Paleo Diet: Raw Paleo Diet and Lifestyle Forum
Raw Paleo Diet to Suit You => Instincto / Anopsology => Topic started by: Hanna on February 19, 2014, 10:45:27 pm
-
Burger says he changed his opinion about (raw) meat.
He made his claims both orally and in writing.
Source in German:
Interview with GCB via Skype (word for word): http://www.abenteuer-rohkost.net/threads/884-Guy-Claude-Burger-rät-vom-Fleisch-essen-ab/page2 (http://www.abenteuer-rohkost.net/threads/884-Guy-Claude-Burger-rät-vom-Fleisch-essen-ab/page2)
His central messages are now:
Eating meat becomes harmful to health in the long run (after decades). Therefore, meat shouldn’t be eaten regularly. It is only a surrogate for insects. Meat of wild animals is ok, if eaten perhaps once a month (more often, for example, in case of pregnancy).
Iguana! Why didn`t you tell us anything about that?
-
Hanna, do you hold me responsible to report on this forum about GCB’s conversations in German which I know nothing about?
The only thing I know about it is that he eats now (since about a year) a lot of bee brood and found out it suits him much better than meat. He’s been thinking and telling for decades that insects are missing in our diet. I even started a topic about this, in which you can directly read what he wrote. (http://www.rawpaleodietforum.com/general-discussion/is-it-dangerous-to-eat-too-much-meat/msg80412/#msg80412)
Direct link to his relevant post (http://www.rawpaleodietforum.com/general-discussion/is-it-dangerous-to-eat-too-much-meat/msg80452/#msg80452)
I also wrote about insects:
Yes, variety is very important, exactly as Jessica and Tyler say. Otherwise, after some months you'll probably get bored of eating always the same food. Not only other mammals meats, but also poultry, eggs, shellfish, fish... and insects if possible... anything except of course neolithic and modern foods!
No, unfortunately. I'm disgusted by maggots and I admire Sabertooth who can eat them with pleasure. A friend of mine also told me he has eaten meat with maggots and he said it's tasty... -X
But I could once catch a grasshopper and I ate it. Also, once in the desert in California, I was a bit hungry and I tasted an ant. It was too small to feel its taste, so I caught some more and put them all together in my mouth; it was not good, quite acidic. :( Bee brood is tasty but difficult to find. :)
I think if we were hungry sometimes, we would try much more to eat various insects. Our ancestors certainly ate quite a lot of them. Bruno Comby launched a research long ago in view to find out which insects are palatable and himself was regularly eating insects. GCB also thinks insects are missing in our food range.
When he was staying in my house about 4 years ago, we were eating meat regularly, about once or twice a week, alternating with fish, shellfish, crabs and eggs. One of his daughters is a MD, and 100% raw paleo / instincto ever since childhood. She eats a lot of meat; when I brought her some along with eggs, she had a big fridge already full of meat and it was difficult to find space in it for the meat I brought her. Most of the long term instinctos that I know eat a lot of meat too. As I reported, almost all of us didn’t believe GCB when he attributed the death of Nicole to her large and regular beef consumption. But he seems really convinced about that. I think she was somehow on VLC.
-
He may be right,,, maybe,, but then, as I posted before, I witnessed many times at Montrame Instinctos eating large portions of meat,, and that is my current idea as to what is really harmful,, overeating protein meal after meal, or even just eating one large protein meal per day. As my understanding is that the body can only utilize so much protein for repair and maintenance, the rest being somewhat toxic and stimulating an insulin reaction. And, i understand that it may not be an instinctive practice to limit one's self to small, three to four ounce portions of meat throughout the day, as opposed to eating a pound at one sitting. But think about it for a second.. If insects were a primary food source, wouldn't early hunter gatherer/insect eating peoples have eaten them when they found them,,, Thus eating them throughout the day as do all other mammals who eat insects? Something to think about, I think. Insects also have the most complete fat, protein, mineral balance... unless one was able to eat the whole cow. Tribes who eat (cooked) game birds do eat the whole carcass...
-
Maybe when they found no meat of big animals, then they ate insects the whole day. But since we like to eat meat in rather large amounts, why wouldn’t our ancestors do the same whenever they had the opportunity?
Whatever the case, I just took out of my fridge a appetizingly smelling large chunk of a donkey leg and I’m probably going to eat some for my dinner since I have no insects in my fridge… plus, they are few, small and far apart in my surrounding… and anyway I’m not especially fond of insects! -\
On another register I found a nicely smelling unidentified mushroom (could not identify it since I don’t know anything about mushrooms) in my garden and I carefully ate it, keeping a small piece in my mouth for about 10 seconds before swallowing it. As its taste was very good, I ate the whole, still carefully. I think mushrooms should be part of our diet too. This one was delicious. :)
-
Now that I dutifully tried to better understand that Skype talk through the help of Google translate, it appears to me that the title of this topic does not accurately fits to what GCB said. Wouldn't it be more truthful to change it for something like “GCB: Eating meat too often is harmful to health”, Hanna? As German is your mother tongue, you would certainly know better than me.
-
Maybe when they found no meat of big animals, then they ate insects the whole day. But since we like to eat meat in rather large amounts, why wouldn’t our ancestors do the same whenever they had the opportunity?
Whatever the case, I just took out of my fridge a appetizingly smelling large chunk of a donkey leg and I’m probably going to eat some for my dinner since I have no insects in my fridge… plus, they are few, small and far apart in my surrounding… and anyway I’m not especially fond of insects! -\
On another register I found a nicely smelling unidentified mushroom (could not identify it since I don’t know anything about mushrooms) in my garden and I carefully ate it, keeping a small piece in my mouth for about 10 seconds before swallowing it. As its taste was very good, I ate the whole, still carefully. I think mushrooms should be part of our diet too. This one was delicious. :)
I hope that this bit of redundancy doesn't annoy,, early man created by nature or god or whatever had little desire for creating an individual that would live to 100 (but only to live long enough to procreate and pass along survival skills) . But would program their diet to gorge on anything because there would never be a way of knowing when the next meal would come along. Thus,, to gorge would be fine for them, and questionable for us should we be interested in living very long. And, again, experimentation can be a way to see for one's self especially over time, as to whether one feels better with gorging or eating smaller more frequent meals of protein.
And back to the insects... I still suggest they ate them as they found them, one by one,, and that could take many hours of hunting as opposed to ripping into a two ton wooly mammoth.
-
It's interesting that Instinctos, Paleos and LCers have been learning the same thing--that too much muscle meats with too little prebiotic foods causes problems in the longer run.
-
In my short experience healing myself and healing other people... instinctive eating still rules whether you eat A LOT OF MEAT or less meat.
I ate a lot of meat on Year 2 and 3 maybe because I needed lots of it. And years 4-6 is a great decline.
I have healed people on short runs with lots of raw meat as well.
So it really depends. I think children and pregnant women will need more meat and more frequent. Depends on your level of activity as well. And the combination of foods you eat.
-
I agree, over time excess protein will have it's effects. But here, I am specifically speaking of how much protein one eats at one sitting,, be it meat or whatever protein. There very well may be other nutrients in meat besides the proteins that the body craves or needs, and hence the 'need' to eat large amounts... but after a while, or as the body's needs are met for those particular nutrients; that is what I am speaking of. Also in the beginning for those beginning to eat raw/raw meat and proteins, there are so many different healing and cleansing phenomenas going on it would be very difficult to sort them all out especially with no real experience or reference point. GCB's wife would often say to me that most people think that raw fruit and veg. are the body cleansers, but really raw proteins are much more aggressive...
-
Van:
I hope that this bit of redundancy doesn't annoy,, early man created by nature or god or whatever had little desire for creating an individual that would live to 100 (but only to live long enough to procreate and pass along survival skills) .
It seems you didn’t see my answer to this point of yours:
…
We don’t know: animals don’t seem to have either but nevertheless most of them live much longer than “just long enough to procreate and pass along hunting and survival skills” as you say below.
…
Many of them certainly lived longer and better lives than most of us, “knowledgeable and informed” civilized people.
…
But would program their diet to gorge on anything because there would never be a way of knowing when the next meal would come along. Thus,, to gorge would be fine for them, and questionable for us should we be interested in living very long. And, again, experimentation can be a way to see for one's self especially over time, as to whether one feels better with gorging or eating smaller more frequent meals of protein.
This might be a good idea, but it has to be validated by long term experiments with several individuals.
Our long experience as instinctos tends to show that on the contrary we are better off with a large intake (which may be during several consecutive days at one meal per day) of meat once in way, followed by a period without mammals’ meat in which we will eat fish, shellfish, eggs, birds or durians (or insects!) instead. This seems to be more like what would have happened in nature in the distant past.
At least, it’s more what we instinctively tend to do and what we are usually constrained to by the vagaries of our food supply.
And back to the insects... I still suggest they ate them as they found them, one by one,, and that could take many hours of hunting as opposed to ripping into a two ton wooly mammoth.
Yes, I have already agreed with you on that point.
GS:
In my short experience healing myself and healing other people... instinctive eating still rules whether you eat A LOT OF MEAT or less meat.
I ate a lot of meat on Year 2 and 3 maybe because I needed lots of it. And years 4-6 is a great decline.
I have healed people on short runs with lots of raw meat as well.
So it really depends. I think children and pregnant women will need more meat and more frequent. Depends on your level of activity as well. And the combination of foods you eat.
Exactly. That’s what has been constantly observed within the instincto experience.
-
As mentioned, I don't really care what early man did, or ate, or even how he had sex or treated his women, or his instincts. For I don't believe they were to serve him living a long life,, but to stay alive for the moment and procreate. And, whether it be fish or meat or eggs, I agree variety is good. I am simply speaking as to how much protein the body can utilize for repair and maintenance at any on meal, with the rest being converted to glucose at the expense of certain toxic byproducts. And because Instinctos eat this way and seemingly do fine, is similar to saying early man seemed to do ok with this way of eating. Doesn't mean much to me. Obviously you're doing ok,, you don't have any serious illnesses that you've mentioned. But we all age for various reasons. I am simply stating here that eating excess protein in any one meal ages you, as does eating sugar to the extent that it raises your insulin levels. One may not be aware of it in the moment, but there's enough evidence that leads me to experiment, and leads me to report my findings. This may not be true for anyone else. But to simply rely on what early man did, or what other instinctos do, whether it's GCB or not, seems to me to be limiting.
I heard a quote the other day on the radio while driving,, real change happens mostly when we move out of comfort zone. Food can be a real comfort zone for many.
-
As mentioned, I don't really care what early man did, or ate, or even how he had sex or treated his women, or his instincts. For I don't believe they were to serve him living a long life,, but to stay alive for the moment and procreate.
The ones who behaved in the way most favorable for survival had the best chances to get the longest life. Their behavior was in a large part transmitted to their offspring, both by the genes and by training. We descend from those ones, obviously the ones who survived best. Our instincts are inherited from them and have been fine tuned by natural selection to give us the longest lifespan possible in the wild.
But to simply rely on what early man did, or what other instinctos do, whether it's GCB or not, seems to me to be limiting.
The point is not to rely on what others do or did. It’s to rely one one’s instinct to know what and how much to eat. How can you know otherwise “how much protein the body can utilize for repair and maintenance at any one meal” without any excess that would be “converted to glucose at the expense of certain toxic byproducts”, as you wrote?
I heard a quote the other day on the radio while driving,, real change happens mostly when we move out of comfort zone. Food can be a real comfort zone for many.
Yes, sure. For example when you just have to order as much bones and fat as you want from Slankers or Northern Bison or when you can buy bananas in bulk. That’s why I said the solution would be to hunt and gather our own food in the wilderness. The problems are on one hand that very few of us are willing to do this, and on the other hand that not much wildlife remains intact.
-
what I meant by offering the quote was that to experiment with a new way of eating puts one immediately out of their comfort zone. Exactly where I went when I experimented with switching from sugar and protein to fat as a fuel source. It wasn't easy mentally. I included that for you.
I don't agree what so ever about what you write regarding instinct preserving us for old age. There is no evidence of that. But plenty on how to survive long enough to procreate and pass along survival and communal skills. As in don't eat that mushroom, smell that meat before eating, eat all you can right now because you don't know where the next meal will come from... Fine line, yes, but it lies at the heart of what you and I are discussing. I'm sure I can't change your mind that instinct isn't the one bible for optimal health. But others here may discover that there's benefit from combining instinct with current science.
-
Not really sure whether GCB's new claims are questioning some of the fundamental principles of instincto-nutrition (doesn't meat often taste good to the point that we tend to overeat it? - I mean, even for wild one!) - I guess he would have to answer that himself...
But what I am starting to be convinced of, through my own experience, and which seems to be an evolution of anopsology, is that as humans, who are fundamentally more evolved than animals, the mental state in which we are at the time we eat is influencing *more* what the body absorbs and uses, than the food itself.
At this stage, I am still agreeing with most of the instincto principles, but I am nearly sure that humans have the potential to somehow control their instinct, that is, sometimes: benefit from a food that does not taste great, or, create some damage from a food that tastes delicious.
Mind over matter... Stuff that animals can't do but that we can.
-
...humans, who are fundamentally more evolved than animals...
You lost me there. Must be an instincto thing...
-
No, it seems to be a Micelte thing! ;)
Van, I don't see any answer to my question in your last post.
-
Sorry I forgot it,, through blood work, from only what i've read,, rise in insulin levels from conversion of protein to glucose, an increase in protein conversion by products, of which I can't remember, but if you're interested, truly, I will go back to dig it out. Also from my or one's own experience. How much protein does one need to maintain muscle integrity vs. overload, same thing applies to maintaining testosterone levels... have to go, someone's at the door. later...
-
Sorry I forgot it,, through blood work, from only what i've read,, rise in insulin levels from conversion of protein to glucose, an increase in protein conversion by products, of which I can't remember, but if you're interested, truly, I will go back to dig it out. Also from my or one's own experience. How much protein does one need to maintain muscle integrity vs. overload, same thing applies to maintaining testosterone levels... have to go, someone's at the door. later...
No, thanks, you don’t have to dig it out: I’m not interested in this kind of medical investigations and interpretations.
I don't agree what so ever about what you write regarding instinct preserving us for old age. There is no evidence of that. But plenty on how to survive long enough to procreate and pass along survival and communal skills.
Sorry but what you say makes no sense and is proven wrong by a lot of well known facts. Disobey to your instinct telling you to drink when thirsty or not to jump down from a cliff (just 2 examples) and you won’t live long. Just searching 30 seconds by Google, I found this (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15682868) :
“In this study, I conduct a literature survey of studies of 42 mammal species from eight orders, showing that post-reproductive lifespan appears to be widespread among mammals.”
As in don't eat that mushroom, smell that meat before eating, eat all you can right now because you don't know where the next meal will come from... Fine line, yes, but it lies at the heart of what you and I are discussing. I'm sure I can't change your mind that instinct isn't the one bible for optimal health. But others here may discover that there's benefit from combining instinct with current science.
I never thought nor said that instinct is “the one bible for optimal health”. Current science is very useful; it tells us that pesticides, cooking, wheat and dairy are noxious, for example. The instinctive nutrition theory and practice has been developed by using the scientific method.
Micelte, sorry I can’t follow you.
-
See this is what I am speaking about,, when you suggest that I am discrediting any value of instinct by siting how one would die without following the instinct of drinking water. That sort of argument gets us nowhere. I never indicated to throw out instinct altogether. Let's take a look at one facet of instinct. That of eating sugar. It's there. We all love sugar,, something sweet, whether it's cake or a mango. Instinctos would say if the desire is there, if you drool with the smell and it tastes good, eat it, all you want till it no longer tastes good. And I'm sure we both can agree that with cooked food, as with the cake, that same impulse is there to eat it, and we both agree that the stop is missing since it's full of processed materials that the instinct can no longer identify as necessary raw food molecules..... But the real question I think needs to be asked is, Why the taste for sweet in the first place? Now, my guess is you will automatically take us back to where you believe we developed a 'natural' taste for sweet food; original man living near the equator where sweet sugary foods abounded. That's your choice of what to believe, as to why they still are an ideal part of your mainstay, and make up a majority of your calorie consumption on a day to day basis. The other choice, which to me makes more sense considering where my ancestry has developed in the last thousands of years ( who knows just how many thousands), is that my body's genetic inscriptions have developed eating according to the seasons, not just one long summery sugar laden one. So if you're willing to follow along,, that would mean sugar would appear at most for a couple of months a year. And my then impulse to eat those berries, those tart wild apples or cherries etc. would have naturally appeared in part for my benefit to put on several pounds of fat to help me endure the winter,, not unlike other animals who do the same, like the bear, or wolf, or coyote or even the horse or cow who inhales as much as sweet green grass as they can before winter.. And in doing so the small amount of insult of damage caused by rising insulin levels from eating sugar for that short period of time would be completely offset by the restorative period for the rest of the year where sugar was not available and I was 'forced' to eat fat and protein for sustenance and fuel, thus reducing my insulin sensitivity. Now extend that availability time where sugar is 'naturally' offered and that's where I believe the problem arises in as far as following an instinct that was created for a different purpose. And yes I have read where some days you'll eat figs to you don't want to eat another one, and then the next meal it's lamb or seafood. And how you don't have sources of fat readily available as we do 'here'.
It's your choice to avoid all literature relating to the effects of long term spikes or increases of insulin. I did the same and was completely resistant to anyone or anything that would suggest that sugar is sugar in any form,, that fruit is not some elite sort of sweet outside the realm of sugar. That way of narrow thinking is what I meant by the inference to instinctive nutrition being your bible. I hope that clears up what I was intending to convey.
-
See this is what I am speaking about,, when you suggest that I am discrediting any value of instinct by siting how one would die without following the instinct of drinking water.
I was responding to these words of yours:
I don't agree what so ever about what you write regarding instinct preserving us for old age. There is no evidence of that.
I quoted this study which shows you’re wrong on this point: Female post-reproductive lifespan: a general mammalian trait.
The other choice, which to me makes more sense considering where my ancestry has developed in the last thousands of years ( who knows just how many thousands), is that my body's genetic inscriptions have developed eating according to the seasons, not just one long summery sugar laden one.
Then you would likely be adapted to wheat and cooked food as well since your ancestors had them as a staple for the last thousands of years. You would also be genetically very different of people born in the tropics such as GS. This is clearly not the case: we all share the same DNA at 99.9% and most of the 0.1% of variability “does not affect a person's characteristics”.
http://www.genomenewsnetwork.org/resources/whats_a_genome/Chp4_1.shtml (http://www.genomenewsnetwork.org/resources/whats_a_genome/Chp4_1.shtml) The majority of variations are found outside of genes, in the "extra" or "junk" DNA that does not affect a person's characteristics. Mutations in these parts of the genome are never harmful, so variations can accumulate without causing any problems. Genes, by contrast, tend to be stable because mutations that occur in genes are often harmful to an individual, and thus less likely to be passed on.
-
Not really sure whether GCB's new claims are questioning some of the fundamental principles of instincto-nutrition (doesn't meat often taste good to the point that we tend to overeat it? - I mean, even for wild one!) - I guess he would have to answer that himself...
Yes, on this point and since (according to the conversation posted by Hanna) he now thinks we would instinctively tend to eat too much meats of wild animals too, I agree there’s something at odds with his stance that our instinct adequately adjusts our intake of various raw unprocessed wild foods.
I don’t know the answer, but I guess he might exaggerate on both sides. Or perhaps the question of availability matters: it’s not so easy to get the meat of large mammals. It became commonplace only after our ancestors had developed hunting weapons and strategies plus cutting tools, which may be too recent in our evolution for a perfect adaptation.
-
I was responding to these words of yours: I quoted this study which shows you’re wrong on this point: Female post-reproductive lifespan: a general mammalian trait.Then you would likely be adapted to wheat and cooked food as well since your ancestors had them as a staple for the last thousands of years. You would also be genetically very different of people born in the tropics such as GS. This is clearly not the case: we all share the same DNA at 99.9% and most of the 0.1% of variability “does not affect a person's characteristics”.
not my usual style, but I am going to respond with the typically U.S. slogan,, 'whatever'.
-
Yes, on this point and since (according to the conversation posted by Hanna) he now thinks we would instinctively tend to eat too much meats of wild animals too, I agree there’s something at odds with his stance that our instinct adequately adjusts our intake of various raw unprocessed wild foods.
I don’t know the answer,
His answer to a similar question of mine is that insects, that is a whole protein class, are missing in our diet. According to gcb, this disturbs the work of our nutritional instinct and the overall balance of our diet.
Well, I have no opinion on this since I have never intentionally eaten any insect. For me it’s reassuring to know that nothing is written in stone, not even GCB’s teachings, Iguana :), so we can’t help but use our own brain.
-
His answer to a similar question of mine is that insects, that is a whole protein class, are missing in our diet. According to gcb, this disturbs the work of our nutritional instinct and the overall balance of our diet.
Thank you to let us know that, I didn’t know about this hypothesis. He could be right or he could be wrong, but at least it’s another possibility than those I expressed in my last post. Unfortunately it’s difficult to test because bee brood is hard to get and other insects are not so appetizing for most of us, poor civilized people. :(
Well, I have no opinion on this since I have never intentionally eaten any insect. For me it’s reassuring to know that nothing is written in stone, not even GCB’s teachings, Iguana :), so we can’t help but use our own brain.
I suppose you never followed a GCB entire seminar (except perhaps a one weekend crash course) because there’s actually something written in stone in what he used to teach: “question everything, don’t believe anybody and anything, myself included — of course. Please, question how and why at every step, relentlessly put every thing into question, always”.
He insisted so much on the fact that scientific theories are only approximate and provisional models of the reality, models which will have to be modified, completed or even discarded in the future when more understanding, info and knowledge will be available, that he went on that topic during the full morning of the first seminar day.
It’s by this way of questioning all previous ideas and theories about nutrition and starting all over from scratch (the methodical doubt of Descartes) that 50 years ago he, his wife and his friend JDD (later joined by other people) came to test the idea of eating everything raw, unprocessed, un-spiced and unmixed. Then, by this experiment, they discovered that the consumption of wheat and dairy induced troubles in themselves and in the numerous animals they used as guinea pigs. Next they discovered that they were attracted by the smell of fish and meat and that a raw vegan diet was not sustainable in the long run.
That’s how the raw paleo diet was born, decades before others such as Eaton, Cordain, or Vonderplanitz came partially to similar conclusions.
I have been myself constantly questioning GCB’s theories, hypothesis and ways of practicing, but I failed to find any significant flaw — as several MDs and experts. There are a few points I rather disagree with him, but it’s not on the dietary issue. Plenty of people, who have more or less understood his theories and practiced their kind of instincto nutrition for a while, think they know better and have put up divergent personal ideas and theories. A few of them even regularly contribute to this forum! Their ideas and practices seem to work fine for them, at least during some years, but experiments done by a single individual don’t prove much. Moreover, their ideas and theories don’t withstand a rational, thorough analysis.
Therefore, I find your words and smiley “not even GCB’s teachings, Iguana :),” completely out of place, aggressive and offensive. I’m used to use my own brain, thanks, you don’t have to remain me. You’ve always been aggressive with me and this is something I dislike in your behavior. I’m a sensitive guy and it hurts.
Otherwise I appreciate your contributions and I thank you for them, you bring interesting points. Please stay with us but be gentle! :D
-
Sorry, Iguana, no offense meant. Or at least I meant myself more than I meant you or others :). By „use our own brain“ I simply meant that we have to experiment and make observations ourselves, that is, for example, eat insects and observe the effects this has on us.
-
Thanks Hanna, it's ok! ;D
-
Posted as a comment in myhealthblog.org meant for this raw paleo diet forum.
Author : instincto drivel ( even more) (IP: 90.39.195.232 , AStrasbourg-752-1-24-232.w90-39.abo.wanadoo.fr)
E-mail : anonymous
URL :
Whois : http://whois.arin.net/rest/ip/90.39.195.232 (http://whois.arin.net/rest/ip/90.39.195.232)
Comment:
Our much beloved guru, Guy Claude Burger, is still alive and he tells us now after 50 years of very hard thinking and experimenting:
"Even meat from wild animals is not healthy for us"
http://www.rohkosttreffen.com/de/RT-2013-07-27-Treffort%20Frankreich.html (http://www.rohkosttreffen.com/de/RT-2013-07-27-Treffort%20Frankreich.html)
And remember, since 1994 and the death of his wife and so after only 30 years of hard thinking and experimenting, our much beloved guru already arrived at the conclusion that neolithic modern breeds of animal flesh is quite "unhealthy".
Now what is left to eat that is not (yet) supposed to fool our "instinct" ?
Some greens, vegetables, wild fruits and insects.
Instincto life is going to so..ooo sweet !
And our much beloved guru, 80 years old in 2014, is undoubtedly going to live for another 50 years, look at his picture, especially the right one, looks so..ooo healthy and has so..ooo lively an expression, no wrinkles, no grey hairs since instinctos age so..ooo much less than ordinary people.
So in the forthcoming decades he will almost certainly continue to think very hard, experiment, and further reduce the "allowed instincto foods" still left presently , probably to nil or , if we are very lucky, to just vegetables.
-
GS,, it's not clear as to why you posted this, or, are any of the comments yours, and or, is this written by someone else, just to poke fun at him??
-
GS,, it's not clear as to why you posted this, or, are any of the comments yours, and or, is this written by someone else, just to poke fun at him??
This person has been a critic of GCB in the past. I don't know who he is.
I got fooled the first time thinking it was Iguana who was posting his older comments. Which we collectively decided to delete.
He again posted in my comment section as "instincto drivel" so you know he is a critic.
I decided to post it here for people to see because this is related to this topic.
Unfortunately I cannot read German or French and I'm wary of the Google Translate function in Chrome.
What do you think about this anonymous guy's comments?
Should his comment be deleted? Too much below the belt?
-
The author is undoubtedly my friend Gerard, alias Alphagruis here.
He lives or lived near Strasbourg, and there is "AStrasbourg" after the IP.
It's funny, Gerard has got to have some fun, it's good for his health, lol!
(http://www.rohkosttreffen.com/de/RT-2013-07-27-Treffort%20Frankreich-1.jpg)
-
Fun is good for health for sure lol
I should be dead by now eating huge amounts of meat for years and years...lol
but I feel better and better instead.... ? it is almost scary ;)
it could be the nipple stimulation tho.... :o who knows?
-
I thought you no longer eat much meat, but seafood instead?
I feel so very good on mostly seafood! I eat mostly 2 meals seafood and 1 meal meat these days. Sometimes I eat all 3 meals seafood only! I know in the deepest of my mind that seafood, all kind of, truly are superior foods. I am aiming for eating almost only seafood. And algae. That is my goal. If I only could get oysters more often. I love them.
…
I eat some almonds, brazilnuts or macadamias or olives or avocados for my omega 6 too sometimes.
I would say.. as much seafood (heads, skin, eyes.. all.. oysters are super) and algae as possible and cold.. cold baths, showers... anything. Swimming in the ocean.
…
Eating meat is not ideal because of our large brains and the nutrients it requires to function optimally.
.
Why meat from land mammals are not optimal is very easy to get. You just need to look at the ultimate energy hog in human body. That is clearly the brain. What nutrients a brain needs? Go and research that and all will be crystal clear. If he brain is not working optimal.. your whole body will suffer.
The nutrients a brain requires are only found in the ocean in abundance. This tells everything.
High fat, lower protein(mainly seafoods, wildcaught fish, crabs, oysters, mussels..etc). And NO carbs, except of the sort that have cancer healing properties= wild growing berries, wild greens/herbs, maybe some wild fruit (locally grown in season).
Cancer cells have hard time to survive if your body's fuel is fat. My sisters friend living in Norway healed her self recently from breast cancer that had spread, with a diet mainly consisting of fish and veggies. It was not even raw....
-
I meant all kind of animal food with "meat" ;) sorry I should have been clearer. I do eat a big part as seafood as I have the last years... and will continue to do so :)
I absolutely think raw seafood is the best food on earth! At least.. still. We never know how the world changes tho
What do you think, does GCB think seafood is not included in "meat"? And would not be harmful eaten regularly as he thinks meat is?
I probably have been eating close to a pound of meat and the same in seafood last years each day... + lots of fat so that would be pretty high meat anyways.. lately I have cut a little back on the meat so there are days I have only 250 grams or days with only seafood but then all of a sudden I gorge on meat again lol
I am just eating what I feel like mostly and do not count
-
What he says is that we should not eat meat of land mammals too often and we'd better eat seafood, birds / poultry, eggs, and most of all, insects instead.
-
Nope I just read the text Francois, he says there
Zum Treffen erklärte er nun jedoch im Alter von 78 Jahren, dass er diese Meinung durch genug Tests und Lebenserfahrung geändert hat, weil die Folgen von der gesamten Fleischfresserei, auch Fisch und Geflügel logischerweise mit einbezogen, fatale körperliche Nebenwirkungen gehabt hatten, somit auch das Rohfleisch und auch in kleinen Mengen problematisch gilt.
that also fish and poultry are dangerous.
Pretty crazy ? How on earth comes he to this conclusions I wonder...?
Must be something weird going on. I really would like to know.
Maybe protein get dangerous when we gorge on sugar too
-
Could someone provide an exact translation of this conversation (http://www.abenteuer-rohkost.net/threads/884-Guy-Claude-Burger-r%C3%A4t-vom-Fleisch-essen-ab/page2) mentioned by Hanna in the first post of this thread and in which he says:
“es ist ein Bisschen übertrieben : "fatale Effekte"” which Google translates in “it is exaggerated a bit: "fatal effects"”.
Anyway, I’ll ask him next time I talk with him.
-
or maybe protein gets dangerous when we are disconnected from the nature - in front of the computer late all night long.
Maybe.
I do read somewhere if you are in a high unnatural EMF environment high protein is no good for you. You should feed on fat then. This is what will protect you. No wonder I always get fat cravings if I am shopping for any longer time in the city! I bet most on this forum spend most of their time in a pretty high EMF environment.
Gosh.. we should all be surfers! That must be the healthiest thing to do, seriously....
I always though... with any diet.. the ones living in cities always had the most issues....
-
reading it now Francois. He says yes, fatal is exaggerated. That article must have been written by a Vegan? hehe.. this interview sound a little different ;-)
And he says probably shellfish is the best for us. I agree.
....later added;
I do still do not agree good quality protein is dangerous, but I do think context matters. I do think lots of raw protein can be very dangerous for some.
There are so many things to be aware of.
That is why we can just experiment on our selves and tell how it goes, really. Time will tell.
What I do know, though, is to eat a unnatural food not growing where I live chronically in large amounts is probably no good idea. We need to go back to the nature, it is telling us how, if we only listen....
Francois, please ask him what symptoms he got from high protein and how he knew it was not good, pleeease! :)
and.. what else was he eating at the same time, sugar? (fruit) did he try to quit sugar all together?
-
This has been discussed before... and even between you and him, Inger. Excerpt:
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.
-
or maybe protein gets dangerous when we are disconnected from the nature - in front of the computer late all night long.
The more physical the more meat is needed, makes perfect sense. It's muscle building material, don't need muscles to sit in one place for hours and hours. Or anything that doesn't take strength, stamina, endurance, etc. If still consumes meat then what will happen to it, how will it effect the body?
That picture does not show a person who is physically active (physical training/exercise as any human should when going for true health). And he definitely does look ill(ish) - the eyes... his whole expression, not right.
If physical exercises are not included in some form, to some extent, at least from time to time (get the heart pumping well at least once a week or so) then you'll be "lucky" if something doesn't go wrong.
-
He did not tell me about his personal issues Francois. And how he resolved them... I know something, that he eats lots of honey now. But it would be so cool to know more detail. It could be helpful to many, and it would be interesting to my own personal scientific research.
Would be so nice if he would give more context. With little context there could be false assumptions, easily. The context matters so much. To context also belongs more than only foods. Food is a big part though. But the more information, the easier it is to make an educated personal judgement about things.
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.
Sounds like.. bad redox potential.... low energy flow in your system... -\
-
Not honey: bee brood, which contains bees' larva. Ok, I'll ask him. Meanwhile I found something relevant in another of his posts:
It is always difficult to separate the variables. Is it the protein excess in itself, the more specific meats protein excess, or the combination with other molecules as consequence of an insufficient degradation? I'm just testing on myself to distinguish the things by experimenting. I leave always at least half an hour between the intake of animal sources of protein and vegetable’s intake to avoid the formation of AGE’s (along with others substances not yet identified which I more generally called "molecules foreign to the normal metabolic cycle"). Even in this condition, observation of the hyper-keratinisations immediately allows to see if there is an overload, for example small skins fragments which raise around the nails and become painful at the touch, cracks at the end of the fingers, warts which increase volume, layer of keratin on feet, neoplasic formations, etc.
At the time when I saw this tumour growing on the tendon at the exterior of the knee, I was experimenting to eat much meat (beef, porc and lamb), by seeking a clear instinctive stop in order to see if it existed. I did not take any precaution concerning associations, because at the time the issue of AGEs had not appeared yet.
Nummi: yes, GCB doesn't have much physical activities.
-
Yes, looks he is aware of the issue with variables. Still he does not seem to get that eating a diet incuding lots of protein AND fruit to be an issue.. and he might not have tested that. He just have tried to keep more hours apart. I have a feeling this could really be an issue.
And.
To me he looks dehydrated. His eyes looks a bit like how mine look if I spend too much time in front of the computer getting lots of EMF... even worse if talking in a cellphone by my computer. They get red and the clearness disappears... Also his skin maybe look a bit dehydrated somehow. I really wonder if his issue is actually he has gotten too little animal fat. And too much sugar and proteins. Those, and high unnatural EMF will do you harm, really.
The bee brood thing sounds interesting. Bee brood? Is that bienen brot, the stuff I have purchased from Orkos? There are no larvaes so far as I can tell, in it... only pollen and propolis? Or are they so few I have not recognized....
-
No, I don’t think, Orkos doesn’t have bee brood: “bienenbrut” in German according to the online translation. Bienenbrot seems to be comb honey.
-
So what is bienenbrut exactly? I have had honeycomb "bienenbrot" it is a special kind of honeycomb, way less honey in it and not sweet as normal comb at all.
If you talk to GCB please also ask him;
What issues disappeared when he quit raw meat eating... and what is still left from the issues, if any. How is his sleep, does he feel rested in the morning, does he get tired in the day.. is he on a beebrood diet only?
Any blood work/labs, and what are the improvements... etc. I would take any information he has. What other factors have he changed, if any?
-
I have eaten much bee brood and would eat more if I had it. It can be VERY sweet when the larvae are young and the workers are still stuffing their cells with royal jelly. As the bees mature and especially after the cell has been capped, the sweetness disappears and the taste is no where near as attractive as when they are young. Young bee brood tastes like heavily sweetened cereal milk at the bottom of ones bowl (with lots of added sugar).. Almost addicting.
My experiments with eating meat daily; am finding that it's the amount of meat eaten, and not the regularity or how often one eats it. Now it seems only natural that if eaten in any amount of excess, that that is what GCB is calling eating too Often, and not eating small amounts to the point of Just satisfying ones need for maintenance and repair. Excess protein of any source at one sitting requires the body to convert the excess protein into glucose, and hence have toxic by products. This conversion of protein to glucose can stimulate insulin release just like eating sugar, and when combined with fruit will even cause a higher amount of insulin produced. Not exactly good for staying young and healthy. My GUESS, is that GCB has a very hard time NOT following his instinctive stop, and thus not eating less than he should. Again, early man ate whatever he could get his hands on and probably NEVER considered eating less than that (especially of protein). And so our instinct then was for survival, not long lived lives.... Also I agree with Inger. Little fat, sugar from fruit are two very aging practices.. He talks about waiting 30 minutes between types of food. Not long enough. Let small portions of meat digest all on their own with out the alkaline nature of vegetables, or their acid reducing properties, and you have a protein that is more completely digested and less toxic to the rest of the body. And if you look at the transit time of fruit compared to meat when eaten near the same time, and you're looking at another probably problem that it doesn't look like he's addressing or curious about.
-
Van, you’ve already said most of what is in your long paragraph and I already responded. I know that I also have often to repeat myself, sorry but this is because the same points are brought forward over and over again…
So what is bienenbrut exactly?
Honeycomb with larvae in it.
What issues disappeared when he quit raw meat eating... and what is still left from the issues, if any. How is his sleep, does he feel rested in the morning, does he get tired in the day.. is he on a beebrood diet only?
Of course not on bee brood only! He never stopped eating raw meat, he just eats meat less often now that he has a reliable source of bee brood. When he was at my place, I was impressed by his great shape for a men who has so little physical activities. He could run up from the bottom to the top of my steep orchard like a 30 years old guy.
He has an issue when he eats a lot of meat, as he wrote in his posts: from my memory, keratinisations such as warts appears and he even had a tumor surgically removed. He thinks he’s particularly sensitive now after having eaten a lot of raw meat during 20 or 25 years. Now that he eats less mammals’ meat, these troubles no longer appear. Me thinks the fact that he doesn’t take enough physical exercise may well amplify the problems he had. I suppose he sleeps well, he never mentioned sleeping troubles!
-
Iguana, I didn't especially write what I wrote for you, but for others here, so that they might understand. There is another point that I can add. When I visited Orkos five times over five years, I witnessed them import and present sugary fruits from all over the globe; durians, dates, mangos, pineapples etc... as if they were suggesting that to eat from the jungles was paramount. They also distributed these fruits to three different countries as a business. But never did I see any animal fat imported. Hence, as you yourself describe fat is hard for you to find (although I don't understand why you couldn't go to slaughter houses and procure fat as I do) fat was not a food item seen at the tables a Montrame. What I am hinting at is the coincidence of how easy it is to attract people to come heal at Montrame and learn instinctive nutrition when there are sugary sweet fruits in long rows, one after the other. One might wonder as to the success of attracting clients and or selling just raw animal and sea foods along with fat? Hardly as addicting as sugar.
-
Go to slaughter houses and procure fat as you do?
You must be kidding! Almost all the livestock in Europe is not only fed hot dried grains, but industrial animal feed and other shit. Moreover, all kinds of toxic compounds accumulate in animal fat. There’s also a limit to the amount of fat one can digest, plus I never saw more than very little fat in a wild animal — except in wild boars feeding on corn fields.
-
I don't really get why you say sugar is addictive, Van. Don't apes and animals of the sort feed upon sugary fruits and sweet root-plants?
As far as I know they're certainly not "addicted" to their food :P!
According to the instincto principle you can only be addicted to processed sugary food, or to really really deeply modified sugary fruits, so deeply modified you can't even feel the instinctive "stop" anymore!
ps: ^not talking from experience, though thanks to Iguana I finally got a copy of Manger Vrai :). Got it last week. Thanks Iguana!
-
You’re welcome.
Yes, Van misuses the word "addiction". (http://www.rawpaleodietforum.com/infonews-items/re-going-tribal-pack-your-backpack-and-lets-go-into-the-jungle!/msg117427/#msg117427)
There’s of course also a limit to the amount of sweet foods one can eat, and this amount shrinks over time after an initial instinctive raw paleo period in which we kind of “fill up the tank”. In my first months of instincto, I ate up to 80 dates in a meal. The number of dates I can eat in a meal progressively dropped to the point that 20-25 is now a maximum. It wouldn’t shrink in this way if it were an addiction.
The same finally happened to me with figs. During 26 years, I ate figs in great quantities until my stomach was completely full up. Last summer, I bought figs at the farmer’s market because they were not yet ripe on my trees. But in the end, the ones I bought were mostly left untouched in my fridge until they were rotten. Then… the figs on my trees got ripe, but I could barely eat them.
Now it’s the cherimoyas season here, they are very cheap and I ate a lot of them, up to 5 or 6 per day. Currently I’m down to no more than 2 per day: they became too sweet to eat more than that.
Van, you saw a lot of people at the instincto center of Montramé gorging on tropical sweet fruits. I already told you that meals there were at a fixed price, whatever you ate. Most of these persons were more or less new to this raw paleo nutrition and / or they took the opportunity to fill up with expensive foods they could not afford everyday at home.
-
Go to slaughter houses and procure fat as you do?
You must be kidding! Almost all the livestock in Europe is not only fed hot dried grains, but industrial animal feed and other shit. Moreover, all kinds of toxic compounds accumulate in animal fat. There’s also a limit to the amount of fat one can digest, plus I never saw more than very little fat in a wild animal — except in wild boars feeding on corn fields.
maybe the us is the only country that is into grass fed.... but it seems plausible that farmers in the country that owned land would naturally feed only grass out of cost considerations. The ability to use fat as fuel really only happens when you convert from being a sugar burner to a fat burner. Something that many many have experienced. Speculation will only serve so far. Don't know about your wild animals. Here we have elk. Inger talks about fat she finds,, maybe it's different when you go north?
