short-run response. — Ronald J. Ziegler

Offline Iguana

  • Moderator
  • Mammoth Hunter
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,049
  • Gender: Male
  • Eating tuna fish
    • View Profile
Re: Explain INstincto Diet Fully #2
« Reply #3 on: June 21, 2010, 05:58:59 pm »
GCB is clearly on the defense

I don’t think he has the choice, since he has nothing to attack in Alphagruis  stance or your stance: the views of both of you are contained within the instincto theory, they are an intrinsic part of it. GCB’s theory includes raw paleo, it includes Weston Price findings and all that. In addition to be the first (as far as know) to see the problems with animal milk and grain in human diet, GCB also introduced the new idea that humans still have an alimentary instinct (nobody seriously contest that animals do not eat according to a particular nutritionist’s dietary ideology, but follow their instinct) and a new model of the viral phenomenon, as well as a new way of considering the contagious bacterial diseases.  

So, if you and Alphagruis think the part of GCB theories about a human alimentary instinct should be abandoned, you revert in direction of usual beliefs and you don’t bring anything new to specifically attack.  

Quote
and not responding to actual points but merely criticizing or ignoring forum members based on the same bs idea that people haven't experienced this refined quality. This is not at all an argument and could be used for any idea to 'convince' without true proof from ideas as varried as immortality to Scientology. and yet no one can say why animals eat whatever food I give them that is remotely natural and even sometimes otherwise?  I see the same return on crappy birdfeed from birds, night creatures will continue to eat garbage (although the cooking here upsets their natural sense of smell). and whatever meat I dispose of there seems to disappear and even the rotten eggs and high egg I have thrown out with the compost. no one responded to the fact that animals routinely die of eating poison through natural means, and its quite easy to poison an animal with chemicals.

KD, I’m afraid the principles of instinctive nutrition haven’t been clearly and sufficiently defined here and are misunderstood.

I understand (but perhaps I’m wrong) that you take the fact that animals (as well as humans) will poison themselves with our garbage, chemicals, junk food or cooked food, as implying that their instinct doesn’t work in a way to provide them the best means to survival and health.

But the fact is that our alimentary instinct is induced in error by food processing, cooking, mixing and every artificial process that couldn’t be found in the environment before mankind mastered the fire and began to spread havoc all over.

You’re likely to retort that there must always have been some food overheated  or even cooked, for example on rocks exposed to sunlight and in case of volcanic eruption or forests fires. That’s true, but it happens too rarely for the animals feeding occasionally on overheated  foodstuffs in such opportunities to be so disadvantaged as to die before being able to reproduce. Even after humans began to use cooking on a large scale, the health troubles induced didn’t prevent most of the individuals to survive long enough to reproduce. Therefore the selective pressure has been too weak to provide us an adequate adaptation, instinct wise as well as long term health wise. So, the problem remains that our instinct is fooled by overheated food and every recent (recent on the evolutionary timescale)  process invented by man.

Hence, we have to use our conceptual intelligence to avoid the ingestion of all processed stuff in order to allow our alimentary instinct to work properly. Animals can’t be thought that, so they fall in the trap at the first occasion. By the way, our nutritionists did not catch it yet neither!

For the other points, I fear you are in full speculative mode. Observations and experimentations are more suited to approach the reality.
« Last Edit: June 21, 2010, 09:19:10 pm by Iguana »
Cause and effect are distant in time and space in complex systems, while at the same time there’s a tendency to look for causes near the events sought to be explained. Time delays in feedback in systems result in the condition where the long-run response of a system to an action is often different from its short-run response. — Ronald J. Ziegler

Offline GCB

  • Buffalo Hunter
  • ***
  • Posts: 129
    • View Profile
Re: Explain INstincto Diet Fully #2
« Reply #4 on: June 21, 2010, 08:32:10 pm »
OK, GS no problem. Let's "thrive" the instinctos here.  :)
I suggest the moderators put all my posts removed by Iguana in a hot topics thread entitled "Instincto debunking". Maybe some forumers are interested in a really independant, not pro-instincto moderated thread. Maybe I'll sometimes contribute to it.

Alphagruis,

I am unaware of the exact intentions of GS or other moderators. But it seems obvious to me that the point here is not to vindicate the instinctive nutrition as you cannot stop to insinuate.

It is on the contrary very simply a case of explaining it BEFORE criticizing it. It is indeed impossible to usefully criticize a theory not understood, or of which minor parts are extracted and the essential parts occulted, or which is paraphrased as you do it.

Open two threads, one for explanations the other for systematic criticisms is thus perfectly reasonable and will allow to move forward instead of turning in circles as it was unfortunately the case until now.

However, I think critical questions highlighting contradictions, an error, an incomplete formulation or another defect of the theory remain perfectly possible in this thread. What is undesirable here, in my opinion, are the unfounded, obsessional, abusive, defamatory attacks you seem found of.

It is thus not question of transforming this thread into an apology of instinctive nutrition, but in serene explanation and objective criticism. In my opinion, the other thread should be dedicated to all the visceral and emotional attacks that can’t be answered in a rational way.


Offline KD

  • Mammoth Hunter
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,930
    • View Profile
Re: Explain INstincto Diet Fully #2
« Reply #5 on: June 21, 2010, 11:14:39 pm »

I understand (but perhaps I’m wrong) that you take the fact that animals (as well as humans) will poison themselves with our garbage, chemicals, junk food or cooked food, as implying that their instinct doesn’t work in a way to provide them the best means to survival and health.

But the fact is that our alimentary instinct is induced in error by food processing, cooking, mixing and every artificial process that couldn’t be found in the environment before mankind mastered the fire and began to spread havoc all over.

The fact that you are grouping my ideas into such simple assumption at this point - that it is only talking about cooked foods or things in our modern environment I don't see as honest. I already said many times in reference to PEOPLE OR ANIMALS that have artificial foods of natural origin at their disposal (at level far less impressive then our current arsenal in stockpiling choices) and are not actually working for - or are capable (because of dietary and lifestyle choices) to - actually acquire these foods like running down a boar. you arn't addressing the actual points and and answering like a politician using the simplest explanations to counter things I'm not even talking about. please address 1.) the issue of the bison meat, 2.) the issue of the wild animals with unlimited effortless access to 100% the natural foods that you as an instincto might choose and accumulate to decide between.  3.) the fact that what I selected in bold applies to both their natural environment and our own 4.) the presence of natural poison and animal death is well known. And 5.) if relatively pure wild animals cannot make 100% decisions for their health and choose any number of natural things (lets keep it to that for now) then humans have no genuine sense of choice in choosing between apples and oranges, pumelos and peaches, and arachnids and salmon as far as getting the best nutrients to get their proper micro or macronutrients for that moment (even if the end results is acceptable). These may be meaningless to you or an animal, but the very essence of this idea is that it is of highest value over any artificial system for any goal. The system has no value if it can't outdo what is clearly saying is inferior ways of choosing foods, that is the sticking point.

