Paleo Diet: Raw Paleo Diet and Lifestyle Forum
Raw Paleo Diet to Suit You => Instincto / Anopsology => Topic started by: goodsamaritan on June 21, 2010, 08:19:08 am
-
The Instincto forum is meant primarily for discussing the Instincto diet in a positive, constructive way and that anti-Instincto posts should be made in the Hot Topics forum.
Thank you for the wonderful discussions, we just need to tidy up things.
-
The Instincto forum is meant primarily for discussing the Instincto diet in a positive, constructive way and that anti-Instincto posts should be made in the Hot Topics forum.
Thank you for the wonderful discussions, we just need to tidy up things.
OK, GS no problem. Let's "thrive" the instinctos here. :)
I suggest the moderators put all my posts removed by Iguana in a hot topics thread entitled "Instincto debunking". Maybe some forumers are interested in a really independant, not pro-instincto moderated thread. Maybe I'll sometimes contribute to it.
-
I won’t remove your posts, Alphagruis, as long as they are free from personal attacks, slander, insults and defamation. Well argued and polite critiques are welcome.
If you can’t refrain from slander, try to group it somewhere in your post in such a way that we can delete it selectively while we keep the courteous and interesting part of the post.
;)
-
GCB is clearly on the defense
I don’t think he has the choice, since he has nothing to attack in Alphagruis stance or your stance: the views of both of you are contained within the instincto theory, they are an intrinsic part of it. GCB’s theory includes raw paleo, it includes Weston Price findings and all that. In addition to be the first (as far as know) to see the problems with animal milk and grain in human diet, GCB also introduced the new idea that humans still have an alimentary instinct (nobody seriously contest that animals do not eat according to a particular nutritionist’s dietary ideology, but follow their instinct) and a new model of the viral phenomenon, as well as a new way of considering the contagious bacterial diseases.
So, if you and Alphagruis think the part of GCB theories about a human alimentary instinct should be abandoned, you revert in direction of usual beliefs and you don’t bring anything new to specifically attack.
and not responding to actual points but merely criticizing or ignoring forum members based on the same bs idea that people haven't experienced this refined quality. This is not at all an argument and could be used for any idea to 'convince' without true proof from ideas as varried as immortality to Scientology. and yet no one can say why animals eat whatever food I give them that is remotely natural and even sometimes otherwise? I see the same return on crappy birdfeed from birds, night creatures will continue to eat garbage (although the cooking here upsets their natural sense of smell). and whatever meat I dispose of there seems to disappear and even the rotten eggs and high egg I have thrown out with the compost. no one responded to the fact that animals routinely die of eating poison through natural means, and its quite easy to poison an animal with chemicals.
KD, I’m afraid the principles of instinctive nutrition haven’t been clearly and sufficiently defined here and are misunderstood.
I understand (but perhaps I’m wrong) that you take the fact that animals (as well as humans) will poison themselves with our garbage, chemicals, junk food or cooked food, as implying that their instinct doesn’t work in a way to provide them the best means to survival and health.
But the fact is that our alimentary instinct is induced in error by food processing, cooking, mixing and every artificial process that couldn’t be found in the environment before mankind mastered the fire and began to spread havoc all over.
You’re likely to retort that there must always have been some food overheated or even cooked, for example on rocks exposed to sunlight and in case of volcanic eruption or forests fires. That’s true, but it happens too rarely for the animals feeding occasionally on overheated foodstuffs in such opportunities to be so disadvantaged as to die before being able to reproduce. Even after humans began to use cooking on a large scale, the health troubles induced didn’t prevent most of the individuals to survive long enough to reproduce. Therefore the selective pressure has been too weak to provide us an adequate adaptation, instinct wise as well as long term health wise. So, the problem remains that our instinct is fooled by overheated food and every recent (recent on the evolutionary timescale) process invented by man.
Hence, we have to use our conceptual intelligence to avoid the ingestion of all processed stuff in order to allow our alimentary instinct to work properly. Animals can’t be thought that, so they fall in the trap at the first occasion. By the way, our nutritionists did not catch it yet neither!
For the other points, I fear you are in full speculative mode. Observations and experimentations are more suited to approach the reality.
-
OK, GS no problem. Let's "thrive" the instinctos here. :)
I suggest the moderators put all my posts removed by Iguana in a hot topics thread entitled "Instincto debunking". Maybe some forumers are interested in a really independant, not pro-instincto moderated thread. Maybe I'll sometimes contribute to it.
Alphagruis,
I am unaware of the exact intentions of GS or other moderators. But it seems obvious to me that the point here is not to vindicate the instinctive nutrition as you cannot stop to insinuate.
It is on the contrary very simply a case of explaining it BEFORE criticizing it. It is indeed impossible to usefully criticize a theory not understood, or of which minor parts are extracted and the essential parts occulted, or which is paraphrased as you do it.
Open two threads, one for explanations the other for systematic criticisms is thus perfectly reasonable and will allow to move forward instead of turning in circles as it was unfortunately the case until now.
However, I think critical questions highlighting contradictions, an error, an incomplete formulation or another defect of the theory remain perfectly possible in this thread. What is undesirable here, in my opinion, are the unfounded, obsessional, abusive, defamatory attacks you seem found of.
It is thus not question of transforming this thread into an apology of instinctive nutrition, but in serene explanation and objective criticism. In my opinion, the other thread should be dedicated to all the visceral and emotional attacks that can’t be answered in a rational way.
-
I understand (but perhaps I’m wrong) that you take the fact that animals (as well as humans) will poison themselves with our garbage, chemicals, junk food or cooked food, as implying that their instinct doesn’t work in a way to provide them the best means to survival and health.
But the fact is that our alimentary instinct is induced in error by food processing, cooking, mixing and every artificial process that couldn’t be found in the environment before mankind mastered the fire and began to spread havoc all over.
The fact that you are grouping my ideas into such simple assumption at this point - that it is only talking about cooked foods or things in our modern environment I don't see as honest. I already said many times in reference to PEOPLE OR ANIMALS that have artificial foods of natural origin at their disposal (at level far less impressive then our current arsenal in stockpiling choices) and are not actually working for - or are capable (because of dietary and lifestyle choices) to - actually acquire these foods like running down a boar. you arn't addressing the actual points and and answering like a politician using the simplest explanations to counter things I'm not even talking about. please address 1.) the issue of the bison meat, 2.) the issue of the wild animals with unlimited effortless access to 100% the natural foods that you as an instincto might choose and accumulate to decide between. 3.) the fact that what I selected in bold applies to both their natural environment and our own 4.) the presence of natural poison and animal death is well known. And 5.) if relatively pure wild animals cannot make 100% decisions for their health and choose any number of natural things (lets keep it to that for now) then humans have no genuine sense of choice in choosing between apples and oranges, pumelos and peaches, and arachnids and salmon as far as getting the best nutrients to get their proper micro or macronutrients for that moment (even if the end results is acceptable). These may be meaningless to you or an animal, but the very essence of this idea is that it is of highest value over any artificial system for any goal. The system has no value if it can't outdo what is clearly saying is inferior ways of choosing foods, that is the sticking point.
If you are insinuating that they entire world has at some degree gone crazy (which I might agree) that is even more proof that we need to step in with our minds if animals will foolishly stumble into all manner of bad habits given artificial choices. I think I said with myself that I seem to respond poorly to animals fed grain or foods sprayed with chemicals and reject them, and yet animals do not even in their raw state. Obviously the mechanism here is not completely instinct but knowledge that a food is bad and that better food is possible and I will not starve, luxury that an animal does not have.
I have not once tried to defy the existence of alimentary instinct in this conversation. What I'm saying is in animals even in their own context this does not lead to their best nutrition and that animals DO have desires that can be upset and certainly by unnatural circumstances like abundance and every other thing I have listed. the idea that their system has an innate sense of excess does not prove that they don't go beyond what is necessary for nutrition on a daily basis and make poor overall choices especially in lack. Therefore there are improvements to be made OR destroyed through education and abundance.
To me these are reasonable questions and if they cannot be answered than that proves there is some speculation or intellect driving its pursuit rather than results. The idea that these questions are insults from ignorance, is just absurd, coming from the fact that I know I have far more experience (not just knowledge) than anyone 'off the street' that might stumble on this thread in these matters. I can come up with tons of examples of systems of diet or otherwise that are 'working' for all kinds of people and they would equally say try this for two years and see (cough cough Doug Graham) . This is not an acceptable form of argument. I'm not doubting anyone's health as already noted and some ideas I agree cannot be grasped intellectually, but this ideas is not even being used efficiently by animals?
I'm reposting to clarify what I said about the bison meat and so forth, also to illustrate how selectively you answered these points.
I'm still waiting n the bear, would he eat more? more fish? more honey? the same as if he acquired it all himself?
but are you also saying we are closest to chimps? and that your desires become pure, so how is it instinctos pick foods that are less likely to be consumed by chimps or savages? They should taste/smell better, brains and liver should always taste/smell better to muscle meats unless we have over-sufficiency of those nutrients.
I've tried to give a number of examples of what I mean. What I am saying is pretty much all wild animals do not decided between foods based entirely on what is best to eat, I'm not speaking about some holy grail of health with the word 'optimal'. I've written the same thing 10 different ways and not got one single response.
I mentioned in one of my first responses about inscintos I knew that wouldn't eat from domesticated animals and therefore had to use their human resources and brain to fly in other kinds of foods, and you said that is unlikely that people ate this way, and yet the conversation has turned to exactly that the effects of purely wild non-store bought foods -that people are still not acquiring with their own resources - as being the only efficient tool to know this mechanism. how is it possible that according to you at least all of the animal kingdom is potentially food for humans, but no matter what the weight or difficulty in catching the animal, it can be totally possible that the bodies innate desire -not at all distorted by inactivity and size -would naturally in its optimal condition crave .25 lb or bison meat per day: without refrigeration, or idea that another bison would come by or be obtained so easily for the next minute portion?
In other words you talk about your instinct preventing you from eating harmful foods like grass, but you have not adequately explained how the body actually get the proper (best) ratio of nutrition either per individual or per human race by simply deciphering what is not food, which seems to be the only ability we can agree on that animals practice. The issue in question is how can you decide how much meat, fruit etc..if you are not even aquireing all within nature, and if given an abundance even an animal would not hesitate to 'jeopardize' its health and wander from this ideal ratio in such a way to eat of less quality or a less needed food that was artificial available. In other words even if the sense is clear, how do you know your requirements are not limited by the environment or being dictated by distorted sense of need or intrinsic desire for tasty foods that might be limited in availability (for instance honey).
GCB is clearly on the defense and not responding to actual points but merely criticizing or ignoring forum members based on the same bs idea that people haven't experienced this refined quality. This is not at all an argument and could be used for any idea to 'convince' without true proof from ideas as varied as immortality to Scientology. and yet no one can say why animals eat whatever food I give them that is remotely natural and even sometimes otherwise? I see the same return on crappy birdfeed from birds, night creatures will continue to eat garbage (although the cooking here upsets their natural sense of smell). and whatever meat I dispose of there seems to disappear and even the rotten eggs and high egg I have thrown out with the compost. no one responded to the fact that animals routinely die of eating poison through natural means, and its quite easy to poison an animal with chemicals.
I myself have what seems to be innate taste and smell preferences to foods with pesticides and or fed poor diets, and yet wild or domesticated animals (which you say have that innate sense of what they are) do not. They will continue coming back for whatever food is upsetting their natural ratio as long as it is available. They might have some sense of when this eventually becomes in dangerous zones or deficiencies, but its far from what is needed to decipher what is ideal. There is no need to define what is ideal or how far all of us are from it for that to be a clear departure.
or my other examples of a Bear's natural habitat was suddenly replaced by tanks of fish and tanks of honey, or a wild boar inside of your kitchen. I guess these examples are too silly no matter how true to Mr. Burger to consider.
in raw paleo philosophy on this board as I understand it and has even voiced by many moderators is that the philosophy is not based on estimating exactly how our ancestors ate to get their results, but using our knowledge to get the best approaches for ourselves. Even if we can not surpass them due to inheritance and posion of our external and internal environment, it is totally feasible (other than the issue of food quality) to surpass the ways in which they eat nutrtionally through knowledge and lifestyle as well as possibly artificial factors..
-
I don't see how it is physically possible to emulate or surpass the pristine diet of our raw, palaeolithic ancestors. I mean, they all had access to 100% raw wild game/wildcaught seafood/wild plants etc. No artificial means or supplements could ever equal what foods they had re quality.
As for wild animals, they are subject to different pressures re survival etc. They have to eat whatever's available, no matter how bland or useless it might be - and with human predation on animals' ecosystem, the choices re foods left to animals are pretty poor. Plus, cooked/processed foods contain opioids in them which cause addiction among humans and animals(only raw dairy has opioids like that, among raw foods).
-
Re: Explain INstincto Diet Fully
« Reply #122 on: Yesterday at 04:14:30 PM »from Paleophil
GCB, what if any influences did inspire you all those years ago when you came up with your ideas that people call Instincto?
Not easy to answer that… -\ A brain is under all kinds of influences, and very often under the influence of data not perceived consciously. But anyway, I’ll try to somehow describe these rather animated early developments.
The first influence, which marked the greatest turning point in my existence, was the lymphoblastic sarcoma that left me with only 20% chances of survival for next 5 years in 1961. I became aware of the illusion that are the majority of human activities, of the importance of health and the urgency to try to understand the reasons of the existence of diseases like cancer.
Another influence was undoubtedly that of the theoretical physics, which fascinated me and that I had taught as an assistant in the previous years :o: I kept from it a particular love for the axiomatic and logic of reasoning, which drove me to seek a model of reasoning as rational as possible concerning health. Thus I was quite naturally brought to blame the food: all our biology functions on the basis of molecules; the main source of molecules in our body comes obviously from food. It is therefore necessary to wonder which are the molecular factors likely to be reflected on health.
A third influence was a coincidence: I noted that a red cabbage that I had kept along an extended journey to USA changed taste according to the state of my body. I concluded that there were gustatory mechanisms (called today “alliesthesic”) that could correspond to the body needs. It’s true that during several years, this red cabbage remained like a kind of Damocles Sword above my still conventional dietetic concepts. If there are mechanisms ensuring the variation of sensory perceptions according to the body needs, the very basic principles of dietetics become null and void. Any external regulation can only take account of the average needs in a given population, and not of the individual needs and their variations in time.
I was also under the influence of experimental physics. Each statement must be checked empirically, and it is certainly this frame of mind which pushed me to make several kinds of experiments with animals, then on myself, then all kinds of observations on the relationship between food and health, all this during several years. Therefore I managed to define, on the one hand the concept of alimentary instinct, on the other hand that of molecular denaturation, and a whole series of rules which proved to be necessary so that the perceptive variations (thus the language of the body) can achieve its goal: an optimal nutritional balance.
Other influences: vegetarians who contacted me, at a time when I thought that animal foodstuff were suspicious -v. But this influence didn’t last since I quickly could note, simply by the play of the alliesthesic mechanisms, that raw animal food is essential for a correct nutritional balance. Eggs, fish, meat took an odor and a savor more and more attracting, and the experiments showed that their balanced contribution was capital for a correct operation of the human organism.
There was also the influence of the opponents, who often attacked me in a very visceral way -d, and sometimes pushed me to take too intransigent positions. But I believe that the influence of my studies of physics, mathematics and psychology have helped me to keep a position as objective as possible and to react rather calmly to the often aberrant attacks my ideas are regularly the object.
It makes me think of another factor: I always adored the philosophy of sciences, and this taught me to take a step back and look at the subject from a broader perspective in face of the often aggressive and destructive reaction by which novel ideas are received. I draw from these harassments two conclusions: either my ideas are truly aberrant and I must revise them or even give them up; or else my ideas are too new, too hard to understand, too difficult to put into practice.
That shows once again Max Planck was right: "A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it." -X
-
I don't see how it is physically possible to emulate or surpass the pristine diet of our raw, palaeolithic ancestors. I mean, they all had access to 100% raw wild game/wildcaught seafood/wild plants etc. No artificial means or supplements could ever equal what foods they had re quality.
As for wild animals, they are subject to different pressures re survival etc. They have to eat whatever's available, no matter how bland or useless it might be - and with human predation on animals' ecosystem, the choices re foods left to animals are pretty poor. Plus, cooked/processed foods contain opioids in them which cause addiction among humans and animals(only raw dairy has opioids like that, among raw foods).
I can't tell if you miss-read what I wrote or are agreeing with me. In nature there is often -but not always- a balance of foods producing proper health. But those ratios even in the most pure environment arn't necessarily going to be the absolute best and not all food decisions are going to be based on what is the best. In todays world its all three things (quality, inheritance, abundance/lack) stacked against us, but given a primitive or animal in a theoretical experiment, its still possible to improve or jeopardize their health by altering the types of foods in accordance with various ratios. this is what I meant by artifical and nutritional.
For us because of these factors, it makes far more sense within the types of foods we know to be inferior, and worse health overall - even if we can regain certain instincts - to manufacture the best ratios of those foods known for health to make up for such a situaions and not coast on instincts that are merely adequate for staying alive within a natural setting even for beings that are already completely well and even still make poor choices.
the artificial means would be mostly things like avoiding predators and physical stress, having joy, resources, sense of self, all that jazz that makes people live to 100 even eating complete crap.
by artificial nutrition I mean t purely changing the ratios of intake or eating wider varieties than might be necessary for our ancestors to survive. Just because fish and coconuts were enough for some tribes doens't mean that game and so forth couldn't have made for a better diet and certainly for modern humans that eating roughly all meats or fruits might benefit from supplementing with larger rages of plant or animals foods that are available today because of these discrepancies.
-
I’m sorry, but I’m unable to grasp the sense of most of your sentences. English is not my mother tongue and your writing style doesn’t help my comprehension. If you could write in Latin, I would probably better understand. But finally, I believe I have understood some points in your last post which I’ll try to answer.
In nature there is often -but not always- a balance of foods producing proper health. But those ratios even in the most pure environment arn't necessarily going to be the absolute best and not all food decisions are going to be based on what is the best.
Did you ever observe animals in a natural environment? That works even with pets, provided they are given no food denatured by any artifice or accident. They go automatically towards what is most appropriate for them in the available context. Exceptions are rare and always explainable. No wonder that the instinct functions this way, because survival in the wild world depends on the performances capacities, themselves depending directly on nutritional balance.
For us because of these factors, it makes far more sense within the types of foods we know to be inferior, and worse health overall - even if we can regain certain instincts - to manufacture the best ratios of those foods known for health to make up for such a situations
It’s exactly what the instinctotherapy aims at: of course, it is necessary to place at the disposal of each person the food which we know to be the best, except that sometimes, for a particular individual, the instinct allows to discover a food believed of no importance or even inedible, but which may prove to be essential, this in unforeseeable quantities if we were taking dietetic principle into consideration.
and not coast on instincts that are merely adequate for staying alive within a natural setting even for beings that are already completely well and even still make poor choices.
There’s no question to restrict ourselves to the instinct’s indications, but to use them in addition to existing knowledge. Moreover, experiments show that alliesthesic mechanisms are ways more accurate and safe than dietetic principles, that the instinct take account of knowledge still unacquired and also of the individual requirements in real-time – something dietary knowledge is unable to achieve.
The artificial means would be mostly things like avoiding predators and physical stress, having joy, resources, sense of self, all that jazz that makes people live to 100 even eating complete crap.
You forget the main thing among the human artifices likely to prolong the life expectancy: medicine! To know what the standard food is worth, the life expectancy it provides WITHOUT medicine should be compared with the one provided by a natural food also without medicine.
by artificial nutrition I meant purely changing the ratios of intake or eating wider varieties than might be necessary for our ancestors to survive.
I don’t understand you: the artifices include all that man can produce and could not be found in nature. It’s not a question to distort the proportions or to modify the diversity of food. What is then fundamental is to determine which, among all these artifices, have the most disastrous consequences on health – or perhaps the most useful consequences.
Just because fish and coconuts were enough for some tribes doens't mean that game and so forth couldn't have made for a better diet and certainly for modern humans that eating roughly all meats or fruits might benefit from supplementing with larger rages of plant or animals foods that are available today because of these discrepancies.
It is precisely the basic principle of instinctive nutrition to offer the broadest possible choice of unprocessed natural products, so that our alimentary instinct can indicate which are the most adequate in each particular case. The fact that this method works and never leads to an harmful consumption, shows that the alimentary instinct is much more general-purposed than it was anticipated. Its evolution, and thus its development through all kinds of mechanisms implying in one way or another the genetics, were done during biological times going back to the origins of life on Earth. This doesn’t exclude in anyway the utility of a training: the innate and the acquired are not dissociable.
The origin of the first alliesthesic mechanisms is probably the chemotactism the protozoa already had: even an amoeba won’t phagocyte any nearby thing. We find these capacities of selection in our olfactory cells and our taste buds, with in addition a whole cerebral organization able to insure much higher performances. Culinary artifices or other modifications of savors are on the other hand able to thwart these ancestral mechanisms, obviously because they are not programmed to function with types of flavors nonexistent in the past.
-
Did you ever observe animals in a natural environment? That works even with pets, provided they are given no food denatured by any artifice or accident. They go automatically towards what is most appropriate for them in the available context. Exceptions are rare and always explainable. No wonder that the instinct functions this way, because survival in the wild world depends on the performances capacities, themselves depending directly on nutritional balance.
I love you! I'm kidding, but I kind of wish my husband's food views were like yours. This morning my cats had no room for even a taste of fresh 100% grassfed buffalo spleen; because he fed them canned food first. My son, who is in his twenties and very ill, had always been super-healthy. Then I met my present husband, and he kept giving his hydrogented oil/soy products. I was increasing my health, but he insisted I stop going to healthfood stores or seeing my friends in the forest. Then my health started nose-diving. Why won't people accept that we need to support those who are under our wings to keep their instincts?
-
Did you ever observe animals in a natural environment? That works even with pets, provided they are given no food denatured by any artifice or accident. They go automatically towards what is most appropriate for them in the available context. Exceptions are rare and always explainable. No wonder that the instinct functions this way, because survival in the wild world depends on the performances capacities, themselves depending directly on nutritional balance.
I've observed wild animals eating what is given. granted I didn't bring a range of options held in my fists behind my back. I still believe that they would go in for more inciting and less abundant food, but that wouldn't necessarily correspond to what they need or in amounts that they need. I'm open to hearing actual experiments and what the ideas of exceptions are.
You forget the main thing among the human artifices likely to prolong the life expectancy: medicine! To know what the standard food is worth, the life expectancy it provides WITHOUT medicine should be compared with the one provided by a natural food also without medicine.
The thing that is bothersome is since medicine according to this thory and many here is toxic, there should be no way medicine increases lifespan over someone that lives their life in pursuit of natural health. Of course statistically it would still be known to happen, if it was true for all individuals surely some combination of natural health and medicine would be the most ideal.
I don’t understand you: the artifices include all that man can produce and could not be found in nature. It’s not a question to distort the proportions or to modify the diversity of food. What is then fundamental is to determine which, among all these artifices, have the most disastrous consequences on health – or perhaps the most useful consequences.
It is precisely the basic principle of instinctive nutrition to offer the broadest possible choice of unprocessed natural products, so that our alimentary instinct can indicate which are the most adequate in each particular case. The fact that this method works and never leads to an harmful consumption, shows that the alimentary instinct is much more general-purposed than it was anticipated. Its evolution, and thus its development through all kinds of mechanisms implying in one way or another the genetics, were done during biological times going back to the origins of life on Earth. This doesn’t exclude in anyway the utility of a training: the innate and the acquired are not dissociable.
again I think there is a difference between instinctively deciding even if certain healthy foods are not right for the moment and necessarily choosing what is needed or would be natural quantities either in limiting situations or abundant situations. The point was that even the tribe that was perfectly happy and healthy eating coconuts and fish, being presumably guided at all times by instinct, might as human beings be able to improve their diet if things were artificially controlled by some kind of outside 'god' or within a large experiment.
anyway, I appreciate your response and have a greater understanding that instinctotherapy is not just about returning to faculty that animals have. unless I have still misunderstood myself.
I concede that I write really dense complicated run-on sentences. Hopefully iguana will address my previous points if he gets around to it.
-
How do we know its dangerous? Who are the ones that got in the most trouble from following its paths? It surely is far healthier than fruitarianism and veganism and most likely SAD, so what is it dangerous in respect to? In this respect it could be extremely healthy and certainly eventually lead to an even healthier diet once more research is conducted.
Indeed, the superiority of the instinctive nutrition on various diets is due to the fact that it doesn’t exclude any class of food. It rejects only foodstuffs resulting from agricultural and culinary artifices, since experiment showed they cause problems on the level of the sensory mechanisms, metabolism, immune system and nervous system (like wheat and animal milk). But the class of graminaceae and animal foodstuff are not excluded. It is thus the most complete natural diet ever.
The absence of any artifice able to thwart the alliesthesic mechanisms guarantees an optimal nutritional balance. It has among other advantages the return of the gustatory pleasure to its original function: guiding towards foodstuffs answering as well as possible, among the available choice, to the real needs of the body. No dietetic principle can ensure the correct answers, because these needs are different from one individual to another and from a moment to another. Only a regulation set out from the internal data can be done in real-time.
Third advantage, this regulation is carried out by sheer pleasure. That is due to the intrinsic nature of the alliesthesic mechanisms, which alter foodstuff’s taste from pleasant to unpleasant according to whether they are useful or not for the body. The point is in fact to find back the nutrition’s natural laws: the animal avoids by nature the unpleasant things and it is therefore always the pleasure that insures nutritional balance and health: pleasure becomes the key of well being – it is even the first condition for a good health (this works only with natural foods, consumed without processing).
In short, instinctive nutrition thus unites together the completeness and the possibility of optimal balancing by pleasure. It’s not amazing that it allows to reach results other methods cannot provide – as well in the field of physiological balance than on that of psychological balance.
I think it is ridiculous though the way it is advocated, especially in someones modern home. Necessarily it must take place outside in the wild, most likely the tropics in a tribal setting with very few tools and no permanent dwellings and so on. The fact that instinctos are glossing over the very basic premise to their own diet and not accepting this fact is depressing and very hard to take them seriously.
You slip here into ideology: the fact that alliesthesic mechanisms were developed in contact with a primitive food environment doesn’t mean in any specific way that they are unable to function in a house! It’s just necessary to take account of the difference between the primitive environment and the current environment in order to correct the possible drifts that could occur. For example it is an integral part of the method to learn that meats of domesticated animals (too soft) and artificially selected fruits (too sweets) tend to thwart the gustatory mechanisms and that therefore taking some care should be obvious. Training of the odors and savors is also necessary, considering it was not done in early childhood. The perfection certainly doesn’t belong to this world, but the conditions under which the instincto is practiced constitute an excellent approximation of the original conditions.
I do appreciate their arguments as again I always learn something from someone who has a vastly different approach to nutrition or any other science for that matter.
Being able to learn from a thesis that one takes for erroneous is a proof of wisdom. But starting from a prejudgment or a hasty conclusion on the falseness of this thesis is likely to prevent you from learning the valid points it could convey… :(
-
they would go in for more inciting and less abundant food
Precisely, when a food has been scarce, the instinct makes it more inciting. This behavior supports the fact that instinct regulates the nutritional balance.
but that wouldn't necessarily correspond to what they need or in amounts that they need
The instinct works in the best way in a definite environment. It compensates scarcity or abundance as far as possible: too abundant foodstuffs gets unpleasant, too scarce food gets more attractive. This doesn’t falsifies the fact that it works best with a broad choice – as advised, especially for someone having to recover from a somehow degraded health state.
I'm open to hearing actual experiments and what the ideas of exceptions are.
An exception to the general rule is for example the incapacity of horses to reject yew, although this plant is toxic for them.
The point was that even the tribe that was perfectly happy and healthy eating coconuts and fish, being presumably guided at all times by instinct, might as human beings be able to improve their diet if things were artificially controlled by some kind of outside 'god' or within a large experiment.
The Pacific Islanders living on coconuts and fish cook most of their food, even if fish is a few cases eaten raw. As far as I know, there isn’t anymore a single tribe eating everything raw. So, the alliesthesic mechanisms don’t work properly anywhere on this planet for humans, except in the case of a few individuals eating without cooking nor processing their food. Therefore, human beings do need a god or a nutritionist to know what they have to ingest, and a god or a physician to know how they could improve their health. My experiment shows that the instinct does it better through sheer pleasure at eating unprocessed food.
An experiment is for example the mean intake of every foodstuffs components in the frame of instincto practice during a full year: the results fall very closely to the advised values established by the FAO or WHO.
-
GCB,
Interesting discussion you have here. I always felt that instinct plays a role in our diet and it makes sense in a way, since we have the nose over the mouth.
This approach, however healthy it may be, looks like the most unsustainable of all. There is no way a significant number of people could get access to wild meats or fruits.
Isn't it possible that with all the years of agriculture and farming we refined our instinct to some degree in order to fit this situation?
Also, in your experience, have you ever felt like eating aged meats? What do you think about that?
-
The Pacific Islanders living on coconuts and fish cook most of their food, even if fish is a few cases eaten raw. As far as I know, there isn’t anymore a single tribe eating everything raw. So, the alliesthesic mechanisms don’t work properly anywhere on this planet for humans, except in the case of a few individuals eating without cooking nor processing their food. Therefore, human beings do need a god or a nutritionist to know what they have to ingest, and a god or a physician to know how they could improve their health. My experiment shows that the instinct does it better through sheer pleasure at eating unprocessed food.
An experiment is for example the mean intake of every foodstuffs components in the frame of instincto practice during a full year: the results fall very closely to the advised values established by the FAO or WHO.
I think I've finally had my fill, but to clarify, I meant if if you could place other types of foods stuffs in their environment even natural foods from durian to sugar cane to sacks of bear meat from the sky like 'god' you could alter their diet and cause them to eat things that strayed from their natural patterns causing either an improvement or detriment. This to my knowledge this is the situation we have everyday, that there is no way we can at all times have access to every single food we need to make that absolutely best choice for all over our specific nutrient needs (therefore perhaps neglecting the wild herbs around us over strong smelling lettuce or unavailable blood or organs of our store bought prey). It was also meant to illustrate the exact opposite that if we don't even have access to what is most natural and wild in nature and a narrow range then how will we make either the choice between the ground-beef or the apple in artificial comparison. Clearly people are not choosing some of the most nutrient dense foods per science based on cultural aversions and so forth over other foods which wouldn't even be able to be acquired regularly, so for better or worse the sensory impulse seems - to me - to still be based in what seems appealing and adequate (non toxic rather than superior) even if there is an agreed stopping point at some point for excess of certain types of foods and not even applied to anything other than an artificial set of circumstances that is either too broad or too small.
as for WHO, similarly I've seen claims from all fruit or low fat diets that either mimic or almost match these standards. Especially being all raw omnivorous, I have no doubt -throughout the year especially- that instincto can gather adequate resources be even superior over many nutritional systems. I just don't believe that even for the pure of constitution or even for wild animals give our contexts and choices that they would automatically fall into the absolute best ratios for thriving over the additional manipulation through experience and knowledge and that most disgraceful activity of doing things one doesn't desire (in their current state removed form nature) in order to push through higher modes of health and activity.
but as I say this is just further clarification, I appreciate the further input. and give up the floor :)
-
I eat it in different ways. Often just sliced directly from slab, eating it pure and cold, but I also airdry it sometimes, like ground beef burgers airdried for 12 hours, or jerky. Love them. Sometimes I make beef tartar. Seldom I fry it rare (rather "blue" ) in the pan, this could also happend if I eat out. I always feel great after eating meat, it is so strange! Feel just good. Oh, I like aged meat too. I often age it for a week or more in the fridge. I eat about 500 grams to 1 kg meat a day, about 90-160 grams pure protein maybe. My Halibut is wildcaught and fresh, not frozen etc. or salted. I always eat it plain, love the fatty taste.
OK ! I can better answer you now.
As I could observe during my own experiences, back at the time when I was developing my method, several artifices you’re using are bound to perturb your alliesthesic mechanisms:
• Ground meat for your beef tartar (it’s precisely the disappearance of the normal alliesthesic reactions with ground foodstuffs that triggered my awareness, more than forty years ago, of the harmful influence of mechanical denaturations)
• Jerky beef is by definition a dried seasoned beef
• Fried meat
• Other exceptions to the practice to avoid any food processing
The proper function of our alimentary instinct depends on the frequency of such artifices. There wasn’t any meat grinder in the Paleolithic era. Indeed, the experiment shows that the alliesthesic mechanisms function correctly only insofar as the body is not too disturbed. If not, all kinds of vicious circles can settle.
It is a case of what I call a “bottomless well”: it suffice that a single foodstuff thwarts the alliesthesic mechanisms for our intakes begin to exceed the standards; there is consequently an overload in some nutrients and this overload makes the foodstuffs with which the alliesthesic mechanisms function correctly loses their attraction, and therefore we continue to overload ourselves with the doubtful stuff.
The “bottomless well” concept applies to meats of domesticated animals for the following reason: during thousands of years, the stockbreeders unconsciously gave the precedence to the reproducers whose meat was the most “easy” (that allowed to enjoy its ingestion while there was at the same time an overload due to the first cooking receipts or to the first agricultural artifices). Lamb, pork, beef have thus lost the negative savors allowing our sensory perception of savors to warn of an overload, and the more we eat it, the less other foodstuffs are attracting.
There comes in addition the fact that commercial meats are from animals nourished in a doubtful way and thus often having an abnormal taste which thwarts the gustatory mechanisms even more. That’s why I would advise you to avoid the commercial meats and continue your experience with wild meats.
I try to follow my body every day to see if I get some symptoms that are no good, but still nothing there. Only good things happend, like my skin is better, my teeths, my gums never bleed anymore not even after flossing! I feel calm and strong. Satisfied. I also was taking bloodtest a few weeks ago, they was abslot perfect, also my B12 status was very good and vit.D too! My cholesterol-levels was totally fine, high cholesterol, but a lot of HDL and my triglycerides was really low. Perfect.
The effect of a protein overload does not appear immediately. Our body has metabolic ways allowing to assimilate proteins and to get from it the energy normally brought by carbs. The noxious effects are marginal and are felt only by a slow and insidious accumulation until a certain thresholds is crossed: excess of uric acid, hyperkeratinisations, immune system disorders, autoimmune diseases, etc. Even the fact of feeling well can be confused with a jamming of the reactions necessary to get out of the vicious circle, for example the re-integration of pancreatic secretions indispensable for fruits digestion.
Yeah, I never continue eating if strange tasting, that's for sure. I was ordering Entrecote from Orkos sometimes, I never got tired of that eather.
Exactly: you cannot count on a “strange tasting”, said otherwise on alliesthesic modifications of savors, with meats of domesticated animals; these signals are too weak and it’s better to learn how to recognize them with wild meats. Perhaps it will be by stopping meat consumption during several days or even weeks that you could get out from the vicious circle…
-
Interesting discussion you have here. I always felt that instinct plays a role in our diet and it makes sense in a way, since we have the nose over the mouth.
Indeed, most animals use their sense of smell as a guide towards the food they need, and also to refuse those they don’t need.
I once made the experiment to repeatedly present pieces of meat to my dog, until he refuses them. First surprise: he smelled each piece before opening the mouth, and he opened it each time as by an automatic reflex. I thought that he was going to fill his stomach and stop only when full up. But at the end of a quite reasonable quantity, he still always smelled the piece presented, but diverted each time its truffle with a pout, and of course did not open his mouth anymore. Several tests could not overcome his refusal. I then tried “to convince him” to still accept one of theses pieces by cherishing him and by surreptitiously slipping a piece into his mouth. He started to chew it awkwardly and suddenly the piece was ejected a meter away, as if the muscles of its tongue had refused what its sense of smell had already refused. Hundreds of other observations showed me it’s a general rule, and that the same process is ready to function on human beings. The same experiment with babies produce identical results.
This approach, however healthy it may be, looks like the most unsustainable of all. There is no way a significant number of people could get access to wild meats or fruits.
The wild meat allows to recognize the taste change correctly. But once the palate is rehabilitated, it is of course possible to use meats of domestic animals. I know many instinctos able to manage with minimal budgets.
Isn't it possible that with all the years of agriculture and farming we refined our instinct to some degree in order to fit this situation?
To some extent. The principal condition for the alliesthesic mechanisms to function properly is the suppression of all culinary artifices. The rest, like artificially selected fruits, the agricultural produce, etc poses only an additional problem. In principle, training makes it possible to compensate for the risks of drift.
Also, in your experience, have you ever felt like eating aged meats? What do you think about that?
After a more or less long period of practice, almost all the instinctos prefer aged meats, or rather high meats. It’s also more attracting when the body needs it, and more repulsive when our needs are fulfilled. The microbial degradation of proteins probably limits the immunizing problems, the number of antigenic molecules being in theory less.
-
Ok, GCB
thank you for answering! :)
I think I have to try wild meats more often, it is only hard to get almost. Except in fall and winter maybe. Frozen it is available, but I think it should better be fresh?
Bison I can buy here, what do you think about it?
Bison I really love! It is only so darn expensive! :'( (over 200 € / kg)
My Jerky is always homemade, without any spices or salt, lowtemp dried(raw). I could never use salt or spices for it, just LOVE the plain taste.. :)
I really would like to try eating only wild meats / fish for a while (raw and unseasoned, whole pieces).
SO so sad it is hard to get them.
That is what really makes me sad, it is almost impossible to do.. :'( except you have LOADS of money.. or live in the woods..
Oh well, I will give my best. :)
Inger
-
I have some hypotheticals for GCB or Iguanna that I think would be quite interesting.
What kind of benefits would I enjoy by choosing the instincto route over a lower carb (say at most 30% calories from carbs) raw paleo diet which includes mostly domesticated animal meats and fats over the period of 1 year, 5 years, a lifetime?
Do you think conventional raw paleo as how most members on this board follow is dangerous? What are the worst problems that those following raw paleo will encounter?
Would a low-fat Ornish type diet (one that western medicine propagates) be better than a low-carb raw paleo diet?
How big of a difference would it make choosing instincto in a modern home thousands of miles away from the tropics vs living within a small tribe of gathering folk naked in the tropics over the course of a lifetime.
Do you die following instincto? If you do, is lifespan increased? How do you die?
When would one succumb to protein overload (100g/day? 300g/day?)
Do you apply instinctual reasoning to other aspects of life? If you feel like fighting (or even killing) someone do you do this? I understand we are not anywhere near our same environment but it would be interesting to find out which instincts you do listen to.
-
I have some hypotheticals for GCB or Iguanna that I think would be quite interesting.
Very interesting questions, indeed ! But I don’t think there are simple and general answers, each case being different… l)
What kind of benefits would I enjoy by choosing the instincto route over a lower carb (say at most 30% calories from carbs) raw paleo diet which includes mostly domesticated animal meats and fats over the period of 1 year, 5 years, a lifetime?
Personally I enjoy very much the instincto way of eating, and if I still go on since 1987 it is probably mainly because I find more pleasure to eat that way than in any other possible way. This is in my view an extremely important point to attain sustainability : you can’t carry on for years with a diet in which you don’t find enough pleasure to eat.
Also, you don’t feel constrained to stay within a frame of rules, there’s just one and only rule: avoid any processed non paleo foodstuff. You don’t have to worry about how much you eat of this or that: you just don’t care about calories, dietary principles and so on. ;)
We have quite a lot of long term experience, some like GCB and one or two others have been eating that way for about 40 years without any significant problem. We are perhaps 50 or maybe 100 to have practiced for more than 10 years, kids were born and have grown up perfectly well on instinctive nutrition; the children of GCB and other pioneers are now between 20 and 35 years old, some are still eating instincto and are perfectly fine. This gives me a lot of confidence.
On the other hand, how much long term experience has been gathered with LC raw paleo diet?
Do you think conventional raw paleo as how most members on this board follow is dangerous? What are the worst problems that those following raw paleo will encounter?
I don’t know, it all depend on the way you practice, the quality of your food, social environment and a multitude of parameters I’m unable to enumerate… GCB or perhaps Alphagruis could probably answer better than me. Anyway, SWD is extremely dangerous and therefore by going raw paleo you’ll probably be much better off as long as you don’t stay too close of the zero carb extreme.
Would a low-fat Ornish type diet (one that western medicine propagates) be better than a low-carb raw paleo diet?
I don’t know this particular diet. I think raw and paleo are a big step in the right direction, low-carb I’m not sure.
How big of a difference would it make choosing instincto in a modern home thousands of miles away from the tropics vs living within a small tribe of gathering folk naked in the tropics over the course of a lifetime.
I for one would perhaps be better naked gathering my food in the tropics… but the tropics are a vast area where there are nice places as well as bad places for us humans! The rest of our world is quite big and diverse as well…
Do you die following instincto? If you do, is lifespan increased? How do you die?
No, we don’t die. Lifespan is so tremendously increased that I cannot tell you how we die, I’ve never experienced that and the others instinctos I know of neither. ;D
Just kidding. Seriously, I think lifespan is and has been in most cases severely decreased by a SWD.
When would one succumb to protein overload (100g/day? 300g/day?)
I think I’ve eaten myself daily for 23 years somewhere around your higher number – some days much more – in animal raw protein food and I’m still fine…
Do you apply instinctual reasoning to other aspects of life? If you feel like fighting (or even killing) someone do you do this? I understand we are not anywhere near our same environment but it would be interesting to find out which instincts you do listen to.
I never felt like killing anyone, even when I used to eat cooked food, wheat and dairy. Neither fighting. I only smashed once the head of a crazy driver who nearly missed to kill my wife. I listen to my instincts, especially ever since I eat instinco because they became more trustable and amiable. :)
-
Hi GCB,
I have some questions for you if you don't mind. :)
These are asked by a woman that have been Instincto for 10 years (still are), she wanted me to ask these questions for her.
So here they are:
- - - -
As we know, Humans evolved from Africa. But at this time, many thousend years ago, there was only growing very little fruits there. Especially not all kind of fruits that Instinctos mostly eat like Cempedac, Durian, Bananas, Mangos, Sapotes, Avocado's, Coconuts..
All these fruits was originally growing in other places of the world and where quite recently brought to Africa.
So, if the Humans really eat raw back then, and was not cooking tubers and such, the HAD to eat mostly animals.
So how do this fit together with the way most Instinctos are eating?
The Human can not probably be genetically adapted to food including a lot of fruits, avocados, coconuts etc.!?
- - - -
Hope you have some time answering these questions!
If not maybe somebody else have? (Iguana ;))
Inger
-
Thank you Inger, very good question!
The instincto theory provides two answers, one theoretical and the other empirical.
Theoretical answer (thus doubtful): it is unknown if mankind, nutritionally speaking; originates in Africa. If such were the case, one could quite simply admit for example that the diet of Bushmen must be the most closely corresponding to our genes. They eat indeed meat, but also a big part of plants.
We know now that in these prehistoric times, there was a handful of migrations not expressly known by paleontologists. We are in any case the inheritors of genetic data much older than the pithecanthropus, which himself came from primates. The genome very slowly changes with time, and the epigenetic mechanisms of adaptation remain limited. It is thus necessary to go and see on the primates (or their own ancestors) side to know the starting point of our genes.
But we can’t go back in time. Establish the food range from the archaeological or paleontological data is always questionable, considering the different preservation time of various food. There remains a way then: go and see what the descendants of these primates eat today in nature. There are, at the very least, infinitely more chances that they maintained their old behaviors while living in nature than did men under the effect of culinary and agricultural artifices, or simply by its greater capacity to modify the environment. It is clear that plants are a major part of all the primates diet. The genetically closest to us like chimps and bonobos include in particular a large part of fruits in their diet.
Of course, it cannot be immediately concluded from this that man still has the same digestive and metabolic characteristics. It is necessary for this purpose to compare the digestive tracts and in particular the structures of the digestive enzymes. According to the publications I could access to, there is a great similarity between the characteristics of chimpanzees and humans. It is thus rather probable that we adapted right from the start for a similar food range.
However, the empirical answer is obviously the surest: how does our body function in the long-term with such or such food range? I can testify today, and I am absolutely sure of the following results: in consuming approximately 2/3 of fruits, 1/4 of vegetables and 1/12 of proteins, the long term instinctos are very well. I have personally soon half a century of practice, and I am in a far better shape than the average population of my age. I look 10 or 20 years younger than my real age, as is the case for most long-term instinctos. The mean BMI (Body Mass Index) calculated out of 43 long terme instinctos (https://sites.google.com/site/guyclaudeburger/home/home-1/qu-est-ce-que-l-instincto-/un-instinct-alimentaire-chez-ltre-humain/surpoids-obesite-et-cie) is perfectly in the standards, and shows a much narrower dispersion between the various individuals (three times less than in the average population).
But the most important criterion is the growth of children: a body growing from 3 kg to 60 kg is made up for the most part from the nutrients it has received during its growth. If he or she is able to be constituted without deficiency, without accumulations of foreign substances, with normal or even better than average height to weight ratio and performances,it's that he/she found in the diet all the necessary substances, without exception and in proper amount, which means that the alimentary instinct has assumed a right food balance corresponding to the needs. There are a quite a few children fully grown up who were born from instincto mothers and who practiced strictly throughout their life: they are in perfect health and present the desired criteria of normality, without any deprivation symptoms, nor over /underweight. They didn’t have the usual kids illnesses neither.
The fact that all these criteria are satisfied with instinctive nutrition is a proof of good performance, in particular of the alimentary instinct: all these persons practice the choice of foodstuffs by their flavors and they ingest the amount indicated by alliesthesic variations of taste and stomachic signals. But be ware with the reasoning: it doesn’t inevitably imply that a different diet cannot have such favorable effects (there isn’t inevitably exclusion of a diet by another).
The only thing I can say, it is that the “zero carb diet” doesn’t match what can be expected from the evolutionary laws, since nothing implies that our ancestors having had a more carnivorous diet than apes could adapt to it in order to have a equaly good health (it seems Neandertal men, for example, had significant health issues concerning in particular the children, but it’s true that they most probably cooked their meat and perhaps other food). The fact of having survived a period of intensive carnivorism does not mean that health was at its best, but only that reproduction was possible. To be able to deduce that the adaptation to the diet guaranteed an optimal health, it would be necessary to count over much longer periods.
Personally, I stick to the facts: the instinctive nutrition such as I defined it, by taking account of the indications of all the sensory perceptions, allows to obtain an optimal nutritional balance. It is recognizable by the fact that the inflammatory tendency is reduced to a minimum: no infections and no red edging around small wounds, no lasting pain in the event of wound, fracture, etc (the pain of the impact lasts only approximately three minutes), whereas an excessive consumption by forcing the instinct or by eating domesticated animals meat whose savor is softer than wild game meat brings a return of the inflammatory tendency, hyperkeratinisations, neoplasms, etc .
This said and to answer some unsupported affirmations, nothing allows to demonstrate, either theoretically nor empirically, that humans would not be adapted to the consumption of fruits. Nor that the absence of fruits, if only through the protein over-consumption it generates to compensate for a lack of calories from carbohydrates, would be without long-term effect on health. You undoubtedly heard of the kidney stones of Lex Rooker: it’s almost certainly directly linked with an excess of proteins and uric acid.
But finally, everyone has to do his/her own experiments. I also paid with my health for all those I’ve done in the aim of developing instinctive nutrition.
-
I like fruits myself.
Which fruits do long term Instinctos recommend?
Any reviews or remarks per fruit?
-
Well, that was a good bedtime story. We can all put little instincto to bed.
-
I like fruits myself.
Which fruits do long term Instinctos recommend?
Any reviews or remarks per fruit?
I wouldn’t recommend any particular fruit for everybody in every case, that would be contrary to the fact that every person is different and in a varying state as well. The principle is just to eat good smelling fruits as long as they are tasty, and if there’s a choice between different fruits, to choose the one having the best smell, which generally indicates it’ll have the best taste too. It’s not the smell intensity which is important, but whether it is pleasant or unpleasant. For example avocado’s smell is barely perceptible, but still can be felt when we peel it off.