-
Isn’t the vast majority of US meat at least grain finished? Can you be sure they never mix up the grass fed meat with the common grain and garbage fed meat at the slaughterhouse? In France, it sometimes happens at the butcher. AFAIK, the countries where cattle is most grass fed are Uruguay and New Zealand. Certainly that animals living in cold countries have more fat. Usually there’s a bit a fat in wild animals in autumn as they store it for use during winter when food is scarce.
Here in Portugal I haven’t yet found a source of suitable meat. I brought from 1300 km away in France the donkey meat I have now in my fridges. This donkey was born wild in an immense park and I was told he never received any food from humans, but I’m not even 100% sure about that. It’s not easy at all, you see. :(
“Convert from being a sugar burner to a fat burner”… you speak as if we were simple thermal engines which can be converted from coal to fuel oil or from gasoline to ethanol burning! The question is rather: what is the food range to which we are best adapted? If, as it is doubtlessly the case, we are best adapted to an omnivorous wide food range, it would be mistaken and extremely restricting health-wise, survival-ability-wise and travel-wise to consume exclusively carbs or exclusively fat. ;)
-
This thread is very interesting. Thanks all for the comments. I'd like to emphasize a point that I think has not been given as much importance as it should have: physical activity. I strongly believe that when this parameter is missing in ones life, one cannot actually be instincto. As simple as that. The instinct won't work, at least perfectly, when one does not use his or her body as it should be used. Don't use it = Lose it. A truth that we should all be accepting. Add to this the fact that lots of people spend so many hours sitting down in front of a screen all day, and you have the best recipe for a total health collapse. As a conclusion, if you want to be sure you are picking and eating the right food, and then that you are feeling the stop for it, make sure you have created an energy need before your meals.
-
The US has a big grassfed meat movement so while a majority of meat is grainfed, grassfed meat is way easier to get hold of in the US than most other places.
-
It is not hard to find grassfed beef and fat in Europe. At least it was not for me..... I even get some here in Finland, finally. But that was harder lol We also have own 100% grass fed/hay fed sheep that we kill ourselves with lots of fat on them.
Also, fatty fish is not hard to get if you live close to water... (I believe our ancestors did this, they clearly choose to live close to water)
I wonder how GCB was not observant enough to change up his WOE/way of living before he got tumors. As the scientist he is you would think he observed himself pretty closely, especially as an instincto. I wonder about this.
F.ex. I soon can see it on my skin, eyes, hair, teeth, moods, energy, sleep... etc. if I did it right or wrong. Before any illness or more serious stuff like having to use surgery. And when I see things move in the wrong direction I change what I do. At least for me it has worked great to do like this for the last half part of my life... I let my body tell, in addition I do research for sure. And I let the nature guide me. It is very wise. I also do blood works, to not fool myself. I wonder if GCB do regular blood works too? Those often tells you things are going in the wrong direction even before you realize it.
I really think to eat much sugar is dangerous together with computer work or living in a city in today's world. We should stop thinking we are apes and start thinking evolutionary/scientifically how the world has changed and what are our needs as human today, we have a totally different brain and gut than apes.. and apes are living a totally different life than we. Using no technology, no clothes... etc. I get tired to hear those arguments, we are primates and we need to eat like them. Very stupid argument IMO. I guess we hear it from people that wants to justify their sugar addiction.
-
it is kind of disappointing that the one who started the whole instincto movement have not been able to cure/have his tumors disappear without surgery, seriously.
Because the instincto therapy is learning if you do it exactly right your body will heal itself. But why didn't it? And I mean... the instinctos have been very religious about using no supplements or ingesting even the smallest molecule that has been cooked - they even take care the animals they eat have not touched cooked foods. So very very strict.
IDK it all makes me pretty puzzled. Or actually I do think it comes down to the sugar in the end.
Addicting stuff.
-
Micelte is right. After all physical work was the only way our ancestors could get the food they needed. I've just finished reading a very interesting book called "Born to Run" and it deals, among other subjects, with the hunting method of persistent running. According to the book people had to actually run a marathon to get red meat on their plate!
-
This thread is very interesting. Thanks all for the comments. I'd like to emphasize a point that I think has not been given as much importance as it should have: physical activity. I strongly believe that when this parameter is missing in ones life, one cannot actually be instincto. As simple as that. The instinct won't work, at least perfectly, when one does not use his or her body as it should be used. Don't use it = Lose it. A truth that we should all be accepting. Add to this the fact that lots of people spend so many hours sitting down in front of a screen all day, and you have the best recipe for a total health collapse. As a conclusion, if you want to be sure you are picking and eating the right food, and then that you are feeling the stop for it, make sure you have created an energy need before your meals.
Great point. The craving for something sweet can be diminished by exercising due to the similar chemicals released in the body after consumption of carbohydrates and a good workout.
-
Thanks Micelte, TD, Inger, JeuneKoq and 24isours for your inputs.
Inger, didn't you read my above post http://www.rawpaleodietforum.com/instinctoanopsology/gcb-eating-meat-is-harmful/msg119784/#msg119784 (http://www.rawpaleodietforum.com/instinctoanopsology/gcb-eating-meat-is-harmful/msg119784/#msg119784) explaining why eating sweets fruits such as dates, figs and cherimoyas can in no way be an addiction?
Well, I spoke with GCB. As he feels well, he didn't have any blood test done since a long time, but he'll have one done soon for his 50 years of instincto. He's exasperated by the article linked above, which as you suspected, Inger, was written by a vegan who completely distorted and exaggerated what he said. So, he wrote a comprehensive answer that is currently published in German on their website. I put it on Google translate and tried to roughly correct it helped by my very basic understanding of German, which took me about 2 hours work. Gosh, I gotta go for a good run now!
I think Inger’s questions are answered in it. So, here is my approximate translation.
Raw food, veganism and raw meat: a hot topic!
First, one has to ask to relax a bit about the problem of animal proteins and have an objective mind. No one may claim that he would have a final truth. This is presupposing usually a sign that something is not quite clear in his own opinion . Otherwise you would always be willing to put their own opinions into question.
As far as the article mentioned, some misconceptions have arisen . As a researcher, I would not just say " too much raw meat is harmful for health ," but " too much raw meat could be harmful to health" . Each natural molecule can act as either beneficial or harmful , that depends on the circumstances, the amount, duration, etc. A rigid principle is not part of a scientific approach and reality. In the field of health, beliefs, fashion and ideologies have rather fatal consequences.
It seems to me that many do not properly understand what " the Instincto " in itself really means. It is just not a fixed ideology, diet or philosophy that imposes somthing or the other . It is much more an experiment whose goal is to answer this question: what, how, and exactly how much the person should eat in order to enjoy the best possible health condition? It would be a misconception to think that eliminating this or that class of food is the final solution. The needs, intolerances, deficiencies and overloads vary from one organism to another and these requirements change over time.
Dietetics tries to draw interesting answers from science. Because of this variability and the infinite complexity of the biological mechanisms, the scientific method is unable to formulate purely provisional and general statements . Ideologies are more dangerous because they are not usually willing to consider criticism or failures into account. That's why I was looking for a different approach: extract the answers from the organism, and to consider always the results objectively.
This I have done in the field of animal proteins exactly as in all other areas . Our genetics is very close to the genetics of primates, especially the chimpanzee and bonobos. These occasionally hunt and eat meat of lemurs, wild boars, birds and insects. So one must ask the question: is meat, or more generally animal proteins part of the food range of people? Since Wissenchaft and ideologies are mostly in this regard widersprüchig, you have no other solution than to reason and experiment.
For the past 50 years, I have put together all the observations that I could make on thousands of people, and conclusions were drawn. In the early years it became clear that without animal foods, especially during pregnancy, while breastfeeding and growth, the human organism encounters significant difficulties. The growth mechanisms (skeleton, muscle , weight), the development of the nervous system (brain, reflexes ), and later the cellular renewal (Vernarbungsfähigkeit, rest, and probably life) are obviously affected .. When year after year, first fish, then eggs and later meat were reintroduced into the Instincto assortment, I observed many ill practitioners who unexpectedly healed. Malignant tumors, autoimmune diseases, malformations, etc. were after a short time like washed away. About vegans with catastrophic weight problems I could see amazing weight increases. I myself was only able to compensate with animal foods the weight loss which resulted from my cancer.
So I had no longer any reason to look at meat or other animal products as cursed temptation objects. Its was only after twenty years that small signs appeared, which were indicating to consider the problem again when one or the other slightly dry skin, cracks, wrinkles, nail miss stature, as if something was not quite right. Since such procedures can jeopardize the health, I decided with my wife to make the experiment ourselves to allowed to eat as much meat as the instinct allows. This is of course not the normal instincto practice, which advises the contrary: never without checking first our sensory attraction to all the foods on the table.
First observation: arthritis apeared, I could not brush my hair with my right hand, my shoulder hurt when I raised my arm above the horizontal. Worse, a tumor appeared on my left knee , which I had surgically removed before. However, the tumor grew back immediately, so I was forced to interrupt my forced meat gluttony. After eight months of veganism the second tumor had completely disappeared, as well as the arthritis and other small troubles.
But at that time a hernia appeared, the doctors and orthopedist declared it irreversible could only be healed with surgery. That was obviously a sign of animal protein’s lack. I tried once , to replace the usual domestic animals proteins by game meat (wild boar, chamois) and wild animals products because of the taste and the instinctive barrier of meat etc. of wild animals is much stronger and male us better aware against overloading . After only six months, the hernia was perfectly and finally disappeared and no other negative signs appeared. This was a clear proof to me that our organism is in danger by an excessive meat consumption, but on the other hand, a certain amount of animal products is still required.
Many around me did not want to accept my opinion, especially my wife, who was convinced that the instinct would protect us against difficulties, as was the case in many patients. Unfortunately this did not work with the usual meat (farmed animals, much milder taste) and caused her cancer and death. She admitted the exaggerated consumption of meat was the cause three weeks before her end, but it was too late (also the hard chemotherapy in the last months, the bronchi completely choked-up, so that breathing was impossible were the cause of her dead) . So I immediately made it known to all instinctos, so no one would get similar problems. So it's a huge exaggeration to to say that I "led a huge crowd of people astray" would . On the contrary, my wife and myself took the risk of experimenting ourselves in order to clarify the matter and finally to prevent troubles to others.
With wild meat I have no evidence that it could possibly be harmful. I have noted only successes, but perhaps after a further 50 years of instinctive practice something else will arrive. It is quite clear that our food range is not exactly the same of what our ancestors had . All primates consume insects daily. Many human ethnies also. It could be postulated that insects are needed for a perfect dietary balance .
As a precaution I have therefore in sight to put a new phase of the investigation in motion . Last year I already had all season bee larvae as an exclusive animal product, with very amazing results. I have the opportunity to set up a new center in southern Spain soon. In this climate, bees can develop almost all year round and this without artificial feeding. Mulberry trees grow very fast and the caterpillar of the silk moth is easy to breed. So we will also produce silk fabrics, not just nutrients...
I think our duty is not to lock ourselves or others into a closed system and to declare any deviating attempt "mind-boggling" . But it is important to know what is the right diet for us humans, so that everyone has the freedom to take the best path to health and wellbeing.
GCB
-
And here is the original for our German speaking members and readers.
Rohkost, Veganismus und rohes Fleisch: ein heisses Thema!
Zuerst muss man die Geister ein bisschen entspannen um das Problem der tierischen Proteine ganz objektiv anzusprechen. Niemand darf behaupten, er hätte eine endgültige Wahrheit. Dies vorauszusetzen ist meistens das Zeichen, dass etwas in der eigenen Stellungnahme nicht ganz klar ist. Sonst wäre man stets bereit, die eigene Meinung in Frage zu stellen.
Was den erwähnten Artikel betrifft, sind einige Missverständnisse entstanden. Als Forscher würde ich nicht einfach sagen „Auch Rohfleisch ist für die Gesundheit schädlich“, sondern „Auch Rohfleisch könnte für die Gesundheit schädlich sein“. Jedes natürliches Molekül kann entweder nützlich oder schädlich wirken, das hängt von den Umständen, den Mengen, der Dauer etc. ab. Ein rigides Prinzip ist nicht Teil einer wissenschaftlichen Annäherung and die Wirklichkeit. Auf dem Gebiet der Gesundheit hatten Glauben, Mode und Ideologien schon genügend fatale Folgen.
Mir scheint es, dass viele nicht richtig verstehen, was „die Instinkto“ an sich wirklich bedeutet. Sie ist eben keine feststehende Ideologie, Diät oder Philosophie, die man sich oder den anderen aufzwingt. Es handelt sich viel mehr um ein Experiment, dessen Ziel es ist, diese Frage zu beantworten: Was, wie, und wieviel genau sollte der Mensch essen, um den bestmöglichen Gesundheitzustand zu genießen? Es wäre ein Irrglaube zu denken diese oder jene Klasse von Nahrungsmittel zu beseitigen sei die endgültige Lösung. Die Bedürfnisse, die Intoleranzen, die Mängel und Überlastungen sind von einem Organismus zum anderen unterschiedlich und verändern sich dazu im Laufe der Zeit.
Die Diätetik versucht treffende Antworten von der Wissenschaft zu ziehen. Wegen dieser Variabilität und der unendlichen Komplexität der biologischen Mechanismen kann die wissenschaftliche Vorgehensweise leider lediglich provisorische und allgemeine Aussagen formulieren. Ideologien sind noch gefährlicher, da diese meistens nicht bereit sind, Kritik oder Misserfolge in Betracht zu ziehen. Deswegen habe ich einen anderen Weg gesucht: die Antworten aus dem Organismus herauszuholen, und stets die Resultate objektiv zu betrachten.
Dies habe ich auf dem Gebiet der tierischen Proteine genau so gemacht, wie auf allen anderen Gebieten. Unsere Genetik ist sehr nah der Genetik der Primaten, vor allem der Chimpanzen und Bonobos. Diese jagen gelegentlich und verzehren dann Fleisch von Halbaffen, Wildschweinen, Vögeln und Insekten. So darf man sich die Frage stellen: ist Fleisch, oder allgemeiner gesagt tierisches Eiweiß teil der Nahrungspalette des Menschen? Da Wissenchaft und Ideologien diesbezüglich meistens widersprüchig sind, hat man keine andere Lösung, als selbst zu folgern und zu experimentieren.
Seit nunmehr fünfzig Jahren habe ich sämtliche Beobachtungen, die ich an tausenden Menschen machen konnte, zusammentgetragen, und Schlussfolgerungen gezogen. In den ersten Jahren wurde es klar, dass der menschliche Organismus ohne tierische Lebensmittel besonders in der Schwangerschaft, während des Stillens und im Wachstum auf große Schwierigkeiten stößt. Die Wachstumsmechanismen (Skelett, Muskel, Gewicht), die Entwicklung des Nervensystems (Gehirn, Reflexe), und später die zellulare Erneuerung (Vernarbungsfähigkeit, Erholung, und wahrscheinlich Lebensdauer) sind offensichtlich beeinträchtigt.. Als ich Jahr für Jahr zuerst Fisch, dann Eier und später Fleisch in die Instinktopalette wiedereinführte musste ich bei vielen PraktikantenKra nken unerwartete Heilungen feststellen. Bösartige Tumoren, Autoimmunerkrankheiten, Fehlbildungen, usw. waren nach kurzer Zeit wie weggespült. An Veganern etwa mit katastrophalen Gewichtsproblemen konnte ich erstaunliche Gewichtszunahmen feststellen. Ich selbst konnte erst mit tierischen Lebensmitteln den Gewichtsverlust kompensieren, der mit meinem Krebs entstanden war.
So hatte ich keinen Grund mehr, Fleisch oder andere tierische Produkte als verfluchte Versuchungsobjekte zu betrachten. Erst nach zwanzig Jahren entstanden kleine Zeichen, welche die Problematik nochmals überbedenken ließen. Beim einen oder anderen etwas trockene Haut, Risse, Falten, Nagelmisswuchs, als ob etwas doch nicht ganz in Ordnung sei. Da solche Verfahren die Gesundheit gefahrden können, entschloss ich mit meiner Frau, das Experiment selbst zu machen, soviel Fleisch wie der Instinkt erlaubt zu verzehren. Das ist natürlich nicht die normale Instinktopraxis, die im Gegenteil lehrt, niemals ohne sensorielle Anziehung irgendein Nahrungsmittel zu sich zu nehmen.
Erste Feststellung: Arthritis, ich konnte mein Haar nicht mehr mit der rechten Hand bürsten, die Schulter schmerzte sobald ich den Arm über die Horizontale hob. Schlimmer noch: ein Tumor erschien am linken Knie, das ich zuvor operieren ließ. Der Tumor wuchs aber sofort wieder, sodass ich mich gezwungen sah, meine forcierte Fleischfresserei zu unterbrechen. Nach acht Monaten Veganismus war der zweite Tumor vollkommen verschwunden, sowie die Arthritis und andere kleine Zeichen.
Aber: im selben Moment erschien ein Leistenbruch, den mir Ärzte und Orthopedisten als irreversibel versicherten und nur mit Operation heibar sei. Das war offensichtlich ein Zeichen eines Mangels an tierischem Eiweiß. Ich probierte sogleich, die üblichen tierischen Proteine (xxxxx ) durch Wildfleisch (Wildschein, …?) und wilde tierische Produkte (welche???) zu ersetzen, da der Geschmack und die instinktive Sperre von Fleisch etc. wilder Tiere viel stärker ist und gegen eine Überlastung besser hütet. Nach nur sechs Monaten war der Leistenbruch vollkommen (und endgültig) verschwunden und keine anderen negativen Zeichen zurückgekehrt. Das war für mich ein klarer Beweis, dass unser Organismus einerseits durch einen zu großen Fleischverzehr in Gefahr gestellt wird, er andererseits eine gewisse Menge an tierischen Produkten doch benötigt.
Viele um mich herum wollten meine Meinung nicht annehmen, besonders meine Frau, die überzeugt war, dass der Instinkt sie gegen Schwierigkeiten schützen würde, wie es bei vielen Kranken der Fall war. Leider funktionierte dies nicht mit dem üblichen Fleisch (gezüchteter Tiere, viel milderer Geschmack) und führte bei ihr zu Krebs und Tod. Sie hörte mit dem übertriebenen Fleischverzehr drei Wochen vor ihrem Ende auf, es war jedoch zu spät (zudem verhärtete die Chemotherapie in den letzten Monaten die Bronchen vollkommen, sodass die Atmung unmöglich wurde - daran verstarb sie). So gab ich sofort allen Instinktos Bescheid, damit niemand ähnliche Probleme bekommen würde. Es ist also eine gewaltige Übertreibung zu sagen, dass ich „eine gewaltige Menge Menschen in die Irre geführt“ hätte. Ganz im Gegenteil sind meine Frau und ich selbst die Risikos eingegangen, um das Problem klarzustellen, und schließlich um Beschwerden an anderen zu verhindern.
Mit wildem Fleisch habe ich bisher keine Beweise, dass es eventuell schädlich sein könnte. Ich habe nur Erfolge vermerkt, aber vielleicht wird nach weiteren fünfzig Jahren instinktiver Praxis noch etwas eintreffen. Es ist völlig klar, dass unsere Nahrungspalette nicht genau dieselbe ist, die unsere Vorfahren hatten. Sämtliche Primaten verzehren täglich Insekten. Viele Menschen auch. So könnte man postulieren, dass Insekten für eine perfekte Ausgewogenhei notwendig sind.
Aus Vorsicht habe ich deswegen im Visier, eine neue Phase der Untersuchung in Gang zu setzen. Letztes Jahr habe ich schon die ganze Saison Bienenlarven als exklusives tierisches Produkt gehabt, mit sehr erstaunlichen Resultaten. Ich habe vor alsbald möglich ein neues Zentrum in Südspanien zu gründen. In diesem Klima können sich Bienen fast das ganze Jahr hindurch entwickeln und dies ganz ohne künstliche Zufütterung. Maulbeerbäume wachsen auch sehr schnell und die Raupe des Seidenspinners ist leicht zu züchten. So werden wir auch Seidenstoffe und nicht nur Nährstoffe produzieren...
Ich denke unsere Pflicht ist nicht uns selbst oder andere in ein geschlossenes System zu sperren, und jeglichen davon abweichenden Versuch als „ irrsinnig“ zu erklären. Wichtig ist jedoch zu wissen, welche die richtige Ernährung für den Menschen ist, damit jeder die Freiheit hat, den besten Weg zur Gesundheit und Wohlbefinden einzuschlagen.
-
Thank you for your translation Iguana.
Certainly helped us English readers understand GCB's message.
:)
So GCB's wife seemed to have been killed by CHEMOTHERAPY... not by eating raw meat... which could have easily been stopped.
I'm surprised she accepted chemotherapy as a treatment.
Hopefully GCB can rest his mind that it was chemotherapy that killed her.
-
Did I miss something or did he write that he had experimented for some time eating smaller, much smaller amounts of domesticated animal protein, at more frequent intervals? I did get the part where Nicole was the guinea pig and ate till full. Again, it may be so contrary to his instinctual practices that he just can't see the possibility. He appears to draw conclusions a bit prematurely for a scientist (going from lots of meat, to only bee protein). But maybe I don't know his whole story. I witnessed Nicole over the years I visited Montrame eating quite large protein meals, and also eating very late at night, and staying up very late. I think even though she was surrounded by instinctos at the castle, she appeared driven, all day long, at a quick pace, and lonely,, not getting real love. A hypothesis might be that one's instinctual stop may be reset by the loss of real love. There are more common names for that practice that typically aren't associated with true hunger.
It was the practice there to eat late, presumably so that one could go till noon the next day when the next meal was served. Where everyone was hungrily eating copious amounts of fruit, not just the guests. Eating late at night ( a european cultural habit) doesn't work for me.
-
GS:
Thank you for your translation Iguana.
Certainly helped us English readers understand GCB's message.
Glad that at least someone thanks me! I saw there are still plenty of bugs and imperfections in the translation, but at least it’s readable.
So GCB's wife seemed to have been killed by CHEMOTHERAPY... not by eating raw meat... which could have easily been stopped.
I doubt it could have been reverted, when it’s too late it’s too late.
Van: Did I miss something or did he write that he had experimented for some time eating smaller, much smaller amounts of domesticated animal protein, at more frequent intervals?
He can only report about the experiments they have done, not about the hundred thousands imaginable ones they didn’t do.
I did get the part where Nicole was the guinea pig and ate till full.
I read that both of them were the voluntary guinea pigs.
Again, it may be so contrary to his instinctual practices that he just can't see the possibility. He appears to draw conclusions a bit prematurely for a scientist (going from lots of meat, to only bee protein). But maybe I don't know his whole story.
Feel free to draw less "premature" conclusions.
she appeared driven, all day long, at a quick pace, and lonely,, not getting real love. A hypothesis might be that one's instinctual stop may be reset by the loss of real love. There are more common names for that practice that typically aren't associated with true hunger.
Yes, that’s possible, I don’t know. Is “bulimia” the word you talk about?
Inger: Did you find the answers to your questions?
-
GS:
Glad that at least someone thanks me! I saw there are still plenty of bugs and imperfections in the translation, but at least it’s readable.
I doubt it could have been reverted, when it’s too late it’s too late.
Van:
He can only report about the experiments they have done, not about the hundred thousands imaginable ones they didn’t do.
I read that both of them were the voluntary guinea pigs.
Feel free to draw less "premature" conclusions.
Yes, that’s possible, I don’t know. Is “bulimia” the word you talk about?
Inger: Did you find the answers to your questions?
I don't understand why you'd lump the investigation on what harm eating large amounts of animal protein might do with the hundreds of thousands.... It seems you're adverse to considering that also.. That expression of the apple falling not far from the tree seems to apply here.
I wasn't thinking of bulimia, but simply eating to fill the void of love, of which you and I have written about before. Some eat mashed potatoes, some donuts, some meat, some fruit,, anything eaten to excess,, or all of the above at once,, that will dull the empty feelings..
-
I fail to see the point, Van. No animal nor any of our ancestors would have thought: “Oh, I finally could access to a carcass with a lot of meat left on it, but I must refrain to eat much because God knows what harm eating large amounts of animal protein at once might do to my body. I’d better eat a small amount, go for a walk and come back latter to see if other animals have been kind enough to leave some of this meat for me.” ;D
I already imagine you’re going to argue that these animals and hominids ancestors of ours didn’t care to have a long live as we could now have if we do what they have never done. Please, tell this to others, not to me anymore! ;)
-
I fail to see the point, Van. No animal nor any of our ancestors would have thought: “Oh, I finally could access to a carcass with a lot of meat left on it, but I must refrain to eat much because God knows what harm eating large amounts of animal protein at once might do to my body. I’d better eat a small amount, go for a walk and come back latter to see if other animals have been kind enough to leave some of this meat for me.” ;D
In this ancestral model, we are told that our modern diseases were not found. Many people, including myself, have found that instinctive eating along is not curative. Van's argument is plausible from both a physical and physiological standpoint.
I have experienced overeating from a physiological cause, hence I find it necessary to limit my intake of both carbohydrates and proteins to prevent triggering an excessive insulin release that can cause hunger even when food intake appears adequate. For years, this hunger was treated as a psychological need because the true cause was not named.
Now I know that only when I moderate my insulin response through appropriate eating strategies do I avoid a desire to overeat. In other words, certain physical conditions can override the instinctive stop, even when instinctive eating guidelines are followed accurately.
This is another possible interpretation of Nicole's desire to eat. It is counterproductive to apply knowledge too narrowly; then knowledge degrades to dogma.
-
Who is applying knowledge, Eve? I read that you "find it necessary to limit (your) intake of both carbohydrates and proteins to prevent triggering an excessive insulin release that can cause hunger even when food intake appears adequate" and "moderate (your) insulin response through appropriate eating strategies". isn't that applying knowledge? ???
-
I feel the truth probably is that it is a joke to believe one can actually be instincto. GCB's theories are great as principles, but I feel very few people on earth can actually claim being true instinctos.
Why? Because the ENVIRONMENT is everything. I believe that our sense of smell and taste about a particular food can be greatly affected and bias our choices when we haven't lived as naturally as we should have.
Example: you haven't slept all night, and or you have been under huge stress, worrying like crazy: can you still trust your senses? Don't you think your instinct is still instinctive? At the opposite, imagine you've had a great workout and are now truely hungry: your senses are so sharp when this happens, and you are so far from thinking about what you "should be" eating that there is no question: your instinct is very pure.
If we were all living as our ancesters did, sure, our senses would guide us better... but the very fact that we are users of the RPD forum probably means we worry more than what we should to have unbiased senses, hence no one here could actually claim being a true instincto.
Anyone sees my point?
-
Who is applying knowledge, Eve? I read that you "moderate (your) insulin response through appropriate eating strategies". isn't that applying knowledge? ???
Yes, applying knowledge is exactly what I do. I follow the guidelines for instinctive eating, yet bypass instinct in the areas where I know that a modern disease is present in me. If I wait for the instinctive stop, it won't arrive, because the disease process does not send the right signals. I came to RPD with several modern diseases, and RPD has not cured them outright. My paleolithic ancestors would not have had to contend with these diseases.
I never knew Nicole, but when I hear her eating habits described, I can't help but thinking that she didn't put together some clues because she was relying on instinct where knowledge would have served her better.
Telling a sick person that instinctive eating is an authentic paleolithic way to eat is not enough when their personal experience tells them that they are not an authentic paleolithic person. I think that needs to be made clear.
-
Same here.
I also use both instinct and knowledge depending on the situation for myself and for patients.
-
Alphagruis continues to make welcome comments to this forum topic via posting comments on my blog. Here is his contribution:
Author : instincto drivel ( even more) (IP: 90.6.28.226 , AStrasbourg-752-1-9-226.w90-6.abo.wanadoo.fr)
No Edwin, you're quite mistaken and indulge yourself in wishful thinking. It's definitively nothing else but the INSTINCTO bullshit that killed Burger's wife as well as others.
She really got cancer and would have died even without chemotherapy, which was just a desperate final attempt to save her.
And she got cancer because she systematically overate raw MUSCLE meat (importance of fat, organs etc was by then and still essentially is just ignored by instincto guru, the "instinct" forgot to tell him). And she did this because of the foolish instincto stance that "allows" one to eat up to the so-called instinctive stop, whatever the amount taken in in this way might ever be . And this stance is unfortunately just plain wrong. Meat was actually never available to our ancestors day after day in such large amounts. As simple as that.
Well, of course you're free to continue to be fooled by instincto stance and guru.
And in addition:
Why is the instincto stance or "theory" fundamentally flawed?
There are many reasons and one major one is just that these so-called instinctive stop signals ,supposed to prevent overeating in order for an appropriate « instinct » to really work, never ever were or had to be under darwinian selective pressure.
And this, in turn, is just because meat was actually never available to our ancestors day after day for years in such large amounts. As simple as that.
-
Thanks for sharing that, GS. Good to hear from Alphagruis again. It seems that GCB's views are moving closer to those of Alphagruis. Their quotes are not so far apart now, though Iguana may disagree with me.
[Among] GCB, Alphagruis, Iguana, lots and lots of ex-VLCers [and others], there is a growing consensus that in the longer run it is not healthy to eat lots of raw muscle meat and fat and little else. Starving our beneficial gut bacteria makes no sense. [Edit: I'm not trying to imply anything about what GCB, Alphagruis, or Iguana ate in the past or eat now, just noting the rough consensus in the comments about one thing to avoid, which is good to see--this is a complement, not a criticism]
-
I doubt that Iguana and GCB have ever eaten lots of fat. And neither has eaten in such a way to limit the numbers of plant eating bacteria. Just to keep the information/evidence straight. I also have a feeling that as more information is gathered that, there will be some findings about those who cook and kill all microbes in their meat and fat, and those that don't and hence continue feeding their guts with all sorts of living bacteria etc. killing an antelope and eating it's stomach and organs right there on the spot, is years away from going to costco and bringing a rib eye and broiling it. Now that's a change in direction from every early man specie,, sterilizing every thing that goes into their mouth, including water.
-
I also have a feeling that as more information is gathered that, there will be some findings about those who cook and kill all microbes in their meat and fat, and those that don't and hence continue feeding their guts with all sorts of living bacteria etc.
And it is not just microbes that are destroyed with cooking, it is also prebiotics in plant foods, such as resistant starch, fructo-oligosaccharides, pectin, mucins, inulin, and so on, which are highest in raw foods. It's strange that this has not been more vigorously embraced by rawists. It is one of the best arguments for eating more raw.
-
don't know if I have already mentioned it here, just saw a documentary talking about early plains indians and the roots that they found in the grasslands.... And again, anything they found living from the ground, was full of microbes. Just look closely at a blade of grass.
-
I have eaten much bee brood and would eat more if I had it. It can be VERY sweet when the larvae are young and the workers are still stuffing their cells with royal jelly. As the bees mature and especially after the cell has been capped, the sweetness disappears and the taste is no where near as attractive as when they are young. Young bee brood tastes like heavily sweetened cereal milk at the bottom of ones bowl (with lots of added sugar).. Almost addicting.
When have you eaten bee brood? Since when and for how long? Do/did you eat it regularly and how often do or did you eat it? Where did (or do) you get it from?
Is it possible to eat these young larvae only for a few weeks a year? Quesstions upon questions... :) And of course I'm curious which effects you maybe observed.
-
years ago I had my own bees, and would seek out bee farmers who would sell frames of pollen, bee brood, and honey. It's so easy to over eat the bee brood for as mentioned earlier it is so sweet like heavily sugared milk at the bottom of a cereal bowl. Didn't really notice a 'stop'. And can't say I remember it as strength building, but is certainly a rush of instant energy. I ate it maybe 10-20 times some years ago. Bees in warm climates produce brood year round, as they also collect pollen and make honey year round. If I lived somewhere warm, I definitely would consider having bees again. But the verilla mite took mine down, since I didn't want to use poison at the entrance of the hive.
-
Hi Gerard,
Nice to hear from you! You may still be angry with me, but I’m not angry with you. I just haven’t understood the radical shift in your stance and why you were so abusive — as you are such a nice, amiable and generous guy in real life.
No Edwin, you're quite mistaken and indulge yourself in wishful thinking. It's definitively nothing else but the INSTINCTO bullshit that killed Burger's wife as well as others.
No, I disagree. It seems you don’t take into account that:
- The meat they ate the time was beef, mutton and pork. That wouldn’t probably have happen with wild game meat.
- As GCB reported, they deliberately experimented on themselves a high and unlimited consumption of those meats.
- He finally warned her, but she did not believe that the cause of her illness was too much meat. After her dead, the "instinctos" I know in Switzerland did not believe that either.
Telling that the ‘instincto bullshit” killed her is not factual, sorry. She might well have died earlier if she had continued to eat a standard cooked diet.
She really got cancer and would have died even without chemotherapy, which was just a desperate final attempt to save her.
Right, I agree.
And she got cancer because she systematically overate raw MUSCLE meat
We agree on that too.
(importance of fat, organs etc was by then and still essentially is just ignored by instincto guru, the "instinct" forgot to tell him).
Wrong. He may not have emphasized enough the importance of eating organs, but most of the long term instinctos are very fond of organs, GCB himself too. That’s even himself who advised me to test liver.
Meat was actually never available to our ancestors day after day in such large amounts. As simple as that.
Exactly what we say. We never disagreed on that. It doesn’t mean that...
…the instincto stance or "theory" (is) fundamentally flawed
Just like Micelte (see his above post) you have an idea of the instincto theory as it were saying that our alimentary instinct is omnipotent. It has never been seen I that way except by some people who haven’t known the theory completely or haven’t understood it properly: as Dom Guyaux emphasized (but GCB had also said the same long before him) the environmental conditions and food accessibility are also to be taken into account.
There are many reasons and one major one is just that these so-called instinctive stop signals ,supposed to prevent overeating in order for an appropriate « instinct » to really work, never ever were or had to be under darwinian selective pressure.
No, I don’t think so because it has been under selective pressure a lot of times, every time the availability of a particular food surpasses the current need of an animal — and that happens quite often in nature too. An animal who has eaten too much of a food will be disadvantaged, being an easy prey for the predators.
And this, in turn, is just because meat was actually never available to our ancestors day after day for years in such large amounts. As simple as that.
That’s precisely why it is strongly advised to have other animal food as a choice and alternate the consumption of mammals meat with fish, shellfish, birds, eggs… and insects! ;)
Phil: Thanks for sharing that, GS. Good to hear from Alphagruis again. It seems that GCB's views are moving closer to those of Alphagruis. Their quotes are not so far apart now, though Iguana may disagree with me.
Gerard (Alphagruis) used to completely agree with us on all main points. He just got extremely angry because GCB did the mistake to never answer to his valuable comments and also lacked tact. Gerard never met GCB and the former misses a complete knowledge of the points transmitted and discussed exclusively orally in GCB’s comprehensive one week seminars. I really fail to grab how we could live with totally discarding our fundamental instincts as Gerard seems to suggest.
[Among] GCB, Alphagruis, Iguana, lots and lots of ex-VLCers [and others], there is a growing consensus that in the longer run it is not healthy to eat lots of raw muscle meat and fat and little else. Starving our beneficial gut bacteria makes no sense. [Edit: I'm not trying to imply anything about what GCB, Alphagruis, or Iguana ate in the past or eat now, just noting the rough consensus in the comments about one thing to avoid, which is good to see--this is a complement, not a criticism]
Yes!
Van: I doubt that Iguana and GCB have ever eaten lots of fat.
We eat all the animal fat we find palatable.
Now that's a change in direction from every early man specie,, sterilizing every thing that goes into their mouth, including water.
Sure, we all agree on that.
-
Well, I’ve got to answer that too, and I should answer to Eveheart as well, but it‘ll be enough for now, sorry Eve.
I feel the truth probably is that it is a joke to believe one can actually be instincto. GCB's theories are great as principles, but I feel very few people on earth can actually claim being true instinctos.
I don’t think anyone claims that, Micelte. Perfection doesn’t belong to this world.
Why? Because the ENVIRONMENT is everything. I believe that our sense of smell and taste about a particular food can be greatly affected and bias our choices when we haven't lived as naturally as we should have.
The environment is only part of the whole, it’s not everything unless you include us in the environment.
A training is necessary since we all lack the training we should have had from our parents. We have been trained in a completely unnatural way, a “civilized” way quite opposite to what it should have been.
-
I don’t think anyone claims that, Micelte. Perfection doesn't belong to this world.
Exactly. This is why I liked GCB's latest definition (in the text you translated), when he was saying that instinctotherapy is nothing else than a human experiment. As thinking humans we like to follow patterns, we want to have rules, because it's just easier for our mind to be in control. But health is the opposite: the more we try to control it using our thoughts instead of our feelings, the more we fail. And the more we do research about it, the more we understand that it's useless. For example, the fact that fecal transplants are now under the spotlight, contradicting so many previous theories, is puzzling to most health seekers. They are even about to wake up Beschamp from his coffin ;)
The environment is only part of the whole, it’s not everything unless you include us in the environment.
It wasn't clear, but I was including us in the environment. I did not choose the word thinking of it's French meaning but to convey a holistic sense. Of course we are part of the environment, since our very self is a full ecosystem - some would even say a universe in itself.
-
Well, I’ve got to answer that too, and I should answer to Eveheart as well, but it‘ll be enough for now, sorry Eve.
Please don't feel obligated to reply. There is no need to apologize. I was addressing my comments to this forum.
One of the basic premises of instinctive eating is that the instinct is mine alone. When other instinctive eaters share their own experiences, it serves me as a guide to help me identify my own instinct... and also clues me in when my instinct may be subverted for some reason. I find it less useful when the ubiquitous gurus arrive to tell me what my instinct should be. Maybe that is not their intention, but it can come across that way.
-
Interesting stuff.
I do think wild foods are superior. And I think to eat a high protein low fat diet living in a city might be no good idea at all -[
We surely need fat.
and I think leaving wild edibles and wild berries in season out is a big mistake too. GCB and Nicole did not had much wild greens did they?
Every successful mostly animal food eating tribe used those. t is not about the carbs. I 100% believe we do not need those. It is about other things in the, just... IDK what but I surely know I go crazy when the first wild greens pop up in the spring! I just had some yesterday, so early spring here. I found some nettles, dandelion.. some other greens too. Oh man it was like eating drugs lol
I believe we should be tied to our natural environment and dirt, literally! In every aspect. That is health to me. And so far.. it is working. ;) (not telling anyone to be like animals. I like civilisation when it is in a positive way! :) technology can also be used with caution harming us way less than it does in today's world)
When I was instincto and had all those yummy tropical fruit... living in northern Europe.. it harmed me. :(
Hearing Nicole worked late nights and was stressed... only those 2 factors are cancer causing ones. -[
I fully believe our instincts can be spoiled.
And will have to be "straightened out" and exercised into their natural, healhy state by our conscious decisions that (hopefully) are closer to the reality, truth and nature
-
wild foods are superior.
we should be tied to our natural environment and dirt, literally! In every aspect. That is health
our instincts can be spoiled. And will have to be "straightened out" and exercised into their natural, healhy state by our conscious decisions that (hopefully) are closer to the reality, truth and nature
Nice words Inger, thank you. I believe you are on the right path. Don't attempt drawing too many conclusions for others though, since we are all one, but we are not all equal! What works for you, surely works, but it does not mean it would apply to others. I believe your principles, though, are the right ones!
-
Inger is dead on about being literally tied to dirt and the rest of our natural environment in every aspect. And which foods are naturally most covered in dirt rich in probiotic soil based organisms (hint: it ain't yummy tropical fruits :D )?
Sorry to all for misspelling compliment earlier. -[
-
Yes, Phil. Except that ripe and overripe fruits, tropical or not, are also covered by hundreds thousand of various microorganisms, especially when fallen on the ground. ;)
Inger, didn't you read my above post http://www.rawpaleodietforum.com/instinctoanopsology/gcb-eating-meat-is-harmful/msg119784/#msg119784 (http://www.rawpaleodietforum.com/instinctoanopsology/gcb-eating-meat-is-harmful/msg119784/#msg119784) explaining why eating sweets fruits such as dates, figs and cherimoyas can in no way be an addiction?