If you are insinuating that they entire world has at some degree gone crazy (which I might agree) that is even more proof that we need to step in with our minds if animals will foolishly stumble into all manner of bad habits given artificial choices. I think I said with myself that I seem to respond poorly to animals fed grain or foods sprayed with chemicals and reject them, and yet animals do not even in their raw state. Obviously the mechanism here is not completely instinct but knowledge that a food is bad and that better food is possible and I will not starve, luxury that an animal does not have.

I have not once tried to defy the existence of alimentary instinct in this conversation. What I'm saying is in animals even in their own context this does not lead to their best nutrition and that animals DO have desires that can be upset and certainly by unnatural circumstances like abundance and every other thing I have listed. the idea that their system has an innate sense of excess does not prove that they don't go beyond what is necessary for nutrition on a daily basis and make poor overall choices especially in lack. Therefore there are improvements to be made OR destroyed through education and abundance.

To me these are reasonable questions and if they cannot be answered than that proves there is some speculation or intellect driving its pursuit rather than results. The idea that these questions are insults from ignorance, is just absurd, coming from the fact that I know I have far more experience (not just knowledge) than anyone 'off the street' that might stumble on this thread in these matters. I can come up with tons of examples of systems of diet or otherwise that are 'working' for all kinds of people and they would equally say try this for two years and see (cough cough Doug Graham) . This is not an acceptable form of argument. I'm not doubting anyone's health as already noted and some ideas I agree cannot be grasped intellectually, but this ideas is not even being used efficiently by animals?



I'm reposting to clarify what I said about the bison meat and so forth, also to illustrate how selectively you answered these points.

I'm still waiting n the bear, would he eat more? more fish? more honey? the same as if he acquired it all himself?

Quote
but are you also saying we are closest to chimps? and that your desires become pure, so how is it instinctos pick foods that are less likely to be consumed by chimps or savages? They should taste/smell better, brains and liver should always taste/smell better to muscle meats unless we have over-sufficiency of those nutrients.

I've tried to give a number of examples of what I mean. What I am saying is pretty much all wild animals do not decided between foods based entirely on what is best to eat, I'm not speaking about some holy grail of health with the word 'optimal'. I've written the same thing 10 different ways and not got one single response.

I mentioned in one of my first responses about inscintos I knew that wouldn't eat from domesticated animals and therefore had to use their human resources and brain to fly in other kinds of foods, and you said that is unlikely that people ate this way, and yet the conversation has turned to exactly that the effects of purely wild non-store bought foods -that people are still not acquiring with their own resources - as being the only efficient tool to know this mechanism. how is it possible that according to you at least all of the animal kingdom is potentially food for humans, but no matter what the weight or difficulty in catching the animal, it can be totally possible that the bodies innate desire -not at all distorted by inactivity and size -would naturally in its optimal condition crave .25 lb or bison meat per day: without refrigeration, or idea that another bison would come by or be obtained so easily for the next minute portion?

In other words you talk about your instinct preventing you from eating harmful foods like grass, but you have not adequately explained how the body actually get the proper (best) ratio of nutrition either per individual or per human race by simply deciphering what is not food, which seems to be the only ability we can agree on that animals practice. The issue in question is how can you decide how much meat, fruit etc..if you are not even aquireing all within nature, and if given an abundance even an animal would not hesitate to 'jeopardize' its health and wander from this ideal ratio in such a way to eat of less quality or a less needed food that was artificial available. In other words even if the sense is clear, how do you know your requirements are not limited by the environment or being dictated by distorted sense of need or intrinsic desire for tasty foods that might be limited in availability (for instance honey).

GCB is clearly on the defense and not responding to actual points but merely criticizing or ignoring forum members based on the same bs idea that people haven't experienced this refined quality. This is not at all an argument and could be used for any idea to 'convince' without true proof from ideas as varied as immortality to Scientology. and yet no one can say why animals eat whatever food I give them that is remotely natural and even sometimes otherwise?  I see the same return on crappy birdfeed from birds, night creatures will continue to eat garbage (although the cooking here upsets their natural sense of smell). and whatever meat I dispose of there seems to disappear and even the rotten eggs and high egg I have thrown out with the compost. no one responded to the fact that animals routinely die of eating poison through natural means, and its quite easy to poison an animal with chemicals.

I myself have what seems to be innate taste and smell preferences to foods with pesticides and or fed poor diets, and yet wild or domesticated animals (which you say have that innate sense of what they are) do not. They will continue coming back for whatever food is upsetting their natural ratio as long as it is available. They might have some sense of when this eventually becomes in dangerous zones or deficiencies, but its far from what is needed to decipher what is ideal. There is no need to define what is ideal or how far all of us are from it for that to be a clear departure.

or my other examples of a Bear's natural habitat was suddenly replaced by tanks of fish and tanks of honey, or a wild boar inside of your kitchen. I guess these examples are too silly no matter how true to Mr. Burger to consider.



in raw paleo philosophy on this board as I understand it and has even voiced by many moderators is that the philosophy is not based on estimating exactly how our ancestors ate to get their results, but using our knowledge to get the best approaches for ourselves. Even if we can not surpass them due to inheritance and posion of our external and internal environment, it is totally feasible (other than the issue of food quality) to surpass the ways in which they eat nutrtionally through knowledge and lifestyle as well as possibly artificial factors..
« Last Edit: June 21, 2010, 11:41:36 pm by KD »

Offline TylerDurden

  • Global Moderator
  • Mammoth Hunter
  • *****
  • Posts: 17,016
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
    • Raw Paleolithic Diet
Re: Explain INstincto Diet Fully #2
« Reply #6 on: June 22, 2010, 12:00:20 am »
I don't see how it is physically possible to emulate or surpass the pristine diet of our raw, palaeolithic ancestors. I mean, they all had access to 100% raw wild game/wildcaught seafood/wild plants etc. No artificial means or supplements could ever equal what foods they had re quality.


As for wild animals, they are subject to different pressures re survival etc. They have to eat whatever's available, no matter how bland or useless it might be - and with human predation on animals' ecosystem, the choices re foods left to animals are pretty poor. Plus, cooked/processed foods contain opioids in them which cause addiction among humans and animals(only raw dairy has opioids like that, among raw foods).
"During the last campaign I knew what was happening. You know, they mocked me for my foreign policy and they laughed at my monetary policy. No more. No more.
" Ron Paul.

Offline GCB

  • Buffalo Hunter
  • ***
  • Posts: 129
    • View Profile
Re: Explain INstincto Diet Fully #2
« Reply #7 on: June 22, 2010, 12:01:18 am »
Re: Explain INstincto Diet Fully
Quote
« Reply #122 on: Yesterday at 04:14:30 PM »from Paleophil
GCB, what if any influences did inspire you all those years ago when you came up with your ideas that people call Instincto?