However, it’s always much preferable to choose the wildest varieties and avoid as much as possible the ones having been subject to hybridization and/or severe artificial selection, such as Golden Delicious apple, seedless oranges and watermelons, MornThong durian and son on. These not only remain good when our needs are more than fulfilled (and may easily cause an overload), but they are also the most intensively sprayed with pesticides. Most fruits on supermarkets stalls are awful.
It’s much better to eat fruits we find in the nature, or else the cheapest, small ugly looking ones sold on farmers markets. “Overripe” (just ripe for us!) fruits or having some visual defects are very often the best while being the cheapest. They are often even given for free, apparently because people eating cooked food usually don’t like well ripe fruits, being in constant overload in carbs due to their high consumption of industrial sugar, bread and cooked cereals.
I like very much to eat figs straight on the trees or self gathered for free; the overripe ones with sometimes just a bit of alcohol or half dried on the tree can be delightful for me. Overripe pineapples, leeches and rambutans can also ferment in a delicious way. Cempedaks, jackfruits and wild varieties of durian are very ancient fruits, very nutritious and fulfilling. Here in south of France, the apricot’s season has come just now. It’s a delicious fruit when well ripe; I buy those sold “to make jam” in crates at very low price.
-
In opposition to some current allegations >:, instinctive nutrition is perfectly possible with what’s available locally, and is often practiced this way. Myself as well as my family and all the first Swiss instinctos practiced exclusively with the products of the country during all the initial years.
It was even routinely practiced by the Inuits, which ate raw whale and raw seal plus some plants when they could find them. They fared better with this restricted food range more or less instinctively eaten than with the modern western diet they recently adopted. This is of course more true for instinctos limited to local food in areas rich in edible plants! :P
It is only less intense in enjoyment, satisfactions and also ways more difficult for ailing Westerners having been supplied all their life with Brazilian cane sugar and coffee, Sri Lankan tea, Bulgarian yogurt, Taiwan canned tuna fish, US or Ukrainian wheat and New Zealand butter than without exclusion of tropical fruits to which our sense of taste is better adapted. ;)
-
Could a moderator edit my message #22 in this way, since the time during which I could do it myself is elapsed:
Personally, I stick to the facts: the instinctive nutrition such as I defined it, by taking account of the indications of all the sensory perceptions, allows to obtain an optimal nutritional balance.
-
Iguana would know better how to edit it.
-
GCB, the problem is you have massive contradictions going through your posts.
You just finished saying that limited meat diets were not ideal because we have a fairly solid relationships to chimps that requires higher ranges of carbohydrates to function optimally (which I believe is a scientific observation, no matter how much instincto 'instincts' magically reach that ratio of modern-hybrid fruit love). And now you are using limited diets as a defense that basically says :well people do just fine, which is not the same as providing the absolute best health over the wisdom and practices of others. Also you have said in this thread that since Inger lives in an area in which we are not destined to live, her sensations to eat what is locally around her is also a distortion. And yet both you and Iguanna (who actually used the coconuts and fish tribe as an example neglecting that they ate cooked foods) keep insisting that it results everywhere and for every person in the optimal ways over any decision making EVEN now stating when one ignores tropical fruits - which you have already mentioned are the most conducive for nutrition. This is not even remotely possible. Even of the instinctos in existence there is no way they are all have optimal intakes that couldn't be improved upon with access or are distorted by what is not available. So basically for Inger in order to reset to the ratio of chimps which has been institutionally proven, she would have to force herself to eat like an instincto and eat a large portion of fruit that is not available where she lives to reset her instincts into eating more fruit because that is what our instinctive ancestors do?
All this comes down to along with the data you posted with massive weight detriment that there is a un cared about discrepancy between thriving and existing. Its not even possible per your own theory that a person living in Switzerland (where traditional peoples certainly did not eat much fruit) and choosing between a handful of foods would have a chance at the nutrition of someone living in a tropical environment and hunting their own game and eating fruits freshly fallen (or rotting or whatever level of fermentation one prefers). Yet they could still be both optimally following instincto? And if someone is shipping meat and produce, they are clearly designing their diet based on their existing patterns. and not at all being in the same grouping as those who lived in a pure environment and could sustain their own food through their own vitality and skill and and still would not choose those hardships over 'positive' or 'negative' artificial contributions or would thrive through modern blight with those same habits in removed conditions.
-
Hi KD,
Things are not so complicated: an ideal instincto practice is in fact an abstraction, as an ideal circle is never realized anywhere. Yet, we can draw a circle more or less accurately, according to the pencil and the instruments available: each version is an approximation of the perfect circle, but the wheel rolls even if its tire presents some imperfections.
It’s the same in nutrition: quality of the practice depends on the available foodstuffs range, but it still works within a narrower frame.
Imperfections don't change anything to the basic problem. According to what I’ve been able to experience, a choice of fruits from anywhere (as well as other foodstuffs) as broad as possible, selected by their odor and carefully limited by the alliesthesic mechanisms provides better results than a choice limited to a few foodstuffs available nearby. We could observe the difference in cases of severe pathology. But both approaches provide already large benefits comparatively to processed and mixed raw foodstuffs diet, which doesn’t allows a proper instinctive choice (particularly regarding the inflammatory trend, which is the key to many malfunctions).
In short: it’s not because an ideal and perfect instincto is not feasible that a practical implementation in more or less restrictive conditions would be null and void. The big differences begin when we season, mix, grind, cook, introduce dairy and cereals, etc. There is a huge gap between traditional cooking and usual paleo diet with processed and mixed foodstuffs, a large gap between such a paleo diet and instincto, a little gap between instinctive nutrition and instinctotherapy, the latter bringing more precision in the nutritional balance and more diversity in the choice.
-
What happens if a person has some health issues which retards some of the sensory perceptions? Wouldn't those perceptions be even more necessary in such a case?
For example, when I get a flu, I tend to loose my sense of smell due to runny nose, inflammation etc.
-
Hi gcb!
Thank you very much for answering the question posed by Inger. I hope you will answer further questions!
When (and where) do you think lived the last ancestor of us eating raw?
>>it is unknown if mankind, nutritionally speaking; originates in Africa.
From where should mankind originate if not from Africa? Could you please give more details?
>>They eat indeed meat, but also a big part of plants.
But they cooked their plants partly.
>>We know now that in these prehistoric times, there was a handful of migrations not expressly known by paleontologists.
What migrations do you mean - when did they take place?
>>considering the different preservation time of various food.
I didn´t understand that (perhaps because of my bad english, sorry). What do you mean with preservation time in this context?
>>The genetically closest to us like chimps and bonobos include in particular a large part of fruits in their diet.
But the fruit chimps and bonobos eat are mostly uneatable for us, I read. And our ancestors were no longer optimally adapted to a life in the rainforests (with fruits high in the trees); they were adapted to a life in the savannah, where there were tubers to be cooked and game...I read.
>>there is a great similarity between the characteristics of chimpanzees and humans.
But there ARE diffences (small intestine more extended, as far as I remember) - and the teeth of humans are smaller. We are e.g. no longer adapted to eat leaves like the chimpanzees and we couldn´t eat the fruits eaten by them.
Hi all,
Writing in English is a bit difficult for me. If you don´t understand me, please let me know ;). And if you want to correct my English, I will be pleased.
-
the point then is someone can draw a better circle with a tool even as basic as a piece of string, their finger and knowledge of geometry, and wheel carved out otherwise by a template drawing done by a primitive or monkey by such an estimation would not roll efficiently and would not be superior to a modern produced wheel. the question isn't whether one does the best they can with their circumstances as everyone on the planet is currently doing this, but whether the tools provided in nature (or improved upon by instinctotherapy) and are greatest desire actually surpass the type of knowledge that is acquired in research and experiences of peers like this site as far as making the BEST dietary choices and yielding the BEST results.
I've never said the practice is null and void, only that you are moving back and forth using contradictory information to prove its superior in these imperfect situations seeing especially since now there is a 'large gap' between a raw paleo diet and an instincto diet, which by many definitions here excludes and accepts the same types of foods. If this is true, the results should manifest in superiority no matter the practitioner. Mostly its the more obvious, that if there is a range in nutrition amongst instinctos depending on availability, and most foods are basically on demand at their fingertips (in accordance with budget), than instincto is not always making the best choices within our situations and choices. Otherwise there would never be a choice made to choose a inferior fruit or animal food, the desire would always be somewhere else for that perfect food, so clearly there is a compromise based on thoughts and modern knowledge, which is further affected by the fact that we have a major security around these foods constant availability that animals do not have and affecting our choices and desires for things that might not be so abundant. But I won't go into that again...
when instincto is being used in other threads to rationalize advice given to a 'raw paleo' about not eating a egg white one day based on smell and eating it another when it does appeal, especially when its admitted that these instinctive decisions don't pop into use for years of practice, its credibility in terms of trumping basic experience and science falls short. Whether a person many years on such a diet can approximate a survivable ratio of whites to yolks is neither here nor there as far as I'm concerned.
It’s the same in nutrition: quality of the practice depends on the available foodstuffs range, but it still works within a narrower frame.
Imperfections don't change anything to the basic problem. According to what I’ve been able to experience, a choice of fruits from anywhere (as well as other foodstuffs) as broad as possible, selected by their odor and carefully limited by the alliesthesic mechanisms provides better results than a choice limited to a few foodstuffs available nearby.
-
in other words, [I tried to make this point earlier] if someone is happily instinctively choosing between their local apples and pears and tree nuts and grow their own lettuce and eat the neighbors cow and pork or whatever in proportions based on instinct (which arguably could be a very good diet) yet artificially given the choice of tropical fruits and coconuts and wild fish or game they could also according to you be getting a truer range of our ideal minerals and vitamins, how could instincto be credited with always making the best choices to eat? Even given all these choices, how does it account for still neglecting various organs like brain and insects and other traditionally eaten foods in preference to muscle meats esp. All this esp.over people that actively sought out such food sources based on science and experiences of others?
-
I think, we are partly adapted to cooked food. As human individuals eating exclusively raw foods, we need nutrient/energy-dense, relatively easily digestible foods without many antinutrients etc. - that is, food comparable with cooked food. As it isn´t easy for us to find enough and sufficiently varied food of this kind (provided we don´t want to eat mainly meat), we import our raw food from all over the world. If we were apes, we could go out and eat the leaves on the trees without being picky. And this kind of food would make up a substantial part of our diet. As human individuals eating exclusively raw foods, it´s not so easy for us; we have to find (or have to grow) special kinds of green plants and of vegetable edible for us in larger quantities, and that also applies to fruit. And certainly we need more energy-dense food than a chimp. Couldn´t this be an explanation for the fact that we, as instinctos, are (or have to be) picky in our food choice?
-
Hanna, Majormark, KD : I’m quite busy these days, so please be patient till I find the time to answer your pertinent remarks and questions.
-
What happens if a person has some health issues which retards some of the sensory perceptions? Wouldn't those perceptions be even more necessary in such a case?
For example, when I get a flu, I tend to loose my sense of smell due to runny nose, inflammation etc.
It’s uncommon that the senses of smell and taste are altered, for an easily understandable reason: an animal having lost his sense of smell is no longer able to feed properly in the wild. Its capabilities drops and it becomes an easy prey for predators. So there was a strong selection pressure on the alimentary regulation system and it is particularly resistant to disease. For example, there are many more deaf or blind than anosmic people.
But even in case of total anosmia (loss of smell), there are ways to get a minimal regulation using the sense of taste. The balance is of course not as good, but remains better than nothing.
During a flu, the smelling ability is indeed inhibited, but experience has shown that appropriate foodstuffs are nevertheless easily detected if conducive to healing (eg fruits rich in vitamin C as citrus fruit). It is as though nature had intended that partial fasting was useful...
Anyway, in case of flu it suffices to ask our senses with a selection of foodstuffs to find those best suited, in spite of a blocked nose.
-
Writing in English is a bit difficult for me. If you don´t understand me, please let me know ;). And if you want to correct my English, I will be pleased.
Guten Tag, Hanna !
Die beste Lösung wäre, Sie schreiben Ihre Posts in zwei Sprachen : für mich selbst wäre das viel leichter, da ich deutsch viel besser kann als englisch. Sogar für das hierige, die deutsche Übersetzung könnte mir helfen, Sie genauer zu verstehen.
Danke !
-
GCB, before you edited your comment you pointed out that my writing is pretty dense and confusing.
I'll try to break down what I wrote into sound bytes:
- the circle point I hope was quite readable, its quite clear that:
----exchange of information improves on natural capabilities especially when divorced from natural paradigms.
----As soon as a tool becomes necessary, instinct pales in comparison to knowledge in terms of getting the most efficient product.
- essentially your abstraction example was a misreading and an attempt to stretch what I'm saying to talk about some kind of perfect idealization of health that could be shrugged off or slipped out of.
---- all one needs to focus on is if the nutrition arrived at though the alimentary mechanism is the best for any individual over all other methods that currently exist on the planet accessible to all - given the same food choices and for whatever results they desire.
- in other words: not at all in comparison to how healthy a person can be in an abstract sense, which seems to be closer to the realm of instincts than the knowledge I am supporting.
- I don't have to attack basic elements of the alimentary mechanism because I don't dispute that it exists
---- just because we have signals that we may refine that tell us we have eaten too much of one food does not mean that amount was necessary or that we ate the healthiest food we needed.
- It is my opinion you have majorly slipped up in admitting people work with narrow ranges of food both in terms of primitives and modern instinctos.
----this suggests further all of what I have said about animals
----what it comes down to is that humans and animals largely do not care about what they eat as long as its acceptable foodstuffs
- you said you know of instinctos that do not eat tropical fruits, yet you insist that the largest range of food no matter how accesible in nature in those selections is best.
---- Elsewhere you basically make the point that tropical fruits are what we are most suited for
---- its also been admitted that people may reject things like insects and many organs which do still exist on the planet as foodstuffs.
----- this is based on a civilized repulsion towards those foods even though we know they can have higher more suitable nutrients per experience and science.
----- if people are still repulsed by these foods, their mechanisms are clearly still distorted by artificial tasting sweet foods and meats that require no effort to enjoy merely their 'tastier' components.
- by default there are people that are practicing instincto, deciding on what to eat based on a narrow pre made decision of being closer to chimps
------ and yet not even eating like a chimp at all in including domesticated meats and wild game they cannot obtain themselves with weak bodies.
----- within instincto it is therefore possible to choose foods like deep ocean fish over stuff we might have in our backyard which would be appealing to a chimp.
------ if the fish is more appealing and smells of food obviously our senses do not detect our most biologically appropriate foods but are picked due to a variety of potentially superficial factors that have dubious ties to the highest nutrition.
------ This has more or less been discussed already. The kicker now is that you say even within instinctos they can be choosing or excluding things and yet still according to them following their highest instincts from day to day. This is impossible and irreconcilable with the notion that instincts always pick the most needed foodstuffs and neglect unnecessary foodstuffs
------ Also, obviously you cannot make the best choices based on desire if you are already categorizing what you want to eat, and the narrower the range of foods selected clearly has an impact on what is finally chosen.
- since so much is available at our finger tips, even the many foods people end up choosing that end up on the table can't possibly be the best choice in comparison to all other choices.
- because we have security towards obtaining a constant flow of food sources, this also greatly distorts what we eat and what we choose to neglect because we believer it will be there in the future.
- in short there is nothing that proves this approach could be any healthier or more nutritionally sound than one punched up on paper based on science and tacked to a wall, even admittedly that one could manage to be 'driven' to a largely complete diet that meets government minimal standards and so forth.
In this respect there is hardley a 'large gap' between a raw paleo diet and an instincto diet, which by many definitions here excludes and accepts the same types of foods. Other than ones possible fettered desire on RPD in liu of observed and experienced problematic results in following them in our current state of health and environment.
-
Guten Tag, Hanna !
Die beste Lösung wäre, Sie schreiben Ihre Posts in zwei Sprachen : für mich selbst wäre das viel leichter, da ich deutsch viel besser kann als englisch. Sogar für das hierige, die deutsche Übersetzung könnte mir helfen, Sie genauer zu verstehen.
Danke !
Möchten Sie mir bitte zuerst erklären, warum Sie Jahre lang keine tierische Produkte einnahmen ? Unter welchem Einfluss standen Sie am Anfang Ihrer Instinkto diät ? Ich werde so besser antworten können.
-
Guten Tag, Hanna !
Die beste Lösung wäre, Sie schreiben Ihre Posts in zwei Sprachen : für mich selbst wäre das viel leichter, da ich deutsch viel besser kann als englisch. Sogar für das hierige, die deutsche Übersetzung könnte mir helfen, Sie genauer zu verstehen.
Danke !
Hallo gcb,
Das freut mich sehr, dass ich Deutsch sprechen "darf"!
Wann (und wo) lebte deiner Ansicht nach der letzte unserer Vorfahren, der sich ausschließlich von Rohkost ernährte?
>>it is unknown if mankind, nutritionally speaking; originates in Africa.
Wenn der Mensch seinen Ursprung nicht Afrika hat - woher sollte er sonst stammen? Ich würde mich über mehr Einzelheiten freuen!
>>They eat indeed meat, but also a big part of plants.
Die Buschmänner koch(t)en ihre pflanzliche Nahrung aber teilweise.
>>We know now that in these prehistoric times, there was a handful of migrations not expressly known by paleontologists.
Welche Wanderungen meintest du und wann sollen sie stattgefunden haben?
>>considering the different preservation time of various food.
Ich verstand nicht, was du im Kontext mit "preservation time" meintest.
>>The genetically closest to us like chimps and bonobos include in particular a large part of fruits in their diet.
Die meisten Früchte, die Schimpansen essen, sollen ungenießbar für uns sein. Unsere menschlichen Vorfahren waren, anders als die Affen, an das Leben im Regenwald nicht mehr optimal angepasst (wo die Früchte sich hoch in den Bäumen befinden). Sie hatten sich an ein Leben in der Savanne angepasst, wo es Wurzeln und Knollen gab, die man kochen konnte. Und Tiere.
>>there is a great similarity between the characteristics of chimpanzees and humans.
Es gibt aber durchaus Unterschiede zwischen dem Verdauungssystem des Schimpansen und unserem Verdauungssystem. Wir haben z. B. einen längeren Dünndarm und einen kürzeren Dickdarm als der Schimpanse. Auch sind die Zähne der Menschen kleiner. Wir sind nicht mehr an den Verzehr der Blätter angepasst, die von Schimpansen verzehrt werden, und erst recht nicht an die MENGEN von Blättern, die von Schimpansen verzehrt werden. Auch die von ihnen verzehrten bitteren Früchte könnten wir nicht essen.
(Ich bin jedoch kein Biologe o. ä. und hoffe daher, nichts Falsches zu behaupten.)
- - - - -
Meiner Ansicht nach sind wir an Kochkost teilweise genetisch angepasst. Als Rohköstler benötigen wir daher Nahrung, die (1) Kalorien bzw. Nährstoffe in großer Dichte enthält, (2) relativ leicht verdaulich ist und (3) nicht allzu viele Antinutritiva enthält. (Antinutritiva - pflanzliche Abwehrstoffe - werden durch die Verarbeitung und Zubereitung der Nahrung sowie durch Züchtung eliminiert bzw. reduziert.) Wir benötigen also Nahrung, die der gekochten und verarbeiteten Nahrung vergleichbar ist. Da wir uns als Rohköstler auf rohe Nahrung (und als Instinctos zudem auf unverarbeitete Nahrung) beschränken, ist es für uns nicht leicht, genügend Lebensmittel zu finden, die die genannten drei Kriterien erfüllen und zudem hinreichend Abwechslung bieten. Diese Schwierigkeit ist wohl der Grund dafür, dass Rohkost aus aller Welt auf unserem Speisezettel steht und wir sie sogar eigens einfliegen lassen. Am unkompliziertesten wäre vermutlich eine Rohkost, die primär auf Fleisch basiert.
Wären wir Menschenaffen, dann wäre unsere Ernährung wesentlich einfacher und weniger umständlich. Wir bräuchten nicht so wählerisch zu sein, wie wir es als Menschen sein müssen. Wir bräuchten z. B. nicht nach essbaren Kräutern zu suchen oder Gemüse anzupflanzen; es würde genügen, die Blätter der nächstbesten Bäume abzugrasen. Ähnliches würde für Früchte gelten. Ich las, dass die Früchte, die Schimpansen täglich essen, für uns Menschen nicht genießbar sind. Als Rohköstler, die sich nicht hauptsächlich von Fleisch ernähren, sind wir auf Früchte angewiesen, die in ausreichend großer Menge für uns genießbar (und verdaulich) sind. Zudem scheinen wir Kalorien in konzentrierterer Form als die Schimpansen zu benötigen.
Könnte somit nicht unsere Anpassung an Kochkost der Grund dafür sein, dass wir als Rohköstler bei unserer Nahrungswahl weit wählerischer sind (oder sein müssen) als Kochköstler oder die Menschenaffen?
Ich selbst esse seit fast 10 Jahren instinktive Rohkost und habe ihr viel zu verdanken.
-
Ich aß nicht die ganze Zeit über 100% vegan. Für meine weitgehend vegane Ernährung gab es wohl mehrere Gründe:
(1) Eine Zeitlang hatte ich mit größter Wonne Fisch gegessen. Dann las bzw. hörte ich, dass er stark mit Quecksilber belastet ist, und strich ihn zunächst von meinem Speisezettel. Noch immer meide ich stark belastete Arten wie Thunfisch und Schwertfisch.
(2) Fleisch sperrte bei mir rasch, auch in gereiftem Zustand. Dies ist noch heute so, obwohl mir ansonsten vieles schmeckt, das anderen nur Entsetzen einjagt (Hirn z. B. ;)). Bis zu Sperre schmeckte mir das Fleisch oft gut. Lange (über Jahre) gereiften, luftgetrockneten und gesalzenen Schinken kann ich problemlos essen; er bekommt mir auch gut und löst keine "Entgiftungen" aus ;). Gesalzenes Gehacktes kann ich ebenfalls essen; es bekommt mir aber nicht.
(3) Mit Sicherheit war ich von der rohveganen Propaganda beeinflusst und insbesondere von den Urköstlern.
(4) Leber und Fisch mochte ich nur frisch. Ich konnte sie daher nicht lagern und testete sie (aus Bequemlichkeit) eher selten. Nüsse waren immer verfügbar.
(5) Eine Zeitlang sperrte selbst Fisch hartnäckig, vielleicht weil ich relativ viele Nüsse aß. Ich ließ Nüsse dann erst einmal fort, woraufhin mir der Fisch wiederum zu schmecken begann.
Meine Rohkosternährung war praktisch von Anfang an von deinem Buch "inspiriert" gewesen. Dieses hatte mir besser gefallen als andere Rohkostbücher.
-
Perhaps alphagruis and gcb could agree that the alimentary instinct, defined by the existence (and usefulness) of alliesthetic phemonena, is not PERFECT? Perhaps too many "instinctos" believe that the instinct is perfect and therefore eat too careless (for example fruit) instead of learning from experience? I think that especially the belief in "detoxification" is detrimental in this respect because negative effects of eating habits are readily attributed to detoxification. I know, for example, that too much fruit has a detrimental effect on my health, because my experience told me (e. g. the recurrence of allergic symptoms in case of too high consumption of fruit). Perhaps it´s often safer to pay attention to experience than to rely on instinctive signals?
-
Guten Tag, Hanna !
Die beste Lösung wäre, Sie schreiben Ihre Posts in zwei Sprachen : für mich selbst wäre das viel leichter, da ich deutsch viel besser kann als englisch. Sogar für das hierige, die deutsche Übersetzung könnte mir helfen, Sie genauer zu verstehen.
Danke !
Nur deutsch würde aber alle Gäste entmutigen...
Allerdings bin ich im Moment überbeansprucht, und für einige Tage unterwegs, also noch ein Bisschen Geduld...
Bis bald!
-
Sorry that I wrote one post only in German. Gcb asked me why I ate little meat for a long time. Some reasons were
- the problem of mercury in fish (I still avoid tuna, swordfish and the like)
- rawvegan propaganda and rawvegan lies
- early "instinctive stops" when eating the unsalted meat of land animals
- and that nuts don´t spoil as fast as fish or liver; so I preferred eating nuts ;-).
When I ate many nuts, fish (that I otherwise liked very much) lost its "instinctive attraction" for a while. I then didn´t eat (many) nuts for a while and the fish became attractive for me again.
-
In my personal experiments I found nuts to be bad food.
Nuts should be looked at as fun rare food in small quantities.
Aajonus' observation that nuts interfered with meat digestion is true for me.
I eat too much nuts, I can't eat or digest much meat.
The nuts I experimented on were raw pili nuts. It's what we have that's raw in our provinces.
-
Nuts even much more than sweet fruits intake must be wilfully severely restricted and not eaten up to so-called "instinctive stop".
Nuts provide typically as much as 8000 kcal/ kg, exhibit a very unfavorable omega6/omega3 fatty acid profile and a total lack of vitamins D, K2 and preformed A. Eating on a regular basis such stuff up to so called "instinctive stop" is a catastrophy for most people. Simple satiety signals from brain then just kill attraction towards any food not just fish and in particular more balanced and indispensable nutrient rich fats from animals.
If an "instinct" were really at work according to Burger's view, why the hell, Hanna, when eating nuts should you no longer be attracted to fish, a food that precisely might correct for the bad fat profile and lack of important vitamins in nuts?
-
Hi :),
>>Nuts provide typically as much as 8000 kcal/ kg,
I´m quite sure that I seldom ate more calories than I needed. But I guess that a large proportion of my caloric intake was supplied by nuts.
>>Eating on a regular basis such stuff up to so called "instinctive stop" is a catastrophy for most people. Simple satiety signals from brain then just kill attraction towards any food not just fish and in particular more balanced and indispensable nutrient rich fats from animals.
Are there specific symptoms which these people lacking animal fat have (besides the symptoms of B12 deficiency)?
>>If an "instinct" were really at work according to Burger's view, why the hell, Hanna, when eating nuts should you no longer be attracted to fish, a food that precisely might correct for the bad fat profile and lack of important vitamins in nuts?
It seems that this instinct at least can easily be disturbed...
-
Are there specific symptoms which these people lacking animal fat have (besides the symptoms of B12 deficiency)?
Emaciation, skin problems, impaired eyesight, thermal regulation, fertility, libido etc etc
-
I think walnuts are the only nuts with a good omega-3 to omega-6 ratio, last I checked.
-
One further thought: Instincto postulates that cooked food has late or no instinctive stops because we aren´t genetically adapted to it. Couldn´t it be that cooked food has late or no instinctive stops simply because it is easily digestible and lacks antinutrients, so that we can eat it without direct health damage until our stomach is replete? Eating rawfood without respecting instinctive stops seems to have more negative consequences than eating cooked food lacking these stops. The instinctive stops when eating raw food therefore could warn against unpleasant symptoms and direct health damages that are simply not to be feared in the case of cooked foods. in my opinion our genetic adaptation to cooked food isn´t as good as that to rawfood in some respects. But this doesn´t mean that our adaptation to raw food is perfect and that there is no adaptation to cooked food at all.
Und noch ein weiterer Gedanke: Instincto postuliert, dass Kochkost späte oder fehlende instinktive Sperren hat, weil wir genetisch an die Kochkost nicht angepasst sind. Könnte es nicht sein, dass Kochkost schlicht deswegen späte oder fehlende instinktive Sperren hat, weil sie leicht verdaulich ist und wenig Antinutritiva hat, so dass wir sie ohne unmittelbaren Schaden essen können, bis unser Magen voll ist? Eine Rohkost, bei der instinktive Sperren (warum auch immer) nicht beachtet werden, scheint unangenehmere Konsequenzen als Kochkost zu haben, der diese Sperren fehlen. Im Falle der Rohkost könnten daher die instinktiven Sperren vor Unannehmlichkeiten und unmittelbaren gesundheitlichen Schäden warnen, die im Falle gekochter Speisen schlicht nicht zu befürchten sind. Nach meiner Ansicht ist unsere genetische Anpassung an Kochkost in mancher Hinsicht nicht so gut wie die an Rohkost. Dies bedeutet aber nicht, dass unsere Anpassung an Rohkost perfekt ist und dass es keine Anpassung an Kochkost gibt.
-
I would be more specific about cooked food:
It should state CONDIMENTED food.
Cooked meat by itself with zero condiments is taste less.
I just experimented with making beef soup for my children with just plain water and it sucked. Didn't taste like anything.
-
Fatty cooked meat tastes very nice when it's your only meat. It doesn't taste as nice as raw meat though. However, raw meat tastes really nice when one's hungry, but not nice when one is not hungry whereas cooked meat you can eat it whether you're hungry or not, and have the negatives. Whereas raw meat if I don't really want it I'll taste it and stop.. If I do want it, I'll scoff down kilo's. Cooked meat there is no stop so if I'm hungry I'd eat the same 400g as if I was not really hungry(body ready for food) and this is not good. e.g. before bed, I do not have good taste for raw meat, it tastes bad... cooked meat I would just eat, and then would have bad effects.
-
Cooked meat by itself with zero condiments is taste less.
I disagree completely. I pan fried some boneless lamb shoulder last night and ate it plain. I eat all my meat, raw or cooked, completely free of any spices or condiments. :)
-
I disagree completely. I pan fried some boneless lamb shoulder last night and ate it plain. I eat all my meat, raw or cooked, completely free of any spices or condiments. :)
Same... To me, the second nicest food after raw meat is cooked meat... I never used(of course I have experienced them, but out of preference) any condiments, of any sort on my cooked meat... nor do I use them on my raw meat. Not that I eat cooked meat.. But it tastes good without any condiments.. better without, to me. It's just that the taste of cooked meat is always 5, for example(depending on how competently it was cooked), whereas raw meat can be 0 or 10.
-
I eat raw meat as much as possible, but like pork or lamb cooked, as well as egg yolks. I am pure ZC first, and raw second.
-
One further thought: Instincto postulates that cooked food has late or no instinctive stops because we aren´t genetically adapted to it. Couldn´t it be that cooked food has late or no instinctive stops simply because it is easily digestible and lacks antinutrients, so that we can eat it without direct health damage until our stomach is replete? Eating rawfood without respecting instinctive stops seems to have more negative consequences than eating cooked food lacking these stops. The instinctive stops when eating raw food therefore could warn against unpleasant symptoms and direct health damages that are simply not to be feared in the case of cooked foods. in my opinion our genetic adaptation to cooked food isn´t as good as that to rawfood in some respects. But this doesn´t mean that our adaptation to raw food is perfect and that there is no adaptation to cooked food at all.
Cooking destroys indeed part of the antinutrients or defense chemicals in plant based food and makes it easier to eat than its raw counterparts. This is indeed one reason that accounts for in instincto language "late instinctive stops". Yet this antinutrient destruction can hardly explain the same phenomenon of increased palatability in case of cooked meats that clearly exists too, as Klowcarb points out.
There is indeed much more than destruction of antinutrients since heating also accelerates tremendously the formation of Maillard reaction products for instance in binding carbs or fats to amino acids. This is nothing but the food scientists label for AGE's and these compounds are well known since many decades to increase the palatability of foods. Obviously most of these molecules formed in appropriate cooking recipes such as fried or rosted meats are felt as very tasty. Note however by the way that not all heated food tastes better, bad cooking recipes are well known to result in awful tastes.
Finally as GS recalls, condiments or seasoning is a third way to augment palatability of food and thus definitely increase its intake.
I contend the idea that invoking a wicked "instinct" to "explain" all these phenomena only obscures them, actually explains nothing and thus fools us.
Finally as to " our genetic adaptation" this is IMO a too vague concept that cannot learn us to much. What is better adaptation ?
In darwinian terms it is just faster reproduction and species biomass growth. In this respect humans are extremely well adapted. Just have a look at world population versus time curve !
Obviously this is not the kind of things we have in mind in this forum when we invoke better adaptation which is rather better health or longevity.
It is likely that because of the much higher quality of paleofood and more physically active lifestyle our ancestors from middle or upper paleolithic could quite well cope with a certain amount of cooked food in their diet and nevertheless be in vibrant health as compared to degenerated civilized man even after switching back to 100% rawfood.
-
Thank you for your suggestions.
>>and nevertheless be in vibrant health as compared to degenerated civilized man
But may I remind you that you critizised gcb´s belief in the "noble savage" ;)? I don´t feel degenerated even if I compare myself to noble savage rawvegan gorillas (who seem to be the inspiring models for many German rawfoodists).
-
Hanna,
What science tells us is that our ancestors were neither "noble savages" nor were their lives simply "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short"
As to civilized man's degeneration maybe you did'nt notice but I purposely compared to middle and upper paleolithic hunter- gatherers i.e. a period ranging from about 10000 to 300000 years ago not to a much more remote common ancestor of gorillas and man. I maintain that a definite degeneration i.e. change in very nature of man occured during the neolithic revolution not only because our diet deteriorated but also because our life style and relationship to nature dramatically changed.
-
Do you think its possible that since man has such a taste for cooked foods that cooked foods do provide us with energy more rapidly although though perhaps not as fully absorbed? As in one study I found where fecal nitrogen waste was significantly greater for the diet higher in malliard products - suggesting to me that cooked protein is turned into energy more rapidly but with more waste.
There must be a reason why cooked foods taste good - i can think of plenty more reasons but was specifically wondering about the above.
-
Aren´t maillard products in some raw foods too? Old nuts or dates for example. Are maillard products in high meat? Perhaps aged food is often more easily digestible than fresh food.
-
Google tells that maillard products are also generated under long-term storage conditions. And sugar seems not to be necessary:
In a previous study, feeding an isolated soy protein (ISP)-based diet to rats was found to reduce colon cancer risk as assessed by a reduced number of colonic precancerous lesions. However, this same ISP, after storage at room temperature for >2 years, increased the number of precancerous lesions (Gallaher et al., 1996). We hypothesize that this increase was due to the development of Maillard reaction products in the ISP during storage. Thus, the objective of this study was monitor development of the Maillard reaction during storage of ISP and delactosed whey protein concentrate. (...) To investigate why ISP underwent browning in the absence of glucose while whey protein concentrate did not, the reaction of genistein was investigated. Genistein is an isoflavone with putative chemoprotective properties found in ISP but not in whey. (...) The rate of browning was found to parallel the rate of genistein loss, suggesting that genistein plays a role as a reactant in nonenzymatic browning reactions. This suggests that long-term storage of ISP will lead to the loss of genistein and potentially result in the development of carcinogens.
http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/jf9800864
-
Google tells that maillard products are also generated under long-term storage conditions. And sugar seems not to be necessary:
Yes of course Maillard products or other oxidation products are also formed in food left at room temperature and actually even continuously in living healthy organisms. Yet the quantities formed are orders of magnitude less than at higher temperatures and we have obviously developped mechanisms that allow us to fairly well cope with these small amounts of Maillard products or AGEs whether endogenously formed or present in our food. Moreover in "aged" meat or food bacteria and fungi thrive simultaneously and use these compounds as food and so diminish further the quantities present in such foods.
In order to give an idea of the relative amounts of AGEs formed as a function of temperature it is interesting to recall a little basics of chemical reaction kinetics. The chemical reactions involved in Maillard reactions are non enzymatic and thus strongly thermally activated ones. The rate of formation (or number of reaction products formed per second) in such reactions increases very rapidly (somewhat exponentially) with temperature. Typically to show the order of magnitudes in such reaction rates whenever 1 of such specific Maillard molecule is formed at 15°C there are 40000 of them formed at 90°C and around 10 millions of them at 180°C.
In other words for every Maillard molecule formed in a food left to "age" during 3 months in a cellar at 15°C there are typically 10^7 x 30 / (60 x 24 x 92) of them formed during a 30 minutes cooking at 180°C i.e. 2264 times more...
In spite of the short cooking as compared to ageing time.
It is therefore not surprising that while we easily cope with the amount of AGEs formed in even the aged raw food this is probably not the case with the cooked food which overwhelms progressively our detox capabilities. In particular if this overwhelming is repeated day after day during our whole lifetime. This is in line with the obvious fact that clear cut troubles and sickness due to AGEs accumulation usually show up only after several decades of heavily cooked diet depending of individual genetic capabilities.
-
Thank you Alphagruis >:, that’s exactly what I said in my first book in connection with the molecules of Maillard in 1985. Except that at the time nothing was known about the AGEs and their capacity to accumulate in the body. Moreover from yourself : a marvelous confirmation of my assumptions!
I bet that 25 years from now on quite as resounding confirmations will be recognized concerning my ideas on the alimentary instinct. Meanwhile, don’t eat too much butter and sauerkraut (your favorite dishes, according to what I read from you on the French forums) if you want to still be there to celebrate the confirmation with me… :D
-
don’t eat too much butter and sauerkraut
ahhh, i think i missed the connection somewhere. can you please remind what's wrong with too much butter and sauerkraut?
-
Don't be afraid, it's purely metaphorical... ;)
-
Thank you alphagruis for this interesting information concerning Maillard products!
-
Hanna, just wanted to make clear that the few experiments done on digestion have actually shown that cooking raw meats makes them less digestible(I cover this in 1 of my articles on rawpaleodiet.com I think re hake etc. being less digestible when cooked etc. Only non-palaeo foods(raw veggies are an exception, raw dairy is made worse)) are easily improved by cooking re antinutrients being removed, but the cooking process adds on heat-created toxins such as AGEs, like alphagruis said.
As for cooked foods being more pleasurable, that has to do with more opioids being formed via the cooking process and giving certain "highs" to the brain, causing addiction.
That said, I have noticed that rawpalaeos usually end up eating raw meats with fewer and fewer spices in the long-term, while spices have always been routinely used to add some taste to otherwise relatively bland cooked meats. Certainly, one can reasonably argue that the more one cooks the meat, the less tasty it becomes(really well-done meat can taste almost like charcoal, for example).
-
I never used spices on cooked meat, and I've never used them on raw meat. I do not find cooked foods more pleasurable, I find raw foods more pleasurable.
-
As TD recalls raw (in particular fatty) meats or fishs are undoubtedly more easily digested than their cooked counterparts. In this respect I was able to convince up to now about 15 people on more or less usual (cooked meat at least) diet to give it a try. In seasoned form if they appeared to be unable to eat the stuff as it is.
They all agreed about this point.
-
I would guess that at least stringy meat becomes more easily digestible if it is cooked. And there must be a good reason why hunters an gatherers cooked their meat. Isn´t cooking a kind of predigestion - and likewise the aging of meat? Fish is known to be more easily digestible than the meat of land animals. I can´t compare raw with cooked meat, because the last time I ate something heated was six and a half years ago and voluntarily i will never eat something heated again because my body then goes haywire...
TD, could you please give me the exact link of the article you have in mind?
-
Well, Inuits apparently cooked only a modest part of their meat,fat or fish. In general HGs rather roasted or grilled meat on open fire which produces much addictives Maillard and fat oxidation products that possibly also explains the spread of this practice. Cooking makes sometimes meat easier to chew and swallow but this is not meat or fish digestion which seems always impaired by the formation of a substantial fraction of heat damaged amino acids and fatty acids that cannot readily enter into our normal metabolic paths.
-
Facing the avalanche of questions – all enthralling – accumulated in these few days, I don’t really know where to pick up! As all those questions spin around the instinct, I believe essential to start by putting things straight about this concept and later on the theoretical reasons that could push someone to reject it along with consequences in the “instincto” theory.
1°) My starting point isn’t theoretical, but empirical. Although impassioned of theoretical physics, I’ve always preferred to give preponderance to facts, in particular on complex subjects. In 1964, I noticed on myself, then on many others and animals as well, that there are variations in attraction for a given foodstuff. This phenomenon is easily observable, particularly with edible goods left unprocessed.
2°) These variations of attraction translate subjectively on several levels: odor, savor, consistency, dislikes (nausea) and stomachic feelings. I initially concentrated on the observation of those first three aspects, which were the newest.
3°) First question: are the observable perceptive variations contingent, or do they match variations of the physiological needs? The answer can only be empirical, i.e. it is necessary to seek the correlations between the perception’s variations and variations of the somehow known needs. Such research isn’t straightforward since we don’t always know the body needs.
4°) First answer: When a given foodstuff or another food providing the same nutrients has been consumed in a large quantity, an attraction drop can very generally be observed. This rule was confirmed with all the tested foodstuffs (unprocessed and subject to minor artificial selection) whatever their source (fruits of any origins but as wild as possible, vegetables, high-protein seeds, oilseeds, fish, shellfish, meat, eggs, honey, etc). Yet, some natural stuff like mushrooms were not systematically tested. As a whole, and since there is homeostasis (safeguarding of a balance), it can be concluded that these perceptive variations belong to a system of regulation.
5°) The following question, much more subtle, is to know if these variations are able to ensure a satisfactory nutritional balance. It is therefore necessary to observe individuals agreeing to respect them (something not obvious), in particular by ending the intake of each foodstuff as soon as it becomes unpleasant, and by observing the rules imposed by comparative observation of the results. The purpose of these rules is to bring nutritional conditions closer to those of a primitive environment. It definitely proved that the sensory mechanisms work correctly under precise conditions only, conditions sufficiently close to the living conditions in which theses mechanisms evolved. I succeeded in convincing, during dozens of years, approximately twelve thousand people to try the experiment.
6°) The crucial point is then to define the criteria of a “satisfactory” nutritional balance. The most determinant case was that of children nourished on the “instincto” mode since birth and whose mothers had practiced instinctive nutrition themselves for years. The fact that their body developed without deficiencies and disorders until adulthood let’s think that such instinctive paleo-nutrition brought them all the substances a human body may need to ensure a perfect growth and health. My own children, who always balanced by very innocently following their attractions and repulsions, are now in their forties and are living evidence about the adequacy of this mode of nutrition and regulation.
7°) The case of adults on a traditional diet (SWD or various diets) switching to instincto diet is also very persuasive: the absence of long-term deficiency, the fulfilling of old deficiencies, their body index of mass (BMI) and many criteria of health show that they not only get the raw food benefits, but also an extremely precise nutritional regulation. The few divergent results could always be put in relation to defects of provisioning or errors in the application of the rules drawn from the first years of observation, in particular with regard to the interpretation of the sensory data on the level of the sense of smell, taste and stomachic feelings, but also of the organization of the presentation of the products to the sensory organs.
8°) A much finer criterion clearly marks out the difference between a ordinary raw diet and instinctotherapy: the inflammatory tendency. Inflammation plays a key role on the immunological side; it constitutes in fact the expression at macroscopic scale of the body’s defense and regeneration mechanisms, which the immune system ensures at the microscopic scale. Inflammation is also the seat of mechanisms of self-destruction and various complications. However, with a nutritional balance managed according to the instincto principles and rules, the level of inflammation is such that all complications disappear: no more erythema around the lesions nor oedema, and especially no pain.
A fracture is painful for short while, then the signal stops after few minutes (in analgesic position) and no inflammation nor pain comes next to complicate the bone’s cicatrisation. On the other hand, it suffice to force the alliesthesic signals at the gustatory or stomachic level (for example with artificially selected fruits abnormally rich in sugar) to see redness developing, oedema and pain taking off. For example during the fracture of a toe (as just happened to me) the pain remains absolutely quiet and the oedema is limited just as to avoid inopportune movements of the phalanges. But a transgression of the instinctive stop (taste, repletion) is enough for the process to take off.
This spontaneous and systematic regulation, easily and already observable on babies at the condition of applying the instincto rules, shows that the mechanisms of perceptive variations are innate, genetically programmed so as to very precisely control nutritional balance. It requires however an adequate food environment such as these rules precisely teach it, as well as a rehabilitation of the body listening for the ones who did not integrate it since early childhood.
9°) The innate character of the perceptive variations mechanisms is shown in a very direct way, as I did with my own children and as many parents have been able to verify: it suffice to present to the baby right after birth a series of foodstuff left unprocessed so that their flavor is not modified. The baby, who still has his eyes closed, automatically opens the mouth for some specific food, but not for the others. Reflexes are coherent, in the sense that repeated presentations never trigger a mouth opening for a food that would have obtained a negative answer, and target finally on a reduced number of products. If the choosen stuff is crushed and put in the baby’s mouth, he’s got the reflex to chew (although without teeth) and swallow it. If a foodstuff that failed to produce a mouth opening is nevertheless force fed into his mouth, the baby has (even before any training) the reflex to spit. The coherence of this complex operation is checked by the digestive quality, in particular by the absence of odors in the faeces.
10°) For several reasons this does not exclude the necessity of a training so that these mechanisms function correctly:
a) we are no longer placed in an environment close to the one where our genome evolved, thus a series of precautions must be taken;
b) innate and acquired characteristics aren’t dissociable, thus the innate mechanisms require a training (it is the same for example for walk, which is innate but request a more or less long training according to the species);
c) the training we had of these regulation mechanisms during childhood has been deeply distorted by culinary deterioration of savors, so that we don’t know how to establish the correct link between the sense of smell and the taste, nor between these sensory signals and the stomachic feelings, neither with the risk of digestive or nutritional overload, nor spontaneously to compensate for the influence of the environmental modifications (for example vis-a-vis modern fruits richer in sugar).
This skewed training can be partly compensated by a particular training which consists in bypassing the intellect and cultural reflexes. It is allowed by the blindfolding procedure (whose purpose is not an immediate alimentary balance, but rather recovery of the defective training of perceptive variations mechanisms). A teaching is obviously necessary in order to learn the rules to respect, the way to organize our provisioning and other points that constitute the method known as instinctotherapy.
I hope the above will clarify the issue and allow a better-centered debate.
-
>>we are no longer placed in an environment close to the one where our genome evolved
Concerning this point: Will you answer my initially posed questions later on?
-
>>we are no longer placed in an environment close to the one where our genome evolved
Concerning this point: Will you answer my initially posed questions later on?
Could you please remind me which question you refer to? A link to the relevant post would help me. Thanks.
-
I succeeded in convincing, during dozens of years, approximately twelve thousand people to try the experiment.
How many have succeeded in the long run and continue eating according to your teachings among the twelve thousand people you have convinced ?
In my personal experience with instincto, I have found that I simply cannot sustain my body on the long run with only 2 meals a day, generally based on plant food (animal products being not an everyday food). And it seems that it is not a personal defect : many instinctos are underweight and lack energy (I have been to dozens of meetings these last ten years and that was striking!). I have noticed that many of the few that succeed and that are not underweight generally eat more than 2 meals a day, unless they are physically inactive. And it is not without good reasons that Dominique Guyaux has proposed in his "AIR" to eat several mono-meals a day. Only on a (mainly) carnivorous diet can we make it with one (or two) big meals a day in terms of energy requirement, as I have experienced personally.
The fluctuation of energy requirements during the day, and the fact that insuline production is determined primary by the size of the meal are IMO two good reasons that explain the failure of many instinctos on a 2-meals-a-day schedule.
This should be taken into account if you want to "convince" others...
-
Could you please remind me which question you refer to? A link to the relevant post would help me. Thanks.
In English AND in German ;):
http://www.rawpaleoforum.com/instinctoanopsology/explain-instincto-diet-fully-2/msg38532/#msg38532
http://www.rawpaleoforum.com/instinctoanopsology/explain-instincto-diet-fully-2/msg38575/#msg38575
http://www.rawpaleoforum.com/instinctoanopsology/explain-instincto-diet-fully-2/msg38647/#msg38647
-
Whaw! Your links lead me to a lot of questions, Hanna, and to be complete my answers would fill at least dozen of pages…
I attentively read everything you wrote, and finally choose some questions which seem to summarize your concerns.
When (and where) do you think lived the last ancestor of us eating raw?
But there ARE diffences (small intestine more extended, as far as I remember) - and the teeth of humans are smaller. We are e.g. no longer adapted to eat leaves like the chimpanzees and we couldn´t eat the fruits eaten by them.
(…) perhaps YOU could tell me when and where this instincto species eating durian, cempedak, jackfruit, banana, dates, safu, avocado... lived? Where was this tropical paradise and when did it exist? Were the instinctos living there apelike or already human? WHO CAN HELP ME with these questions?
The fundamental meaning of your questions is to know since when our genetic data goes back in time, those of our assimilation system as well as those of our alliesthesic mechanisms. I thus begin by summarizing my position, considering the general confusion spread in the minds by some debunking champions:
The characters of a species do not go back to an exact point in time, since evolution is permanent: the species change, the environment changes in a continuous coevolution. To speak about a specific time ever since the characteristics of our organisms would go back is merely a form of heuristics, a simplification of language meant to ease the verbal expression of the argument, considering the language does not provide terms expressing simply complex phenomena moving in time.