Inger: Did you find the answers to your questions?
Eve:
Please don't feel obligated to reply. There is no need to apologize. I was addressing my comments to this forum.
I find it less useful when the ubiquitous gurus arrive to tell me what my instinct should be. Maybe that is not their intention, but it can come across that way.
I hope it’s not me who told you what your instinct should be! Anyway, I wanted to ask you (and make some comments) about these words of yours:
In this ancestral model, we are told that our modern diseases were not found. Many people, including myself, have found that instinctive eating along is not curative.
Is “along” a typo and you meant “alone”? Who are those other people? Actually, a lot a extraordinary healings have occurred in Europe, including of some serious diseases known as incurable.
Now I know that only when I moderate my insulin response through appropriate eating strategies do I avoid a desire to overeat. In other words, certain physical conditions can override the instinctive stop, even when instinctive eating guidelines are followed accurately.
I’m a complete ignorant on this topic. How does one moderate his/her insulin response? What are those eating strategies? What physical conditions can override the instinctive regulation?
This is another possible interpretation of Nicole's desire to eat.
AFAIK, the idea expressed and discussed here by some that Nicole ate too much for psychological reasons is nothing else than speculative gossip.
-
Yes, Phil. Except that ripe and overripe fruits, tropical or not, are also covered by hundreds thousand of various microorganisms, especially when fallen on the ground.
Of course, and the plant foods that actually grow right in the dirt have way more soil based organisms. They are both good types of food to include in the diet. No need to totally exclude either type. They give me the chance to correctly use the word I previously misused - they complement each other.
-
Folks, we *are* dirt!
-
Inger is dead on about being literally tied to dirt and the rest of our natural environment in every aspect. And which foods are naturally most covered in dirt rich in probiotic soil based organisms (hint: it ain't yummy tropical fruits :D )?
In tropical manila, i healed a pregnant lady who had hyper acidity symptoms, she could not eat much to feed herself and her unborn child of 3 months. She could not do colon cleansers such as castor oil for fear of aborting her own child. I resorted to giving her lots and lots of papayas and pineapples to clean her intestines do dissolve the morbid matter stuck in her. And in a week she was cured with yummy tropical fruits.
She is now due to give birth this March.
-
Folks, we *are* dirt!
We sure are. Or we do come from dirt. From dirt we come, to dirt we go. And not just us. In this way we've been many different things before we were humans, and will be many more in the future, after out deaths. As if many different lives for one. In this regard we've been earthworms, apple trees, bacteria of all kinds, etc.
Reminds me of a certain "religious" viewpoint from some Himalayan region, something I saw in a movie years ago, that gave the exact same point (having been an earthworm in a previous life, or will be one in the future). Originating hundreds, perhaps even thousands, of years ago.
Nothing new really, now we merely have more evidence for its validity. And as well more evidence to say it is not the entire truth - a person is made of the specific "chemical reactions" in the brain; so saying you've been an earthworm in a previous life is wrong because you only have one. There's only one you.
Life is like a recycling process built on itself, with its roots in inorganic matter. Drives itself, yet not completely.
-
I resorted to giving her lots and lots of papayas and pineapples to clean her intestines do dissolve the morbid matter stuck in her. And in a week she was cured with yummy tropical fruits.
Yeah, tropical fruits such as papayas, mangos, pineapple, guavas, passion fruits, sapodillas, soursop, rambutans, lychees, cempedaks, jackfruits, etc, are delightful, almost wild or available in almost wild varieties. Plus there are fatty tropical fruits: avocados, safus, durians.
All these proved to be very good for most of us, including me, wherever we are.
Of course they are cheaper when you get them straight from under their tree, but where I lived before there is an importer of fruits from small organic farmers in Cameroon. I used to go to their warehouse every week, asking for overripe fruits. The guy sold it to me at a very low price and it ended up that I bought all his stock of fruits leftover from the previous shipment plus the overripe ones of the last shipment. We became friends. Once per week, I left the warehouse with my car fully loaded of fruit boxes, paying only an insignificant amount for a quantity of fruit that I could never eat all myself. I used to resale some to friends and to throw the too rotten and bad ones in the garden to fertilize the soil.
So, when I traveled to tropical countries, there was almost no change to my diet and no habituation troubles at all.
This doesn’t mean that you cannot live well without tropical fruits, like Inger does, but most of us feel much better and more satisfied with at least some tropical fruits. Satisfaction is very important if we aim to be able to remain 100% raw paleo in the long run. The more you restrict your food range for ideological reasons, the more quickly you become frustrated and find yourself unable to resist to the temptation to eat cooked food again.
There are also sick people trying to eat a raw paleo diet who are just unable to eat any raw food growing in their area. Plus there are areas where nothing edible grows, all the food being shipped from far away.
Don't attempt drawing too many conclusions for others though, since we are all one, but we are not all equal! What works for you, surely works, but it does not mean it would apply to others.
Absolutely, and once again, what works for a few years won’t necessarily work in the long run. I’ve got to quote Ronald J. Ziegler once more:
-
From Alphagruis / Gerard on the issue of instinctive stops and more:
Final Addendum
Not only were the so called "instinctive stops" never under darwinian selection pressure to limit the intake of foods like meat, insects, fat, sweet or oily fruit to "present nutritional needs" ( BTW an utterly ridiculous instincto and civilized man fad) but quite on the contrary during paleo times these sensory signals were on very strong darwinian selection pressure to act so as to increase such food intake to the maximum possible (with respect to digestive potential ) when these foods were as usual temporarily available and plentiful.
The temporary excess of nutrients intake could in this way be stored, in particular in the form of fat, fat soluble vitamins etc for the inevitable less fortunate periods occurring systematically every year in the wild even in tropical areas. BTW our remarkable outfit from a biochemistry point of view is also a clear indication of adaptation to such major food availability fluctuations over a one year period in the wild.
Obviously being able to take advantage of these temporary food abundances is a decisive component of a species' evolutionary fitness.
Now, invoking such sensory signals tuned by evolution under the above mentioned conditions in wild to limit food intake in instincto wonderland or civilization where these foods are available ad libitum year after year from Jan 1th to Dec 31th is obviously a terrible mistake.
And this is just a deadly flaw in instincto "theory".
And sadly it was deadly too for some guru brainwashed and manipulated people.
In spite of the above being now known since 2007 and already pointed out for instance here:
http://www.rawpaleodietforum.com/hot-topics/anti-instincto-thread/msg39577/#msg39577 (http://www.rawpaleodietforum.com/hot-topics/anti-instincto-thread/msg39577/#msg39577)
the idiotic newbies brainwashing continues.
So funny.
As already pointed out too by another former RPF member there is an old saying that goes like
" You can always tell a -----, but you can't tell him much"
-
Thanks GS for forwarding the above text of Alphagruis, who remains as polite, respectful and amiable as he has always been in his posts. :D
As his ideas have already been exhaustively exposed and discussed 4 years ago, it suffice to follow the link he kindly provided to get to the relevant thread and see the whole previous discussion. Therefore we don’t have to start it all over again for another round. ;)
PS: I forgot to mention this. (http://www.rawpaleodietforum.com/instinctoanopsology/instincto-debunker-debunking/msg40749/#msg40749)
-
So Iguana, what do you think of GCB's current experiment:
"It is quite clear that our food range is not exactly the same of what our ancestors had . All primates consume insects daily. Many human ethnies also. It could be postulated that insects are needed for a perfect dietary balance .
As a precaution I have therefore in sight to put a new phase of the investigation in motion . Last year I already had all season bee larvae as an exclusive animal product, with very amazing results. I have the opportunity to set up a new center in southern Spain soon. In this climate, bees can develop almost all year round and this without artificial feeding. Mulberry trees grow very fast and the caterpillar of the silk moth is easy to breed. So we will also produce silk fabrics, not just nutrients...
I think our duty is not to lock ourselves or others into a closed system and to declare any deviating attempt "mind-boggling" . But it is important to know what is the right diet for us humans, so that everyone has the freedom to take the best path to health and wellbeing."
And do I read that correctly that the only animal food he is eating is bee brood? Is he recommending that anyone else also do this? It sounds like he is at least promoting adding bee brood to the diet, and possibly emphasizing it over mammal meats, poultry and fish, given that he is setting up a center where bee brood will be harvested nearly year-round, yes?
-
I understood that he experimented to eat bee brood as the only animal food during the relatively short season (a few months in spring, I think) when it is available in Southern France.
Is he recommending that anyone else also do this? It sounds like he is at least promoting adding bee brood to the diet, and possibly emphasizing it over mammal meats, poultry and fish, given that he is setting up a center where bee brood will be harvested nearly year-round, yes?
Recommending to anyone to eat a particular food would be contrary to his principles.
What I understand is he emphasizes that insects are habitually missing in raw paleo diets and should be added to our foods choice. Most of us “civilized” Westerners are more or les disgusted to eat insects/worms and not all insects are palatable/edible nor easily available in large amounts in our degraded environment. So, at least bee brood seems to be delicious for most people and would be a fine way to add some insects into our alimentary range.
By coincidence, as I do every Saturday I went to the farmer’s market of the nearest town this morning and asked a sympathetic beekeeper if he sales bee brood. He replied that he always has some, the whole year round, but nobody eats it although he heard that Chinese do eat it! I said “me too!”, so we agreed that I’ll go to his place on Monday morning to buy a kg of it, since it’s got to be fresh and it’s not storable.
I had it only once and found it moderately tasty, nothing extraordinary. But it’s sometimes the case, when we test a new food for the first time we don’t really appreciate it as we will later. Is it because our body needs to multiply the specific enzymes and/or microorganisms necessary to properly digest the new food? I don’t know.
-
Wouldn't insects be mostly proteins and lacking in fat?
-
Wouldn't insects be mostly proteins and lacking in fat?
No, insect grubs, for example, are almost all fat.
-
In my above post, I added the link to a relevant post of GCB in reply to Alphagruis. (http://www.rawpaleodietforum.com/instinctoanopsology/instincto-debunker-debunking/msg40749/#msg40749)
-
Now, invoking such sensory signals tuned by evolution under the above mentioned conditions in wild to limit food intake in instincto wonderland or civilization where these foods are available ad libitum year after year from Jan 1th to Dec 31th is obviously a terrible mistake.
And this is just a deadly flaw in instincto "theory".
This is precisely why I think the instincto theory does not work.
And why I believe in seasonal eating + naturally occurring food sources. I tried the 24/7 instincto Eden... and the experiment failed pretty badly.
-
Wild honey gatherers in our provinces never sell the bee brood because they eat it themselves... too good to sell! My sister in law went with them one time and she's no raw paleo dieter but ate bee brood when they gathered honey and she found bee brood extremely delicious.
-
No, insect grubs, for example, are almost all fat.
Which grubs? Any examples of edible insect grubs?
-
Alphagruis continues to make welcome comments to this forum
So why not invite him to participate again?
-
Yes, I thought about that. The condition must be that he remains civil and polite, something he seems unable to. But I wish that I would not get drawn again in time consuming endless arguing with him because I already spent too much time here. And I feel that all has already been said on both side.
So for me he can stay where he is since I tried to sort of welcome him back but got insulted in return:
Hi Gerard,
Nice to hear from you! You may still be angry with me, but I’m not angry with you. I just haven’t understood the radical shift in your stance and why you were so abusive — as you are such a nice, amiable and generous guy in real life.
-
Inger, this point had been already repeated ad nauseum, and it has been properly addressed in the threads linked above as well as other posts.
You failed with what you thought was the right way to practice instinctive nutrition. No wonder, it's not easy to launch oneself in such an experiment without any proper training with somebody experienced along. Few people succeed in this way: it needs a constant questioning, an abandon of dogmas and all preconceived ideas as well a lot of trials and errors.
I had the luck to meet the family of the guy who was one the 3 first experimenters and developers of the instincto nutrition along GCB and wife. I used to live just a few km away from this familly and we became friends, sharing food and meals. I read 3 times GCB's book, followed 3 (yes, three) one week stages with GCB, both theoretical and practical. Without that, I wouldn't have succeeded.
Now you found "something better" and it seems to suit you. I'm not so smart, congratulations! That's fine, but it's not because it has suited you for a few years that you can assume everyone will be able to do the same and have the same results. And by the way, most of what you do is not at all contrary to the instincto guidelines, which you seem to understand in you own particular way as something restricted, rigid and dogmatic, which is not at all the case.
GCB waited 8 years after he started to eat all raw with his whole family and several friends before making the provisional results of his experiment public. And he waited until he had 20 years of experience with about a thousand of people before publishing a book about it.
I asked you already twice in this thread if you saw the answers to your questions in the translation of GCB answer in German. It took me about 2 hours work and I would be glad to have an answer to those questions which I post now for the third time:
Quote from: Iguana on February 27, 2014, 10:17:47 pm
Inger, didn't you read my above post http://www.rawpaleodietforum.com/instinctoanopsology/gcb-eating-meat-is-harmful/msg119784/#msg119784 (http://www.rawpaleodietforum.com/instinctoanopsology/gcb-eating-meat-is-harmful/msg119784/#msg119784) explaining why eating sweets fruits such as dates, figs and cherimoyas can in no way be an addiction?
Quote from: Iguana on February 28, 2014, 04:12:21 am
Inger: Did you find the answers to your questions?
-
You know Francois, I did read your post... but to me they was addiction.
And later I found out, I think, why. My body was out of balance offering it fruits and stuff that would no way have been available in my environment 24/7, naturally.
Sugar in winter? When was this natural? Is this hard to see?
And here is the issue. Can you now see what I am saying?
I am not saying figs are always bad. I say, the practice to put a fig, a orange, a Brazil nut, a piece of fish.... etc etc under your nose and smell what you want every day of the year, just did not work. Not for me. Because it was not natural from the beginning. Of course not. Check my quote from Alphagruis.
I am allfor instinctive nutrition if practised with wild local growing foods. Otherwise, a no no for me.
-
... I wanted to ask you (and make some comments) about these words of yours:
Actually, a lot a extraordinary healings have occurred in Europe, including of some serious diseases known as incurable. I’m a complete ignorant on this topic. How does one moderate his/her insulin response? What are those eating strategies? What physical conditions can override the instinctive regulation? AFAIK, the idea expressed and discussed here by some that Nicole ate too much for psychological reasons is nothing else than speculative gossip.
I had extraordinary improvement following instinctive eating, but not complete healing. When the vast amount of my debilitating symptoms were eliminated, I was able to use blood tests and physical symptoms to identify problems related to insulin response. Those problems were with my instinct about foods containing carbohydrates. When I use that knowledge to limit certain food choices, my instinctive appetite works well.
I can't help but wonder about those instinctive eaters in Europe and elsewhere who were not healed with instinctive eating alone, including those who ate too much muscle meat for some reason. In other words, "What was the reason they ate too much muscle meat?" Psychological overeating is only one suggestion. I'd say, in the face of the report that she did overeat muscle meat, some sleuthing would have been in order. If psychological overeating were ruled out, perhaps more speculation and testing would have been in order.
Is “along” a typo and you meant “alone”?
Yes, that was a typo, so I meant to type, "Many people, including myself, have found that instinctive eating alone is not curative." Alone modifies instinctive eating, i.e., instinctive eating by itself, not by myself.
I hope it’s not me who told you what your instinct should be!
Actually, I find that the subject advice from GCB, "GCB: Eating meat too often could be harmful to health," has an inherent dictate about instinct that violates the basic premise of an instinctive appetite by meandering into the realm of "knowledge apart from instinct." To me, the advice is an attempt to makes the facts fit the evidence. Just my two cents worth.
-
Yes dates can be an addiction I don't see why it couldn't be, I myself am addicted to them. I had a pound of dates on more then oen occasion and just the thought of looking at them was riving me insane. I ate 1 pound of dates and was still very hungry (although that I think is more of a hormone problem) still, no amount would ever be able to satisfy me.
-
I had the luck to meet the family of the guy who was one the 3 first experimenters and developers of the instincto nutrition along GCB and wife. I used to live just a few km away from this familly and we became friends, sharing food and meals. I read 3 times GCB's book, followed 3 (yes, three) one week stages with GCB, both theoretical and practical. Without that, I wouldn't have succeeded....
GCB waited 8 years after he started to eat all raw with his whole family and several friends before making the provisional results of his experiment public. And he waited until he had 20 years of experience with about a thousand of people before publishing a book about it.
I didn't have the luck to meet or learn with GCB, only to read the English translation of his book multiple times. I thought the book was very instructive and complete about the right way to identify one's instinctive appetite through smell and taste of unprocessed, unseasoned foods.
Like Inger, I too follow the seasonality of foods, trusting in nature to provide the right foods for the other natural cycles such as high and low temperatures and long and short hours of daylight. This seems like a natural extension of instinctive eating principles, whether or not GCB wrote about it. Why is it necessary to exclude every premise that GCB did not expound on? Just as he collected result from his followers, this forum is based on collecting and sharing experience from our like-minded members.
Telling Inger that she failed with what she thought was the right way to practice instinctive nutrition is dogmatic. If instinctotherapie requires "proper training with somebody experienced along," then there is something wrong with the theory. Conversely, if there are many different outcomes in individuals following the instinctive eating method, then the theory is sound.
-
You know Francois, I did read your post... but to me they was addiction.
And later I found out, I think, why. My body was out of balance offering it fruits and stuff that would no way have been available in my environment 24/7, naturally.
Sugar in winter? When was this natural? Is this hard to see?
And here is the issue. Can you now see what I am saying?
I am not saying figs are always bad. I say, the practice to put a fig, a orange, a Brazil nut, a piece of fish.... etc etc under your nose and smell what you want every day of the year, just did not work. Not for me. Because it was not natural from the beginning. Of course not. Check my quote from Alphagruis.
Alphagruis presumes that eating too much would be a selective advantage because food was not always available and our ancestors would have been forced to intermittently fast most of their life! What a hell it must have been!
That some were sometimes forced to fast for a few days is rather certain. But supposing that those who ate more than the optimal ration were advantaged implies that the lack of food would often last during weeks, because a healthy individual won’t die and won’t even get weakened in 15 days or even more without any food, whether he/she ate “more than the optimum” or “just the optimum” previously.
I can’t imagine that they would very often have to fast for longer periods than that, since in an undamaged environment there’s always something to eat, be it at worst only insects, worms, roots or whatever. There are always shellfish at low tide, always fish in the lakes, rivers and seas, always small land animals, and always some carby food in a tropical jungle, especially in the jungles populated by apes, because the environment of animals co-evolves with them. Animals spread the seeds of their favorite foods, so the seeds give birth to trees that provide the fruits that feed the animal who spread the seed of those trees. Same for humans, we make orchards wherever we settle.
Plus our ancestors were highly mobile wanderers and they would have been stupid to remain long in a place where there was momentarily no food.
No, sorry, Inger and Alphagruis, I think more likely that eating too much is disadvantageous in every case and rather compromise the survival ability of an animal rather than improving it. Alphagruis assumption seems totally absurd to me.
I don’t know the causes of your failure with the instincto guidelines, but you can’t ascribe it to the instincto theory itself. I know, it is more easy than to ascribe it to oneself. Anyway, GCB has always emphasized the necessity to eat a minimum of modern fruits and to prefer the wildest ones avaiable. Fruits tend to accelerate the detox, but all the long term instinctos I know have no problem with fruits, in winter as well as in summer.
I am allfor instinctive nutrition if practised with wild local growing foods. Otherwise, a no no for me.
Of course, it’s ideal, we never said the contrary. But there must be in your area enough food to suit your needs. You think seafood is the best for us: I already asked you several times how you can eat “local” seafood when you live in the center of a continent, but never got any answer. It’s all for the best if you’re fully satisfied without fruits during several months. Personally I would have reverted to cooked food long ago if I my raw diet forbids me to eat food coming from somewhere else when there’s no fruit or even no suitable food around. :(
BTW, here in Algarve there are “locally grown” fruits the whole year, as I already mentioned. Most are grown 50 – 100 km away from my place. I wonder if it satisfies your “local” criterion. :)
Can’t we stop this endless-loop argument that doesn’t go anywhere? What do you want to get out of this dialogue? What is your desired outcome here? ;)
-
Actually, I find that the subject advice from GCB, "GCB: Eating meat too often could be harmful to health," has an inherent dictate about instinct that violates the basic premise of an instinctive appetite by meandering into the realm of "knowledge apart from instinct." To me, the advice is an attempt to makes the facts fit the evidence. Just my two cents worth.
Yes, according to what has been reported here, it appears that when GCB and his wife relied solely on "instinct" ("the alliesthetic senses") in the past, they developed one or more of warts, "keratinisations" or tumors. GCB reported that they had too much "meat gluttony". He is apparently trying figure out where his diet went wrong and engaging in a new consciously controlled experiment in which he eats less meat and more fatty insects. Regardless of what he calls it, he is now using his mind and making conscious choices, rather than just supposedly relying on his alliesthetic senses. As Inger indicated, this makes sense for those living in a modern environment instead of the wild.
So it's not just Inger that had problems on Instincto. GCB himself admitted that he failed in the past while trying to practice Instincto, which I commend him for doing. We can learn from failures, as well as successes. Maybe GCB is right and his past meat-heavy diet and vegan diet were deficient, and maybe insects will fill the gap, or maybe that will not be enough and one or more other gaps will remain. I hope his followers now see that GCB is himself still searching and experimenting and they shouldn't take his words (or those of any guru) as doctrine.
Telling Inger that she failed with what she thought was the right way to practice instinctive nutrition is dogmatic. If instinctotherapie requires "proper training with somebody experienced along," then there is something wrong with the theory.
Yes, my experience and that of many others has also been to be wary of dietary theories that require perfection or near-perfection to succeed. If a dietary approach is truly beneficial, it will not require perfection for success. There will be wiggle room.
Iguana, do you know what raw starchy foods (like chufas) and raw legumes other than cassia fistula GCB eats?
-
Why is it necessary to exclude every premise that GCB did not expound on?
Who said it’s necessary?
Telling Inger that she failed with what she thought was the right way to practice instinctive nutrition is dogmatic. If instinctotherapie requires "proper training with somebody experienced along," then there is something wrong with the theory. Conversely, if there are many different outcomes in individuals following the instinctive eating method, then the theory is sound.
It doesn’t “requires "proper training with somebody experienced along", I said that I (personally) would very probably have been unable to succeed without proper training, explanations and discussions. It doesn’t mean it’s impossible, but it seems to be difficult. You’re an exception because you’re especially clever and logical.
-
Yes, according to what has been reported here, it appears that when GCB and his wife relied solely on "instinct" ("the alliesthetic senses") in the past, they developed one or more of warts, "keratinisations" or tumors. GCB reported that they had too much "meat gluttony". He is apparently trying figure out where his diet went wrong and engaging in a new consciously controlled experiment in which he eats less meat and more fatty insects. Regardless of what he calls it, he is now using his mind and making conscious choices, rather than just supposedly relying on his alliesthetic senses. As Inger indicated, this makes sense for those living in a modern environment instead of the wild.
Of course, we all have to use our mind and knowledge, be it only to exclude all processed food, meat from grain and junk fed animals, choose the most wild fruits, etc, etc. Animals don’t have the necessary knowledge and thus they automatically fall in the trap of processed food, they eat our garbage and cooked leftovers.
GCB thinks their meat gluttony was because they used to eat meat from domestic animals and this would not happen with wild game meat. Now he thinks the lack of insects could be an additional cause.
Even GCB has already admitted that he himself failed in the past while trying to practice Instincto. Maybe GCB is right and his past meat-heavy diet and vegan diet were deficient, and maybe insects will fill the gap, or maybe that will not be enough and one or more other gaps will remain. I hope his followers now see that GCB is himself still searching and experimenting and they shouldn't take his words (or those of any guru) as doctrine.
He has always emphasized that, especially in his one week long seminars in which his theory was discussed as he encouraged us to relentlessly question every point of it.
Yes, my experience and that of many others has also been to be wary of dietary theories that require perfection or near-perfection to succeed. If a dietary approach is truly beneficial, it will not require perfection for success. There will be wiggle room.
Yeah, as I said, perfection doesn’t belong to this world! There are tremendous success with “instincto”, but only for a period limited to 45 –50 years, and we can not pretend to have reached perfection as there will always be room for some more fine tuning. The most important step would be to live in a tribe in the wild where we would hunt and gather ourselves our food! :) We are in permanent and never ending research. But I tend to get fed up of this and I let myself fall into a routine as I have other interests than nutrition, fortunately!
Iguana, do you know what raw starchy foods (like chufas) and raw legumes other than cassia fistula GCB eats?
Not especially, but aren’t resistant starch very common in plants? Are there any in fruit skin? I like to eat some avocado and cherimoya skin, sometimes I feel like biting in avocados stone and eat a bit their stone’s skin, I’m fond of the small woody thing that is between a date and its branch, I eat a few durians' seeds when I happen to have durians, etc. I guess we won’t find these in any nutritional data table since these are not considered food!
About the title of this topic, there was another one written by Hanna who launched this thread, but I changed it twice to something more in tune with what GCB actually wrote in his answer to the article written by a vegan. Question for everyone: would you like it to be changed again? What do you suggest?
-
GCB thinks their meat gluttony was because they used to eat meat from domestic animals and this would not happen with wild game meat. Now he thinks the lack of insects could be an additional cause.
Yes, I understood that, thanks, and that jibes with what I wrote. The fact that even GCB got it wrong for many years should be a cautionary note to any "Instincto" who thinks he has it figured out now.
we can not pretend to have reached perfection
That wasn't quite my point. My point was that perfection should not be necessary and blaming someone's failure with Instincto totally on imperfect practice should raise questions about Instincto. When you see people blaming diet failures on the dieters, it's a clue to look for gaps in the diet. This perfectionist blaming is most common with overly restrictive diets that minimize or avoid important foods. Instincto is much less restrictive than most versions of chronic VLC, but I wonder if there is still a gap or two in GCB's current approach? His experiment with bee brood suggests that he is seeking where the gap might be.
aren’t resistant starch very common in plants?
No, and especially not in the "Paleo" foods that are most commonly eaten. I didn't even know I was not getting much RS in my diet. That's why it's important to know which foods contain it. I rarely see RS-rich foods even get mentioned in this forum. At least you were familiar with chufas. Most of the foods that you, Inger and Sabertooth guessed might be rich in RS don't contain very much of it. I'm not criticizing, I just find that concerning. It wasn't until Muhammad Sunshine brought up the topic that I looked into it and became more aware of it myself.Are there any in fruit skin?
I doubt there's much.
Hasn't GCB ever discussed resistant starch and other prebiotics and the importance of feeding not just ourselves, but also our "Old Friends"?
Question for everyone: would you like it to be changed again? What do you suggest?
I suppose it's OK, as most people don't think of insects when they think of meat, though they are roughly akin.
Technically, bee brood from a beekeeper is not normally wild either (at least not here in the USA, and my guess is that domesticated bee breeds would also be used there in Europe). So if he is eating more bee brood and less flesh meat, then instead of replacing domesticated meats with wild ones, he has likely replaced one type of domesticated meat with another.
-
That wasn't quite my point. My point was that perfection should not be necessary and blaming someone's failure with Instincto totally on imperfect practice should raise questions about Instincto. When you see people blaming diet failures on the dieters, it's a clue to look for gaps in the diet. This perfectionist blaming is most common with overly restrictive diets that minimize or avoid important foods. I wonder if there is still a gap or two in GCB's current approach?
I’m not blaming Inger for what she reports as a failure! She blames the theory and she’s promoting some theories of her own, which I question. She’s got it right on some points, but those points are not invaliding the instincto theory as she seems to imply.
A gap is certainly there by the fact that we don’t live in the wild among a tribe and don’t hunt nor gather our food ourselves. What to do? Some “instinctos” went to the jungle without bringing any food along, but their interesting experience had a limited duration. Any alternative?
Hasn't GCB ever discussed resistant starch and other prebiotics and the importance of feeding not just ourselves, but also our "Old Friends"?
I’m under the impression that it’s inherent to the very principles of “instincto” such as to avoid washing our food, avoid chlorinated water or distilled / sterilized water, etc. I searched a few days ago in this forum if he wrote about fibers and found one post of his about it. I don’t think he ever mentioned resistant starch, which he may not be aware of the importance. Orkos sells yakon, BTW.
Technically, bee brood from a beekeeper is not normally wild either (at least not here in the USA, and my guess is that domesticated bee breeds would also be used there in Europe). So if he is eating more bee brood and less flesh meat, then instead of replacing domesticated meats with wild ones, he has likely replaced one type of domesticated meat with another.
Right! We must at least make sure that the beekeeper doesn't feed his bees with sugar. Sure, eating wild insects would be preferable.
-
Could you share GCB's post on fiber?
I doubt that yacon contains much RS. That's one of the problems--most people are unaware of which foods contain substantial amounts of it, so we may not even be aware that we aren't consuming much of it. I wasn't aware of it myself until I read up on it.
Given that the bee brood isn't wild, it may not be the wildness of the meats that was the biggest problem. Perhaps it was more something else.
-
But I wish that I would not get drawn again in time consuming endless arguing with him because I already spent too much time here.
Iguana, why do you feel compelled to disprove any post which isn’t compatible with GCB’s teachings? No need to do that! Just let posts uncommented, let opinions, which deviate from each other, stand side by side. Allow a pluralism of opinions. Everyone can and should decide for himself.
-
Right, Hanna. Alphagruis keeps on assaulting me and insulting me, thus i feel that I have to answer, especially when I know the truth is betrayed. Ok, maybe I'm wrong: i could let it go unanswered as well and live my live for myself. ;) Would you like to have me out of this discussion? No problem, I will gladly leave.
Sorry Phil, I could not find again GCB's post on fiber. But I’m sure I did read it a few days ago.
Yes, perhaps it was another problem than the wildness of the meats, who knows? This suspicion is because wild meats have a stronger taste and thus would give more clear indications that we ate enough of it. He says he didn’t notice the same problem with wild meats consumption.
Anyway, serious troubles only appeared after about 10 or 20 years of mamals' meat consumed daily in large amounts, so bee brood could be ok for a decade or two, which should be enough to let us get used to eat other insects as well! ;D
By the way, I forgot yesterday to quote the post below, which is relevant to what was again brought forward in this thread. I’m sure our ancestors did not have much difficulties to climb high trees and Inger would have this ability as well!
A few weeks ago I talked on the phone with one of the three “instincto” guys who went in exploration without taking any food supplies into the primary rain forest where the orangutans live. I’m not sure if it was in Sumatra or in Borneo, I should ask him again but he lives in Jakarta and he was only shortly in France.
Anyway… I asked him what they found to eat in this jungle. He said they ate almost only fruits, various species of unknown wild fruits and he said it was not a problem because their trip lasted only 10 days. The fruits were high in the trees, so they had to climb after having thrown a rope.
And last week a met the father of an instincto family who lived half a year in French Guyana. I also asked him what food they found in the Amazonian primary forest. He said there is about 150 different species of wild fruits, also all high in the trees.
I hope it will not trigger another round of endless-loop argument (edit: following Hanna's advice, I will no longer answer). Inger, you keep on repeating in this section that “instincto” didn’t work for you and that the theory is flawed in your view. I’m all for questioning the theory, it’s even highly recommended and necessary. But when a point has already been adequately addressed, it’s a waste of time and energy to bring forward the same invalid argument over and over again without taking into account the answers already given.
If you were relentlessly repeating in the “general discussion” section that raw paleo didn’t work for you and that the basic theory of raw paleo is flawed, you would be categorized as orthorexic or troll by Geoff! ;D
-
Would you like to have me out of this discussion? No problem, I will gladly leave.
No. Make your points, but don’t feel compelled to repeat yourself over and over again. Follow your instinctive stop also in discussions, so in case you are fed up with a discussion, let it go for a time.
Phil, you seem to imply that RS is superior to (other) prebiotics. Why? I put the same question in your thread about ZC/VLC.
-
BTW, thanks to Alphagruis for reminding us (me) of his points and discussing them again.
GCB himself admitted that he failed in the past while trying to practice Instincto, which I commend him for doing. We can learn from failures, as well as successes. Maybe GCB is right and his past meat-heavy diet and vegan diet were deficient, and maybe insects will fill the gap, or maybe that will not be enough and one or more other gaps will remain. I hope his followers now see that GCB is himself still searching and experimenting and they shouldn't take his words (or those of any guru) as doctrine.
Yes, thanks to GCB for giving us (me) hints that even the meat of wild animals if eaten up to the stop had negative effects on him in the long run.
-
Iguana, Overconsumption of meat is just one side of the coin. The other side is the foods that are being underconsumed due to the overconsumption. GCB is currently guessing insects, but what if there is one or more other types of foods that he and his wife were underconsuming? Lots of peoples around the world do fairly well while not eating insects, so that doesn't seem to be the primary suspect, does it?
Hanna, Good question; I don't talk so much about RS being superior to other prebiotics (though it does have its own special benefits) as that it's the prebiotic that most often tends to be minimized or even excluded from a variety of diets in the ways they are commonly practiced, including raw Paleo, cooked Paleo, VLC, the SAD, and fruit-heavy diets like 80-10-10. The fact that GCB has apparently never even discussed it speaks volumes about this. I knew next to nothing about RS myself until Muhammad Sunshine brought it up.
Why are people fine with talking about inulin, but their guard goes up when RS is mentioned? In thinking back, I think the word "starch" in the term was a little bit of a red flag for me, and I'm guessing that it is for other people too. Luckily, I had already read about hunter gatherers eating the foods that contain RS, including even Eskimos, so I was not totally close-minded to the notion that it might be beneficial and I eventually gave it a try, thank heavens. In retrospect, it seems odd that I didn't instantly leap at the potential opportunity, given that I was looking at the time for a way to fix the underlying problems that were contributing to my poor carb tolerance (smacks own head). I think part of the problem for me was that I had tried consuming plenty of other high "fiber" foods in the past without benefit, and sometimes things even got worse (such as with "bran" fiber), and probably assumed that this would be another case of the same. "Fiber" can be another red flag word, with Konstantin Monastyrsky even writing a book entitled "Fiber Menace."
-
/Users/vanphillips/Desktop/The Ketogenic Diet for Health_ similarities between germ-free mice and ketogenic humans.eml
I hope you can open this page, it speaks about ketogenic diets and the benefits from a low bacteria populated intestine. I still think the jury is out. I plan on suggesting to Jeff that he look for correlations between those that were breast fed and those that haven't gone on extensive or frequent doses of antibiotics and gut bacteria. For I've witnessed a consistent connection with breast fed peoples and gut health. I bet you weren't breast fed, or have used antibiotics frequently throughout your years. Feeding a gut that wasn't intact with healthy bacteria from being breast fed, and you're feeding all sort of critters, good and bad, with the Hopes that the good will out compete the bad.... And I understand that his group studied were naturally breast fed.
If you look at Iguana's post a few back he states again that GCB states the problems came from eating LARGE amounts of meat Daily. Take out the LARGE amounts and replace with adequate amounts and the equation might be wholly different. I think GCB, as I've mentioned before is suspect more for this than looking at RS, or maybe we can agree that he was suspect in not looking at both. When I discussed with Ron Rosedale the diet of the BEAR, he was convinced he'd contract cancer again, due to the high protein intake. He believes it's that toxic to the system long term. In the summer months, when there's green grass available in wisconsin, I eat mostly buffalo. These are the same specie of buffalo that roamed the plains hundreds of years ago. The same that the american plains indians ate. They haven't been messed with. Little if any stop with eating that meat, as compared to domestic beef... And that's because I moderate my protein intake. Maybe if I ate a pound or two at a sitting, there might be.
It's funny, we all know that too much sugar is harmful, too much wine will get you drunk, too much salt... but too much meat or protein, and people (Instinctos) can't seem to at least wonder, I guess their faith in the 'stop' overrides.
So far the only food group that doesn't seem to be a problem for the body in excess is fat, other than loose stools reported by some. But I haven't read any accounts where GCB has even had the chance to experiment with 'excess' fat from animals. But my opinion is that one who eats a lot fruit can't simply start eating large amounts of fat, nor will there be any inclination to do so, for the body won't be able to use it as fuel or energy. That takes days or weeks for the body to acclimate. Iguana doesn't seem to understand this idea, as if it's mine alone. I think that misunderstanding comes from not having much interest in anything outside Instincto guidelines. As there is much literature available on the subject.
And one final word about Jeff's group, they eat millions of bacteria with their food, and I'm guessing that you've assumed that they include RS with their food. So not only were they breast fed, but they also support that ever-changing balance of gut bacteria by eating foods like raw colon ect.. full of microbes.
-
darn, the article didn't post, I'll try again,,
-
Iguana, Overconsumption of meat is just one side of the coin. The other side is the foods that are being underconsumed due to the overconsumption. GCB is currently guessing insects, but what if there is one or more other types of foods that he and his wife were underconsuming? Lots of peoples around the world do fairly well while not eating insects, so that doesn't seem to be the primary suspect, does it?
I read once that people eats a significant amount of insects (don't remember the figure given) per year in processed foods such as fruit juices, jams, beer, ground thyme, etc.
It seems that in "instincto" we eat the broadest range and variety of foods amongst all types of raw diets. There's no limit to the variety of foods we eat and one tends to constantly widen that range when discovering a new edible thing. But most of us have a cultural aversion to eat worms and insects!
-
March 02 reply by Alphagruis / Gerard:
Author : instincto drivel ( even more) (IP: 90.6.28.226 , AStrasbourg-752-1-9-226.w90-6.abo.wanadoo.fr)
Whois : http://whois.arin.net/rest/ip/90.6.28.226 (http://whois.arin.net/rest/ip/90.6.28.226)
Well one more post since one person at least seems in resonance with what I pointed out.
« This is precisely why I think the instincto theory does not work.
And why I believe in seasonal eating + naturally occurring food sources. I tried the 24/7 instincto Eden... and the experiment failed pretty badly »
Thanks Inger for this highly relevant comment and BTW happy to see you’re in so great shape.
The very roots of the dramatic failure of the instincto experiment carried out in Europe become so obvious once one acknowledges this simple fact.
Indeed seasonal eating of locally produced and available food is precisely effective a way in balancing ones diet merely because it mimics and restores to a great extent the conditions of the wild our ancestors lived in. It puts precisely in a natural way the necessary environmental constraints on us so that a balanced diet and vibrant health might eventually emerge.
Various constraints, I once already evoked repeatedly but there is an old saying….
Obviously this phenomenon is by no means a matter of individual abilities or « instinct »
A similar example of how the constraints at work in the wild led just by themselves to a balanced diet is the phenomenon of the usual and necessary practice of « nose to tail » eating of the animals that were hunted or raised. For instance, muscle is rich in methionine and skin, bone…rich in glycine and so being forced to eat, EVEN IF LESS TASTY, the whole animal results automatically in a balanced glycine to methionine ratio and more generally a balanced nutrition can naturally emerge in this way.
In this respect it is now clearly apparent how instincto’s usual choice by senses and usual relevant muscle meat mania, made possible in modern affluent civilized world, turns out, more or less rapidly, to be a fatal practice and blatant disaster.
Particularly, as it has been found that methionine restriction has life-extending properties.
Finally, it appears that eating insects instead of meat, might indeed correct the imbalances evoked above (and plaguing often instinctos) since one necessarily eats whole insects.
In recent years I ate insects in Africa and other tropical areas, it’s usual there but it’s never a staple.
Yet, insects are usually VERY tasty. So I’m afraid Burger or instinctos are going to overeat such stuff too in their planned "experiments".
PS I won't come back to the forum. I'm only very temporarily in civilized country with internet. Greetings.
And thank you very much Edwin.
-
March 02 a few hours later reply by Alphagruis / Gerard:
Author : instincto drivel ( even more) (IP: 90.6.28.226 , AStrasbourg-752-1-9-226.w90-6.abo.wanadoo.fr)
An answer to Eveheart’s question :
"What was the reason they ate too much muscle meat?"
Undoubtedly it’s because we have to LEARN a lot of things in modern environment in order to eat and stay healthy, in particular, what foods to eat and how much (as well as to LEARN to eat a given food never eaten before). And they didn’t do this because of instincto theory, hammered into their heads by Burger, and that foolishely states that they are supposed to find out so much better by themselves by means of encoded sensory signals or an omnipotent « instinct ».
Yet the bitter truth is that finding this out is by no means « instinctive » . More precisely though « innate » as well as learned sensory attractions and repulsions exist indeed they are just by far not capable to do the job. For many people fat and organs not to speak of brain, tail, skin, blood etc are much less attractive and easier to (over)eat than "matured " muscle meat, and so were even often not made available at all to instinctos.