Not easy to answer that… -\ A brain is under all kinds of influences, and very often under the influence of data not perceived consciously. But anyway, I’ll try to somehow describe these rather animated early developments.

The first influence, which marked the greatest turning point in my existence, was the lymphoblastic sarcoma that left me with only 20% chances of survival for next 5 years in 1961. I became aware of the illusion that are the majority of human activities, of the importance of health and the urgency to try to understand the reasons of the existence of diseases like cancer.

Another influence was undoubtedly that of the theoretical physics, which fascinated me and that I had taught as an assistant in the previous years :o: I kept from it a particular love for the axiomatic and logic of reasoning, which drove me to seek a model of reasoning as rational as possible concerning health. Thus I was quite naturally brought to blame the food: all our biology functions on the basis of molecules; the main source of molecules in our body comes obviously from food. It is therefore necessary to wonder which are the molecular factors likely to be reflected on health.

A third influence was a coincidence: I noted that a red cabbage that I had kept along an extended journey to USA changed taste according to the state of my body. I concluded that there were gustatory mechanisms (called today “alliesthesic”) that could correspond to the body needs. It’s true that during several years, this red cabbage remained like a kind of Damocles  Sword above my still conventional dietetic concepts. If there are mechanisms ensuring the variation of sensory perceptions according to the body needs, the very basic principles of dietetics become null and void. Any external regulation can only take account of the average needs in a given population, and not of the individual needs and their variations in time.

I was also under the influence of experimental physics. Each statement must be checked empirically, and it is certainly this frame of mind which pushed me to make several kinds of experiments with animals, then on myself, then all kinds of observations on the relationship between food and health, all this during several years. Therefore I managed to define, on the one hand the concept of alimentary instinct, on the other hand that of molecular denaturation, and a whole series of rules which proved to be necessary so that the perceptive variations (thus the language of the body) can achieve its goal: an optimal nutritional balance.

Other influences: vegetarians who contacted me, at a time when I thought that animal foodstuff were suspicious -v. But this influence didn’t last since I quickly could note, simply by the play of the alliesthesic mechanisms, that raw animal food is essential for a correct nutritional balance. Eggs, fish, meat took an odor and a savor more and more attracting, and the experiments showed that their balanced contribution was capital for a correct operation of the human organism.

There was also the influence of the opponents, who often attacked me in a very visceral way -d, and sometimes pushed me to take too intransigent positions. But I believe that the influence of my studies of physics, mathematics and psychology have helped me to keep a position as objective as possible and to react rather calmly to the often aberrant attacks my ideas are regularly the object.

It makes me think of another factor: I always adored the philosophy of sciences, and this taught me to take a step back and look at the subject from a broader perspective in face of the often aggressive and destructive reaction by which novel ideas are received. I draw from these harassments two conclusions: either my ideas are truly aberrant and I must revise them or even give them up; or else my ideas are too new, too hard to understand, too difficult to put into practice.

That shows once again Max Planck was right: "A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it."  -X

« Last Edit: June 22, 2010, 12:33:45 am by GCB »

Offline KD

  • Mammoth Hunter
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,930
    • View Profile
Re: Explain INstincto Diet Fully #2
« Reply #8 on: June 22, 2010, 12:30:03 am »
I don't see how it is physically possible to emulate or surpass the pristine diet of our raw, palaeolithic ancestors. I mean, they all had access to 100% raw wild game/wildcaught seafood/wild plants etc. No artificial means or supplements could ever equal what foods they had re quality.


As for wild animals, they are subject to different pressures re survival etc. They have to eat whatever's available, no matter how bland or useless it might be - and with human predation on animals' ecosystem, the choices re foods left to animals are pretty poor. Plus, cooked/processed foods contain opioids in them which cause addiction among humans and animals(only raw dairy has opioids like that, among raw foods).
I can't tell if you miss-read what I wrote or are agreeing with me. In nature there is often -but not always- a balance of foods producing proper health. But those ratios even in the most pure environment arn't necessarily going to be the absolute best and not all food decisions are going to be based on what is the best. In todays world its all three things (quality, inheritance, abundance/lack) stacked against us, but given a primitive or animal in a theoretical experiment, its still possible to improve or jeopardize their health by altering the types of foods in accordance with various ratios. this is what I meant by artifical and nutritional.

For us because of these factors, it makes far more sense within the types of foods we know to be inferior, and worse health overall - even if we can regain certain instincts - to manufacture the best ratios of those foods known for health to make up for such a situaions and not coast on instincts that are merely adequate for staying alive within a natural setting even for beings that are already completely well and even still make poor choices.

the artificial means would be mostly things like avoiding predators and physical stress, having joy, resources, sense of self, all that jazz that makes people live to 100 even eating complete crap.

by artificial nutrition I mean t purely changing the ratios of intake or eating wider varieties than might be necessary for our ancestors to survive. Just because fish and coconuts were enough for some tribes doens't mean that game and so forth couldn't have made for a better diet and certainly for modern humans that eating roughly all meats or fruits might benefit from supplementing with larger rages of plant or animals foods that are available today because of these discrepancies.

Offline GCB

  • Buffalo Hunter
  • ***
  • Posts: 129
    • View Profile
Re: Explain INstincto Diet Fully #2
« Reply #9 on: June 22, 2010, 04:49:14 am »

I’m sorry, but I’m unable to grasp the sense of most of your sentences. English is not my mother tongue and your writing style doesn’t help my comprehension. If you could write in Latin, I would probably better understand. But finally, I believe I have understood some points in your last post which I’ll try to answer.

Quote
In nature there is often -but not always- a balance of foods producing proper health. But those ratios even in the most pure environment arn't necessarily going to be the absolute best and not all food decisions are going to be based on what is the best.

Did you ever observe animals in a natural environment? That works even with pets, provided they are given no food denatured by any artifice or accident. They go automatically towards what is most appropriate for them in the available context. Exceptions are rare and always explainable. No wonder that the instinct functions this way, because survival in the wild world depends on the performances capacities, themselves depending directly on nutritional balance.

Quote
For us because of these factors, it makes far more sense within the types of foods we know to be inferior, and worse health overall - even if we can regain certain instincts - to manufacture the best ratios of those foods known for health to make up for such a situations

It’s exactly what the instinctotherapy aims at: of course, it is necessary to place at the disposal of each person the food which we know to be the best, except that sometimes, for a particular individual, the instinct allows to discover a food believed of no importance or even inedible, but which may prove to be essential, this in unforeseeable quantities if we were taking dietetic principle into consideration.

Quote
and not coast on instincts that are merely adequate for staying alive within a natural setting even for beings that are already completely well and even still make poor choices.

There’s no question to restrict ourselves to the instinct’s indications, but to use them in addition to existing knowledge. Moreover, experiments show that alliesthesic mechanisms are ways more accurate and safe than dietetic principles, that the instinct take account of knowledge still unacquired and also of the individual requirements in real-time – something dietary knowledge is unable to achieve.