It happens however that the characters specific to a specie are by definition hereditary (mainly determined by the genome). There can thus be a delay between the environmental changes and the adaptation of the species (and reciprocally). A change of diet can obviously cause disorders, the adaptabilities being limited, whatever their nature. So, the question I asked almost a half-century ago appears irrefragable to me. It is in fact a triple question:
• Do the most recent diet changes, inherent in the culinary and agricultural artifices introduced roughly speaking since the Neolithic era, have (or they would require) an adaptation of the species in order to avoid any physiological dysfunction?
• Were these adaptive processes carried out satisfactorily in the interval?
• Was such an adaptation possible and would it still be possible?
If the answer to the second question is negative, which are then the consequences in terms of health of an incomplete or null adaptation to each one of these artifices?
This relates to all the physiological mechanisms, to the mechanisms of assimilation and to the mechanisms of nutritional regulation.
Instinctonutrition is in itself and foremost an experiment intended to answer these questions in an empirical way. I always presented it unlike a diet based on a dogma, but like a personal experience, with for safety guarantee the fact that I practiced it with my family and a large circle of friends for ten years before taking the risk to speak about it publicly. However, the results proved very positive, so that a pre-culinary diet proved to play an important therapeutic role, preventive and curative, in particular thanks to the rehabilitation of the listening of the body (perceptive variations of the sense of smell, taste and stomachic feelings).
Therefore, you’ll notice the fact that an alleged larger or smaller difference between us and the chimpanzees does not change anything to the argument. Indeed, nothing allows us to predict that the human organism works better with a diet similar to that of the chimpanzees, or a contrario that an evolution of our physiological data implies that we need a different diet. To answer this question analytically (comparison of the enzymes, characteristics of the digestive tract, etc) provides general indications only. A single conclusion can be drawn: a nutrition closer to that of the primates from which we evolved has more chances to be better suited to us than a distant one such as a conventional diet.
The empirical way is therefore privileged to bring reliable answers, and it is the line I’ve followed since 1964, with all kinds of corrections made to the practice’s principles according to the observations done on the field. Therefore my approach doesn’t require at all any reference to a primal paradise. If I speak about it sometimes, it is in a humorous way, or as a metaphor. Those attacking me using for argument that such a paradise never existed simply failed to understand anything in my proposal. It doesn’t prevent my preferred oilseed fruit (the safu) to grow in the Cameroon forest, neither the coconut tree to thrive in all tropical islands, nor the durian and cempedak to fall from the trees the last orangutans of Borneo climb.
It is completely indifferent for me to know if there was once a so-called “primal paradise”, a place where all the suitable wild food would have been found nearby. I am satisfied to notice the fact that with a sufficient choice, coming from all kinds of source, a fine nutritional balance is quicker and easier reached, in particular for the ones whose health is severely deteriorated. This point is checked by the therapeutic results, and it is finally rather logical: the wider the choice, the larger the chances to find the adequate nutrients and herbal medical substances. I think for example of former vegans suffering of serious malnutrition. They needed a great diversity of products, not in view to ingest them all at once, but to discover without losing too much time the specific stuff able to resolve the situation. It has been once crab, once jackfruit, once meat, once pineapple, once honey… The need is in these cases very definite and very urgent, and the more choice, the better it is. But it doesn’t mean one needs the same broad choice range in cruising speed, I mean on the table everyday after initial discoveries have been acquired. Each person simply do what he/she feels instinctively or what he/she perceive most suitable in his/hers case.
Concerning the alliesthesic mechanisms, I never pretended they work in a perfect way. Perfection doesn’t belong to this world. I simply became aware that they are able to drive the food choice much better than one can do it mentally. The mental is indeed not in direct contact with the body needs, which proved eminently variable. The dietetic principles, for example, are based on averages, and the attribute of an average is that the individual data move more or less away from it according to each case. Applying a median value to an individual case is in fact a guarantee of error in many cases.
It’s necessary to add that it ain’t easy at all to correctly use these alliesthesic mechanisms, in particular for the reasons explained above: training skewed since early childhood under the effect of savors and consistencies deteriorations, available foodstuff dissimilar to the wild ones and disorders induced in the operation of the sensory perceptions, habits to privilege the arbitrary choices and to force indications of the smell and taste perceptions.
It is indeed difficult to distinguish the disorders caused by a dysfunction of the alliesthesic regulation of those induced by some processes of detoxination. All kinds of criteria nevertheless allow us to discern between the two explanations. It is in particular necessary to observe what the concerned disorders become after years of practice: the differences are then clearer between food overload and faintnesses of any kind.
-
How many have succeeded in the long run and continue eating according to your teachings among the twelve thousand people you have convinced ?
I’ve always presented the instincto as a personal experience to be initially tried for about three weeks, even if one wishes to continue it thereafter. I can thus estimate at twelve thousand the number of people who carried out the experiment, but it is difficult for me to know what these people did afterward considering the incompatibility between statistics of this kind and individual freedoms. On the other hand, I can say that the persons who practiced it properly while keeping contact with me have presented all the criteria of balance I mentioned earlier, except rare exceptions (for example a child with a brain tumor impairing his alliesthesic regulation so that he started to eat cassia fistula in exaggerated quantity and the experiment had to be stopped).
In my personal experience with instincto, I have found that I simply cannot sustain my body on the long run with only 2 meals a day, generally based on plant food (animal products being not an everyday food).
Preliminary questions (to understand what happened to you, I would need the following data): how did you practice the experiment? By applying which method of foodstuff selection and quantity regulation? Which frequency of exceptions? With what kind of provisioning? What kind of training and knowledge? What were your antecedents? How long did you practice properly?
The two meals advice has never been meant to be an absolute rule, but a way of leaving the vicious circle induced by too many daily meals or nibbling. Of course, no one is obliged to respect it: it’s simply that most people feel better with two meals than with three. Moreover, after the first “waves of detoxination” are over, for a normal individual (sufficiently away from the disorders induced by cooked food) and with a normal working time, there isn’t any hunger feeling in the morning. It’s possible that you interpreted as a weakness due to a lack of food the reactions of elimination related to your previous diet. A mainly carnivorous diet, from the imbalance it induces, blocks these reactions and can give the impression of a better metabolic state. Nevertheless, most long term instinctos (and myself as well) are fine with a daily or almost daily consumption of some animal products.
it is not without good reasons that Dominique Guyaux has proposed in his "AIR" to eat several mono-meals a day.
To my knowledge, Guyaux developed his “AIR” (Alimentation Instinctive Raisonnée) in order to avoid bad food associations produced by too complex meals. The idea was to allow digestion to take place under the best conditions of simplicity with sufficiently spaced single foodstuff meals. I tried myself to apply this method (which remains basically instincto), but it rather led me to a permanent bad digestion, the digestion of the preceding meal being still incomplete when a new need for food occurred. Most people who tried the experiment and told me about it felt they drifted into a permanent nibble, probably because the digestive complications due to two insufficiently distant meals generate false hunger feelings (confusion between digestive dizziness and empty stomach).
Only on a (mainly) carnivorous diet can we make it with one (or two) big meals a day in terms of energy requirement, as I have experienced personally.
I for one feel infinitely lighter and dynamic with two meals including each one a few number of products (determined by the sensory signals). I know many hard laborers having no problem with two daily meals. Still, we have to get rid of the preconceived idea that we lack energy when our stomach is empty.
it seems that it is not a personal defect : many instinctos are underweight and lack energy (I have been to dozens of meetings these last ten years and that was striking!). I have noticed that many of the few that succeed and that are not underweight generally eat more than 2 meals a day, unless they are physically inactive.
It's always misleading to trust visual observations as one can gather in a group while discussing here and there to draw some general conclusions. A whole series of bias can distort impressions collected randomly:
• the majority of instinctos are former survivors of the SWD and very often of medicine, in particular former vegetarians or vegans;
• some are still inclined to vegetarian or vegan ideology;
• some embarked out in practice without the necessary knowledge;
• the gatherings preferentially attract people with health issues;
• there are strong unconscious resistances to respect the sense of smell in the selection of foodstuff, so that the majority do not practice the instinctotherapy in a strict sense;
• the standard of “normal” weight, such as drawn from the average population, is clearly above the medical standard;
• a serious observation cannot be done on the basis of visual impressions: one needs figures, for example to calculate the BMI of the participants, take the average, the standard deviation, and to compare with medical data of a normal staturo-ponderal balance. I’ve seen the ones who practice correctly to converge towards standard weight, obviously lower than general population average, bearing in mind the general epidemic of overweight and obesity.
The fluctuation of energy requirements during the day, and the fact that insuline production is determined primary by the size of the meal are IMO two good reasons that explain the failure of many instinctos on a 2-meals-a-day schedule.
The weakness feeling at the origin of this belief rather comes from the reactions of elimination starting when digestion is over; it is stopped by forcing the body into a new digestion process. These fluctuations disappear along the months or years of practice and are much more probably related to long-term phenomenon (such as detoxination) than with immediate processes (like postprandial shock).
That said, I fear that the carnivorous craze which invaded the paleo movement may have over the years disastrous consequences in immunizing disorders (gout, joints problems, autoimmune diseases and cancer) and other consequences of long-term imbalance. It is not with merely five years feedback that one can appreciate the results, but rather over ten or twenty years.
-
To KD: I don’t forget you, Thanks for the better presentation of your June 27 post. I’ll reply next to your questions not already answered in both preceding posts.
-
Preliminary questions (to understand what happened to you, I would need the following data): how did you practice the experiment? By applying which method of foodstuff selection and quantity regulation? Which frequency of exceptions? With what kind of provisioning? What kind of training and knowledge? What were your antecedents? How long did you practice properly?
I had no particular illness before trying instincto 13 years ago. During 5 years, and without exception, I ate according to my taste (barely used my olfaction) an all organic (orkos) rawpaleo diet, 2 meals a day, following the advices I found in your writings and given by many instinctos I met. I lost a lot of weight (ended up 48Kg for 1m82!) that I did not regain during the 5 years. I was also often tired (hypoglycemia), had many deficiencies (B12, minerals...) and hormonal inbalances. I now understand that it was mainly caused by a lack of calories : I simply could not absorb enough calories in 2 meals a day to fuel my body, given that I generally ate fruits in midday, vegetables and « protein » (nuts, seeds, oily fruits, seafood, fish and eggs) for dinner. I did not eat meat at that time, couldn't stomach it!, except lean chicken sometimes. Eating fatty meat regularly would have surely helped me as it is high in calories and has no fibers.
It’s possible that you interpreted as a weakness due to a lack of food the reactions of elimination related to your previous diet. A mainly carnivorous diet, from the imbalance it induces, blocks these reactions and can give the impression of a better metabolic state. Nevertheless, most long term instinctos (and myself as well) are fine with a daily or almost daily consumption of some animal products.
My diet before was a SWD, not carnivorous.
To my knowledge, Guyaux developed his “AIR” (Alimentation Instinctive Raisonnée) in order to avoid bad food associations produced by too complex meals. The idea was to allow digestion to take place under the best conditions of simplicity with sufficiently spaced single foodstuff meals. I tried myself to apply this method (which remains basically instincto), but it rather led me to a permanent bad digestion, the digestion of the preceding meal being still incomplete when a new need for food occurred. Most people who tried the experiment and told me about it felt they drifted into a permanent nibble, probably because the digestive complications due to two insufficiently distant meals generate false hunger feelings (confusion between digestive dizziness and empty stomach).
For me, many small meals spread over the day are more easily digested than two big meals a day, and especially helps me to better fulfill my energy requirements. No more hypoglycemia due to a sudden excess of food intake.
I for one feel infinitely lighter and dynamic with two meals including each one a few number of products (determined by the sensory signals). I know many hard laborers having no problem with two daily meals. Still, we have to get rid of the preconceived idea that we lack energy when our stomach is empty.
My fatigue was not caused by a feeling of an empty stomach : my energy was ok in the morning as long as I didn't eat. The first meal of fruits maked my blood sugar went up and down...
• the majority of instinctos are former survivors of the SWD and very often of medicine, in particular former vegetarians or vegans;
• some are still inclined to vegetarian or vegan ideology;
• some embarked out in practice without the necessary knowledge;
• the gatherings preferentially attract people with health issues;
• there are strong unconscious resistances to respect the sense of smell in the selection of foodstuff, so that the majority do not practice the instinctotherapy in a strict sense;
• the standard of “normal” weight, such as drawn from the average population, is clearly above the medical standard;
• a serious observation cannot be done on the basis of visual impressions: one needs figures, for example to calculate the BMI of the participants, take the average, the standard deviation, and to compare with medical data of a normal staturo-ponderal balance. I’ve seen the ones who practice correctly to converge towards standard weight, obviously lower than general population average, bearing in mind the general epidemic of overweight and obesity.
I am talking about long term emaciated instinctos...
I still believe that many instinctos don't get enough calories with 2 big meals a day, because fruits which make at least generally half of the food intake of the day are not very calorie-dense (not to mention vegetables which are even worst at this regard). It would be very easy to calculate the amount of calories ingested a day and compare it with the energy requirement. I estimate that I was often 20% below my needs, whatever the amount of avocados or dates I could eat!
The weakness feeling at the origin of this belief rather comes from the reactions of elimination starting when digestion is over; it is stopped by forcing the body into a new digestion process. These fluctuations disappear along the months or years of practice and are much more probably related to long-term phenomenon (such as detoxination) than with immediate processes (like postprandial shock).
These reactions of elimination have almost disappeared with mono-meals evenly spread over the day according to my energy requirements, to the extend that I can now get up hungry (for energy), something that never happened with 2 meals a day as the digestion process of the previous complicated meal the day before was still pending!
That said, I fear that the carnivorous craze which invaded the paleo movement may have over the years disastrous consequences in immunizing disorders (gout, joints problems, autoimmune diseases and cancer) and other consequences of long-term imbalance. It is not with merely five years feedback that one can appreciate the results, but rather over ten or twenty years.
Indeed...
-
Gcb, you wrote:
>>The following question, much more subtle, is to know if these variations are able to ensure a satisfactory nutritional balance. It is therefore necessary to observe individuals agreeing to respect them (something not obvious), in particular by ending the intake of each foodstuff as soon as it becomes unpleasant, and by observing the rules imposed by comparative observation of the results. The purpose of these rules is to bring nutritional conditions closer to those of a primitive environment. It definitely proved that the sensory mechanisms work correctly under precise conditions only, conditions sufficiently close to the living conditions in which theses mechanisms evolved. I succeeded in convincing, during dozens of years, approximately twelve thousand people to try the experiment.
If you claim: "It definitely proved that the sensory mechanisms work correctly under precise conditions only, conditions sufficiently close to the living conditions in which theses mechanisms evolved", then you must be able to define these conditions and say in which kind of "primitive environment" we evolved! Obviously you did not have Greenland or Canada in mind?
-
And then, when carnivore wondered about these "twelve thousand people" you wrote:
>>I’ve always presented the instincto as a personal experience to be initially tried for about three weeks, even if one wishes to continue it thereafter. I can thus estimate at twelve thousand the number of people who carried out the experiment, but it is difficult for me to know what these people did afterward
But concerning the carnivorous diet:
>>It is not with merely five years feedback that one can appreciate the results, but rather over ten or twenty years.
Precisely for that reason your twelve thousand people are completly irrelevant and prove precisely nothing! You can fast for three weeks. Is this an evidence that this kind of nutrition (= fasting) causes a "satisfactory nutritional balance"?
>>The case of adults on a traditional diet (SWD or various diets) switching to instincto diet is also very persuasive: the absence of long-term deficiency, the fulfilling of old deficiencies, their body index of mass (BMI) and many criteria of health show that they not only get the raw food benefits, but also an extremely precise nutritional regulation. The few divergent results (...)
"FEW divergent results" is completely ridiculous and you know that!
-
Yet, couldn't it be that the whole guru's babble about "instincts" is itself nothing more but a joke ;D
Life becomes boring when we start totake things seriously...
Nothing serious here or anywhere else on this planet!
-
These observations had of course something that was reassuring : the original milieu or environment, whose existence is a basic premise of instinctotherapy since our genetics had necessarily to adapt to something in real world existed indeed somewhere.
Who wrote this about our supposed original environment or tropical paradise ?
Burger himself in 1991 here:
http://www.reocities.com/HotSprings/7627/IM43-fruitssauvages.html
As usual, Alphagruis extracts a sentence from its context and places it in another, so that the semantic contents change. With such a method, one can expose so-called “contradictions” in any speech!
The article from where this sentence is drawn opposes and discusses two points of view: one which disputes the past existence of an hypothetical “original paradise”, and the naive assertion of the existence of this paradise. I thus take in turn one and then the other point of view to show that, with the support of facts, the postulate of a tropical “primal” environment where the genetics of the primates could have evolved is not inevitably an aberration.
But attention: I wrote this text in 1991, which means that all the instincto theory was carried out since 1964 without this postulate being necessary. It was indeed based on concrete observations, without this point having inevitably to be sorted out. The whole article thus shows exactly the opposite of what Alphagruis claims to deduce.
Our physiological data come indeed (at least partly) from very ancient times: our eye for example existed well before the vertebrate’s appearance. Why our alliesthesic mechanisms wouldn't be as old and quite as elaborate as our eyesight? But to be able to count on the hereditary feature of the operation of our sensory perceptions, it’s not necessary to postulate the existence of an environment where all the data to which they can correctly react today had been joined together. Our genome could be built by successive stages, accumulating the answers to partial and transient situations, which indeed exempts of the postulate of an ideal primitive environment.
However, the observations done for example at Borneo show that this environment could exist, and it’s good to know, even more as the operation of the alimentary instinct explains why it fails in places where men could modify it under the influence of the food changes such as cooking and seasoning (without forgetting the consecutive devastations of agriculture and consumption of cereals and animal milk).
But once again: the postulate of a primitive paradise doesn’t change anything to the basic instincto argument, neither to my own observations nor to its results. And the concerned article shows precisely that this postulate is an additional question, as opposed to what Alphagruis would like to make us believe – or perhaps to what he believes himself...
-
If you claim: "It definitely proved that the sensory mechanisms work correctly under precise conditions only, conditions sufficiently close to the living conditions in which theses mechanisms evolved", then you must be able to define these conditions and say in which kind of "primitive environment" we evolved! Obviously you did not have Greenland or Canada in mind?
It seems you did not read properly my post. It is unnecessary that such an environment exists in the form of an original paradise. Our genetics could include the ones of various animals we evolved from and memorize numerous partial situations, by adapting for example the alliesthesic mechanisms during a period to such or such new plant, during another to consumption of the meat of a specific animal, etc. It can thus gather all kinds of data making the organism able to function as well as possible in a global alimentary context, and it is this context which I tried to define empirically. The facts showed the need to exclude cooked, seasoned and crushed food, dairy products and cereal, and to be careful with artificially selected modern foodstuff (be it fruits, vegetables, or meat of domestic animals).
Precisely for that reason your twelve thousand people are completly irrelevant and prove precisely nothing! You can fast for three weeks. Is this an evidence that this kind of nutrition (= fasting) causes a "satisfactory nutritional balance"?
A number of people went on not only for 3 weeks, but for years or tens of years! Nevertheless, some short-term criteria, like regulation of the inflammatory tendency, key process considering its central role in health maintenance, show that the balance obtained is extremely precise. I could observe it in quite all of the cases I followed.
" FEW diverge results" is completely ridiculous and you know that!
You now insinuate I’m two-faced? If that's the way it is I don't see why I would continue to answer your questions...
In the cases I followed and when the person practiced accordingly to the rules I defined from the experience, I indeed noted only a negligible minority of divergent results. It doesn’t mean that some of practitioners didn’t do all kinds of errors and paid the consequences. I can obviously speak only about the cases I know and of the periods during which I followed their evolution.
But after 46 years of observations, I readily bet to see the supposed divergent results disappear for anyone practicing under my control and find the cause in a bad application of the instinctotherapy principles such as I defined them. For example, I deeply regret that Alphagruis, who failed to get a mycosis regressing by applying his own kind of instincto nutrition, refused to come and spend a few days or weeks at a mutual friend place as I had invited him, so that we could jointly discover the causes of his failure – probably a bad application of the alliesthesic signals.
-
I had no particular illness before trying instincto 13 years ago. During 5 years, and without exception, I ate according to my taste (barely used my olfaction) an all organic (orkos) rawpaleo diet, 2 meals a day, following the advices I found in your writings and given by many instinctos I met. I lost a lot of weight (ended up 48Kg for 1m82!) that I did not regain during the 5 years. I was also often tired (hypoglycemia), had many deficiencies (B12, minerals...) and hormonal inbalances. I now understand that it was mainly caused by a lack of calories : I simply could not absorb enough calories in 2 meals a day to fuel my body, given that I generally ate fruits in midday, vegetables and « protein » (nuts, seeds, oily fruits, seafood, fish and eggs) for dinner. I did not eat meat at that time, couldn't stomach it!, except lean chicken sometimes. Eating fatty meat regularly would have surely helped me as it is high in calories and has no fibers.
You are rather an example of what shouldn’t be done:
• I always specified in my books and conferences that it’s necessary to be extremely careful in the practical application of instinctive nutrition, and not to start without a valid formation. You should at least have listen to my seminar’s audiotapes. The theoretical explanations I give in “La Guerre du Cru” along with few added advices gathered from others instinctos are not enough to insure success. I duly informed readers not to undertake anything carelessly, and you bypassed my advice.
• You obviously did not use the sense of smell, as it should be done to start correctly. You would then probably have discovered that it was an error to deprive to you of any meat.
• By seeing your weight drop, it was immediately necessary to seek the error, for example to contact or follow a seminar to understand what did not work.
• A tiredness feeling can come from multiple causes. What was your B12 rate, for example? How did you note a mineral deficiency? If an unspecified deficiency proved, it was immediately necessary to seek serious contacts to identify its cause. There are no deficiencies with a correctly practiced instincto (but a correct practice includes meat, which inevitably cannot be replaced by eggs or seafood).
• It’s completely aberrant to imply that a diet instinctively balanced does not bring enough calories with two daily meals. All measurements and observations showed that the contribution is perfectly sufficient. On the contrary, I know many people who find their energy with one daily meal only, while providing a normal work. Moreover, it’s not necessary to eat before the effort, the reserves of glycogen being largely sufficient to await the following meal. You probably confused the tiredness feeling with the effects of an imbalance due to a defective practice, or with those of an out of control detoxination caused by bad balance. The fact of not being able to digest meat clearly shows something was wrong. It would be for example interesting to know if you were breastfed?
My diet before was a SWD, not carnivorous.
You did not understand my paragraph. I did not say that your former diet was carnivorous, but that carnivorism (or rather lack of some elements of vegetal origin) could cause a cancellation of detoxination reactions induced by your former food. That’s regrettable in the long-term.
For me, many small meals spread over the day are more easily digested than two big meals a day, and especially helps me to better fulfill my energy requirements. No more hypoglycemia due to a sudden excess of food intake.
My fatigue was not caused by a feeling of an empty stomach : my energy was ok in the morning as long as I didn't eat. The first meal of fruits maked my blood sugar went up and down...
Question: how do you measure your blood sugar rate? Tiredness after the meals is an usual sign of detoxination (or possibly of food overload)
I am talking about long term emaciated instinctos...
I still believe that many instinctos don't get enough calories with 2 big meals a day, because fruits which make at least generally half of the food intake of the day are not very calorie-dense (not to mention vegetables which are even worst at this regard). It would be very easy to calculate the amount of calories ingested a day and compare it with the energy requirement. I estimate that I was often 20% below my needs, whatever the amount of avocados or dates I could eat!
Question: how did you measure this lack of calorie? With 500 g of avocados and dates, the normal need is already exceeded.
As you say, it is very easy to calculate the quantity of calories ingested daily: I did it on several occasions and in all kinds of circumstances, even over a year with about fifteen people, and the results have shown that there isn’t the least problem. The instinctos consume on average 1800 to 2200 calories per day. The risk, in the event of bad practice, is rather to eat too much, and tiredness comes then from secondary complications, not of a simplistic lack of calories.
These reactions of elimination have almost disappeared with mono-meals evenly spread over the day according to my energy requirements, to the extend that I can now get up hungry (for energy), something that never happened with 2 meals a day as the digestion process of the previous complicated meal the day before was still pending!
If your made up meal wasn’t digested after four hours, and if your stomach was not empty after the night, it’s because you made a general “salad”, bad associations and other infringement at listening to your alliesthesic signals. That can happen if one eats “like a pig”, forgive the expression, but never with a minimally balanced instincto.
That can also come from a defective provisioning (what did you really buy at Orkos?). At all events, you should have announced difficulties of this kind, like I regularly requested in seminars, and I bet the causes would have been quickly identified. The absence of selection by the sense of smell could be one.
-
Dear carnivore, dear alphagruis,
do you have any dentures, fillings or crowns in your teeth? What about tattoos?
Susan
-
Burger, we do not insinuate that you are two-faced.
You are obviously two-faced of course as well as a perverse double-dealer and manipulator.
Moreover you're a plain lier
My mycosis has been cured since long as I reported on the French forum and you know that perfectly well as well as you know perfectly well that instinctotherapy in general just doesn't and cannot work
I know you didn't like the way I've cured my mycosis.
But don't be irritated. You'll finally manage to fool one more naive people, perhaps, some day :D
This time it becomes serious, because you lie shamelessly:
1. you endured your mycosis for years and you cured it very recently only;
2. you certainly suffered since you went trough a specific chelation therapy to heal it;
3. that’s’why I offered you last November to experiment instinctotherapy such as I teach it, especially to choose food according to your senses of smell and taste.
4. you declined my offer and preferred to go through an alternative therapy which recently cured you as you announced triumphantly a few weeks ago.
I am very glad for you that this therapy worked, but nevertheless your own way of practicing instincto-nutrition or your raw paleo diet did not help you, whereas a correct alimentary balance systematically avoids the inflammations and itching, and habitually make mycosis regress (except onychomycosis which need an intervention).
Riddle: which side is the plain liar?
-
I deeply regret that Alphagruis, who failed to get a mycosis regressing by applying his own kind of instincto nutrition (…)
Moreover you're a plain lier
Alpha, it looks like you also fail to understand properly the meaning of the above sentence. It means, as I understand it, that you failed to get a mycosis regressing by applying your own kind of instincto-nutrition (…). It doesn’t mean that you didn’t get rid of it by other means.
Please, stop your insults and sarcasms. You should know it’s not tolerated here.
Dear carnivore, dear alphagruis,
do you have any dentures, fillings or crowns in your teeth? What about tattoos?
Susan
Why this question, Susan? Do tattoos and teeth fillings increase spectacularly rudeness, dishonesty and aggressivity? :o
-
Dear Iguana,
you asked if tattoos and teeth fillings increase spectacularly rudeness, dishonesty and aggressivity. I don't think so. :) But in my opinion it's impossible to cure a person with instinctive nutrition having toxic materials within teeth or somewhere else in the body.
Susan
-
>>Do tattoos and teeth fillings increase spectacularly rudeness, dishonesty and aggressivity?
Susan´s German instincto guru thinks so.
>>But in my opinion it's impossible to cure a person with instinctive nutrition having toxic materials within teeth or somewhere else in the body.
And because of this opinion the German followers of this guy have removed all their dentures and fillings or even their teeth...
-
Carnivore, do you still have problems to digest meat?
Carnivore & gcb, if one has digestive problems, then it can be very usefull or even necessary to eat small portions (gcb, please ask a physician if you do not believe me). Small portions are quickly digested, so it is no problem to eat more than two times a day.
-
Dear carnivore, dear alphagruis,
do you have any dentures, fillings or crowns in your teeth? What about tattoos?
Susan
No tatoos, but amalgam dental fillings (and other causes of heavy metal) contamination since I was 7 years old and removed only 40 years later. This mycosis appeared later on and then persisted more or less during 7 years. I finally cured it by means of a mercury and lead chelation.
The following string of abuse has been moved here (http://www.rawpaleoforum.com/instinctoanopsology/alpha%27s-best/msg40196/#msg40196)
Iguana
-
Dear Hanna,
I removed my fillings and crowns twenty years ago without leadership of a guru. :) But I started my instinctive nutrition experiments without meat. And maybe this is the reason, why tooth decay continued. I decided after a few years to use ceramics. Later on my former dentist used synthetic materials, too. I am now living 3 und a half year 100% raw and after one year instinctive nutrition I removed this fillings again with the aid of another dentist, who is one of those who recognized a lot of problems by different patients caused by dental materials. Now I am curious if tooth decay stops with the help of 100% instictive nutrition. It is a real scientific experiment. :)
alphagruis, mycosis is only a symptom. It shows that your body was and maybe is still full of heavy metalls. The disappearing of this symptom with the help of mercury and lead chelation doesn't mean that your really cured. Do you really feel good after this therapy? Vanished other health problems? What about your memory, your feelings?
Susan
-
alphagruis, mycosis is only a symptom. It shows that your body was and maybe is still full of heavy metalls. The disappearing of this symptom with the help of mercury and lead chelation doesn't mean that your really cured. Do you really feel good after this therapy? Vanished other health problems? What about your memory, your feelings?
Susan
Susan, I had no other serious health problems or symptoms left after 10 years on Raw Paleo.
I'm now quite well, busy and happy.
I'm a hobby pilot and a sailor. Recently resumed flying and passed easily the medical tests to validate my flying license again. Sailed around Ireland this spring during one week alone on board. Passed and got a hunting license in March.
And finally got a 30 years younger girl-friend since december 2009.... ;)
-
Dear alphagruis,
thank you for this open und personal answer. :) If you feel well and happy you really found your way to help yourself.
Susan
-
Susan, I had no other serious health problems or symptoms left after 10 years on Raw Paleo.
I'm now quite well, busy and happy.
I'm a hobby pilot and a sailor. Recently resumed flying and passed easily the medical tests to validate my flying license again. Sailed around Ireland this spring during one week alone on board. Passed and got a hunting license in March.
And finally got a 30 years younger girl-friend since december 2009.... ;)
Wow! I’m very glad for you, my old friend!
Burger and his very last remaining servant and follower Iguana are of course not only plain liers in general and in particular whenever the facts don't fit with their nonsense about "instincts" but they are also utterly ridiculous in the present instance as in so many others.
Thanks a lot for these lovely birthday’s congratulations, Gerard. It’s good to finally know after 64 years of ignorance that I’m a plain, utterly ridiculous liar. Knowledge is such an invaluable thing. ???
-
Burger and his very last remaining servant and follower Iguana are of course not only plain liers in general and in particular whenever the facts don't fit with their nonsense about "instincts" but they are also utterly ridiculous in the present instance as in so many others.
To treat the others of liars without being able to show the lie and lie oneself has always been the ultimate recourse of those who got short of valid arguments.
-
You are rather an example of what shouldn’t be done:
[...]
The absence of selection by the sense of smell could be one.
Bad practice, bad provisioning, ...I am a bit weary to always here the same refrain.
I did not say I could not digest raw meat, I said I was disgusted (could not stomach it). I was not breastfed.
1800 to 2200 kcal per day is clearly not enough for the majority of people, unless completely inactive and happy to be underweight as some seem to be!
An active man of my size simply needs around 3000 kcal. And 2 meals probably indeed makes me overeat to compensate for the lack of calories...
And FYI :
500g avocado = 800 Kcal
500g dates = 1400 kcal
-
Bad practice, bad provisioning, ...I am a bit weary to always here the same refrain.
If you’re told the same story over and over again, it’s because you never change your tune, saying repeatedly the same old story. You seem to belong to the kind of guys complaining to their car’s manufacturer about the difficulties they get on the road… whereas they didn’t bother to learn how to drive and are using the wrong fuel.
I did not say I could not digest raw meat, I said I was disgusted (could not stomach it). I was not breastfed.
I apologize : I didn’t properly catch the meaning of “stomach it”.
The disgust for a foodstuff is a complex process. The fact that you weren’t breastfed can explain this aversion for proteins immunologicaly close to the cow's milk you received instead of mother's milk. One of the rules I could draw from experience is that one should not remain for long in a state of blockage a food class off. It is necessary to repeatedly put the body in contact with a foodstuff of that class, initially at the sense of smell and taste levels, and if that blockage is maintained, to consume minor amounts of the stuff – apparently to reactivate the immunizing functions responsible of this blockage.
Hence, you most probably would not have suffered of a lack of proteins as that seem to have been the case. I never said the instinct does everything. It is able to ensure an excellent nutritional balance, but the traditional diet after-effects make it itself prone to various dysfunctions, and it is the role of the instincto as a teaching to bring the appropriate solutions.
1800 to 2200 kcal per day is clearly not enough for the majority of people, unless completely inactive and happy to be underweight as some seem to be!
An active man of my size simply needs around 3000 kcal. And 2 meals probably indeed makes me overeat to compensate for the lack of calories...
Indeed, laborers need about 3000 kcal/day, but it happens that their instinct drives them to ingest larger rations in a completely automatic way along with the digestive capacity increasing accordingly. Everyone could notice that physical effort, for example a mountain trek, boosts the appetite and facilitates digestion (except for the seriously sick people).
To tell the truth, I did not have the impression that you belong to this type of workers…
-
Its pretty well known that for a SWD that their sense of smell and perception of food is largely completely retarded. There have been numerous experiments where people are asked to taste one food and then given the exact same food to taste again and will rate one much different than the other. This is very common with liquids - soft drinks and wine where such things as the bottle, advertising brand and preconditioned ideas of taste (say where the experimenter tries the first drink and spits it out immediately before the tasters drink it) have such an enormous impact.
Has anyone done a blindfolded test with respect to instincto nutrition? Would eating blindfolded be a better way to choose your food for the day? Or better yet, have someone put your food up to your nose for you so that you can remove as many preconceived notions about the food you are about to eat.
-
When I started to complete my raw diet with meat and innards, I was unable to eat more than a thimbleful. And I couldn't say that it smells or tastes good. But knowing that raw meat maybe can help me to regain my health I tried eyery day. After a few weeks everthing changed: the smell and the taste of meat became very attractive and finally I was able to eat and to digest innards and meat with great pleasure and in quantities.
Sometimes it's really better to choose the food of the day blind. I rembered a piece of meat, well matured, which smelled and tasted very attractive. After a few bits a handfull maggots came in front of my eyes. The first impulse was to spit out this nasty stuff. I started to reflect my behavior an decided to close my eyes and to continue my meal. I completed it without problems and it was really satisfying. We are refucing many things "instinctive" due to our unnatural education and in this case our intelligence can help to regain our real instincts.
Susan
-
When I started to complete my raw diet with meat and innards, I was unable to eat more than a thimbleful. And I couldn't say that it smells or tastes good. But knowing that raw meat maybe can help me to regain my health I tried eyery day. After a few weeks everthing changed: the smell and the taste of meat became very attractive and finally I was able to eat and to digest innards and meat with great pleasure and in quantities.
Hi susan,
Interesting; I should try this too with muscle meat. Where do you buy the brain that you eat? Every time I eat brain I feel "high" afterwards. Yesterday I ate salmon AND brain; I can´t describe how I felt in the evening...
-
It seems you did not read properly my post. It is unnecessary that such an environment exists in the form of an original paradise. Our genetics could include the ones of various animals we evolved from and memorize numerous partial situations, by adapting for example the alliesthesic mechanisms during a period to such or such new plant, during another to consumption of the meat of a specific animal, etc. It can thus gather all kinds of data making the organism able to function as well as possible in a global alimentary context, and it is this context which I tried to define empirically. The facts showed the need to exclude cooked, seasoned and crushed food, dairy products and cereal, and to be careful with artificially selected modern foodstuff (be it fruits, vegetables, or meat of domestic animals).
Ok, thank you for that answer.
-
Especially for Alphagruis:
Come on guys:
REMINDER: THIS IS THE PRO-INSTINCTO SECTION
I would like to see the original spirit of the discussions in each raw paleo diet be observed.
There is a logic to why Geoff and Craig made a board section for each raw paleo variant.
We have precedents with other boards like the Primal Diet and the Raw Omnivore sections where people were asked to take their anti-Primal Diet and anti-Omnivore attacks outside of those boards.
The logic is that the Instincto forum is meant primarily for discussing the Instincto diet in a positive, constructive way and that anti-Instincto posts should be made in the Hot Topics forum
Since Iguana is the moderator in the Instincto board, let's respect his decisions to keep this board in order.
-
Alphagruis best posts have been quoted in a new thread and removed from this one. The author is kindly requested to directly post his new messages of the same class either in the relevant new thread Alpha's best (http://www.rawpaleoforum.com/instinctoanopsology/alpha%27s-best/) or in the "Instincto Debunking Thread". Thanks in advance.
Factual critiques and arguments against the instincto theory are welcome here as long as they are expressed without insults or personal attacks.
-
Hanna, I buy brain from Orkos and I know some hunters, who give me the innards of their hunted games. It's a pity that only boar from Orkos has brain, lamb and horse never have one. Poor animals ;).
I never tried salmon, because I can get only cultured one. What about yours? If it's cultured, it is not surprinsing that you feel "high" after a meal. :) My feeling after eating brain when I really need it is satisfaction und peace.
-
Hi Susan,
The salmon was this one: http://www.lochduart.com/
Very tasty! I´m always a bit "high" when I have eaten fatty fish. In the case of brain this effect is just stronger. Mainly I eat wild fish, especially mackerel.
-
Its pretty well known that for a SWD that their sense of smell and perception of food is largely completely retarded. There have been numerous experiments where people are asked to taste one food and then given the exact same food to taste again and will rate one much different than the other. This is very common with liquids - soft drinks and wine where such things as the bottle, advertising brand and preconditioned ideas of taste (say where the experimenter tries the first drink and spits it out immediately before the tasters drink it) have such an enormous impact.
Has anyone done a blindfolded test with respect to instincto nutrition? Would eating blindfolded be a better way to choose your food for the day? Or better yet, have someone put your food up to your nose for you so that you can remove as many preconceived notions about the food you are about to eat.
Paleo Donk, your remarks are absolutely relevant.
Unnatural savors of cooked and industrial food deteriorate the sensory operation. It is a form of adaptation with effect that the beginners in instinctive nutrition are very often induced in error. The simple habituation to salted tastes, for example, makes that raw food, not salted nor seasoned appears a priori insipid. The sense of smell itself is distorted by the effect of artificial flavors (synthetic vanillin for example!) and even by artificial perfumes used in cosmetic. These disturbances touch many components of the different flavors. Therefore one needs a certain time and some effort in training to give back to the senses their normal work.
Blindfolding does not avoid directly these deteriorations of the olfactive or gustatory sensitivity, but being unaware of the nature of the tested stuff has a paramount effect to learn how to dissociate psychological projections (which you rightly underline in connection with the look of drinks’ bottles) and the natural physiological operation of the sensory mechanisms. When the smelled or tasted stuff is known, the brain interposes a whole series of memories and preconceived ideas. With blindfolding (or with the product hidden at the bottom of a small opaque bottle), these parasitic projections are avoided, so that one much better picks the foodstuff wanted or rejected by the organism.
This is indeed why I have always advised the use of blindfolding to facilitate the necessary rehabilitation. The guys who don’t bother to carry out a satisfactory rehabilitation can obviously unbalance and never discover the natural operation of their senses, neither their selectivity, nor their sensitivity. That then gives people who even remain convinced that the alimentary instinct doesn’t exist and who launch a crusade >: to disparage the instincto diet! ;)
-
Ok I just came across Clara Davis' 1928 study "Self-selection of Diet by Newly Weaned Infants" from a pretty haphazard source - The book Elephants on Acid. I assume you have heard of the study. Well, in the excerpt the author describes how Davis had 3 different infants several months of age contained in a hospital where she would offer each infant a huge selection of foods and have the infant decide which foods it wanted. Of course there were cooked foods, grain products and whole milk but no junk foods. The nurses were instructed to let the infants pick out their own food. Two of the infants stayed on the diet for 6 months and the other for a year. The results of the study seem to point in the direction of instincto eating - The babies would spontaneously and unpredictably change their diets every few weeks.
One of the infants had rickets at the outgoing and a bowl of cod liver oil was placed on the tray and he consumed it for 3 months until the rickets went away and then stopped eating it.
Have you conducted any infant studies like the above?
Ok, I just found a summary of the study online.
In the 1920s and 1930s, the pediatrician Clara Davis conducted pioneering studies, now considered classic, and published at least 12 papers on the selection of diets by infants and young children (Davis 1928, 1934, 1938, 1939). In the first study (Davis 1928), three infants (7-9 months old) were involved, two for six months and the third for one year. In 1939, Davis reported in much less detail the results of a study involving 12 more children over a period ranging from 6 months to 4.5 years (Davis 1939). The research protocol was the same for both studies.
Of the 34 foods offered, 90% of the energy intake for all three infants was derived from 14 foods. Of these, 9 were preferred by all three infants (bone marrow, milk, eggs, banana, apples, oranges, cornmeal, whole wheat, and oatmeal). Bone marrow was the largest single source of calories (27%) for one infant, whereas milk provided the bulk of calories for the other two (19 and 39%). All three infants shared a low preference for 10 vegetables, as well as for pineapple, peaches, liver, kidney, ocean fish, and sea salt. These foods constituted less than 10% of the total energy intake.
http://www.beyondveg.com/tu-j-l/raw-cooked/raw-cooked-3j.shtml
Raw meat was apparently offered as there is a picture of it in my book. The infants still fell ill to influenze, whooping cough and chicken pox.
-
Ok I just came across Clara Davis' 1928 study "Self-selection of Diet by Newly Weaned Infants" from a pretty haphazard source - The book Elephants on Acid. I assume you have heard of the study. Well, in the excerpt the author describes how Davis had 3 different infants several months of age contained in a hospital where she would offer each infant a huge selection of foods and have the infant decide which foods it wanted. Of course there were cooked foods, grain products and whole milk but no junk foods. The nurses were instructed to let the infants pick out their own food. Two of the infants stayed on the diet for 6 months and the other for a year. The results of the study seem to point in the direction of instincto eating - The babies would spontaneously and unpredictably change their diets every few weeks.
One of the infants had rickets at the outgoing and a bowl of cod liver oil was placed on the tray and he consumed it for 3 months until the rickets went away and then stopped eating it.
Have you conducted any infant studies like the above?
The infants still fell ill to influenza, whooping cough and chicken pox.
Excellent idea to point out the famous experiment of Clara Davis!
The results show indeed that there’s a self-regulation of the food intake in the very young children. This self-regulation is therefore likely to be innate rather than induced by training. Such an innate automatism ensuring a self-regulation is precisely what is (or must be) called alimentary instinct.
I could discern the phenomenon on many children who stayed in my alimentary rehabilitation centre, and already before on my own children and those of the instinctos of the first decades. It is very interesting for us to know that regulation mechanisms already exist for cooked food. However, it was done with relatively simple foodstuffs. The more the cooking receipts are sophisticated, the more the senses are induced in error. The advantage of the instincto, thanks to the suppression of all the causes of flavors denaturation, is that this regulation is exerted under the best conditions, with the most precise results.
This is checked at the level of the inflammatory tendency, but also in the various child diseases, influenzas, etc at level of the symptoms importance (in fact related to the inflammatory tendency). I could notice that instincto children never presented the usual symptoms. They got these diseases, like the majority of their pars, but in mild form i.e. the symptoms remained almost unperceivable. This explains why the subjects implied in the protocol of Clara Davis got these various diseases on the usual mode: instinctive nutritional balance wasn’t as ideal because of cooking and other causes of savors deterioration, without taking into account the formation of AGEs and other heat damaged or wrecked molecules.
The alimentary instinct is undoubtedly the most deeply rooted of all the instincts, in humans as in animals. It is believed lost, but it isn’t so because the mechanisms constituting it are atrophied, but because the foodstuff presented day after day to the sensory organs hamper their normal functioning. After generations of cooking art, our culture ended up rejecting the listening of the body, under pretext that instincts belong to animals, to substitute to it the omnipotence of the mental. Instincto-nutrition makes it possible to find the right balance between these two entities, both essential to the human organism and psyche balance.
-
>>The results show indeed that there’s a self-regulation of the food intake in the very young children. This self-regulation is therefore likely to be innate rather than induced by training.
Do you honestly believe that a sample size of 3 children is sufficient to obtain statistically significant results?
-
Do you honestly believe that a sample size of 3 children is sufficient to obtain statistically significant results?
In the whole, 3 + 12 = 15 children.
In the 1920s and 1930s, the pediatrician Clara Davis conducted pioneering studies, now considered classic, and published at least 12 papers on the selection of diets by infants and young children (Davis 1928, 1934, 1938, 1939). In the first study (Davis 1928), three infants (7-9 months old) were involved, two for six months and the third for one year. In 1939, Davis reported in much less detail the results of a study involving 12 more children over a period ranging from 6 months to 4.5 years (Davis 1939). The research protocol was the same for both studies.
Many studies of this type are done with few subjects, because it’s very difficult to compel a lot of them to strict diet conditions. They are rarely done over such a long time. Be that as it may, these results tend to confirm the postulate of an alimentary instinct. Notice that I didn’t claim that they are significant in a statistical sense. Nevertheless, they are a confirmation of my own observations.
-
If you’re told the same story over and over again, it’s because you never change your tune, saying repeatedly the same old story. You seem to belong to the kind of guys complaining to their car’s manufacturer about the difficulties they get on the road… whereas they didn’t bother to learn how to drive and are using the wrong fuel.
Well, Didn't you ask me some questions ?
[...]
Indeed, laborers need about 3000 kcal/day, but it happens that their instinct drives them to ingest larger rations in a completely automatic way along with the digestive capacity increasing accordingly. Everyone could notice that physical effort, for example a mountain trek, boosts the appetite and facilitates digestion (except for the seriously sick people).
To tell the truth, I did not have the impression that you belong to this type of workers…
No, laborers need probably around 5000 Kcal/day or more. Male with moderate physical activity like me need around 3000 Kcal.
-
Appreciate the responses GCB - I don't quite jibe with everything you say but I'll leave those criticisms for the other thread.
Another question - How big of a role does mercury amalgam fillings play in disrupting the alimentary instinct? I have ten right now and in the process of finding a way to get them removed. And once the fillings are removed is it possible to naturally chelate the heavy metals out through instincto eating of cilantro or other herbs known to chelate metals?
-
>>The results show indeed that there’s a self-regulation of the food intake in the very young children. This self-regulation is therefore likely to be innate rather than induced by training.
Do you honestly believe that a sample size of 3 children is sufficient to obtain statistically significant results?
Our whole raw paleo forum is based on anecdotal evidence.
We and our own children are our own anecdotal success.
-
Paleo Donk asked how big the role of amalgam fillings play in disrupting the alimentary instinct.
As far as I can see people who want to eat instinctive raw have a lot of problems if they don't want to remove this fillings. Observed problems are: underweight, skin problems, problems with candida, disorders of the coordination and the impossibilty to live 100% raw permanently.
The problem of underweight concerns people with goldfillings too.
The fillings seemed to be really life-threatening for raw people. And maybe some of the people who died from cancer despite living 100% raw have had this fillings.
Different raw food can help to eliminate mercury, especially those containing sulfur. Your instinct can select the best after removing all fillings.
-
I had my mercury fillings removed.
They were replaced with white fillings.
How do I know if these are the correct fillings?
Do I wait for my teeth to re-grow / repair and remove these white fillings?
-
There will be no problem if the dentist uses dental cement without fluorine. If he uses synthetic materials or cement with fluorine one have to remove them again. Synthetics are known to destroy mirror neurons and stem cells and fluorine causes troubles with minerals (caries can continue). Unfortunately most synthetics contained fluorine.
-
And because of this opinion the German followers of this guy have removed all their dentures and fillings or even their teeth...
Are there people stupid enough to get all their teeth removed? ???
As far as I can see people who want to eat instinctive raw have a lot of problems if they don't want to remove this fillings. Observed problems are: underweight, skin problems, problems with candida, disorders of the coordination and the impossibilty to live 100% raw permanently.
Different raw food can help to eliminate mercury, especially those containing sulfur. Your instinct can select the best after removing all fillings.