By the way "matured" muscle meat, an addiction of those instinctos, is rather a non paleo thing.
Impossible to achieve it, for instance in a typical African village, without a fridge and connection to an electric grid and modern technology. Meat or fish there in wet 30°C ambiant ROT in a few hours. In contrast in such villages people know perfectly well by CULTURE and NECESSITY that they have to eat everything in an animal or a fish and, once they have learned to do so as kids they do it with great relish.
Once again both culture and/or environmental constraints are indispensable and conspire to achieve dietary balance, not a matter of sensory signals.
So from what I got upon reading some of your posts, Eve, unlike the unfortunate instinctos, you have most likely greatly benefited precisely from experience , knowledge and thus CULTURE gathered outside the instinctosphere in particular in America about how to balance a diet rich in animal food.
I feel also that you clearly understand that low carb is by ESSENCE not instincto, as once practised in Europe, which included by the way also usually a tremendous overeating of fruit and fructose and not even much RS which as Paleophil underlines might be important. Africans eat much more of it because their staples are tubers and not fruit.
Moreover, Eve, nor do you practise instincto just because you’re using sensory signals when eating. We should use them again but they cannot by themselves rule food choice and intake.
So I’m not at all surprised by you succeeding with your diet.
With respect to what i pointed out above, please note also the tremendous instincto arrogance and scorn as to « dietetics » or simply any scientific knowledge gathered about diet and food properties that is repeatedly unleashed for instance in recent rants for instance in following links. This might perhaps help you to understand why instinctos were so reluctant to learn anything about conventional diet and food science. "Your organism knows so..ooo much better" they were told.
http://www.rawpaleodietforum.com/welcoming-commitee/introduction-and-free-copy-of-my-just-published-paleo-book/msg118688/#msg118688 (http://www.rawpaleodietforum.com/welcoming-commitee/introduction-and-free-copy-of-my-just-published-paleo-book/msg118688/#msg118688)
http://www.rawpaleodietforum.com/instinctoanopsology/gcb-eating-meat-is-harmful/msg119523/#msg119523 (http://www.rawpaleodietforum.com/instinctoanopsology/gcb-eating-meat-is-harmful/msg119523/#msg119523)
http://www.rawpaleodietforum.com/instinctoanopsology/gcb-eating-meat-is-harmful/msg119810/#msg119810 (http://www.rawpaleodietforum.com/instinctoanopsology/gcb-eating-meat-is-harmful/msg119810/#msg119810)
http://www.rawpaleodietforum.com/instinctoanopsology/gcb-eating-meat-is-harmful/msg119812/#msg119812 (http://www.rawpaleodietforum.com/instinctoanopsology/gcb-eating-meat-is-harmful/msg119812/#msg119812)
As can also be seen, with respect to « dietetics », Burger, after an amusing rant about ideologies and dogmatic thinking of others and that obviously first of all is so nicely and funnily relevant to instincto itself, reminds us again :
« That's why I was looking for a different approach: extract the answers from the organism, and to consider always the results objectively. »
And this is precisely the reason of instincto failure because as I hope it’s now fairly clear the yet missing answers (in instincto theory) cannot unfortunately be found in but be looked for outside of our organism.
-
@Van, Yes, the jury is still out and there will never be total agreement on all aspects of diet, gut microbiome, and health.
I suspect that Ron Rosedale is right about overdosing on protein, but I doubt that overdosing on fat is the answer. VLC Paleo defenders have been telling those struggling on it to just "eat more fat" for years (one dude even has that in his signature at the Caveman forum LOL, which seems to have become remarkably quiet in recent months, interestingly), and it hasn't been working. A more diverse diet seems to be more the way to go, at least for me and others I've seen report benefits from adding Paleo-type foods containing missing prebiotics, starch or carbs back into their diets, bringing them more in line with the diets of Paleo ancestors.
I was breast fed. I've already reported repeatedly that I was given antibiotic treatments in the past, and that I suspect that people who have a history of antibiotic treatment are particularly susceptible to problems on diets low in prebiotics and probiotics, so it would seem that you share my suspicion. The antibiotic-damaged are the canaries in the coal mine. We tend to be the first to be the first to show symptoms (especially those who cook all their meats and don't eat enough organs or fat), but we aren't the only ones. It can take years for the problems with chronic VLC to become apparent. Early benefits are common, which can make it harder to recognize the long-term issues.
One of the common misunderstandings about resistant starch is an assumption that it feeds good and bad bacteria equally. The research and people's reports do not support this assumption. On the contrary, RS reportedly carries the bad bacteria out of the body while feeding the good ones.
The American Gut Human Microbiome Project is not studying just the Hadza, they are studying people all around the world and anyone can contribute their own sample. They are begging VLCers and Paleoists like you to submit your samples. If you think their samples are inadequate, then submit your own. It does cost $99 to get your sample analyzed, unfortunately.
I'm not assuming anything about the HGP's research, just going by what I've read about it and other scientific research, as well as my own experience and that reported by many others. Here are some examples:
http://americangut.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/module1_Sept_16_small.pdf
Paleo dieters showed a bit higher firmicutes than the general population and Paleo dieters had a lowere level of bacteria known to be inflammatory. LC Paleo dieter Shannon Ford's firmicutes were almost as scarce as Michael Pollen's after he had a course of antibiotics, whereas higher carb Paleo dieter Jeff Leach's were far more abundant.
In case you think that low firmicutes is a good thing, based on a past study that suggested an association with obesity, think again:
"A few years ago, it was thought that if you had a high level of Firmicutes, which is a phylum of bacteria, that it was more predictive of maybe an obese phenotype, and if you had less Firmicutes, you were more likely to be lean, but that turned out not to be true." - Jeff Leach, http://chriskresser.com/you-are-what-your-bacteria-eat-the-importance-of-feeding-your-microbiome-with-jeff-leach (http://chriskresser.com/you-are-what-your-bacteria-eat-the-importance-of-feeding-your-microbiome-with-jeff-leach)
http://humanfoodproject.com/preliminary-characterization-of-the-american-gut-population/
Tim / 23 September 2013
Could you discuss a bit about the Fig 5 fecal graph? Why are you further to the left than ‘Pollan pre’? Could one get much further left than you?
Reply
Jeff Leach / 29 September 2013
Good Q. I eat lots of dietary fiber from a lot of sources. I also eat lots of cellulose – ie, the parts of the plants that many folks discard. So, my higher levels of Firmicutes is being driven by lots and lots of ruminococcus – that is, I look like grazing animals (eg, white rhino!). Pollan has tons and tons of Prevotella – which are part of the Bacteroidetes phylum. Note also, there was data years ago that indicated a high level of Firmicutes was predictive of obesity – that is, more Firmicutes, more junk in the trunk. This has not held up as more data comes in. Me for example, BMI of 25.
...
Tatertot Tim / 21 December 2013
... This young lady just posted her AmGut results and compared to mine–world of difference.
We – similar diets
She – lots of antibiotics
Me – no antibiotics for 10+ years, and megadosing with resistant starch.
My result showed I had 11X the number of bifidobacteria of anyone else–that is amazing when you think about it. All my other phyla/species were in line with a well-diversified gut microbiome. Laura’s showed very restricted growth, hardly any diversity at all.
I’d like to see if ANYONE anywhere has more bifido than I do, resistant starch is a proven builder of friendly gut bugs.
Have a look: http://www.ancestralizeme.com/2013/12/20/my-american-gut-results (http://www.ancestralizeme.com/2013/12/20/my-american-gut-results)
"cessation of smoking results in a rise in Firmicutes and Actinobacteria. And I posited that a reasonable assumption is that picking up the smoking habit does the reverse. ...
“Tatertot” Tim’s results, after extended supplementation with Resistant Starch in the form of raw, unmodified potato starch, did not show [high Firmicutes] — he had higher than average Bacteroidetes & lower than average Firmicutes. Michael Pollan and Jeff Leach — plant-lovers both — had the reverse. (But Tim’s reports DID show much higher than average Actinobacteria, specifically Bifidobacteria, which may explain why Resistant Starch is leading to many beneficial effects. I touched on that here and at the end of the smoking study post.)
...the fact that both smoking cessation AND plant consumption lead to this [high firmicutes/bacteroidetes] ratio certainly tips us further toward that conclusion. And there is plenty of more evidence that paints a very convincing picture, in my opinion:
What else do we know about Firmicutes and Bacteroidetes?
Besides the obesity link, I have yet to see anything correlating high firmicutes to disease.
Quite a few disease-specific studies correlate high bacteroidetes to more disease (Type 1 Diabetes, IBD, Obesity, Metabolic Disease)
Firmicutes are almost exclusively gram positive. They do not produce endotoxins, and so they cannot contribute to endotoxin-induced inflammatory disease.
Bacteroidetes are ALL gram negative. All endotoxin producers.
Firmicutes — specifically the butyrate-producing Clostridia clusters — live in the mucosal lining of the intestine. It’s where all the butyrate production is, the preferred energy source for colonocytes. They seem to be the guardians and nourishers of the gut barrier.
Bacteroidetes, conversely, are predominant in the luminal space — the hollow space within the large intestine.
... the actinobacteria/proteobacteria ratio. That’s about as solid of a microbiome health marker as there is [high is believed to be good]. Firmicutes/Bacteroidetes is much shakier — still lots to figure out there.
http://mrheisenbug.wordpress.com/2014/01/07/eating-plants-quitting-smoking-was-i-right-about-firmicutes (http://mrheisenbug.wordpress.com/2014/01/07/eating-plants-quitting-smoking-was-i-right-about-firmicutes)
The microbiome/brain connection:
http://mrheisenbug.wordpress.com/2014/02/17/gut-bacteria-iq-could-it-really-be/ (http://mrheisenbug.wordpress.com/2014/02/17/gut-bacteria-iq-could-it-really-be/)
Colon Cancer Linked to Low Diversity of Gut Bacteria
December 06, 2013
http://www.livescience.com/41767-colon-cancer-gut-bacteria-diversity.html (http://www.livescience.com/41767-colon-cancer-gut-bacteria-diversity.html)
"colon cancer patients tended to have higher levels of Fusobacterium, a type of bacteria that appears to promote inflammation in the gut, which can fuel cancer growth.
And the patients often had lower levels of Clostridia, a bacterial class that may prevent the development of colon cancer by helping to break down dietary fiber and carbohydrates, according to the study."
http://humanfoodproject.com/can-a-high-fat-paleo-diet-cause-obesity-and-diabetes (http://humanfoodproject.com/can-a-high-fat-paleo-diet-cause-obesity-and-diabetes)
...humans are 90% microbe and only 10% human. Humbling.
Spawned by the success and technical achievements of the Human Genome Project, an explosion in our understanding of the role of the microbiome (all the genes of our gut microbiota) in human health has literally flipped modern medicine and the understanding of what makes us sick on its head. Importantly, even though dynamic interactions with our microbiome is conditioned by influences as varied as birthing method (vaginal vs c-section), life time exposure to antibiotics, and general lifestyle choices, diet appears to be driving the species diversity of our microbiota and the much-needed functions they encode.
http://humanfoodproject.com/sorry-low-carbers-your-microbiome-is-just-not-that-into-you/ (http://humanfoodproject.com/sorry-low-carbers-your-microbiome-is-just-not-that-into-you/)
Depending on whom you talk with, a low carb diet is many different things to many people. I think most misinterpret a Paleo or Primal lifestyle as somehow low carb. It can be, but most folks eat a diversity and quantity of whole plants that exceed that of the average American – often by a long shot. It can sometimes be a little low carb-like due the absence of high caloric foods made from grains. But I often find people who skip grains, sugar and the like as really paying attention to whole plants in their diet – which is, of course, a good thing. But a bona fide low, low carb eater is another animal all together. Whether you draw that line at 25, 50, or 75g a day of carbs, its low I’m afraid from the perspective of your gut bugs. Especially if those carbs contain a limited amount of resistant starch and other dietary fibers – food for gut bacteria.
That said, even though someone who eats as much as 200-500g of carbs a day can still be starving their guts bugs if those foods contain little to now indigestible substrates (fiber), a generic rule of thumb (albeit an ugly measure) is less overall carbohydrates – especially when you start dropping below 75-100g a day – translates into a dramatic drop in the amount of food reaching your colon where the vast majority of your intestinal microbial community resides. (There are exceptions to every rule, but follow my logic for a moment).
When it comes to the health and well being of your gut microbes, nothing matters more than fermentable substrates (You can read about here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here – you get the idea). As the rules/tenants of basic microbial ecology go, a reduction in fermentable substrates derived from carbohydrates means less energy sources for the microbes – who depend on host-derived substrates as well, as in the case of mucin-degraders like Akkermansia. As fermentation drops, so to does the byproducts of fermentation which include short chain fatty acids (primarily acetate, butyrate, propionate), organic acids, and gases like hydrogen. All of this can and will dramatically shift the pH of the colonic environment. As it stands in a healthy or normal gut, the pH of the colon changes from proximal to distal end, being more acidic in the proximal (front) end than the tail end – mainly as a function of more rapid fermentation as food items empty from the small intestine. As the pH shifts to being more alkaline from less fermentation, a number of shoes begin to drop (or can).
http://chriskresser.com/you-are-what-your-bacteria-eat-the-importance-of-feeding-your-microbiome-with-jeff-leach (http://chriskresser.com/you-are-what-your-bacteria-eat-the-importance-of-feeding-your-microbiome-with-jeff-leach)
> Diet is only one piece of the formula. Lifestyle is a big component, and again, we see that in hunter-gatherers. Like, in Tanzania we see that men eat much more protein and fat than women, and women eat a lot more fiber and probably resistant starch, so it will be really interesting to see if their microbiomes are different. When we look in the United States, when we look at 1000 men and women in the American Gut Project, they look pretty much the same at the phylum level. There are the same number of Firmicutes, the same number of Bacteroidetes, so there’s no separation between men and women yet. Evolution teaches us that more than likely men probably did consume more protein and fat than women if the Hadza are a good referent, and so we should expect, based on diet, that we should see some differences, but I think what is going to happen is that the environment is the great equalizer. The fact that you share the same water, share the same soil, you’re covered in the same feces and blood of the animals that you consume and the dirt from the plants you dig. I think that ultimately levels the playing field, and that social interaction and that movement of bacteria is very fluid between individuals, the soil, the plants, and especially the animals. So, it’ll be really interesting to see how that shakes out.
> I actually consume a considerable amount of fiber, I personally eat between 50 and 150 grams of fiber a day. I try to consume 20 to 30 species of plants a week if I can. So, I get a huge quantity and diversity. I’m interested in it because fiber is the primary substrate or food, if you will, for bacteria, so if you kind of look at it from an evolutionary perspective, if I was in charge of the USDA and Health and Human Services for a day – which God help us, I’m not… for a lot of reasons! – but if I was in charge of My Plate, which used to be the US Food Pyramid, I would argue that probably the most breathtaking change in the human diet that’s had the greatest impact on not only our microbiome, but our health, I would argue that that’s the drop in the diversity and quantity of dietary fiber. For example, you see in Africa 6-month-old Hadza kids that are being weaned onto food are getting 100 to 200 grams of dietary fiber a day, every day.
It seems that you have made several assumptions. Why not look for the information instead of just guessing about it? Please read up on RS and the HGP before making any more negative assumptions about them and asking questions based on the assumptions. I don't want to end up like Richard and Tatertot, spending countless hours answering endless misguided questions, often over and over again. I encourage folks to do their own digging and if you dig and dig and still can't find answers, then I'll be happy to answer your questions.
Take out the LARGE amounts and replace with adequate amounts and the equation might be wholly different.
It doesn't yet seem clear that GCB actually eliminated all meat aside from bee brood. That's what the vegan propagandist wrote, but Iguana seems to be saying that that was a lie and that GCB actually only did that temporarily, if I understand correctly.
I think GCB, as I've mentioned before is suspect more for this than looking at RS, or maybe we can agree that he was suspect in not looking at both.
Yes, given that he apparently hasn't even discussed RS, it does sound like both excessive protein and deficiency in prebiotics could have been factors, and maybe there were other imbalances in his diet. I agree that the experience of GCB and his wife and other people suggests that the instinctive stop doesn't guarantee that people are avoiding dietary imbalances, especially in the modern environment. As GCB indicated, what he's doing is an experiment, not a guaranteed path to success.
Which is more likely, that our ancestors consumed lots and lots of fat, averaging say the 70-80% or more that some ZCers and VLCers eat, and discarded much of the protein and carbier parts of animal carcasses, and passed up most of the plant foods they came across, over the millions of years of human existence, and presumably the women were mainly hunters as well, or that the women gathered lots of plant foods, including with digging sticks (or antlers), and that various peoples ate a fair amount of plant foods during the year, and savored the carbier parts of animals, so that they didn't need to eat such extremely high levels of animal fat throughout the year? Why would we just assume that "eat more fat" is the answer to nearly every problem?
It seems that in "instincto" we eat the broadest range and variety of foods amongst all types of raw diets.
Yes, some credit is due for that, and you seem to eat a broader range than even most Instinctos, which I suspect is part of the reason for your long term better success.
It puts precisely in a natural way the necessary environmental constraints on us so that a balanced diet and vibrant health might eventually emerge.
Indeed, supermarkets and farmers markets don't have the natural constraints of the wild, therefore we by necessity must use our mental faculties to restore some modicum of those natural constraints. I argued in this forum long ago for not over-relying on the aliesthetic senses. It's heartening to see even GCB moving more in this direction recently.
A similar example of how the constraints at work in the wild led just by themselves to a balanced diet is the phenomenon of the usual and necessary practice of « nose to tail » eating of the animals that were hunted or raised. For instance, muscle is rich in methionine and skin, bone…rich in glycine and so being forced to eat, EVEN IF LESS TASTY, the whole animal results automatically in a balanced glycine to methionine ratio and more generally a balanced nutrition can naturally emerge in this way.
Bingo!
PS I won't come back to the forum. I'm only very temporarily in civilized country with internet. Greetings.
Thanks for honoring us with your input, and may the road go easy with you.
Africans eat much more of it because their staples are tubers and not fruit.
Indeed, and not just Africans. Every nation earth whose RS intake has been sampled has had a significantly higher intake than that of the USA. It seems to be one of the biggest holes in most versions of Instincto and Paleo.
-
Phil I never suggested overeating fat. I just noted that it's the one food group that one can eat without causing damage, more of a side note than any sort of instruction. Many bacteria multiply within ten minutes. I've read how RS is supposed to carry out bad bacteria. Only thing is they'd have multiplied many many many times, especially with a ready food source, by the time they get pooped out. Seems a little fanciful to me. Thanks for the references, am still learning. So do you really think that the inuits, both the sea faring tribes, and the caribou hunting tribes stashed away those tubers you mentioned Routinely to get themselves through 9 months of winter? Haven't heard any accounts other than a short mention by you that they ate them. Seems like the early explorers, like Steffeson would have mentioned sacks of potatoes that they dog sledded around with them where ever they went if that was the case. I mention this little item to remind all of us how easy it is to believe and support that which we are in favor of in the moment.
-
Francois, my intention with participating in this discussion is to save others from the harm I did to my body during my instincto phase, some is even irreparable (like losing 2 teeth...)
I think the post from Gerard says what I think in a much better way than I am capable of so quoting it here again;
"What was the reason they ate too much muscle meat?"
Undoubtedly it’s because we have to LEARN a lot of things in modern environment in order to eat and stay healthy, in particular, what foods to eat and how much (as well as to LEARN to eat a given food never eaten before). And they didn’t do this because of instincto theory, hammered into their heads by Burger, and that foolishely states that they are supposed to find out so much better by themselves by means of encoded sensory signals or an omnipotent « instinct ».
Yet the bitter truth is that finding this out is by no means « instinctive » . More precisely though « innate » as well as learned sensory attractions and repulsions exist indeed they are just by far not capable to do the job. For many people fat and organs not to speak of brain, tail, skin, blood etc are much less attractive and easier to (over)eat than "matured " muscle meat, and so were even often not made available at all to instinctos.
By the way "matured" muscle meat, an addiction of those instinctos, is rather a non paleo thing.
Impossible to achieve it, for instance in a typical African village, without a fridge and connection to an electric grid and modern technology. Meat or fish there in wet 30°C ambiant ROT in a few hours. In contrast in such villages people know perfectly well by CULTURE and NECESSITY that they have to eat everything in an animal or a fish and, once they have learned to do so as kids they do it with great relish.
Once again both culture and/or environmental constraints are indispensable and conspire to achieve dietary balance, not a matter of sensory signals.
So from what I got upon reading some of your posts, Eve, unlike the unfortunate instinctos, you have most likely greatly benefited precisely from experience , knowledge and thus CULTURE gathered outside the instinctosphere in particular in America about how to balance a diet rich in animal food.
I feel also that you clearly understand that low carb is by ESSENCE not instincto, as once practised in Europe, which included by the way also usually a tremendous overeating of fruit and fructose and not even much RS which as Paleophil underlines might be important. Africans eat much more of it because their staples are tubers and not fruit.
Moreover, Eve, nor do you practise instincto just because you’re using sensory signals when eating. We should use them again but they cannot by themselves rule food choice and intake.
So I’m not at all surprised by you succeeding with your diet.
As can also be seen, with respect to « dietetics », Burger, after an amusing rant about ideologies and dogmatic thinking of others and that obviously first of all is so nicely and funnily relevant to instincto itself, reminds us again :
« That's why I was looking for a different approach: extract the answers from the organism, and to consider always the results objectively. »
And this is precisely the reason of instincto failure because as I hope it’s now fairly clear the yet missing answers (in instincto theory) cannot unfortunately be found in but be looked for outside of our organism.[/i]
-
Francois in my attempt to get you understand where I am coming from, some more thoughts of mine.
Look how much our world have changed, just in the last 100 years. What does this mean to our cells and us as human beings? What has it do not with natural living anymore? We have a ton of unnatural EMF surrounding us, practically impossible to escape. We have artificial lights etc. We have shops with anything you wish from the whole world 24/7.
How on earth could it be possible to rely on our instincts anymore. When I smell an orange, it smells way better to me than meat or fat. Way stronger. I would eat it. But I do not. Because of many reasons. It is heavily cultivated. It is totally unnatural in Finland in winter, sugar and high stress environment (EMF, light pollution, modern life..) is not a good combo at all....
We need to let go of dogma, and look how can we better survive in this crazy modern word of ours. We need science! Good science. How does it affect the cell, how can we better stay healthy today? It is not the same world it once was.
I gladly choose coconut oil over fruit any time if I need fat and have no other (more natural choice). Or fatty fresh and raw nuts. They both are not natural to this country either (except hazelnuts) but I am not dogmatic and I do what works for me. I would choose fat over sugar any time. Sure I do what I can to find the best fat source. And eat local. But even if not perfect it is still better than a sugar source.
We need to be forward minded, and always think CONTEXT! I thought this was just a excellent point of Gerards;
And this is precisely the reason of instincto failure because as I hope it’s now fairly clear the yet missing answers (in instincto theory) cannot unfortunately be found in but be looked for outside of our organism.
Gosh.. even the last 10 years the world have changed so dramatically in modern society, it is not funny.
If we look around it is clear what is the main issue.
Technology. Clothing. Modern comfort....
Francois, if you live in the countryside and spend your time outside barefeet in the sun picking figs from your fig tree in the yard, it is an entirely different thing than to say someone living in a city (or having cold winters or spending much time in front of computers or even other issues that I am not going to mention here) should include the figs in his diet, if hes taste buds say so.
Sometimes I think you totally forget the reality we live in. You keep telling we should eat like "our ancestors" the primates... bonobos etc. but we live an entirely different life... and the food they ate/eat is entirely different too from what you get in the shops... sorry :-( and we also have very different brain and guts.
Is it socially less "acceptable" to munch on raw fat and meat and organs etc. than fruit and veggies? You bet! But is it the social acceptability that has to rule our diet.. eh? NO. I do not care one bit about what other thinks about my food. I care about what works for me. What improves me, what makes me strong and healthy.
-
Thanks Gerard for finally making your stance clear, understandable as well as free of insults and personal attacks. Still there are some disagreements between us, but at least we agree on many important points. Everyone perceive different parts of the reality and has his/her own bias: I have mine and you have yours, but being civil and amiable facilitates mutual understanding and then a consensus ceases to be out of reach. :D
No one can pretend to hold the ultimate truth, but if we work amiably together to combine the results of our experiments and research instead of assaulting and insulting each other, we may perhaps move forward.
All the best,
François
-
How on earth could it be possible to rely on our instincts anymore. When I smell an orange, it smells way better to me than meat or fat. Way stronger. I would eat it. But I do not. Because of many reasons. It is heavily cultivated.
Not to me, at least not always. What matters is not the intensity of the smell, but its attractiveness. And, as a rule, a whole fruit with an intact skin which doesn’t have an attractive smell should not but cut to check if a smell appears. This is in addition to the advices to eat a minimum of fruits, and to always prefer wild fruits as much as possible.
I have oranges, tangerines, cherimoyas, kiwis, apples, avocados at home (all grown in Algarve) and I bought a pineapple from Azores this morning along with a mackerel. I could not feel any smell from these fruits, except for the small, almost wild apples and the pineapple which had an attractive and strong smell. But I was more attracted by the faint smell of the mackerel, so I cut it open and there was milt inside. I ate the fish and its milt. As I was still unsatisfied, I had 3 safus and then 3 small tomatoes.
What I did is against the basic advice (which you seem to ignore as well) of avoiding to put in competition fruits and animal foods. But I nevertheless preferred the animal food, you see!
We need to let go of dogma, and look how can we better survive in this crazy modern word of ours…
Absolutely. And I feel that you've perceived the instincto advices for beginners as dogmas and don't even know most of them! Did you ever have a proper training with experienced and sane instinctos? If you have had good training and explanations, and / or if you didn’t take rough, flexible rules for rigid dogmas, but instead permanently questioned every point, you would not speak like this and you would not have wasted your money on expensive fruits from Orkos, something long term instinctos seldom do.
I said I will not respond anymore but I’ve done it again! >D
Cheers
-
I'm super thankful a whole bunch of different philosophies and expert opinions are in this forum, we can just pick and choose what works for us and patients at what time of need or time of adjustment.
Congratulating Tyler / Geoff for the foresight in assembling such a massively informative forum. And thank you to everyone of you who chime in with your opinions and experiences. Would have been a riot if Aajonus chimed in, may he rest in peace.
-
From Alphagruis / Gerard:
Author : instincto drivel ( even more) (IP: 90.6.28.226 , AStrasbourg-752-1-9-226.w90-6.abo.wanadoo.fr)
Whois : http://whois.arin.net/rest/ip/90.6.28.226 (http://whois.arin.net/rest/ip/90.6.28.226)
« Thanks for honoring us with your input, and may the road go easy with you. »
Thanks, and thanks for honoring me with reading my input, Phil. In fact, sometimes when my road crosses a cyber I attempt to read this forum’s posts and in particular yours. The RS topic is amazing.
We live in a crazy modern world so let’s at least particularly enjoy and take advantage of the positive aspects of it, namely the formidable and unique tool internet really is, to exchange information and so live betterand healthier.
Yet there are not much cybers on my road in particular at sea and, as Lex once told us, I, too, do want to spent the years left doing other things than bothering about diet.
« Thanks Gerard for finally making your stance clear, understandable as well as free of insults and personal attacks. »
François, I’m happy that you consider that I behaved now much better…. I’m very proud of myself now...
My "bad manners", at any rate, might well have helped me to survive in dangerous places like Africa, one cannot be well adapted to everything…
If my message is now more understandable to you please consider it very seriously, and anyway, as Edwin likes to put it, « lighten up » a bit, perhaps don’t identify yourself so intimately with instincto and so criticisms won’t appear so much as « insults ».
One has to assess the instincto experiment very seriously and without any kindness, at least in memory of Burger’s wife and other victims and suffering. Sometimes suffering and failure are necessary to learn and later on progress. In America in contrast to Europe the meaning of failure is quite acknowledged and failure not at all considered to be the end of everything.
And I do consider that much has been learned in instincto experiment.
Finally beware of any dogmatism like the plague. And yes even the raw paleo concept must be taken with a big grain of salt. In this respect in Africa i ate occasionally boiled stuff like cassava or small game. BTW the latter is essentially impossible to eat raw in particular « nose to tail », much too tough. Result ? I was unable to observe any negative effect.
Inger reports similar observations, as I can read in her posts.
A sobering experiment for (ex-)instinctos.
Why is this ? Not sure but perhaps simply because once healed by 14 years 100% raw paleo the organism deals very well with occasionnal additional toxic loads. It could even have positive hormetic rather than negative effects.
An important point in this respect as to instincto theory : According to Burger’s view heat generated toxins are new molecules « unknown » to the organism the famous MNO in (French) instincto slang that would possibly need new enzymes to cope with in digestion etc.
I consider this view as too pessimistic (as to the harm caused by heat). It is overblown for at least two reasons :
-First the greatest deal of heat generated molecules also form at room temperature and so are not « unknown », there are just usually a lot more in cooked stuff. There is therefore no need of new detoxification pathways and moreover the latter have anyway be proven to have universal character as to the kind of molecules they can handle.
-Second contrary to the host genome, healthy gut flora genomes are in fact able to evolve rapidly and so possibly adapt much faster within days or weeks to new foods or food habits and so help to metabolize new food components. And this gut flora plays a major role in digestion and health.
In other words adaptation is by far not just a matter of slow million years variation in our own genome.
All the best.
Thanks so much again Edwin for allowing my input.
-
Why not let Gerard have an account in case he wants to post a thing or two in the future? He seems to be behaving well and he is contributing some interesting stuff.
-Sometimes suffering and failure are necessary to learn and later on progress.
-Finally beware of any dogmatism like the plague.
-It could even have positive hormetic rather than negative effects.
Good stuff. Hormesis seems to be one of the key features of nature.
- Yet there are not much cybers on my road in particular at sea and, as Lex once told us, I, too, do want to spent the years left doing other things than bothering about diet.
Yeah, with luck perhaps we'll hit the right diet/health points well enough that we don't have to think much about it any more, except for scientific curiosity if we wish. Lex appears to think he has reached that point, and for a while it seemed to me he had at least come close for his needs, but since learning more about prebiotics and the Old Friends Hypothesis, it's less clear. The most concerning thing is that people deficient in good gut flora reportedly are developing serious illnesses while feeling great and having excellent basic health markers that physicians focus on. The physicians don't know what to look for because they haven't dealt with VLC "Paleo" dieters before. By the time the problems are recognized, it can be too late.
-First the greatest deal of heat generated molecules also form at room temperature and so are not « unknown », there are just usually a lot more in cooked stuff. There is therefore no need of new detoxification pathways and moreover the latter have anyway be proven to have universal character as to the kind of molecules they can handle.
Right, for example, AGEs form within the body as well as in cooking, so it is possible that there's a hormetic level of cooking. However, if so, no one knows where it lies. Once again we're left with personal experience to determine what works for us.
-Second contrary to the host genome, healthy gut flora genomes are in fact able to evolve rapidly and so possibly adapt much faster within days or weeks to new foods or food habits and so help to metabolize new food components. And this gut flora plays a major role in digestion and health.
Yes, they adapt more rapidly than scientists initially guessed. It will be interesting what the microbiome research reveals in the future.
-In other words adaptation is by far not just a matter of slow million years variation in our own genome.
It's also not all positive adaptation, though. Some of the changes could be seen as degeneration. For example, most people probably wouldn't think of the smaller jaws and teeth, thinner skulls, finer bones, and smaller brains and bodies of humans, on average, over the past 30-40 thousand years, as being positive adaptations.
-
I’ve always considered your posts very seriously, Gerard. A few of them contained the most interesting critics of the instincto theory I’ve ever seen. I’ve never considered these critics as insults. On the contrary, I’ve welcomed them. What I can’t stand is, on one hand the public attacks on a person (because it is irrelevant and obstructs the road to a rational and fruitful discussion), and on the other hand a torpedoing presented as if the “instincto ship” has been sunk while the attack damaged a random but similarly looking ship.
You and I have a divergent perception of the “instincto” theory and practice.
I can’t identify myself as an “instincto” because such a species doesn’t exist. I’ve only practiced instinctive raw paleo nutrition during 26 years as an interesting counter-experiment against the global experiment in which the whole human species embarked itself in the Neolithic era. We will all die one day and I don’t particularly desire to live old. Enjoying life is much more important and by eating this way I enjoy my food much more than I generally enjoyed cooked food. The disappearance of health problems due to cooking is a plus. I could never have followed any restrictive diet: it’s a bit like “all or nothing” for me.
The only dogma I have is to question everything and to remain free to alter my ideas any time without pain because they are not an intrinsic part of myself. I’ve never considered the instincto as the ultimate truth. When Nicole died, many so called “instinctos” were distressed because they thought eating this way would make us bulletproof against cancer and other diseases. I never thought so since there are too many possible causes of cancer; for instance most of us have eaten standard cooked food during decades and it’s not impossible that delayed consequences appear much latter.
It doesn’t matter much for me who’s right and who’s wrong, you or GCB. There are values more important than that for me. I’m just curious and try to show which one is the “instincto ship” to attack - I mean to question. The detailed description of that ship were only discussed orally, and still we all have a somewhat different view of it. Of course, the sea and weather conditions on which it sails are of utmost importance, as you point out.
If you happen to sail back to Africa from a port in France, you could make a stop into Lagos harbor and let me know, you’ll be welcome here and we’ll be able to discuss it face to face, relaxing in hammocks or while eating limpets on the rocks at low tide!
François
-
And yes even the raw paleo concept must be taken with a big grain of salt. In this respect in Africa i ate occasionally boiled stuff like cassava or small game. BTW the latter is essentially impossible to eat raw in particular « nose to tail », much too tough. Result ? I was unable to observe any negative effect.
Inger reports similar observations, as I can read in her posts.
A sobering experiment for (ex-)instinctos.
Why is this ? Not sure but perhaps simply because once healed by 14 years 100% raw paleo the organism deals very well with occasionnal additional toxic loads. It could even have positive hormetic rather than negative effects.
Nothing new, Gerard. It’s been known since several decades that some react and some don’t. Even the two “raw paleo ever since birth” twin brothers that you and me know very well do experiment very different consequence after an occasional cooked food ingestion. One gets a very violent reaction and just doesn’t want to try anymore while the other twin has no reaction at all.
-
I know Iguana is technically not wanting to be anti-raw, incidentally, but he is using a standard anti-raw argument:- the idea that if something contains "only" l) l) l) small amounts of toxins, that this is OK to eat.
Do you mean that even small amounts of plant toxins are too much and should be avoided? Is there any safe amount? If so, how much?
*sigh* As I pointed out to Iguana, if a plant has antinutrients, it has designed itself to NOT be eaten! Therefore it should be avoided. As for how I found it out, I googled it, of course.
So we should avoid all foods that contain any antinutrients, like the phytosterols you mentioned? Anything that needs soaking is just out, yes? Thanks for Googling it. How much phytosterols do chufas contain? Would you share some quote excerpts from what you found, please?
Re the other absurd claim:- The whole point is that, due to our enhanced science, we know which foods to avoid and can do so.
What is this enhanced science?
Interestingly, I recall one study of a typical hunter gatherer tribe which stated that they traditionally viewed tubers(like chufas) as low-grade food that they only ate during starvation-periods, whereas they far preferred the taste of meats etc.
I think that was the Hadza tribe, yes? Like these Hadza people here?:
(http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3104/2581445951_4374df50fa_z.jpg)
So they all preferred meat above all else and they only ate tubers when starving?
-
The Hadza tribe was described in that study as using tubers as fallback foods. In other words, using them when other more palatable foods were scarce.
There are plenty of studies on the antinutrients found in chufas. For example:-
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1541-4337.2012.00190.x/full (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1541-4337.2012.00190.x/full)
and "The researchers wrote: ?From the result of the phytochemical analysis, the presence of alkaloids, cyanogenic glycosides, resins, tannins, sterols and saponins were observed in the raw tuber, however only alkaloids, sterols and resins were observed in the roasted tuber. Analysis of the anti-nutrient composition yielded oxalates (0.25±0.65 g/100 g), phytate (1.97±0.81 mg/100 g), saponins (0.88±0.02/100 g), tannins (9.50±0.46 mg/100 g) and cyanogenic glycosides (1.80±0.69 mg/100 g). " from:-
The researchers wrote: ?From the result of the phytochemical analysis, the presence of alkaloids, cyanogenic glycosides, resins, tannins, sterols and saponins were observed in the raw tuber, however only alkaloids, sterols and resins were observed in the roasted tuber. Analysis of the anti-nutrient composition yielded oxalates (0.25±0.65 g/100 g), phytate (1.97±0.81 mg/100 g), saponins (0.88±0.02/100 g), tannins (9.50±0.46 mg/100 g) and cyanogenic glycosides (1.80±0.69 mg/100 g).
The whole palaeo definition is that anything that needs processing, other than decomposition, is unnatural and should be avoided. This makes sense. After all, even if all toxins get leached out from a food because of a particular process, that very process can be harmful(eg cooking), plus the food, not being designed to be eaten as a food is still not suitable to be eaten(unless one is an animal evolutionarily designed to eat those very plants, of course).
-
Sorry, to repeat some of the questions (and sorry about the mistakenly repeated post elsewhere), but I don't see answers to some of them yet. What amount of plant toxins/antinutrients is too much? To make it simple, let's use phytosterols as an example.
The whole palaeo definition is that anything that needs processing, other than decomposition, is unnatural and should be avoided.
OK, so anything that needs any soaking should not be eaten at all. Are drying and freezing (such as with a frost or winter freeze) forms of decomposition, or should any foods that require them also be avoided? Are drying or freezing OK ways to preserve foods?
I see it was indeed the Hadza tribe you were referring to. So the Hadza apparently are a good example to look to for some rough guidance, yes? Do you know how much tubers or resistant starch or other prebiotics they eat per day on average over the year and how much per day during times of plenty vs. "starvation"?
the presence of alkaloids, cyanogenic glycosides, resins, tannins, sterols and saponins were observed in the raw tuber, however only alkaloids, sterols and resins were observed in the roasted tuber.
Which is worse, the raw plant food that's higher in plant toxins, such as raw potato, or the cooked plant food that's lower in plant toxins, but higher in cooking toxins, such as cooked potato?
-
Why not let Gerard have an account in case he wants to post a thing or two in the future? He seems to be behaving well and he is contributing some interesting stuff.
Gerard has not been banned: he deleted himself his account and he's free to open a new one.
-
I see, thanks.
-
Phil, thanks for sharing your findings regarding the microbiom etc.
Second contrary to the host genome, healthy gut flora genomes are in fact able to evolve rapidly and so possibly adapt much faster within days or weeks to new foods or food habits and so help to metabolize new food components. And this gut flora plays a major role in digestion and health.
Yes, they adapt more rapidly than scientists initially guessed.
Could you please elaborate on this? Which foods, for example, have been shown to be metabolized better after days oder weeks because of gut flora (genome) changes?
Iguana: I could never have followed any restrictive diet
Don’t you restrict yourself, for example, usually to two meals a day? Why do you do that?
Why the instincto guideline to eat preferably „proteins“ instead of sugars/fruit at dinner?
Most eating habits have their rules or at least their regularities and, therefore, their restrictions. Restrictions will turn into habits over time and when they are a habit, intuition (for example, a feeling of hunger or thoughts about eating at your usual mealtime) or alliesthetic signals (for example, rapidly occurring alliesthetic stops with fruit if you are not used to eat much fruit) may support these habits. I’m "afraid" alliesthetic signals won’t by themselves lead us to a balanced composition of our diet.
BTW, a true instinct shouldn`t work only with smart persons or „proper training“.
Any behavior is instinctive if it is performed without being based upon prior experience (that is, in the absence of learning)
Even the absence of a raw food diet in childhood is no excuse in that regard:
young birds have been experimentally reared in devices that prevent them from moving their wings until they reached the age at which their cohorts were flying. These birds flew immediately and normally when released, showing that their improvement resulted from neuromuscular maturation and not true learning.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instinct (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instinct)
-
Iguana: Don’t you restrict yourself, for example, usually to two meals a day? Why do you do that?
Hanna, I used the word « restrictive » for lack of a more suited word. By “restrictive” I meant for example a diet with cooked food but excluding cheese or wine or whatever.