Quote
The artificial means would be mostly things like avoiding predators and physical stress, having joy, resources, sense of self, all that jazz that makes people live to 100 even eating complete crap.

You forget the main thing among the human artifices likely to prolong the life expectancy: medicine! To know what the standard food is worth, the life expectancy it provides WITHOUT medicine should be compared with the one provided by a natural food also without medicine.

Quote
by artificial nutrition I meant purely changing the ratios of intake or eating wider varieties than might be necessary for our ancestors to survive.


I don’t understand you: the artifices include all that man can produce and could not be found in nature. It’s not a question to distort the proportions or to modify the diversity of food. What is then fundamental is to determine which, among all these artifices, have the most disastrous consequences on health – or perhaps the most useful consequences.

Quote
Just because fish and coconuts were enough for some tribes doens't mean that game and so forth couldn't have made for a better diet and certainly for modern humans that eating roughly all meats or fruits might benefit from supplementing with larger rages of plant or animals foods that are available today because of these discrepancies.

It is precisely the basic principle of instinctive nutrition to offer the broadest possible choice of unprocessed natural products, so that our alimentary instinct can indicate which are the most adequate in each particular case. The fact that this method works and never leads to an harmful consumption, shows that the alimentary instinct is much more general-purposed than it was anticipated. Its evolution, and thus its development through all kinds of mechanisms implying in one way or another the genetics, were done during biological times going back to the origins of life on Earth. This doesn’t exclude in anyway the utility of a training: the innate and the acquired are not dissociable.
 
The origin of the first alliesthesic mechanisms is probably the chemotactism the protozoa already had: even an amoeba won’t phagocyte any nearby thing. We find these capacities of selection in our olfactory cells and our taste buds, with in addition a whole cerebral organization able to insure much higher performances. Culinary artifices or other modifications of savors are on the other hand able to thwart these ancestral mechanisms, obviously because they are not programmed to function with types of flavors nonexistent in the past.

« Last Edit: June 22, 2010, 04:58:22 am by GCB »

Offline RawZi

  • Mammoth Hunter
  • ******
  • Posts: 3,052
  • Gender: Female
  • Need I say more?
    • View Profile
    • my twitter
Re: Explain INstincto Diet Fully #2
« Reply #10 on: June 22, 2010, 05:30:26 am »
Did you ever observe animals in a natural environment? That works even with pets, provided they are given no food denatured by any artifice or accident. They go automatically towards what is most appropriate for them in the available context. Exceptions are rare and always explainable. No wonder that the instinct functions this way, because survival in the wild world depends on the performances capacities, themselves depending directly on nutritional balance.

    I love you!  I'm kidding, but I kind of wish my husband's food views were like yours.  This morning my cats had no room for even a taste of fresh 100% grassfed buffalo spleen; because he fed them canned food first.  My son, who is in his twenties and very ill, had always been super-healthy.  Then I met my present husband, and he kept giving his hydrogented oil/soy products.  I was increasing my health, but he insisted I stop going to healthfood stores or seeing my friends in the forest.  Then my health started nose-diving.  Why won't people accept that we need to support those who are under our wings to keep their instincts?
"Genuine truth angers people in general because they don't know what to do with the energy generated by a glimpse of reality." Greg W. Goodwin

Offline KD

  • Mammoth Hunter
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,930
    • View Profile
Re: Explain INstincto Diet Fully #2
« Reply #11 on: June 22, 2010, 05:41:39 am »
Did you ever observe animals in a natural environment? That works even with pets, provided they are given no food denatured by any artifice or accident. They go automatically towards what is most appropriate for them in the available context. Exceptions are rare and always explainable. No wonder that the instinct functions this way, because survival in the wild world depends on the performances capacities, themselves depending directly on nutritional balance.
I've observed wild animals eating what is given. granted I didn't bring a range of options held in my fists behind my back. I still believe that they would go in for more inciting and less abundant food, but that wouldn't necessarily correspond to what they need or in amounts that they need. I'm open to hearing actual experiments and what the ideas of exceptions are.



You forget the main thing among the human artifices likely to prolong the life expectancy: medicine! To know what the standard food is worth, the life expectancy it provides WITHOUT medicine should be compared with the one provided by a natural food also without medicine.
The thing that is bothersome is since medicine according to this thory and many here is toxic, there should be no way medicine increases lifespan over someone that lives their life in pursuit of natural health. Of course statistically it would still be known to happen, if it was true for all individuals surely some combination of natural health and medicine would be the most ideal.

I don’t understand you: the artifices include all that man can produce and could not be found in nature. It’s not a question to distort the proportions or to modify the diversity of food. What is then fundamental is to determine which, among all these artifices, have the most disastrous consequences on health – or perhaps the most useful consequences.

It is precisely the basic principle of instinctive nutrition to offer the broadest possible choice of unprocessed natural products, so that our alimentary instinct can indicate which are the most adequate in each particular case. The fact that this method works and never leads to an harmful consumption, shows that the alimentary instinct is much more general-purposed than it was anticipated. Its evolution, and thus its development through all kinds of mechanisms implying in one way or another the genetics, were done during biological times going back to the origins of life on Earth. This doesn’t exclude in anyway the utility of a training: the innate and the acquired are not dissociable.
 

again I think there is a difference between instinctively deciding even if certain healthy foods are not right for the moment and necessarily choosing what is needed or would be natural quantities either in limiting situations or abundant situations. The point was that even the tribe that was perfectly happy and healthy eating coconuts and fish, being presumably guided at all times by instinct, might as human beings be able to improve their diet if things were artificially controlled by some kind of outside 'god' or within a large experiment.

anyway, I appreciate your response and have a greater understanding that instinctotherapy is not just about returning to faculty that animals have. unless I have still misunderstood myself.

I concede that I write really dense complicated run-on sentences. Hopefully iguana will address my previous points if he gets around to it.
« Last Edit: June 22, 2010, 05:59:34 am by KD »

Offline GCB

  • Buffalo Hunter
  • ***
  • Posts: 129
    • View Profile
Re: Explain INstincto Diet Fully #2
« Reply #12 on: June 22, 2010, 06:17:09 pm »
Quote from: Paleo Donk Yesterday at 03:11:15 PM

How do we know its dangerous? Who are the ones that got in the most trouble from following its paths? It surely is far healthier than fruitarianism and veganism and most likely SAD, so what is it dangerous in respect to? In this respect it could be extremely healthy and certainly eventually lead to an even healthier diet once more research is conducted.

Indeed, the superiority of the instinctive nutrition on various diets is due to the fact that it doesn’t exclude any class of food. It rejects only foodstuffs resulting from agricultural and culinary artifices, since experiment showed they cause problems on the level of the sensory mechanisms, metabolism, immune system and nervous system (like wheat and animal milk). But the class of graminaceae and animal foodstuff are not excluded. It is thus the most complete natural diet ever.