I think you overly inflate this problem, Susan. I survived to a lot of metallic fillings done before my 18 years old. My teeth decay and health troubles almost completely stopped at this age when I switched to a kind of Weston Price diet and decades latter to instincto-nutrition. If the removal of such fillings isn't done with extraordinary precautions, it results in a sudden large mercury ingestion that could well be much more noxious than simply leaving it in place, especially when it's been there for years.
I still have a few old metallic filings left, I don’t care about them and I do not see why their presence would impair my senses of smell and taste. There are so many other nuisances, notably cooked food and such that can be more harmful by several orders of magnitude!
-
To tell the truth only a few people removed their fillings and nobody removed own teeth. That will be very stupid indeed. :)
I know your arguments from a lot of elder raw eating people. They are telling me everthing is well and that they are feeling good inspite the poisonous fillings. When somebody feels good I haven't the compulsion to convince him to remove the fillings. But there are people who don't feel good and who are very emaciated despite raw eating and in this cases it's maybe better to remove the fillings.
-
Are there people stupid enough to get all their teeth removed? ???
There was at least one case, but I don´t remember the details. Isn´t there this crazy physician - Max Daunderer? He apparently advises people to get their teeth pulled.
-
Our whole raw paleo forum is based on anecdotal evidence.
We and our own children are our own anecdotal success.
And therefore we should not generalize from our experiences. Many rawfood "gurus" generalize on the basis of anecdotal evidence and, even worse, explain away results that do not support their predictions (bad practice, detoxination etc.), i. e. they consider only results (seemingly) supporting their hypotheses. Therefore their hypotheses cannot be falsified. A good example are German rawvegan gurus.
-
No, laborers need probably around 5000 Kcal/day or more. Male with moderate physical activity like me need around 3000 Kcal.
5000 Kcal/day ? Please let me know your sources. Mine indicate for normal male workers between 25 and 50, 2400 Kcal/day, for heavy workers 3000, for very heavy workers 3600 and for extremely heavy workers 4000 Kcal/day.
The instinco theory does not constrain anyone to take two meals per day only. As a matter of fact, D. Guyaux advises to take several single foodstuff meals daily in the practice of instinctive nutrition – or “AIR”, as he has called it. Numerous instinctos, including myself, had a go at it.
If I recommend to take two daily meals only, it is to rehabilitate the alimentary instinct in the beginnings. To multiply the meals or to nibble all the day long, for example, hinder this rehabilitation. That’s why I recommend to start with instincto diet during a holiday period, and by complying to some rules evolved from experience.
But after this rehabilitation, someone requiring more calories and then unable to fulfill his or her needs with two daily meals only can eat like his/her instinct indicates without any overload risk.
It looks like you failed to understand that instinctive nutrition is foremost (and in principle) the law of pleasure: what is tasty is beneficial , and what is beneficial is tasty. Rare are the exceptions, and a few rules are enough to reach the maximal pleasure. Once this enjoyment level has been reached and has become usual, the rules do not require anymore to be applied from outside, for the simple fact that transgressing them reduce pleasure.
The case of hard workers is included in this general law: if the caloric requirement isn’t met, the food able to fulfill that particular need takes more attracting flavors and is easier digested because the organism releases more enzymes and the rations are adjusted accordingly. I’ve always observed that, and have never seen skinny and tired instinctos as you claim it – except in a few singular cases as I explained here (http://www.rawpaleoforum.com/instinctoanopsology/instincto-debunker-debunking/msg40415/#msg40415). To sort it out, may I suggest you let me know me in private (with their consent) the names of the persons you would have seen in such conditions. Of course, I won’t quote their name publicly.
Without concrete and verifiable cases, I'm unconvinced about the relevance of your personal conclusions.
-
I've seen GCB state that proteins should be around 1/12 of the diet. I keep finding more and more evidence to limit protein as there seems to be no need for excess protein once nitrogen balance is achieved.
I wonder why both GCB and Iguana have a bias against us raw paleos who consume much animal products. Is it simply because of the amount of animal protein that is a problem? What would you fellows say about a diet that limits animal protein to around 10% and supplies the vast majority of the rest of the calories from raw animal fats and also additional vegetation as needed?
Basically, is it the protein that is the problem or just the amount of animal matter in the diet that you think is the problem. I really am starting to believe that excess protein is a much bigger problem than we suspect, but that animal fat is not at all the problem. In the Clara Davis study, bone marrow(not sure if raw) was the highest chosen food for one of the infants.
-
No, laborers need probably around 5000 Kcal/day or more. Male with moderate physical activity like me need around 3000 Kcal.
Nothing in the “instincto” theory forbids you to eat 3 or more meals a day! 2 daily meals is not a dogma but just an advice as it has been found to be fairly well suited to most people, especially those working in the morning and afternoon with a break at lunch time.
About your “emacied instinctos”, there’s something especially hilarious. As a fine example of “emacied instinctos”, you told me that “X’s father is much too thin”. To verify such hearsay, we did a survey on 43 long term instinctos (http://paleocru.webatu.com/forum/index.php/topic,44.msg171.html#msg171) and found out this guy’s weight (http://www.gcburger.com/home/home-1/qu-est-ce-que-l-instincto-/un-instinct-alimentaire-chez-ltre-humain/surpoids-obesite-et-cie) to be 78 kg for 1,85 m, therefore a BMI of 22.8, slightly heavier than the mean BMI (21,75 kg/m2) considered as normal by the medical institutions! Alphagruis (Gérard) got very angry and wrote that this guy and his family were included in our data whereas they do not practice the instinctotherapy. He then launched a whole stream of abuse at GCB and myself, as usual!
Par exemple, je ne serais pas étonné du tout que des membres de la famille d'Api voire Fred figurent dans la "statistique".
Or ces personnes ne pratiquent justement pas l'instinctothérapie.
It would be good that Carnivore and Alphagruis agree on whether this man is too thin because he has practiced instinctive-nutrition for 23 years or whether he has an ideal weight because he precisely doesn’t practice it! l)
The fact is that his whole family perfectly practice a 100% raw paleo instinctive diet, but after encountering serious troubles with French stubborn social welfare workers and administration since the kids didn’t eat the standard diet, they don’t want to be called “instinctos” anymore. The parents barely avoided their children to be taken away by the administration and social services, as happened to some less fortunate families in France and even in Switzerland. Fred, you know this family perfectly well and I don’t think you would dare pretending that its other members are “emacied and tired”! Your assertion about the father is absurd enough.
It would be good as well that both detractors of the instincto diet, Carnivore and Alphagruis, agree about our daily need in kcal: up to 5000 according to Carnivore, while 1800 are enough according to Alphagruis -\:
http://www.rawpaleoforum.com/hot-topics/anti-instincto-thread/msg39707/#msg39707 (http://www.rawpaleoforum.com/hot-topics/anti-instincto-thread/msg39707/#msg39707)
My diet is Raw Paleo with fatty meat and organs, fish ,shellfish, eggs etc with a modest part of fruit and plant food (essentially greens plus some nuts) in winter and more in summer. Fruit is rarely tropical. Typically around 1800 kcal a day only even in case of important physical activity. I know in advance what kind of food might be appropriate. Nothing to do with an "instinct" IMO, just initial training.
So, for one, instincto diet leads to consume too much calories, while for the other it prevents from consuming enough calories… Both opinions are derived from intricate and doubtful theoretical or statistical considerations based on our poor knowledge of biochemical and living phenomenon – so complex that we are totally unable to apprehend them globally .
On the opposite, instincto-nutrition simply allows anyone to find the adequate food quantities bringing the needed amount of calories while directing spontaneously towards either stuff rich in carbs, or towards proteins, or towards fat according to the fluctuating needs and specific digestive capacities of each individual. Still, it is necessary to do as we are told by our senses of smell, taste and other relevant perceptions.
Cheers
Francois
-
Why would the detractors have to agree on what is what? that makes little sense. Anyone can piece together there own reasons though either experiences of themselves or others or cite logical fallacies without agreeing on anything else, its not a yes or no survey of two choices. Team Edward.
As for the BMI thing, your really have to be joking. Citing WHO data unless you are going to embrace all their other suggestions for nutrition makes no sense. Vegans take this logic all the time, they criticize requirements, and then cite any victories in number crunching. First off, there there is no way 25 BMI is overweight. Secondly, BMI is meaningless as it doesn't take into effect muscle composition. Using a BMI calculator, I'm almost at 22, and I'm visually at least 10-15 lbs underweight even though I'd say I look 5-10 lbs heavier than my numerical weight. So for some with no muscle, 22 BMI might be 10-20 lbs underweight visually. that is under baseline normal, not under the limit of what is overweight. Getting up to 185 lbs would put me in the 'overweight' category according to WHO. In the only time I ever was that weight I looked to be about normal/thin and I was actually less muscular, which means with more muscle I could probably be at least 26 BMI and still look trim/healthy. Basically any athlete or actor or any non visually thin male is 'overweight' via BMI according to this system.
The idea of putting up something *optimal*, against such low standards is a major issue (for me). There is no way 21 BMI screams of vitality and ideal health by anyone impression (unless one has the body composition of a featherweight boxer ~ 21 BMI which is on a temporary 'competitive' composition, in other words - extreme), and if that is the mean (average) obviously many people were far below that. I don't see how one can rule out that some may have been skewed according to alphagruis's overeating sweet foods point. I don't see how a single diet wouldn't yield some to under-eat and others to overeat, that seems pretty consistent with anything I've observed with even 'natural diets'. Rather then address whether this is possible - which seems to be the main idea most critics can rally around in terms of whether the ideal amounts and types of foods are chosen per instinct over other systems- It seems easier to draw attention to the disagreements among critics, which is totally unimportant.
-
Why would the detractors have to agree on what is what? that makes little sense.
Ok, they are not compelled to agree! I just found their extreme disagreement highly comical – just like the different diet proponents and nutritionist wildly disagree about almost everything except that the Earth revolves around the Sun. I don’t care at all about calories and how much kcal I ingest daily. I suppose it varies largely from day to day. I just balance and enjoy without counting, calculating or constantly reading about diet, and I feel good with what and how much I eat.
As for the BMI thing, your really have to be joking.
Of course there are individual variations, but the data relates to an average. On the number of subjects these individual differences are compensated. That’s why it’s always hazardous to draw conclusions for an individual from an average. But to compare averages between them is perfectly relevant, as long as they were established under adequate conditions.
These numbers are a better way to roughly compare things than visual impressions, which are completely subjective. Over a certain number of sampled persons, the differences you talk about become blurred, already on 20 or 30, then on 43 it doesn’t count anymore statistically.
Workable criticisms should rather relate to possible skews in the choice of the persons.
I don't see how a single diet wouldn't yield some to under-eat and others to overeat, that seems pretty consistent with anything I've observed with even 'natural diets'. Rather then address whether this is possible - which seems to be the main idea most critics can rally around in terms of whether the ideal amounts and types of foods are chosen per instinct over other systems- It seems easier to draw attention to the disagreements among critics, which is totally unimportant.
Instincto nutrition is in no way a single diet! Each one has his own instinctive diet, different from the others, different from day to day, climate to climate and place to place.
-
Of course there are individual variations, but the data relates to an average. On the number of subjects these individual differences are compensated. That’s why it’s always hazardous to draw conclusions for an individual from an average. But to compare averages between them is perfectly relevant, as long as they were established under adequate conditions.
That is what I find totally ridiculous about it. The average OF the small group fit within the WHO level of what is 'acceptable' but it was not at all what even the WHO (which as I point out is skewed) said is average. Therefore, if there were any instinctos that had BMI's above ~21 or so, there HAD to be plenty of instincos asked that had to have BMI's well under what is considered healthy if the 'average' was the tail end of what is acceptable. Thats just common reading of data. On cursory research, jockey's (horse racing) can get into 22+ BMI and they arn't allowed to weigh over 120 lbs. Keep in mind we are talking about characteristics of the worlds healthiest people, not the WHO standards of health. This is like taking the average of pull-ups a standard American can do, and doing within that range says one is fit.
as for not fretting about diet, you are probably right in what makes a long term approach doable. Even so, that doesn't compute when discussing such specific points like this and elsewhere. If we are talking BMI, you can't just duck out on the pretense of lifes pleasures without conceding that the original point had some merit if one wishes to have a robust healthy body. The statics tell a different story in comparison to the 'tedious' methods of tracking or whatever need to get done against natural impulses. Obviously we can't quantify visual opinions, but ultimately that has importance and often more significant reading of health. If someone looks to be a healthy weight, and weighs much less, then it is one indicator that their diet and lifestyle is serving to create healthy tissue and lose waste. If someone can't create healthy tissue and create impressive health to please even basic subjective criticism from unhealthy people, odds are what is going on internally is not matching up with any theories no matter how seemingly guided by nature.
-
And therefore we should not generalize from our experiences. Many rawfood "gurus" generalize on the basis of anecdotal evidence and, even worse, explain away results that do not support their predictions (bad practice, detoxination etc.), i. e. they consider only results (seemingly) supporting their hypotheses. Therefore their hypotheses cannot be falsified. A good example are German rawvegan gurus.
Exactly! We are all tempted to conclude too quickly in the direction that suits us, and to reject the facts that do not suit our ideas.
A means to fight against these temptations is to get rid of the desire to show this or that; but it is extremely difficult.
In 1964, I was lucky to start the experiment without knowing at all if it would be possible to survive with raw food only. My question was thus double: are we genetically adapted to the culinary nutrition? Aren't we perhaps more adapted to a raw diet? Mankind could in fact find itself sitting on the fence: not yet adapted to dairy, cereals and cooked stuff while being not adapted anymore to a raw paleo diet. I stood thus inevitably neutral in front of this uncertainty, my own survival being concerned.
The observations carried out day after day on humans and animals convinced me that we are still much better adapted to the raw, primordial food, on the level of the operation of our senses as well as that of our metabolic system. Thereafter, nothing came to invalidate this postulate, except that the products of agriculture don’t show anymore the characteristics of the wild products (it suffice to compare a wild fruit with its agricultural counterpart), and that one thus needs a series of rules to adapt the operation of the self-regulation mechanisms to the current environment data.
However, it is in 1974 only, that is to say after ten years of experimentation on a large number of volunteers and animals, that I published a first writing: “Instinctotherapy: elixir of youth? ” where I announced my observations and my first conclusions – still with a question mark.
All my research and all my publications always remained faithful to this spirit of interrogation, even after the many scientific discoveries which came to confirm my assumptions.
Besides, the interrogation and the questioning of the knowledge goes through the whole method itself. Instead of going to affirm the utility or the harmfulness of such or such food, it is a matter of questioning our body and of interpreting correctly the signals it sends to our mind; and next, to check if obedience to these signals converges towards balance and health. This method has the great advantage of avoiding the preconceived ideas and inevitable false calculations in dietetics, considering no one can know the true needs or capacities for assimilation of a given organism at a given moment.
-
5000 Kcal/day ? Please let me know your sources. Mine indicate for normal male workers between 25 and 50, 2400 Kcal/day, for heavy workers 3000, for very heavy workers 3600 and for extremely heavy workers 4000 Kcal/day.
It depends also on the size and the basal metabolic rate. If I don't eat 3000Kcal a day, I simply loose weight. And I am not a heavy workers!
[...]
and have never seen skinny and tired instinctos as you claim it – except in a few singular cases as I explained here (http://www.rawpaleoforum.com/instinctoanopsology/instincto-debunker-debunking/msg40415/#msg40415).
Well, now that you are out of prison, you should see them...
-
Well, now that you are out of prison, you should see them...
I do not see what your allusion to the prison as to do with this topic. GCB has been in jail, everybody knows it and it’s unnecessary to repeat it over and over again. He already paid dearly for acts he denies having done, now he’s out and it would perhaps be wise to stop bothering him with that.
-
I've seen GCB state that proteins should be around 1/12 of the diet. I keep finding more and more evidence to limit protein as there seems to be no need for excess protein once nitrogen balance is achieved.
I wonder why both GCB and Iguana have a bias against us raw paleos who consume much animal products. Is it simply because of the amount of animal protein that is a problem? What would you fellows say about a diet that limits animal protein to around 10% and supplies the vast majority of the rest of the calories from raw animal fats and also additional vegetation as needed?
Basically, is it the protein that is the problem or just the amount of animal matter in the diet that you think is the problem. I really am starting to believe that excess protein is a much bigger problem than we suspect, but that animal fat is not at all the problem. In the Clara Davis study, bone marrow(not sure if raw) was the highest chosen food for one of the infants.
Indeed, the problem of animal fats is not at all comparable to that of proteins, which are long chains of amino-acids; they contain up to more than a thousand of them. Proteins are recognized by the immune system as foreign to the organism. Normally, the digestive enzymes break them into small sections to release the amino-acids, which are not recognized anymore as foreign and do not trigger an immune system reaction. They can then be used to build the human proteins necessary to our organism (these not being antigenic).
What happens then when proteins are badly digested in consequence of a denatured or unbalanced nutrition? Some escape the digestive enzymes and are not split into elementary amino-acids, that is to say they remain whole, or that sections including several amino-acids remain. However, a chain of 6 or 7 amino-acids can already have a structure foreign to the human body and trigger an immune system reaction (it constitutes by definition an antigen).
The problem of fats concerns much less the immune system, because these are much simpler molecules being only very seldom antigens. The consequences of an excess of lipids are primarily metabolic: fatty skin and hair, fat tissues formation, obesity, etc.
But badly digested proteins penetrating repeatedly in the circulating masses (lymph or blood) will put the immune system in alarm. This can cause an “intolerance”, i.e. exaggerated reactions against these molecules or against others more or less resembling, or alternatively a “tolerance”, or paralysis of the immune system against looking alike molecules.
From the elementary concepts admitted in immunology, one can thus predict that by absorbing regularly excessive amounts of meat, some of these molecules escape the enzymatic mechanisms of assimilation and induce either intolerances or tolerances. In the first case, the symptoms will be allergies, even autoimmune diseases. In the second case, it can be feared that the immune system “tolerates” some cancerous cells, being unable to recognize anymore the membrane’s proteins by which it identifies them under normal circumstances.
The question is therefore to know what can increase the passage in the blood of badly degraded proteins:
1. digestive overload: if the meat quantity to be digested exceeds the enzymatic potential, one can expect an increase in incompletely degraded residues;
2. bad associations: proteins to which other molecules (for example AGE’s) are joined are unlikely to correspond to the enzymes in charge of their degradation and incompletely degraded residues will result.
3. food processing or other denaturations.
The occasional presence of significant quantities of incompletely degraded molecules hardly poses problem: the immune system is there to take care and eliminate them by sticking antibodies to their antigenic sites. A large occasional meat meal or other animal proteins should certainly pose no problem. On the other hand, to multiply the meat meals beyond a certain frequency (for example every day) will induce a repeated penetration of the same antigens, with allergic, autoimmune or cancerous disorders as foreseeable consequences.
The problem is similar with the consumption of denatured cereals or dairy products, main sources of antigenic proteins in traditional food. But it would be a pity to jump out of the frying pan into the fire in favor of a carnivorous trend that could, in the long run, harm the whole paleo diet movement.
-
Thanks again for the thorough response. But why is that carbohydrate from vegetation is preferred to animal fat? And what would be your objection to a more carnivorous diet that is high in animal fat and low in protein (say 10% of calories)? And going further, what if this diet were followed so that animal protein was only consumed 2-3 times per week?
Personally, I have what it seems chronic low white blood cell count as well as improper release of stomach acid (as tested from ingesting up to 10 HCL pills at once after a protein meal without a burning sensation) and believe that the simplest explanation would have it from the above that not fully digested chains of amino acids are triggering an immune response.
I agree that it will be quite interesting in 10-20 years time when we have a fuller account of the now quite large paleo crowd who have gone everyday eating significant quantities of cooked improperly fed domesticated animals.
-
I do not see what your allusion to the prison as to do with this topic. GCB has been in jail, everybody knows it and it’s unnecessary to repeat it over and over again. He already paid dearly for acts he denies having done, now he’s out and it would perhaps be wise to stop bothering him with that.
But it is so clear : he couldn't see the numerous underweight instinctos in jail !
-
Error: I regularly received updates about any isssue concerning instinctos.
-
That is what I find totally ridiculous about it. The average OF the small group fit within the WHO level of what is 'acceptable' but it was not at all what even the WHO (which as I point out is skewed) said is average. Therefore, if there were any instinctos that had BMI's above ~21 or so, there HAD to be plenty of instincos asked that had to have BMI's well under what is considered healthy if the 'average' was the tail end of what is acceptable.
Have a look at the table here (http://www.gcburger.com/home/home-1/qu-est-ce-que-l-instincto-/un-instinct-alimentaire-chez-ltre-humain/surpoids-obesite-et-cie) and you’ll see there’s none under a BMI of 18.5, limit of underweight according to WHO.
BMI according to Wikipedia: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Body_mass_index)
“most widely used diagnostic tool to identify weight problems within a population, usually whether individuals are underweight, overweight or obese.”
What do you, KD, Carnivore and Alphagruis are so eager to show? That the instinctos are too thin and emaciate (Probably in view to increase the harassment pressure raw paleo dieters families are subject to by the administration and social welfare services in Europe. Kids growth is slower without dairy products and their growth period is longer, therefore some medics infer that a raw paleo diet is dangerous and that chidren should be taken away and fed cooked food). We provided you a small statistical survey showing that we are not considered thin by the WHO. And now you come and say that the standards of the WHO are skewed, that your visual impression are more accurate and reliable.
Of course, BMI is a simplistic tool with shortcomings, but better anyway than subjective impressions. Perhaps you and Carnivore should propose to the WHO a new and superior method of simply comparing body weight according to size.
But it is so clear : he couldn't see the numerous underweight instinctos in jail !
Perhaps they got underweight while he was in jail and got a normal weight again once he’s been freed ?
Apparently your own notion of “underweight” seriously conflicts with the WHO’s.
Next, what is “an instincto”, for you ? Is a guy having been tall and thin his all live through going to get suddenly short and fat by practicing instinctive nutrition ? Is a guy “an instincto” as long as he’s read GCB’s book and tried for a few years to practice his own particular kind of instincto-nutrition, per example without meat but with cooked rice and his own urine as supplements?
The fact is that there are no “instinctos” per se. There are only honorable individuals like you and me with a history, a heredity, a personality, different ways to practice, different sexes, size, body constitution, former and actual health and psychological state, beliefs, education, ways of life, provisioning… and so on. Some are tall and relatively thin, some are short and sturdy, many women and girls are still a bit too fat according to my own visual impression and taste.
I was about 60 kg on a cooked diet, no matter how much I ate – and I have always eaten a lot! I’m now at 58 kg, still no matter how much calories I ingest daily. As a matter of fact, it’s rather an inverse relationship: the less I eat, the more weight I take – but anyway I’ve never been significantly over 60 kg, even when I exerted a lot of physical activity at my job and doing sports.
Even if a proper instincto diet would be at fault concerning persons you rank as “underweight” according to you own purpose made classification system based on visual impressions, what kind of remedy do you propose? You tried integral zero carb carnivorism for several months and you said on your own French Paleocru forum that you are no longer a carnivore (which, by the way should prompt you to change your pseudo). Apparently, your zero carb diet didn’t work for you. So, would you be kind enough to let us know what kind of nutrition you suggest?
Francois
-
It depends also on the size and the basal metabolic rate. If I don't eat 3000Kcal a day, I simply loose weight. And I am not a heavy workers!
A priori, it proves that you do not assimilate correctly. A bad assimilation can come from many causes: disorder in the meals, nibbling, cooked exceptions, bad provisioning, etc. In addition you didn’t tell me everything about your cooked rice exceptions and undoubtedly many other elements which would explain these figures. It may also be that you have a physiological problem, or that you calculate the caloric intakes on the base of your rations in an erroneous way. Or that it would be normal that you lose weight, for example to eliminate the fat matters or “toxins” accumulated during your regular consumption of fatty commercial meats, or during your diet preceding your instincto’s attempts.
It should be known when and how you measured your caloric rations: if it was during your exclusive meat consumption, it can come from assimilation’s difficulties due to the exaggerated quantity of proteins and lipids. When excessive rations are enforced, the organism tries to restore its balance by emitting instinctive signals (modification of the flavors), and if that is not enough, it reacts by blocking the assimilation. It’s a way to prevent an overload related danger.
I also remind you that you practiced on the basis of my book “La Guerre du Cru”, where I specify that an adequate training is needed, and you did not get this training.
That said, your remark does not invalidate at all the instincto theory, it tends to invalidate the “official” standards and the mean values observed in the instincto practice. But the essence of instinctonutrition is precisely the respect of the individual diferences.
You speak about “numerous” instinctos thin and weakened: the suppression of the standard cooked food tends to trigger elimination of foreign matter reactions, which can result in a weight loss. This weight loss relates primarily to fat tissues. The organism empties its “garbage cans”, and it reflects on the general weight, whereas the process is favorable to the health. To know where one actually stands, account should be held not only of the weight, but of the body constitution.
What occurs sometimes, it is that a person seeing her weight decreasing worries unnecessarily and starts to force the rations or to take regular cooked exceptions in view of taking weight. The result is then the opposite: the overload multiplies the badly degraded molecules, which stimulate the autoimmunity, and then a vicious circle is set up.
That’s why I suggested you to let me know (in private for their own protection) the names of the persons who appeared underweight to you. So, we might be able to see the real reasons of our disagreement.
-
A priori, it proves that you do not assimilate correctly. A bad assimilation can come from many causes: disorder in the meals, nibbling, cooked exceptions, bad provisioning, etc. In addition you didn’t tell me everything about your cooked rice exceptions and undoubtedly many other elements which would explain these figures. It may also be that you have a physiological problem, or that you calculate the caloric intakes on the base of your rations in an erroneous way. Or that it would be normal that you lose weight, for example to eliminate the fat matters or “toxins” accumulated during your regular consumption of fatty commercial meats, or during your diet preceding your instincto’s attempts.
It should be known when and how you measured your rations: if it was during your exclusive meat consumption, it can come from assimilation’s difficulties due to the exaggerated quantity of proteins and lipids. When excessive rations are enforced, the organism tries to restore its balance by emitting instinctive signals (modification of the flavors), and if that is not enough, it reacts by blocking the assimilation. It’s a way to prevent an overload related danger.
I also remind you that you practiced on the basis of my book “La Guerre du Cru”, where I specify that an adequate training is needed, and you did not get this training.
That said, your remark does not invalidate at all the instincto theory, it tends to invalidate the “official” standards and the mean values observed in the instincto practice. But the essence of instinctonutrition is precisely the respect of the individual diferences.
You speak about “numerous” instinctos thin and weakened: the suppression of the standard cooked food tends to trigger elimination of foreign matter reactions, which can result in a weight loss. This weight loss relates primarily to fat tissues. The organism empties its “garbage cans”, and it reflects on the general weight, whereas the process is favorable to the health. To know where one actually stands, account should be held not only of the weight, but of the body constitution.
What occurs sometimes, it is that a person seeing her weight decreasing worries unnecessarily and starts to force the rations or to take regular cooked exceptions in view of taking weight. The result is then the opposite: the overload multiplies the badly degraded molecules, which stimulate the autoimmunity, and then a vicious circle is set up.
That’s why I suggested you to let me know (in private for their own protection) the names of the persons who appeared underweight to you. So, we might be able to see the real reasons of our disagreement.
My five years of instincto-nutrition was strict, no cheating. Only after this fiasco did I tried rice and also carnivorism during one year which didn't work.
With a rawpaleo diet (with more than 2 meals a day), I have regain my health (and my weight). I simply eat more calories (and also more animal protein) than during this instincto experiment. I have met numerous people who pretend to eat instincto and who are underweight and lack energy as I was, so I fully understand their trouble, and also strongly believe that they should get more calories by eating more often.
-
What do you, KD, Carnivore and Alphagruis are so eager to show? That the instinctos are too thin and emaciate (Probably in view to increase the harassment pressure raw paleo dieters families are subject to by the administration and social welfare services in Europe. Kids growth is slower without dairy products and their growth period is longer, therefore some medics infer that a raw paleo diet is dangerous and that chidren should be taken away and fed cooked food). We provided you a small statistical survey showing that we are not considered thin by the WHO. And now you come and say that the standards of the WHO are skewed, that your visual impression are more accurate and reliable.
Apparently your own notion of “underweight” seriously conflicts with the WHO’s.
So, would you be kind enough to let us know what kind of nutrition you suggest?
Francois
I think it would be good start as I said to not group critics into one category. I could be wrong, but I believe Carnivore is saying that his experience is that eating towards his natural stopping point was not enough to maintain a healthy weight with activity. So part of the solution was simply to eat more than desired. On that I probably agree just from going over the data and logic, but I don't share his experience so its probably unfair to him to group me into that criticism. As for WHO, ABSOLUTELY I am saying (on my own) that it has 0 reflection on what we are talking about when according to that system virtually all athletes and people considered to be athletic (actors, policemen, soldiers etc..) are considered to be borderline overweight if not obese. I can only gauge accurately from my own BMI (22) that this information is worthless. 6' 74 kg 30 waist, s->m shirt size. this is not average or within average, this is well below average. We can define what is beautiful or healthy in comparison to what the SWD (overweight?) world sees so, but just in terms of current facts, this isn't average. To my knowledge of HGs, there are very few that drop below 20 BMI. AS a shot in the dark, as I believe I have suggested time and again in this thread, I would probably suggest that people do not eat according to instincts that are skewed by modern conditions, availability and most importantly activity. If you can call up an order on Mon Thong and deer meat without any spiriting or requiring any physical strength or prowess, regardless of stopping points or fine tuned mechanisms, they will be skewed towards continuing to be small and inactive.
Of course, BMI is a simplistic tool with shortcomings, but better anyway than subjective impressions. Perhaps you and Carnivore should propose to the WHO a new and superior method of simply comparing body weight according to size.
As I said, if you want to embrace the WHO's suggestions - who many health-conspiratorialists would probably suggest as methods of pop. control - without their other suggestions for health fine. But to claim that as an acceptable gauge of ideal health, it loses a massive chunk of credibility IMO. The issue in question would be: following instincto how does one achieve goals that go beyond ones natural inclinations (like actually achieving a much higher BMI for instance, lets say it was 'necessary' for a career), which I believe is the essence of 'improvement' for lack of a better word. Since I am - clearly - extremely skeptical about instincto bringing adequate nutrtion (even if once again it meeets minimal WHO requirements for nutrients) I certainly don't believe it is safe for children who have even greater nutritional needs and desires to be integrated socially. But alas I have no connections to governmental officials here or in France, so you'll have to accept that my interst is mostly theoretical.
-
I think it is not important if somebody is lean or to the contrary robust when he feels good and when he is able to achieve his personal aims. Summarily when he feels himself healthy.
When I started my instinctive experience I lost about 14 kilograms. I was always a very lean type, after a few weeks instinctive nutrition I seemed to be a skeleton. But inside I felt happy, every meal was a like a Christmas festival. I was very tired too and so I did what all animals do when they want to recover: I slept a lot. And bit by bit I regained weight and force. Later on I removed my fillings and crowns. After visiting a meeting of instinctive raw eaters it was obvious for me that this is necessary to regain my health. I was shocked seeing some people who praticticed instinctive eating since many years and who were looking very ill. I asked some of them about fillings knowing that they can cause a lot of health problems. And in nearly all cases I found the confirmation of my assumption. Involved were not only elder people but young people also.
I wonder why the experts while discussing about BMI and calories not even start to consider this issue which I mentioned a few days before.
For some scientists it is a matter of fact that teeth fillings inhibit healing. On the other side raw instinctive eating can lead to a profound process of healing. Why does it seem so difficult to think about the possibility that foreign material inhibits instinctive nutrition?
KD posted:If you can call up an order on Mon Thong and deer meat without any spiriting or requiring any physical strength or prowess, regardless of stopping points or fine tuned mechanisms, they will be skewed towards continuing to be small and inactive.
It is a very interessiting fact for me that sometimes I need to hunt: Before I call up an order for meat I have to run a few kilometers. :) At the begining of my instincitve experience it was nearly unconscious meanwhile the coherence of "hunting" and the need of meat is obvious to me and often makes me laugh.
-
Susan, thanks for shareing your experience. My criticisms as I mentioned earlier are deffinetly not to say that one cannot be healthy following their instincts, my questioning is more in line with the fact that these instincts can be distorted and therefore modern intelect and knowledge shared among peers (and not mainstream science) can in many cases yield better results, even when they appear to work against 'instincts' and desires.
I believe the mercury issue scratches the surface of this phenomena. I recently spoke with a RAFer who had attended a conferance specifically on mercury ( I assume this was not a forum of traditonal dentistry). Literally one of the conclusions was - based on the fact that most people have fillings and yet not all people experience debilitating symptoms - that some are more sensative than others! To me, what this leads me to believe is that there are many serious issues that go way beyond and before mecury toxication through fillings, and that this intoxication only represents a greater burdern to already pre-existing problems. It could be very well true that removing fillings + rest + diet allows the body to tackle those other issues, but there are known issues with removing fillings. More importantly, its possible for people on other diets: 100% raw or otherwise to maintain healthy weights with fillings, whther they could indeed be healtheir without. So I don't see it completely as a valid 'excuse' (not that you are making one) for instinctos to be merely "above dangerously underweight" if inded they are.
Initially the point at which you felt happy and well, despite your 'observed' health likely by others , is really the issue I think others were pointing out. This mirrors my experience on other WOE where I 'felt great' (not surprizingly it included lots of fruit) and looked underwight yet could blame others as being overweight to satisfy my ego. Anyway, I am indeed glad you found the solutions to more complete health!
Ultimately, to me I guess I have pretty high standards on what is health. Health to me is mastery of body, mind, and spirit - for lack of a better term. If someone is capable of running down an animal or of high feats of strength, I don't think they need to particpate in those things every time they want to eat to replicate our ancestors or that ordering food is artifical or wrong. But I do believe ones desires are skewed if they do not have a presence of body, mind and spirt that would serve them in a natural setting, but rather ultimately various inclinations that are entirely civilized and citig as instincts
-
Thanks again for the thorough response. But why is that carbohydrate from vegetation is preferred to animal fat? And what would be your objection to a more carnivorous diet that is high in animal fat and low in protein (say 10% of calories)? And going further, what if this diet were followed so that animal protein was only consumed 2-3 times per week?
The instincto offers a base of empirical observation different from other diets. The nutritional balance auto-regulated by the instinct is characterized by all kinds of physiological criteria that are no longer respected when some “errors” are made.
The most significant criterion is the inflammatory tendency: with a correct balance, there is for example neither oedema nor erythema around a small open wound. The crust is bordered by the skin without any swelling nor redness. However, it is enough to force the carbohydrate consumption beyond the limit indicated by the alliesthesic mechanisms or to use a foodstuff which thwarts these mechanisms (highly selected fruit, honey in jar, etc) to see signs of the inflammation increasing in the next hours after consumption. Other signs indicate the presence of an imbalance (dyspepsia, flatulence, somnolence, etc). In their absence, one can thus be sure that balance is respected.
The problem is a little different for fats: the most apparent criterion of overload is seborrhoea (fatty skin and hair). On the level of digestion, one also notices the loss of the “transparency” feeling characterizing ideal digestive balance. These signs appear when one exceeds the oral feelings of pleasant savor, melting consistency, and easy swallowing which indicate (when fat is consumed without mixture nor process of any kind) the real need for lipids. Therefore, there are for the lipids too the same correlation between signs of alliesthesic overload and signs of metabolic overload.
The rations to which these criteria lead correspond closely enough to the nutritional standards, i.e. one eats definitely less fats than carbs, and than any variation compared to these values induce easily observable disorders. But once again, these disorders are observable only if basic balance is sufficiently precise so that these signs are usually not apparent, and can thus reappear in the event of overload. When we are permanently overloaded, a point of comparison is missing and we can be convinced to be in a correct balance whereas it is far from being the case.
-
So, what about the infants that chose so much bone marrow? Didn't you say Inuits were instinctos yet they consume around 80% calories from fats?
The rations to which these criteria lead correspond closely enough to the nutritional standards, i.e. one eats definitely less fats than carbs, and than any variation compared to these values induce easily observable disorders. But once again, these disorders are observable only if basic balance is sufficiently precise so that these signs are usually not apparent, and can thus reappear in the event of overload. When we are permanently overloaded, a point of comparison is missing and we can be convinced to be in a correct balance whereas it is far from being the case.
Did Alphagruis hack into your account? This is a beautiful anti-theory.
-
KD, do you really think that there will be a human expert who is wiser than mother nature?
I myself can't believe it. How could the human species survive millions of years without these experts?
The problem is that human instincts are distorted not even the alimentary instinct. Another eyample for a distorted instinct is the maternal instinct. I' ve read many years ago the book "The continuum concept" written by Jean Liedloff. After reading this book it was obvious for me a mother has to do when she give birth to a child. But there was a big difference between theory and practice. So I was not able to fullfill all the needs of my first born child. For example it was impossible for me to stay in a permanent physical contact with him. I needed a lot if practice before my maternal instinct was regained.
It's the same with the alimentary instinct. You need a lot of practice to regain your instincts. For this reason I think it will be better to talk about pratice and not about theory. :)
-
So, what about the infants that chose so much bone marrow?
It is frequent, in the instincto context, to see someone consume enormous quantities of a specific stuff during a more or less extended period. But this period is always limited, the stuff ending up by becoming repulsive and the person is automatically led to widen her choice so as to balance correctly. The effects of these apparent overloads were always positive, for example a spectacular weight increase, or the disappearance of a disorder, incurable up to that point.
Such occurrences convinced me of the alimentary instinct operating coherence, even if the ingested quantities appeared a priori unbalancing - of course, still as long as the rules of instinctive nutrition are correctly applied, in particular the absence of any denaturation of the flavors and consistencies (no mixture, seasoning, of thermal denaturation, etc).
It should be noticed that Clara Davis does not specify if this marrow was eaten raw or cooked. But raw marrow is a delight for someone who really needs it (it appears on the other hand too fatty or too chalky and unpleasant in the opposite case
Didn't you say Inuits were instinctos yet they consume around 80% calories from fats?
I think that Inuits reacted rather instinctively in their environment. They had less mangos than whales at disposal, that’s why they had to fall back on fat. But the Arctic is certainly not an ideal environment for primates and the Inuits' case can hardly be taken as a reference, although their health was much better than that of average Americans…
We have therefore to see this massive recourse to seal or whale blubber as a substitute made essential in consequence of an unsuited environment. It is clear that man is not physiologically adapted to the climate of Greenland, contrary to the snow fox and mosquitoes…
Did Alphagruis hack into your account? This is a beautiful anti-theory.
I not sure to understand correctly what you mean by “hack into account”.
I’ll answer soon in more length to Alphagruis last relevant post (see the "Instincto Debunker debunking thread (http://www.rawpaleoforum.com/instinctoanopsology/instincto-debunker-debunking/)"). It appears to me more and more that he hasn't really understood my approach of the food and health issue (and neither my approach of the sexuality and love subject).
The instincto is indeed an anti-theory, not because it wouldn’t be verifiable or falsifiable (!), but because it questions all the existing theories related to nutrition. It isn’t for no reason it has been so much fought by the medical community, the media, the government, justice, professional scientists…
But I’m not concerned: time will tell… 8)
-
My five years of instincto-nutrition was strict, no cheating.
But you've practiced from my popular book « La Guerre du Cru », which provides only theoretical explanations, and perhaps from advices of other instinctos probably just as ballpark as you. May I recall you what I say in this book (something I stress even more in the latter edition « Manger Vrai »):
IF YOU WANT TO GO TO PRACTICE
To restore the function of the alimentary instinct is not an operation as simple as it sounds: it takes a lot of intelligence to escape the traps of intelligence!
A solid theoretical and practical training is essential if you are to avoid the pitfalls and wasted time involved in starting by yourself. The instincto pioneers themselves erred for years before everything was sorted out. However, you’ll find in the following pages a few rules that should hopefully allow you a successful first experience of three to five days which should give you, to begin with, the largest well being on the digestive side.
See also : http://www.reocities.com/HotSprings/7627/ggraw_eat6.html, or more actual but in french in my personal website : www.gcburger.com
It looks like you have confused the words "three to five days," with "three to five years."
Worse than that: you remained all this time blocked to meat consumption (aside of some rare pieces of chicken ). However one of main rules of instinctive nutrition precisely specifies that one should not remain more than a few weeks blocked to a food category. It’s absolutely clear that the deprivation of meat is a dangerous cause of slimming.
That’s the most important point; it shouldn’t be occulted if you want to understand what happened to you! As my own experience has shown, instinctive nutrition doesn’t work without a sufficient range of animal foodstuffs. The question is to know how much of each specific foodstuff is needed and only our instinct can really adapt precisely the ingested amounts to each individual and varying needs.
You still haven’t let me know the names of the persons you have gleaned some guidance from during these years and of those having more recently appeared to you « underweight and lacking energy ».
With a rawpaleo diet (with more than 2 meals a day), I have regain my health (and my weight). I simply eat more calories (and also more animal protein) than during this instincto experiment.
It’s quite normal that your weight increased by eating heaps of fatty meat. Interestingly, you made the opposite mistake to eat no meat at all during your so called “instincto” years! But anyway, what matters for the long-term health is not weight, but the body constitution.
You have inevitably put either apparent or diffuse fat (especially with supermarket meats you used and which are concentrates of "toxins"). Such a game can go for a while, but in the long term, you expose yourself to serious dangers.
Overload in fat paves the way to cardiovascular disorders (atheroma), and that of protein to hyperkeratosis, metabolic disorders (gout, joints problems), allergic diseases or autoimmune diseases, a vulnerability to infectious diseases and with some bad luck, to cancer.
I remind to you that your results, which you had the honesty to communicate in your « Journal », show a catastrophic imbalance, to tell the truth.
Here are my blood test results. I am on a mainly raw carnivorous (zerocarbs) diet for 8 months, eating mainly beef (grass-fed and grain-fed), and some horse, pork, lamb. I also eat tallow and pemmican, and clarified raw organic butter.
FBG = 0.96 g/l (0.74-1.06)
A1C = 5.5% (<6%)
Urea = 0.52 g/l (0.17-0.43)
Total cholesterol = 4.31 g/l (<2)
HDL = 0.65 g/l (>0.4)
Triglycerids = 1.47 g/l (<1.5)
LDL = 3.37 g/l (<0.9-1.6)
VLDL = 0.29 g/l (0.05-0.25)
Vitamin B9 (folic acid) = 2.94 (>5.38)
Fasting blood glucose is pretty high, like my A1C and my urea is too high.
LDL is very high and VLDL is a bit too high.
Folic acid is too low.
Triglycerids could be lower.
I believe I still eat too much fat, as my pulse raises to 90 after eating, and I have some unpleasant symptoms.
I'll try to stick to one meal a day for the next months, to see if health improves.
The fact that you do not recall here this important point makes it difficult to take your "evidence" seriously.
I have met numerous people who pretend to eat instincto and who are underweight and lack energy as I was, so I fully understand their trouble, and also strongly believe that they should get more calories by eating more often.
Give me some figures about the people you refer, and if possible their names by private message so that I’ll be able, on one hand to believe you, and on the other hand to examine each problem and determine its causes, as I always have done. It would be useful for these people and also allow us to move ahead.
I remind you that the guy you told Iguana “he is much too skinny” has a BMI of 22.8 - which is above the average of what WHO considers as the normal range, 18.5 to 25!
Once more you may understand that it’s difficult to take you seriously... -[
-
KD, do you really think that there will be a human expert who is wiser than mother nature?
I myself can't believe it. How could the human species survive millions of years without these experts?
Do you really believe I'm going to fall for a trick question? Ok I'll bite and lay the cards down. Since we do not live in nature and do not even resemble natural beings in many respects, the answer is an un-doubtably Y E S on my part, and have proved that quite well I think in previous posts that cannot even be answered apparently. seeing since you already agree mercury fillings ( a minor scratch as I say) are enough to sway ones instinct, how about all the other factors of environment like the countless examples given of wild animals both natural and artificial foodstuffs removed from their place of origin will affect their choices and quantities. In addition, the fact that whales, with no modern dentistry and eating 100% their instinctive raw diet, have 0 mechanism for ridding themselves of mass amounts of dangerous mercury and other heavy metals that surpass humans in %. This is just one example of proof -to me- that even our natural diet is not 100% as effective as diets and tools geeared at removing things specifically, and not inline necessarily with what our roots or desires are.
I've tried to keep my criticisms away from debunking an existence of an alimentary instinct that always chooses adequate food, because I have merely to cite the results of following such instinct, no matter how refined in creating less than adequate results. So in other words, like the maternal instinct, it impresses me not that it can be regained because it doesn't necessarily correspond with what will be the ideal method. Just because someone has the greatest connection to their maternal instincts, will not make them the best mother, someone with the closest connections to their dietary instincts, not the most healthy. I think this is more 'believable' than you think. On a forum like htis, your 'concept' is certainly the EASIEST one to take. Seems like even a properly raised child would reason this quite well. and would have to be distorted in thinking otherwise in such seemingly correct comparisons to nature.
The issue is not whether one knows better than nature, the issue is whether one can act in accordance with nature's laws, but bend them into understanding to their advantage in assessment of un-natural circumstances both internally and externally. Only animals can succeed 'passively' because of the past abundances and balances of their situation which were geared towards success. A cat roaming the streets of a small city, will never get the nutrition or sunshine or any number of factors of a cheetah in the wild. Its connection to its instincts will not help it get the even adequate nutrition in comparison to a health minded guardian that can supply it with its studied opinion/knowledge of 100% clean carnivorous nutrition from fresh sources, and not diseased meat and matter and street dust. Prior to this situation it IS following its instincts (at least to the best of its ability due to degeneration, despite claims here that cats will eat 'instincto' so I guess it fits my analogy even better) and many here are far closer to - or worse off - than the street cat than the cheetah.
In conclusion since its perfectly possible that choosing individual foods and whole nutritional guidance can be affected by circumstance - regardless of purity of instinct mechanisms, it shows very well that understanding and experience that chooses to alter circumstance can trump instinct quite well in terms of a specific desired result. When this crosses over into the domain of physical feats and prowess or re-aligning spiritual health, clearly knowledge and efforts that go beyond instinct are quite valuable, including the 'tools' of civilization so oft dismissed. Keep in mind many of these tools have healed many without the need to even alter their nutrition, and this is a fact. The combination of anthropological nutrition with these tools being the best combination for success and thriving as a contemporary being.
-
KD, I'm sorry if you believe I want to trick you with my question. This isn't my intention.
We don't live in an natural and especially not in a sane environment anymore. Environmental pollutions threaten not only the lives of mankind but the live of all creatures. But the laws of nature still exist even if many people believe we can trample all over them without any consequences. In my opinion the state of health (including body, mind and spiritual health) of many people is really alarming. But maybe it is necessary to define the terms "health" and "disease".
For me health of mind is characterized by creative intelligence free from egoistic aims knowing that all-is-one.
Spiritual health means that there is an inner faith in God (or if you want in the universe) and a dynamic internal peace independent from external circumstances.
A body is healthy when it works without any symptoms, in a harmonious change of activity and repose.
Dis-ease is therefore not only the appearance of physical symptoms and their disappearance doesn't mean one has been healed.
Of course there are different methods which can help to regain real health. For me raw instinctive eating is the most suitable method though I think sometimes it is helpful to use other methods too. For example when somebody don't want to remove toxic teeth fillings and thinks they doesn't disturb the healing process. :) And I don't talk only about mercury but of gold and plastics too. Plastics for example are known to destroy mirrow and stem cells.
Another point which I want to mention: I think it's not necessary to look back what our ancestors have eaten. Evolution is a continous process (do you know Bruce Liptons book "Spontaneaous Evolution"?) and maybe the enviroment of the modern man requires a different diet but always in harmony with the laws of nature. Knowing what real health is you can see if your diet works with or without the help of experts. You only need an open-minded self-oberservation.
-
I agree with pretty much all of what you say here. Especially the part about associating no-symptoms with health and in talking about copying ancestors, although I do think it is helpful to have an understanding of our natural diet. I tend to think self-observation as you are mentioning (which I also think is positive) would be the opposite of instincts as is being defined.