What I tried to mean is that the “instincto nutrition” is different of all other diets in this regard as you can eat whatever raw stuff (as much as possible wild and paleo), even if it’s not usually considered as “food”. Of course it is restrictive anyway since dairy, wheat and all processed foods are excluded. Words taken in their strict, exact sense are often not sufficient to express what we would like to say. Moreover, words often have more than one meaning. The word “diet” itself may be confusing.
Yes, I found out that having an unlimited number of meals per day with a single food per meal as suggested by “Dom” Guyaux (it’s only a slightly different variant of the same instinctive nutrition) doesn’t work well for me. I then tend to eat night and day and this proved to be too much. Our digestive system has to rest several hours per day, and, apparently works in reverse in these hours to expel toxins. “Dom” also recognizes that and he advices no to eat before 10 am and not at night. His way seems to mimic more closely the natural conditions, but in our civilized work, it’s difficult to apply it properly. Most people have a work schedule, with a break at noon, so it’s practical to have a so called “lunch” at this time, and a “dinner” in the evening after work.
In natural conditions, we wouldn’t be able to eat always, not as often as we would. There would be periods in which no food is available. Thus, with only two meals per day, we artificially tend to simulate that, at least to some extend. If I have only one meal per day, in the evening, something I can exceptionally do if I’m very busy and physically active, then I eat a lot at that meal and it doesn’t suit me very well.
Why the instincto guideline to eat preferably „proteins“ instead of sugars/fruit at dinner?
I don’t really know and sometimes I do the contrary. One drawback of eating fruits in the evening is they contain a lot of water and then you have to get up during the night to urinate.
Most eating habits have their rules or at least their regularities and, therefore, their restrictions. Restrictions will translate into habits over time and when they are a habit, intuition (for example, a feeling of hunger or thoughts about eating at your usual mealtime) or alliesthetic signals (for example, rapidly occurring alliesthetic stops with fruit if you are not used to eat much fruit) may support these habits. I’m "afraid" alliesthetic signals won’t by themselves lead us to a balanced composition of our diet.
Yes, and I don’t think anyone ever pretended that. The pressure of the environmental conditions are of course necessary. Unfortunately, we don’t live in ideal, original conditions and thus we have to find ways to compensate for the conditions imposed by our artificial, modern way of life, or else return to live in a wild unspoiled environment.
BTW, a true instinct shouldn`t work only with smart persons or „proper training“.Even the absence of a raw food diet in childhood is no excuse in that regard: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instinct (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instinct)
Yes again. The alimentary instinct has been proved to work fine with babies. It works in everyone of us, even to some extend with cooked foods, although it works ideally with a diet of unprocessed raw paleo foods.
But using our alimentary instinct is not enough, especially in the common modern conditions. Even young animals are trained by their parents or elders of the group. Orang-outans born in captivity lack the proper training to live in the wild, but it doesn’t imply that their instinct doesn’t work properly. We have been trained in an way opposite to the normal, natural way; this unsuitable training has to be erased and preferably replaced with a training more like it would have been in original paleo conditions.
Again, no one ever pretended that the instinctive regulation suffices alone to have a proper nutritional balance. Instincts are constantly at work in everyone, but the names “instincto”, “instinctive nutrition” or “instinctotherapy” don’t mean that this practice exclusively relies on our alimentary instinct.
Do my replies make sense?
-
Nicole would probably have died also without chemotherapy, insofar as she would have continued her regular meat overload. She accepted chemotherapy because her sister is a MD who insisted until Nicole agreed to that. As everyone is free to act, I did not insist to deter her. It’s probably because her body was under such a big overload of keratins that her lungs were keratinized under the effect of bleomycin at such a speed. The doctors were surprised. Personally I did not exercise pressure on Nicole to do this or that: I simply advised her to have surgery right away, but she refused by preferring prayers and Hamer’s method. Then I recommended her to drop the meat, or at least to limit it as was done previously (if we had to hunt we wouldn’t have it available every day), but then I stumbled upon an unshakable resistance and it was only 3 weeks before her death that she agreed to avoid meat.
The question of Nicole’s fondness for meat may be related to the lost of her father at 13 years old: he educated her throughout her childhood to force herself to gulp down beefsteaks, which she found awkward, and he constantly brainwashed her that meat consumption would avoid her having "goat legs "— in his own words. There was therefore a strong feeling of her father lost love which she projected on meat, which remained her father’s symbol. It was only at the very end that she took a step back from this belief and ceased her important consumption of red meat. Previously, she thought than meat would help cure her cancer, which easily led to an overload. And as the flavor of domesticated animals’ meat gives only week stop signals, she was able to eat quantities having nothing to do with a proper instinctive balance.
But I believe that the core of the problem is that the total lack of a food class (such as insects) leads the body to more easily accept substitutes. Meat consumed regularly is likely an instinctive workaround for the lack of insects, amplified by the absence of accurate instinctive repulsion with domestic meat. A substitute may well have harmful long-term effects, particularly at immune level, not only at the banal level of balance between the contributions of organs and muscle.
If I try to expand our food range to insects, it shows that I take into account the external environment, and not just the internal signals of the body. Without insects, if they play an important role in our human food range as they do for primates, which is likely, it is not surprising that we automatically tend to compensate with too much meat. Cultural resistance to insect consumption can also distort things. But this does not mean that body signals aren’t critical to achieve adequate nutritional balance.
For my part, I trust most of all the experience : the everyday experience of our alimentary instinct (changes in olfactory, gustatory and proprioceptive variations) and of the extremely precise balancing (proved by the absence of inflammatory and infectious trends) obtained upon training that I’ve always recommended, demonstrate that this instinct works perfectly. Those who claim otherwise are just usually people who have not experienced the instinctotherapy, or have imagined that an optimal alimentary balance would be reached overnight with an insufficient food choice, or without the necessary training. This is the case of Alphagruis, who never followed one of my seminars and even declined to listen to my advices when suffering from certain disorders, which I 'm sure would have quickly resolved with a correct balancing.
I've also always said, which he pretends to be unaware of, that it is necessary to differentiate:
- the case of an emergency therapy, which should act on the short-term and for which it is advantageous to have the widest possible choice in view to find quickly the specific nutrients or herbal therapeutic useful compounds (= instinctotherapy),
- and the long-term practice, where alternating foods avoids saturations and renews both the pleasure and food adequacy (= instinctonutrition).
The practical problem of supply usually tends to solve the issue, except for those who work in an organic fruit and vegetables wholesale store or are willing to spend a lot of money on food...
Now, why didn't I see earlier than meat of vertebrate would be unable to compensate for the absence of insects, which by contrast are present in the daily menus of virtually all primates? This is because the problems appear only on the very long term (10 years, 20 years...). These effects may occur earlier in people with serious diseases, but it is difficult to connect a failure or relapse in connection with the meat matter. It is indeed tempting to think that the case was simply too advanced to allow a natural process to restore normal health, and nothing induces to look any further. Plus, the idea of eating insects or questioning the Goddess Meat triggers a strong resistance.
At best, I can only advise those who have only a few years of experience in a raw paleo diet to take account of comments made by veterans: during 50 years of regular observations, not only on oneself, but on a large number of people, one inevitably acquires more data than in a few years’ application of an ideology on a single person. And for those who still do not understand: the “instincto” is not an ideology, and not even a dietetic. It is basically an experiment to inquire at what extent the human metabolism and the operation of the senses are still suitable for raw unprocessed pre-Neolithic foods or nutrition as practiced by primates, in order to at least partially explain civilization's diseases by specific traditional diet mistakes.
I always presented it as such, and those who claim that I would have made it a panacea, like so many gurus inventors of miraculous fad diets, are either misinformed or dishonest.
Excuse me for no longer contributing to this forum, but my previous interventions here sparked off such a large influx of questions and even hostility that it took me too much time to answer everyone. Sorry about that.
GCB
-
I do not view drying and freezing as ideal processes but sometimes they have to be used in order to prolong the usability of a particular food.
No idea re Hadza's daily consumption as anyway they would have encountered different access to their food depending on weather activity etc. etc.
A raw food with lots of antinutrients is just as bad as a cooked food with lots of heat-created toxins. Both are not dersigned to be eaten.
-
If I try to expand our food range to insects, it shows that I take into account the external environment, and not just the internal signals of the body. Without insects, if they play an important role in our human food range as they do for primates, which is likely, it is not surprising that we automatically tend to compensate with too much meat. Cultural resistance to insect consumption can also distort things. But this does not mean that body signals aren’t critical to achieve adequate nutritional balance.
After reading and re-reading your post, I spent quite some time imagining what insect consumption would look like for modern humans - for me. I've seen movies of African tribes drumming on the earth above ant colonies until the ants surface and get caught and eaten. In my climate, I'm sure that termites are plentiful enough to eat if I farmed them - the neighbors might not like me digging them out of their houses' timbers.
What would insect hunting and gathering look like to some of us on this forum?
-
Nicole would probably have died also without chemotherapy, insofar as she would have continued her regular meat overload. She accepted chemotherapy because her sister is a MD who insisted until Nicole agreed to that. As everyone is free to act, I did not insist to deter her. It’s probably because her body was under such a big overload of keratins that her lungs were keratinized under the effect of bleomycin at such a speed. The doctors were surprised. Personally I did not exercise pressure on Nicole to do this or that: I simply advised her to have surgery right away, but she refused by preferring prayers and Hamer’s method. Then I recommended her to drop the meat, or at least to limit it as was done previously (if we had to hunt we wouldn’t have it available every day), but then I stumbled upon an unshakable resistance and it was only 3 weeks before her death that she agreed to avoid meat.
The question of Nicole’s fondness for meat may be related to the lost of her father at 13 years old: he educated her throughout her childhood to force herself to gulp down beefsteaks, which she found awkward, and he constantly brainwashed her that meat consumption would avoid her having "goat legs "— in his own words. There was therefore a strong feeling of her father lost love which she projected on meat, which remained her father’s symbol. It was only at the very end that she took a step back from this belief and ceased her important consumption of red meat. Previously, she thought than meat would help cure her cancer, which easily led to an overload. And as the flavor of domesticated animals’ meat gives only week stop signals, she was able to eat quantities having nothing to do with a proper instinctive balance.
But I believe that the core of the problem is that the total lack of a food class (such as insects) leads the body to more easily accept substitutes. Meat consumed regularly is likely an instinctive workaround for the lack of insects, amplified by the absence of accurate instinctive repulsion with domestic meat. A substitute may well have harmful long-term effects, particularly at immune level, not only at the banal level of balance between the contributions of organs and muscle.
If I try to expand our food range to insects, it shows that I take into account the external environment, and not just the internal signals of the body. Without insects, if they play an important role in our human food range as they do for primates, which is likely, it is not surprising that we automatically tend to compensate with too much meat. Cultural resistance to insect consumption can also distort things. But this does not mean that body signals aren’t critical to achieve adequate nutritional balance.
For my part, I trust most of all the experience : the everyday experience of our alimentary instinct (changes in olfactory, gustatory and proprioceptive variations) and of the extremely precise balancing (proved by the absence of inflammatory and infectious trend) obtained upon training that I’ve always recommended, demonstrate that this instinct works perfectly. Those who claim otherwise are just usually people who have not experienced the instinctotherapy, or have imagined that an optimal alimentary balance would be reached overnight with an insufficient food choice, or without the necessary training. This is the case of Alphagruis, who never followed one of my seminars and even declined to listen to my advices when suffering from certain disorders, which I 'm sure would have quickly resolved with a correct balancing.
I've also always said, which he pretends to be unaware of, that it is necessary to differentiate:
- the case of an emergency therapy, which should act on the short-term and for which it is advantageous to have the widest possible choice in view to find quickly the specific nutrients or herbal therapeutic useful compounds (= instinctotherapy),
- and the long-term practice, where alternating foods avoids saturations and renews both the pleasure and food adequacy (= instinctonutrition).
The practical problem of supply usually tends to solves the issue, except for those who work in an organic fruit and vegetables wholesale store or are willing to spend a lot of money on food...
Now, why did I not see earlier than meat of vertebrate would be unable to compensate for the absence of insects, which by contrast are present in the daily menus of virtually all primates? This is because the problems appear only on the very long term (10 years, 20 years...). These effects may occur earlier in people with serious diseases, but it is difficult to connect a failure or relapse in connection with the meat matter. It is indeed tempting to think that the case was simply too advanced to allow a natural processes to restore normal health, and nothing induces to look any further. Plus, the idea of eating insects or questioning the Goddess Meat triggers a strong resistance.
At best, I can only advise those who have only a few years of experience in a raw paleo diet to take account of comments made by veterans: during 50 years of regular observations, not only on oneself, but on a large number of people, one inevitably acquires more data than in a few years’ application of an ideology on a single person. And for those who still do not understand: the “instincto” is not an ideology, and not even a dietetic. It is basically an experiment to inquire at what extent the human metabolism and the operation of the senses are still suitable for raw unprocessed pre-Neolithic foods or nutrition as practiced by primates, in order to at least partially explain civilization disease by specific traditional diet mistakes.
I always presented it as such, and those who claim that I would have made it a panacea, like so many gurus inventors of miraculous fad diets, are either misinformed or dishonest.
Excuse me for no longer contributing to this forum, but my previous interventions here sparked off such a large influx of questions and even hostility that it took me too much time to answer everyone. Sorry about that.
GCB
GCB, I've mentioned this to Iguana a couple of times, and now appreciative that I can mention it to you. I think you have for some reason not taken into account the amount of meat eaten at one sitting,, as opposed to how frequently meat is eaten. There is much literature regarding how much protein the body can actually utilize for maintenance and repair from any one meal, the rest being turned into glucose with toxic by products... With your reliance or insistence on instinctive stop, I believe you are overlooking what others now know of just how toxic any protein is when eaten to excess. I'm saying this bluntly to more readily get to the point. Early man wasn't designed or programmed to live long lives, but long enough to propagate and pass along tribal skills. I think it's our fallacy to want to believe that their diet and the amounts would be optimal for us today with our complex lives, and with the science we know today, for instance the toxicity of excess protein. When early man would have come across a carcass of a large vertebrate, there would be no reason he would have said to himself, Gee I better not eat too much, for that isn't healthy. No, he would have gorged himself like hungry dogs because he wouldn't have known when the next meal would come. So for years and years this was how they ate. Seems obvious to me, but for anyone practicing instinctive nutrition, this one concept seems inconceivable and almost blasphemous. If Nicole, and I visited Montrame five times over five years of which I spent as much time as I could with her, would have eaten smaller meals of protein, especially of meat, I doubt very seriously she would have created that specific problem due to over consumption of protein. There are just too many peoples around the world including the american plains indians or the inuit who didn't perish with cancer, to blame it on meat by itself. I don't know if you've looked at other's studies on excess protein consumption or not, Iguana doesn't seem to be willing to, but it may prove fruitful for you to do so.
I also witnessed over and over at Montrame a limited fat intake. Meat eaten rarely included large pieces of fat... Which is another whole topic of discussion,, but as related to eating insects, I agree insects are a whole food, with balanced amounts of protein, fat, minerals and some carbs. A much more balanced form or complete food than just eating a large piece of meat off a cutting board as served at Montrame. (I'm suggesting here that never did I see fatty meat, marrow bones, back fat, brain, eye balls, tongue, spine, testicles, heart, pancreas, stomach, blood etc... being offered.)
I hope you understand my points here. If there's confusion I'd be happy to clarify.
-
I then tend to eat night and day and this proved to be too much.
But doesn’t that mean that alliesthetic stops don’t protect you from eating too much (and from impairing your physiological balance), even if you confine yourself to raw, unmixed etc. foods?
Part of the trouble might be the unclear definition of the term „instinct“.
Sorry, German:
Instinkt – wörtlich: Naturtrieb – bezeichnet meist die unbekannten, inneren Grundlagen („Antriebe“) des vom Beobachter wahrnehmbaren Verhaltens eines Tieres. Diese Bezeichnung wurde in der Verhaltensforschung und der Psychologie jedoch nie eindeutig definiert, sondern von unterschiedlichen Autoren jeweils unterschiedlich verwendet. (…)
Heute vermeiden Psychologie und Verhaltensbiologie weitgehend die Bezeichnung Instinkt und ersetzen ihn zum Beispiel durch angeborenes Verhalten.
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instinkt (http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instinkt)
I’ll avoid the term (and concept of) instinct in future, or at least try to do so, in order to avoid misconceptions such as learning processes not being necessary to be able to balance one’s diet.
-
Thanks for your post GCB. I wonder how much the added value of eating insects is due to the fact that they're entire animals, whereas eating meat is only one part of an animal and leaves out nutrients in other parts like bones, connective tissues, skin and organs? I practice nose-to-tail eating, and most of the animal foods I eat are organs and broths made from bone, skin, tendons and ligaments. I feel like nose-to-tail eating gives a more balanced array of nutrients, whereas eating just muscle meat might lead to excesses or deficiencies of certain amino acids or other things. Eating insects would be comparable to nose-to-tail eating, since insects are small enough that when we eat them we are eating not just their muscle tissue but also all of their organs, nervous tissue and connective tissue.
-
But doesn’t that mean that alliesthetic stops don’t protect you from eating too much (and from impairing your physiological balance), even if you confine yourself to raw, unmixed etc. foods?
I didn’t specially mean too much food, but rather too long digestive duration per day. But it’s clear that we can eat too much as well for at least 3 reasons:
- cultivated fruits and meats from domesticated animals, which remain tasty too long;
- many different food available in our fridges and various storages;
- compensation of boredom, loneliness and frustrations in life by needlessly eating too many different foods in a meal, or too many meals per day.
In principle, we can’t eat too much of a single wild food, and in the wild we wouldn’t often find several different foodstuffs around the same place during a short time. We would usually have to walk over long distances between the discovery of two edible products.
At home, the situation is completely different and artificial, a broad range of various food being constantly and directly accessible without any effort. We may feel that we’ve had enough of one foodstuff, but it doesn’t prevent us to immediately eat something else up to another instinctive stop, than again something else and so on ad infinitum — or rather until we get an indigestion. That’s why it’s essential to limit the number of different foods we eat in a meal, and even in a day.
What “Dom” (Dominique Guyaux) has suggested is to have only one food per meal but an almost unlimited number of meals per day. It shifts the problem, but doesn’t resolve it.
-
I believe that the core of the problem is that the total lack of a food class (such as insects) leads the body to more easily accept substitutes. Meat consumed regularly is likely an instinctive workaround for the lack of insects, amplified by the absence of accurate instinctive repulsion with domestic meat.
GCB,
Now I understand what you really meant by the article and how the title should have been rephrased to say something like:
Could the absence of Insects in Human Diets Lead to Over Consumption of Domestic Red Meat?
Which then we should discuss here or on another thread, which insects to consume? And what about sea food or fresh water food?
I have a thing for sea food as I was introduced to Raw Paleo Diets via Wai Diet. Plus I live in an archipelago, we got lots of sea food.
-
Eric and Van, I think you’ll find answers to your questions in this part of an article GCB wrote in 1994 and which I translated last night. I underlined the most relevant phrases.
About the consumption of organs, I can only say that the old-timers that I know are all very fond of organs and bone marrow. The problem even seems to be that these products are in short supply and thus difficult to obtain regularly, being expensive at Orkos and only available the first week after an animal has just been butchered.
Instincto Magazine, June 1994, n° 62 ; “Chronique” by G.-C. Burger (http://www.reocities.com/instincto/IM62-cancer.html)
(Translated last part of the article)
A general model
Statistics have shown that the incidence of cancer is higher in regions of the world where people eat more protein. It is a protein in cow's milk that is now accused of crossing the intestinal barrier and trigger the autoimmune destruction of pancreatic cells responsible for juvenile diabetes. Rheumatoid itself, model of autoimmune disease, appear induced by food proteins. Cardiovascular diseases are officially attributed to poor protein balance; this conclusion from a recent epidemiological study in Lyon even made the number 1 news on TV. Perhaps it won’t be long for the official medicine to admit that most diseases are just the manifestations of a fundamental phenomenon: whenever digestive difficulties occur as a result of diet practices not complying with genetic data of our body, some complex molecules brought by food are not properly degraded, cross the intestinal barrier and enter the circulating fluids. Immunology teaches us the following : repeated penetration of antigens leads to either intolerance or tolerance phenomena. Such a situation opens the way for all diseases : infectious, autoimmune and neoplasic. This means medicine will have to resume its assumptions from scratch and recognize that nutrition has the major significance it had always refused to admit.
And instincto ?
Anyway, we also have to we also revise our stance. We must imperatively improve our practice in order to avoid any cause of poor digestion. From an instincto advocating blind faith in the instinctive mechanisms of smell and taste, we must move to a much more cautious view: repeated small errors in daily practice, as long as they cause digestive problems, even apparently insignificant, may be sufficient to pave the way for diseases that we claim to avoid. It is not enough to eat raw to be free of so-called civilization diseases, far from that: we’ve got to be in ideal dietary and digestive balance just like every animal attains it by obeying his instincts. To do this we must learn to obey much more precisely to the different signals that our own body gives us.
The case of meat
A question remains : why meat appears at the common denominator of almost all cases of tumors we observed ? I see two reasons for this : the proteins of mammals are closer to us than any other. They are our cousins in the family tree of evolution and are differentiated from us by much smaller number of mutations than birds, reptiles, fish, crustaceans or mollusks.
Proteins resembling those that our own body synthesizes can more easily induce our immune system into error. The work of our lymphocytes is precisely to distinguish self antigens (ours) from non-self antigens (foreign). That’s how bacteria, viruses, cancer cells and large molecules from outside (venoms, pollens, dust deposited on mucous membranes, etc.) are recognized. Regular penetration of food molecules most similar to antigens configurations it uses for this tracking work can obviously more easily mislead our immune system. Such confusion can either cause an attack on body cells bearing similar proteins, or to a failure to recognize foreign or abnormal elements. Thus, we can explain on one hand autoimmune and allergic diseases, and on the other hand bacterial, viral and cancer diseases.
"Cows" molecules in our blood
Every molecule of external origin crossing the intestinal barrier while remaining complex enough to challenge the immune system can in principle induce such confusion. We must therefore beware of any food overload of whatever nature: plants proteins as well as animal protein are antigens, that is to say triggering immunological reactions, but it is also the case of certain lipids and certain polysaccharides (complex sugars).
However, proteins of mammals meat comprise amino acid sequences most similar to human proteins. In case of overload, it’s these ones that will most likely confuse our immune system.
I can only regret having failed to make this reasoning earlier, though fairly obvious and even mathematic. I could perhaps have avoided tragedies, including the death of my own wife. In my defense, I must say that my warnings, previously based more on intuition, remained mostly unheard. Besuchet for example, frequently bought meat from producers that I advised to avoid having noticed abnormal flavors by testing it. In meats from a badly fed animals, accumulated abnormal substances distort the sense of taste, even up to the point of erasing the gustatory stop. The denatured food is generally fascinating, and this is sufficient to explain a bulimia of meat, like the ability to eat a whole pork in three months: this pork purchased by Patrick came from a French producer who provides a number of instinctos, although I have already pointed out that his meat failed our tests.
No wonder that the instinct malfunctions with meat produced in poor conditions, since parasitic flavors can lead to eating excessive amounts, easily two to three times more than normal.
In the case of Nicole, she ate only meat that met all our criteria. How is it that instinct did not protect her ? Here again, I could have thought about it of earlier : livestock, such as cows, pigs, sheep, were selected over generations and their flesh has no longer the flavor of their wild ancestors. Buffalo meat, wild boar, chamois are very strong in taste and the instinctive barrier hardly allows an excessive consumption. I found it out during my period of overload: a piece of chamois sent by a Swiss friend seemed so strong in taste, almost burning like a wild fig, that I could not swallow a mouthful. The possibility therefore exists to get into overload quite easily with cattle meat, even if the animal is reared in natural conditions: its genetics is no longer natural and our aliesthetic mechanisms can not protect us properly.
Meat : user’s manual
The rule that I teach since I became aware of this phenomenon is the following : consume only meat produced under proper conditions, devoid of any misleading flavor. It should only be consumed in the yummy phase and stopped as soon as its flavor begins to disappear. In addition, avoid eating another food at the same meal as it may complicate the digestive process and thwart the degradation of foreign proteins.
This leads us to eat meat less often but in greater quantity at once. This approach combines all the advantages : it allows to have a ration of protein, fatty acids, vitamin B 12, etc. sufficient to satisfy the needs of all the body's cells; it ensures the fullest possible degradation of foreign proteins because the digestive processes are neither disturbed by an overflow due to the amount, nor by undesirable chemical reactions due to bad associations.
Indeed, there have been many years since I recommended to consume meat in accordance with these rules, simply for the sake of reproducing the natural conditions: the chimpanzee doesn’t find every day a chop of warthog hanging from a branch. There is no fridge in the jungle, and when Jane Goodall friends caught a boar, they shared it in a single meal, the leftovers being quickly devoured by vultures, ants or maggots...
Technology, coupled with our mindset of recurrence, unfortunately allows us to do it every day, the sweetened flavors of selected meat do not necessarily protect us against repetition, and it automatically induces immune system disorders.
Only solution : a proper balance
It should not be inferred from all this that meat is harmful in itself. Experience has also shown that it can play a vital role in the recovery of the body weight and in recovery and healing of diseases, including cancer. What is harmful is the imbalance.
Cultivate an anxiety about animal proteins, as do many vegetarians, is as harmful as the dietary bias pushing to consume some every day. All food is harmful when consumed in excessive quantities. Rejection of a food class can lead to equally harmful deficiencies.
The only solution is provided by our instinct: it alone can tell us what food we should eat and when to stop before an overload. It is still necessary to know that it can’t work properly in unnatural conditions, which thwart its valuable operation.
-
birds, reptiles, fish, crustaceans or mollusks.... and then insects...
I'm liking this list.
Only problem I see here is how to get enough fat.
From this list I can see I can get fat from bird eggs and fish eggs... maybe ant larvae?
-
Again, buffalo, the same blood lines as hundreds of years ago, that I buy from Wisconsin, to me, is a bette tasting meat than beef, with no more of a stop. GCB still doesn't address eating more protein than one needs in one meal. I hope others here can see this point. For again, I think the Instincto's belief system prevents them from acknowledging or investigating what current science has to offer about excess protein. The instincto stop does not aid one in living a long life, for that 'stop' isn't 'programmed' to tell us when we've had enough protein, nor for that matter sugar, when eating long fruit day after day.
If GCB should be willing to look into this matter, I'd be happy to help guide him to studies reporting what I'm stating. And, For me, it just too easy to suggest that mammalian proteins are just too similar to ours.... come on GCB, show us some evidence other than philosophy or a simple hypothesis.
-
Iguana:
I didn’t specially mean too much food, but rather too long digestive duration per day.
Ok, but the fact remains that alliesthetic stops don’t protect you from impairing your physiological balance by, for example, eating too late at night or eating too often. I don’t see why our (raw) paleo ancestors should always have slept far away from fruit trees or fruit leftovers, (stored or leftover) nuts, stored or leftover meats etc. And if they did, wasn’t this likely a form of (learned) tradition or learned behavior?
Van: Again, buffalo, the same blood lines as hundreds of years ago, that I buy from Wisconsin, to me, is a bette tasting meat than beef, with no more of a stop.
Yes, I like wild meats more than other meats too. Currently I don’t perceive (clear) stops with any meat and follow my „intuition" to determine the end of a meat meal.
GCB still doesn't address eating more protein than one needs in one meal. I hope others here can see this point.
I have always been a "fan" of small meals, but don’t know whether or to which extent this was/is induced by medical preconditions.
-
If GCB should be willing to look into this matter, I'd be happy to help guide him to studies reporting what I'm stating.
Van, I'm interested in these studies! Which studies do you mean?
-
I'd really have to search online again, but for the moment Ron Rosedale writes quite a bit on the effects of excess protein. Good place to start. But look at what is the resultant of converting protein to glucose in the case of excesses, and the by products that the body has to deal with. This was one of the benefits of urine 'therapy', was that I discovered first hand what my body was having to filter each time I overate meat/protein. Before it ended up in my urine, it was coursing through my blood..
-
Iguana: Ok, but the fact remains that alliesthetic stops don’t protect you from impairing your physiological balance by, for example, eating too late at night or eating too often. I don’t see why our (raw) paleo ancestors should always have slept far away from fruit trees or fruit leftovers, (stored or leftover) nuts, stored or leftover meats etc. And if they did, wasn’t this likely a form of (learned) tradition or learned behavior?
It doesn’t protect us from impairing our physiological balance by eating too many different foods in a meal or/and in a day. It’s unlikely that our pre-fire ancestors permanently had around them a broad choice of different foods as we can have in our fridges and basement. We can have fish, eggs, various meat in our fridges and plenty of different nuts, avocados, vegetables and fruits stored but this is a completely artificial situation.
Before having the fire, they could hardly eat at night, except by moonlight. Moreover, they had never regularly eaten cooked food as we’ve done during decades, so their bodies didn’t have to detoxinate as ours do or attempt to do, something that can't be performed when we are digesting.
Do you argue the opposite of Alphagruis and Inger and mean that these ancestors routinely kept so many various foods around them as we can do? Sure, they may sometimes have had a few different leftovers. But in nature, you seldom find seafood, different fruits, various nuts, tubers, eggs, honey, carcasses of mammals and their organs in the same area.
Van: Yes, I like wild meats more than other meats too. Currently I don’t perceive (clear) stops with any meat and follow my „intuition" to determine the end of a meat meal.
I have always been a "fan" of small meals, but don’t know whether or to which extent this was/is induced by medical preconditions.
I too prefer wild meats, they have much stronger smell and taste than beef. But I think it’s this strong taste which makes a difference. I feel that “intuition and “instinct” overlap. The longer I’ve been without meat, the more I eat at once. Back home after an 8 months trip around the world in which the only animal foods I had were fish and some seabirds’ eggs, I got half of a chamois. I ate the whole rear leg in 2 days. The instinctive stop is very gradual and can be after a lot of meat, but if we limit ourselves to small amounts based on preconceived ideas of what is enough, we may never reach it.
My family members could not stand the smell of matured chamois while it was appetizing for me. But matured beef didn’t repeal them that much while it was less attractive for me than chamois. As I find difficult to explain what I would like to say, I made a graph.
-
Van:
…on the effects of excess protein. Good place to start. But look at what is the resultant of converting protein to glucose in the case of excesses, and the by products that the body has to deal with.
The only solution is provided by our instinct: it alone can tell us what food we should eat and when to stop before an overload.
This was one of the benefits of urine 'therapy', was that I discovered first hand what my body was having to filter each time I overate meat/protein. Before it ended up in my urine, it was coursing through my blood..
Not sure I understand. Do you mean that by drinking your urine you knew if you ate too much proteins or not enough and how much to it next time?
GS: Could the absence of Insects in Human Diets Lead to Over Consumption of Domestic Red Meat?
Which then we should discuss here or on another thread, which insects to consume? And what about sea food or fresh water food?
Yeah, it would be a better title, I think. TD just opened a thread about insects.
I have a thing for sea food as I was introduced to Raw Paleo Diets via Wai Diet. Plus I live in an archipelago, we got lots of sea food.
birds, reptiles, fish, crustaceans or mollusks.... and then insects...
I'm liking this list.
Only problem I see here is how to get enough fat.
From this list I can see I can get fat from bird eggs and fish eggs... maybe ant larvae?
You’re lucky, there is certainly a broader variety of paleo food in Philippines than in most continental places. For fat, you have durians, coconuts, avocados! Ant larvae should be tried, yes, I think so. I tried once ants, but they are acid.
-
Hi Van,
What happens to your urine if you eat too much meat?
Do you eat "several small meals or snacks throughout the day“ as recommended by Rosedale? Do these meals consist of animal foods?
-
I eat three smaller protein meals a day,, hardly ever a large one. I try to keep my urine where it is mild, pleasant. And yes you can drink excessive water to dilute the effect of eating large protein meals,,, but to me, that is only masking what's going on initially.
Again, I think original peoples gorged on protein, animals, whenever they could. I'm sure I would too, not knowing when I would get my next meal. I don't live then, so don't have to eat that way now. It's a choice I make. For I could and do enjoy eating more protein at one sitting then i do.. just as I could and would enjoy eating more sugar/fruit at one meal than I do. That too is a choice. The only food group that I don't limit and eat to satiety is fat. I don't see any negative effects from eating fat till the stop comes. And yes this takes discipline and doesn't rely on an instinctual stop, but again, I don't hold early man's eating habits as a bible for my present way of health. Different times, different peoples. I should include that I am sensitive to my needs, at least as much as I can be, of protein. I'm sure if I was in heavy weight lifting or manual labor they would be higher. But it feels to me to be best at the low ends of protein consumption as well as sugar.
-
GS, Iguana, I would still choose the title I chose when I opened up this thread ("GCB: Eating meat is harmful to health“). Or „Eating meat regularly is harmful to health“, if you like. Of course everyone is free to correct me if he thinks that I got something wrong, but please correct me by writing posts and not by censoring the words I wrote. -\
-
Done.
I asked you before modifying the title, (http://www.rawpaleodietforum.com/instinctoanopsology/gcb-eating-meat-is-harmful/msg119475/#msg119475)but you didn't reply and I did the mistake to change it without your approval. I thought you would complain if you don't agree, and then I would revert to the initial title. Sorry, my fault.
There's the possibility to change the title of one's post only and I use this possibility for this post. Your title will come automatically with every new post unless the author changes it.
-
I eat three smaller protein meals a day,, hardly ever a large one. I try to keep my urine where it is mild, pleasant. And yes you can drink excessive water to dilute the effect of eating large protein meals,,, but to me, that is only masking what's going on initially.
Again, I think original peoples gorged on protein, animals, whenever they could. I'm sure I would too, not knowing when I would get my next meal. I don't live then, so don't have to eat that way now. It's a choice I make. For I could and do enjoy eating more protein at one sitting then i do.. just as I could and would enjoy eating more sugar/fruit at one meal than I do. That too is a choice. The only food group that I don't limit and eat to satiety is fat. I don't see any negative effects from eating fat till the stop comes. And yes this takes discipline and doesn't rely on an instinctual stop, but again, I don't hold early man's eating habits as a bible for my present way of health. Different times, different peoples. I should include that I am sensitive to my needs, at least as much as I can be, of protein. I'm sure if I was in heavy weight lifting or manual labor they would be higher. But it feels to me to be best at the low ends of protein consumption as well as sugar.
Thanks for this explanation, Van. It makes some sense, although it's quite distinctive.
So, you drink or take the taste of your urine to get a feedback and adjust the amount and type of food you eat accordingly? That’s weird! :o
-
Weird, I suppose, but lots of things are to the unexperienced mind. I thought eating raw meat was more than weird the first time I heard of it. I don't do urine to determine... it was a natural fall out. I would imagine I could have blood work done to determine high insulin levels due to over consumption of meat and sugar/fruit and the toxins that are created by protein being converted to glucose. Urine seems so much more immediate and simple, and, free. But first one would have to be open to the idea that there are excesses eaten in the first place. For years I didn't want to go there. Funny how we hold onto what we want to believe.
-
One common factor among bee brood, raw organs and chufas is that they all contain starch (either animal starch, aka glycogen, or intriguingly similar plant starches) and glycans. For those promoting Instincto or Paleo approaches with an aim to avoid the problems that GCB and his wife encountered, wouldn't it be easier and more practical to persuade Instinctos and raw Paleoists to try eating more Instincto-type starchy foods (from plant and/or animal sources), such as liver, chufas, the plant sources that Iguana mentioned before in another thread (http://www.rawpaleodietforum.com/hot-topics/zero-carb-and-vlcketogenic-a-lethal-recipe-for-disaster/msg119982/#msg119982 (http://www.rawpaleodietforum.com/hot-topics/zero-carb-and-vlcketogenic-a-lethal-recipe-for-disaster/msg119982/#msg119982)), and other sources, than bee brood or urine? Isn't a diet more likely to succeed and become popular if it's doable and not too off-putting?
-
Yes, this urine drinking thing is an off-putting nonsense which shouldn’t even be mentioned here. Urine contains toxins our body expels, thus it must not be drunk unless one wants to re-circulate his own toxins. It has been explained before and I still wait for this to be shown wrong!
The resulting urine contains high concentrations of urea and other substances, including toxins.
Moreover, it’s not raw-paleo (you need some kind of container and our pre-fire ancestors hardly had any) and even more so, not “instincto”. Anyway you’re free to do it, Van, but even if you spit it, I doubt such a test is valid since our urine can contain toxins whose origin can be back from the years we were eating cooked modern and Neolithic foods. Consuming a large amount of a good raw paleo food can trigger an elimination of anciently accumulated toxins. I would have supposed this is well known by most of us here.
Because we've been eating an unnatural diet for several decades, or at least during several years. Our mother also had a mostly cooked diet with dairy, wheat, etc. and toxins are transmitted through the placenta and milk.
It's a big mistake to think that since we've been eating raw paleo for some time, then our urine must be clean. Just think about a sponge (or even a plastic can) having been used for a toxic fluid. Would you ever use it for alimentary purposes, even after having washed it a hundred times?
Drinking our urine is the best way to recycle the toxins our body is trying to expel. I would never use it for skin/hair care either, that's silly and disgusting.
Another of our topics: Urine therapy nonsense (http://www.rawpaleodietforum.com/off-topic/urine-therapy-nonsense/msg75035/#msg75035)
----------------------
Phil, entomophagy (insects eating) maybe a bit off-putting for us Westerners but it’s been always practiced and is still common amongst many hunter-gatherers as well as in China and other Asian countries. I don’t think it’s absolutely necessary in the short and medium term, but it is certainly an important category of animal food missing in our diets, and this absence can cause imbalance in the long run, just like the absence of sea food, meat or plants.
-
I'm all for entomophagy, I just think it will be a harder sell than, say, chufas, chestnuts or semi-ripe, semi-sweet dried plantains. Isn't there a French saying along the lines of "perfection is the enemy of the good"?
-
Humh... chufas seem to be a very hard sell to Tyler! ;D
Yes, "la perfection est l'ennemi du bien"! That's why goods made in France are good but far from perfect, LOL! But since GCB (like me) is Swiss, the "instincto" is a Swiss product and must be perfect like all Swiss artifacts, haha! ;D
-
Regarding urine therapy, I tried it. Drank my own urine every morning for many months and saw absolutely no change, I was still chronically tired and when the allergy season came I had hay fever as bad as ever. That was back when I was free of major health problems and considered myself very healthy.
I even tried it for warts and got no results, what worked for warts was apple cider vinegar though.
-
Humh... chufas seem to be a very hard sell to Tyler! ;D
Yes, "la perfection est l'ennemi du bien"! That's why goods made in France are good but far from perfect, LOL! But since GCB (like me) is Swiss, the "instincto" is a Swiss product and must be perfect like all Swiss artifacts, haha! ;D
Haha, touche! But you use the French language more than me nonetheless, oui?
I think you are more credible on chufas than Tyler, given that you have actually tried them! ;D
-
Phil, I wonder if you've thought about the fact that, as far as I know, none of the zero-low carbers here on this forum are reporting the disastrous effects you mention from other sources? I can't help think it might just be that we eat raw food here, replete with all the bacteria intact.
Another point, just read in one of your posted links where sea weed is one of the better prebiotics as well as garlic. Those are two of my daily staples I've included for many many years. So what do you know,, maybe my poops are cousins to your new clan.
-
Phil, I wonder if you've thought about the fact that, as far as I know, none of the zero-low carbers here on this forum are reporting the disastrous effects you mention from other sources?
Which disastrous effects are you talking about? The worst effects are of course going to be the least common, and minor effects more common, as with just about any suboptimal approach. Several negative reports were pointed out to you by multiple people, and I think those people who originally reported them were mainly the ones who characterized their experience as basically disastrous (such as Brady and Lowenherz--feel free to peruse their reports, maybe I'm remembering wrongly) and others just quite bad (such as Miles, who I think only added in a small amount of carbs). You can choose to believe or not believe these people's reports and the many negative reports elsewhere from cooked VLCers/ZCers and low-starch raw fruitarians.
I agree that eating plenty of raw foods is likely a help in reducing the problems from VLC/ZC, and I think it helped me and Lex (and you) do better than most of the cooked VLCers, as I've mentioned before.