The absence of any artifice able to thwart the alliesthesic mechanisms guarantees an optimal nutritional balance. It has among other advantages the return of the gustatory pleasure to its original function: guiding towards foodstuffs answering as well as possible, among the available choice, to the real needs of the body. No dietetic principle can ensure the correct answers, because these needs are different from one individual to another and  from a moment to another. Only a regulation set out from the internal data can be done in real-time.

Third advantage, this regulation is carried out by sheer pleasure. That is due to the intrinsic nature of the alliesthesic mechanisms, which alter foodstuff’s taste from pleasant to unpleasant according to whether they are useful or not for the body. The point is in fact to find back the nutrition’s natural laws: the animal avoids by nature the unpleasant things and it is therefore always the pleasure that insures nutritional balance and health: pleasure becomes the key of well being – it is even the first condition for a good health (this works only with natural foods, consumed without processing).
 
In short, instinctive nutrition thus unites together the completeness and the possibility of optimal balancing by pleasure. It’s not amazing that it allows to reach results other methods cannot provide – as well in the field of physiological balance than on that of psychological balance.

Quote
I think it is ridiculous though the way it is advocated, especially in someones modern home. Necessarily it must take place outside in the wild, most likely the tropics in a tribal setting with very few tools and no permanent dwellings and so on. The fact that instinctos are glossing over the very basic premise to their own diet and not accepting this fact is depressing and very hard to take them seriously.

You slip here into ideology: the fact that alliesthesic mechanisms were developed in contact with a primitive food environment doesn’t mean in any specific way that they are unable to function in a house! It’s just necessary to take account of the difference between the primitive environment and the current environment in order to correct the possible drifts that could occur. For example it is an integral part of the method to learn that meats of domesticated animals (too soft) and artificially selected fruits (too sweets) tend to thwart the gustatory mechanisms and that therefore taking some care should be obvious. Training of the odors and savors is also necessary, considering it was not done in early childhood. The perfection certainly doesn’t belong to this world, but the conditions under which the instincto is practiced constitute an excellent approximation of the original conditions.
 
Quote
I do appreciate their arguments as again I always learn something from someone who has a vastly different approach to nutrition or any other science for that matter.

Being able to learn from a thesis that one takes for erroneous is a proof of wisdom. But starting from a prejudgment or a hasty conclusion on the falseness of this thesis is likely to prevent you from learning the valid points it could convey… :(
« Last Edit: June 22, 2010, 06:49:58 pm by GCB »

Offline GCB

  • Buffalo Hunter
  • ***
  • Posts: 129
    • View Profile
Re: Explain INstincto Diet Fully #2
« Reply #13 on: June 22, 2010, 06:55:16 pm »
they would go in for more inciting and less abundant food

Precisely, when a food has been scarce, the instinct makes it more inciting. This behavior supports the fact that instinct regulates the nutritional balance.

Quote
but that wouldn't necessarily correspond to what they need or in amounts that they need

The instinct works in the best way in a definite environment. It compensates scarcity or abundance as far as possible: too abundant foodstuffs gets unpleasant, too scarce food gets more attractive. This doesn’t falsifies the fact that it works best with a broad choice – as advised, especially for someone having to recover from a somehow degraded health state.

Quote
I'm open to hearing actual experiments and what the ideas of exceptions are.

An exception to the general rule is for example the incapacity of horses to reject yew, although this plant is toxic for them.

Quote
The point was that even the tribe that was perfectly happy and healthy eating coconuts and fish, being presumably guided at all times by instinct, might as human beings be able to improve their diet if things were artificially controlled by some kind of outside 'god' or within a large experiment.

The Pacific Islanders living on coconuts and fish cook most of their food, even if fish is a few cases eaten raw. As far as I know, there isn’t anymore a single tribe eating everything raw. So, the alliesthesic mechanisms don’t work properly anywhere on this planet for humans, except in the case of a few individuals eating without cooking nor processing their food. Therefore, human beings do need a god or a nutritionist to know what they have to ingest, and a god or a physician to know how they could improve their health. My experiment shows that the instinct does it better through sheer pleasure at eating unprocessed food.
  
An experiment is for example the mean intake of every foodstuffs components in the frame of instincto practice during a full year: the results fall very closely to the advised values established by the FAO or WHO.
« Last Edit: June 22, 2010, 11:21:47 pm by GCB »

Offline majormark

  • Chief
  • *****
  • Posts: 532
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Explain INstincto Diet Fully #2
« Reply #14 on: June 22, 2010, 10:09:39 pm »
GCB,

Interesting discussion you have here. I always felt that instinct plays a role in our diet and it makes sense in a way, since we have the nose over the mouth.

This approach, however healthy it may be, looks like the most unsustainable of all. There is no way a significant number of people could get access to wild meats or fruits.

Isn't it possible that with all the years of agriculture and farming we refined our instinct to some degree in order to fit this situation?

Also, in your experience, have you ever felt like eating aged meats? What do you think about that?







Offline KD

  • Mammoth Hunter
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,930
    • View Profile
Re: Explain INstincto Diet Fully #2
« Reply #15 on: June 22, 2010, 11:03:22 pm »


The Pacific Islanders living on coconuts and fish cook most of their food, even if fish is a few cases eaten raw. As far as I know, there isn’t anymore a single tribe eating everything raw. So, the alliesthesic mechanisms don’t work properly anywhere on this planet for humans, except in the case of a few individuals eating without cooking nor processing their food. Therefore, human beings do need a god or a nutritionist to know what they have to ingest, and a god or a physician to know how they could improve their health. My experiment shows that the instinct does it better through sheer pleasure at eating unprocessed food.
  
An experiment is for example the mean intake of every foodstuffs components in the frame of instincto practice during a full year: the results fall very closely to the advised values established by the FAO or WHO.