I didn't think there was any malice or 'trickery'. It just isn't the type of question I think where there is much of an answer for, because the 'problem' doesn't accurately describe the current dilemma. I happened to take the less popular stance in that I do believe nature is not necessarily the best weapon again non-nature, as seen time and again. The example of the whales was to prove that eating their natural diet is not fixing their problem. So how can it fix all of ours especially with the other backtracking on needs to do and having poor inheritance? I also believe humans are complex spiritual creatures, also with high amounts of knowledge. To attribute these entirely to our discredit is really getting close to accepting the same fates as animals I believe.
Whether our bodies can become so intuitive that we crave the right materials form nature to balance out these internal issues on top of our nutritional needs I do not know, but I remain skeptical especially considering it still seems possible for some (including animals) to choose inadequate foods and quantities instinctively given artificial environments alone without even factoring in internal stuff or lifestyle. The case of the street cat is one such example (which isn't wild) but I listed others involving artificial constructs earlier, which I believe were satisfactory in claiming that any decisions over food are largely intellectual anyway. Also based on the anecdotal readings of what types of things people dismiss from their diet (regardless of the whole macro nutrient debate) that it is clear that many make due on whatever foods available and in the end claim it is instinct and not other factors.
-
To tell the truth it's really no pure instinct which drives me to my food. It's a combination of instinct, intuition and intellect. But the instinct (smell and taste) is the last instance before eating anything. Time will show if the combination of instinct, intuition and intellect will help to heal myself.
-
I agree with pretty much all of what you say here. Especially the part about associating no-symptoms with health and in talking about copying ancestors, although I do think it is helpful to have an understanding of our natural diet. I tend to think self-observation as you are mentioning (which I also think is positive) would be the opposite of instincts as is being defined.
Not at all: self-observation is precisely what allows us to use the instinct for controlling the nutritional balance.
I didn't think there was any malice or 'trickery'. It just isn't the type of question I think where there is much of an answer for, because the 'problem' doesn't accurately describe the current dilemma. I happened to take the less popular stance in that I do believe nature is not necessarily the best weapon again non-nature, as seen time and again. The example of the whales was to prove that eating their natural diet is not fixing their problem.
The starting point of my questioning on the instinct is precisely that of the animal’s instinct failure: the cat we cherished, my wife and I before having children, poisoned himself one day with white paint. I found him beside the can of paint, died with white paint still on his lips and mouth. I had always heard that cats’ instinct was particularly reliable, and here our cat succumbed to a mortal error of his instinct…
Only later did I understand what happened to him. Paint has never before been included in the natural environment in which the instinct of cats was shaped. Thus, it can happen that they are attracted by a toxic product, up to the point of gorging to death. In fact, the same phenomenon occurs for man with chips, cheese, chocolate and almost everything processed: these products do not exist in nature and they fascinate our senses, hence leaving us unprotected: we fall into greediness, and the pleasure leads us to illness and death. The only means we have to protect us is reason, namely knowledge of the danger, and the will enabling us to “resist temptation”.
So how can it fix all of ours especially with the other backtracking on needs to do and having poor inheritance? I also believe humans are complex spiritual creatures, also with high amounts of knowledge. To attribute these entirely to our discredit is really getting close to accepting the same fates as animals I believe.
If you speak this way about the instincto, it’s because you did not understand it. It’s in no way a matter of entirely entrusting our instinct and of giving up our intelligence. On the contrary, as I wrote in my first book: one needs much intelligence to get out of the traps due to intelligence! Indeed, one needs a lot of intelligence and knowledge to be able to use what remains of our instinct, but this rest of instinct is essential since without it we’re unable to know the real needs of our body at any moment. These needs vary much more than it is generally believed, from a former cooked food dieter to another and from a moment to another. Dietetics can only indicate averages, which implies that it provides false indications each time the needs of an individual deviate from average.
This is why the listening of our instinct allows results far better than those of the most assiduous dietetics: the needs are adjusted day after day and even meal after meal to the real state of the body, and as an engine with a more accurate injection equipment, the performances in term of health and self healing are considerably better.
Whether our bodies can become so intuitive that we crave the right materials form nature to balance out these internal issues on top of our nutritional needs I do not know, but I remain skeptical especially considering it still seems possible for some (including animals) to choose inadequate foods and quantities instinctively given artificial environments alone without even factoring in internal stuff or lifestyle. The case of the street cat is one such example (which isn't wild) but I listed others involving artificial constructs earlier, which I believe were satisfactory in claiming that any decisions over food are largely intellectual anyway. Also based on the anecdotal readings of what types of things people dismiss from their diet (regardless of the whole macro nutrient debate) that it is clear that many make due on whatever foods available and in the end claim it is instinct and not other factors.
Of course!
You’re beating a dead horse: the instincto consists precisely in the whole set of rules one should know in view to avoid falling neither into the errors of conventional diet, nor in those our instinct makes vis-a-vis an environment it is not adapted to. I never went so far as saying that it’s required to forget everything and trust exclusively the response of our nose and mouth. What I say, it is that the instinct only, or more exactly the alliesthesic mechanisms, can enable us to recognize the stuff we really need; but for these mechanisms to function correctly, it’s indispensable to respect a complete series of rules and to use of a whole lot of knowledge.
To tell the truth it's really no pure instinct which drives me to my food. It's a combination of instinct, intuition and intellect. But the instinct (smell and taste) is the last instance before eating anything. Time will show if the combination of instinct, intuition and intellect will help to heal myself.
Exactly: it has never been a matter of obeying blindly and exclusively to our pure instinct. This idea was forged by Alphagruis (in quoting out of context fragments of my writings) and it still pollutes the debate. The superiority of instinctonutrition is precisely that it exploits on one hand our intellectual knowledge when useful, and on the other hand knowledge of the body, i.e. the instinct where the intellect is unable to provide the suitable answers. Research around the instincto theory, in this field, are nothing less than checking the coherence between instinctive attractions and the scientific knowledge.
I believe necessary now to get freed once and for good from this false idea hammered by Alphagruis according to who instinctotherapy would consist in a blind and entire confidence to the data provided by our senses. It is on the contrary the double awakening of the irreplaceable function of the instinct as well as the resort to knowledge and thought that allow this instinct to function correctly.
-
What I say, it is that the instinct only, or more exactly the alliesthesic mechanisms,
I think it would avoid a lot of "misunderstandings" and misconceptions and it would also be more correct to speak of "alliesthetic mechanisms" instead of "instinct".
-
Overload in fat paves the way to cardiovascular disorders (atheroma), and that of protein to hyperkeratosis, metabolic disorders (gout, joints problems), allergic diseases or autoimmune diseases, a vulnerability to infectious diseases and with some bad luck, to cancer.
I remind to you that your results, which you had the honesty to communicate in your « Journal », show a catastrophic imbalance, to tell the truth.
Quote from: carnivore on August 26, 2009, 12:15:01 PM
Here are my blood test results. I am on a mainly raw carnivorous (zerocarbs) diet for 8 months, eating mainly beef (grass-fed and grain-fed), and some horse, pork, lamb. I also eat tallow and pemmican, and clarified raw organic butter.
FBG = 0.96 g/l (0.74-1.06)
A1C = 5.5% (<6%)
Urea = 0.52 g/l (0.17-0.43)
Total cholesterol = 4.31 g/l (<2)
HDL = 0.65 g/l (>0.4)
Triglycerids = 1.47 g/l (<1.5)
LDL = 3.37 g/l (<0.9-1.6)
VLDL = 0.29 g/l (0.05-0.25)
Vitamin B9 (folic acid) = 2.94 (>5.38)
Fasting blood glucose is pretty high, like my A1C and my urea is too high.
LDL is very high and VLDL is a bit too high.
Folic acid is too low.
Triglycerids could be lower.
I believe I still eat too much fat, as my pulse raises to 90 after eating, and I have some unpleasant symptoms.
I'll try to stick to one meal a day for the next months, to see if health improves.
Gcb,
Even babies and especially their brains use ketone bodies as an energy source (to a greater extent than "normal" adults!). So why shouldn´t this be healthy?
I can´t believe, that a a high fat diet necessarily leads to an imbalance. Here are my blood values of two years ago (at this time I ate very little fruit and much fat, but almost no food of animal origin):
Cholesterin 124 mg/dl (Norm 110-220)
HDL-Cholesterin 51 mg/dl (Norm 25-80)
LDL-Cholesterin 75 mg/dl (Norm 70-150)
Triglyceride 51 mg/dl (50-150)
Dictionary says Cholesterin = cholesterol in English
-
I think it would avoid a lot of "misunderstandings" and misconceptions and it would also be more correct to speak of "alliesthetic mechanisms" instead of "instinct".
I fully agree. But the discovery that I believe I’ve made, is that the alimentary instinct, in particular in the animal, precisely consists in the alliesthesic mechanisms. The latter are obviously innate and operate a nutritional self-regulation. These two criteria precisely define the instinct…
I can´t believe, that a a high fat diet necessarily leads to an imbalance. Here are my blood values of two years ago (at this time I ate very little fruit and much fat, but almost no food of animal origin):
To insure that I understand you: the fat you consumed were not from animals? If it’s really the case, what kind of plant fat?
-
To insure that I understand you: the fat you consumed were not from animals? If it’s really the case, what kind of plant fat?
Yes, not from animals. I then began to eat (more) food of animal origin because my B12 was a bit low.
>>If it’s really the case, what kind of plant fat?
Nuts, avocado, coconut. I never perceive an overload of fat when I eat fatty fish, bone marrow, coconuts, "wild" avocados or relatively fresh walnuts, for example. I have to be careful when I eat cultivated avodado varieties (e. g. all spanish avocado varieties) and dried nuts like for example macadamia nuts.
-
If you speak this way about the instincto, it’s because you did not understand it. It’s in no way a matter of entirely entrusting our instinct and of giving up our intelligence. On the contrary, as I wrote in my first book: one needs much intelligence to get out of the traps due to intelligence! Indeed, one needs a lot of intelligence and knowledge to be able to use what remains of our instinct, but this rest of instinct is essential since without it we’re unable to know the real needs of our body at any moment. These needs vary much more than it is generally believed, from a former cooked food dieter to another and from a moment to another. Dietetics can only indicate averages, which implies that it provides false indications each time the needs of an individual deviate from average.
This is why the listening of our instinct allows results far better than those of the most assiduous dietetics: the needs are adjusted day after day and even meal after meal to the real state of the body, and as an engine with a more accurate injection equipment, the performances in term of health and self healing are considerably better.
GCB, Thank you for further articulating points that I had already acknowledged earlier. ie. that instincto is more that just reverting to a basic instinct. In this case I was merely responding to Susan and was talking about my philosophy. Since they line up with certain aspects of instincto philosophy, all the better.
as for everything else, no dead horse here. Your cat story - while touching - is less satisfying than to my analogy, which deals not at all with consuming direct pollutants or even really modern toxins within foods but in choosing second-class fare for eating. I don't see how you can't argue that even in nature this can happen based on lack of diversity, or similarly to have increased proximity of adequate food that desire can be satisfied. Most of my points here:
http://www.rawpaleoforum.com/instinctoanopsology/explain-instincto-diet-fully-2/msg38617/#msg38617
revolved around these issues. All I have to do is observe that modern Instinctos are dismissing huge varieties of certain foods that we *know* would have been eaten in nature in favor of other foods which could not even be compiled in nature to know that this instinct - even with accompanying intelligence and self-observation - as you say can be possibly trumped by more 'rigorous' systems.
that said this is 100% my opinion and think you make good points about deviating from averages, and that our needs can possibly shift even on a day to day basis. Once again however if these 'averages' can produce seemingly optimal results, while satisfying 'instincto philosophy' in all it entails produces inferior results (again if this is the case) It matters little as another theoretical system of the many that SHOULD work. My typo may have been a misunderstanding, but it should have wrote: nature doesn’t necessarily work against non-nature. I’ve totally lost faith in ‘natural’ or ‘original’ as having much of a qualifier, so i'd weigh alot more on the 'self-observation' and intuition component than the instinct component personally, as I believe the instinct part can be largely dictated by artifical avaliability.
-
Yes, not from animals. I then began to eat (more) food of animal origin because my B12 was a bit low.
>>If it’s really the case, what kind of plant fat?
Nuts, avocado, coconut. I never perceive an overload of fat when I eat fatty fish, bone marrow, coconuts, "wild" avocados or relatively fresh walnuts, for example. I have to be careful when I eat cultivated avodado varieties (e. g. all spanish avocado varieties) and dried nuts like for example macadamia nuts.
I better understand now your triglyceride and cholesterol levels! I was influenced by the massive animal fat consumption of “Carnivore”, to whom I answered in the same post. The fatty stuff you consumed definitely don’t induce the same problems. If you could eat it without mixing nor seasoning, it’s that it corresponded to your needs and to your assimilation capacity. Otherwise, the taste, palatability and repletion would have warned you about an overload. Moreover, the rich in lipids plants do not contain the masses of abnormal molecules found in inadequately fed animals’ fat.
Most wild animals have very little fat, and if domesticated ones have spectacular amounts of fat, it is not only for lack of activity, but also because of the methods of foddering, with cereals, complements, perhaps hormones or heated food (such as the now usual pellets) result in accumulation either of inassimilable nutrients excesses and even perhaps of toxic matters. To eat standard livestock fat is equal to absorb a concentrate of non-primal molecules and to expose oneself to all the disorders due to denatured food, this being worsened by our position at the end of the food chain.
I’m under the impression that such a fondness of fat could well be a sign of a health issue, for example on the liver or pancreas side. I think that you’ve instinctively obeyed to the potentialities of your body, but you’ve been nonetheless quite far from the generally observed balance. There must be a cause to that, and I advise you to search for it rather than deduce from your personal experience or from some other singular cases that a balanced diet should more or less match yours.
-
GCB, Thank you for further articulating points that I had already acknowledged earlier. ie. that instincto is more that just reverting to a basic instinct. In this case I was merely responding to Susan and was talking about my philosophy. Since they line up with certain aspects of instincto philosophy, all the better.
as for everything else, no dead horse here. Your cat story - while touching - is less satisfying than to my analogy, which deals not at all with consuming direct pollutants or even really modern toxins within foods but in choosing second-class fare for eating.
I am not sure you’ve understood the reason why I quoted this observation on my cat: it was only the starting point of thoughts, which, of course, were developed with the support of experiments and extended to all the alimentary artifices, including the recent ecological modifications introduced by man. Just as the instinct of the cat can be misguided vis-a-vis a product inexistent in the environment to which its genome adapted, our senses of taste and other mechanisms of regulation can be fooled by artificially selected fruits sweeter than natural, etc.
But the main cause of failure of the instinctive operation remains the culinary artifices: to season a salad with a drop of oil, lemon and a pinch of salt is enough to make this salad delectable whereas the body would refuse it under natural conditions. It’s the same with any preparation modifying the organoleptic characteristics of natural foods: for example, the simple fact of pressing a grapefruit to extract its juice disorganizes the gustatory mechanisms and inhibits the signal which would allow to limit the quantity of fruit according to the needs and potentialities of the body. It’s much worse if one adds sugar to the juice, but a simple pressing is enough to erase the normal instinctive stop. The experiment is very easy, at least when the sense of taste is regenerated by a period of natural nutrition.
I don't see how you can't argue that even in nature this can happen based on lack of diversity, or similarly to have increased proximity of adequate food that desire can be satisfied. Most of my points here:
http://www.rawpaleoforum.com/instinctoanopsology/explain-instincto-diet-fully-2/msg38617/#msg38617 revolved around these issues.
Of course, in nature an animal must face all kinds of difficulties. But it cannot be deduced that these difficulties are favorable to health! There are for example volcanic eruptions and forest fires. It is not a reason to think that a prolonged famine allows the children to better grow or that roasted meat would be healthier. I do not see any relevant way of thinking which would allow saying that one would be better if undergoing the same deprivations as those occurring in the primitive world. A wild species encountering too many difficulties in its biotope either ends up being delocalized, or by adapting (if it is possible, because there are limits to any adaptation), or else by disappearing.
The experiment has shown me that the provision of a great choice of different foodstuff permits the individual, in so far as he obeys to the alliesthesic mechanisms and by disregarding any preconceived idea, to discover the best suitable stuff for the maintenance or the re-establishment of his health. The specific choices of sick people are sometimes astonishing: one will pounce on crabs, another on water melons, a third on bundles of parsley. But each time, the results show that the choice was not the work of chance.
That’s what makes me think the genetic (including epigenetic) programming of the organism can take into account a immense lot of situations, relating as well to the various possible disorders of the organism than to the various foodstuffs available in nature. On the other hand, the experiment shows that deteriorations of savor commonly done by processing food to “improve” it, more or less disable this wisdom of the body and leads to a systematic imbalance – against which only dietetic principles remain to avoid the worst troubles.
All I have to do is observe that modern Instinctos are dismissing huge varieties of certain foods that we *know* would have been eaten in nature in favor of other foods which could not even be compiled in nature to know that this instinct - even with accompanying intelligence and self-observation - as you say can be possibly trumped by more 'rigorous' systems.
I’m not sure I’ve understood properly your sentence.
It’s a fact that the products we have today are not the same as those available for example to primates in a primary forest or those our hominid ancestors had. But once again, according to the experiments, products provided by agriculture seem closer to bring a correct operation of the instinctive regulation than products modified by the art of cooking and even by raw paleo processing and mixing.
The experiment is quickly done: take somebody who has eaten “instincto” for a while and tell him to eat his avocados with salt; his avocado consumption will be multiplied by two, even perhaps by five or ten under the only effect of this seasoning: the normal alliesthesic signals will not intervene or in a so fuzzy way that they won’t be recognizable. But if you give him the most artificially selected and easier tasting avocados, such as of the Hass variety, the stop will certainly be less clear than with wild varieties but it will nevertheless happen much earlier than with salted wild varieties. With a bit of self-observation and intelligence, it will suffice to watch for the first negative components appearing in the taste or consistency to stop at an adequate amount.
It’s the same if you compare wild strawberries and cultivated strawberries: the selected strawberries stop much less clearly than their wild ancestor, but they stop nevertheless. With a minimum of training, one can perfectly recognize the right dose whereas with whipped cream and sugar you can absorb quantities of strawberries without any connection to your digestive capacity nor with your needs; it then becomes necessary to stop by observing external, dietary rules having the disadvantage of not corresponding to individual specificities. In other words, dietetic is the corollary of culinary food processing…
Available fruits and foodstuff constitute an approximation of an ideal environment, sufficient for the modifications due to the artificial selection and other agricultural processes to not distort too seriously the operation of the instinct. A suitable training allows to compensate for the drift and this compensation is precise enough so that the listening of the body (= instinctotherapy) allows to reach a much more precise nutritional balance than any other method. It is indeed impossible to know from outside what exactly occurs inside an organism.
The criterion which best highlights this precision of the balance obtained is that of the inflammatory tendency, as I already wrote elsewhere. This commonly observable tendency to oedema, erythema and pain in the event of lesion does not belong to a normal operation of the body. It shows a dysfunction of the immune system under the effect of nutritional imbalance, phenomenon still unknown by the medicine because it is only observable outside the culinary context. It enabled me to precisely delimit the rules to be complied with so that tour alimentary instinct can work correctly.
that said this is 100% my opinion and think you make good points about deviating from averages, and that our needs can possibly shift even on a day to day basis. Once again however if these 'averages' can produce seemingly optimal results, while satisfying 'instincto philosophy' in all it entails produces inferior results (again if this is the case) It matters little as another theoretical system of the many that SHOULD work. My typo may have been a misunderstanding, but it should have wrote: nature doesn’t necessarily work against non-nature. I’ve totally lost faith in ‘natural’ or ‘original’ as having much of a qualifier, so i'd weigh alot more on the 'self-observation' and intuition component than the instinct component personally, as I believe the instinct part can be largely dictated by artifical avaliability.
Have you ever thoroughly tested your alimentary instinct? For that, you should avoid during a week any seasoning, culinary preparation (not only cooking, but also all mixing), nibbling between meals, inappropriate food associations, have an adapted provisioning, etc and observe what occurs. As long as you haven’t done this experiment, your opinions will remain based on representations drawn from what you could notice with processed and mixed food, which disorganizes the alliesthesic mechanisms. Moreover, your observations were done on the basis of a body itself faded in its operation by imbalances due to food processing, or by imbalances induced by dietetic beliefs.
So that the facts on which your representation of reality and your personal opinions are build up were doubly distorted and will remain so until you’ve done this experiment. Once you’ll have done it, we will be able to talk about all that on a common basis.
-
I understood that once again issues were ignored in favor of a lengthy response touting elements of Instincto I could (personally) care less in disputing, that condiments and cooking prouce less adequate readings on what is food and how much etc...
The issue is whether following Instincto (as defined not just ones insticts or desires) yields the absolute best health over invented human systems of dietetics or other healing modalities, toxic extractions, modes of exercise, or spirtual/mind-body pursuits, OR lastly: possible value in foods labeled as toxic
citing scarcity was to speak in natural situations how animals will accept whatever. Similarly given abundances of some foods, they might eat more (yes to an eventual stopping point) of something that is usually less abundant. So in simplistic terms even an animal in nature might not be getting 100% its best diet and also worth noting is animals consistantly sniff out and die of natural poisons and even live longer in captivity given poor quality subsitutions. So it is indeed possible that even a wild animal could be given a diet of its own wild substance that could be improved by 'dietetics'.
Contemporary humans with artifical excess of foods and the reverse: either modern poor quality or CHOICE in prefrence of that RANGE to not eat blood, bugs, and brains and other such things leads me to believe that humans can satisy their palates quite easily without condiments but merely distorting their intake from what is truly natural and instinctual. It seems to be ignored perhaps that they could be dealing much more with the needs of internal mixrobes (for one example) than their own nutritional needs.
As Susan pointed out there are many 'obstructions' for lack of a better word of modern substances that can prevent or suppress good health, focusing on removing salad dressing - while helpful - is not exactly the tool set that is going to fix all problems.
the main point was and is that animals and humans in artificial environments untainted by such things won't necessarily achieve ideal nutrtion following thier instinct - especially if it can be overcome by those situations either in abundance or dearth. I've given multiple examples of this.
Instincts, self-observation, and intelligence are all things of importance yet I still insist that they are not *necessarily* enough to guide someone from sickness to wellness and CAN be improved by 'artifical' and 'learned' methods. I've spent years truly mono eating (not this eat/wait 15 minutes BS that seems acceptible in Instincto even though it works contary to fairly accepted science of digestion) and w/o condiments. So my opinions are based on both my experience, and not having a suitable example of health, vitality, and vigor that I find even much more impressive the the WHO minimums being cited.
-
OK, KD, I’ll try to address the points I more or less grabbed in your last post. I must say it ain’t easy to catch what you mean and I have to re-read most of your phrases several times to understand. You could at least type your messages on Word or such so that the typos are underlined in red and the software suggests an automatic correction. It would ease the process of understanding you.
The issue is whether following Instincto (as defined not just ones insticts or desires) yields the absolute best health over invented human systems of dietetics or other healing modalities, toxic extractions, modes of exercise, or spirtual/mind-body pursuits,(…)
How do you define “absolute best health”…? Nutrition is only one amongst numerous factors shaping health. The “invented human systems of dietetics” don’t agree, they all have different theories and recommendations. On this forum only there are fruitarians, vegans, vegetarians, omnivores, carnivores, lowcarbers, zerocarbers, primal dieters, wai dieters, Weston Price dieters…
The instinto theory and application field is about nutrition and nothing else. Of course, you can practice instinctive nutrition and use other healing modalities such as “toxic extractions, modes of exercise, or spirtual/mind-body pursuits”. The instincto practice doesn’t exclude breathing, walking, running, cycling, windsurfing, writing lengthy posts on Internet forums or going to the church, mosque, praying to Akenaton, Krishna, Guru Gangstarr or to adorate the Star Zorglub.
(…)OR lastly: possible value in foods labeled as toxic
What do you mean? Anyway and of course again, toxicity is usually dependant on the dose. I already provided twice the link to the website about the dangerous chemical DHMO ;D :P:
I suppose you know that everything becomes a poison when eaten in excessive amount and that even a noxious chemical such as DHMO (dihydrogen monoxide, see http://www.dhmo.org/facts.html) can be beneficial to our health when taken in limited quantity.
I meant that the usual notion about toxic – non toxic stuff is invalid since many things are beneficial to our health when ingested in the proper amount but become noxious when this amount is exceeded. Therefore, the categorization between food and toxic stuff is at least unclear, and at most totally irrelevant. Something ingested at a specific dose can be a food for an animal and a poison for another, and for different individuals as well.
citing scarcity was to speak in natural situations how animals will accept whatever. Similarly given abundances of some foods, they might eat more (yes to an eventual stopping point) of something that is usually less abundant.
Yes, and then?
So in simplistic terms even an animal in nature might not be getting 100% its best diet and also worth noting is animals consistantly sniff out and die of natural poisons and even live longer in captivity given poor quality subsitutions. So it is indeed possible that even a wild animal could be given a diet of its own wild substance that could be improved by 'dietetics'.
Yes, perfection doesn’t belong to this world and wild animals are very often in a situation not 100% optimal for them. There’s less danger to live in captivity than having to hunt and climb trees to find food, so… Which dietetic would you choose to improve on a wild animal diet?
Contemporary humans with artifical excess of foods and the reverse: either modern poor quality or CHOICE in prefrence of that RANGE to not eat blood, bugs, and brains and other such things leads me to believe that humans can satisy their palates quite easily without condiments but merely distorting their intake from what is truly natural and instinctual. It seems to be ignored perhaps that they could be dealing much more with the needs of internal mixrobes (for one example) than their own nutritional needs. .
You’re in speculative mode here, your statement isn’t falsifiable. Yes, it might be so… and it may not be so… Only experiments can tell.
As Susan pointed out there are many 'obstructions' for lack of a better word of modern substances that can prevent or suppress good health, focusing on removing salad dressing - while helpful - is not exactly the tool set that is going to fix all problems. .
What is your tool set able to fix all the problems?
the main point was and is that animals and humans in artificial environments untainted by such things won't necessarily achieve ideal nutrtion following thier instinct - especially if it can be overcome by those situations either in abundance or dearth. I've given multiple examples of this. .
Yes, you’re right and that’s why the only solution is to approach as much as possible (or simulate) a non-artificial environment. Again, ideal nutrition is a concept of yours. You can never get anything ideal in every respect. In a choice, there are always compromises to be done. What is the ideal car? The ideal house? The ideal post on Raw Paleo Forum?
Instincts, self-observation, and intelligence are all things of importance yet I still insist that they are not *necessarily* enough to guide someone from sickness to wellness and CAN be improved by 'artifical' and 'learned' methods.
Yes, we miss the natural training wild animals have, we have to learn for that.
I've spent years truly mono eating (not this eat/wait 15 minutes BS that seems acceptible in Instincto even though it works contary to fairly accepted science of digestion)
There’s no such thing with Instincto. Everyone has to find his way and each case, each day, is different. Just like some other poster, you seem wanting to confine instinctive nutrition into rigid dogmas. But it holds no dogmas: on the contrary, it is a way of putting dogmas into questions.
So my opinions are based on both my experience, and not having a suitable example of health, vitality, and vigor that I find even much more impressive the the WHO minimums being cited.
Do you want the names of GCB, JDD, LB children? Get out of your island, go and meet them.
-
gcb, thanks for your answers. Why do you think there could be liver issues?
When I still was chronically ill my liver values were monitored but they never indicated liver issues. Do you think that liver issues can develop if someone begins to eat raw (instincto)?
I mentioned that I had, among others, a mild chronic (autoimmune?) pancreatits before I began to eat rawfood. After the blood test two years ago the physician told me that there is no indication of pancreatitis any longer (or of any of my other previous health issues). But I didn´t need a physician to realize that. ;)
As far as I know I never had any problems with blood glucose. My blood glucose level was 73 mg/dl (norm 60-120), when measured two years ago. And this was not even a fasting value; I had lunched before the blood test.
rather than deduce from your personal experience or from some other singular cases that a balanced diet should more or less match yours.
I didn´t claim that. And currently I eat clearly more sugar than two years ago. But why shouldn´t it be possible that a nutrition with a high proportion of fat is as healthy as a nutrition with a high proportion of carbohydrates? Why shouldn´t humans be flexible in their nutrition? From a evolutionary point of view, this would make sense!
-
If you could eat it without mixing nor seasoning,
Yes, of course!
I just read in Lex´s Journal. His cholesterol values seem to be within the norm, although he eats Zero Carb and exclusively animal food.
-
Yes, and then?
Yes, it might be so… and it may not be so…
I don't know how to properly feed a bear, but what I would do to start is observe how it eats in nature and replicate that as best as possible in its un-natural setting based on its current shifted requirements. What I would NOT do is get a variety of things it CAN potentially eat divorced of its current abilities and present those foods to the bear in artificial quanities in its artificial domicile and expect it to eat at optimal levels like it would in nature. If I was to withold whole chunks of its dietary staples from nature I would indeed fully expect it to turn to more of it's 'marginal' foods (like honey) if they were provided. Eventually the bear might show signs of lack of say protein, but it would be far after the needed supply for optimal health. If that bear was of many distorted generations, shot up with all kinds of drugs and chemicals, was incredibly inactive, attrophied etc...these would also be factors, but they need not be for a basic critique of this process. In short, you keep referrig to training to be like animals or at least -humans pure of sense, and yet all my criticisms seem to involve speaking of 'pure' animals that would run into similar issues that are linked to environment and internal issues.
You keep hanging up on terms like 'optimal' and 'dogma'. Please, stop stretching my meaning of 'optimal' which obviously is the comparrison of two things and whether one 'false' system can be more competitive in many aspects of both nutrtion AND healing than the principles outlined in Instincto.
Obviously in terms of nutrtion alone, eating any diet that is all raw and contains some ammount of animal foods will be somewhat healthy when just considering vitamins and minerals and larger nutrients. Unfortunately many people have internal issues that won't resolve eating any variety of these foods, and some may be exaccerbated. Otherwise anyone that ate a more or less raw omni diet would be far healthier than everyone else who did not, and would continue with the diet indeffinetly unless their main blockage was 100% social which is not the case.
Dogma has many deffintions, but an easy one to accept I believe is following ANY particular idea (even ones that seem concrete like evolution) despite obvious flaws in its construction and motivation. If one cannot accept that Instincto is not giving the best health for everyone actually following it, and certainly not for others who have attempted trying it, clearly it isn't the one-sized-fits all open philosophy you make it out to be. As I and the others that have more direct experience with Insctinco have pointed out, the 'diet' as it is defined is far easier and more satisying both socially and otherwise than any other RAF or RVAF approach, in constrast with the restrictive systems that you point out are so disparate yet have many more followers. Do people have that much societal ingrained doubt of their instinctual abilities to bring the best health? or on the contrary, do they know from their own intuition and experience of others what is suitable?
-
Once your mind is inhabited with a certain view of the world, you will tend to only consider instance proving you to be right. Paradoxically, the more information you have, the more justified you will feel in your views.
-
Once your mind is inhabited with a certain view of the world, you will tend to only consider instance proving you to be right. Paradoxically, the more information you have, the more justified you will feel in your views.
You’re welcome to this forum! Yes, it’s exactly what has always happen in the history of science: the new ideas are discarded on the basis of former views of the world and beliefs. The innovators challenging the accepted conventional views have always been mistreated and their ideas eventually accepted only once evidence was so strong that even a blind would see it.
See for example Broad and Wade “Betrayers of the Truth”. (http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betrayers_of_the_Truth)
-
gcb, thanks for your answers. Why do you think there could be liver issues?
When I still was chronically ill my liver values were monitored but they never indicated liver issues. Do you think that liver issues can develop if someone begins to eat raw (instincto)?
I only suggested there could be a metabolic problem enabling you to instinctively eat such quantities of fatty stuff. If you had eaten it seasoned, nothing could be deduced. But as you consumed them without processing or mixing, and moreover while excluding animal fat, it should be that your organism does better with a fraction of lipids higher than average.
It’s precisely what the instinct allows: to recognize individual needs. But if the individual needs deviate from the average, it is because there is an unspecified physiological reason. I spoke somehow randomly about liver and pancreas, organs that play a crucial role in the metabolism of sugars and fat. Your liver seems in good order, but apparently I was not too much off the mark, since you showed some signs chronic pancreatitis, which could have worsened without instinctive guidance.
I mentioned that I had, among others, a mild chronic (autoimmune?) pancreatits before I began to eat rawfood. After the blood test two years ago the physician told me that there is no indication of pancreatitis any longer (or of any of my other previous health issues). But I didn´t need a physician to realize that.
It is very likely that your raw food diet largely contributed to restore your pancreas in good shape. The autoimmune mechanisms run off under the effect of molecular anomalies and overloads ascribable to denatured food. The way you describe the food savors leads me to think that you’re very attentive to the indications of your senses, i.e. you followed your instinct, and therefore the better balance obtained (for example by he severe reduction of sugars) allowed the symptoms neutralization. In other words: either your instinct enabled a regeneration of your pancreas particularly by decreasing the inflammatory tendency, or it allows your body to cope with a pancreas remained defective. In this second case, the resumption of an unbalanced or toxic food would cause the reappearance of the same disorders.
As far as I know I never had any problems with blood glucose. My blood glucose level was 73 mg/dl (norm 60-120), when measured two years ago. And this was not even a fasting value; I had lunched before the blood test.
A pancreatic dysfunction can be present without the rate of glucose being abnormal. A lesion of the Langerhans cells is necessary to compromise the insulin secretion, whereas your disorder can be of another nature.
Quote from: GCB on July 28, 2010, 03:19:04 PM
rather than deduce from your personal experience or from some other singular cases that a balanced diet should more or less match yours.
Quote from: Hanna on Yesterday at 05:42:58 AM
I didn´t claim that. And currently I eat clearly more sugar than two years ago. But why shouldn´t it be possible that a nutrition with a high proportion of fat is as healthy as a nutrition with a high proportion of carbohydrates? Why shouldn´t humans be flexible in their nutrition? From a evolutionary point of view, this would make sense!
Of course, there is a good margin of flexibility. All is in the way we use this flexibility: if we constrain ourselves to be deprived of certain food whereas we eat some others in excess on the basis of dietetic or ideological principles, we lose points. Even if our body may deal with that, certain processes are likely to be inhibited and damage our health in the more or less long run.
On the contrary, if the organism seeks by itself a nutritional balance diverging from the standard, one can count on the fact that it is trying to compensate for an undetermined dysfunction. In this second case, flexibility enables the body to face a difficulty even if it means to lose some points due to temporary shortages or overloads, whereas in the first case it is constrained into an imbalance without any other stake than to satisfy a preconceived idea, and the result is generally negative.
The distinctive feature of instinctotherapy is precisely to let the organism choose its way as freely as possible with a sufficient variety of possibilities (therefore a great diversity of foodstuffs), to learn how to recognize the language of the body and never constrain it too long in an arbitrary situation.
-
Hanna, Paleophil,
Your responses are always based on the assumption that we can explain everything with current knowledge. The biological (and geological) reality has consistently proven to be much different from what is believed at a point in the historical advancement of knowledge. That’s why I am very leery of all the arguments that can be done by applying the laws of evolution to what we believe known about the history of our genome.
Experience shows that all fruits work very well on the instinctive and metabolic points. The fruits grown in South-East Asia are in general particularly well suited, but other fruits found in other parts of the world are also suitable. True, it’s surprising that the organism meets the same criteria of proper operation with Thai jackfruit and with Swiss Alpine foothills blueberries. However, experience shows that it is the case, and this remains the key point.
I personally feel that the current species distribution results of a sort of split of what could have been the wild before the onset of culinary arts and agriculture. Cooking greatly limits the consumption of fruit for the benefit of grain (because with cooked grain there is no barrier against instinctive nutritional overload, thus a massive excess drastically impeding the consumption of fruit). Most varieties of fruit were then abandoned, the primeval forest largely destroyed by slash and burn (think about what is happening in Madagascar or in other regions where the need for daily cooking fuel directly generates desertification). Hence, it’s by coincidence that such ethnic group retained this or that fruit species, and that we found each fruit in a habitat we end up to believe primitive because we don’t really know what happened previously. It is therefore unnecessary and unproductive to ask detailed questions about the origin of our nutritional trends and dangerous to infer from this type of speculations the usefulness or nuisance of this or that regime.
That is why I prefered to question the body and what remains of our genetic programming. Let’s assume that the alliesthesic mechanisms are mistaken with a kind of fruit to which we would not be adapted: we will observe then immediately either a poorly regulated consumption, so either overload or nutritional deficiencies, digestive and metabolic or immune or nervous problems, perhaps also a sensory blockade to this fruit while it might be useful. In short, any malfunction. But the criteria of good performance are very accurate (much more than with processed food!) and the absence of disorder in the short and longer-term is a good guarantee of health.
The fact that we cannot explain why our primate’s genome seems adapted to fruits originated in regions where none of our ancestors lived can come from a variety of reasons: migration still unknown, either of fruit species or of primates, presence in our genome of characteristics prior to the occurrence of such species of fruit but which predisposed us to consume it, rules of harmony as yet unknown (perhaps related to the self-organized systems) determining a match between the evolution of food species and the predator species... maybe other explanations which nobody has yet thought about.
It is in any case a bit naive to believe that the current system of knowledge to which you refer should explain everything. It was precisely in putting this system in question that I was led to focus on the observation of the body’s behavior, that I discovered the significance and working conditions of the alliesthesic mechanisms, the influence of culinary and agricultural artifices and nutritional balance criteria as established with unprocessed foods.
It’s possible that the health conditions could be even better by excluding certain varieties of fruit, but the criteria of balance that I have set are so precise that it doesn’t seem significant. In any event, I would say that the supply we currently have and which includes all available plant and animal varieties (with the rules of caution put in place facing the highly modern selected varieties) is an excellent approximation of what might be an ideal food environment. Nothing prevents to further improve things, but to do so we must not rely on grand arguments whose foundations remain speculative, but rather to additional observations – eg light disorders induced by this or that variety of fruit.
-
Instincts>you.
-
Hanna, Paleophil,
Your responses are always based on the assumption that we can explain everything with current knowledge.
I don't know where you got that idea. I don't believe we will EVER explain everything with current or future knowledge. As a matter of fact, I think not knowing everything is part of the joy of life! :D Check out Richard Feynman on this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MmpUWEW6Is
So not believing that we will ever explain everything is one of my fundamental viewpoints, but don't worry about my views right now--I'm not interested in my views at this time (and you're getting them wrong anyway), nor in propagating them, whereas you are an international exponent of anopsology and using the alliesthesic mechanisms such as taste, smell, texture, and pleasure/displeasure, yes? I'm interested in learning about your views. How can I learn about your views if you get distracted trying to guess what my views might be? It's up to you whether to answer or not, of course, and thanks for sharing what you have so far.
Experience shows that all fruits work very well on the instinctive and metabolic points.
OK, and again, who's experience are you talking about?
The fruits grown in South-East Asia are in general particularly well suited...
All right, you've promoted the fruits of South/Southeast Asia several times now--and that is based on...?
I personally feel that the current species distribution results of a sort of split of what could have been the wild before the onset of culinary arts and agriculture. Cooking greatly limits the consumption of fruit for the benefit of grain (because with cooked grain there is no barrier against instinctive nutritional overload, thus a massive excess drastically impeding the consumption of fruit). Most varieties of fruit were then abandoned, the primeval forest largely destroyed by slash and burn....
So you apparently see "the primeval forest" as somehow important, yes? Do you believe that a critical point in human dietary evolution occurred in this primeval forest and was it a tropical forest in Africa? How long ago was this primeval period and how long did it last, do you think? How did you first learn about it?
That is why I prefered to question the body and what remains of our genetic programming.
I'm all for questioning just about everything, as you may have noticed. :) OK, so human body/biology and genetic programming are important, eh? When and where did this genetic programming occur? Was it during the time of the primeval forest you mentioned above?
Let’s assume that the alliesthesic mechanisms are mistaken with a kind of fruit to which we would not be adapted: we will observe then immediately either a poorly regulated consumption, so either overload or nutritional deficiencies, digestive and metabolic or immune or nervous problems, perhaps also a sensory blockade to this fruit while it might be useful. In short, any malfunction.
So if I experience any malfunction with a fruit, are you saying that means I'm not well adapted to it?
The fact that we cannot explain why our primate’s genome seems adapted to fruits originated in regions where none of our ancestors lived can come from a variety of reasons: migration still unknown, either of fruit species or of primates, presence in our genome of characteristics prior to the occurrence of such species of fruit but which predisposed us to consume it, rules of harmony as yet unknown (perhaps related to the self-organized systems) determining a match between the evolution of food species and the predator species... maybe other explanations which nobody has yet thought about.
Anything's possible and I'm sure there are many "unknown" reasons we could imagine. So here it sounds like you're suggesting that we just don't know much about why we might be adapted to fruits at this time, yes? As I mentioned above, I'm comfortable with uncertainty, so that prospect doesn't frighten me.
[/quote]It is in any case a bit naive to believe that the current system of knowledge to which you refer should explain everything.[/quote]I believed that nothing could explain everything long before you joined this forum, GCB. What is this "current system of knowledge" that you speak of?
It was precisely in putting this system in question that I was led to focus on the observation of the body’s behavior...
I enjoy when people question things and heartily encourage it. What aspects of "this system" did you question? Do you ever question your own views or put them to the test and how? Have you changed any of your views since La Guerre du Cru was published (was that in 1985)? Have you published any writings since then?
the influence of culinary and agricultural artifices
How do you know they are artifices and what preceded them?
It’s possible that the health conditions could be even better by excluding certain varieties of fruit, but the criteria of balance that I have set are so precise that it doesn’t seem significant.
What are these "precise" criteria of balance that you refer to?
You write about fruit quite a bit. Are you personally a big fan of fruit and do you love it's taste? How much fruit do you eat each day? What is the longest time period you go without fruit in a given year? Do you think that every human being should eat fruit?
In any event, I would say that the supply we currently have and which includes all available plant and animal varieties (with the rules of caution put in place facing the highly modern selected varieties) is an excellent approximation of what might be an ideal food environment.
Would you provide a list of staple foods and their sources that you would include in this "ideal food environment" (for a theoretical example: "Cavendish bananas purchased from a farmer's market")?
-
I personally feel that the current species distribution results of a sort of split of what could have been the wild before the onset of culinary arts and agriculture. Cooking greatly limits the consumption of fruit for the benefit of grain (because with cooked grain there is no barrier against instinctive nutritional overload, thus a massive excess drastically impeding the consumption of fruit). Most varieties of fruit were then abandoned, the primeval forest largely destroyed by slash and burn....
So you apparently see "the primeval forest" as somehow important, yes? Do you believe that a critical point in human dietary evolution occurred in this primeval forest and was it a tropical forest in Africa? How long ago was this primeval period and how long did it last, do you think? How did you first learn about it?
Hi Phil, hi gcb,
Maybe this could be of interest for you?
Today’s apes are few in number and in kind. But between 22 million and 5.5 million years ago, a time known as the Miocene epoch, apes ruled the primate world. Up to 100 ape species ranged throughout the Old World, from France to China in Eurasia and from Kenya to Namibia in Africa. (...)
Throughout the middle Miocene, the great apes flourished in Eurasia, thanks to its then lush subtropical forest cover and consistently warm temperatures. These conditions assured a nearly continuous supply of ripe fruits and an easily traversed arboreal habitat with several tree stories. Climate changes in the late Miocene brought an end to this easy living. The combined effects of Alpine, Himalayan and East African mountain building, shifting ocean currents, and the early stages of polar ice cap formation precipitated the birth of the modern Asian monsoon cycle, the desiccation of East Africa and the development of a temperate climate in Europe. Most of the Eurasian great apes went extinct as a result of this environmental overhaul. The two lineages that did persevere - —those represented by Sivapithecus and Dryopithecus - did so by moving south of the Tropic of Cancer, into Southeast Asia from China and into the African tropics from Europe, both groups tracking the ecological settings to which they had adapted in Eurasia. (...)
THE EURASIAN FOREBEAR of African apes and humans moved south in response to a drying and cooling of its environs that led to the replacement of forests with woodlands and grasslands. I believe that adaptations to life on the ground - knuckle walking in particular - were critical in enabling this lineage to withstand that loss of arboreal habitat and make it to Africa. Once there, some apes returned to the forests, others settled into varied woodland environments, and one ape - the one from which humans descended - eventually invaded open territory by committing to life on the ground.
http://www.primates.com/history/
I don´t deny that a kind of primeval forest probably played a key role in the evolution of our forebears. But our forebears left the forest a long time ago and obviously they did it for good reason (disappearance of forests because of climate change). They then adapted to an environment that did not continuously supply them with fruit any longer.
-
Pretty interesting.
But from my studies at www.thunderbolts.info
lead me to conclude that the disappearance of the GARDEN of EDEN was not so long ago.
Not more than 20 to 30,000 years ago?
I'm biased because I thrive on fruit and meat.
-
http://www.primates.com/history/
I should add that the hypothesis proposed in this article (ancestors of great apes and humans evolved in Eurasia) is controversial.
-
Imagine if we had more DURIAN like fruit in the garden of eden days right?
Durian they say is a pre-historic fruit.
Seriously, people can almost live off this fruit for a couple of days.
There must have been more like it but are now extinct.
Just a few thousand years ago...
-
Thanks for the interesting info, Hanna. I don't recall encountering that hypothesis before.
Another interesting recent tidbit was the discovery of stone tools used by hominins to butcher cow- and goat-sized mammals 3.4 million years ago--at the time of and place of Australopithecus afarensis (see "Early humans were butchers 3.4 million years ago" (http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn19302-early-humans-were-butchers-34-million-years-ago.html)).
As Hanna pointed out, fruits were not and are not plentiful in all habitats. Animal flesh was what allowed humans to span the globe.
These facts of course don't necessarily mean that no humans should eat fruit or anything like that, but they do give a very different perspective from what we normally get.
-
Hi Phil, hi gcb,
Maybe this could be of interest for you?
http://www.primates.com/history/
I don´t deny that a kind of primeval forest probably played a key role in the evolution of our forebears. But our forebears left the forest a long time ago and obviously they did it for good reason (disappearance of forests because of climate change). They then adapted to an environment that did not continuously supply them with fruit any longer.
This clearly shows that things are not so simple and that knowledge never stops changing.
As mentioned earlier, there were many more migrations, environmental and climatic changes, unknown adaptation mechanisms etc. that could have been presiding over the evolution of our genome than one generally thinks. Therefore, it is very unwise to start from a given paleontological model to draw conclusions for an ideal diet.
More than ever, I think the most rational approach is to start from the observation of what we are today and invoke the accepted knowledge or theories for illustrative purposes, explanatory assumptions or heuristic only.
-
Quote from: GCB on September 17, 2010, 05:48:59 PM
Hanna, Paleophil, Your responses are always based on the assumption that we can explain everything with current knowledge.
Quote from Paleophil:
-- I don't know where you got that idea. I don't believe we will EVER explain everything with current or future knowledge. As a matter of fact, I think not knowing everything is part of the joy of life!
Very good philosophy! However, almost each of your lines is to ask theoretical justifications for observed facts. Theoretical justifications are always based on existing knowledge.
-- So not believing that we will ever explain everything is one of my fundamental viewpoints, but don't worry about my views right now. I'm not interested in my views at this time (and you're getting them wrong anyway), nor in propagating them, whereas you are an international exponent of anopsology and using the alliesthesic mechanisms such as taste, smell, texture, and pleasure/displeasure, yes? I'm interested in learning about your views. How can I learn about your views if you get distracted trying to guess what my views might be? It's up to you whether to answer or not, of course, and thanks for sharing what you have so far.
I'm not trying to call your beliefs into question, I try to let you see that you constantly refer to a knowledge system: eg recommended carbs ratio in various diets, assuming that the rate of carbohydrates can obey to a particular standard, that this standard is probably lower than that of a diet like instincto, etc.. That’s a whole frame of notions borrowed to the prevailing knowledge system. Hence the misunderstanding between us when I try to explain that the instincto is to obey the body language (pleasant and unpleasant sensations), to observe what nutrition is being set up without any preconceived idea about the ideal food components and for only basic premise (which is especially obvious) that the culinary art enhance flavors, so may push to eat products that we would not consume otherwise.