If you think something as unusual as urine therapy helps, why couldn't something much more mundane and recognized in the scientific community, like eating the better quality starchy Paleo foods, help? Your mind seems fairly made up and it seems like you're looking more for reasons to keep doing what your doing than to consider other possibilities, and I'm not out to try to change the minds of the committed, just share info with those who think there might be something better about stuff that was not well understood by me until some months ago and warn about the negative results I'm increasingly seeing reported, so suit yourself. I predict there will be an increasing sea change in the Paleo world that it sounds like you're not going to like, though it will be most pronounced in the much larger cooked sector, so maybe you'll be able to ignore it if you don't pay any attention to that sector.
It would be a bit more obvious here too if some folks who have reported privately to me came out publicly in the forum about their own experiments with RS, but I don't blame them for keeping them private, perhaps to avoid the sorts of criticisms that my posts have received. Then there's also the good results that Muhammad Sunshine reported from RS. He was the one who tipped me off about it (and like you, I was skeptical at first). So that's at least four people benefiting already in a relatively short space of time in just this little forum. Of course, I doubt you'll believe any of us, which is again your choice, and of course there will likely be some VLCers for a long time to come. There may even be ways to do it safely that incorporate prebiotics.
Another point, just read in one of your posted links where sea weed is one of the better prebiotics as well as garlic. Those are two of my daily staples I've included for many many years.
That's great, I've been eating them for quite a while myself, along with other raw veg/herbs. That didn't prevent me from benefiting from more of what was low in my diet. And who knows, maybe GCB's insect eating will work just as well for those who try it, given that they also contain (animal) starch and prebiotics like glycans. Good luck with whatever you do.
As for me, if given a choice between chufas and urine, I'd go with the chufas.
-
Hey, dude, you got me wrong. First I'm not promoting urine, either for gut bugs or for a means to go low carb. That's a whole other concept. I'm not putting down RS. I just mentioned that I discovered that I've already been eating them 'accidentally' for some very long time. And who knows maybe that's why I do fine and haven't been put in the pile of others who haven't. If anything I have taken a stance with you for you to share with us over the long haul how it goes for you, and to keep us posted to other peoples successes. For instance, in one of the links you've provided there was mention of creating a product with RS combined with probiotics in a package form.... For almost the last year I've been taking one heaping teaspoon of psyllium to one cup of water and one or two capsules of a multi strain probiotic with soil organisms... Mixed up, forms a gel, protects the bacteria from stomach acid, taken late at night after any digestion is still going on. Turns out from your links, psyllium fiber is also a great RS. Forms excellent stools too. And the last major article you provided about the Inuit and their complete diet including starches/animal carbs was eye opening if not humbling. So please don't chastise me as one who is scorning you or your posts, just one who wants to see long term continued benefits. We can always use 'facts' or those individuals who have failed at one diet or another to support our recent position or take on what it takes to be 'healthy'. I was just saying that there are more people doing well here for some time on low carb than those you mention that have failed. The whole science of gut bugs is and has been totally fascinating to me for many many years. So don't count me out. Let's just see what we can learn.
-
Alphagruis / Gerard replied:
birds, reptiles, fish, crustaceans or mollusks.... and then insects...
I'm liking this list.
Only problem I see here is how to get enough fat.
From this list I can see I can get fat from bird eggs and fish eggs... maybe ant larvae?
Edwin , Insects ARE to a large extent fat and certainly very good fat.
The ones eaten routinely in Cameroon, such as a specific fly and and a white grub that resembles the european cockchafer grub and that develops in fallen oil palm tree trunks are very fatty.
The very high fat content is obvious just by taste in raw state and is apparently a general property of insects.
Yet the most spectacular proof is that when ( as they are sometimes with herbs and vegetables) cooked in a pan there is almost only a thick layer of oil left with just tiny "things" swimming in it once enough heated to melt the fat.
Maybe at last Burger is even going to experience what ketosis actually is !
It would have been so funny a 50 years "instinctive" journey.
Yet once again, from what I have experienced it is NOT possible to eat wild insects as staples, in place of meat, fish or seafood. In Africa they are usually only available seasonally and in limited amounts. And people are very fond of them.
-
Alphagruis, hi, my experience with bee larvae, which is over some years, is that they are especially full of sugar. Even the ones which are about to hatch aren't full fat like other insects I've eaten. I would be curious to see the break down; fats, protein, sugars... But, grubs, grasshoppers, crickets, moths, and other larvae... now that's some good fatty eatin.
Also it's SOO tempting to eat the honey that surrounds the bee larvae, doubt he'd be able to pass that up...
-
Hi van,
Funny how we hold onto what we want to believe.
Very true.
I could have blood work done
Have you ever done blood work/measured blood sugar?
I eat three smaller protein meals a day,, hardly ever a large one. I try to keep my urine where it is mild, pleasant.
So how much protein do you eat per protein meal or how much can you eat to keep you urine’s taste (?) pleasant?
Do you eat fruit/sugar meals in addition to the three protein meals or do you combine fruit with meat in the same meal?
Where did you find these grubs, moths, larvae? Are they all tasty? Is every moth/grub living in Middle Europe or Canada edible?
Thanks to Alpha for pointing out the fattiness of insects.
-
OK, sorry for misunderstanding, Van. A couple more successes were reported just within the past several days at another forum, where two LCers tried adding more RS or starchy foods to their diet and their chronic dry eyes problem resolved within days. One of them was told by her optometrist that it was a natural part of aging.
My understanding is that psyllium fiber contains mucilage, a gluey type of viscous fiber that soothes the mucous membrane of the colon, rather than RS, and that the idea of using it is to help the RS get to the end of the colon, where cancers most commonly occur:There is a study on eating RS and psyllium. Eaten alone, they are digested in the first part of the large intestine, but eaten together, the fermentation site of the psyllium is shifted to the end of the LI.
http://freetheanimal.com/2013/09/tatertot-tim-experiment-low-carbers-so-in-short-pants-140g-starch-carbs-in-a-single-meal-blood-glucose-spikes-to-110.html#comment-537172 (http://freetheanimal.com/2013/09/tatertot-tim-experiment-low-carbers-so-in-short-pants-140g-starch-carbs-in-a-single-meal-blood-glucose-spikes-to-110.html#comment-537172)
try mixing 1/2 - 1 TBS of psyllium husk with the potato starch. It contains mucilage which is good for the gut and also allows the potato starch to travel further along in the large intestine.
http://www.marksdailyapple.com/forum/thread73514-41.html#post1365049 (http://www.marksdailyapple.com/forum/thread73514-41.html#post1365049)
For a while I thought that VLC was a success for me too. Eventually I realized that a better success would be to fix the underlying problems that are causing my carb intolerance, which not everyone has, than to just keep minimizing carbs forever. Then I came across RS, which turned out to be a tool to help with that, and recently I added probiotics and psyllium to the mix, from which I haven't yet noticed any additional benefits.
We can always use 'facts' or those individuals who have failed at one diet or another to support our recent position or take on what it takes to be 'healthy'.
Yes, and this also applies to VLCers who think they are doing well and point to some examples of other VLCers who claim to be doing well while downplaying the negative reports. Given the latest research and reports, it doesn't seem like any VLCer can be sure that they are doing well overall without checking their gut microbiome or at least trying adding more RS-foods to their diet to see what happens. Just because you feel good and your body is doing well, doesn't guarantee that your gut microbiome is in good shape. The proof of a pudding is in the eating. I tried both--VLC with low RS and then adding more RS to my diet and found the latter to be superior so far.
So far I haven't seen any VLCers report good results from a gut microbiome test, so it would be helpful to support the VLC claims if at least one person did, and they might even become a hero of VLCers.
-
Phil, thanks for sharing your findings regarding the microbiom etc.
Yes, they adapt more rapidly than scientists initially guessed.
Could you please elaborate on this? Which foods, for example, have been shown to be metabolized better after days oder weeks because of gut flora (genome) changes?
I missed this question, sorry Hanna. I don't remember the specific foods tested in the study I read about this in, but I do recall that Jeff Leach tried a diet low in prebiotic plant foods and found that his gut microbiome changed dramatically. He published the results on the Internet. One concerning thing was that inflammatory proteobacteria increased on the low-prebiotic diet: http://humanfoodproject.com/going-feral-one-year-journey-acquire-healthiest-gut-microbiome-world-heard (http://humanfoodproject.com/going-feral-one-year-journey-acquire-healthiest-gut-microbiome-world-heard)
My increase in the phyla Proteobacteria from 0.03% in New Orleans to 2.63% in the desert, suggests this new, less acidic ecosystem may have favored some opportunistic pathogens. And in one final gut check – and most concerning of all to me, is the overall diversity of my gut microbiota was halved in the desert (as measured by species equivalent OTU’s). And as Ecosystems 101 teaches us, a less diverse microbiota is less resilient to perturbations and may tip one a tad closer to an unhealthy state. One recent study suggests that my reduction in gut microbial diversity – while not dramatically altering my sanitation and hygiene practices in the process – may have had a lot to do with my reduction in dietary fiber. This is also been seen in mice fed high versus low fiber diets (personal communication, Justin Sonnenburg, Stanford University)
Food for thought supporting Iguana's point about the "dose makes the poison," aka hormesis:
"According to a paper called Lectins in the US: A Survey of Lectins in Commonly Consumed Foods and a review of the literature, they said, “Lectins are not exclusively found in legumes but are widely distributed through the plant kingdom.” http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/33/11/2338.full.pdf?origin=publication_detail (http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/33/11/2338.full.pdf?origin=publication_detail) In their particular study, they tested 88 different plants and found lectins in 29 of them and in some cases very substantial amounts and this included carrots, zucchini, tomato, cantaloupe, grapes, cherries, raspberries, blackberries, garlic and mushrooms, all considered to be Paleo-friendly foods of course.
They also reviewed other studies, which had found over 53 various fruits, vegetables, spices and other commonly eaten plants that contain lectins. Their conclusion was that exposure to dietary lectin is a frequent and widespread event."
http://robbwolf.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/Paleo-Solution-214.pdf (http://robbwolf.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/Paleo-Solution-214.pdf)
-
for me, VLC was necessary to overcome some endocrine issues that most likely stemmed from years of daily blood sugar swings. and actually 2 weeks of VLC/keto jump started my menstruation, which had not happened for 5 years.
but there were many other factors, such as gaining a shit ton a weight, which I imagine a lot of estrogen was able to store in the fat, and also eating a high cholesterol diet and just resting, like, all the time........I did not do shit, I felt like shit, I just wanted to sleep and heal, so that is what I did.
that said, it was not something I could keep up with for longer then a month and found I over ate on VLC and still felt like shit(this might have been due to living in an extremely toxic environment, basically a crop duster cloud) in hindsight I think I would not have over eaten so much if I would have added back jicama earlier in the process, its the one starchy veg I do really well with. but at least my hormones were balancing out so I was patient with that process and rode the snake of trying to be LC but also not being wise with honoring my cravings because when I would let my self have carbs it was tooo late and I would eat the hell out of figs and dates (o summer I miss you!)
so I can see where there is a huge benefit to go VLC for periods of time, but I also think it is unwise to be stubborn and to force ones self to be VLC or even LC when it is causing symptoms such as lower back pain(which I have experienced), anxiety, sleeplessness, dry eyes, etc...
I think that cycling carbs is a great idea, I think that finding appropriate sources of carbs, be they seasonal, regional, ethnically appropriate, or just what personally suites you and nourishes you is extremely valuable.
I think what we are all realizing and have been leaning towards is to not attach to any dogmas and to understand that health and diet, like life, are dynamic and in constant flux. its a learning process to know what is best for you and how to adjust in relation to who you are, what you have been through, what has worked before, what hasn't, but also not be to stubborn in any direction.
my health and diet is much more balanced now. I have said that numerous times on the MB but this is truly a time in my life I don't deal with much anxiety, i think I have a pretty normal level and actually not very much considering how crazy my life would be for others, haha! I also have balanced hormones and a menstrual cycle that gives me clear signals of that, and gaining muscle and losing weight. a clear goal for not ever being underweight again, no cravings, a more intuitive approach to food, no more inflammation from meals, consistently gaining energy, the ability to rest well, etc. there are days I eat no carbs, there are days I hardly have time to eat, there are days all I eat is dates or honey :D, days all I eat is rotten meat and gristle or milk and coffee...just depends. but for the most part I have a good idea of what kind of meals I can build for myself that will make me feel good, and have gained a really intuitive way of feeding myself within a certain criteria.
-
OK, sorry for misunderstanding, Van. A couple more successes were reported just within the past several days at another forum, where two LCers tried adding more RS or starchy foods to their diet and their chronic dry eyes problem resolved within days. One of them was told by her optometrist that it was a natural part of aging.
My understanding is that psyllium fiber contains mucilage, a gluey type of viscous fiber that soothes the mucous membrane of the colon, rather than RS, and that the idea of using it is to help the RS get to the end of the colon, where cancers most commonly occur:For a while I thought that VLC was a success for me too. Eventually I realized that a better success would be to fix the underlying problems that are causing my carb intolerance, which not everyone has, than to just keep minimizing carbs forever. Then I came across RS, which turned out to be a tool to help with that, and recently I added probiotics and psyllium to the mix, from which I haven't yet noticed any additional benefits.
Yes, and this also applies to VLCers who think they are doing well and point to some examples of other VLCers who claim to be doing well while downplaying the negative reports. Given the latest research and reports, it doesn't seem like any VLCer can be sure that they are doing well overall without checking their gut microbiome or at least trying adding more RS-foods to their diet to see what happens. Just because you feel good and your body is doing well, doesn't guarantee that your gut microbiome is in good shape. The proof of a pudding is in the eating. I tried both--VLC with low RS and then adding more RS to my diet and found the latter to be superior so far.
So far I haven't seen any VLCers report good results from a gut microbiome test, so it would be helpful to support the VLC claims if at least one person did, and they might even become a hero of VLCers.
good, and thanks for pointing out about the psyllium what I had missed in my cursory reading. For those who have gone low or zero carb, like Jeff, and reported either in lab tests, or from feel, inflammatory gut bugs,, I still wonder if it's similar to what happens when you pasteurize milk. The milk is then set up for kinds of bad hosts because the good bacteria are no longer present to grow. Cooking meat, and I'm only thinking Jeff eats cooked meat primarily, would be similar to pasteurizing milk, and might be like a petrie dish for what ever organisms there might be, as opposed to the extreme, and that would be eating high meat?? of which most hunter gather's ate quite a bit of,,, stomachs, intestines, culturing rotted fish, coming across rotted animals, plus all the bacteria from the ground they eat off of. I know I have somewhat mentioned this before, but to look under a microscope at cooked meat vs. non cooked would be like looking at an ariel photo of NY vs the Sahara (in terms of critters moving around). The very fact that other predators who don't eat RS don't die of inflammatory bowel upsets, makes me wonder why then.
I know that Zoos around the world communicate well together. They went from feeding cooked meat to raw, from what I understand, fairly unanimously when they discover how much healthier their carnivores were from eating raw. And especially their breeding success rates. Got to wonder if amongst the benefits of raw is exactly what I am speaking about;; the bacteria present in raw, and devoid in cooked?
I'll try shredding up some raw potato in my psyllium next time. thanks
-
Surprisingly, jicama is reportedly not starchy, despite being a (legume) tuber. Man do the little ones ever taste good. Yum, yum! Thanks for reminding me to buy some more! :) It's apparently rich in inulin, rather than RS, and is thus a good complement to starchy raw Paleo foods like chestnuts, green or semi-ripe plantains, green bananas, chuño http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chu%C3%B1o, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chu%C3%B1o,) chufas and others that Iguana generously shared with us.
Jicama (prounounced HIH-ka-ma) (sometimes called "yam bean") is a root vegetable which is not at all starchy. The texture is somewhere between an apple and a raw potato. It has a mild, refreshing flavor. It is usually eaten raw, but can also be used in cooked dishes.
Carbs in Jicama
by Laura Dolson
lowcarbdiets.about.com/od/carbcounts/a/jicama.htm
One of the interesting things about jicama is that this one food single-handedly dispels the notion that all tubers and legumes are inedible raw. No one who tries a small, fresh jicama will ever believe that Paleofantasy again.
OMG, you mentioned figs too. MMMMM, fresh figs, yum, yum.
Ah, so you had the dry eyes too, eh? I didn't know that so many folks were experiencing that. I guess I lucked out in that department.
I think what we are all realizing and have been leaning towards is to not attach to any dogmas and to understand that health and diet, like life, are dynamic and in constant flux. its a learning process to know what is best for you and how to adjust in relation to who you are, what you have been through, what has worked before, what hasn't, but also not be to stubborn in any direction.
Amen to that!
Thanks for sharing, Jessica.
Van, You could answer all your own questions if you did one of the gut microbiome tests, like the American Gut Project one. If it comes out great then you could become a raw VLC hero, maybe internationally famous!
Yup, meat-heavy cultures tended to eat things like high meat (which, as Eric pointed out, was prepared in a mostly anaerobic way, not aerobic like Aajonus thought, and thus the bacteria could survive in the mostly anaerobic colon) stomach contents, intestines, cultured fish, and other unusual foods that most VLCers do not eat, and do not even consider necessary, unfortunately. Like it or not, when it comes down to a choice between those foods and traditional starchy plant foods, most people will go with the latter.
Are you aware that all predators eat fresh raw stomach contents, brains, liver and hides that contain starch, including somewhat resistant animal starch that can apparently make it to the colon, and glycans? If not, read DuckDodgers' fascinating articles on that (they discuss humans, but apply to all predators), which I think I linked to before but maybe didn't sufficiently highlight:
Disrupting Paleo: Inuit and Masai Ate Carbs and Prebiotics, Part 1
http://freetheanimal.com/2014/03/disrupting-carbs-prebiotics.html (http://freetheanimal.com/2014/03/disrupting-carbs-prebiotics.html)
"as I mentioned above, glycans tend to be resistant to digestion and can act as prebiotics with all sorts of health benefits that are just beginning to be discovered."
Disrupting Paleo: Inuit and Masai Ate Carbs and Prebiotics, Part 2
http://freetheanimal.com/2014/03/disrupting-masai-carbs-prebiotics.html (http://freetheanimal.com/2014/03/disrupting-masai-carbs-prebiotics.html)
So, yeah, someone can feed their gut bugs if they hunt all their own meat and eat well-fed fresh raw animals, nose-to-tail, but how many people can do that year-round nowadays? Wouldn't it be easier to do what the inland Inuit did and eat some raw Eskimo potato http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eskimo_potato, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eskimo_potato,) or the closest thing we can get to that, at least now and then? You're right that there's so much more to learn about all this and I'm all ears. :) Slainte!
-
I never had dry eyes just kidney pain, dark circles, unappeasable appetite, minor mood and energy issues...I never could hold out so much through that :) thank god for making fruits and honey so delectable :D
I totally think someone hit the nail on the head with appropriately feeding the gut biome, especially because the microorganisms that live inside us and that we coexist with can change much more rapidly, so while our paleo ancestors MAY have eaten way less carbs, we probably have different gut biomes and needs because the microorganisms in our guts have evolved along with us. ,
I consider it like feeding a compost pile, you need a lot of different inputs, although not everyone needs exactly the same thing. so while potatoes may never work for me in any form, jicama is amazing, at least right now, who knows, I am not worried about falling into bad health again because I am willing to be flexible.
-
thank god for making fruits and honey so delectable :D
Amen again!
-
HI Phil,
Thanks.
wouldn't it be easier and more practical to persuade Instinctos and raw Paleoists to try eating more Instincto-type starchy foods (from plant and/or animal sources), such as liver, chufas
The trouble with chufas is that although they are tasty they are not a pleasure to chew on (at least not for me) even if soaked in water. And indeed, they seem to be highly abrasive:
Dr Macho's study finds that baboons today eat large quantities of C4 tiger nuts (…) Tiger nuts, which are rich in starches, are highly abrasive in an unheated state. Dr Macho suggests that hominins' teeth suffered abrasion and wear and tear due to these starches. The study finds that baboons' teeth have similar marks giving clues about their pattern of consumption.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/01/140109003949.htm (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/01/140109003949.htm)
And the wear and tear of teeth seems to be a common cause of death in animals.
-
Yet another reason to avoid resistant starch!
-
Well, I'll try to puree them. This should be possible according to a recipe I found for "Horchata de Chufa". However, to puree is not Instincto, at least not Instincto Iguana-style.
-
Maybe you could just use a fine Stainless steel shredder,, I don't know, never seen one yet.
-
Yes, Horchata de Chufa is another raw option I read about and that Iguana mentioned. Maybe he could share some tips. Reportedly, you can also just soak and/or dry them to make them easier to chew, if you don't have a doctrinal prohibition against doing that.
One of the more knowledgeable raw food experts, John Kohler, grew and ate raw chufas. Here he is with another fellow named Gene who grew chufas:
Growing Yacon, Chufa Nuts and Tall Purslane at the Local Community Garden
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CtS1QO4qfLg&list=LLdy2jnwF9RpCI9YRQDVBBng&index=55 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CtS1QO4qfLg&list=LLdy2jnwF9RpCI9YRQDVBBng&index=55)
Starting at 3:01
Here John says they have a starchy, nutty, rich flavor when raw-dried that he enjoys a lot.
November Harvest: Chufa Nuts and Kakai Hulless Pumpkin Seeds
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=llQZBMazvYY (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=llQZBMazvYY)
Starting at 4:19
John ate one fresh and said the taste of fresh ones is weird, yet delicious. Gene said he didn't like the work involved in harvesting them, but John seems interested in continuing to grow them.
"My verdict? Chufa tubers are delicious. Raw, they have both the texture and the taste of coconut." - Alan Carter, http://scottishforestgarden.wordpress.com/2013/12/03/chufa-tigernut (http://scottishforestgarden.wordpress.com/2013/12/03/chufa-tigernut)
"We have a few small areas in New Brunswick [Canada] mostly along the St John River where chufa, groundnuts and woundwort all grow in some of the fertile floodplains." - 1left, http://scottishforestgarden.wordpress.com/2013/12/03/chufa-tigernut (http://scottishforestgarden.wordpress.com/2013/12/03/chufa-tigernut)
I can't imagine that chufa rhizomes growing in Canada would be good to eat, if they really are chufas, but who knows. Uh oh, groundnuts were mentioned. I'll bet Tyler won't approve of those either. ;D
Here's more info on chufa and two other sedges that are edible raw from Green Deane, another knowledgeable guy:
http://www.eattheweeds.com/cyperus-esculentus-rotundus-for-lunch-2 (http://www.eattheweeds.com/cyperus-esculentus-rotundus-for-lunch-2)
- "They are excellent raw right out of the ground"
- "All [true] sedge seeds are edible, according to Ray Mears and [Professor] Gordon Brown."
Hmm, if that's correct, then the seeds are edible too.
Here's a Stone Age Eurasian and American source of resistant starch:Young shoots in spring can be eaten raw or cooked. Its pollen can be eaten as flour in bread, mush or pancakes. The seeds can be parched and consumed or ground and used like flour. The large, horizontal rhizomes roots can be eaten raw or cooked. Indians dried them in the sun then pounded them into flour. The estimated food value is 8% sugar — making it sweeter than the cattail – 5.5% starch 1% protein.
The bulrush, and other edible rushes in the same family (Scirpus validus, SKIR-pus VAL-ih-duh, Scirpus acutus, SKIR-pus uh-KYOO-tuhs) are found throughout North America. The bulrush itself is native across the southern United States to California north to Oregon and south to Argentina and Chile. It’s also found in Illinois, Hawaii, the Cook Islands and Easter Island, where it arrived some 30,000 years ago.
Bulrush Bonanza
Green Deane
http://www.eattheweeds.com/bulrush-bonanza (http://www.eattheweeds.com/bulrush-bonanza)
-
leads me to believe the acorns the indians here in Ca. collected, soak, mashed, cooked might also be a source or RS. It supposedly was their fall to food when times were lean?
-
Yet another reason to avoid resistant starch!
Tyler, can't we take a more 'let's wait and see' attitude?
-
About chufas the ones you buy in stores are generally dehydrated and even after they've been soaked they remain quite wrinkled and dry-ish. I've never eaten a fresh chufa nut but from the pictures I've seen and from Phil's linked videos they look quite nice and tasty :)
-
Nothing to do with this:
-
Reminds me of how dried-out apricot, even after it's been soaked, looks and taste nothing like the real deal.
-
I pureed the soaked chufas with a hand-held blender and then passed them through a sieve. However, somehow chufas are tastier for me if I chew the whole chufas.
Phil, it seems to be a perfectly natural thing to wear out one's teeth given that this limits the lifespan of herbivores such as elephants. Iguana won't help in this regard ;D. Moreover, I'm convinced that our teeth and jawbones are no longer "designed" to live on a raw food diet. Which is one of the reasons that a (plant based) raw food diet such as Instincto that even rejects "mechanical denaturation" is heavily dependent on companies such as Orkos that imports selected foods from all over the world. Provided, of course, the diet is practiced in a healthy way that doesn't damage health and teeth via acidic fruit, abrasive foods, foods high in antinutrients etc.
-
leads me to believe the acorns the indians here in Ca. collected, soak, mashed, cooked might also be a source or RS. It supposedly was their fall to food when times were lean?
Good inference, yes, and acorns were the "staple crop" of Northern California hunter gatherers, according to this paper: http://ir.minpaku.ac.jp/dspace/bitstream/10502/352/1/SES09_006.pdf (http://ir.minpaku.ac.jp/dspace/bitstream/10502/352/1/SES09_006.pdf)
If you dig around you'll find that every traditional human society had a source of RS, even the Eskimos and Masai, which Duckdodgers wrote about.
Phil, it seems to be a perfectly natural thing to wear out one's teeth given that this limits the lifespan of herbivores such as elephants.
Yes, and even Eskimo women reportedly wore out their teeth chewing rawhides, which BTW are another source of RS and glycans, IIRC from Duckdodgers' articles.
I just thought that since Iguana eats chufas he might have some tips on how to do so without wearing your teeth.
I agree that rejecting all forms of processing, even traditional ones, is unproven and likely unwise in the longer term, especially in the current societies that don't have easy access to many of the traditional foods of the ancient past. I don't adhere to Instincto rules on that. I also think that strictly adhering to purist notions re: processing and rawness while ignoring other important aspects of foods, such as their content of RS, glycans, mucins, inulin, etc. is not supported by the growing evidence.
People adhering to purist notions like that can fool themselves into thinking they are doing well even as problems begin to arise at the microscopic level because they feel good and don't check more objective measures than their own feelings, such as their gut flora balance and variety, basal temp., mid-day temp., fasting blood glucose, resting heart rate, .... GCB and his wife are a couple of prominent examples. GCB has added bee brood to his diet, which contain animal sources of starch, including RS when consumed raw or with certain traditional forms of processing, such as drying, for example.
Re: drying of chufas and other foods, if it's done below 140F it preserves some RS, and if it's done low enough, it actually increases the RS content, though perhaps that could be due mainly or solely to the fact that the food has lower water content and is thus more concentrated. I find that foods that aren't very moist can be dried even at room temperature or in the fridge. Potatoes can be freeze-dried in the freezer. I usually find foods to be tastier when dried, such as beef jerky, for example.
-
Phil, it seems to be a perfectly natural thing to wear out one's teeth given that this limits the lifespan of herbivores such as elephants. Iguana won't help in this regard ;D. Moreover, I'm convinced that our teeth and jawbones are no longer "designed" to live on a raw food diet.
Why our teeth and jawbones, and only them? What about the other components of our bodies? Maybe we “are no longer "designed" to live on a raw food diet”, then? That is precisely why we do the experiment to see what happens if we live exclusively on a raw paleo diet.
Which is one of the reasons that a (plant based) raw food diet such as Instincto that even rejects "mechanical denaturation" is heavily dependent on companies such as Orkos that imports selected foods from all over the world.
We are not dependent at all of Orkos or whatever commercial company! For example JDD and his family never order anything from Orkos, and they have been on “instincto” diet since the very beginning in the mid sixties for him and a few years later for his wife. They are far from being the only “instinctos” averse to buying food from Orkos. Myself seldom order food from Orkos, specially since I live in Portugal as they don’t send fresh products here. I could find suitable raw paleo foods everywhere I’ve been, and I traveled a lot including twice around the world; I also used to live for long periods in Sri lanka.
Once again, in Lausanne I had to buy lamb and horse meat imported from New Zealand and Australia, as well as seafood imported from France. People on common cooked diet also generally eat plenty of foods imported form all over the world, by the way.
Defining the “instincto” as “plant based” is inappropriate since the proportion of plants against animal products is undefined and varies widely between individuals and their current needs.
Provided, of course, the diet is practiced in a healthy way that doesn't damage health and teeth via acidic fruit, abrasive foods, foods high in antinutrients etc.
I eat acidic fruits only occasionally and in limited amounts.
About chufas, I haven’t eaten any since 10 or 15 years and I had no more than perhaps 1 kg of them once or twice only! They were dried ones from Orkos, I’ve never seen any fresh one as shown on the photos posted by JeuneKoq. It’s clear that dried foods are a makeshift substitute of the fresh or blet product.
I googled what jicama is and I remember well having eaten some quite often, but I can’t recall where.
Anyway, we should look at the whole picture and avoid focusing so much on any specific food or compounds such as resistant starch or insects. Each foodstuff is only a small fraction of the normal human food range, even if insects and fibers are a component of all hunters-gatherers and apes diet and therefore should be an intrinsic part of any paleo diet..
Of course, enthomophagy is repellent for most civilized Westerners, but this should not be a reason to reject it and to avoid speaking about it. In the sixties, eating raw meat, raw fish and raw eggs was even more weird, foolish and disgusting to most of us, poor civilized people. Nevertheless, GCB was not afraid to experiment it with his whole family and to publicly report their results from 1973 on, after 8 years of meticulous systematic research and observations. It was in conference at Lausanne and I was there with my parents.
BTW, he won’t answer here, he thought he made it clear in his last post. But he asked me to transmit this to you all: “What constitutes instincotherapy is the rules one has to learn and comply with to re-establish an optimal operation of our alimentary instinct in artificial circumstances. It’s not the simple act to obey to our instinct, but to know how to decrypt what instinct we still have left and how to apply it in modern conditions. Unfortunately, the word “instinctotherapy” may have the drawback to refer exclusively to instinct without referring to any form of training, which can perhaps be misleading.”
To Van: “Van speaks of satiety and “stop”, he’s not very far from the instincto, at least for fat. And for meat he limits himself, like us. I fail to see what disturbs him in our stance, except that we don’t reject a priori any food class.
Being disturbed by one’s urine smell is a form of instinct. Cats diligently smell their excrement after each bowel movement and it is true that some problems of overload or even enzyme deficiencies can be recognized. But it is not a fine tuning! An overload is marked in the urine only when it really overflows”.
To GS: He appreciates your open mind; he feels you’re not stubborn.
Hanna, are you content with both of my previous answers to your questions and your request? (http://www.rawpaleodietforum.com/instinctoanopsology/gcb-eating-meat-is-harmful/msg120224/#msg120224)
-
Defining the “instincto” as “plant based” is inappropriate since the proportion of plants against animal products is undefined and varies widely between individuals and their current needs.
Instincto is usually a "high fruit diet“ and of course a plant based diet as confirmed by GCB in this very forum and you know it! Why are you so dishonest? Or does wishful thinking distort your perception of reality?
Quote GCB: You forget the statistics which have been done for example on chimpanzee’s diet in nature: the fruit share represents about two thirds, that of sheets and roots a quarter, and the remainder consists of proteins (oilseeds, meat and insects). However, the alimentary instinct’s experiment shows that humans come substantially at the same proportions simply by listening to their instinct ¬ subject to the few rules I developed to restore as far as possible an adequate nutritional environment.
http://www.rawpaleodietforum.com/instinctoanopsology/explain-instincto-diet-fully/msg37786/?PHPSESSID=i144902f4cspgof5l11g1ad1q1#msg37786 (http://www.rawpaleodietforum.com/instinctoanopsology/explain-instincto-diet-fully/msg37786/?PHPSESSID=i144902f4cspgof5l11g1ad1q1#msg37786)
The avocados, kakis etc. you eat are not native to Portugal or France, not even to Africa. But we had this discussion already, and I won’t repeat it. See for example:
Quote GCB:
I indeed have never seen the occurrence of dental problems in a context of tropical fruits consumed within the instincto rules. It’s one of the reasons that made me think we are originally adapted to tropical fruits, and that fruits the agricultural techniques enable us to have in colder areas must rather be seen as substitutes. It is obviously different for bilberries and forest strawberries, which are still 100% wild.
I have consequently integrated in the practical instincto rules that we should as far as possible have a choice of tropical fruits (...)
http://www.rawpaleodietforum.com/instinctoanopsology/instincto-debunker-debunking/msg40858/#msg40858 (http://www.rawpaleodietforum.com/instinctoanopsology/instincto-debunker-debunking/msg40858/#msg40858)
http://www.rawpaleodietforum.com/instinctoanopsology/instinctos-tropical-paradise/ (http://www.rawpaleodietforum.com/instinctoanopsology/instinctos-tropical-paradise/)
Hanna, are you content with both of my previous answers to your questions and your request?
No, but I’m tired of this discussion. Sorry, alliesthetic stop! :)
-
Instincto is usually a "high fruit diet“ and of course a plant based diet as confirmed by GCB in this very forum and you know it! Why are you so dishonest? Or does wishful thinking distort your perception of reality?
Well, that's insulting. So, according to you, I’m dishonest because I failed to perceive a complete equivalence between the wording “plant based” and the fact that in most cases (“usually”) we eat a lot of plants (fruits). I can be mistaken, but it doesn’t make me dishonest.
And by the way I do not necessarily agree with every word GCB said or wrote.
No, but I’m tired of this discussion. Sorry, alliesthetic stop! :)
I can understand that. In that case, you could at least have thanked me for my efforts to satisfy your request and to answer your question, saying that you disagree but won’t discuss any further.
When moderators find the title of a thread unacceptable or misleading, it’s a common practice for them in most forums to change such a title without even asking the consent of the original poster. So, if I reverted to a title you suggested, it was not out of obligation, but to please you.
You are nagging and being rude. Calm down, Hanna!
-
This thread is amazing. Thank you for your patience and dedication, Iguana!
Thank you to all the participants!
-
While eating RZC I've noticed it is much easier to over eat muscle meat when one doesn't eat enough fat a long with it. If one over eats protein without enough fat or carbs for long periods of time 'rabbit starvation' has been known to develop. I've witnessed this first hand a few times.
Eating a diet lower in fat and higher in protein and sugar (which seems to be what Instincto is based on - correct me if I am wrong) seems to keep the body continuously hungry due to the insulin spikes, insignificant healthy fats to keep one satiated, as well as the blunting effects fructose has on our bodies' ability to let us know we are full. There are plenty of studies that show fructose can continue to make us hungry if eaten in significant amounts (of course these amounts are different for each of us).
So, keeping the body running off of glucose ( a diet high in protein, sugar, or both) to me would be a huge factor in contributing to the development of tumors , diabetes and cancer. The research is there if you look for it.
-
While eating RZC I've noticed it is much easier to over eat muscle meat when one doesn't eat enough fat a long with it. If one over eats protein without enough fat or carbs for long periods of time 'rabbit starvation' has been known to develop. I've witnessed this first hand a few times.
Sure. That’s why we are usually fond of fat. Most of us eat all the appetizing animal fat we can digest when we find enough, but we seldom get enough bone marrow and other yummy animal fats. As I said many times, it seems easy for you in USA as you just have to order fat and bones from some companies or farmers commercializing exclusively grass fed meat. This is a very unnatural situation: elsewhere it’s much more difficult to get fats from properly grass fed animals and the wild animals we sometimes get don’t have much fat. So, we generally like to eat as well avocados, durians, safus, coconuts and various other nuts.
Eating a diet lower in fat and higher in protein and sugar (which seems to be what Instincto is based on - correct me if I am wrong) seems to keep the body continuously hungry due to the insulin spikes.
“Instincto” is not based on any nutrient or food class, be it plants, animals, sugars, carbs, fat or proteins. It’s not even a dietary method in the usual meaning, being clearly the opposite of all dietary systems since it aims to allow each individual to find naturally his/her specific and transient fluctuating proper balance between those various nutrients and foods, just as animals find it spontaneously when they have no access to processed modern and Neolithic “foods” or artificial substances. ;)
-
It would be so interesting Iguana if someday you were able to find substantial animal fats to adjust to and satisfy yourself with (might take a few months to shift over). I for one do rather poorly trying to nourish myself with durian (even though I love them maybe more than any other food) avocados,nuts, seeds, and coconuts. None of those oily foods have fats that compare to animal fats. And my guess is the composition, which also is my guess is that you're not particularly interested in.
-
Sure. That’s why we are usually fond of fat. Most of us eat all the appetizing animal fat we can digest when we find enough, but we seldom get enough bone marrow and other yummy animal fats. As I said many times, it seems easy for you in USA as you just have to order fat and bones from some companies or farmers commercializing exclusively grass fed meat. This is a very unnatural situation: elsewhere it’s much more difficult to get fats from properly grass fed animals and the wild animals we sometimes get don’t have much fat. So, we generally like to eat as well avocados, durians, safus, coconuts and various other nuts.
This isn't true, If you really wanted to you could obtain plenty of animal fat and still eat instinctively.
I buy whole sheep on hoof, and if they are allowed to age naturally on rich pasture, they will get very fat. The last ewe I have gotten was four years old, and totally grass fed. I bought her for fifty dollars. Had twenty pounds of belly fat. It was marbled throughout. The limbs had large deposits of fat, the rib meat and back was covered in a soft creamy goodness.
Keto heaven...
-
hehe... Francois... durian, avocado, safu.. those are not unnatural? lol you alwasy amaze me with your logic ;)
I second what Sabertooth say, also our sheep that are only pastured + hay in the winter have lots of fat on them in fall!
Here are also those seals living that are very fatty too... but you are not allowed to kill them tho. So I bet long ago when nature was untouched there was fat enough to find. At least in fall and winter to eat. To get leaner in summer is pretty natural and that is when you eat leaner meat and some other vegetation maybe depending on where you live. I am 100% certain about the very natural fact, carbs do not belong in winter diet if they are not to catch in our environment!
-
hehe... Francois... durian, avocado, safu.. those are not unnatural? lol you alwasy amaze me with your logic ;)
I second what Sabertooth say, also our sheep that are only pastured + hay in the winter have lots of fat on them in fall!
Here are also those seals living that are very fatty too... but you are not allowed to kill them tho. So I bet long ago when nature was untouched there was fat enough to find. At least in fall and winter to eat. To get leaner in summer is pretty natural and that is when you eat leaner meat and some other vegetation maybe depending on where you live. I am 100% certain about the very natural fact, carbs do not belong in winter diet if they are not to catch in our environment!
I could certainly eat some imported durian here is summer if I am healthy and tan and earth a lot outside, without ill effects. But to do that in the dark and cold winter? A big mistake IMHO that is kind of as unnatural as it gets!
-
This isn't true, If you really wanted to you could obtain plenty of animal fat and still eat instinctively.
Derek, you and Inger are welcome here to show me how easy it is to get sheep which never received any industrial feed, grain, vaccines and drugs. The first website I checked says (excerpts):
Creep feeding is a means of supplying extra nutrition, usually grain, to nursing lambs.
At a young age lambs prefer feeds that are finely ground and have a small particle size. Feeds that have high palatability for lambs include soybean meal, ground corn, and alfalfa hay. Some producers start lambs out on soybean meal. It is expensive, but the lambs do not eat much at an early age. Crumbled or textured rations are consumed better than pelleted creep feeds. The feed should be fresh and dry and should never be allowed to run out.
The creep feed should contain a coccidiostat to prevent coccidiosis. Deccox® (decoquinate) and Bovatec® (lasalocid) are both FDA-approved as coccidiostats for lambs. Rumensin® (monensin) is another coccidiostat, but it is not FDA-approved for lambs. Lambs should be vaccinated with Clostridium perfringins C & D to prevent overeating disease prior to weaning.
hehe... Francois... durian, avocado, safu.. those are not unnatural? lol you alwasy amaze me with your logic ;)
Safu is a wild fatty fruit and there are completely wild durians as well. Avocados certainly have a wild ancestor, just like mouflon is the wild ancestor of sheep. So, sheep are no more natural than avocados, but anyway you’re lucky to have you own sheep. In Switzerland and in France I could sometimes buy New Zealand lamb legs, but I never saw any here. True, there’s fat on it and marrow in the bones, but not enough to entirely feed a man unless you buy many, eat the fat and throw most of the muscle.