I think I've finally had my fill, but to clarify, I meant if if you could place other types of foods stuffs in their environment even natural foods from durian to sugar cane to sacks of bear meat from the sky like 'god' you could alter their diet and cause them to eat things that strayed from their natural patterns causing either an improvement or detriment. This to my knowledge this is the situation we have everyday, that there is no way we can at all times have access to every single food we need to make that absolutely best choice for all over our specific nutrient needs (therefore perhaps neglecting the wild herbs around us over strong smelling lettuce or  unavailable blood or organs of our store bought prey). It was also meant to illustrate the exact opposite that if we don't even have access to what is most natural and wild in nature and a narrow range then how will we make either the choice between the ground-beef or the apple in artificial comparison. Clearly people are not choosing some of the most nutrient dense foods per science based on cultural aversions and so forth over other foods which wouldn't even be able to be acquired regularly, so for better or worse the sensory impulse seems - to me - to still be based in what seems appealing and adequate (non toxic rather than superior) even if there is an agreed stopping point at some point for excess of certain types of foods and not even applied to anything other than an artificial set of circumstances that is either too broad or too small.

as for WHO, similarly I've seen claims from all fruit or low fat diets that either mimic or almost match these standards. Especially being all raw omnivorous, I have no doubt -throughout the year especially- that instincto can gather adequate resources be even superior over many nutritional systems. I just don't believe that even for the pure of constitution or even for wild animals give our contexts and choices that they would automatically fall into the absolute best ratios for thriving over the additional manipulation through experience and knowledge and that most disgraceful activity of doing things one doesn't desire (in their current state removed form nature) in order to push through higher modes of health and activity.

but as I say this is just further clarification, I appreciate the further input. and give up the floor :)
« Last Edit: June 22, 2010, 11:10:02 pm by KD »

Offline GCB

  • Buffalo Hunter
  • ***
  • Posts: 129
    • View Profile
Re: Explain INstincto Diet Fully #2
« Reply #16 on: June 23, 2010, 03:28:09 am »
Quote from: Inger Reply #103 on: June 19, 2010, 02:53:41 PM

I eat it in different ways. Often just sliced directly from slab, eating it pure and cold, but I also airdry it sometimes, like ground beef burgers airdried for 12 hours, or jerky. Love them. Sometimes I make beef tartar. Seldom I fry it rare (rather "blue"  ) in the pan, this could also happend if I eat out. I always feel great after eating meat, it is so strange! Feel just good. Oh, I like aged meat too. I often age it for a week or more in the fridge. I eat about 500 grams to 1 kg meat a day, about 90-160 grams pure protein maybe. My Halibut is wildcaught and fresh, not frozen etc. or salted. I always eat it plain, love the fatty taste.

OK ! I can better answer you now.
As I could observe during my own experiences, back at the time when I was developing my method, several artifices you’re using are bound to perturb your alliesthesic mechanisms:

•   Ground meat for your beef tartar (it’s precisely the disappearance of the normal alliesthesic reactions with ground foodstuffs that triggered my awareness, more than forty years ago, of the harmful influence of mechanical denaturations)
•   Jerky beef is by definition a dried seasoned beef
•   Fried meat
•   Other exceptions to the practice to avoid any food processing

The proper function of our alimentary instinct depends on the frequency of such artifices. There wasn’t any meat grinder in the Paleolithic era. Indeed, the experiment shows that the alliesthesic mechanisms function correctly only insofar as the body is not too disturbed. If not, all kinds of vicious circles can settle.

It is a case of what I call a “bottomless well”: it suffice that a single foodstuff thwarts the alliesthesic mechanisms for our intakes begin to exceed the standards; there is consequently an overload in some nutrients and this overload makes the foodstuffs with which the alliesthesic mechanisms function correctly loses their attraction, and therefore we continue to overload ourselves with the doubtful stuff.

The “bottomless well” concept applies to meats of domesticated animals for the following reason: during thousands of years, the stockbreeders unconsciously gave the precedence to the reproducers whose meat was the most “easy” (that allowed to enjoy its ingestion while there was at the same time an overload due to the first cooking receipts or to the first agricultural artifices). Lamb, pork, beef have thus lost the negative savors allowing our sensory perception of savors to warn of an overload, and the more we eat it, the less other foodstuffs are attracting.

There comes in addition the fact that commercial meats are from animals nourished in a doubtful way and thus often having an abnormal taste which thwarts the gustatory mechanisms even more. That’s why I would advise you to avoid the commercial meats and continue your experience with wild meats.  

 
Quote
I try to follow my body every day to see if I get some symptoms that are no good, but still nothing there. Only good things happend, like my skin is better, my teeths, my gums never bleed anymore not even after flossing! I feel calm and strong. Satisfied. I also was taking bloodtest a few weeks ago, they was abslot perfect, also my B12 status was very good and vit.D too! My cholesterol-levels was totally fine, high cholesterol, but a lot of HDL and my triglycerides was really low. Perfect.

The effect of a protein overload does not appear immediately. Our body has metabolic ways allowing to assimilate proteins and to get from it the energy normally brought by carbs. The noxious effects are marginal and are felt only by a slow and insidious accumulation until a  certain thresholds is crossed: excess of uric acid, hyperkeratinisations, immune system disorders, autoimmune diseases, etc. Even the fact of feeling well can be confused with a jamming of the reactions necessary to get out of the vicious circle, for example the re-integration of pancreatic secretions indispensable for fruits digestion.

Quote
Yeah, I never continue eating if strange tasting, that's for sure. I was ordering Entrecote from Orkos sometimes, I never got tired of that eather.

Exactly: you cannot count on a “strange tasting”, said otherwise on alliesthesic modifications of savors, with meats of domesticated animals; these signals are too weak and it’s better to learn how to recognize them with wild meats. Perhaps it will be by stopping meat consumption during several days or even weeks that you could get out from the vicious circle…

« Last Edit: June 23, 2010, 04:02:41 am by GCB »

Offline GCB

  • Buffalo Hunter
  • ***
  • Posts: 129
    • View Profile
Re: Explain INstincto Diet Fully #2
« Reply #17 on: June 23, 2010, 04:40:47 am »
Interesting discussion you have here. I always felt that instinct plays a role in our diet and it makes sense in a way, since we have the nose over the mouth.

Indeed, most animals use their sense of smell as a guide towards the food they need, and also to refuse those they don’t need.

I once made the experiment to repeatedly present pieces of meat to my dog, until he refuses them. First surprise: he smelled each piece before opening the mouth, and he opened it each time as by an automatic reflex. I thought that he was going to fill his stomach and stop only when full up. But at the end of a quite reasonable quantity, he still always smelled the piece presented, but diverted each time its truffle with a pout, and of course did not open his mouth anymore. Several tests could not overcome his refusal. I then tried “to convince him” to still accept one of theses pieces by cherishing him and by surreptitiously slipping a piece into his mouth. He started to chew it awkwardly and suddenly the piece was ejected a meter away, as if the muscles of its tongue had refused what its sense of smell had already refused. Hundreds of other observations showed me it’s a general rule, and that the same process is ready to function on human beings. The same experiment with babies produce identical results.

Quote
This approach, however healthy it may be, looks like the most unsustainable of all. There is no way a significant number of people could get access to wild meats or fruits.

The wild meat allows to recognize the taste change correctly. But once the palate is rehabilitated, it is of course possible to use meats of domestic animals. I know many instinctos able to manage with minimal budgets.

Quote
Isn't it possible that with all the years of agriculture and farming we refined our instinct to some degree in order to fit this situation?

To some extent. The principal condition for the alliesthesic mechanisms to function properly is the suppression of all culinary artifices. The rest, like artificially selected fruits, the agricultural produce, etc poses only an additional problem. In principle, training makes it possible to compensate for the risks of drift.

Quote
Also, in your experience, have you ever felt like eating aged meats? What do you think about that?