Experience shows that all fruits work very well on the instinctive and metabolic points.
-- OK, and again, who's experience are you talking about?
The instincto experience (short and long term observation of people of every age, from newborns to elders applying the instincto rules), an experience about the abolition of culinary arts etc. that you can do as anyone can. Moreover, my collaborators and I have done in the 60s and 70s a lot of experimentation with hundreds of animals, mostly mice. It very clearly showed the noxious effect of cooking, wheat, corn and milk of other animals species, but veggies and not too selected fruits did not cause the same problems. These experiences can also be quite easily reproduced.
The fruits grown in South-East Asia are in general particularly well suited...
-- All right, you've promoted the fruits of South/Southeast Asia several times now--and that is based on...?
I do not promote South East Asian fruit: the instincto emits no a priori for or against a particular natural product. Simply, the observation fairly consistently shows greater attraction for some fruits, regardless of any theoretical bias. I never claimed to explain the why of such fact. On the contrary, you seem contesting the adequacy of fruits in the name of theories that appear questionable (alleged impossibility of a genetic adaptation to Asian fruit).
I personally feel that the current species distribution results of a sort of split of what could have been the wild before the onset of culinary arts and agriculture. Cooking greatly limits the consumption of fruit for the benefit of grain (because with cooked grain there is no barrier against instinctive nutritional overload, thus a massive excess drastically impeding the consumption of fruit). Most varieties of fruit were then abandoned, the primeval forest largely destroyed by slash and burn....
-- So you apparently see "the primeval forest" as somehow important, yes? Do you believe that a critical point in human dietary evolution occurred in this primeval forest and was it a tropical forest in Africa? How long ago was this primeval period and how long did it last, do you think? How did you first learn about it?
I do not know and it doesn’t particularly interest me, especially because it is impossible to know the past of the multiple genes constituing our genome. The hypothesis of an incomplete adaptation to the culinary arts is in itself an attempt to explain the observed phenomena, and the theory is built upon this hypothesis is a heuristic designed to better examine the reality, not to validate or condemn any diet.
That is why I prefered to question the body and what remains of our genetic programming.
-- OK, so human body/biology and genetic programming are important, eh? When and where did this genetic programming occur? Was it during the time of the primeval forest you mentioned above?
Important? Let's say rather interesting. But unknowable, thus unusable to derive reliable diet rules.It can only serve as an afterwards explanation.
Let’s assume that the alliesthesic mechanisms are mistaken with a kind of fruit to which we would not be adapted: we will observe then immediately either a poorly regulated consumption, so either overload or nutritional deficiencies, digestive and metabolic or immune or nervous problems, perhaps also a sensory blockade to this fruit while it might be useful. In short, any malfunction.
-- So if I experience any malfunction with a fruit, are you saying that means I'm not well adapted to it?
Probably: it is the most immediate explanation. I would especially try to develop a rule that tends either to exclude it should it be really harmful, or to better recognize the body signals emitted about it.
It is in any case a bit naive to believe that the current system of knowledge to which you refer should explain everything.
-- I believed that nothing could explain everything long before you joined this forum, GCB. What is this "current system of knowledge" that you speak of?
As said above, all the knowledge you refer in each of your arguments. We're never really aware of being locked in a paradigm that builds and guide our reasoning.
It was precisely in putting this system in question that I was led to focus on the observation of the body’s behavior...
What aspects of "this system" did you question?
All about nutrition principles, starting with the presupposition asserting that a system is the sum of its parts, or that we can know the body needs, or that a morbid symptom is the sign of a disease, or that animal milk is good for health, or that man is made to consume grain.
-- Do you ever question your own views or put them to the test and how?
I've ever done it, always, and I am ready to question everything if any observation or a new discovery warrants it.
-- Have you changed any of your views since La Guerre du Cru was published (was that in 1985)?
Yes, about the danger of too much meat from domesticated animals.
Have you published any writings since then?
My website (https://sites.google.com/site/guyclaudeburger/home/home-1/qu-est-ce-que-l-instincto-).
…the influence of culinary and agricultural artifices
-- How do you know they are artifices and what preceded them?
It is true that the question arises. One might imagine that cooking art is part of nature and that it has no harmful effects. One can also imagine that it was invented during the last millennias and it poses problems for our metabolism. One can still imagine that the organism has found ways to solve or minimize these problems. The only problem is none of this is fairly safe to infer a specific diet and secure its beneficial effects on health.
So I proceeded in the opposite direction: as an experiment I removed all culinary artifice and observed what happens, then presented the instincto as an experience that everyone can do on his own body, with as a warranty the that a number of pioneers practiced for many decades with excellent results. I have made known the results, simply because everyone has the right to know, but always said that I can not predict the results on a time scale longer than the personal experiences already made. I have built the theory afterwards as a confirmation, or because it's interesting, and also for educational purposes, because many results are surprising and inexplicable by the generally accepted theories.
It’s possible that the health conditions could be even better by excluding certain varieties of fruit, but the criteria of balance that I have set are so precise that it doesn’t seem significant.
-- What are these "precise" criteria of balance that you refer to?
I have already spoken about it several times: it is mainly about the criteria concerning quality of digestion, self-regulation of inflammatory tendency (disappearance of all inflammatory pain, a phenomenon that medicine has not yet linked with nutritional balance, and the absence of foodborne immune disorders – which you don’t seem to grasp the significance).
-- You write about fruit quite a bit. Are you personally a big fan of fruit and do you love it's taste? How much fruit do you eat each day? What is the longest time period you go without fruit in a given year? Do you think that every human being should eat fruit?
The principle of the instincto leaves to everyone the freedom to feel in his/her body its own needs. If I teach something, it is precisely to get rid of any preconceived ideas in order to be capable of listening well to our body. Experience shows then that everyone without exception (except extremes pathologies) is automatically led to consume fruits. The opposite would be quite surprising. But then to impose the consumption of a certain amount of fruit to each particular individual would contradict the very foundations of the method.
In any event, I would say that the supply we currently have and which includes all available plant and animal varieties (with the rules of caution put in place facing the highly modern selected varieties) is an excellent approximation of what might be an ideal food environment.
-- Would you provide a list of staple foods and their sources that you would include in this "ideal food environment" (for a theoretical example: "Cavendish bananas purchased from a farmer's market")?
Anything you like, as found in nature, unprocessed... Just avoid dairy, cultivated grain, fruits too artificially selected and loaded with pesticides.
-
Continued from: http://www.rawpaleoforum.com/general-discussion/request-for-information-pertaining-to-inflammatory-conditions/msg56665/#msg56665
No, but I feel that “promoting a diet” isn’t the appropriate words. Is saying “eat what you like as long as it is raw and as much as possible paleo” “promoting a diet for humanity”?
You write as though that is all that GCB has been doing. GCB has done more than just write "eat what you like as long as it is raw and as much as possible paleo," but even that is promoting a raw Paleo diet approach for humanity when it is directed to others. In other words, he's not just sharing his success story, he's making recommendations intended for the whole human race through his published interviews and writings, his website and forum posts. You seemed to acknowledge this here:
Subject: An instincto's comments
From: François Dovat <[log in to unmask]>
Reply-To: Raw Food Diet Support List <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2002 08:41:05 +0100
http://listserv.icors.org/SCRIPTS/WA-ICORS.EXE?A2=ind0201&L=raw-food&T=0&F=&S=&P=50665
F : > ...15 years of prison is quite cheap for I guy who suggest a theory that might save the whole planet.
Although, afterwards you wrote: "Ha ! Ha ! Ha ! Don't you know I'm a joker ?" when Kirt commented about this. So maybe you were just joking and don't think that GCB's theory might be able to save the planet?
I like fruits as much as I like meat, eggs and shelfish.
I also like fruits very much. Your point?
It’s the observation of a fact: how can you see it as promoting?
You act as if I said that GCB is promoting a diet by the mere fact that he likes raw fruit. Surely you know that is not true. Please don't play games with me. GCB has done much more than that, as I explained above.
I fail the see the contradiction you see, but anyway I do not expect someone to never self contradict on some petty points.
The points you described are petty, but I did not make them. They are straw men of your imagination. I am disappointed to see you use this same unproductive strategem that GCB has used.
But a jackfruit, a cempedak, a durian, or a rare ripe and creamy breadfruit is also much more nourishing then pears or apples. Other fruits are just appetizers in comparison.
Now you are confirming what I actually wrote by praising tropical fruits over other fruits. This is the sort of thing I was talking about. I was merely making observations of what I had seen Instinctos write, not making the petty points you described. If they were truly petty, why would you, GCB and other Instinctos write them? Clearly tropical fruits are important to you folks or you would not keep writing about them. Why should simply observing this fact cause defensiveness?
Aren’t taste and senses sufficient reasons?
That confirms my observation that taste/sense appears to be a main reason that Instinctos tend to eat plenty of tropical fruits, perhaps the primary one, and Tyler and beyondveg.com and others have also reported observing this predilection for fruits, particularly tropical ones. Since tropical fruits tend to be highly favored by the senses, do you think they must therefore be highly nutritious foods, perhaps the most nutritious, since your senses signal to you and other Instinctos to eat them plentifully?
Why can't we use our brains as well as our senses? Do not some wild animals and Hunter Gatherers teach their young which foods to eat and which ones to not eat?
The same applies for meat, eggs, crabs and shellfish. In the Paleolithic, our ancestors hominids didn’t have any other criterions to know what’s good and what’s bad. They just applied the instincto rule which is: what’s good is good, what’s bad is bad!
Ah, here is another reference to our ancient ancestors. When I try to discuss these references to ancestors and ancient habitats by GCB he seems to get defensive and change the subject. I hope you won't do that if I explore your views on this further, for how else am I to learn about them if I can't ask questions and get answers to them? Do you think that our Paleolithic ancestors, including yours and mine specifically, had access to plenty of tropical fruits for an extensive part of the year? Do you think that the tropical fruits of South and SE Asia that Instinctos tend to eat (durians, bananas, [fill in the blanks]) closely resemble the fruits that our Paleolithic ancestors ate? Do you think that they relied on their senses alone and didn't teach their children anything about what to eat and what not to eat? Does relying on the senses apply equally as well today as it did then? If not, what other considerations apply today? You have mentioned cultivated fruit being an issue today. Does this mean we should prefer fruits that are closer to their wild origin and artificially restrict consumption of cultivated fruits?
Yes, it must be somewhere in his book, but anyway it’s just a logical inference form the most basic point of his theory : you don’t eat something you don’t like. So, if there’s nothing you like in a sequence, of course you skip it.
I'm not saying that I don't like fruits or honey. Quite the contrary, I enjoy them very much. It just happens that for whatever reason I experience negative symptoms after consuming more than a small amount of most of them.
He has always emphasized that the point is to find the particular foodstuff that suits bests to your needs, so that you can eat plenty of it to fill that need.
Does he offer any other criteria for determining the foods that suit our needs other than the senses? In my case, my senses have guided me in harmful directions at times. Could this mean that tropical fruits and honey were not plentiful year round in the habitats of my ancestors?
When your actual body needs are fulfilled, there’s no point to eat something else. It’s better to eat a lot of something with the minimum number of different stuff in a meal.
Perhaps, but based on what evidence? Didn't tribes at times gather many different foods and bring them back to the camp to share? I have seen photographic evidence of a single zhu/wasi lady gathering a remarkable diversity of foods and bringing them back to camp in a cloth sack. Hide skins, bags and parfleches and reed baskets would have served this purpose before cloth, and before these aids, many hands could have carried smaller quantities of diverse foods short distances to a camp or gathering spot to feast. Even chimps like to combine leaves with the meat that they eat. So while our ancestors did more mono-eating than we do today, they sometimes combined their foods. Some foods in nature are themselves combinations. For example, honeycomb with grubcomb, coconuts and avocadoes that contain both carbs and sugar, insects that contain both protein and fat, animals that contain protein, fat and carbs, nuts that contain protein and fats and so on.
Yes, eating fruits is not compulsory… Do you remember that post of Diogen (http://www.rawpaleoforum.com/welcoming-commitee/new-frenchy-coming/msg35742/#msg35742)? GCB would probably advise you to test once in a way the fruit that smells best for you and eat a small amount of it at first. The immediate reaction of the body can be difficult to interpret. It may trigger a detox and you never know if it’s that or something else. But if the stuff is more or less wild, not polluted by chemicals, smelled and tasted good to you, what else could it be?
My senses almost invariably find fruits to be pleasing, I don't tend to get an immediate "detox," whatever that is supposed to be (it's a term that is used in so many vague and magical ways that it is essentially meaningless and useless). Rather, I get negative symptoms some hours after I have finished eating fruits. So the senses fail me when it comes to fruits.
True, most tend to eat a lot of fruits. I don’t know on which criterions Kirt’s list is based - he writes it’s based on a similar list established by Dr Jacques Fradin.
I think Kirt's main point was that these are the foods that Instincto's tend to eat. The only error I can see is that his list appears to under-represent fruits, which I thank you for confirming.
I don’t know on which criterions Kirt’s list is based - he writes it’s based on a similar list established by Dr Jacques Fradin.
Can you direct me to the source, I'm curious to check it out, as I hadn't heard of Fradin until you mentioned him.
It’s a classification and I consider most classifications of natural things as inappropriate.
Classifications of natural things are merely conventions intended to promote learning and understanding. They have utility so they continue to be used whether you or I like them or not. Let's not get distracted by this tangent.
It is irrelevant to says that “instinctos” eat this or this, “instinctos” talk about this or this. Properly speaking, there’s no such specie as “instinctos”. There are only human beings like you and me, all different. I eat instincto, but I’m no instincto. It’s just an experiment I started because I read GCB’s book and I wanted to know if what he says is true or bullshit.
You appear to be evading the real issue with this tangent. Of course Instinctos are not a separate species, no one said they were. That's a straw man. My definition of an instincto is someone who eats an instincto type diet and roughly follows the principles. You don't have to be in a different species to do that. If you're doing that then under my definition you are currently acting as an instincto. There is also the term Anopsology, but it never caught on and likely never will. If you have another term to suggest, fine, but as you implied before, let's not quibble over semantics. We need some term to describe the approach you're following and advocating in this thread and Instincto seems suitable.
As it suits me, I still go on, but I still doubt.
That's commendable. Someone who doesn't doubt would lack credibility with me.
Anyway the theory is logical, I’ve failed to find any flaw in the fundamental points and it seems we are on the right track. .... The instinco theory works in the way you don’t have to ask anyone “Can I eat that?” "How much should I eat of that?" "What is the right fat/protein ratio?". It’s very practical. You’re hungry and find a big mushroom. You don’t know anything about mushrooms. You take it and smell it. If it smells good, you carefully take a small piece in the mouth and wait a few seconds. If the taste remains good, then you know you can swallow it.
That "theory" is part of what I was referring to as "Instincto" or "Anopsology." All human beings do not consciously apply that theory. Instinctos do, or at least try. This is what I was referring to as Instincto, not some different species.
? I don’t know, I don’t remember having written anything like that. AFAIK, GCB doesn’t consider any cooked food as ok. Perhaps I meant that some cooked food are less noxious then some others?
Here is what you wrote:
Subject: Re: An instincto's comments
From: Secola/Nieft <[log in to unmask]>
Reply-To: Raw Food Diet Support List <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2002 17:39:52 -1000
Kirt: Is there a list of cooked foods that Burger considers non-toxic?
Francois: Jean-Louis Tu has one on this site (see my original post).
-
You write as though that is all that GCB has been doing. GCB has done more than just write "eat what you like as long as it is raw and as much as possible paleo," but even that is promoting a raw Paleo diet approach for humanity when it is directed to others. In other words, he's not just sharing his success story, he's making recommendations intended for the whole human race through his published interviews and writings, his website and forum posts. You seemed to acknowledge this here:
(see ref. in PaleoPhil post)
F : > ...15 years of prison is quite cheap for I guy who suggest a theory that might save the whole planet.
Although, afterwards you wrote: "Ha ! Ha ! Ha ! Don't you know I'm a joker ?" when Kirt commented about this. So maybe you were just joking and don't think that GCB's theory might be able to save the planet?
Of course, that was a kind of joke… ;)
If you want my opinion, I think it’s too late and we’re doomed. The planet is more and more overcrowded and we are about to have exhausted all its natural resources. Growth cannot go on for ever. GCB wouldn’t agree on that, he’s an irreducible optimist. Anyhow, all this uncontrolled growth and accelerated destruction of natural resources wouldn’t have happened if we hadn’t started agriculture, domestication of animals and cooking. So, there’s a bit more than just a plain joke in my above sentence.
No, of course, he’s not only saying "eat what you like as long as it is raw and as much as possible paleo," but I feel it’s the core of his message.
I also like fruits very much. Your point?
I thought what I wrote following your quote explained my point: “I like fruits as much as I like meat, eggs and shelfish. My cat doesn’t like fruits (except durian and avocados!)”. Since you questioned GCBs “positive remarks about fruits”, my point was meant to ask t if humans are carnivores and shouldn’t eat fruits, how comes that we are attracted by fruits while carnivores like cats are not ?
You act as if I said that GCB is promoting a diet by the mere fact that he likes raw fruit. Surely you know that is not true. Please don't play games with me. GCB has done much more than that, as I explained above.
The points you described are petty, but I did not make them. They are straw men of your imagination. I am disappointed to see you use this same unproductive strategem that GCB has used.
Phil, I try to answer as honestly as possible to your comments and I’m sorry that you perceive my answer as playing a game of unproductive stratagems. I feel the misunderstanding must come that we have opposite ways of thinking about diet - but perhaps I’m wrong.
Now you are confirming what I actually wrote by praising tropical fruits over other fruits. This is the sort of thing I was talking about. I was merely making observations of what I had seen Instinctos write, not making the petty points you described. If they were truly petty, why would you, GCB and other Instinctos write them? Clearly tropical fruits are important to you folks or you would not keep writing about them. Why should simply observing this fact cause defensiveness?
Defensiveness? I just wrote that you’re spot on and that some tropical fruits are more nourishing than pears and apples. What’s the problem with such a statement ? Anyway, we can live without tropical fruits. I don’t have any at the moment, I just eat the apples and persimmons I collected around. In summer and autumn I do well with figs, I like them as much as durians and jackfruits.
That confirms my observation that taste/sense appears to be a main reason that Instinctos tend to eat plenty of tropical fruits, perhaps the primary one, and Tyler and beyondveg.com and others have also reported observing this predilection for fruits, particularly tropical ones. Since tropical fruits tend to be highly favored by the senses, do you think they must therefore be highly nutritious foods, perhaps the most nutritious, since your senses signal to you and other Instinctos to eat them plentifully?
Yes, I think so. They are sweet and not much acidic. Sweetness certainly means they contain a lot of sugars.
Why can't we use our brains as well as our senses?
Using our instinct to know whether we can eat something or not, what and how much to eat doesn’t exclude using our brain to select the shortest way to the bay where there are oysters or how to proceed to trap a deer.
But using our brain to select such or such foodstuff because we know it contains this or this nutrients and avoid another stuff because it’s supposed to contain antinutrients will interfere with our instinctive regulation and distort it.
Do not some wild animals and Hunter Gatherers teach their young which foods to eat and which ones to not eat?
Yes, they do. I recon that training is advantageous, time and energy is saved in searching for food and selecting it. Training and instinct work together without conflicting.
Ah, here is another reference to our ancient ancestors. When I try to discuss these references to ancestors and ancient habitats by GCB he seems to get defensive and change the subject. I hope you won't do that if I explore your views on this further, for how else am I to learn about them if I can't ask questions and get answers to them?
You’re welcome to ask me whatever you want, but I’m very far from having any kind of ultimate and total knowledge! So, please don’t get irritated if I can’t answer to every point you raise. And if I try to answer, my answers may be flawed.
Do you think that our Paleolithic ancestors, including yours and mine specifically, had access to plenty of tropical fruits for an extensive part of the year?
I don’t know. Most hominids must have had access to some kinds of fruits, but they were probably different than even the wild actual fruits. Plants and animals are in constant evolution. There’s co-evolution also, animals spread the seeds of the fruits and plants they eat.
Do you think that the tropical fruits of South and SE Asia that Instinctos tend to eat (durians, bananas, [fill in the blanks]) closely resemble the fruits that our Paleolithic ancestors ate?
I don’t know, but your question applies even more to the fruits of temperate areas (apples, pears, cherries, grapes, prunes, etc.) which are extremely unlikely to have existed in the Paleolithic era in a form closely alike to their actual form, and moreover in areas were our ancestors lived. It depend also to which ancestors we refer to and all this becomes highly hypothetical.
Anyway, most fruits contain a lot of common substances such as acids, sugars, vitamins and so on. Therefore an adaptation to various species of fruits is likely to be not so difficult, not as difficult as to entirely new classes of food such as cooked stuff, cereals and dairy.
Do you think that they relied on their senses alone and didn't teach their children anything about what to eat and what not to eat?
No, I don’t think they relied on their senses alone. Yes, I think there’s transmission of knowledge between the generations. This has already been talked about above : “training is advantageous, time and energy is saved in searching for food and selecting it. Training and instinct work together without conflicting”.
Does relying on the senses apply equally as well today as it did then? If not, what other considerations apply today?
It’s very probably more difficult today for we have certainly lost a good part of our smell sensibility and today’s foodstuff have evolved very rapidly. We also have to use our brain not only to find the easiest way to get food, but also to find the wildest foodstuff and the less artificially transformed.
You have mentioned cultivated fruit being an issue today. Does this mean we should prefer fruits that are closer to their wild origin and artificially restrict consumption of cultivated fruits?
Yes, sure, I think so. This applies for meats as well.
I'm not saying that I don't like fruits or honey. Quite the contrary, I enjoy them very much. It just happens that for whatever reason I experience negative symptoms after consuming more than a small amount of most of them.
Does he offer any other criteria for determining the foods that suit our needs other than the senses?
Yes, the wildest as possible. Training is also crucial.
In my case, my senses have guided me in harmful directions at times. Could this mean that tropical fruits and honey were not plentiful year round in the habitats of my ancestors?
We’ve had a whole lot of various ancestors… You say below you don’t believe in detox reactions, but I don’t have any other explanation to offer, unless the fruits you ate had been irradiated or immerged in a fluid at 55° C, a mandatory procedure to import fruits in US, I think. It’s very difficult as well to find real raw, unheated honey from bees not feed with industrial saccharose.
Perhaps, but based on what evidence? Didn't tribes at times gather many different foods and bring them back to the camp to share? I have seen photographic evidence of a single zhu/wasi lady gathering a remarkable diversity of foods and bringing them back to camp in a cloth sack. Hide skins, bags and parfleches and reed baskets would have served this purpose before cloth, and before these aids, many hands could have carried smaller quantities of diverse foods short distances to a camp or gathering spot to feast. Even chimps like to combine leaves with the meat that they eat. So while our ancestors did more mono-eating than we do today, they sometimes combined their foods. Some foods in nature are themselves combinations. For example, honeycomb with grubcomb, coconuts and avocadoes that contain both carbs and sugar, insects that contain both protein and fat, animals that contain protein, fat and carbs, nuts that contain protein and fats and so on.
Yes, I agree. I just mentioned that it’s better to eat a minimum of different foods in a meal because some stuffs are difficult to digest when mixed in the stomach with others, and the more different food eaten in a single meal the more complicated the digestion may be. 2 or 3 different compatible food are fine, 5 or 6 may be ok. But on the other hand, some are very hard to digest when mixed in the stomach, so here again experience and training are useful.
My senses almost invariably find fruits to be pleasing, I don't tend to get an immediate "detox," whatever that is supposed to be (it's a term that is used in so many vague and magical ways that it is essentially meaningless and useless). Rather, I get negative symptoms some hours after I have finished eating fruits. So the senses fail me when it comes to fruits.
There’s a theoretical model of detoxination, nothing magical about it.
When our body receives the proper raw food it should have received from the start but never got before, these food must be digested first, and then the nutrients molecules must be transported to the cells by the blood and lymph. This process takes a few hours. When the cells receive those undamaged, proper molecules, they are supposed (according to the model) to proceed to some exchanges, expelling a number of doubtful molecules they were constrained to use because there was nothing better at hand. These molecules more or less damaged by heat or other factors are put into the lymph and blood before being eliminated by the emunctories, some more hours latter.
I think Kirt's main point was that these are the foods that Instincto's tend to eat. The only error I can see is that his list appears to under-represent fruits, which I thank you for confirming.
Can you direct me to the source, I'm curious to check it out, as I hadn't heard of Fradin until you mentioned him.
Fradin was a MD who worked with GCB at Montramé. While working there, he promoted the “hypotoxic diet”, which was basicaly excluding grain and dairy but allowing cooked food. The aim was to provide a easier diet than the instincto to people who found difficult to eat 100% raw. After a while, he had some disagreements and disputes with GCB. Moreover, he was very eager to cash a maximum amount of money in his pocket. He finally left and started to commercialize pots of cooked “hypotoxic” stuff. Subsequently, his commercial enterprise went into bankruptcy, I think.
Classifications of natural things are merely conventions intended to promote learning and understanding. They have utility so they continue to be used whether you or I like them or not. Let's not get distracted by this tangent.
OK!
You appear to be evading the real issue with this tangent. Of course Instinctos are not a separate species, no one said they were. That's a straw man. My definition of an instincto is someone who eats an instincto type diet and roughly follows the principles. You don't have to be in a different species to do that. If you're doing that then under my definition you are currently acting as an instincto. There is also the term Anopsology, but it never caught on and likely never will. If you have another term to suggest, fine, but as you implied before, let's not quibble over semantics. We need some term to describe the approach you're following and advocating in this thread and Instincto seems suitable.
Right sir! I put it in that metaphoric, caricature way to mean that so called “instinctos”are not a standard type of persons. They don’t belong to a monolithic sect and there are extremely different ones, eating very different things. Some are great carnivores, some are vegetarians (even if excluding a paleo food class for ideological reasons is anti-instincto; should those be labelled “instinctos”?); some eat tropical fruits, some don’t; some live in Europe, some live in the tropics; a few eat 100% raw, many don’t; some eat a single food at a time with several meal a day, some stick to 2 meals a day with different stuff in the same meal; most don’t take any breakfast, some do; some don’t want to be called “instinctos”even if they eat raw, unmixed and unprocessed paleo the very same way than I…
That's commendable. Someone who doesn't doubt would lack credibility with me.
I’ve never strictly believed in the instincto theory as I avoid beliefs as much as I’m aware of. For me, it is a very new and interesting theory that I’ve been experimenting, but of course that’s an approximation, like every scientific theory.
That "theory" is part of what I was referring to as "Instincto" or "Anopsology." All human beings do not consciously apply that theory. Instinctos do, or at least try. This is what I was referring to as Instincto, not some different species.
I hope you didn’t take me seriously about that “different specie” caricature !
Here is what you wrote:
(see ref. in PaleoPhil post)
Kirt: Is there a list of cooked foods that Burger considers non-toxic?
Francois: Jean-Louis Tu has one on this site (see my original post).
Ah! Here again, I was kinda joking! Jean-Louis Tu is not Burger! If I remember correctly, this answer of mine to Kirt’s question means that for non toxic cooked food, he can go and read Jean-Louis Tu, because that guy has his own list of food that himself considers non-toxic, in total opposition to Burger’s ideas!
Wawh… what a post… it’s half past two in the morning…
Please, don’t aggress me if my answers are obtuse… I promise you I did my best!
Francois
-
Well, that was a good bedtime story. We can all put little instincto to bed.
yes lets
The only thing worse than the actual philosophy is the downright hypocritical and pretentious dismissals of anything that isn't such a flawed philosophy and hidden behind such concepts as "the natural". The constant blabbering about what a caveman would do or how x, y, z is not crucial or relevant to health based on some fantasy, might mean absolute failure for alot of people if the large part of people here were not too intelligent here to fall for it. I'll focus just on this aspect as I think it is sufficient.
The only other raw guru online I had managed to find and read a little about was GCB, but he had recommended against raw meats, at one point, so was not helpful as I did not want to go raw vegan again.
Where did you find that ? I’m not aware that he did so. AFAIK he only warned about eating too much meat (of domesticated mammals, but perhaps he didn’t make that clear enough). Anyhow, he always ate meat and couldn’t be more far away from vegans.
from "Manger vrai" Editions du Rocher (1990), page 178:
"Je ne suis pas pour la viande, moins on en mange mieux cela vaut à tous les
points de vue - respect de la vie , rendement agricole, économie, etc. Mais
je pense qu'il est faux d'être a priori contre la viande. Dans certains cas
elle peut jouer un rôle thérapeutique essentiel."
translated by a friend:
"I do not recommend meat, the less meat one eats, the better it is in every
respect - respect for life, efficiency of agriculture, economics, etc. But I
think that it is wrong to be a priori against any meat. In some cases[!] it may
play an essential therapeutic role.")
as to Burger being farthest away from veganism as possible, same book,
page 175:
"Je pense que le végétarisme correspond à une vérité, à une lointaine
expérience que les hommes ont faite quand ils ont commencé à se nourrir de
viande ou plus exactement à se nourrir de viande sans obéir aux lois de
l'instinct."
translated by a friend:
"I think veganism corresponds to a truth, to an ancient experience humans
made when they began to feed on meat or more precisely feed on meat without
complying with the instinct's laws."
This happens apparently in the 'unpublished' explanations as can be seen all over this thread. Search around the surrounding arguments around these points.
GCB, the problem is you have massive contradictions going through your posts.
You just finished saying that limited meat diets were not ideal because we have a fairly solid relationships to chimps that requires higher ranges of carbohydrates to function optimally (which I believe is a scientific observation, no matter how much instincto 'instincts' magically reach that ratio of modern-hybrid fruit love). And now you are using limited diets as a defense that basically says :well people do just fine, which is not the same as providing the absolute best health over the wisdom and practices of others. Also you have said in this thread that since Inger lives in an area in which we are not destined to live, her sensations to eat what is locally around her is also a distortion. And yet both you and Iguanna (who actually used the coconuts and fish tribe as an example neglecting that they ate cooked foods) keep insisting that it results everywhere and for every person in the optimal ways over any decision making EVEN now stating when one ignores tropical fruits - which you have already mentioned are the most conducive for nutrition. This is not even remotely possible. Even of the instinctos in existence there is no way they are all have optimal intakes that couldn't be improved upon with access or are distorted by what is not available.
the point then is someone can draw a better circle with a tool even as basic as a piece of string, their finger and knowledge of geometry, and wheel carved out otherwise by a template drawing done by a primitive or monkey by such an estimation would not roll efficiently and would not be superior to a modern produced wheel. the question isn't whether one does the best they can with their circumstances as everyone on the planet is currently doing this, but whether the tools provided in nature (or improved upon by instinctotherapy) and are greatest desire actually surpass the type of knowledge that is acquired in research and experiences of peers like this site as far as making the BEST dietary choices and yielding the BEST results.
In a nutshell all one needs to focus on is if the health arrived at though the alimentary mechanism is the best for any individual over all other methods that currently exist on the planet accessible to all - given the same food choices and for whatever results they desire. This has not been shown, therefore one cannot say the instincto method trumps these methods nevermind that these other methods are 'bad' or will allow one to heal and thrive most efficiently without them. Over and over what we are given is the mere minimum ability to exist without the ails of society - if it even accomplishes that. Even if one can argue otherwise it should never in any case be used to discredit other ideas of health based on them being 'natural' if it fails in basics factors to those achieved through the practices it implicitly outlines as harmful in its dogma and thus blocked from its followers as suitable strategies.
other useful wrap up:
just because we have signals that we may refine that tell us we have eaten too much of one food does not mean that amount was necessary or that we ate the healthiest food we needed or in the right amount anymore than an abstraction from a guru. Because true deficiencies are rare but ideal amounts of nutrients are always beneficial, one cannot tell again whether each food choice is based on a true need or that another food can satisfy that need more for optimal health, this particularly is important with macro-nutrients which can drastically impact health. The reason hominids could get by without crunching nutrients is their environment and pre-existing health was absolutely dependent on a set environment arguably conducive to survival - even when those environments shifted - and not because their instinct choose the best foods from a variety of post-industrial settings requiring no effort, ability or strength immobilized by a modern pretention of a natural diet.
At the same time this does not mean that having these kind of intelligences or control over that environment and its variables would not result in a net positive increase on health if it was plausible in ancient times to do so. Likely different humanoids had different lifespans, abilities, strengths, or weakness, and knowledge of process and the combined knowledge of all would be superior to their ignorance and instinct. There are animals in nature that will do better with a certain amount of intake and will suffer in a poor environment or with excessive options and thus again is proof that instinct is not the sole regulator of health and nutrition, particularly in domesticated environments. Contemporary humans have totally different requirements than caveman with lots of complex internal issues of internal bacteria, fungus etc.. which both effect desire and also may require specific and even modern protocols to reset equilibrium that go beyond taste choice. Thus again it is a total farce of a strategy to try to discredit other health approaches because they go against the fantasies of instincto dogma and natural hygiene which relate all health purely towards aligning oneself with nature - to the determent of many followers.
http://www.rawpaleoforum.com/primal-diet/re-aajonus%27-appearances-and-primal-potlucks/msg54483/#msg54483
and the rest of the thread for the discussion on the destructive and closed nature of such philosophies.
- in short there is nothing that proves this approach could be any healthier or more nutritionally sound than one punched up on paper based on science and tacked to a wall and should never be used as a response to such and be taken at all seriously and much of it - like primal diet wisdom from the Primal Forum or me claiming shoving meat up my ass as a therapy outside the Hot Topics forum - should have no place outside the Instincto forum particularly the welcoming board.
-
Tanks for your ceaseless interest in the instinco theory, Knievel. But may I suggest that you read yourself the integral English translation of the book of GCB that I provided several times the link for (http://www.reocities.com/HotSprings/7627/ggindex.html) instead of resorting to a friend who translates for you very selected sentences taken out of context, with for result that it leads your readers to have a view about GCB's ideas which is the exact contrary of his real ideas.
Here’s the integral part of the text from were your quotes are extracted :
http://www.reocities.com/HotSprings/7627/ggraw_eat3.html
_How is it that pregnant women often feel like eating cheese? You were telling me not long ago that such whims reflected dietary instinct?
o Such cravings are most probably projections of a real need for protein onto cheese, the taste of which reminds one of the flavors of high game that was such a delicacy for our forebears. Or, quite simply, they are influenced by all that talk about the need for calcium and the dangers of becoming decalcified.
_Presumably, you’d more likely advise them to dig into a fine raw minced steak with raw egg yolk and chopped onions, wouldn’t you?
o I would advise a slice of raw undressed meat. That would be safer minus the blended egg yolk and relish.
_That bamboozles your instincts. I get the message. But how can you uphold that meat was one of man’s initial foods? Primates are declaredly vegetarians.
o Here we go again, back to vegetarian doctrine. Monkeys were long believed to scorn flesh since they feed on fruit and wild plants. They had never been caught in the act of meat-eating. Accordingly, they weren’t assumed to be meat-eaters: That would have required conjuring them up eating raw meat given that they didn’t come up with cooking. Whichever way you look at it, raw meat is taboo as I was privileged to find out when I included it in raw-instinct eating.
_Had you initially banned eating meat?
o Almost every diet-conscious person comes within the undertow of vegetarianism. I was no exception at first. True enough, eating meat and flesh generally warrants due caution. Nourishing a body with alien proteins is quite dangerous. I believe that vegetarianism reflects some truth. It is an experience man had a very long time ago_that is, when he started eating meat without keeping to the laws of instinct. Nourishing the body with a food that the body wants and will be able to metabolize properly is quite different from nourishing the body with the same food when the body doesn’t want it. In the second instance, all kinds of molecules could slip though the grinding mill of dietary enzymes and trigger off devastation, the extent of which no one can as yet accurately assess.
One thing is for sure: It’s not by viewing the issue ideologically or hot-headedly that we’ll understand anything.
Getting back to our monkeys, I think we have to stick to the facts. The English ethnologist, Jane van Lawick Goodall, who lived with chimpanzees for twenty years, witnessed, apparently, a whole troop of them dismember a young wild boar. The best hunters in the troop knew how to catch it without having learnt archery. Primates have the instinct to hunt and eat their prey; it can be assumed, therefore, that animal protein is part or their natural diet. And as our genetic code is still very close...
_Apparently, monkeys eat very little meat.
o Their eating little of it doesn’t preclude its being useful and possibly even vital for their health. Nor is it necessarily bad for ours.
As I was saying, vegetarians are right to take up the cudgels against the usual ways of eating meat. It’s eaten cooked, which is toxic. And people overeat it, unheedful of instincts.
In a great many cases, I have noted that cooked meat disrupts people’s nervous systems, by generally arousing excitability, which has a ripple effect on one’s aggressiveness, anxiety and sex drive, as well as one’s entire mental make-up. I can well understand that some wise pundits centered on their inner states may have condemned it as throttling the spirit. Presumably, they didn’t consider trying raw meat as well, or else they would have realized that cooking was the culprit.
Clearly, raw meat stirs up no arousal, unless an animal is already poisoned with cooked food_in which case, the molecules that have built up in its tissues will touch off excitability in the meat eater, and he will incriminate the meat rather than the toxins.
_Is it not the actual killing of an animal that was proscribed by different religions?
o True enough, there’s something shocking about killing anything. It jars with our concepts of spirituality.
Mind you, Hitler and his henchmen were card-carrying vegetarians. But they didn’t shrink from mass murder. Perhaps one day neurophysiological disorders will be meaningfully correlated with adulterated foods and the rise of major political trends.
_Eating meat means eating death. I thought you were in favor of eating only live foods...
o That’s one of the battle cries of vegetarianism. One is rightly told that one is eating “carrion.” What better way to get you off your T-bone once and for all, as if you had a cube of human flesh on the tines of your fork. In actual fact, meat only looks dead; it’s teeming with life. Think of all the live yeasts thriving on it.
A cooked vegetable, by contrast, is stone dead. All that’s left of it is a scrawny corpse splayed out on your plate; isn’t that a carcass?
_A friend of mine always termed every meat-eater a scavenger. Barely has the animal been killed when all kinds of toxins reportedly start work on it.
o Well, you can tell him that nobody is compelled to eat meat when it has reached the stage of carrion. Rotting meat does, obviously, turn toxic after a while; it contains proteins, but instincts prevent us from eating it. The smell is repulsive; the tongue feels as though seared by the meat. It’s a good job we’re protected against a natural toxin. Carrion has been around in nature for a long time. And that the smell should repel us proves that man is by no means a scavenger.
Man isn’t a carnivorous animal either. Instincts clearly don’t allow us to eat fresh meat; an animal that’s been recently slain gives off an extremely disgusting smell.
_Carnivorous animals are said, in fact, to live less long than herbivorous ones.
o When a tiger catches a zebu, he savors the guts filled with partly digested grass. In reality, tigers are great vegetarians! And cows that graze swallow a large number of insects with their ration of grass. They are more carnivorous than one might think. According to some farming traditions, it was, moreover, common practice to give calves, during their growth spurts, a good two dozen eggs yolks to ensure future sound health.
I’m not in favor of meat; the less one eats of it, the better one feels in every way_I mean as far as respecting life, farm productivity, the economy, etc. is concerned. But I think that it’s wrong to be dead-set against meat from the outset. In some cases, meat can prove extremely useful therapeutically. What one has to know is when and how much of it one can eat, and we have the answer to that one_that is, we can trust to our instincts, which, to my mind, are more reliable than any theoretical, ethical, or other consideration.
_And what if our instincts led us astray? It seems quite plausible that meat could pervert our taste buds.
o Of course, taste alone isn’t enough to prove that meat is beneficial to us. We have to try and see the long-term effects of meat on human health. Whether it is easily digestible or not, whether one sleeps well on it, its effects on physical and mental health, whether it helps one put on weight, whether it helps cure diseases, etc. With hindsight, I have the feeling that results, on the whole, have been quite encouraging_provided one respects instinctive “cues” and that one avoids eating meat too frequently with other foods.
_Do you hold with Shelton’s theories?
o There’s always some truth in any theory. Some combinations of proteins and sugars are obviously indigestible and probably harmful if they are repeatedly brought together. I admire the clearsightedness that his books patently convey. It’s anything but easy to make heads or tails of the prevalent dietary morass, especially when one knows that behind cooking lurk manifold dangers. But one can’t apply the rules established for cooked food to “initial eating.” In that case, as in every different case, to be objective, one has to start from scratch.
I was thinking a while ago about a rather spectacular case of meat eating; a nine-year-old little boy, suffering from nearsightedness, was undergoing a course of treatment with us. His muscles had been wasting for quite some years, so much so that he could barely set one foot in front of the other without being held up. When he sat down in an armchair, he couldn’t get up unassisted. Because medicine had given up on him, his parents had decided to give instinctotherapy a try. Truth be told, during his three-week stay, that child virtually ate a straight diet of meat, and he found meat so delicious that he clamoured for it at every meal (normally, we don’t serve meat at lunch). He only varied to have a few egg yolks and a little fish.
_Isn’t overdoing it on protein like that imbalancing?
o Dietary balance, in my view, doesn’t mean balancing the menus, but balancing one’s body_namely, providing it with what it needs.
_And to hell with dietary theories!
o One has to assume that all that sustained meat-eating reflected a real need that until then had remained hidden amidst all that habitual cooking. When I returned from a trip, I caught sight of three of my children (the ones brought up on raw food from birth) who were playing a very strenuous round of table-tennis against a fourth player. The game involved running round the table so as to change players with every service. I thought that they had recruited a new little friend among the newly arrived children whom I didn’t know. Drawing closer, I realized that it was that little near-sighted boy who was running about with them.
_I can imagine what you felt.
o When one thinks of all the children whose lives are wrecked by that illness, without medicine being able to provide them with a way out.
Given results like that, I can hardly cast aspersions on meat as do some vegetarians, and as I myself did at one time. Overly strict prohibitions that have no basis in science, are always suspicious; and one should guard against giving in to them or any other form of crankiness.
With our method, we’ve been afforded further insight_that is, instincts sometimes make meat appealing, especially meat left out in the open for a while, exactly as instincts do with any natural food. It would be surprising if instincts went wrong, and considering the results are good...
_According to you, then, meat left in the open was part of man’s intitial diet?
o According to archaeologists who have studied old bones whose flesh our ancestors ate, meat was eaten in substantial amounts some five million years ago.
_Why did you mention meat left out in the open?
o There are two schools of thought: one, involving the theory connected to hunting, and two, the theory relating to scavengers. If our forbears were hunters, they possibly ate meat fresh. If they gathered the remains of carcasses left over by predators, they had to eat them when they were in the process of going bad. In fact, one can tell apart several groups of animals. First of all, the fresh meat-eaters_i.e. carnivorous animals who instinctively catch their prey and eat it live. Most of the time, they only eat part of it, beginning with the guts; they then leave the body that begins predigesting itself through the effect of its own enzymes and yeasts that develop subsequently. When it becomes rather stale, it gives off another smell, that is felt to be appealing to a second group of animals including wart hogs, rodents, monkeys, etc. Finally, the body, if anything is left of it, turns into carrion. Then, scavengers step into the picture_i.e. jackals, vultures, etc. who find the smell of carcass_which we find repugnant_most certainly very pleasant, otherwise they wouldn’t go near it. The only thing left after that is the final clean-up performed by maggots, cockroaches, and other forms of life that disgust us, because they very much conjure up a feeling of danger associated with rotting meat, which is toxic for us, or our own death, which is another form of rot.
By comparing rib steak to carrion, as a matter of course, as your friend does, he’s jumping the gun as far as the natural process of things is concerned and is forcing disgust in where there is none. Raw meat seems wonderfully enjoyable and fragrant if one needs it, when it has matured just enough. Man probably belongs to the intermediary category of carnivorous animals, somewhere between carnivorous animals and scavengers. It’s not by chance if butchers allow meat to stand for a few weeks before selling it.
_And what of purines? That same vegetarian friend is always going on about the danger of purines.
o Open a book on biochemistry: You’ll read that purines are bases that consist of adenine and guanine, two of the four building blocks in DNA. Those molecules are at the core of life; they are part of all living cells in plants as well as animals. They are broken down in our metabolism into uric acid, which, if there’s too much of it in blood can be harmful, as can be any surfeit. But we can clear uric acid perfectly well; it passes into the waters in the form of urates. Our metabolism adapted to that condition long ago, since purines can be found in all living organisms_and hence, in all “initial” foods as well.
I never understood what vegetarian schools had against those hapless purines. Why not point an equally accusing finger at pyrimidines that make up the nucleus of cytosine and thymine which are the two other bases of DNA? Is it because pyrimidine sounds like “pyramid,” and that ancient Egypt conjures up a vivid spiritual past?
I can believe that once a great naturalist must have opened a book on metabolism to the chapter on uric acid. He must have noticed that “purine” sounded like “purim.” Not understanding any of those kabalistic formulas before his eyes, and as natural fertilizers have something of a bad reputation in those environments, he went off warring, like Don Quixote against windmills (of meat).
_If I understand your point, in nature, man doesn’t necessarily have to kill to eat meat.
o The same thing applies to chicken coops: The stone marten does it for the farmer. If the latter forgets to close the door for even one night, he has as much free meat gushing with blood as he likes. I do admit, however, that, in practice, carnivorous animals have been superseded by butchers.
In the beginning, I had hoped that we could live on milk and not have to kill, but the facts made me change my mind.
_What is your answer to people who oppose that to what is said in the Bible? One of the Ten Commandments unequivocally enjoins: “Thou shalt not kill!”
o That’s a slight mistranslation. The exact wording of the Hebrew text runs: “Thou shalt not murder,”or “Lo tirtzach” (Exodus, 20, 13) (“murder” in Hebrew “ratzach” implies violent killing with deliberate intent as opposed to slaughtering animals “shachat”)_which, as far as eating is concerned, stigmatizes, if anything, cannibalism. In the passages following the first giving of the Ten Commandments, Moses, on the contrary, prescribes offering up regular sacrifices. They sometimes had to slaughter an ox or sometimes a lamb (as many as two a day) on the altar, to find favor in the eyes of the Lord of Hosts. As hanging, drawing, and quartering weren’t wholly up to scratch in those days, I think it’s reasonable to suspect that the Everlasting had to make do with burnt aromas and the priests divided up the remains. In such a way, the Bible cleverly solved the problem of protein deficiency, well before the advent of dietetics.
_All kinds of meats were considered impure, all the same. The meat one could eat was very strictly limited.
o In Deuteronomy 14:4-5, it is decreed: “These are the beasts which ye shall eat: the ox, the sheep, and the goat, the hart, and the roebuck, and the fallow deer, and the wild goat, and the pygarg, and the wild ox, and the chamois.” I’d be happy if I had such a range to choose from. Nowadays, game is becoming rare.
_Would you have the guts to kill the animals you eat? I know I couldn’t.
o The ancients always killed animals according to sacrificial rites. Even here in Europe, a few centuries ago, bears were hunted, and afterwards, the hunters prayed that the bear would forgive them for having killed him. His remains were even piously put back together and returned to the forest.
I think that what’s most important is the frame of mind one’s in when one kills an animal and that that’s what accounts for so much harm. Sacrificing an animal because one knows that its flesh will enable our children to build up their bodies in accordance with natural laws_that hardly seems criminal to me. Indeed Gurdjieff, a very wise man who came from the Caucasus, said that animals should be grateful knowing that their flesh was going to rise to a higher level once it was eaten by a superior being.
_And would you think as much if you saw a tiger charging at you?
o Man is most assuredly not suited to being the prey of tigers, since he appeared on the scene much later than felines in the continuum of evolution. Tigers are clearly not encoded genetically to eat homo sapiens; undoubtedly, that explains why the idea of a tiger eating men seems so shocking, so unnatural to us. Tigers don’t normally attack people. They have to have already eaten a human being once. After that, they do it again and again unrelentingly and become known as man-eating tigers. But that can be easily accounted for: That flesh is undoubtedly the most highly seasoned meat that a tiger can ever hope to eat! The tiger himself gets entangled in the fine web of cooking; just think of all those remnants of tasty sauces and spicy dishes that must make the normal human being’s muscles reek_not to mention their guts! After that, gazelles must taste horribly bland. I think one has to consider things a bit more dispassionately. Creation is so made that all living beings live off one another. It’s like a huge ecological pyramid that was built up over great stretches of time. Humus absorbs minerals, plants draw on humus, animals eat plants, and some animals that are newly evolved live at the expense of the flesh of older animals. All in all, it seems to me that by prohibiting animal protein, one is going against the laws of nature.