Even if it’s not completely natural to eat cultivated avocados, specially when you’re not in the exact place where some ancestor grew wild initially, isn’t it better than eating margarine?
At least in fall and winter to eat. To get leaner in summer is pretty natural and that is when you eat leaner meat and some other vegetation maybe depending on where you live. I am 100% certain about the very natural fact, carbs do not belong in winter diet if they are not to catch in our environment!
It’s good that you’re 100% certain about something, because I’m not 100% sure of almost everything. You‘ve got to come here and see for yourself what is around to eat in winter, and even all year round. About the only food to be found and easily caught in the wilderness here are limpets — and arbutus in autumn until the end of the year. I've neither tried earthworms nor trees’ roots and bark yet.
-
I agree that rejecting all forms of processing, even traditional ones, is unproven and likely unwise in the longer term, especially in the current societies that don't have easy access to many of the traditional foods of the ancient past. I don't adhere to Instincto rules on that. I also think that strictly adhering to purist notions re: processing and rawness while ignoring other important aspects of foods, such as their content of RS, glycans, mucins, inulin, etc. is not supported by the growing evidence.
It seems to me it is rather food processing which is comparatively new and unproven, since eating unprocessed food has been proven during millions years by all animals, anthropoids and hominids. Sure, we should try to find as many as possible traditional foods of the Paleolithic era, but the range available almost everywhere nowadays is considerable if we aren’t… too purists ;) about their provenance, artificial selection during the last millenniums and method of cultivation.
But, of course, if the range of foods edible raw is too limited, then it’s better to cook some stuff inedible raw rather than starve or get deficiencies.
One of the majors drawbacks of processing such as mixing, juicing or grinding is precisely that it can lead to over-consumption of plant foods and ingesting them in amounts where our body can no longer neutralize their anti-nutrients, which then become really noxious. Another similar point is that one particular, individual plant or part of a generally edible plant species can be loaded with much more anti-nutrients than average, and when mixed, ground together with other parts, it becomes unnoticeable.
-
Where there is a will there is a way :)
Find a way farms. http://www.findawayfarm.com/ (http://www.findawayfarm.com/)
This is just one of hundreds of small family farms that is within a two hour drive from my home base. Albeit, I must admit that living in the bluegrass region close to the ohio river valley has its advantages. The whole region where I live was once the basin of a great lake, which gives us some of the best grazing land on the planet.
I still say that throughout Europe there must be small farms that pasture raise animals, and these farmers would have older fatter animals available if there was a higher demand.
The last ewe I bought was a fat 170 pounds, and because it was four years old, the local stockyards will only give 50 dollars for it, so the guy only charged me 50 dollars to pick it up.
It took me 5 hours driving time and 40 dollars gas, but considering its a months worth of meat for 90 dollars, it wasn't a bad score.
Perhaps the issue with availability of fat grass fed animals is dependent on the fact that in some places the local family farmer does not have the resources to set up web sites, so is much harder for people like Iguana to locate?
-
Derek, you and Inger are welcome here to show me how easy it is to get sheep which never received any industrial feed, grain, vaccines and drugs. The first website I checked says [quote about creep feeding]
Well then, check the second website! Hunting for food was never that easy... you might have to make a net, fashion a spear, run for days, and click on many links.
-
lol Eveheart - that is some truth in your post above for sure ;)
(nothing good comes easy in life...;)..)
-
I posted that link to show that « creep feeding » is generalized. If we find a farmer who doesn’t do it, he’ll certainly give his leftover bread and whatever cooked leftovers to the animals. Any farmer eating cooked food can't be trusted.
Anyway, what would be the point of buying a lot of mutton to eat only the fat and throw the muscle? And if all cultivated fruits should be completely avoided, as you suggest, Inger, why wouldn’t it be the same for meat of farmed animals?
I still have in my fridge some donkey meat that I brought from 1350 km away, but I ate all the tiny bits of fat and there’s no more left.
Meanwhile, I’ve been thinking about this:
Telling Inger that she failed with what she thought was the right way to practice instinctive nutrition is dogmatic. If instinctotherapie requires "proper training with somebody experienced along," then there is something wrong with the theory. Conversely, if there are many different outcomes in individuals following the instinctive eating method, then the theory is sound.
Yes, my experience and that of many others has also been to be wary of dietary theories that require perfection or near-perfection to succeed. If a dietary approach is truly beneficial, it will not require perfection for success. There will be wiggle room.
If we lack a proper training, we are like those orangutans born in captivity who are unable to live in the wild after being released. It is even worse for us because we’ve been conditioned since early childhood to eat in a way which is the exact opposite of what it should be.
I think another difficulty arises from the fact that we live in an artificial situation, lacking the pressure of an unspoiled, wild environment. We are like walking on the crest of mountain chain, and as soon as we diverge by going a bit down from that crest, it’s very easy to slide down some more... while it’s very difficult to go up again. Not only are processed foods (even raw but ground, juiced, spiced or mixed), grain and dairy addictive, their consumption is not properly limited by our instinct, which induce overloads. In turn, these overloads prevent us to eat the unprocessed equivalent since we fall directly on the instinctive barrier with it.
That explains why the humanity as a whole came down to cooking and agriculture as soon as it found the way to do it. It also explains why wild animals are fond of cooked and processed food. Thus it’s so easy to slide down if we stray a bit away from the narrow path at the top of the crest: our situation is unstable. We have to constantly compensate this instability with our intelligence and with our will to stay on the top, and the more ideal is our nutrition, the less we have to compensate and easiest it is.
I completely agree with this quote of Gerard:
…We cannot expect that the damage brought about by tens of years of agressive diets can be merely reversed within a few weeks or months. And it is also likely that every damage may not be reversed at least not in our own lifetime but will possibly need several generations to heal as in Pottenger's cat experiment.
Yet there are now more and more compelling reasons and available experiences to believe that it is really worth to stay patiently on RPD. And so many ailments are in fact at least alleviated already after a few months. Quite rewarding.
These "scientific" considerations mean also that there is not necessarily a causal relationship between a given recent improvement or change in health and what has been done just during the weeks or even months before. A more or less sudden improvement might well be the global result of a healing process that took several years of RPD and other changes in lifestyle to mature and succeed.
This fact that cause and effect in complex systems are distant in time and space adds to the difficulty to correctly interpret the events. For example, meticulous and long observations with hundreds of people have shown that fruits appear to activate the elimination of carbs previously eaten in cooked grains. Eating fruits should thus be limited whenever they trigger too strong “detox” reactions, something that particularly happens at the beginning if we were not used to eat fruits in a normal amount.
Interpreting correctly such a reaction is very difficult as we would naturally think that we shouldn't eat fruits anymore, while on the contrary we should continue with small amounts gradually increased as the reactions reduce.
-
@Tyler:
I do not view drying and freezing as ideal processes but sometimes they have to be used in order to prolong the usability of a particular food.
OK, thanks, sounds like they are at least minimally acceptable, even if not ideal.
No idea re Hadza's daily consumption as anyway they would have encountered different access to their food depending on weather activity etc. etc.
So if you don't know what their daily consumption levels were, then it's possible that they could have consumed a significant amount at least part of the year, regardless of whether tubers are their favorite food or not, yes?
A raw food with lots of antinutrients is just as bad as a cooked food with lots of heat-created toxins. Both are not dersigned to be eaten.
That still leaves the question of how much is "lots of antinutrients". In the past, I think you used bitterness as the determining factor on that, yes? If so, did you mean any bitterness at all, or excessive bitterness that makes it unpalatable? Presumably if that's the standard, then a raw plant food that is not particularly bitter is OK to eat (when it comes to antinutrients), yes?
-----------
@Iguana:
But, of course, if the range of foods edible raw is too limited, then it’s better to cook some stuff inedible raw rather than starve or get deficiencies.
Right, and many of the foods of millions of years ago have not been available to humans in their original forms for thousands of years, which is one of the probable reasons that various types of natural processing were used, among others.
Besides, even if they were all still available, the natural phenomenon of hormesis and decently robust health should enable one to survive a less than 100% perfect approach. If humans were so fragile as to require dietary perfection, the species would not have survived. Of course, those who are less robust may need to follow a stricter approach, but there are potential risks to that too, of which you mentioned a couple common ones (undereating and deficiencies).
Overconsumption is not an issue for me. It still makes more sense to me that a truly healthy diet will be one that has some wiggle room, rather than one that requires detailed perfection that most people fail to achieve, sorry. It sounds like there is some possible agreement on that between us, at least when it comes to provenance and artificial selection.
-
@Iguana:
Right, and many of the foods of millions of years ago have not been available to humans in their original forms for thousands of years, which is one of the probable reasons that various types of natural processing were used, among others.
I don’t see why those foods could have been suddenly unavailable before agriculture started. Farming spread after cooking and other processes became used for food, as agriculture was certainly a result of food processing rather than the opposite.
Besides, even if they were all still available, the natural phenomenon of hormesis and decently robust health should enable one to survive a less than 100% perfect approach. If humans were so fragile as to require dietary perfection, the species would not have survived. Of course, those who are less robust may need to follow a stricter approach, but there are potential risks to that too, of which you mentioned a couple common ones (undereating and deficiencies).
Phil, you completely misunderstood what I wrote! Of course, it is obvious that we are able to survive with an imperfect nutrition: 7 billion people on Earth live with a mostly cooked diet!
What I meant is that “a difficulty arises from the fact that we live in an artificial situation, lacking the pressure of an unspoiled, wild environment” and “ we lack a proper training, (having been been) conditioned since early childhood to eat in a way which is the exact opposite of what it should be.”
Thus, it’s easier for us to eat 100% unprocessed raw foods rather than having a processed meal once in a way, which will get us down on the slippery slope, away from the path on the crest and making it difficult to climb again to that crest.
We’ve seen so many people who used to occasionally eat some processed food slowly sliding down the slope after years or decades of 90 or 95% “instinctonutrition” and finally falling to a completely standard cooked diet, being unable to get back to a raw paleo diet even if they wanted to. It happened to my sister, to a girlfriend and to friends of mine. This difficulty would not be there if we lived in a world where fire and tools to process food were unavailable. But being surrounded by a crowd of people eating a standard modern diet while living in a civilisation where processed food are so easily available is a completely novel, artificial and abnormal situation which renders our raw paleo way instable.
Overconsumption is not an issue for me. It still makes more sense to me that a truly healthy diet will be one that has some wiggle room, rather than one that requires detailed perfection that most people fail to achieve, sorry. It sounds like there is some possible agreement on that between us, at least when it comes to provenance and artificial selection.
Yes, we agree on that, although over-consumption is a severe issue for me when I’m at home lonely and bored with plenty of various delicious raw paleo foods around me! ;)
-
@Tyler:OK, thanks, sounds like they are at least minimally acceptable, even if not ideal.
Not acceptable, just "less worse" than many other methods.
So if you don't know what their daily consumption levels were, then it's possible that they could have consumed a significant amount at least part of the year, regardless of whether tubers are their favorite food or not, yes?
Unlikely. if they did not like the taste, they would only have eaten them in times of famine.
That still leaves the question of how much is "lots of antinutrients". In the past, I think you used bitterness as the determining factor on that, yes? If so, did you mean any bitterness at all, or excessive bitterness that makes it unpalatable? Presumably if that's the standard, then a raw plant food that is not particularly bitter is OK to eat (when it comes to antinutrients), yes?
No, it is not only a question of bitterness. Generally speaking, the worse it tastes, the higher the levels of antinutrients there will be. Blandness of taste, too, is a sign, imo.
-
I posted that link to show that « creep feeding » is generalized. If we find a farmer who doesn’t do it, he’ll certainly give his leftover bread and whatever cooked leftovers to the animals. Any farmer eating cooked food can't be trusted.
Anyway, what would be the point of buying a lot of mutton to eat only the fat and throw the muscle? And if all cultivated fruits should be completely avoided, as you suggest, Inger, why wouldn’t it be the same for meat of farmed animals?
I still have in my fridge some donkey meat that I brought from 1350 km away, but I ate all the tiny bits of fat and there’s no more left.
Iguana,
Im not sure what kind of first hand experience you have with going out to farms and judging the quality of animals from an instinctive point of view? I have been doing this for over 5 years, and have been able to locate some very fat, all pasture raised, animals that would make my iced aged ancestors salivate with joy.
If the animal is fat enough you will not need to throw any of the muscle meat out in order to avoid protein overload. On an optimally fat, fully mature sheep there should be enough fat so that the entire animal would be a complete source of the bulk of ones nutritional needs.
I understand your concerns regarding quality all to well, and will also warn people about questionable farm practices.
Still, I think you are being far too dismissive of the approach to seeking out the fattest and healthiest animals possible.
Even if you are not 90 percent carnivorous like myself, I think it would be beneficial for most people to eat large amounts of meat regularly.
Having interpreted this thread as a personal attack upon the core principles of a meat based paleo diet, I would like to make a point regarding the Instincto stance against heavy meat consumption. There may be a correlation between heavy meat consumption and health problems for people following GBC, though even if this is true, I believe the correlation is in no way proof that the harmful effects of meat consumption in instinctos apply to everyone.
Let us consider all the other factors involved before jumping to such conclusions...
Are the animals that are being eaten of paleo quality, and untouched by pollution, drugs, vaccines, and unnatural foods, ect?
Are these dieters eating the entire animal, the fats, bone marrow, eye balls, glands, and other organs as well?
Do they ingest enough aged animal flesh that contain the probiotics necessary for optimal digestion of a meat besed diet?
Are those following GBC also eating cultivated fruits and vegetables that are not paleo quality?
Even organic produce of today does not resemble the foods that our ancestors would likely find forraging?
Then there is the question of portions and food combinations to consider?
Eating large amounts of cultivated fruit and vegetables, combine with raw meat, may indeed be harmful to your health, but I insist that meat consumption is not the primary culprit for health issues in those following GBCs recommendations.
-
Good points ST.
I very much think the reason for issues with high protein are not the protein itself.... but other things
not that I advocate a super high protein diet, I think the fat and the "other things on the animal" are very important, as Saber says. Also, I think seafood should be the mains source protein to make us optimal. Still, I no way think red meat from naturally fed animals are dangerous - but the condition the person lives in / other things she/he eats are the culprit
I myself eat above 100 g pure protein / day regularly (almost every day) for 4 years but I do lots of fat, seafood, organs..... and close to zero... sugar (fruits and veggies)
I also explore my natural habitat ;)
-
Im not sure what kind of first hand experience you have with going out to farms and judging the quality of animals from an instinctive point of view?
That’s a very difficult task that probably no one can perform reliably. If the animal has been really badly fed, then an abnormal flavor can be perceived in its meat by a thoroughly experienced person. Personally, I’m unable to tell. And if the animal has received medication, vaccinations or occasional heated or cooked supplements, even the best expert can’t perceive it. The only indication will be that some people will be more or less sick after consuming a sufficient amount.
I have been doing this for over 5 years, and have been able to locate some very fat, all pasture raised, animals that would make my iced aged ancestors salivate with joy.
Because an animal has a lot of fat, does it mean that it never received any processed food or medication? I doubt very much.
If the animal is fat enough you will not need to throw any of the muscle meat out in order to avoid protein overload. On an optimally fat, fully mature sheep there should be enough fat so that the entire animal would be a complete source of the bulk of ones nutritional needs.
Perhaps for sheep, but I don’t think it’s wise to eat mainly mutton regularly during several years. Better go for a variety of mostly wild animals, seafood, eggs, poultry, etc.
Even if you are not 90 percent carnivorous like myself, I think it would be beneficial for most people to eat large amounts of meat regularly.
Yes, I agree: it is often beneficial, specially during a certain period. But on the long run, it is highly recommended to have the broadest variety of meats, as much as possible from wild animals, and to alternate with non mammal meats and other sources of animal foods.
Having interpreted this thread as a personal attack upon the core principles of a meat based paleo diet, I would like to make a point regarding the Instincto stance against heavy meat consumption. There may be a correlation between heavy meat consumption and health problems for people following GBC, though even if this is true, I believe the correlation is in no way proof that the harmful effects of meat consumption in instinctos apply to everyone.
Oh, no, I don’t see this thread initiated by Hanna as a personal attack against meat based paleo diet. I felt it was rather intended as a personal attack against GCB and against me. I agree there’s no proof, and as I wrote already, about all old timers instinctos including myself didn’t believe GCB’s explanations. But after reconsidering the issue with the infos available, including the ones posted by PaleoPhil, it seems factual that regular large consumption of red meat during long periods could be dangerous in the long term.
Are the animals that are being eaten of paleo quality, and untouched by pollution, drugs, vaccines, and unnatural foods, ect?
Are these dieters eating the entire animal, the fats, bone marrow, eye balls, glands, and other organs as well?
Do they ingest enough aged animal flesh that contain the probiotics necessary for optimal digestion of a meat besed diet?
Most of us are very concerned about the quality of the animal food we eat. But it's true that during several years, many had been fooled by an unscrupulous stockbreeder. Most of the long term instincto practitioners I know are very fond of bone marrow and organs.
Are those following GBC also eating cultivated fruits and vegetables that are not paleo quality? Even organic produce of today does not resemble the foods that our ancestors would likely find forraging?
Yes. It’s really difficult to find wild, completely paleo vegetables!
Then there is the question of portions and food combinations to consider?
Yes, also.
Eating large amounts of cultivated fruit and vegetables, combine with raw meat, may indeed be harmful to your health, but I insist that meat consumption is not the primary culprit for health issues in those following GBCs recommendations.
It seems to me that an important issue is that many don't follow his recommendations and eat some cooked or processed foods once in a way too.
But as GCB emphasized: “A substitute may well have harmful long-term effects, particularly at immune level, not only at the banal level of balance between the contributions of organs and muscle.”
...the proteins of mammals are closer to us than any other. They are our cousins in the family tree of evolution and are differentiated from us by much smaller number of mutations than birds, reptiles, fish, crustaceans or mollusks.
Proteins resembling those that our own body synthesizes can more easily induce our immune system into error. The work of our lymphocytes is precisely to distinguish self antigens (ours) from non-self antigens (foreign). That’s how bacteria, viruses, cancer cells and large molecules from outside (venoms, pollens, dust deposited on mucous membranes, etc.) are recognized. Regular penetration of food molecules most similar to antigens configurations it uses for this tracking work can obviously more easily mislead our immune system. Such confusion can either cause an attack on body cells bearing similar proteins, or to a failure to recognize foreign or abnormal elements. Thus, we can explain on one hand autoimmune and allergic diseases, and on the other hand bacterial, viral and cancer diseases.
-
Oh, no, I don’t see this thread initiated by Hanna as a personal attack against meat based paleo diet. I felt it was rather intended as a personal attack against GCB and against me.
l)
"Just because you're paranoid don't mean they're not after you."
-
That’s a very difficult task that probably no one can perform reliably. If the animal has been really badly fed, then an abnormal flavor can be perceived in its meat by a thoroughly experienced person. Personally, I’m unable to tell. And if the animal has received medication, vaccinations or occasional heated or cooked supplements, even the best expert can’t perceive it. The only indication will be that some people will be more or less sick after consuming a sufficient amount.
I can with some degree of certainty perceive the quality of the animal by taste. Having lived on a meat based diet that is very low in substances which would interfere with ones sense of taste, I have been able to hone my instincts. I have noticed that the first taste of blood and the liver are the best indication of the overall goodness of an animal, and to a lesser extent the kidneys.
Some animals will have bitter blood with an unpleasant aftertaste, and unsavory flavored liver. This will vary by degrees and must depend on a multitude of factors, but none the less I can tell, and if I do eat a poor tasting animal out of the necessity then I quickly loose my appetite and begin to feel bad. If the animal is pleasant in flavor I will notice a feeling of increased hunger and an overall sense of well being during the first few days after making the kill.
This good feeling upon finding a prime animal, drives me to seek out fresh blood and organs from the best sources available. Sometimes I get a poor animal, and if it is bad enough I have thrown out entire carcasses in the past. Some animals have lesions on their organs while others have bad looking kidneys, or mis-colored lymph nodes. There are a number of tale tale signs... visual, taste, texture which are good indicators of the animals well being.
The main criticism I have of GBC is the fact that he seems dogmatic in the way he advocates how one can attune their instincts to lead them to their optimal diet, then he goes on to claim that certain foods should be limited and that the instincto philosophy of eating however much you want of whatever ,natural whole foods taste good, does not apply to Meat.
Because an animal has a lot of fat, does it mean that it never received any processed food or medication? I doubt very much.
Perhaps for sheep, but I don’t think it’s wise to eat mainly mutton regularly during several years. Better go for a variety of mostly wild animals, seafood, eggs, poultry, etc.
Unfortunately, It is up to the individual to discover for themselves the history of the animals they consume, just as they should find out what the farmer was putting into the soil that the produce was grown on. There is no other way for many people to guarantee premium quality.
It may not be wise to limit yourselves to one source of food entirely. I will still eat game meats like deer when available, the occasional sea food, and about 4 eggs a day. Also I have been expanding my variety of plant foods and will eat a large salad of mixed greens with avocado, tomato, green onions and some dried herb seasoning regularly.
Yes, I agree: it is often beneficial, specially during a certain period. But on the long run, it is highly recommended to have the broadest variety of meats, as much as possible from wild animals, and to alternate with non mammal meats and other sources of animal foods.
This is debatable, there have been traditional herds peoples who have done fine on just one variety of meat, and there is no evidence that one has to eat non mammal meats. Though I think there may be some value in eating a variety of animals, I think quality trumps variety in this department. Its better to have a staple source of high quality meat than to eat a variety of animals from questionable sources.
Now if I was a wealthy man, I would be ordering pasture raised ostriches, kangaroo meat, deep sea fish, alligator, and any other creature under the sun, but because of my economic situation combine with the difficulty of locating quality animals, I have decided that its much safer to continue useing Mutton as my staple food.
Oh, no, I don’t see this thread initiated by Hanna as a personal attack against meat based paleo diet. I felt it was rather intended as a personal attack against GCB and against me. I agree there’s no proof, and as I wrote already, about all old timers instinctos including myself didn’t believe GCB’s explanations. But after reconsidering the issue with the infos available, including the ones posted by PaleoPhil, it seems factual that regular large consumption of red meat during long periods could be dangerous in the long term.
There are many of us who like to attack GCBs dogmatic stance against heavy meat consumption, and again I must point out that in his hypothesis he doesn't not take into consideration people like A.V, the Inuit, and many other groups of people who are highly carnivorous and are able to maintain good health into old age. His recommendations do not apply to Low carb, high-meat eating mutants, who get 70 percent of their calories from fat.
Though I will agree that for people eating large amounts of carbs from fruits and starchy vegetables, while eating a small amount of animal fat, may not do very well if they eat large amounts of lean muscle meat.
There are just so many other factors involved for one to make blanket statements about how eating meat regularly is harmful to health
But as GCB emphasized: “A substitute may well have harmful long-term effects, particularly at immune level, not only at the banal level of balance between the contributions of organs and muscle.”
This too must be considered in context, and there are just too many other factors that are involved in maintaining a healthy balance to make these blanket statements.
-
Some animals have lesions on their organs while others have bad looking kidneys, or mis-colored lymph nodes. There are a number of tale tale signs... visual, taste, texture which are good indicators of the animals well being.
Having worked (or still working?) as a butcher gives you a clear advantage over almost all of us in this regard.
The main criticism I have of GBC is the fact that he seems dogmatic in the way he advocates how one can attune their instincts to lead them to their optimal diet, then he goes on to claim that certain foods should be limited and that the instincto philosophy of eating however much you want of whatever ,natural whole foods taste good, does not apply to Meat.
I doesn’t apply without any restriction not only to meat of farmed animals, but also particularly to cultivated fruits and in general to every food that can be too easily and regularly found due to technology and artificial conditions. As he tried to explain here (http://www.rawpaleodietforum.com/instinctoanopsology/gcb-eating-meat-is-harmful/msg120411/#msg120411):
“What constitutes instincotherapy is the rules one has to learn and comply with to re-establish an optimal operation of our alimentary instinct in artificial circumstances. It’s not the simple act to obey to our instinct, but to know how to decrypt what instinct we still have left and how to apply it in modern conditions. Unfortunately, the word “instinctotherapy” may have the drawback to refer exclusively to instinct without referring to any form of training, which can perhaps be misleading.”
It may not be wise to limit yourselves to one source of food entirely. I will still eat game meats like deer when available, the occasional sea food, and about 4 eggs a day. Also I have been expanding my variety of plant foods and will eat a large salad of mixed greens with avocado, tomato, green onions and some dried herb seasoning regularly.
I appreciate that you will extend you food range, that can’t be a bad thing. But why do you decree beforehand that it will be for example about 4 eggs a day? It may well be too much, too often if it is every day or not enough if occasional. Most of all, in natural conditions it would never be so regular. You would find plenty eggs some days, but then no eggs for a long period. It would be the same for every food. And when you’ve got enough meat, you would not go in search for eggs — or conversely.
By mixing greens, you’ll easily eat too much of a kind and thus have an overload of some these infamous “antinutrients”. Better eat foods one by one, one after each other to feel properly their taste and reject those unsuitable for you or any excessive amount.
This is debatable, there have been traditional herds peoples who have done fine on just one variety of meat, and there is no evidence that one has to eat non mammal meats. Though I think there may be some value in eating a variety of animals, I think quality trumps variety in this department. Its better to have a staple source of high quality meat than to eat a variety of animals from questionable sources.
We need both quality and variety. We have a past of cooked nutrition and thus we generally need a large choice to repair deficiencies or illnesses due to our previous bad diet.
Now if I was a wealthy man, I would be ordering pasture raised ostriches, kangaroo meat, deep sea fish, alligator, and any other creature under the sun, but because of my economic situation combine with the difficulty of locating quality animals, I have decided that its much safer to continue useing Mutton as my staple food.
It may be fine for you for some more years, but you’ll have been warned that in the long run it’s much safer to have a more diversified choice.
There are many of us who like to attack GCBs dogmatic stance against heavy meat consumption, and again I must point out that in his hypothesis he doesn't not take into consideration people like A.V, the Inuit, and many other groups of people who are highly carnivorous and are able to maintain good health into old age.
Which many other groups, precisely? The Eskimos health and lifespan is not properly documented has having been so exceptional. Moreover, their meat was very different than beef or mutton. Saying that GCB has a dogmatic stance is in utter opposition with the reality. Did you read him properly? Of course, we are all free to ignore his advices based on his outstanding familiarity with biology, biochemistry, immunology, etc and his 50 years long experience not only with himself, but also by raising his 6 children and observing hundreds of other people and animals on a raw diet.
In French we say “the experience of others has never served anyone!” Too bad.
Wishing you all the best, you’re a great guy.
-
I appreciate that you will extend you food range, that can’t be a bad thing. But why do you decree beforehand that it will be for example about 4 eggs a day? It may well be too much, too often if it is every day or not enough if occasional. Most of all, in natural conditions it would never be so regular. You would find plenty eggs some days, but then no eggs for a long period. It would be the same for every food. And when you’ve got enough meat, you would not go in search for eggs — or conversely.
How can you make such claims about human history and it's previous natural conditions?
I would say humans evolved to be such great hunters because of their preference for eating meat. I'm pretty sure red meat was highly available during paleolithic times. I've mentioned the extinction of megafauna as well as the hunting of bison to near extinction. It seems humans have always found ways to manage a high intake of meat which could very well be the reason we continued to thrive throughout the different eras of history.
We need both quality and variety. We have a past of cooked nutrition and thus we generally need a large choice to repair deficiencies or illnesses due to our previous bad diet.
Didn't the Native Americans eat a majority of buffalo and were completely healthy? I'd have to agree with sabertooth about quality over variety. Every morning before my first meal I am excited about eating beef; the same meat I've been eating every day for three years.
Considering a condition "artificial" isn't instinctive in itself. We are the most advanced species on the earth for good reason. Perhaps our ability to seek out the best food sources throughout history and being able to continue to emulate previous thriving environments (farming) is in my opinion what makes us HUMAN.
-
How can you make such claims about human history and it's previous natural conditions?
I would say humans evolved to be such great hunters because of their preference for eating meat. I'm pretty sure red meat was highly available during paleolithic times. I've mentioned the extinction of megafauna as well as the hunting of bison to near extinction. It seems humans have always found ways to manage a high intake of meat which could very well be the reason we continued to thrive throughout the different eras of history.
I depends how far back in time you refer to. Availability of large animals meat is likely to have become commonplace only after our ancestors had developed hunting strategies, techniques and weapons, which is relatively recent on an evolutionary scale, just like or even posterior to the control of fire.
the Middle Paleolithic also saw an improvement of the tools themselves that allowed access to a wider variety and amount of food sources. For example microliths or small stone tools or points were invented around 70,000 or 65,000 BP and were essential to the invention of bows and spear throwers in the following Upper Paleolithic period.[28] Harpoons were invented and used for the first time during the late Middle Paleolithic (c.90,000 years ago); the invention of these devices brought fish into the human diets, which provided a hedge against starvation and a more abundant food supply.[32][33] Thanks to their technology and their advanced social structures, Paleolithic groups such as the Neanderthals who had a Middle Paleolithic level of technology, appear to have hunted large game just as well as Upper Paleolithic modern humans[34] and the Neanderthals in particular may have likewise hunted with projectile weapons.[35] Nonetheless, Neanderthal use of projectile weapons in hunting occurred very rarely (or perhaps never) and the Neanderthals hunted large game animals mostly by ambushing them and attacking them with mêlée weapons such as thrusting spears rather than attacking them from a distance with projectile weapons.[20][36]
During the Upper Paleolithic, further inventions were made, such as the net (c. 22,000 or 29,000 BP)[28] bolas,[37] the spear thrower (c.30,000 BP), the bow and arrow (c. 25,000 or 30,000 BP)
Didn't the Native Americans eat a majority of buffalo and were completely healthy? I'd have to agree with sabertooth about quality over variety.
They were decimated by infectious diseases brought by the Europeans and these Indians would probably haven’t been harmed by these if they were on properly balanced 100% raw diet.
Considering a condition "artificial" isn't instinctive in itself. We are the most advanced species on the earth for good reason. Perhaps our ability to seek out the best food sources throughout history and being able to continue to emulate previous thriving environments (farming) is in my opinion what makes us HUMAN.
Certainly the most advanced in technology and in destructive behavior. Farming is certainly one of the biggest mistake in the human race history, as Jared Diamond wrote. As already explained, “instinctive nutrition” is not equivalent “general instinctive behavior” and moreover we obviously don’t rely exclusively on our instinct for nutrition.
-
Given the vast migrating herds of beats in palaeo times, humans would have had plentiful access to raw meats throughout the palaeolithic era just by scavenging, with no need to hunt.
-
I depends how far back in time you refer to. Availability of large animals meat is likely to have become commonplace only after our ancestors had developed hunting strategies, techniques and weapons, which is relatively recent on an evolutionary scale, just like or even posterior to the control of fire.
We are way better adapted to eat large animals and even "cultivated"ones like sheep, beef etc that have been around for long, than eating the cultivated Agri products you find in shops today. It is pretty clear by now what fructose does to our health. And how dangerous it can be to go vegan.
It is very easy to catch fish and mussels/oysters, crabs... for much of that you do not need anything else than your hands...
Didn't the Native Americans eat a majority of buffalo and were completely healthy? I'd have to agree with sabertooth about quality over variety.
They were decimated by infectious diseases brought by the Europeans and these Indians would probably haven’t been harmed by these if they were on properly balanced 100% raw diet.
We all know how dangerous foreign viruses and bacterias can be for native populations. It has nothing to do with them eating a not optimal diet. They are just so totally not adapted to stuff from another continent. Like we also would easily get issues in Africa's Jungle without having modern medicine. I have heard about instincto's dying from malaria down there....
That said, I have read the white man also gave the Indian's alcohol and other stuff that must have made them more sensible to disease too.
What I have read about the American Indians, they were just stunningly healthy and strong, their wounds healed so fast the white man was shocked.
From what I know today, this fact does not surprise me at all.
-
My farmer friend mentioned that he had "read somewhere" that we evolved to eat meat because we can use tools to crush bones and skulls to exract marrow and brains, which are all the remains that predators and scavengers leave behind.
-
Given the vast migrating herds of beats in palaeo times, humans would have had plentiful access to raw meats throughout the palaeolithic era just by scavenging, with no need to hunt.
Yes, I also think we are somewhere between scavengers and carnivores because gamy meat is usually more attractive than fresh meat. In the savannah, yes, there must have been carcasses abandoned by predators, with bones and some muscle meat left. Whether it was easily available every day is an open matter, I don’t know. Hominids must have been cautious to approach because there was certainly predators around. Another question is the availability of organs: the predators seem very fond of it and wouldn’t have left any, as Rogue Farmer wrote above.
I’m not at all against meat consumption: as a matter of fact, along with the other “instincto” old-timers, I’ve probably eaten more raw meat than anyone else on this forum and possibly more than anyone in modern times. I just think that few of our ancestors ate meat of large mammals every day, the whole year round. They also ate other things, such as ostrich eggs, shellfish, insects, plants, tubers and fruits.
Inger, this malaria thing compared to viruses, bacteria and Amerindians case has already been addressed several times, even in your own journal:
This is a real understatement! All the virus and bacterias we have experienced so far since the 60's are our friends : they are here to set a detox, which remains benign as long as the kind of abnormal molecules being expelled from the body are not simultaneously reintroduced by the meals.
The question remains open for parasites: some can still be dangerous and we should absolutely avoid meat from animals badly fed or living in a polluted environment. Malaria (especially falciparum) remains deadly, either.
Not personally but I heard/read that 2 persons died of falciparum because they refused to take medicine, against what GCB advices. One stubbornly stuck to a fast and the other was a girl who was totally desperate following a failed love story.
But are there no diseases at all amongst Amazonian Indians?
They have been very sensitive to infectious diseases brought by Europeans: a large proportion of Amerindians died because of this. As nobody on a 100% instinctive raw paleo nutrition ever died nor has been dangerously affected by any infectious disease transmitted by bacteria or viruses (except from malaria which is more of a parasitic a disease; if I’m not mistaken), we can infer that all these Amerindians wouldn’t have died if they had a diet of totally raw, unprocessed foods.
Of course we can’t prove it, but it’s an strong indication.
If the Amerindians were so healthy although they cooked a lot, then we should perhaps cook our food too, Inger?
-
GCB cited by Iguana:
What constitutes instincotherapy is the rules one has to learn and comply with to re-establish an optimal operation of our alimentary instinct in artificial circumstances. It’s not the simple act to obey to our instinct, but to know how to decrypt what instinct we still have left and how to apply it in modern conditions. Unfortunately, the word “instinctotherapy” may have the drawback to refer exclusively to instinct without referring to any form of training, which can perhaps be misleading.
I think the point is Instincto has expected far too much from the alliesthetic mechanisms („instinct“) and not taken sufficiently into account certain other aspects that contribute to nutritional balance, including environmental restrictions, cultural learning, learning in general.
-
If the Amerindians were so healthy although they cooked a lot, then we should perhaps cook our food too, Inger?
Yeah, sure. I am not afraid of cooked food anymore like I was when I was instincto ;) I tolerate some gently (in traditional way) cooked meat or seafood pretty well, even if I prefer raw. To me eating sugar is way worse even if raw.
I also do not have cravings like I used to have then... I feel so much at peace with my food and it it not like a "drug" anymore for me, it is just fuel. I love this, very liberating. It frees my mind for so many other things! The very best thing is my bowels. They are just so happy :)
I think Hanna ^^ is spot on...
-
I agree with Inger on sugar, that stuff is just so addictive. every time I try to say "oh honey is fine in moderation, I'll just have 2 spoon" then I end up having 5 because I'm hungry and there is no way 2 spoon will full me up specially when it taste so good. Then you can't have honey with other stuff either it's carb and shouldn't be mixed with fat or protein so really you can only have it in moderation which I can't do and you can't mix it with anything except carb which just makes everything worse. So I have no choice but to resist the urge and let that honey in the box. I mean really, the only way I could be satisfied with honey is eating a whole jar at once, like if it was an actual meal or if you were to find it in nature.
-
I think the point is Instincto has expected far too much from the alliesthetic mechanisms („instinct“) and not taken sufficiently into account certain other aspects that contribute to nutritional balance, including environmental restrictions, cultural learning, learning in general.
I wonder what exactly you mean by “instincto”. Do you refer to the theory, to the way it is practiced by some people, to the way GCB wrote or taught it, or to something else?
I agree that the environmental conditions and restrictions are important and perhaps GCB has not emphasized it enough. Anyway, as he specified, his book was not intended to explain how to practice it as this was the task of the seminars he gave.
Yeah, sure. I am not afraid of cooked food anymore like I was when I was instincto ;)
That’s interesting. I’m curious what you mean by frequently writing “when I was instincto”. How have you known about it, what do know about it, how did you learn about it, how and how long did practice it? I feel there’s something odd in saying “I’m instincto” or “I was instincto” because there’s no such species. We are all homo sapiens sapiens, there's no way to be “instinctos” or “not instinctos”! :)
There may be Buddhists, Christians, communists, etc. but the instinctonutrition is neither a religion nor an ideology. Myself never say “I’m instincto”: it’s only an experiment I’ve been doing for more than 27 years and which I can stop whenever I want, maybe tomorrow or maybe never. It doesn’t make me afraid of cooked foods, and I always thought that I may eat cooked foods again one day.
I tolerate some gently (in traditional way) cooked meat or seafood pretty well, even if I prefer raw. To me eating sugar is way worse even if raw. I also do not have cravings like I used to have then...
It’s normal, one can even feel better when eating cooked food once in a way, because in this way the immune system in kept in a state of tolerance and thus no detoxination work is undertaken.
Your relentless demonization of sugars is funny. You’ve got to tell hunter-gatherers and several species of mammals including our closest ancestors about it. ;)
I agree with Inger on sugar, that stuff is just so addictive. every time I try to say "oh honey is fine in moderation, I'll just have 2 spoon" then I end up having 5 because I'm hungry and there is no way 2 spoon will full me up specially when it taste so good. Then you can't have honey with other stuff either it's carb and shouldn't be mixed with fat or protein so really you can only have it in moderation which I can't do and you can't mix it with anything except carb which just makes everything worse. So I have no choice but to resist the urge and let that honey in the box. I mean really, the only way I could be satisfied with honey is eating a whole jar at once, like if it was an actual meal or if you were to find it in nature.
Usually, we don’t eat honey before anything else, but only if we are still hungry a while after a meal. But you seem to have a great need of it, because unheated honey gives a very clear and strong stop signal. I could never eat more than a few teaspoons of honey — and nowadays hardly a small one.
-
I get to tell when I should stop, but it doesn't come from a place of satiety rather, it's about knowing when it will over burden my body. I'll remain hungry either way.
-
Eat something else at least a few minutes before or after, then, like we do. Not meat, it doesn't associates well with honey but nuts, veggies or fruits usually digest fine with honey.
-
I use honey to digest excessive amounts of fat, which I was instructed to do somewheres I read, can't remember where. High mineral sugar helps us to digest more fat than we can if we eat fat alone. The fat absorbs the sugar and causes it to more slowly release into the digestive system and not cause a sugar rush, I avoid eating carbs with protein or fat like the plague, because it makes me feel bad by itself, get a bit dizzy and become exhausted a little while later, however I never get this if I eat protein or fat along with the carbs.
-
Good idea, something I'll give a try to when my digestion is better Atm the only way I can eat fat without stomach burn is with digestive enzymes. I tried eating a ripe plantain with honey and it was a stomach disaster.
-
I wonder what exactly you mean by “instincto”.
I refer to the theory and the people who practise(d) it.
-
I think the point is Instincto has expected far too much from the alliesthetic mechanisms („instinct“) and not taken sufficiently into account certain other aspects that contribute to nutritional balance, including environmental restrictions, cultural learning, learning in general.
I refer to the theory and the people who practise(d) it.
Perhaps, for many of these people. But it’s not a monolithic, homogeneous group. On the contrary, there are very different people in it, with different ways to practice. There’s even someone here who doesn’t practice the “instincto” at all, but nevertheless choose that word in his pseudo… while there are some who don’t want to say nor hear that they are on instinctive-nutrition even if they practice it quite well! ;D
It’s clear that learning is of utmost importance and that’s why stages and seminars were organized. Otherwise it would take decades in being sometimes hungry in various unspoiled wildernesses to discover alone a sufficient food range.