After a more or less long period of practice, almost all the instinctos prefer aged meats, or rather high meats. It’s also more attracting when the body needs it, and more repulsive when our needs are fulfilled. The microbial degradation of proteins probably limits the immunizing problems, the number of antigenic molecules being in theory less.


Offline Inger

  • Chief
  • *****
  • Posts: 937
  • Gender: Female
  • 38 yo Norwegian RVAF s.-06, 90% carniv.
    • View Profile
Re: Explain INstincto Diet Fully #2
« Reply #18 on: June 23, 2010, 04:48:26 am »
Ok, GCB

thank you for answering!  :)

I think I have to try wild meats more often, it is only hard to get almost. Except in fall and winter maybe. Frozen it is available, but I think it should better be fresh?
Bison I can buy here, what do you think about it?
Bison I really love! It is only so darn expensive!  :'( (over 200 € / kg)

My Jerky is always homemade, without any spices or salt, lowtemp dried(raw). I could never use salt or spices for it, just LOVE the plain taste..  :)

I really would like to try eating only wild meats / fish for a while (raw and unseasoned, whole pieces).
SO so sad it is hard to get them.
That is what really makes me sad, it is almost impossible to do.. :'(  except you have LOADS of money.. or live in the woods..

Oh well, I will give my best.  :)

Inger

Offline Paleo Donk

  • Chief
  • *****
  • Posts: 664
    • View Profile
Re: Explain INstincto Diet Fully #2
« Reply #19 on: June 23, 2010, 05:14:01 am »
I have some hypotheticals for GCB or Iguanna that I think would be quite interesting.

What kind of benefits would I enjoy by choosing the instincto route over a lower carb (say at most 30% calories from carbs) raw paleo diet which includes mostly domesticated animal meats and fats over the period of 1 year, 5 years, a lifetime?

Do you think conventional raw paleo as how most members on this board follow is dangerous? What are the worst problems that those following raw paleo will encounter?

Would a low-fat Ornish type diet (one that western medicine propagates) be better than a low-carb raw paleo diet?

How big of a difference would it make choosing instincto in a modern home thousands of miles away from the tropics vs living within a small tribe of gathering folk naked in the tropics over the course of a lifetime.

Do you die following instincto? If you do, is lifespan increased? How do you die?

When would one succumb to protein overload (100g/day? 300g/day?)

Do you apply instinctual reasoning to other aspects of life? If you feel like fighting (or even killing) someone do you do this? I understand we are not anywhere near our same environment but it would be interesting to find out which instincts you do listen to.

Offline Iguana

  • Moderator
  • Mammoth Hunter
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,049
  • Gender: Male
  • Eating tuna fish
    • View Profile
Re: Explain INstincto Diet Fully #2
« Reply #20 on: June 23, 2010, 07:27:31 am »
I have some hypotheticals for GCB or Iguanna that I think would be quite interesting.

Very interesting questions, indeed ! But I don’t think there are simple and general answers, each case being different…  l)

Quote
What kind of benefits would I enjoy by choosing the instincto route over a lower carb (say at most 30% calories from carbs) raw paleo diet which includes mostly domesticated animal meats and fats over the period of 1 year, 5 years, a lifetime?

Personally I enjoy very much the instincto way of eating, and if I still go on since 1987 it is probably mainly because I find more pleasure to eat that way than in any other possible way. This is in my view an extremely important point to attain sustainability : you can’t carry on for years with a diet in which you don’t find enough pleasure to eat.

Also, you don’t feel constrained to stay within a frame of rules, there’s just one and only rule: avoid any processed non paleo foodstuff. You don’t have to worry about how much you eat of this or that: you just don’t care about calories, dietary principles and so on.  ;)

We have quite a lot of long term experience, some like GCB and one or two others have been eating that way for about 40 years without any significant problem. We are perhaps 50 or maybe 100  to have  practiced  for more than 10 years, kids were born and have grown up perfectly well on instinctive nutrition; the children of GCB and other pioneers are now between 20 and 35 years old, some are still eating instincto and are perfectly fine. This gives me a lot of confidence.

On the other hand, how much long term experience has been gathered with LC raw paleo diet?

Quote
Do you think conventional raw paleo as how most members on this board follow is dangerous? What are the worst problems that those following raw paleo will encounter?

I don’t know, it all depend on the way you practice, the quality of your food, social environment and a multitude of parameters I’m unable to enumerate… GCB or perhaps Alphagruis could probably answer better than me. Anyway, SWD is extremely dangerous and therefore by going raw paleo you’ll probably be much better off as long as you don’t stay too close of the zero carb extreme.

Quote
Would a low-fat Ornish type diet (one that western medicine propagates) be better than a low-carb raw paleo diet?

I don’t know this particular diet. I think raw and paleo are a big step in the right direction, low-carb I’m not sure.

Quote
How big of a difference would it make choosing instincto in a modern home thousands of miles away from the tropics vs living within a small tribe of gathering folk naked in the tropics over the course of a lifetime.

I for one would perhaps be better naked gathering my food in the tropics… but  the tropics are a vast area where there are nice places as well as bad places for us humans! The rest of our world is quite big and diverse as well…

Quote
Do you die following instincto? If you do, is lifespan increased? How do you die?

No, we don’t die. Lifespan is so tremendously increased that I cannot tell you how we die, I’ve never experienced that and the others instinctos I know of neither.  ;D

Just kidding. Seriously, I think lifespan is and has been in most cases severely decreased by a SWD.

Quote
When would one succumb to protein overload (100g/day? 300g/day?)

I think I’ve eaten myself daily for 23 years somewhere around your higher number – some days much more – in animal raw protein food and I’m still fine…

Quote
Do you apply instinctual reasoning to other aspects of life? If you feel like fighting (or even killing) someone do you do this? I understand we are not anywhere near our same environment but it would be interesting to find out which instincts you do listen to.

I never felt like killing anyone, even when I used to eat cooked food, wheat and dairy. Neither fighting. I only smashed once the head of a crazy driver who nearly missed to kill my wife. I listen to my instincts, especially ever since I eat instinco because they became more trustable and amiable. :)
Cause and effect are distant in time and space in complex systems, while at the same time there’s a tendency to look for causes near the events sought to be explained. Time delays in feedback in systems result in the condition where the long-run response of a system to an action is often different from its short-run response. — Ronald J. Ziegler

Offline Inger

  • Chief
  • *****
  • Posts: 937
  • Gender: Female
  • 38 yo Norwegian RVAF s.-06, 90% carniv.
    • View Profile
Re: Explain INstincto Diet Fully #2
« Reply #21 on: June 25, 2010, 05:54:32 pm »
Hi GCB,

I have some questions for you if you don't mind.  :)

These are asked by a woman that have been Instincto for 10 years (still are), she wanted me to ask these questions for her.