_Still, I don’t find it very natural for a man to kill an animal. To do that, he needs a bow and arrow, a gun, or a knife. Those weapons are intelligent contrivances as well that weren’t part of the “initial” background.
o Be careful, you’re lapsing into philosophy. It’s not because I need some contrivance to capture or kill an animal that its meat won’t constitute an “initial” food as far as my metabolism is concerned. If a man is handicapped and can no longer go and get his own food, isn’t it better to make sure he is brought his daily ration, or should one explain to him that, given his condition, he should be able to get by on not eating? Do we know anything about the running techniques of our pre-intelligent ancestors, or what their strength was based on, if not the fact that they used stones, sticks, and tricks as some predators do? We have no training in the matter, our bodies have been built up on the basis of degenerate food; we can’t take ourselves as a reference. Maybe our physical strength has declined because our intelligence has taken over: skulduggery has overtaken strength.
To reiterate what I’ve said before, our genetic code is what matters: Are we equipped with the teeth, the digestive organs and, above all, the enzymes and the necessary means of clearance to break down meat without causing harm to ourselves?
_Vegetarians point out, on that count, that our canine teeth are too small and that our intestines, being ten meters long, are too long to digest meat_which accounts for fermentation in the bowels that one can diagnose through smelly feces.
o They can rest easy. Human canines have what it takes, and to spare, to bite into a whole leg of lamb or into a chicken drumstick.
_Yuck! Can you eat chicken raw?
o When the body needs it, even fowl_surprising as it may seem_takes on a very good taste. Why should there be any difference between one meat and another? It appears that we are even more suited for the flesh of fowl than that of mammals_possibly because it’s easier to find injured birds in nature. Flying has always been a dangerous sport. Think of François Truffaut’s celebrated savage child (“l’enfant sauvage”) from the Aveyron, who could catch and pluck birds with surprising skill.
_In that case, I’m not yet mature enough to switch over to your diet.
o Except you’re forgetting the most important thing: With instinctotherapy, you only eat what’s good! If any food seems bad to you, you don’t eat it. The day raw turkey grabs you, or duck, left out in the open for a while, appeals to you more than the best prepared duck in orange sauce, you’ll see all your preconceptions disappear into thin air. People always assume that one has to polish off everything on the table. Instincts, on the contrary, restore the freedom of pleasure.
Moreover, I insist on reassuring you as regards the length of your intestines. They are exactly 6.15 meters long (15.52 feet) and have everything it takes to digest what your palate control allows to get in. Its functioning was fine-tuned over a period of millions of years. All that squabbling over length is nonsens: Every living species is suited to the length of its intestines and vice versa! Food doesn’t freely ferment as it haphazardly makes its way through the bowel; intestinal flora is remarkably stable, contrary to what was once thought. The replication of germs is strictly kept down by regulatory factors that themselves had been genetically encoded.
-
Here’s the integral part of the text from were your quotes are extracted :
http://www.reocities.com/HotSprings/7627/ggraw_eat3.html
So the instincto diet is not actually a vegetarian diet, I think people were aware of that. What does this have to do with endlessly trolling about mixing foods and dietary ratios? I don't think what I selected is out of context whatsoever and this again is just characteristic backpedaling and seeking of loophole arguments instead of actually acknowledging any problematic content. You just said specifically in the other thread that he never linked his diet to vegetarianism and never made claims against too much meat, but he does both right in this friggen thread as well as what you just posted! which yes I have read. The relevance of your additional 'context' is what has already been established in this thread in that while animal foods are deemed part of the instincto diet, its possible to form a diet that marginalizes these foods based on the taste or appeal of others. By that logic alone it becomes necessary to criticize others who eat meats or quantities 'prematurely' or 'scientifically' or go in for other foods or practices to improve their health that are discounted by instincto dogma? for following approaches that don't believe any combination of dates and other dried fruits with nuts and some meat is going to be healthier than a carefully researched or restricted diet (or even carry the results of a cooked junk diet) because they are wrong from the get go with their 'neolithic' practices and theorizing?
-
So the instincto diet is not actually a vegetarian diet, I think people were aware of that. What does this have to do with endlessly trolling about mixing foods and dietary ratios?
You mean I’m trolling? Here everyone is free to express his own view, as you have been. We don’t agree on everything, and it’s precisely the aim of a forum to encourage the expression of different views and amiable discussion between persons objectively seeking to improve their knowledge. What is your problem with me expressing my views?
May I remain you that what I say is based on 24 years personal experience of eating 100% raw and on exchanges of information with a couple of friends who have even more experience than me because they were the firsts in the civilized world to eat 100% raw including raw meat since the beginning of the Neolithic era.
I don't think what I selected is out of context whatsoever
Selecting just the few words that say the exact contrary of what the author generally means in the text is just intellectual dishonesty and betraying. And now you have the affront to pretend that your quotes were not even taken out of context! It’s incredible.
and this again is just characteristic backpedaling and seeking of loophole arguments instead of actually acknowledging any problematic content. You just said specifically in the other thread that he never linked his diet to vegetarianism and never made claims against too much meat, but he does both right in this friggen thread as well as what you just posted!
No, I said “in the other thread”:
(…)I’m not aware that he did so. AFAIK he only warned about eating too much meat (of domesticated mammals, but perhaps he didn’t make that clear enough). Anyhow, he always ate meat and couldn’t be more far away from vegans.
Again you blatantly pretend that I wrote the exact contrary of what I actually wrote, leaving me the time consuming work to find the reference you were too lazy to provide – of course, if you had taken the trouble to search for it before writing this rushed answer, you wouldn’t have written such an utterly false statement.
which yes I have read.
Good to know. Perhaps you should calmly read the whole book as well and take the time to think about it before to make some more wide of the mark comments.
I didn’t read AV and therefore I do not comment about his ideas because before I take a stand on a subject, I want to know all about it and as much as possible experiment it myself. I just mention that dairy consumption is typically Neolithic, which seems to be a fact that none seriously challenges.
The relevance of your additional 'context' is what has already been established in this thread in that while animal foods are deemed part of the instincto diet, its possible to form a diet that marginalizes these foods based on the taste or appeal of others.
Temporarily and in some special cases only. Animal food should be an important part of our nutrition and it's the view of GCB and early collaborators. But of course, you know better what the instincto nutrition is than the ones who have practicing it for several decades.
By that logic alone it becomes necessary to criticize others who eat meats or quantities 'prematurely' or 'scientifically' or go in for other foods or practices to improve their health that are discounted by instincto dogma?
I don’t criticize anyone. It seems it’s rather you who relentlessly criticize the instincto theory without even knowing what you’re talking about.
for following approaches that don't believe any combination of dates and other dried fruits with nuts and some meat is going to be healthier than a carefully researched diet (or even carry the results of a cooked junk diet) because they are wrong from the get go with their 'neolithic' practices and theorizing?
? ??? ???
-
man, you are consistently dishonest and you can see it here. you made the claim and your own quote proves you flat out lied. My selection was enough to prove that point and I had no interest in framing instincto as a vegetarian diet so this again is a dishonest tactic. You never EVER frame things from your perspective and never change your views when proven wrong. you consistently plug these opinions as fact throughout the forums including the primal forum which you wrote about 'caveman and the drinking of da water' give a fricken break you total liar or admit your senility. please answer any actual criticism or give any solid proof that you know for certain that your 'guruless' diet will yield better results than any other method discussed here without resorting to defensive BS please for once.
the last part you quoted of mine is blatantly clear, one can have way better effects through a variety of approaches than through an instinco diet, therefore you cannot enter into every thread saying all one needs to do is smell food eat whatever they like - and to discount other foods or practices the like until you have actual evidence as this is harmful advice to the health seeker. Despite whatever diet one might formulate that might be healthful or ideal from instinco principles the dogma and attempts at replication disregard many healthful and possibly superior paths.
May I remain you that what I say is based on 24 years personal experience of eating 100% raw and on exchanges of information with a couple of friends who have
Temporarily and in some special cases only. Animal food should be an important part of our nutrition and it's the view of GCB and early collaborators. But of course, you know better what the instincto nutrition is than the ones who have practicing it for several decades.
I know enough to spot bullshit backtracking on things a novice would spot and also constant pushing of dogmatic dangerous thinking on others particularly when people are beginning the diet and have no use for what amounts usually to refinement strategies.
-
I didn’t read AV and therefore I do not comment about his ideas because before I take a stand on a subject, I want to know all about it and as much as possible experiment it myself. I just mention that dairy consumption is typically Neolithic, which seems to be a fact that none seriously challenges.
from: What to drink if there's no raw milk?
I didn't know that. What's the reason not to drink plain water? AFAIK, most animals drink plain water and all our ancestors obviously did.
Cheers
Francois
two birds one stone with the lie and the general improper advice. I don't see how you cannot understand the problem here on many fronts: being disrespectful, not knowing what you are talking about, and then quoting something irrelevant to contemporary health particulary for people on that diet. Then there was the whole distaster where you cliamed it was absolutely impossible to extract milk from an animal, have you conceded to that yet or will it come up again in 2 months that it is impossible? If I got in an argument with 40 year cooked macrobiotic practitioners who felt alive and amazing, I can't use science and their physical states to asses their programs? Take their word for it? good grief.
-
man, you are consistently dishonest (…) you flat out lied. (…) this again is a dishonest tactic. (…) you total liar or admit your senility. please answer any actual criticism or give any solid proof that you know for certain that your 'guruless' diet will yield better results than any other method discussed here without resorting to defensive BS please for once.
Why would I have to prove such a thing? I don’t think I ever pretended that “my guruless diet will yield better results than any other method discussed here”.
the last part you quoted of mine is blatantly clear, one can have way better effects through a variety of approaches than through an instinco diet,
Here you’re just doing what you accuse me to do! Should I ask you: please give any solid proof that you know for certain that any other method discussed here will yield better results than the instincto?!!
therefore you cannot enter into every thread saying all one needs to do is smell food eat whatever they like - and to discount other foods or practices the like until you have actual evidence as this is harmful advice to the health seeker. Despite whatever diet one might formulate that might be healthful or ideal from instinco principles the dogma and attempts at replication disregard many healthful and possibly superior paths.
I can enter every thread I like and write what I want, just like you actually do.
I know enough to spot bullshit backtracking on things a novice would spot and also constant pushing of dogmatic dangerous thinking on others particularly when people are beginning the diet and have no use for what amounts usually to refinement strategies.
What is dangerous is your stance: you’re experimenting some very new nutritional principles that no one knows what will be the effect after 10 years. The instincto has been developed since 1965 and practiced by hundreds of people, children were born and have perfectly grown up, some are now in their 30’s and still eating instincto without any problem. So I think any concern of a danger is irrelevant.
-
To be fair, any and all diets usually have only 2 possible ways to justify themselves:- personal anecdotes/testimonials and scientific studies. Rawpalaeodiets, like Instincto, do, unusually, have some further evolutionary proof of sorts(re no wild animal ever cooking its food etc.), but there are possible arguments against that, just as anyone can make up a seemingly convincing argument against the other 2 methods. Ultimately, what it boils down to is this is a rawpalaeodiet forum so it is hardly surprising to find people not happy with the notion of raw-milk consumption, macrobiotics or whatnot.Nothing wrong with that.
As regards the whole raw-milk consumption in the palaeolithic era notion, that was wrongly used by pro-raw-dairy advocates to suggest that raw milk-consumption was somehow normal or an everyday event. In actual fact, only pregnant females could have been used for obtaining raw milk(and then only seasonally due to mating/breeding patterns) -plus, in an era before domestication, I don't see how raw milk could have been that easily obtained -oh, and the udders of modern, domesticated cattle are highly oversized due to millenia of inbreeding, so udders of wild aurochs(ancestors of modern cattle) would have been smaller in proportion to the body . A similiar argument has been recently used for palaeo-era grains-consumption (which Cordain convincingly debunked in 1 essay).
-
have you conceded to that yet or will it come up again in 2 months that it is impossible? If I got in an argument with 40 year cooked macrobiotic practitioners who felt alive and amazing, I can't use science and their physical states to asses their programs? Take their word for it? good grief.
After watching the video Miles provided, yes I have conceded that a little bit of milk can come out from a killed female. I let you search for the link, this time.
-
Why would I have to prove such a thing? I don’t think I ever pretended that “my guruless diet will yield better results than any other method discussed here”.
total lie. and if there is any truth to that, you should frame 90% of your posts to reflect this.
Here you’re just doing what you accuse me to do! Should I ask you: please give any solid proof that you know for certain that any other method discussed here will yield better results than the instincto?!!
yeah because I actually am the one with the experience with a variety of these approaches, whereas you do often - frequently - comment on things you have 0 experience with.
Then there is all of the points I raised in my first post today and all the other points that get raised by myself and others that go unanswered. I show my results everyday rather than preach and I don't nitpick at others unless they have the same transparent ego driven bullshit behind them, aside from that I don't think its appropriate to say any food or tactic is wrong ever. I'm pretty sure I have made that impression.
I can enter every thread I like and write what I want, just like you actually do.
no that is not true either. I have limitations of what kind of things I say based on respect for other people. seems like common sense. not to mention you just lied yet again about not commenting when you don't have all the information and now try to cover it up with 'I can do whatever I want' like a child
What is dangerous is your stance: you’re experimenting some very new nutritional principles that no one knows what will be the effect after 10 years. The instincto has been developed since 1965 and practiced by hundreds of people, children were born and have perfectly grown up, some are now in their 30’s and still eating instincto without any problem. So I think any concern of a danger is irrelevant.
other people are not you and have pressing health concerns sometimes. I've said time and time again that one of the possible benefits of instincto is that everyone is unique, and peoples requirements change, however the mechanism cannot possibly accommodate for this and again proves to produce the expected poor results in comparison to other approaches. so these can't then be used as reasons over an over to criticize such 'artificial' approaches. the burden of the proof is still on you.
people eat all kinds of things without any problem, its the people in poor health that need the widest range of strategies and not the narrowest. lol a bit @ since 1965.
---
as for the milk thing, merely an illustration of blind reticence than a validation of milk consumption.
-
I'm going to sleep now. I got other things to do than spending all my evening and night answering to your aggressive and abusive posts.
-
ok night man. As always we'll see what is what in the welcomming forum and other general nitpicks. perhaps now that we have some of this on record like "I don’t think I ever pretended that “my guruless diet will yield better results than any other method discussed here”. " maybe we'll all sleep better.
-
To be fair, any and all diets usually have only 2 possible ways to justify themselves:- personal anecdotes/testimonials and scientific studies. Rawpalaeodiets, like Instincto, do, unusually, have some further evolutionary proof of sorts(re no wild animal ever cooking its food etc.), but there are possible arguments against that, just as anyone can make up a seemingly convincing argument against the other 2 methods. Ultimately, what it boils down to is this is a rawpalaeodiet forum so it is hardly surprising to find people not happy with the notion of raw-milk consumption, macrobiotics or whatnot. Nothing wrong with that.
I could have easily used fruiratians who have raised their childen 100% raw who are still alive. Likely in the real world I would be arguing with some kind of cooked food/alternative health proponent. I was saying that 'show me the money' or basic science obviously trumps being a walking stiff with a brilliant idea. The below makes the diet sound like living with treatable Legionnaires' disease. I mean to me its something of a miracle that people survive 30 years on a SWD but not to other people of course and shouldn't be quoted as their success story.
People are largely going to be coming to this diet with the hopes of better than average health or climbing out of terrible conditions and mere proof of being alive still after such blatant isolative practices does not cut it. Since there is in a sense lots of long term successes on a variety of raw approaches, it seems even more sense to listen to the people who are experimenting alot of in short term as opposed to validation through seniority. The dangers are of course not in deficiencies that are absent in other approaches but in excesses and in not supplying the necessary tools at the right time because they are excluded from the get go.
If Wai lives another 50 years I will still not follow his/her diet. I'm neither carnivore, ZC or primal dieter or perhaps even paleo but I eat any and all things that might be usefull no matter their origin or process. I would take any quick fix regardless of source if it actually worked and I think ultimately most people feel that way but they believe this leads to paleo nutrition. In short, my approach to nutrition according to instincto is incorrect. but I see far more people in those camps being criticized for their dietary leanings or illegid failures than people who eat dates and nuts and things despite the latter being the gross minority. Has anyone here been scolded for eating one food at a time?
What is dangerous is your stance: you’re experimenting some very new nutritional principles that no one knows what will be the effect after 10 years. The instincto has been developed since 1965 and practiced by hundreds of people, children were born and have perfectly grown up, some are now in their 30’s and still eating instincto without any problem. So I think any concern of a danger is irrelevant.
-
People are largely going to be coming to this diet with the hopes of better than average health or climbing out of terrible conditions and mere proof of being alive still after such blatant isolative practices does not cut it. Since there is in a sense lots of long term successes on a variety of raw approaches, it seems even more sense to listen to the people who are experimenting alot of in short term as opposed to validation through seniority. The dangers are of course not in deficiencies that are absent in other approaches but in excesses and in not supplying the necessary tools at the right time because they are excluded from the get go.
You are overlooking 2 rather important points. First of all, the longer someone has been on a particular diet, the more info they get over the years than any newbie could possibly gain within a short period. I have certainly found that people with more years of RVAF diet experience than I have ever had, have usually shown more knowledge than me in certain matters. Plus, newbies constantly make mistakes in the first few years - I was much like that, given my raw dairy experiments etc.
The other point re surviving for decades on a RVAF diet is particularly important as one of the key urban myths stated about raw animal food diets in the media is that anyone trying such a diet is sure, sooner or later, to die in horrible agony from bacterial food-poisoning or infestation from parasites. So, having people around who have been doing RVAF diets for decades without encountering such severe problems is actually a lot more effective in dispelling such absurd myths than people who have only experimented with RVAF diets for a few years.
-
i'm not overlooking that. I think those are both legitimate points of course but personally i'm no longer interesting in proving the validly of the lifestyle but in doing the most effective lifestyle for my goals. To me this seems more crucial. I'd like to think that i'll have more wisdom in the future but I believe the best wisdom is that people should have a wide spectrum of tools in front of them and be able to make their own mistakes and own decisions and not be pummeled with alot of ideas on what is good or bad when no one really knows. of course if you are choosing between the same person at two levels in life the choice is obvious, but at the end of the day people that have been doing the diet for only few years - while they might not have all the answers or long term solutions- are perhaps not going to be as reliable in certain respects but they might have more in common with a person starting out or present a more suitable model just based on what they have gone through. Success is basically irrelevant if we arn't quantifying things. if there is 'successful' breatharians and fruitarians, who really cares. Doug Graham claims to have 30+ years experience, ditto Aajonus, these alone justify a diet?
-
KD, I don't see the point why you are so condescending upon Instincto.
If it's not for you, then it's not for you.
I for example can't do most dairy but I don't go ranting against Primal diet just because I can't do dairy.
-
KD, I don't see the point why you are so condescending upon Instincto.
If it's not for you, then it's not for you.
I for example can't do most dairy but I don't go ranting against Primal diet just because I can't do dairy.
you just cited the exact reason. I think its best to keep the complaints in one place, as opposed to me lecturing iguana every time he posts completely negative alienating nonsense in every post to other WOEs, particularly the welcoming forum which is for the ENTIRE site and not just a single methodology of raw. If people did this from Primal camps or pemmican or vegan or any other thing, they would be removed. Its a total double standard. I could give a huge shit about instincto if it remained in this forum. My whole involvement came from another thread that poured into this topic and continues to come from other areas which I have already pointed out as inappropriate. I wouldn't feel the need to engage negatively with any lifestyle including instincto if they didn't resort to the same tactics of every fruitarian I have ever met in referencing what is 'natural' over every other persons experience and discounting everything that does not fit their own invented definition. You can take the same 'iguana' and have in parallel universes one that eats salt or one that does not and they could equally argue that they were dong the best approach. People need to have quantifiable evidence of superiority before they say this or that is bad. I am not a moderator but CK has said the same thing in regard to roony, william etc...its totally one thing to claim what is good or bad from your own experience of BOTH, but not to say the same zombie line is best for everyone - which is exactly your viewpoint I believe. I think you are either consciously or not turning a blind eye to alot of activity if you think i'm just ranting about issues unique to instincto not being for me. The issue is that people should model their own lifestyles and not force them upon others. This criticism is entirely separate from any attempts at criticizing peoples right to make their own choices for themselves. These choices I would not care about or comment on even if I secretly thought they were wrong or whatever.
-
The trouble is that most of us have given such advice to newbies in the welcome forum or in reply to 1st posts on other forums here.If someone has been encountering problems and has been consuming raw milk, I have routinely suggested that they cut out raw dairy, given my own experience. I have even sometimes mentioned cautions against raw dairy when the person had not yet stated having any general problems(something along the lines of mentioning in passing re problems with raw dairy being a common problem in RVAF diet, so suggesting caution etc.). And it's the same with many other members, not just william. We all like to offer our own experience, so we all give conflicting advice re the benefits of raw, zero-carb, raw omnivorous palaeo, primal diet etc..Perfectly natural, and newbies can then choose which path to follow, depending on whether their experiences match 1 or more other peoples' accounts/studies or whatever. And Iguana is actually very laid-back, not another william clone at all. I mean there is no william-like rubbish from him about non-Instinctos being somehow evil and the like.
What would be ghastly is if we were all rather vague and suggested trying out a variety of different dietary ideas, but never strongly recommending any particular one. I doubt that would inspire confidence, as it would suggest that none of us were very convinced that our particular dietary combinations worked(indeed other groups which adopted that neutral approach usually appear to have failed in the end due to lack of interest among members). More to the point, we are largely separated from each other by 100s or 1000s of miles from each other, so it is rather difficult to impose one's views on others - ultimately, everyone makes their own decisions.
-
sigh. you are missing the point. I've already conceded in the past that since the umbrella of the site is indeed paleo that what you are saying is fine in regard to milk or blatantly non raw stuff (even if people are just listing their diet and hold no particular view- I guess) particular if people DO have experience with them and arn't just quoting from some concept about what is right.
the issues I brought up are separate and include the response to you about GCB NEVER mentioning problems with too much meat or being at all close to veganism are just not right and similar things consistently distort other conversations into instincto arguments and are never conceded. The comments in the primal forum were just not accurate and reflected nothing other than the dogma of instinco, and then I have to get in an argument about whether instincto is indeed dogmatic? why should I have to waste my time like this? then there is extreme assurededness that so-and-so had cut open an animal and couldn't take out milk therefore it was IMPOSSIBLE in paleo times, again even if it is admitted now you can see the problem with this typical hygienic attempt to use any strategy possible to disprove other peoples WOEs.
The cover up above about saying 'I can do what I wish in any forum and say anything' - after literally just saying that its not right to enter into discussions not knowing the whole story - is just not appropriate or true. Other people can't just make stuff up without being challenged, and they shouldn't be able to say the same stuff over and over if there is no evidence behind it or particularly if it isn't even applicable. Its not just the newbies, why should people in the high meat threads have to listen to mixing the same high meats with the same animal? if someone said that everyone had to mix high meat with 'lubrication formula' they would get a pass? over and over again?
If I suddenly welcomed every member with The Bears gospel or suggesting everyone eat 30 bananas a day, it would be all over. This isn't an issue of dairy consumption or letting people do whatever they please, its about not using the typical hygienic closed minded remarks to bully people in to paradigms that are not accurate then claiming the reverse that other things are too restrictive or artificial and don't work. Loren Lockman posts over and over about his 20+ year success on raw fruit diets to 'prove' his take on calorie restriction. To me this is absolutely identical to saying, I that now only 'I' but 'you' don' have to worry about macronutrient ratios or protein intake or any other thing because 'I' don't have any 'problems' without actually quantifying or addressing the science underneath. If someone just said that they don't do these things and don't experience drastic health problems and do ok, then that is a completely different frame.
the real unfortunate result is you have the Matt Stones and other folks who actually can produce better results on paper and in the flesh doing often abhorrent things, making any long term efforts seems just like arduous orthorexia. People are looking for the best strategies, so its not about saying do whatever, exactly, its about showing clearly what kind of results come from what, not constantly evading questions and playing the same script over and over.
-
Iguana has, though, at times provided links to scientific claims, studies or books to back his claims - nor does he go over the top like william who suggested that we could become immortal via raw, zero-carb diets etc..As for Matt Stone, there are a number of reasons(based on scientific studies among others) why I find his claims pretty dubious.- I mean, compared to someone more science-based like Cordain or Eades, he isn't really too reliable.
I'm anyway none too worried re strict adherence to a particular dietary paradigm. I am after all well aware that there are a number of Primal Dieters who believe absolutely 100 percent of everything AV says, despite some efforts of mine in the past, and some of the less than reliable claims of AV. That's their choice - I am sure that some of them may have had no issues whatsoever with raw dairy or anything else that AV recommends, so as long as it works for them, it's not my concern. I'm not going to be ever able to convince the really hardcore believers, anyway, and, besides, I secretly like the notion of a wide variety of different dietary viewpoints within rawpalaeo, Instincto, primal or otherwise.
-
Some of the people on the primal forums are equally insufferable and possibly even more dogmatic, who cares. Its certainly not an environment I want to be around or learn from so I won't post there even if I was interested. two wrongs don't make a right and this isn't about which philosophies are best or even right at this point. If you recognize people make a number of things work,then obviously people can't stand behind being alive as any kind of defense. I'm sure there are plenty of scientific articles that validate a raw highly omnivorous diet, but we need the minutiae to say the actual methods will produce whatever needs the person wants whether that is overcoming specific disease to athletic pursuits in comparison to other approaches. Many leaders who are in the vegan community for the same amount of time, as well as Aajonus as well as a huge component of the traditional paleo and primal communities have millions of studies on the harmful nature of high fruit diets down to specifics. Many people live for the same periods on all fruit, so again who cares particularly if many of them ended up living tortured lives that died prematurely.
If people are actually just sharing their experiences, its not a problem. If people are making blanket statements about nature which are wrong, or trying to pull from nature to apply to all complex situations of which they don't - and stating these as facts, this is the same as making claims about immortality as far as I am concerned. In many ways its worse considering its actually disguised in a way to make people feel stupid or inadequate, when people are in fact far more intelligent in applying critical thinking to situations on top of how things seem to appear in nature. you seem to always turn these things about dairy or PD stuff, but again how about recommending 30 bananas or Coprophagia to all the new members? To me the double standard is considered acceptable because there is a huge shift towards a more centrist omnivory - which I almost agree with - but to me there is a certain ethics and general policy that is being ignored for this reason.
-
Well, we will have to agree to disagree. I, for one, do not view Instincto as being anywhere near as bad as coprophagia or cooked diets, indeed it avoids many of the pitfalls associated with cooked diets or non-palaeodiets, and is (mostly) in agreement with a rawpaleodiet in general ideas.
Come to think of it, Iguana mentions eating things like raw moufflon etc., so can hardly be considered anti-meat, as an individual.
-
(...) but again how about recommending 30 bananas or Coprophagia to all the new members? To me the double standard is considered acceptable because there is a huge shift towards a more centrist omnivory - which I almost agree with - but to me there is a certain ethics and general policy that is being ignored for this reason.
??? ??? You just keep on writing and writing endless intricate phrases and irrelevant stuff which is inappropriate here, wasting your time and ours. If you want explanations or have questions about the instincto theory and practice, this is the right thread. For other subjects such as expressing you personal resent with me, you can go somewhere else or PM your diatribes directly to me.
-
Well, we will have to agree to disagree. I, for one, do not view Instincto as being anywhere near as bad as coprophagia or cooked diets, indeed it avoids many of the pitfalls associated with cooked diets or non-palaeodiets, and is (mostly) in agreement with a rawpaleodiet in general ideas.
Come to think of it, Iguana mentions eating things like raw moufflon etc., so can hardly be considered anti-meat, as an individual.
on what terms can you prove these things are worse for each individual, not sweeping studies about cooked food toxins or dairy allergies? there are people that eat 30 bananas a day that claim to have excellent results but they can't repeatably post the same stuff without question. Would it matter if the same person with the same definitive mindset decided to eat a little bit of meat. I know someone that was in grahams book that is doing that very same thing but is still an asshole. its not an anti-meat thing...jesus...the notion that a little meat contradicts the documented issues with high fruit diets is incredibly naive - the issues high fruit veg run into are far worse than standard cooked vegetarian diets and have VERY LITTLE to do with deficiency in the way we would think about it- but I really don't want to get in those specific arguments anymore.
The precise point is health is not about just avoiding bad shit, its about doing things. Countless people go astray just trying to avoid bad shit and do whatever. some people might go astray following protocols but at the end of the day there is going to be a formula for success that goes beyond avoiding wrongs. this is so crucial to understanding the difference between making a comment that is helpful or one that comes form dogma. To come into an argument and say that people are wrong for going by macro nutrients over instinct is incorrect and inappropriate if they can not prove the results are superior. I don't see how you can debate this or say because it otherwise ignores 'neolithic' food it is ok. this is just wrong. It doesn't even make sense the nwith the acknowledgment that people on other approaches could do well or better, how would that be possible with doing all the things labeled wrong?
??? ??? You just keep on writing and writing endless intricate phrases and irrelevant stuff which is inappropriate here, wasting your time and ours. If you want explanations or have questions about the instincto theory and practice, this is the right thread. For other subjects such as expressing you personal resent with me, you can go somewhere else or PM your diatribes directly to me.
ok man, please begin answering my questions in this thread that were unanswered previously. Or start with the ones within the last 24 hours that you ignored to say I somehow slandered your GCB quote of which the exact information was included in the quote you posted. you are the one attacking my arguments, not the content, while you have contradicted yourself just in the last 24 hours visibly.
-
First, if you want me to answer your questions, you should stop insulting me and apologize for treating me a liar and dishonest guy. Next, express them in a clear and easily understandable way, so that I wont have to spend hours trying to figure out what you mean. Third, avoid asking 50 intricate questions in the same post. Fourth, wait until I find the time to answer.
I’m just volunteering here to help people, I’m not a shareholder of “Instincto Inc.” and I’m under no mandatory obligation to answer any question, moreover to every warped obscure point you belligerently raise. I actually have a lot of work and I may answer or may not, according to my good will, time availability, knowledge or ignorance.
And I suggest you once again to read GCB’s book and calmly think about it before wasting time in writing endless posts.
-
First, if you want me to answer your questions, you should stop insulting me and apologize for treating me a liar and dishonest guy. Next, express them in a clear and easily understandable way, so that I wont have to spend hours trying to figure out what you mean. Third, avoid asking 50 intricate questions in the same post. Fourth, wait until I find the time to answer.
I’m just volunteering here to help people, I’m not a shareholder of “Instincto Inc.” and I’m no under no mandatory obligation to answer any question, moreover to every warped obscure point you belligerently raise. I actually have a lot of work and I may answer or may not, according to my good will, time availability, knowledge or ignorance.
And I suggest you once again to read GCB’s book and calmly think about it before wasting time in writing endless posts.
please analyze the rage in your own responses first my friend and I think you might find mine more appropriate and content driven than yours which have basically 0 but defensiveness. My first post in the last 24 hours could have been my last if you merely addressed the content and the undeniable notion that you often will present your opinions as facts and in inappropriate settings and have no proof that what other people are doing is in fact wrong when you present it as such. In addition, i'm pretty sure you have presented yourself dishonestly numerous times, as well as skirted over issues you know you cannot defend or prove multiple times in this thread and elsewhere. I really don't expect you to ever answer any questions of which there are no reasonable answers or change your habits, so why would I waste even more energy PMing you? At least here its on record that you don't feel like you have to answer to other people. I can see that it is very easy for you dismiss what I write for using terms like Coprophagia, but I'd 100% honestly eat a little shit then follow such dogmatic ideas about the world that would jeopardize my health and others in more precarious spots. I'm not responsible for the fact that conversations go on without you or that English isn't your first language. Pretty sure much of what I raised is not obscure to the average person here who can understand ideas like
"we need the minutiae to say the actual methods will produce whatever needs the person wants whether that is overcoming specific disease to athletic pursuits in comparison to other approaches. "
or that there is something wrong with saying "I can enter every thread I like and write what I want".
-
i'm pretty sure you have presented yourself dishonestly numerous times (...) At least here its on record that you don't feel like you have to answer to other people.
Yeah, sure I don't feel that I have to answer to people who are continuously insulting me. ;D
-
Yeah, sure I don't feel that I have to answer to people who are continuously insulting me. ;D
or anyone else on the forum who quesitons instincto ever....with any amount of effort that can't be answered in blanket statements.
good to know you are happy with how you are coming across.
yes lets
The only thing worse than the actual philosophy is the downright hypocritical and pretentious dismissals of anything that isn't such a flawed philosophy and hidden behind such concepts as "the natural". The constant blabbering about what a caveman would do or how x, y, z is not crucial or relevant to health based on some fantasy, might mean absolute failure for alot of people if the large part of people here were not too intelligent here to fall for it.
for the record your ego is too precious to respond to this as anything but a personal attack?..and you have no responsibility for the subsequent posts. umm ok. at least i'll take my responsibility.
-
Amiable questions gets courteous and comprehensive answers:
http://www.rawpaleoforum.com/general-discussion/request-for-information-pertaining-to-inflammatory-conditions/msg56478/#msg56478
http://www.rawpaleoforum.com/general-discussion/request-for-information-pertaining-to-inflammatory-conditions/msg56665/#msg56665
http://www.rawpaleoforum.com/instinctoanopsology/explain-instincto-diet-fully-2/msg56985/#msg56985
But your post
The only thing worse than the actual philosophy is the downright hypocritical and pretentious dismissals of anything that isn't such a flawed philosophy and hidden behind such concepts as "the natural". The constant blabbering about what a caveman would do or how x, y, z is not crucial or relevant to health based on some fantasy, might mean absolute failure for alot of people if the large part of people here were not too intelligent here to fall for it. I'll focus just on this aspect as I think it is sufficient.
looks like a stack of blatant affirmations rather than questions.
-
Amiable questions gets courteous and comprehensive answers:
http://www.rawpaleoforum.com/general-discussion/request-for-information-pertaining-to-inflammatory-conditions/msg56478/#msg56478
http://www.rawpaleoforum.com/general-discussion/request-for-information-pertaining-to-inflammatory-conditions/msg56665/#msg56665
http://www.rawpaleoforum.com/instinctoanopsology/explain-instincto-diet-fully-2/msg56985/#msg56985
are you seriously posting that you have answered quesitons before? looks like maybe conservatively a 1.3/3 in my book as far as being free of what i'm talking about. I won't stoop to posting the the other 500 or so. I'm referring to my first post in this thread in months, and you tried to frame it in an incredibly dishonest way which anyone can see instead of actually addressing the points. If you want to pic and choose what you respond to and throw out insults yourself, don't complain about the fallout.
-
See previous page, I just edited my answer.
Now, I'm fed up with you. It seems you have you nothing else to do than typing and typing over again on your keyboard, flooding this thread and others as well.
-
See previous page, I just edited my answer.
oh man...ANYTHING you can say but actually responding to the points raised. people respond to points all the time on forums, its called discussion. but you do what you want whenever you please..I understand
how am i doing anything but responding to your antics? you havn't once addressed anything i wrote re instincto or your posts on my complaits about other postings, yet i constantly specifically respond to you. I should be the one upset, but am not. always the same. always taking time to respond carefully and adress what people write.
-
I should be the one upset, but am not. always the same. always taking time to respond carefully and adress what people write.
Good on you. Have a Merry X-mas.
-
on what terms can you prove these things are worse for each individual, not sweeping studies about cooked food toxins or dairy allergies? there are people that eat 30 bananas a day that claim to have excellent results but they can't repeatably post the same stuff without question. Would it matter if the same person with the same definitive mindset decided to eat a little bit of meat. I know someone that was in grahams book that is doing that very same thing but is still an asshole. its not an anti-meat thing...jesus...the notion that a little meat contradicts the documented issues with high fruit diets is incredibly naive - the issues high fruit veg run into are far worse than standard cooked vegetarian diets and have VERY LITTLE to do with deficiency in the way we would think about it- but I really don't want to get in those specific arguments anymore.
That is merely your opinion. Mine and plenty of others, though, have only had issues(when raw vegan) with deficiencies in the long-term, and not had other short-term issues not related to deficiency as such - not suggesting that applies to all, but you can't just blindly state such as a fact.
As for the issues re cooked foods affecting individuals, you have a very long way to go before you can suggest that cooked foods are healthy for 1 or 2 individuals in all cases:- there are now many, many thousands of studies focusing on heat-created toxins such as AGEs etc. Some of those studies focus on the specific damage done to human cells in vitro, so one cannot claim that they are only generalised studies or whatever nonsense.Plus, the (pro-bacteria)hygiene hypothesis is now a mainstream theory. And 2 of the types of heat-created toxins are heterocyclic amines(a known toxin also present in cigarette-smoke) and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons(also present in cigarette-smoke and a well-known by-product of coal- and tar-pits and a known chemical pollutant). For someone therefore to convincingly claim that these toxins are perfectly harmless for him/her, he/she would also have to prove that smoking was always good for the individual - a rather difficult prospect given the vast amount of scientific data focusing on the negative effects of both cooking and smoking.
As for dairy, there are certain well-known statistics re 75 percent of the world's population being lactose-intolerant - even for those who aren't allergic, they are still affected by the hormones in dairy to some extent(difficult to prove they are completely immune to hormonal effects), and of course the nutritional profile of such dairy is to get an infant herd-animal to adult size within a short period, so cannot ever be an ideal food for humans, by comparison to raw meats etc.
The precise point is health is not about just avoiding bad shit, its about doing things. Countless people go astray just trying to avoid bad shit and do whatever. some people might go astray following protocols but at the end of the day there is going to be a formula for success that goes beyond avoiding wrongs. this is so crucial to understanding the difference between making a comment that is helpful or one that comes form dogma. To come into an argument and say that people are wrong for going by macro nutrients over instinct is incorrect and inappropriate if they can not prove the results are superior. I don't see how you can debate this or say because it otherwise ignores 'neolithic' food it is ok. this is just wrong. It doesn't even make sense then with the acknowledgment that people on other approaches could do well or better, how would that be possible with doing all the things labeled wrong?
Well, I have always viewed a raw, palaeolithic diet as a diet which is ALL about avoiding things:- specifically avoiding cooked/processed foods and non-palaeo foods. Indeed, given the many different interpretations of what "palaeo" means on cooked-palaeo forums, I have stated previously that the only safe interpretation, therefore, is what "palaeo" is NOT.
As for the issue re dogma, I also am none too fond on focusing on macronutrients as that can sometimes lead to excessive obsession with daily dietary calculations and have often liked to play things by feel in the past. I wish someone had told me to trust my instincts right when I first started as I would have cut out all raw dairy much earlier from my diet instead of constantly looking pathetically for affirmation from Aajonus and others re how to get used to raw dairy.
*OH, there was some mention re my mention of primal dieters. I was actually referring to a few of the primal dieters on rawpaleoforum, not other primal diet forums elsewhere.*
-
That is merely your opinion. Mine and plenty of others, though, have only had issues(when raw vegan) with deficiencies in the long-term, and not had other short-term issues not related to deficiency as such - not suggesting that applies to all, but you can't just blindly state such as a fact.
Tyler I really don't see how dairy or toxins has anything to do with this as usual. huge portions of the world live on a vegetarian diet to some degree of existence/health, whereas many people find it difficult to living on raw veg diets in the 1-2.3-5.5-10 year etc..range. Sure the vegetarian aspect is a problem from our perspective alone, but there are issues related to raw fruit that don't apply to even less than 'ideal' neolithic foods apparently. I have more information on this but it seems kind of overkill at this juncture. That is the point and the reason one can't make blanket statements about such things as good or bad even for people trying to follow an optimal diet. a 100% raw diet of whatever combinations MIGHT not be as healthful as diets with the things your are criticising. So to expand on that..just because someone is eating raw paleo doesn't mean they are going to be having the greatest results if they aren't eating the most appropriate diet for their needs. Unless one can prove for certain that following instincto leads to that result over all other approaches, it has no place in discrediting other strategies in other forums without stating it as an opinon or just what works for that person and must provide actual measurable results if questioned.
-
Tyler I really don't see how dairy or toxins has anything to do with this as usual. huge portions of the world live on a vegetarian diet to some degree of existence/health, whereas many people find it difficult to living on raw veg diets in the 1-2.3-5.5-10 year etc..range. Sure the vegetarian aspect is a problem from our perspective alone, but there are issues related to raw fruit that don't apply to even less than 'ideal' neolithic foods apparently. I have more information on this but it seems kind of overkill at this juncture. That is the point and the reason one can't make blanket statements about such things as good or bad even for people trying to follow an optimal diet. a 100% raw diet of whatever combinations MIGHT not be as healthful as diets with the things your are criticising. So to expand on that..just because someone is eating raw paleo doesn't mean they are going to be having the greatest results if they aren't eating the most appropriate diet for their needs. Unless one can prove for certain that following instincto leads to that result over all other approaches, it has no place in discrediting other strategies in other forums without stating it as an opinon or just what works for that person and must provide actual measurable results if questioned.
Re comment "So to expand on that..just because someone is eating raw paleo doesn't mean they are going to be having the greatest results if they aren't eating the most appropriate diet for their needs":- That's fine. Obviously, everybody has a different take based on their own experimentation:- some people thrive on just a raw, omnivorous palaeo diet, others only on raw zero-carb or the primal diet or even on the instincto diet. So, IMO, it is only natural that in the welcome forum I often suggest a raw, omnivorous diet, PP/Lex/Wodgina or some other RZCer advocate a raw, zero-carb diet and Iguana an Instincto Diet, based on our experiences etc.. Also, the definition of Instincto seems to change from person to person:- I know of Instincto communities in Germany, for example, who view Instincto as being 100 percent raw vegan, while some other Instinctos eat mostly raw meats(though I'll grant that the core eat mostly raw plant foods plus a much smaller percentage of raw animal foods).
As for the cooked-vegetarianism/raw vegan comparison, that isn't really fair - an honest comparison would be between cooked vegetarianism and raw vegetarianism, or cooked vegan to raw vegan. I suspect that, given the nutrient profiles and the effects of cooking(and my own experiences and others'), the raw equivalent would be the winner, healthwise, in each case, though not, of course, in all aspects as antinutrients in veg get reduced via cooking.
But the point is that it is reasonable, given scientific data and the lack of problem foods like dairy/cooked foods, to assume that some people thrive long-term on a diet of lots of raw plant foods plus a few raw animal foods, since such a diet could still provide all the necessary nutrients. SkinnyDevil appears to be one such example of a success on such a diet.
-
I follow some aspects of instincto, even before I read much about it I began to tune my diet based on what I was craving and also began to avoid foods I believed were causing me problems. I did need the support of differing view points in order to affirm some of my suspicions about how dairy was not optimal or that one could live well on an extremely low carb diet.
I believe that all view points can give valuable insight into what makes for an optimal diet, but in the end it is up to the individual to filter out what does not fit into ones personal needs, which is often a very difficult task if you consider how different one person can be from the next in regards to nutritional requirements and tolerances. Also many people have been so altered by past issues that they may not be able to trust there instincts and really do need to be guided by the advice of others in order to find out what works for them. If it wasn't for this forrum I would not of so quickly discovered that there are better alternatives to the primal diet that I first began to experiment with. I believe that Av has a bit of truth in what he says and does, but I also believe that some of what he recommends does not apply to everyone and for people who cant tolerate dairy and green drinks his protocol could end up causing some problems.
To live a whole lifetime on modern foods can leave us without our senses and unable to trust our instincts. Durring the early adaptions to a paleo diet there are moments were decisions have to be made on very crucial issues and I don't think many people can go by instinct alone, I had some basic intuition about things when I was beginning to adapt, I was driven to heal and once I began to feel better I started to really focus on what I need to do to optimise my diet. This open forrum is the best source out there I have found of information that is on the cutting edge of what works for individuals as well as what doesn't work, in regards to the raw paleo diet. I believe that one must at least consider all that is available when seeking out an optimal path that will lead to a positive transformation. There are so many variables to success that no one philosophy can possible encapsulate a universal truth when it comes to dietary dogma.
I have many of my own theory's that are somewhat out there. I think many people who attempt this diet and fail are doing something wrong, although because of the limited information they often post, it is hard to make out what the real issue is. Many people who begin this diet are not willing to give it 100% and they still do things like take harmfull dietry supplements, (even things like synthetic vitamin C can be harmful) I threw out all of my supplements when I began this diet and from my past experience I have become skeptical about the use of synthetic vitamins either taken by supplement or placed into our food as vitamin D is put in Milk. . Some might also hang on to troublesome foods and keep insisting that its good for them even though their health isn't being improved. We cant possibly make healthy recommendations for people who are holding on to some harmful pratice that they refuse to let go of, considering the limited information that is presented before us.
I think the forrum works best If we all just explain things from our personal experience and then pepper our perspective with reason, derived from our own research and validated by our own practice.
-
As for the cooked-vegetarianism/raw vegan comparison, that isn't really fair - an honest comparison would be between cooked vegetarianism and raw vegetarianism, or cooked vegan to raw vegan. I suspect that, given the nutrient profiles and the effects of cooking(and my own experiences and others'), the raw equivalent would be the winner, healthwise, in each case, though not, of course, in all aspects as antinutrients in veg get reduced via cooking.
there is just huge libraries of information on why this is not the case coming from all levels of 'experts' as well as anecdotal experience whch gets to the core of this raw-whatever beats cooked-or-neolithic-whatever falsity.
Just because one can prove to a large degree on paper that raw food is healthier than cooked or that mono eating is more efficient for digestion does not make these concepts applicable to every situation. this isn't my opinion or something one can even agree to disagree I think either, the results are all around and measurable. This isn't some dairy or cooked food diet validation. the difference between me and dogma is I can eat 100% raw paleo food sequentially and mono and not place emphasis on these being necessary or even beneficial constructs for others' situations - because all situations are complex and because even the science in the end can't account for every variable in the human body.
You are doing the same exact thing as before in putting seniority over those who have made something work over the vast serious documented issues with a variety of things, which is actually THE unfair comparison and can validate ANY approach and should not be fuel for any serious discussion without quantifiable results. What I listed is the vast research amongst various (equally long term) experts as well as massive anecdotal response and just plain common sense. The issue as I said has nothing to do with deficiency (from meat - being vegetarian) or anti-nutrients - you are glazing over all the 'unknowns' as well as the knowns in advanced science unique to raw sugars, detoxification and cleansing and the like which make it possible for cooked diets to be less dangerous. This is so crucial again to understanding why any raw and paleo is better arguments do not work. its too simplistic to assessing the entire equation.
I can recommend a 100% raw diet and recognize that many permutations of 100% raw even if one was to eat the same exact foods as before (if this is possible) will not necessarily result in good health or even superior to what they were doing.
In my opinion, skinnydevil, phil, wodg, and lex are pretty good with saying what works for them and don't phrase things in absolutist terms to others or say just because they are alive that their diet is the best for everyone in all situations without giving concrete evidence. and will repeat as before that anyone suggesting vegan or pemmican options in the welcoming forum would in the very least degenerate into useless and alienating argument for newbies.
The suggestion that people just avoid neolithic food and eat any raw paleo food - assuming paleo foods can include and exclude any number and quantity of foods known as 'paleo' in all kingdoms, is just wrong, and there should be no serious discussion around it. Just because some experts in the PANU, Primal Blueptrint, The Paleo Diet, or ZC etc...might be incorrectly micromanaging their intake, does not in the reverse that a liberal or instinctive approach is superior for nutrition, healing or else unless it can be proven. The difference as to why it is so important for the naturists to disprove others is obvious with what I pointed out in hygiene conversation:
Anyway, this is why its quite common for instance for fruitarians in particular - other then the vegan issue- to attack other WOEs, because unlike peoples variations here on raw paleo, other peoples successes totally invalidate their rationale and definitions for health.
even in non fruitarians you can see this same logic unfortunately
"in spite of X" or "people can be healthy even eating x." without ever acknowledging the foods or routines could be an essential part of the purifying/healing etc...that can not be created any other way.
in other words one single success on any neolithic practice whether it be food or healing protocl through food or otherwise is enough to debunk that in all cases people just need to do what is natural to get well. people just doing natural practices and being alive does not trump that these other things can be totally necessary for health or even survival.