-
Back to topic: I ate bee brood in the previous weeks and strongly reduced and even cancelled my consumption of fish and meat. However, when I began to eat meat again, I quickly noticed, that I'm physically and mentally much fitter, if I include meat in my diet. Bee brood has positive effects on my skin, so I will probably continue to eat it (or insects in general). But I will continue to eat meat and fish regularly as well.
-
BTW, I said adieu to the supposed nutritional instinct:
http://rohkosternaehrung.blogspot.de/2014/04/ernahrungsinstinkt-ade.html (http://rohkosternaehrung.blogspot.de/2014/04/ernahrungsinstinkt-ade.html)
http://rohkosternaehrung.blogspot.de/2014/04/ernahrungsinstinkt-ade-die-zweite.html (http://rohkosternaehrung.blogspot.de/2014/04/ernahrungsinstinkt-ade-die-zweite.html)
(Sorry, in German.)
-
Hanna your experience of feeling fitter on meat and fish is probably similar to mine. And I think the reason is that most of the brood, unless very mature, as in those baby bees are just about to emerge from the comb, is very high in sugar, hence what gives it such taste appeal. And my guess, and I say it again, my guess, is that GCG enjoys or is accustomed to a diet high in sugars.
-
I found a source where I can order the entire harvest of wild honey with baby bees if I pay for the entire expedition. Hope I get to experience those baby bees too.
-
When typically one gets frames of bee brood, the bee brood is in the middle surrounded by large amounts of new honey. One has to be just a little disciplined for the long run not to eat too much honey, which is so easy to do when it's staring you in the face as you scoop out the brood. And as mentioned before, very young bee brood is very high in sugars/very sweet in itself and I would imagine raises blood sugar after eating to some good degree, but haven't tested that notion,, just a strong hunch.
-
Yeah, I ate a lot of honey at first when I first found one I could tolerate reasonably well. Perhaps my body needed it. Over time, I found it became easier to moderate my intake. Now I rarely eat more than 1 tbsp in a day.
-
I think for some, they simply just listen to their body. Another way to say it is that some are more sensitive to spikes in blood sugar and some even care about the very notion,, while some don't have an interest or have not abused their bodies enough over time to be able to feel the results. I know that when I ate lots of fruit, my beliefs about how 'healthy' it was for me over road the feedback my body was offering to me. So often it comes down to what are we willing to pay attention to.
-
Dandelion Greens .... Inger
I am little confused about RS and Prebiotics like Topinambour/Dandelions etc.
(http://www.webpagescreenshot.info/i3/537ab3da6167e1-73329245) (http://www.webpagescreenshot.info/img/537ab3da6167e1-73329245)
Taken with Webpage Screenshot (http://www.webpagescreenshot.info)
-
Good information about Bee Brood (from page 17).
http://www.bee-hexagon.net/files/file/fileE/Health/RJBookReview.pdf (http://www.bee-hexagon.net/files/file/fileE/Health/RJBookReview.pdf)
-
I right now eat quite some dandelion flowers almost every day, so yummy! Our sheep love them too.....
If the nutritional instinct would work correctly it should lead us to eat what is beneficial for us, no?
So far I have not seen this too much.. so I agree with you Hanna... seems we need conscious education and conditioning quite a bit
-
I right now eat quite some dandelion flowers almost every day, so yummy! Our sheep love them too.....
If the nutritional instinct would work correctly it should lead us to eat what is beneficial for us, no?
So far I have not seen this too much.. so I agree with you Hanna... seems we need conscious education and conditioning quite a bit
Because we live in a society that is SO out of line with our nature, we are told every single day someone else's truth and we don't know what to believe anymore. We are told low carb, zero carb, high fat, sugar is bad, too much fruits is too much sugar, plants are poisons, avoid anti nutrients and then we use words like safe starches. The idea of safe starch is ridiculous, it is food or it is not, either it's good for us or its not, there shouldn't be any concept of what is safe to consume but rather what we SHOULD consume. There is so many different opinions out there about what we are "instinctively" supposed to do and we have lost complete track of our true instinct that we simply don't even follow them even if we should because we are told that it is bad for us so we engage in behavior that are harmful to us because we are told "this will heal you".
-
The idea of safe starch is ridiculous, it is food or it is not, either it's good for us or its not, there shouldn't be any concept of what is safe to consume but rather what we SHOULD consume.
I think the opposite is true: if people have become ill or metabolically unbalanced, they should be given the information to help them heal. Illness is complicated and healing is complicated. You yourself, Sorentus, have come to this forum with severe digestive issues, and you have shared your struggles with some of the typical foods that many of us consume. How would it have helped you if we sent you the same words that you now send to others?
Sometimes healing the body is like automotive repair - the mechanic thinks about the problem and replaces a part, and if the car works, fine... if not, the mechanic thinks again and replaces another part. That's all we're doing here - thinking and trying new things to find what works.
-
I agree healing can be complicated these day. Because of our unnatural ways of living (staring in a computer all day long... might mitigate all the great foods effect..)
I think when wanting to heal we need to have an open mind and take into account as many factors as possible.
+ always think, what does Nature say?
-
we have lost complete track of our true instinct
The trouble is that there isn’t any alimentary instinct, not even in animals. Only if you unduly stretch the meaning of the term instinct, you can claim that there is an alimentary instinct. In any case this supposed instinct doesn’t do what GCB expects or expected it to do, not even in animals! The first link in my previous post is about animals (reptiles and amphibians), who are often overfed by humans and therefore become diseased, even if they are only offered their natural raw foods. Their need for food is very low compared with mammals and therefore is often vastly overestimated by humans. In nature they don’t catch much nutritious food because the don’t move much etc. Obviously, since they have developed in interaction with their environment, which includes a limited availability of nutritious foods, this interaction with the environment - and not an alimentary instinct confronted with a variety of raw foods - sustains their nutritional health in nature. This is what finally convinced me we can’t rely on an instinct when it comes to dosing (certain) raw foods or to choosing the composition of our diet. However, I still guess that alliesthetic signals protect us from poisoning ourselves, for example, with antinutrients contained in greens and vegetables.
-
VAN .... Hanna
I have also got the offer to buy Bee Brood.
1) But I am told that Larvae die within 24 hours. Therefore, I don't know HOW MUCH should I order.
2) How to transport it? (BEE farm haus is almost 1 hour drive away).
3) Is it possible to buy in big quantity and then keep them in the Refrigerator (and also to freeze one part in the deep freezer)?
4) It seems it comes in Frames. And I have no idea how to get it out of the frame.
Any how, all the things are difficult for the FIRST time.
-
It's really quite simple once you do it. I think they do fine in the fridge. I don't freeze anything except water. Try to keep them warm when transporting, if concerned. Then put in fridge. Some of the more developed brood will hatch and crawl around your fridge for a while in the beginning or in transport. Take a large metal spoon and simply scrape right down to the bottom of the frame of wax. Your bee keeper can show you what I mean. But basically most beekeepers put a new empty frame in the hive (unless they have just spun out the honey, then the empty comb and frame will go back into the hive). The bees will then build up the come from the was floor provided by the bee keeper. You simply scrape off the comb keeping the floor intact to return to the beekeeper to put back into the hive (recycle). Chew on it, sucking out the juices etc. and eventually spit out the wax. I think you could keep in fridge maybe five days, and eat half a frame, maybe more of brood. Remember you'll probably get one half of the frame in either honey or honey and pollen along with the brood, depending on how the queen lays.
-
I agree healing can be complicated these day. Because of our unnatural ways of living (staring in a computer all day long... might mitigate all the great foods effect..)
I think when wanting to heal we need to have an open mind and take into account as many factors as possible.
+ always think, what does Nature say?
I take sun and walks every day now that I have the energy to do so!
-
Hanna your experience of feeling fitter on meat and fish is probably similar to mine. And I think the reason is that most of the brood, unless very mature, as in those baby bees are just about to emerge from the comb, is very high in sugar
Well, I usually have early stops when I eat honey (although not necessarily when I eat fruit). Maybe this is the reason, why I can’t eat great amounts of bee brood and why I fare better including a variety of animal foods in my diet. Eating a variety of animal foods instead of only bee brood I simply eat more animal food at all.
-
Updates concerning myself:
But I will continue to eat meat and fish regularly as well.
Well, to be honest, I have reduced (and currently cancelled) my mammal meat consumption again for several reasons.
BTW, I said adieu to the supposed nutritional instinct:
http://rohkosternaehrung.blogspot.de/2014/04/ernahrungsinstinkt-ade.html (http://rohkosternaehrung.blogspot.de/2014/04/ernahrungsinstinkt-ade.html)
http://rohkosternaehrung.blogspot.de/2014/04/ernahrungsinstinkt-ade-die-zweite.html (http://rohkosternaehrung.blogspot.de/2014/04/ernahrungsinstinkt-ade-die-zweite.html)
These links don’t work anymore.
However, this link (text in German) is up to date: http://frohkost.blogspot.de/2014/06/gibt-es-einen-ernahrungsinstinkt.html (http://frohkost.blogspot.de/2014/06/gibt-es-einen-ernahrungsinstinkt.html)
-
Hi Hanna, Thanks for honestly and courageously sharing your suboptimal results. Some may attack you for doing so, but I find that I learn as much if not more from people who have had suboptimal results as from those who have had good results.
-
Hanna, would you share details?
How / what is you eating now? What was the symptoms that made you change.
-
I eat mainly seafood as my animal food - just as I did in the previous years. In the previous months I ate much more mammal meat than I used to eat. Not sure whether or not this caused symptoms. Symptoms potentially caused by an increased mammal meat intake seem to have disappeared but maybe they would also have disappeared if I had continued my meat consumption as before. Therefore I won´t speculate about that. Currently I don’t like mammal meat anyway (maybe in part because of warm weather) and feel fine and fit without any mammal meat.
-
I am typically affronted by a great wall of honey that would take me over a year to consume. If it has been unavailable for some time I will eat a bunch of gobs of it but generally I eat just a small amount and even forget that it is there, however it certainly helps me to stay alert and focused to eat a small amount throughout the day. Living off of large amounts even with bee brood in it I can't imagine would not soon have dire consequences for my teeth.
-
Stone Age Europeans, such as those of the caves of Altamira, and today's hunter-gatherers, such as the Hadza, gorged/gorge on massive quantities of honey for weeks at a time during peak season (yet another piece of evidence refuting the zero carb myth, BTW), yet no evidence has been found of it causing dental problems. One wonders what the secret of their success was/is? Did/do they have a super-metabolism, a fantastic microbiome, abundant and vigorous mitochondria, much healthier honey, ...? And why do so many of us modern Westerners, in contrast, have problems with many raw honeys?
The Hadza, as I discovered, prize honey above all else in their diet. Hadza mothers wean their young on liquid honey, and during the wet season, particularly the months of February and April, Hadza families gorge for weeks on its sticky sweetness. The men possess an expert knowledge of bees and bee behavior, giving the honeys produced by different species different names. Those who forage for honey figure prominently in Hadza mythology.
And there is indeed something almost magical about the way that Hadza collect honey.
While out hunting, the men listen for the call of a small, robin-size bird known as the greater honeyguide (Indicator indicator.) The bird dines almost entirely on beeswax and bee larvae, but it needs help to crack open hives. So the honeyguide calls to both honey badgers and Hadza hunters. When human hunters whistle back, the bird gradually leads the men by call-and-response song to the nearest colony.
The Hadzas’ favorite type of honey, ba’alako, comes from the hives of the Apis unicolor adansonii, an aggressive species that frequently builds near the top of tall baobab trees. To gather it, the men pound wooden pegs into the tree trunk and climb with burning brush in their hands to smoke out the bees—a dangerous undertaking. One slip can lead to death. When the smoke has finally sedated the bees, the men steal the honey combs and reward the honeyguide with large chunks of beeswax.
Why is honey so crucial to the Hadza? In a recent paper, Alyssa Crittenden, an anthropologist and behavioral ecologist, at the University of Nevada, points out that wild honey is one of nature’s most energy-rich foods. It is 80 to 95 percent sugar and, if left unprocessed, contains both protein and fat from bits of bee larvae. As a rule, hunter-gatherers struggle to find calories: a scoop of honey supplies a huge hit.
In her ethnographic research on honey consumption, Crittenden discovered that human hunters have long targeted bee hives. The artists who painted Altamira cave in what is now Spain some 25,000 years ago, for example, left depictions of bees, honeycombs, and—most amazing of all, in my opinion—honey collection ladders.
The Sweetness of Human Evolution (http://www.lastwordonnothing.com/2012/09/20/the-sweetness-of-human-evolution/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+TheLastWordOnNothing+%28The+Last+Word+On+Nothing%29)
By Heather Pringle | September 20, 2012
I noticed that fermented raw honey causes much less problems for my teeth than other raw honeys, though even with fermented raw honey, I don't handle it as well as Stone Agers and HGs.
-
HGs/Stone-Agers never had access to vast amounts of raw honey. Raw honey would have been a rare treat.
-
HGs/Stone-Agers never had access to vast amounts of raw honey. Raw honey would have been a rare treat.
I dont think honey is meant for human consumption at all. It's far from being like meat where meat is food, has water vitamin and minerals. I get very sick from even a little bit of raw honey fermented or not, once I had so much that I couldn't breathe and had nausea for a whole day. I dont have this problem with any form of sugar except honey. Only fat made me ill like this and rancid fat too, raw meat never disagreed with me in such way. Fat require a strong liver and I believe so does honey.
-
(http://www.lastwordonnothing.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/385px-Cueva_arana1-192x300.jpg) (http://www.lastwordonnothing.com/2012/09/20/the-sweetness-of-human-evolution/)"In her ethnographic research on honey consumption, Crittenden discovered that human hunters have long targeted bee hives. The artists who painted Altamira cave in what is now Spain some 25,000 years ago, for example, left depictions of bees, honeycombs, and—most amazing of all, in my opinion—honey collection ladders. And in Zimbabwe, archaeologists recorded a cave depiction of a human smoking out a beehive. San hunters and gatherers in the region told archaeologists that their ancestors had frequented the cave for nearly 10,000 years." - Heather Pringle, The Sweetness of Human Evolution, September 20, 2012, http://www.lastwordonnothing.com/2012/09/20/the-sweetness-of-human-evolution (http://www.lastwordonnothing.com/2012/09/20/the-sweetness-of-human-evolution)
"Upper Paleolithic rock art from Spain, India, Australia, and southern Africa all illustrate collecting honey. Altamira cave, in Cantabria, Spain, includes depictions of honeycombs, dated approximately 25,000 years ago. The Mesolithic Cueva de la Araña rock shelter, in Valencia Spain, contains depictions of honey collection, bee swarms, and men climbing ladders to get to the bees, at ~10,000 years ago.
Some scholars believe that collecting honey is much earlier than that, since our immediate cousins the primates regularly collect honey on their own. Crittendon has suggested that Lower Paleolithic Oldowan stone tools (2.5 mya) could have been used to split open beehives, and there's no reason that a self-respecting Australopithecine or early Homo could not have done that." - K. Kris Hirst, History of Honey Bees: The Human Management of Apis mellifera, http://archaeology.about.com/od/hterms/qt/Honey-Bees.htm (http://archaeology.about.com/od/hterms/qt/Honey-Bees.htm)
---*---
(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-PUY1zmx1IZk/TfS3lRJvl3I/AAAAAAAAACY/7YhQ9i9NgtM/s320/P1000494.JPG) (http://apvtravels.blogspot.com/2011/02/living-with-hadzabe-in-tanzanias-yaeda.html)"hunting with the Hadza meant walking through brush, across savannahs, up hills and down escarpements from 7 am until 2 pm, which was a short day for them. We saw gazelles, wild boars and baboons, but didn’t catch anything. We’d be in the trail of gazelle, zebra, giraffe, ect., but our guides just kept getting sidetracked by honey! I guess its immediate and guaranteed food whereas the animals are much harder to catch." ("Living with the Hadzabe in Tanzania's Yaeda Valley," http://apvtravels.blogspot.com/2011/02/living-with-hadzabe-in-tanzanias-yaeda.html (http://apvtravels.blogspot.com/2011/02/living-with-hadzabe-in-tanzanias-yaeda.html))
Alyssa Crittenden: How honey helped to make us human… (http://www.thehadzalastofthefirst.com/2012/07/30/alyssa-crittenden-how-honey-helped-to-make-us-human/)
"Foragers in Latin America, Asia, Australia, and Africa include honey and bee larvae as major components of their diet. The Hadza hunter-gatherers of Tanzania, the population with whom I work, even list honey as their number one preferred food item!" - Dr. Elizabeth Gray, http://www.thehadzalastofthefirst.com/2012/07/30/alyssa-crittenden-how-honey-helped-to-make-us-human (http://www.thehadzalastofthefirst.com/2012/07/30/alyssa-crittenden-how-honey-helped-to-make-us-human)
(http://www.thehadzalastofthefirst.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/2_Hadza-honey-hunter-620x628.jpg) (http://www.thehadzalastofthefirst.com/2012/07/30/alyssa-crittenden-how-honey-helped-to-make-us-human/)
(http://www.thehadzalastofthefirst.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/4_-Hadza-honey-620x465.jpg) (http://www.thehadzalastofthefirst.com/2012/07/30/alyssa-crittenden-how-honey-helped-to-make-us-human/)
From "Sex Differences in Food Preferences of Hadza Hunter-Gatherers" (2009. 7(4): 601-616, http://www.epjournal.net/wp-content/uploads/EP07601616.pdf (http://www.epjournal.net/wp-content/uploads/EP07601616.pdf)):
> “The most highly prized components of the Aboriginal hunter-gatherer diet were the relatively few energy-dense foods: depot fat, organ meats, fatty insects and honey” (O’Dea, Jewell, Whiten, Altmann, Strickland, and Oftedal, 1991, p. 238)
> Honey is the most energy dense food in nature (Skinner, 1991), and is highly prized by the Hadza. Honey combs often contain small amounts of bee larvae, which the Hadza consume along with the comb.
> Both males and females ranked honey first [in terms of preference]...
> ethnographers often claim that meat is the most preferred food among foragers (including the Hadza) (Bunn, 2001), yet our empirical data on individual preferences demonstrates that honey is more preferred than meat among the Hadza.
---*---
"The story of Beowulf includes a Mead-Hall called Heorot that was so big and had so much attendant laughter that the monster Grendel broke in and slaughtered the noisemakers." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mead_hall (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mead_hall)
"This Estland [Estonia] is very large and has many fortified settlements, and in each of these there is a king. There is a great deal of honey and fishing." - Wulfstan, Two Voyagers at the court of King Alfred, trans. by Christine E. Fell (York, 1984). https://classesv2.yale.edu/access/content/user/haw6/Vikings/voyagers.html (https://classesv2.yale.edu/access/content/user/haw6/Vikings/voyagers.html)
---*---
(https://static.squarespace.com/static/52e678e9e4b0c97661e7dc2a/52e7e001e4b06914b0374bfe/52e7e187e4b022186f7b859e/1390928265655/086_va78b.jpg?format=1000w)Gurung honey hunter of Nepal with a load of honeycomb.
(https://static.squarespace.com/static/52e678e9e4b0c97661e7dc2a/52e7d30ce4b05ac4d922e194/52e8f17fe4b0bc7aa7261aba/1390997888816/105_val104d.jpg?format=1000w)Raji nomad of Nepal gathering honeycomb.
-
I find it interesting, again and again, how if our 'ancestors' or early man ate something, we think it has to be good for us. I wonder how many here can gorge on honey and come away feeling better. Not more sugared up, but better in overall health. I know I never could, even in my high fruit years. I thought I could though. I see honey as really no different than candy in a candy shop for children or for that matter adults. Most can't resist. But we think if it's natural, we can eat all we want. We think the same of protein too, especially if it's grass fed... And really why would these simple peoples even think about resisting eating all they could? It is so pleasurable to eat, period.
But back to Tyler's assertion, about there not being vast amounts of honey.... I don't know how large a tribe or community those men are bring back comb to, and actually how often they can go out into the forests and find it? those really are a few of the important questions. Also how much exercise did they expend to search it out, versus us who simply mail order on line etc. Doug Graham, only gets away with eating sugar all day, Durian Rider too, because he's constantly exercising.
-
I find it interesting, again and again, how if our 'ancestors' or early man ate something, we think it has to be good for us.
Isn’t the very basic principle of paleo diets to allow the consumption of all the foods possibly and probably eaten by our paleo-ancestors, excluding foods unavailable then?
I understand this is based on the fact that we are extremely likely adapted to foods eaten by our ancestors during millions years.
-
Isn’t the very basic principle of paleo diets to allow the consumption of all the foods possibly and probably eaten by our paleo-ancestors, excluding foods unavailable then?
I understand this is based on the fact that we are extremely likely adapted to foods eaten by our ancestors during millions years.
I don't think we can assume with certainty that just because our Paleo-ancestors ate a food that we can eat it without ill effects today. That would be blind Paleo re-enactment, which I reject in my avatar text. The evidence we have about the diets of our ancestors are clues, rough templates, starting points, rather than detailed prescriptions for optimal diets today.
And really why would these simple peoples even think about resisting eating all they could? It is so pleasurable to eat, period.
Exactly, and to eat their fill (in season, of course, among nomadic peoples) instead of just a smidgeon or two would be quite Instincto. In light of your point, how anyone could think that they ate little or no honey and never gorged on it or think honey is not meant for human consumption at all is a mystery.
I don't know how large a tribe or community those men are bring back comb to,
Are you aware that honey-hunters reportedly typically eat their fill before bringing honeycomb back to a camp?
The real question isn't whether HG's eat their fill of honey when available (I don't know of a single credible scientist who claims they don't), it's how they apparently tolerate it better than many of us, if the reports are accurate. Figure that out and it may provide interesting clues about how to improve our own health.
-
The real question isn't whether HG's eat their fill of honey when available (I don't know of a single credible scientist who claims they don't), it's how they apparently tolerate it better than many of us, if the reports are accurate. Figure that out and it may provide interesting clues about how to improve our own health.
The real answer could well be that they have eaten fewer processed carbs (bread, pasta, refined sugar, cooked potatoes, etc.) in their lives than most of us and therefore eating wild honey doesn’t trigger nasty detox symptoms on them.
We should be aware that feeling bad after consuming the proper amount of a fine tasting unprocessed food which was certainly eaten by our ancestors during millions years doesn’t necessarily mean that this food is bad for us. Activating a detox is certainly a favorable thing for our long term health, even if we feel somehow unwell at the moment.
This is a general recurrent misinterpretation on here because it’s difficult to distinguish between useful detox and real harm. It’s completely erroneous to assume that detox only occurs during the few first months: experiments on animals have shown that it lasts roughly the same period as the duration of the previous intoxination. That means 6 months of processed food will be followed by 6 months of (decreasing) detox symptoms; 30 years of intox, roughly 30 years of (less and less) noticeable detox. But punctual strong detox symptoms can still happen after several years of raw paleo diet, following the consumption of an unusual food which trigger the elimination of a particular class of noxious molecules ingested decades earlier.
Other points are that all commercial bee honeys, even certified unheated, have been somehow overheated at least in small part of it, for example with a hot plunger which doesn’t overheat the mass of the honey but only the tiny layer surrounding it. Also, most bee hives are fed industrial refined sucrose.
-
I don't think we can assume with certainty that just because our Paleo-ancestors ate a food that we can eat it without ill effects today. That would be blind Paleo re-enactment, which I reject in my avatar text. The evidence we have about the diets of our ancestors are clues, rough templates, starting points, rather than detailed prescriptions for optimal diets today.
Exactly, and to eat their fill (in season, of course, among nomadic peoples) instead of just a smidgeon or two would be quite Instincto. In light of your point, how anyone could think that they ate little or no honey and never gorged on it or think honey is not meant for human consumption at all is a mystery.
Are you aware that honey-hunters reportedly typically eat their fill before bringing honeycomb back to a camp?
The real question isn't whether HG's eat their fill of honey when available (I don't know of a single credible scientist who claims they don't), it's how they apparently tolerate it better than many of us, if the reports are accurate. Figure that out and it may provide interesting clues about how to improve our own health.
And the debate continues,,
Ah thanks, then you answered your own question; with a little (unknowing) help from Iguana. In your excerpts, they write how they traveled for hours just to get to the honey, and then presumably hours to get back to camp. Phil when is the last time you walked that far for some honey and tested the effects of honey on your insulin/blood sugar? Another point, how in the world do you know either way as to any effect of large amounts of honey on these people? I'm not reading where there's anyone doing insulin/leptin resistant tests before and after, and not to mention comparing those that did gorge vs. those that didn't gorge after ten or twenty years of gorging or not gorging. This may sound absorb, but in truth it's their own bodies that are doing the testing. I know when I was doing Instincto, doing WAI diet, I felt fine, even great for a while. And the degradation that took place, little by little, over time, was so subtle, that it was very hard to notice; that being sugar and insulin abuse to an already insulin sensitive body as mine.
Which brings me to Iguana's contribution ( of which I doubt seriously he will again not want to open Pandora's box). The processed foods he listed are also some of the highest in creating insulin sensitivity and hence diabetes... He describes it as detox. I think my 42 years eating raw now puts me out of the raw carb or sugar detox suspicion. Yes, about 25 years ago, I did go through some latent raw protein detox (as I've mentioned here at least a couple of times).
So, Phil if you're looking ways to incorporate large amounts of honey in your diet, may I suggest burning a thousand plus calories as exercise in the process, and keep us informed if your RS is all you need to eat all the honey you want and not effect long term insulin/leptin resistance and hence hormonal damage due to blood sugar swings.
The other point not mentioned in your excerpts is how often do they find honey in copious amounts to be able to gorge? Is it once a day, or once a week, or once a month.... People who tend to abuse their systems with sugar tend to do it daily if not several times a day. When I was in High School and played football, I'll never forget the night part of the team that I hung out with went to a Swedish smorgasbord. We all had three HEAPING plates of the main meal, and then just as many plates of desserts, believing that the more we ate, the more we'd weigh and have more energy the next day. The amazing thing was, back then, at 18, there was No real discernible effect. Let anyone here try that now (not the football game part) and see how they feel the next day. I only mention this to again point out, how absorb it is to assume that those who gorge on honey at the honey tree aren't or are harming themselves, short or long term.
-
In your excerpts, they write how they traveled for hours just to get to the honey, and then presumably hours to get back to camp. Phil when is the last time you walked that far for some honey and tested the effects of honey on your insulin/blood sugar?
That's the point. They may find a lot of honey, but they have to spend a lot of calories, do a lot of exercise to get it (or to survive in general). At least in the long term.
-
Which brings me to Iguana's contribution ( of which I doubt seriously he will again not want to open Pandora's box). The processed foods he listed are also some of the highest in creating insulin sensitivity and hence diabetes... He describes it as detox.
?? I don’t understand what you mean. Do you mean that I said eating those processed foods triggers detox?! ???
Sure, hunters-gatherers spend a lot of energy to get some food, be it meat, honey or whatever and it would be ideal for our health if we had to do the same. Anyway, I seriously doubt that anyone, either a million years ago or nowadays, would be able to eat huge amounts of unprocessed totally raw honey everyday during months and years!
-
The real question isn't whether HG's eat their fill of honey when available (I don't know of a single credible scientist who claims they don't), it's how they apparently tolerate it better than many of us, if the reports are accurate. Figure that out and it may provide interesting clues about how to improve our own health.
There is nothing to figure out. Hunter-gather paleolithic man in their prime must have had a suburb enzymatic capacity to devour and metabolize large portions of honey intermittently. HG man lived much in the same way that the bears lived. Foraging constantly, living primarily off of meat and foliage, and when they found high carb foods such as berry patches and honey combs periodically, they had the ability to gorge without any long-term ill effects.
It would be interesting to test the primitive man after consuming a pound of honey compared to the average modern urban dweller. Do they get a huge Bs spike, or a carb crash. Do they sleep it off lazily and convert the excess into stored fat like bears or does it give them energy that they burn off with increased physical activity?
-
Interesting posts, folks. Most of the factors mentioned above do seem plausible and occurred to me as well, with none seeming to be the entire answer. I suspect that multiple factors are at work. Sabertooth's questions are ones I've thought about and am particularly interested to see scientific investigation into.
-
Updates concerning myself:
Well, to be honest, I have reduced (and currently cancelled) my mammal meat consumption again for several reasons.
The mammal meat stored in a fridge in the basement has meanwhile turned into stone. I will certainly eat meat again in the future, but for now, I haven’t been motivated to do so. The reasons why I stopped to eat meat are described here (in German only): http://frohkost.blogspot.de/2013/10/sind-probleme-im-zusammenhang-mit.html (http://frohkost.blogspot.de/2013/10/sind-probleme-im-zusammenhang-mit.html)
The main reason in short: a return of allergic symptoms which stopped after I had stopped to eat meat.
-
too bad it's in German, anyone care to give a general idea in english what's said. I don't know what you mean by stone. I'm wondering if this is more of a 'head' concept you're going through? It's pretty easy to want to believe what we want to. Also I question as to how much meat you were eating at one meal? More and more it's evident to me at least of how little meat protein I need at one meal, the rest being a burden on my system. You might care to experiment by eat quite a bit less.
-
too bad it's in German, anyone care to give a general idea in english what's said.
Not much, because I know nothing for sure.
I don't know what you mean by stone.
I didn't eat the meat stored in the fridge for months (because I didn't eat any meat), therefore the meat became hard like stone.
I always ate very little meat compared to what others (e. g. instinctos) eat. I have never been a "big eater".
-
A HCLF member of the Mark's Daily Apple forum has become so inundated with questions and pleas for help from chronic VLCers (granted, they aren't rawists) that she created a link to a spreadsheet of her diet. More and more people there, and even at the Low Carb Friends forum, are adding back carbs into their diets, including starchy plant foods. A Carnivore forum changed its name after more and more people started developing problems on VLC, including the forum owner, and the activity dwindled. The ZIOH forum dwindled from over a thousand members down to around 100, the last I checked some time ago. A moderator on a ketogenic diet forum reported improvements when he increased his intake of resistant starch:
http://freetheanimal.com/2014/08/australian-reaction-ketogenic.html#comment-645468 (http://freetheanimal.com/2014/08/australian-reaction-ketogenic.html) (see the comment at August 19, 2014 at 08:59).
It's more evidence that the problems we've seen here over the last few years are only the tip of the iceberg. If anyone is still unaware of them, I've already posted plenty about them in this forum. I predict that there will be lots more to come as more chronic VLCers experience serious longer-term problems, though with luck, maybe many will start adding back carbs and prebiotics in time to avoid the worst problems.
More and more info has been coming out that LC advocates don't talk about--such as that some cancer cells and fungi can feed off of ketones, not just glucose, and that not all cancers respond well to ketogenic diets.
There were early warning signs about the problems years ago when GCB's wife died of cancer and later when people doing the LCHF "Optimal Diet" started developing stomach and colon cancers, yet many LCers dismissed it. http://perfecthealthdiet.com/category/diets/optimal-diet (http://perfecthealthdiet.com/category/diets/optimal-diet)
There were so many other clues too--Bear Stanley getting throat cancer (and blaming it on some broccoli his mother made him eat as a child l) ), Vilhjalmur Stefansson dying of his third stroke after 7 years of a meat-heavy diet, Stefansson himself reporting that traditional Eskimos aged rapidly, an autopsy of Dr. Atkins showing he had "a history of heart attack, congestive heart failure and hypertension," http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Atkins_(nutritionist) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Atkins_(nutritionist),), and on and on.
Part of the problem seems to be that many people do the lowest carb early versions of the OD or Atkins or Primal Blueprint that are intended to be temporary, until one gets relatively lean and calms down the immune system, and then instead of adding back foods rich in digestible and resistant carbs down the road, they stick with VLC, sometimes even zero starch or zero carb, for too long. They figure if LC is good, then VLC or even no carb must be better, and since they feel good, why not stick with it indefinitely. But then problems develop years down the road. Forewarned is forearmed.
Another part of the problem was that early Paleoanthropological research focused on evidence of meat eating, because the bones of animals were so easily found. Since then, more sophisticated technology is revealing that Stone Agers ate plenty of plant foods, including starchy plant foods, even Neanderthals, which Tyler posted some interesting articles about.
There's also the problem for some of the self-fulfilling prophecy that Tyler wrote about, which can become a vicious cycle (avoid carbs, which worsens carb tolerance, which seems to further justify avoiding carbs, ...):
It is a common characteristic of people that when they turn to ZC diets, that their whole body's digestive system changes in fundamental ways(re different enzymes/bacteria being needed etc.) so that they then lose their ability to digest carbs properly. The result is that they then claim that all carbs are evil. I had the same experience when I went VLC(hardly any carbs at all) for many months at a time. I would develop minor side-effects from eating carbs or not be able to properly digest them - of course, as soon as I went back to eating a diet slightly higher in carbs, those issues vanished quickly and completely.
Unfortunately, not everyone's issues vanish as quickly and completely as they did for Tyler when carbs are added back, which can mislead folks into thinking that they should avoid carbs forever and that maybe they just aren't genetically designed for them, instead of digging deeper and trying to figure out and fix the underlying problems that are causing the carb sensitivity.
I think eating plenty of raw foods may help reduce the risks from VLC, but not eliminate them. Plus, in the case of underweight and eating disorders, raw diets tend to be even harder for many people to get adequate calories from in this fast-paced age. FWIW, There's even one anecdote (which I'll share in the interests of open-minded examination--not likely to be popular here, sorry) in which a guy who has been tracking dietary effects on his microbiome found that including some cooked and cooled starchy foods in his diet provided better results than eating only raw starches. It's a whole new field of science, so who knows what we may learn.
There do seem to be some cases where VLC/ketogenic diets can be therapeutic, at least in the short run (ketogenic diets to treat epilepsy are typically not done for more than 3 years by Johns Hopkins, for example), and the new information about the microbiome and prebiotics seems to be leading to safer versions of it, but it's probably best to be monitored by a physician while doing it, and to be aware of the early signs and symptoms of problems.
-
Let them taste durian and they will embrace these carbs! :)
No time to do vlc when durian is around.
-
Lolol "no time for vlc when durian is around"....that is for sure. oh durian. <3 <3 <3
-
Durian is divine.
I would still never eat it in winter (Europe) or in fact... not much at all because I live so far north
too much sugar for my latitude
-
That's true Inger, it always feels best to eat based on where one lives in my experience.
I'm in the southeastern US right now somewhat close to the equater soooooo durian isn't like toooo far off haha. Oh jeez though, once I start eating it I don't want to stop lol and it's quite caloric, and expensive. Lol
But so so delicious
-
Yes it's uncanny how seemingly addictive it is. I do believe in my reading I came across some articles that talked about some of the compounds found in Durian that elicit a high..
When I have traveled to the east, and have found it readily available, It's all I want. So it's hard to say if it's beneficial for me or not, because I simply eat so much. I have read it does pose a high insulin load for some, and hence is not advised for diabetics. But I think if I had one last meal to eat, I would chose it over any food, period.
-
i am eating pizza right now! is durian really that good? :)
-
I could totally see that durian could give a type of high, the first time I really are and enjoyed it I definitely felt super energized and dancey and giggly lol.
And though they are very different flavors, durian definitely beats pizza by like infinite amounts lol. I haven't had pizza since I was like 14 lol but from what I remember...durian allllll the way :)
-
plus durian comes in many varieties... and i like them all...
-
Thank you for the overview, Phil. When I ate meat regularly, I didn’t eat (much) less carbs than before and never VLC. Maybe I ate a bit less prebiotics. However, I guess something else was the problem.
-
i am eating pizza right now! is durian really that good? :)
Pizza seems to be a learned desire through advertising.
Yes, durian is that good, people go out of their way to buy it. And really spend for it. They line up for it.
When my kids were small at 5, 3 and 2... my 3 year old boy felt the partitioning of durian amongst them siblings was unfair, he cried out in a raging tantrum and swiped all the chinaware (with the durians) off the table. I had to smack his bottom until he awoke from his rage.
-
A fair amount of people cannot stand durians. Not to pick a fight...just a fact.
It is like the funky fermented tufu in China. Most Chinese love it. Many foreigners cannot stand the smell.
-
most who don't like it eat a lot of processed foods, and alcohol or beer drinkers are known not to like it. but of course not a rule.
-
Nice hypothesis there Van,
I think liking durian is partly genetic. The first time I smelled durian I searched for it in the house until I found it. I was maybe 10 years old and I instantly loved it.
My 3 kids all like durian.
-
My father loved durians. I don't. My father drank wine a little bit. I don't. He ate "normal." I am more of a health nut. Haha. Let us drop the debate.
-
Joy I'll be curious that when you've truly found your way into raw pale... what ever that really might mean, whether your tastes change. Also there are Durians and then there are Durians. I know I can smell what other's find objectional, but it's not offensive. A also have this 'theory' that the smell can heavily influence the idea of it being tasty ( and again, I'm speaking of the really good Durians). Ok, over and out
-
Durians are too expensive anyway--in Texas.
-
Concerning meat and bee brood, I’m a bit concerned now because of
(1) lead fragments in wild game meat (see http://www.nps.gov/pinn/naturescience/leadinfo.htm (http://www.nps.gov/pinn/naturescience/leadinfo.htm) and http://www.ct.gov/deep/cwp/view.asp?a=2700&q=452732&depNav_GID=1633 (http://www.ct.gov/deep/cwp/view.asp?a=2700&q=452732&depNav_GID=1633))
(2) pesticide pollution of bee brood (which is fed with pollen).
(In German: http://frohkost.blogspot.de/2013/10/wie-isst-du-fisch-fleisch-innereien.html (http://frohkost.blogspot.de/2013/10/wie-isst-du-fisch-fleisch-innereien.html) see "Ergänzung")
-
In June 2014 I wrote:
Well, to be honest, I have reduced (and currently cancelled) my mammal meat consumption again for several reasons.
In September 2014 I wrote:
I will certainly eat meat again in the future, but for now, I haven’t been motivated to do so. (…) The main reason (why I stopped to eat meat) in short: a return of allergic symptoms which stopped after I had stopped to eat meat.
Another feedback from me: I (still) don’t eat mammal meat anymore and I’m pleased with the results so far. For example, I haven't noticed pollen allergy symptoms anymore. I do eat shellfish and fish regularly, sometimes bone marrow, but virtually no mammal meat, liver or the like anymore.
-
Congrats. There are lots of apparently healthy seafood-eating cultures, such as the Sentinelese that we coincidentally recently discussed, so you're in good company there. What else do you eat?
-
Hi Phil,
- vegetables, including greens, seaweed, lentils, carrot juice etc., on a nearly daily basis,
- nuts, which are a staple food of mine, including coconuts and seeds (such as shelled hempseed),
- fruit at least several times a week, although I don’t eat much (sugar from) sweet fruit and don’t eat any acidic fruit,
- almost no honey,
- animal food at least several times a week, although mostly in small portions,
- high quality fats, which is much more important to me than spending my money on sweet expensive tropical fruits,
- no mixing of different foods,
- exclusively raw food since 2004.
-
Sir, I just tried to eat from the plant world the last week and paid the price greatly. It is like their toxins spread into my blood and my body sags. My stomach feels so twisted, my thoughts turned very depressed, I feel like I lost all my progress. I am a fool for being scared out of eating as a carnivore but now I also feel anger. Do not spread propaganda, we are all unique and I see others who stand up for ZC shut down.
-
Sir, I just tried to eat from the plant world the last week and paid the price greatly. It is like their toxins spread into my blood and my body sags. My stomach feels so twisted, my thoughts turned very depressed, I feel like I lost all my progress. I am a fool for being scared out of eating as a carnivore but now I also feel anger. Do not spread propaganda, we are all unique and I see others who stand up for ZC shut down.
I'm sorry you feel that ZC is being shut down.
Invite all ZC practitioners to post more on ZC section... that is why it is there.
My wife is having teeth problems and I'm pointing her to very low carb and temporary zc.
-
Sir, I just tried to eat from the plant world the last week and paid the price greatly. It is like their toxins spread into my blood and my body sags. My stomach feels so twisted, my thoughts turned very depressed, I feel like I lost all my progress.
To find the „right“ raw plants to eat you should make use of the alliesthetic signals which were described bei G. C. Burger. Do you know his theories?
-
No, I just went by taste and smell. Ending up liking fruit. What kinda signals?
-
Meanwhile, I don’t doubt any longer that a diet without mammal meat is the healthier choice.
However, I also think it is important not to eat too much polyunsaturated fatty acids as found in many native (as opposed to tropical) plant sources of fat.