So here they are:

- - - -

As we know, Humans evolved from Africa. But at this time, many thousend years ago, there was only growing very little fruits there. Especially not all kind of fruits that Instinctos mostly eat like Cempedac, Durian, Bananas, Mangos, Sapotes, Avocado's, Coconuts..
All these fruits was originally growing in other places of the world and where quite recently brought to Africa.

So, if the Humans really eat raw back then, and was not cooking tubers and such, the HAD to eat mostly animals.

So how do this fit together with the way most Instinctos are eating?
The Human can not probably be genetically adapted to food including a lot of fruits, avocados, coconuts etc.!?

- - - -

Hope you have some time answering these questions!
If not maybe somebody else have? (Iguana  ;))

Inger


Offline GCB

  • Buffalo Hunter
  • ***
  • Posts: 129
    • View Profile
Re: Explain INstincto Diet Fully #2
« Reply #22 on: June 26, 2010, 05:10:35 am »
Thank you Inger, very good question!

The instincto theory provides two answers, one theoretical and the other empirical.

Theoretical answer (thus doubtful): it is unknown if mankind, nutritionally speaking; originates in Africa. If such were the case, one could quite simply admit for example that the diet of Bushmen must be the most closely corresponding to our genes. They eat indeed meat, but also a big part of plants.

We know now that in these prehistoric times, there was a handful of migrations not expressly known by paleontologists. We are in any case the inheritors of genetic data much older than the pithecanthropus, which himself came from primates. The genome very slowly changes with time, and the epigenetic mechanisms of adaptation remain limited. It is thus necessary to go and see on the primates (or their own ancestors) side to know the starting point of our genes.

But we can’t go back in time. Establish the food range from the archaeological or paleontological data is always questionable, considering the different preservation time of various food. There remains a way then: go and see what the descendants of these primates eat today in nature. There are, at the very least, infinitely more chances that they maintained their old behaviors while living in nature than did men under the effect of culinary and agricultural artifices, or simply by its greater capacity to modify the environment. It is clear that plants are a major part of all the primates diet. The genetically closest to us like chimps and bonobos include in particular a large part of fruits in their diet.

Of course, it cannot be immediately concluded from this that man still has the same digestive and metabolic characteristics. It is necessary for this purpose to compare the digestive tracts and in particular the structures of the digestive enzymes. According to the publications I could access to, there is a great similarity between the characteristics of chimpanzees and humans. It is thus rather probable that we adapted right from the start for a similar food range.

However, the empirical answer is obviously the surest: how does our body function in the long-term with such or such food range? I can testify today, and I am absolutely sure of the following results: in consuming approximately 2/3 of fruits, 1/4 of vegetables and 1/12 of proteins, the long term instinctos are very well. I have personally soon half a century of practice, and I am in a far better shape than the average population of my age. I look 10 or 20 years younger than my real age, as is the case for most long-term instinctos. The mean BMI (Body Mass Index) calculated out of 43 long terme instinctos is perfectly in the standards, and shows a much narrower dispersion between the various individuals (three times less than in the average population).

But the most important criterion is the growth of children: a body growing from 3 kg to 60 kg is made up for the most part from the nutrients it has received during its growth. If he or she is able to be constituted without deficiency, without accumulations of foreign substances, with normal or even better than average  height to weight ratio and performances,it's that he/she found in the diet all the necessary substances, without exception and in proper amount, which means that the alimentary instinct has assumed a right food balance corresponding to the needs. There are a quite a few children fully grown up who were born from instincto mothers and who practiced strictly throughout their life: they are in perfect health and present the desired criteria of normality, without any deprivation symptoms, nor over /underweight. They didn’t have the usual kids illnesses neither.  

The fact that all these criteria are satisfied with instinctive nutrition is a proof of good performance, in particular of the alimentary instinct: all these persons practice the choice of foodstuffs by their flavors and they ingest the amount indicated by alliesthesic variations of taste and stomachic signals. But be ware with the reasoning: it doesn’t inevitably imply that a different diet cannot have such favorable effects (there isn’t inevitably exclusion of a diet by another).

The only thing I can say, it is that the “zero carb diet” doesn’t match what can be expected from the evolutionary laws, since nothing implies that our ancestors having had a more carnivorous diet than apes could adapt to it in order to have a equaly good health (it seems Neandertal men, for example, had significant health issues concerning in particular the children, but it’s true that they most probably cooked their meat and perhaps other food). The fact of having survived a period of intensive carnivorism does not mean that health was at its best, but only that reproduction was possible. To be able to deduce that the adaptation to the diet guaranteed an optimal health, it would be necessary to count over much longer periods.

Personally, I stick to the facts:  the instinctive nutrition such as I defined it, by taking account of the indications of all the sensory perceptions, allows to obtain an optimal nutritional balance. It is recognizable by the fact that the inflammatory tendency is reduced to a minimum: no infections and no red edging around small wounds, no lasting pain in the event of wound, fracture, etc (the pain of the impact lasts only approximately three minutes), whereas an excessive consumption by forcing the instinct or by eating domesticated animals meat whose savor is softer than wild game meat brings a return of the inflammatory tendency, hyperkeratinisations, neoplasms, etc .

This said and to answer some unsupported affirmations, nothing allows to demonstrate, either theoretically nor empirically, that humans would not be adapted to the consumption of fruits. Nor that the absence of fruits, if only through the protein over-consumption it generates to compensate for a lack of calories from carbohydrates, would be without long-term effect on health. You undoubtedly heard of the kidney stones of Lex Rooker: it’s almost certainly directly linked with an excess of proteins and uric acid.

But finally, everyone has to do his/her own experiments. I also paid with my health for all those I’ve done in the aim of developing instinctive nutrition.
« Last Edit: June 27, 2010, 12:39:06 am by Iguana »

Offline goodsamaritan

  • Administrator
  • Mammoth Hunter
  • *****
  • Posts: 8,830
  • Gender: Male
  • Geek Healer Truth Seeker Pro-Natal Pro-Life
    • View Profile
    • Filipino Services Inc.
Re: Explain INstincto Diet Fully #2
« Reply #23 on: June 26, 2010, 06:35:19 am »
I like fruits myself.
Which fruits do long term Instinctos recommend?
Any reviews or remarks per fruit?
Linux Geek, Web Developer, Email Provider, Businessman, Engineer, REAL Free Healer, Pro-Life, Pro-Family, Truther, Ripple-XRP Fan

I'm the network administrator.
My business: Website Dev & Hosting and Email Server Provider,
My blogs: Cure Manual, My Health Blog, Eczema Cure & Psoriasis Cure

Offline Paleo Donk

  • Chief
  • *****
  • Posts: 664
    • View Profile
Re: Explain INstincto Diet Fully #2
« Reply #24 on: June 26, 2010, 07:18:28 am »
Well, that was a good bedtime story. We can all put little instincto to bed.

 

SMF spam blocked by CleanTalk