-
....In my opinion, skinnydevil, phil, wodg, and lex are pretty good with saying what works for them and don't phrase things in absolutist terms to others or say just because they are alive that their diet is the best for everyone in all situations without giving concrete evidence. ....
Thanks, KD, I try to do that as best I can. I have found Lex's open-minded, non-absolutist style to be generally excellent and I try to learn from it.
One of my worst fears would be for someone to blindly mimic what I'm doing, ignore what their body tells them, and end up ill as a result. It's one reason I originally didn't want to do a journal. I imagine that it's something that every diet or health author/expert/guru must face at some point. No matter how many warnings or caveats an author makes, someone is bound to miss them and instead latch onto certain of her/his ideas and get into trouble. Thus most gurus that have been around long enough have some people attributing cures to them and others blaming the gurus for their ill health.
Another concern of mine is that what works for me today might not work for me years from now and I might end up changing my mind about what's healthy for me and potentially others. For example, I used to think that eating plenty of fruits and veggies was a no brainer, whereas now I think that "no brainer" is a better description of the amount of critical thinking I applied to that assumption.
-
there is just huge libraries of information on why this is not the case coming from all levels of 'experts' as well as anecdotal experience whch gets to the core of this raw-whatever beats cooked-or-neolithic-whatever falsity.
Just because one can prove to a large degree on paper that raw food is healthier than cooked or that mono eating is more efficient for digestion does not make these concepts applicable to every situation. this isn't my opinion or something one can even agree to disagree I think either, the results are all around and measurable. This isn't some dairy or cooked food diet validation. the difference between me and dogma is I can eat 100% raw paleo food sequentially and mono and not place emphasis on these being necessary or even beneficial constructs for others' situations - because all situations are complex and because even the science in the end can't account for every variable in the human body.
You are doing the same exact thing as before in putting seniority over those who have made something work over the vast serious documented issues with a variety of things, which is actually THE unfair comparison and can validate ANY approach and should not be fuel for any serious discussion without quantifiable results. What I listed is the vast research amongst various (equally long term) experts as well as massive anecdotal response and just plain common sense. The issue as I said has nothing to do with deficiency (from meat - being vegetarian) or anti-nutrients - you are glazing over all the 'unknowns' as well as the knowns in advanced science unique to raw sugars, detoxification and cleansing and the like which make it possible for cooked diets to be less dangerous. This is so crucial again to understanding why any raw and paleo is better arguments do not work. its too simplistic to assessing the entire equation.
Call me a cynic/realist but I do get the impression there is a lot of verbiage here but no real substance to it - sort of argument just for argument's sake. The issue re a particular dietary approach not always working for every single individual is meaningless:- not even Instinctos anyway favour a specific approach, as different Instinctos from different regions eat more or less raw meats according to their beliefs, and many Instinctos constantly change their dietary patterns in accordance with their ever-changing daily instincts, anyway!
As for the issue re cooked foods being supposedly healthier, I have already demolished the notion re mention of heat-created toxins, and many, many other additional factors exist re bacteria , allergenicity etc.. Now, granted in highly unusual circumstances, one can go to extremes and end up with more problems than on a cooked food diet if one eats a diet of 100 percent raw avocadoes and water, for example, but no one here does such extreme diets, not even the Instinctos. And while there are very unusual physical conditions that certain very rare individuals might have which a rawpalaeodiet could likely never cure, such as a severely damaged stomach or a unique (gene-based?) inability to digest any kind of fat whatsoever, people here generally advise going to a doctor for surgery or whatever as that is far more effective than a cooked diet could ever be.And that's not taking into account all those wild animals who seem to do fine without needing cooked diets.
I can recommend a 100% raw diet and recognize that many permutations of 100% raw even if one was to eat the same exact foods as before (if this is possible) will not necessarily result in good health or even superior to what they were doing.
In my opinion, skinnydevil, phil, wodg, and lex are pretty good with saying what works for them and don't phrase things in absolutist terms to others or say just because they are alive that their diet is the best for everyone in all situations without giving concrete evidence. and will repeat as before that anyone suggesting vegan or pemmican options in the welcoming forum would in the very least degenerate into useless and alienating argument for newbies.
Actually, there was a period where Lex was very fanatically anti-carb indeed, going on a personal crusade, along with Satya and others against a certain other (raw omnivorous) member I won't mention. But he mellowed out after a while.
As for this business of comments, I don't think iguana solely said that people should follow his diet just because he'd been doing it for ages. He has mentioned in passing to me on open forum how long he's been doing Instincto, but so do other people sometimes mention how long they've been a RVAFer. As for me, if I had been doing a rawpalaeodiet for as long as 23 years(as Iguana has), I would be quite proud thereof and mention it rather more frequently than Iguana - indeed, I recently have mentioned my doing almost a decade of rawpalaeo in passing, here and there.
The basic point is this:- Instincto is a type of rawpalaeodiet just like any other, and therefore has just as much right to be here on rawpaleoforum as all the other types. Some members here, myself included, have also found that small or large portions of Instincto theories have worked well for them, and that's good enough of a reason to have it here.
I do get the impression, given a past unrelated discussion (re paleo man being stronger/weaker than modern man), that all the above might be motivated more by a personal dislike on your part, of any suggestion to follow "Nature" or "instinct", which is what Instincto is all about.
[/quote]
-
Actually, there was a period where Lex was very fanatically anti-carb indeed, going on a personal crusade, along with Satya and others against a certain other (raw omnivorous) member I won't mention. But he mellowed out after a while.
Lex has admitted to past errors. I think KD was referring to Lex's current style, not the past. No point in dredging up old ghosts.
I do think the overall discussion would be improved if it were kept to the facts and avoided insults, and I think this may be part of what Tyler is getting at, right TD? It does seem that this one has gotten overheated.
-
Lex has admitted to past errors. I think KD was referring to Lex's current style, not the past. No point in dredging up old ghosts.
Well, I just think this thread is meant to be about explaining the Instincto philosophy, and shouldn't be derailed. Naturally, if people have tried Instincto, or parts thereof, they can mention the positive or negative effects they got from it in other threads.
-
Call me a cynic/realist but I do get the impression there is a lot of verbiage here but no real substance to it - sort of argument just for argument's sake.
I’m Iguana ex-wife.
Tyler, I think you’re missing KD’s point, which Iguana better understands know after an amiable exchange of PMs in which KD kindly asked him to leave him alone since he had definitely established the indubitable fact he’s been telling all along this thread : Iguanas are horrifying animals with a big head and small muscles (see pic below) and your Iguana is a trolling dishonest liar. KD plainly proved it by the fact that Iguana asked “what’s the reason for not drinking plain water?” on the primal diet section and subsequently wrote “I didn’t read AV and therefore I do not comment about his ideas”.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/4/48/Caribbean_iguana.jpg/399px-Caribbean_iguana.jpg)
I do think the overall discussion would be improved if it were kept to the facts and avoided insults, and I think this may be part of what Tyler is getting at, right TD? It does seem that this one has gotten overheated.
Iguana was shortly distressed for being told the truth about what he really is by KD, but now he doesn’t care at all since Iguanas are very dreadful and resilient animals with the toughest skin of every animal on this planet.
Merry Christmas!
-
Call me a cynic
The basic point is this:- Instincto is a type of rawpalaeodiet just like any other, and therefore has just as much right to be here on rawpaleoforum as all the other types. Some members here, myself included, have also found that small or large portions of Instincto theories have worked well for them, and that's good enough of a reason to have it here.
I do get the impression, given a past unrelated discussion (re paleo man being stronger/weaker than modern man), that all the above might be motivated more by a personal dislike on your part, of any suggestion to follow "Nature" or "instinct", which is what Instincto is all about.
ok, you are a cynic. read Fred Bisci, Brian Clement, and Gabriel Cousens who have accumulated over 100 years of research between them on why this does not apply to just avocados and water or usual conditions. I won't even begin to bring up Art Devany, Dr. Harris and others in re: the rest. Although I'm sure you can figure out a way to dismiss the entirely of what I am saying by dwelling on that. The actual health of the diet is totally open to question, that part is not definitive, but the idea that you can make such blanket comments on cooked or neolithic foods over any permutation of raw foods is just false (not my opinion) and exactly because people can't post behind Aajonus or the Bear or Loren Lockman's longevity means no one else should be able to when pressed up against a wall.
sure you can say that is a general personal feeling of mine, absolutely, which makes much of what i'm saying not an all on Iguana specifically but to a particular mindset present and not just in instincto. Clearly you share it with with your constant claims that because you can prove the unfaithfulness of something based on a few studies. That therefore anything that is opposite will be healthier while ignoring pretty much of the exact studies showing the opposite or proved by people who have done 100% raw diets and gone back to 'less ideal' approaches or even healthful things like including animal foods (cooked or raw) to greater success than the orthodoxy they were driven to by gurus and studies of the dangers of cooked foods.
survey this thread in its entirety and you will find multiple times where I acknowledge that the 'diet' itself is not -at least always - dangerous - mostly taking issue to the suggestion to others that in all cases it will be better than other approaches because of some pretention that nature works in some set way that is perfect and for all settings and conditions. even if it does, we need to establish in all cases that this mindset will trump any other man made concept for any desired results, if it is going to be given such carte blanche in other threads regrading a variety of issues in paleo or non-paleo concepts.
Perhaps I should not have posted on combing both the dogmatic and physical issues I have with things to avoid confusion. I have made claims against the diet in physical terms (high fruits) etc..but largely these are indeed my personal beliefs backed up with some sayings of others...butt the parts I listed above where you can claim what is natural, non-neolithic -in comparison to ANYTHING paleo and in any combination is just absolutely false without debate. You don't even have to go to extremes of avocado and water to find multiple counterpoint or personal examples proving the obvious, that wellness isn't so delineated to black and white.
of course there is a place for instincto even in the general discussion but particularly if people are not planning on delving into the listed adjustments and practices necessary to become a full fledged instincto, what good is them discarding their false ratios and egg eating in favor of no ratios and egg smelling? Can one prove this will be the healthy choice for all members in all conditions?
Once again, there is a total difference between saying, "I am a veteran raw foodists and this is what works for me"..and blatantly saying what other people re doing is wrong because it "goes against the nature". So yes i'll admit very much that that is my main issue of which I think takes more importance than any personal feelings good or bad towards individual members.
---
as for the above, whether that is a complete joke on me, its entirely appreciated in spirit.
I would disagree on the toughest skin, thats clearly a joke. my first post a few days contained some definitive and aggressive language, but there was plenty to pick apart without taking it personally, no more than any other discussion here and certainly not in breaking of any forum rules or worthy of personal threats to my gmail on Christmas eve when I had already attempted to break the endless array of back and forth containing literally no actual content or responses to the issues raised other than a equivalent or greater in personal attacks.
cheers, happy hollidays
-
My vote is to keep the instincto forum clear of all this alphagruis like bashing.
Let's be consistent and keep on topic.
Any anti-instincto bashing, not welcome in the instincto forum, so post these bashings in hot topics.
Just being consistent with other sections such as the zero carbers shouldn't be bashing raw omnivore.
Just as anti-aajonus shouldn't be bashing in Primal diet.
-------------------
I have a personal vested interest in Instincto and I believe we have a lot to learn for the decades of experience of the French.
-
Just being consistent with other sections
-------------------
I have a personal vested interest in Instincto and I believe we have a lot to learn for the decades of experience of the French.
That seems very confusing to me. The discussion deals both with the diets principles as well as the reach of instincto concepts into other forums. The very discussion of 'nature' vs 'healing' I think ultimately impacts much of what you are involved in which go against instincto hard-line policies. Honestly, this seems to be some kind of 'respect' or placation rather than a true understanding of the kind of issues being brought forward. The very reason I'm positing here, as aI already mentioned is the constant inappropriate dropping of instincto ideas into other forums of which primals, carnivores cannot equally get by with. Anyway, cristisms don't automatically equal bashing, and yet far worse bashing does take place in those settings you mention. The only one I have seen enforced is here and in regard to carnivore concepts in the omnivore threads. never in the primal or carnivore forums are people not aloud to criticize such things or bring up personal results and applicable (not ideas pulled from some singular concept of health) issues.
http://www.rawpaleoforum.com/instinctoanopsology/explain-instincto-diet-fully-2/msg57461/#msg57461
I said this before but if someone can explain to me how these arn't legitimate points in discussion to concepts related to instincto. the first paragraph to me appears to bare the more 'aggressive' content, with overall nothing particularly defamatory or unfair to individuals or ideas other than pointing out that some information was misgiven on another thread. Quite frankly its very comprehensive to both issues with the diet, and with the proselytizing. If people are able to express whatever ideas in the common forums without having to defend their ideology - there should be a location people can reference that is easy to find in that ideologies sub-forum. Just as people in Primal or Carnivore forums should be aloud to bring up issues which such, if they have a basis that isn't totally simplistic or equally dogmatic.
-
I’m all in favor of discussion and criticisms. No point to have a forum if everyone agrees.
But attacks against persons, abuse and insults are unproductive and unwelcome. Critics should be formulated serenely, clearly, concisely and be based on verified facts, so that answers can be equally serene and constructive. Once the debate turns into insults, it becomes impossible to progress since one tend to focalize on it and thus forget the sensible criticism, if there is any.
You came into the debate with a whole flaming paragraph. Then you quoted some extracts from "Manger vrai" Editions du Rocher (1990) translated by “a friend” and purposely chosen to show that I previously wrote something wrong. I wonder why you had recourse to that translator, the whole book being freely available online in English - something you can’t ignore since I posted several times the link to it.
The outrageous thing is that those taken out of context quotes were showing GCB as anti-meat consumption while in context, it’s the best debunking of the vegetarian ideology I've never seen (http://www.rawpaleoforum.com/instinctoanopsology/explain-instincto-diet-fully-2/msg57476/#msg57476)!
In your reply you state: “By that logic alone it becomes necessary to criticize others who eat meats (…)” as if we ever criticize anyone! People are free to eat what they want without being criticized. Criticizing an ideology is something else. The most hilarious is that I eat a lot of meat and other animal food, almost everyday and as do all the long term real instinctos I know including GCB himself.
I would answer to your questions and critics as I did in my answers to PaleoPhil (the last being still not even acknowledged by Phil (http://www.rawpaleoforum.com/instinctoanopsology/explain-instincto-diet-fully-2/msg56985/#msg56985). Did you see it Phil?) but I can’t figure out what are exactly your points and your questions – except that you sought in very long and intricate diatribes to show that I’m trolling, wrong, dishonest and a liar.
Cheers
Francois
-
But attacks against persons, abuse and insults are unproductive and unwelcome. Critics should be formulated serenely, clearly, concisely and be based on verified facts, so that answers can be equally serene and constructive. Once the debate turns into insults, it becomes impossible to progress since one tend to focalize on it and thus forget the sensible criticism, if there is any.
fine, as usual you can argue to some avail that those points were taken out of context and place all your emphasis on that and still miss the point that you used the word 'never' as if to imply that it not possible that meat 'may' be a marginal thing in instincto practice. It was just a jumping off point that said indeed that you will make claims that do in fact dishonestly shape the flow of arguments to protect any smear of your guru or ideology. There was honestly nothing to get defensive about there. as those comments were correct no matter the translation, while your comment to Tyler did include falsity.
the focus on that instead of actually addressing the actual comments is so typical that it indeed leads to massive bickering over nothing of which I won't take all responsibility. You pretend often to not understand complex points, then often respond to the ones that somehow are clearly convenient and you can somehow wiggle out of in some other way. In turn bringing that up is also not slander.
Mentioning that you have in fact made comments on other forums regarding your beliefs not placed as opinions is another absolute fact on my part and this is not limited to the primal forum whatsoever. It unraveled into more such examples which you followed up with honestly more damning comments that you 'only mention that practices are neolithic' - implying there is no judgment or conclusion outside of such. The frustration lies in the very fact that I have to exert maximum effort to prove such things that are than tossed off similar to the the milk in the stomach thing. Admitting in afterthought is not the same as the reticence (endless mentioning of paleo containers and other huge speculation) expressed to defeat such a destructive notion to 'paleo' - which is another huge problem. THis as with my other comments is what ties it similar to Hygine in needing to defend any possible leak or hole that will bring down such stiff ideas.
Since you often want to dismiss the single 'wins' on my part as inconsequential. if we want to lay this our to rest, I can literally comb every comment and yet this will surely be censored or removed at this point due to shear insanity on my part. I can say for certain that the above point about never criticizing others based on how they eat is sadly false again.
how many posts do you think I could come up with of the form 'but paleo man never did x' (implying peoples situations are so simplistic as if they only have to follow such black and white thinking) before my posting has some validity to be considered?
short of that. let me just say that as I just mentioned to tyler I believe the content of what I am saying is very important regarding a number issues that have nothing to do with you specifically. Clearly you have people who agree with this logic that everything raw and paleo is better than anything documented as bad and that any documentation of proving even paleo foods can also be bad is to be dismissed- so its not exactly like I am unfairly picking on you. Since instincto involves placing huge emphasis on what still amounts to unproven concepts of how contemporary humans see reality, they are better suited in this forum as to anywhere else. If you then personally take issue with what I am saying or find it confusing. maybe you just should not respond or take it personally or feel like you have to be the sole defender every time someone runs the instincto philosophy through he mud - if that is indeed what I am doing and doing maliciously without reason. wouldn't that equally be another strategy to avoid argument?
-
---
Since obviously I am not going to actually do the combing as mentioned, let me just make perhaps might be a final remark to your 'ex-wife' that my interest in physical prowess and athletic matters is only something I would use to criticize people for - again- if they are making absolute remarks on what diet is the best for all situations. In that same first thread I mention:
The reason hominids could get by without crunching nutrients is their environment and pre-existing health was absolutely dependent on a set environment arguably conducive to survival - even when those environments shifted - and not because their instinct choose the best foods from a variety of post-industrial settings requiring no effort, ability or strength immobilized by a modern pretension of a natural diet.
perhaps if we wish to move on to some specific topic, someone can address how it is possible for a type of activity confined by the habits of a contemporary setting can yield the proper feedback loop of desire for nutrition required in nature to acquire such eaten foods without tools. It seems like any arrangement to avoid this problem of relying on some tools and convenience over others is to discuss some equally debatable notion that early people just walked around through paradise collecting seashells and fruits and so forth, in contrast to almost all the current speculation that such early hominds in transition to homo sapiens scavenged mostly fat sources and lived far from oceans and abundance of other such things. That seems fairly singular and easy enough to understand to focus on.
-
Sincerely guys.
Please stop polluting this thread.
This thread and this instincto section is for:
- genuine inquiries about how to practice instincto
This is not where you put your gripes, complaints or personal wrong vibrations about instincto. (take it to hot topics).
IS this clear enough?
Real people like me are very much interested in this decades old French version of the Raw Paleo Diet which actually pre-dates the terminology Raw Paleo Diet.
(Will exercise moderator powers along with Iguana from hereon after this thread reply.)
-
This thread and this instincto section is for:
- genuine inquiries about how to practice instincto
This is not where you put your gripes, complaints or personal wrong vibrations about instincto. (take it to hot topics).
IS this clear enough?
if you are now redefining what the thread is about, sure I can respect that from now on. I consider my last comment to be a genuine request for information about instincto in a constructive way as per originally specified, but indeed it is not a request on how I might personally follow instincto, So indeed I will bow out if that is what people want to agree upon at this point as the sole purpose of this thread - in comparison to the previous 25 pages of similar back and forth, sure. I genuinely appreciate the warning of future censorship.
-
Quote from: KD on December 22, 2010, 12:31:41 PM
The reason hominids could get by without crunching nutrients is their environment and pre-existing health was absolutely dependent on a set environment arguably conducive to survival - even when those environments shifted - and not because their instinct choose the best foods from a variety of post-industrial settings requiring no effort, ability or strength immobilized by a modern pretension of a natural diet.
OK, fine: it looks like the same argument Alphagruis had been telling us all along. I will answer to that while the rest of your personal attacks and diatribes will be moved into another thread. Please wait, I got other tasks to do at the moment.
-
...I would answer to your questions and critics as I did in my answers to PaleoPhil (the last being still not even acknowledged by Phil (http://www.rawpaleoforum.com/instinctoanopsology/explain-instincto-diet-fully-2/msg56985/#msg56985). Did you see it Phil?) ...
Yes, and I appreciate your answers, Iguana. I hope to respond soon and I beg you for patience when my responses are sometimes slow to come. I think you demonstrated in your responses that you tried to reply in a constructive, instructive and polite manner.
-
Ok, Phil, thank you.
Quote from: KD on December 22, 2010, 12:31:41 PM
The reason hominids could get by without crunching nutrients is their environment and pre-existing health was absolutely dependent on a set environment arguably conducive to survival - even when those environments shifted - and not because their instinct choose the best foods from a variety of post-industrial settings requiring no effort, ability or strength immobilized by a modern pretension of a natural diet.
That’s just a plain unproven and untested affirmation. A priori, it could be true or it could be wrong.
To know, experimentation has been needed. It’s precisely what GCB and collaborators have done since 1965. The tests carried out on hundreds of animals and by hundreds of people have permitted to define the conditions necessary to attain a good nutritional balance without any conventional, external dietary advices. That’s what has been called “instinctive nutrition” or “instinctotherapy”, or in short “instincto”.
Apparently, KD, you did not even read GCB’s book freely available in English on line, and moreover (as you like to contend) you have 0 experience about it.
-
(...) the rest of your personal attacks and diatribes will be moved into another thread. Please wait, I got other tasks to do at the moment.
I just had a look at the previous pages in view to do that, but as there are answers it would kind of spoil the whole discussion. I feel that the thread is readable as is, everyone being free to read only what is relevant, avoiding the task of reading the overflowing, lengthy and futile diatribes.
-
... Since you questioned GCBs “positive remarks about fruits”, my point was meant to ask t if humans are carnivores and shouldn’t eat fruits, how comes that we are attracted by fruits while carnivores like cats are not ?
Some carnivores are attracted by fruits, such as wolves:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TmuYTb6ynbg
Carnivores that eat a significant amount of fruits or other plant foods are called facultative carnivores, whereas big cats are obligate carnivores.
I was not trying to make a point that humans shouldn't eat fruits, rather just making an observation that GCB is doing more than just sharing his success story. His writings suggest that he is trying to persuade others. That doesn't mean that doing so is wrong, it's just an observation. I think that "promoting a diet" is accurate wording for this, but perhaps there is a better wording you might come up with?
PP: Since tropical fruits tend to be highly favored by the senses, do you think they must therefore be highly nutritious foods, perhaps the most nutritious, since your senses signal to you and other Instinctos to eat them plentifully?
Yes, I think so. They are sweet and not much acidic. Sweetness certainly means they contain a lot of sugars.
Do you think there is any extra nutrition in the tasty tropical fruits beyond more sugars and if so, do you know what it might be?
Iguana: Using our instinct to know whether we can eat something or not, what and how much to eat doesn’t exclude using our brain to select the shortest way to the bay where there are oysters or how to proceed to trap a deer.
But using our brain to select such or such foodstuff because we know it contains this or this nutrients and avoid another stuff because it’s supposed to contain antinutrients will interfere with our instinctive regulation and distort it.
PP: Do not some wild animals and Hunter Gatherers teach their young which foods to eat and which ones to not eat?
Iguana: Yes, they do. I recon that training is advantageous, time and energy is saved in searching for food and selecting it. Training and instinct work together without conflicting.
I was specifically referring to adult wild animals and HGs teaching their children to eat certain things and not to eat certain other things, not how to just save time or energy. In other words, wild animals and HGs do not appear to rely on senses alone in determining what to eat, so why should we? Are you saying that the instinctive regulation of these wild animals and HGs is distorted by not relying on their senses alone, even though they don't appear to suffer any serious negative effects from their choices in nature?
You’re welcome to ask me whatever you want, but I’m very far from having any kind of ultimate and total knowledge! So, please don’t get irritated if I can’t answer to every point you raise. And if I try to answer, my answers may be flawed.
Thanks and no problem. I prefer honest errors to well executed cons by "experts". ;)
I don’t know. Most hominids must have had access to some kinds of fruits, but they were probably different than even the wild actual fruits.
Yes, different from the wild fruits of today, and perhaps more different from the cultivated fruits of today and perhaps the fruits available to early hominids in Stone Age Africa, Europe and Northern, Western and Central Asia were also different from the fruits of South Asia, both wild and cultivated?
I don’t know, but your question applies even more to the fruits of temperate areas (apples, pears, cherries, grapes, prunes, etc.) which are extremely unlikely to have existed in the Paleolithic era in a form closely alike to their actual form, and moreover in areas were our ancestors lived. It depend also to which ancestors we refer to and all this becomes highly hypothetical.
I was referring specifically to your and my ancestors. I'll use mine as an example. Odds are that none of my ancestors going back to the first hominin set foot in SE Asia, as the evidence indicates that the Stone Agers who populated that area branched off from others and didn't then go to Europe as did some other Asians. So there's no reason to believe that any of my direct ancestors ever ate a SE Asian fruit until the 20th century when tropical Asian fruits became commonly available around the globe, whereas they may have eaten some fruits of Europe and Northern/Western/Central Asia for tens of thousands of years.
You acknowledged that "Plants and animals are in constant evolution," so it's possible that my ancestors may have evolved some while living in Eurasia and eating the fruits of temperate, subarctic and/or Arctic regions. They certainly didn't perish for lack of SE Asian or South Asian fruits. Why should I be more adapted to fruits from a region that my direct ancestors never stepped foot in than an area that they lived in for at least tens of thousands of years? The only possible explanation I can think of is that the SE/South Asian fruits are more similar to African fruits that our ancestors ate, but I haven't seen any research or analysis of this yet. Shouldn't we investigate that before we make assumptions?
The more relevant tropical fruits for my ancestral history would appear to be African tropical fruits, yet they strangely rarely get discussed by Instinctos or Paleos, much less eaten. Why? If plants and animals are in constant evolution and evolution has some sort of role in dietary adaptation this would seem to be an interesting question, not one to be ignored or dismissed. So much time is spent on fruits from an area that my ancestors and those of most Europeans likely never set foot in and so little on the fruits that they actually ate and the descendents of those fruits. The emphasis seems imbalanced. I think part of the reason is that African fruits are not widely sold outside of Africa, but since some Instinctos order durian fruits via phone or Internet, this doesn't appear to be a complete obstacle.
Anyway, most fruits contain a lot of common substances such as acids, sugars, vitamins and so on. Therefore an adaptation to various species of fruits is likely to be not so difficult, not as difficult as to entirely new classes of food such as cooked stuff, cereals and dairy.
Agreed.
The common elements among the most favored fruits selected by the senses appear to be sweetness (ex: durian, banana, mango, grapes, persimmons, dried dates) and fattyness (ex: durian, avocado, coconut). Are there any other common elements that you've noticed?
No, I don’t think they relied on their senses alone. Yes, I think there’s transmission of knowledge between the generations. This has already been talked about above : “training is advantageous, time and energy is saved in searching for food and selecting it. Training and instinct work together without conflicting”.
Perhpas we agree on this. I think the training also applies in selecting which foods to eat--even back in Paleo days--not just where to aquire them and in what ways. It seemed before that you disagree with me on this, but perhaps not?
It’s very probably more difficult today for we have certainly lost a good part of our smell sensibility and today’s foodstuff have evolved very rapidly. We also have to use our brain not only to find the easiest way to get food, but also to find the wildest foodstuff and the less artificially transformed.
Yes, things have become incredibly complicated by human intervention. This is partly why there is so much disagreement among Paleos. I think personal experience also plays an important role in figuring out what to eat.
Quote
You have mentioned cultivated fruit being an issue today. Does this mean we should prefer fruits that are closer to their wild origin and artificially restrict consumption of cultivated fruits?
Yes, sure, I think so. This applies for meats as well.
OK, looks like we agree here too. I think the dismissing of potential benefits of pastured meats vs. feedlot meats by some ZCers relies too much on unproven assumptions and puts too much faith in human intervention and human understanding of the complexities of nature.
Yes, the wildest as possible. Training is also crucial.
That's commendable. It sounds like his view on this is more subtle than his prominent critics portray.
PP: In my case, my senses have guided me in harmful directions at times. Could this mean that tropical fruits and honey were not plentiful year round in the habitats of my ancestors?
Iguana: We’ve had a whole lot of various ancestors…
It seems like you're avoiding answering my question directly. We don't have the answers to this one but it's curious that both Instinctos and Paleos have put so little effort into finding out. It's as if we're afraid we'll learn that our beloved sweet fruits are not as ancestral as we assume, so we don't investigate. I'm not trying to say that just because our ancestors didn't eat something makes it poison or anything ridiculous like that--just that it would be interesting to know how well the actual facts line up with many people's assumptions. A matter to possibly consider, not a final proof of anything.
You say below you don’t believe in detox reactions, but I don’t have any other explanation to offer, unless the fruits you ate had been irradiated or immerged in a fluid at 55° C, a mandatory procedure to import fruits in US, I think. It’s very difficult as well to find real raw, unheated honey from bees not feed with industrial saccharose.
Detox holds little meaning any more so I'm not sure what there is to believe or disbelieve. It's a vague catch-all word frequently used to explain away unpleasant realities.
I tend to eat organic fruits raised at local small farms and some organic fruits from FL and California. Basically the best fruits that are available. If they are of poor quality there's nothing better to choose from that I've found. I'm not particularly interested in personally ordering fruits from foreign nations.
There’s a theoretical model of detoxination, nothing magical about it.
When our body receives the proper raw food it should have received from the start but never got before, these food must be digested first, and then the nutrients molecules must be transported to the cells by the blood and lymph. This process takes a few hours. When the cells receive those undamaged, proper molecules, they are supposed (according to the model) to proceed to some exchanges, expelling a number of doubtful molecules they were constrained to use because there was nothing better at hand. These molecules more or less damaged by heat or other factors are put into the lymph and blood before being eliminated by the emunctories, some more hours latter.
I detoxination is a possible cause of negative symptoms from fruits, but I don't see a way to prove or disprove it scientifically. It would be more believable if it were at least falsifiable. Not sppearing to be so, it does smack of magic to me. Like Tyler reported with raw dairy and I have experienced with multiple foods, continuing to eat a food we are sensitive to doesn't always resolve the negative symptoms, and even if the apparent symptoms are resolved, we don't know what damage is occurring at the cellular level. So there don't appear to be any guarantees one way or another.
I do still eat some fruits, so I am hoping that I'll tolerate them better over time and if your theory is correct, then I should eventually thrive on them. What is the longest period this "detoxination" should take to finish?
Fradin was a MD who worked with GCB at Montramé. While working there, he promoted the “hypotoxic diet”, which was basicaly excluding grain and dairy but allowing cooked food.
Thanks, do you know what source Kirt was quoting from?
I put it in that metaphoric, caricature way to mean that so called “instinctos”are not a standard type of persons. They don’t belong to a monolithic sect and there are extremely different ones, eating very different things.
Sure, there are variations within all diets. I was just discussing the rough tendencies. I didn't mean to imply that all Instinctos eat exactly the same diet.
Some are great carnivores, some are vegetarians (even if excluding a paleo food class for ideological reasons is anti-instincto; should those be labelled “instinctos”?)
Vegetarians? Do you know how they explain what's instinctive about a Neolithic invention of human beings like vegetarianism?
I’ve never strictly believed in the instincto theory as I avoid beliefs as much as I’m aware of. For me, it is a very new and interesting theory that I’ve been experimenting, but of course that’s an approximation, like every scientific theory.
OK, I noticed that Kirt liked this about you.
If I remember correctly, this answer of mine to Kirt’s question means that for non toxic cooked food, he can go and read Jean-Louis Tu, because that guy has his own list of food that himself considers non-toxic, in total opposition to Burger’s ideas!
OK, thanks for explaining the hidden meaning.
Please, don’t aggress me if my answers are obtuse… I promise you I did my best!
Well done, thanks.
-
Well, I recall one theory suggesting that Caucasians are ultimately descended from Asians in Siberia(Orientals, to be specific). That makes sense, in a way, as there are many Orientals of Northern heritage who have such pale skin it is basically white.
-
Well, I recall one theory suggesting that Caucasians are ultimately descended from Asians in Siberia(Orientals, to be specific). That makes sense, in a way, as there are many Orientals of Northern heritage who have such pale skin it is basically white.
Yes, but the theory is that the Caucasians came from Northern, Central and/or Western Asia, not Southeast or even South Asia, which is why I was careful to specify the different regions of Asia in my post. I have seen no evidence or even a hypothesis of Europeans coming from Southeast Asia. If you have any, feel free to share it.
-
Narrator: What is this?
Tyler looks at him, sprinkles the lye on the narrators hand and says:
Tyler: This is a chemical burn.
Narrator: OK. Give me some water!
Tyler: Listen to me. You can run water over your hand to make it worse, or, look at me.
Their eyes meet.
Or you can use vinegar to neutralize the burn
---
Contemporary humans have demands that go beyond just following nature. When presented with a serious maze of problems, people need to reverse their own maze and every tool should be available to them.
Each individual is unique and thus should have their own unique individual nutrition - perhaps for some being independent of artificial programs is in a sense correct, but only to the degree that these are not based on false idealization of natural paradigms that are in themselves assumptions.
when it came to the high-meat discussion, all that matters is whether high-meat made in modern style preparations is safe and has nothing to do with aged meats or even coincidentally-rotten meats. If it can be 'proven' safe, it matters not at all what people in other periods did to prepare or enjoy meat. They are not us, they don't have the same history of modern foods and antiseptic internal and external environments due to antibiotics and the like, and as pointed out - the very state of bacteria internally will reflect ones taste for both rotten and even fresh raw foods even at times where those foods are beneficial to -yes- force.
While people can use what we know about paleolithic or traditional peoples to prove what were once safe human practices (like eating meat raw), The statement about a traditional or paleo peoples' habits in comparisons to our modern problems - like the chemical burn - has no bearing on all logic and awareness. Often more than modern chemicals shift us outside of natural paradigms requiring unique neutralization, in those cases we need a new solution, or new use for an old one, not just an old one.
The value of such a therapy or any therapy has literally NOTHING to do with anything in the past and has nothing to do with 'nutrition', nature, or desire, and therefore out of the domain of nature exclusively but in the complex area of tools for restoring health.
At the end of the day it is the unfortunate fact that often people have to force therapies and 'diets' that include everything from foods/ratios to specific man-made cleanses to overcome situations so that they can even (i)attempt a natural diet healthfully. People can debate this personally, but they can't deny the number of lives saved and turned around from doing such when simply eating 100% raw foods did not. Often people can be swayed by such blanket uses of terms like 'artificial' or claims of 'ancestral' over what is necessary today and from this above truth - which is far more real when it comes to complex situations than anything speculative about the way nature works.
The first step to health is indeed removing as many unhealthful practices from one's life as comfortable, but not only are those choices subjective, merely replacing neolithic foods arbitrarily with any paleo foods can be disastrous.
Even through this is a 'paleo' website, even the 'less offensive' hard-line standpoints on cooked food, grain and dairy will always remain disputed issues regarding health on the individual level even if the overall offensive can seem apparent, and are not ingrained or proven as necessities to overcoming problems particularly when such things are still eaten in their raw or relatively undamaged state. It is again, just an incorrect statement that removing such foods will results in good health automatically, or that replacing any of these foods with any 100% raw paleo foods in any combination will so clearly yield good results. Particularly if it is given such weight over other therapies and practices and 'diets'.
Many of the issues people are coming to from other types of diets deal equally with the over-consumption of various foods per their internal state as with the under-consumption of various nutrients and necessary macro-nutrients which can exist even eating 100% raw paleo food. If we are even able to assume ANYTHING non dairy or grain -like the varieties of fruits and vegetables that weren't even available in the paleolithic - are indeed more paleo than for example pure fats and such form dairy which has always existed in at least some quantity. Again the point isn't whether on can prove these particulars are healthful or not or argue about such here, just the fact that there is discussion to be had about which things are more natural when talking about a shifted landscape and requirements.
The reason this is true, and everyone cannot submit to even such basic characterizations of a natural diet (and discounting the other 'structural' criticism towards the efficacy or superiority of Instincto in ALL aspects of health amongst other 'pure' raw paleo diets is never actually answered) is that most people coming to this forum are not in perfect health and wide open to endless poor reactions even from natural foods with their system which will not necessarily - again - be corrected just following nature or even protocols to reset the balance of natural desire.
These reactions are results from being impacted by states of bacteria/fungus and other internal debris which can then stir around and mix with the bio-active foods creating chaos - that can be avoided (or more likely buried for problems later) even sticking to a SWD diet! Food in is not health-out. Various known foods and abundances of macro nutrients can make this process worse and turn things to shit internally. On the positive, the opposite is also true in that control over the food that feeds internal problems can buffer these situations and have been anecdotally and scientifically proven to both starve out various issues and replace them with healthy tissues.
The reason I can use 'distorted' and 'dangerous' to apply to Instincto and place perhaps a double standard on artificial programs that might indeed be 100% wrong is entirely due to the above paradox, that eating healthy food does more than increase nutrition (if able to be even processed) but triggers all kinds of complex process in the body to the point where the results itself may problematic if not unhealthy leaving people clueless after following such a natural and pure direction that dismisses the therapeutic value of other practices and even types of food or process.
So just stating the idea as a fact - that people just need to avoid neolithic agents - is again simplistic because people giving up such things can end up in no better but worse situations and by 'not following' tactics per their own health needs based on natural pretensions. Often these protocols that are needed do not even exist in nature because true nature does not need them in irrelevant. Nature only has so many solutions for storing and removing -natural- poisons, and largely the systems of creation were designed to store and eliminate only natural poisons effectively by states of fasting (rest/sleep) and the like. Even if someone is driven to some harmful diet or cleanse or whatever based on 'the artificial', this is not as harmful as the idea that following nature trumps such interventions, even in nutritional things (not just for the very ill). Many of these systems to not work on their own (as even one could argue they should), and need particular fuels in themselves then to basic dietary needs.
Anything that takes the form, "paleo man did or did not do x", one should just dismiss outright at having no relevance as it has very little bearing on contemporary reversal of health issues, and better yet should never be claimed. It certainly can be dismissed in any arguments revolving around processing (cooking, juicing etc..) or the consumption of water, freezing foods, salt and the like because again, even if singular arguments can prove almost conclusively to the harmful or 'unnatural' nature of such things - there will always be individuals using these tools to augment their health over whatever 'all natural' and mediocre-in-comparison-to-our-ancestors' diet they are able to scrounge up in present situations. The odds of improving on the nutrition contained in a pure environment is unlikely, but there may be other types of foods we wouldn't even necessarily eat in nature that can be necessary for overcoming these gaps nutritionally, nevermind for healing. This goes for the idea of man as a carnivore or herbivore and yes omnivore.
Since foods today themselves are not the same and captive of pure nature, this rules out carte blanch dismissals of things like salt and even supplemental/fractured food sources, as well as praising fruits and even pure water and other things which may have indeed been consumed in the past but might cause problems in certain internal environments. This criticism applies equally to Aajonus as well as Instncto. The only thing that matters is whether someone can achieve a beneficial or negative result from a particular practice. Often times that lines up with our ancestors practices, but only remembering that they didn't have to do things above and beyond for health, just be.
The most pressing issue for people that are unwell should be how to make the best choices to backtrack through a unique situation, not to follow a auspicion of a perfect diet. This means people shouldn't be berated for choices which may turn out to be the most healthful for them based on a different way of looking at the world and their goals. As shocking as it seems, some people even on a measurable 'net health' level will do better with cooked 'toxic' starch than modern fruit, and not even necessarily because there is some imbalance that might be corrected in the long term with a perfect diet, just by the nature and trade offs of each and how they work metabolically. One doesn't have to go to extreme mono diets to show that blanket statements about good or bad re: 100% raw are not appropriate or accurate towards newbies OR longer term members.
Time and time again in this thread basic assumptions about the Instincto mechanism producing 'perfect' results of what is the most appropriate nutrition at all moments is overturned , including the dissection of basic mechanism, or in way of how animals in nature actually behave in choosing or ignoring foods, and other such things. Even if these things are perhaps arguable from either side, these are legitimate criticisms against the absolute certainty of which instincto is presented outside its own sphere about how nature works and just following nature for health.
My characterizations of 'dangerous' have absolutely everything to do with my and others experiences on a variety of raw diets and people being in dangerous situations due to such thinking. This really is not dependent on the other issues raised about Instincto's validity as a diet fulfilling basic WHO minimums nutritionally or whatever, but due to all the above where the mindset itself is so harmful and dismissive of other types of thinking particular to the present reality. Artificiality and programs are not by default bad because they are artificial and are programs made my modern men. All WOE from fruitarian or Primal Diet, to sprout diets or Weston Price makes the same style remarks about bare minimums in regards to being 'free of disease' to rationalize their approaches based on their view of human need and have many seeming success stories. The problem as with instincto and Hygiene over all those 'quesitonable' WOEs is when it becomes disguised in ways that make it seemingly sensical that everyone find their unique path without artificial 'diets'- when in reality the initial variables and assumptions about reality are so skewed as to limit large areas of strategy for health and in disguising all other paths as not optimal when they can be quite necessary.
-
A lot of useless verbiage! But it doesn't really address the fact that rawpalaeo notions, such as those derived from ancient rawpalaeo ancestors, have actually helped us far, far more than they have harmed us.
-
don't even know how to respond to that, other then... yes I did. I addressed that even if people were once in perfect ideal health, that merely doing what we speculate they did (and impossible truly for a variety of listed reasons) while avoiding all other strategies based on assumptions of not being natural- is a harmful mindset, regardless of whether some of us can manipulate it into some arguable form of good health and avoid such harm. Pressed up against the results of other programs within a relatively similar 'paleo' frame, all one has to say is that this mindset blocks some or many possible strategies that are helpful in order for me to accurately label it harmful. Harm doesn't mean leading to outright demise, of which most people will bail out completely before accepting such, and bring themselves back to some kind of stasis likely on some entirely different and likely toxic-defined diet.
So I could agree ALL paleo practices are in themselves healthful without agreeing at all with what you are saying, and without conceding perhaps as before that my statement implicates more than one type of harmful tactic here, or that these epiphanies on what paleo folks did in health represent ALL solutions for modern health.
-
The trouble is that ultimately, the ancient rawpalaeo practices will always win out. Wodgina gave a perfect example thereof in another thread, whereby really desperate people with IBS etc. might try foecal transplants despite the fact that "high-meat" would have worked far better for them.
-
firstly and lastly, what actually happened is wodg posted something which you dismissed as being irrelevant and less optimal precisely for the reason I am talking about. With no actual evidence or long term trials for that particular afflication, thus again generalizing it to all people. Again I don't even have to disagree that high-meat might be the better alternative, and it is just ultra ironic, considering that high meat is not even 'paleo' (processed and taken therapeutically and not simply aged or rotten) and was dismissed to all those who do find it in good taste -regardless of their need or conditions - as a health strategy again by the same kind of thinking
this isn't just about the extremely ill either or people who can't hack things as I can now wager you assume 100% of the time people make personal changes for health. It applies to all issues, choices, choice in 'diet' etc...
There is no way around it, saying that rawpaleo practices will always win out, is just a FALSE statement. Do we really need to go through all the examples and all the facets of food, health and ALL goals (fitness, weight gain etc..) to prove this definitively? Just skim the board without a 'this is not optimal perspective'' maybe just once and you might see something different for a change.
-
You have already LIED about "high-meat" not being "palaeo". All evidence, given lack of fridges in palaeo times, indicates without doubt that "high-meat is incontrovertibly "palaeo".
-
lied? Taking high meat to cure disorders is a therapy. It was presented as incorrect to eat high meat that was not tasty as food - and not to be used as medicine, and was dismissed as a tool in that way. The ideology blocked a therapy based on its principles and is the reason for much of this. How can you not see that? of course I believe it is paleo. I just used the same logic above to show how there can always be one other stricter definition of purity and following nature exactly. just because meat rotted however, doesn't mean they made it in jars in a particular method, which was again a huge complaint in that thread in comparison to Eskimos. I think maybe you should show some acknowledgment to this and above before you respond with some other thing which shows that you literally cannot prove the adamant stance on every single issue beyond its purview.
your statements are just getting worse and worse in my opinon and far beyond what even I expect of you at this point. I realize my post earlier was long, but I really don't believe honestly how anyone can disagree with the general message. its just a siimple fact that you can't pas judgment on things and frame everything so simplistically, particularly when you have people right on this forum continuously showing their opposite and positive results choosing alternatives after trying 100% their best efforts to just eat raw to solve their issues.
If you can show me evidence of below, let me know, prior to that i'll have to just let you and mr. burns provide all the answers for every issue is basically to eat any 100% natural food you can buy with good currency and stop reading forums. Heck, that should probably even work better then reading forums telling one that.
There is no way around it, saying that rawpaleo practices will always win out, is just a FALSE statement. Do we really need to go through all the examples and all the facets of food, health and ALL goals (fitness, weight gain etc..) to prove this definitively? Just skim the board without a 'this is not optimal perspective'' maybe just once and you might see something different for a change.
-
Well, I recall one theory suggesting that Caucasians are ultimately descended from Asians in Siberia(Orientals, to be specific). That makes sense, in a way, as there are many Orientals of Northern heritage who have such pale skin it is basically white.
Yes, we have some Russian friends that look very Asian...my parents friends are both very caucasian-european looking but their son I could swear is Chinese, really, he looks Chinese. If I examine my facial structure closely I can see many Asian features, and the yellowish pale skin which I have is a definite common trait. I don't even tan easily, but I don't get burned by the sun either (unless I purposely fry myself in it). I think many caucasians and asians are very close relatives.
-
Thanks Phil, it looks like we can have an interesting and dispassionate discussion. I’ll answer latter.
KD, I've read neither your extremely long post nor subsequent ones: I’ve got a lot of work and there are so many interesting things to read on the web that we have to make a choice. Perhaps someone having read it can make an abstract?
Cheers
François
-
This issue of "high-meat" as therapy is a bit pointless. I mean , I suppose one could argue that animals which go out of their way to eat specific plants or aged rotting meats for medicinal reasons, but it's still natural. Granted, we store "high-meat" in fridges, hardly natural, but that is solely because we are squeamish about insects laying eggs on the meat which then would become live maggots, and because we don't want to stink out our homes or scare off SAD-eaters because of the smell. HGs just store the stuff outside.
Also, I am not, of course, against using non-dietary methods to heal. I have previously stated many times that a rawpalaeodiet can't cure everything. I just don't buy into the notion that other diets are as effective in the long-term.
*reread past long thread*
Granted, I have also heard of people recovering their fertility after consuming raw dairy and the like; but it is highly likely that they could have got the same or better results from just eating raw meats and especially raw organ-meats, instead.
There is indeed a big tendency among rawpalaeos to say that if something occurred in palaeo times, it should be practised in modern times too. I really don't see anything wrong with that. Of course, some things that existed in palaeo times can't be reproduced nowadays - we can hardly hunt mammoths or the like, for example.We will have to agree to disagree re this, I guess.
As for the notion of instincts and Instincto being an infinite amount of combinations, I reckon wild animals provide an excellent example of beings following their natural instincts, and doing well therefrom. I accept , though, that modern humans are likely so severed from their natural instincts that they likely can't properly adopt the instinctive behaviour of wild animals properly.
-
is isn't pointless in regards to the other discussion as I'm not talking about how distant high meat is due to refrigeration which effects all meats. fresh refrigerated meats were not being criticized, high-meats were.
I asked you there point blank if you thought people that are ill should eat high meat even if it does not smell or taste good to them in their state of illness. This is a concrete issue which can affect a number of 100% raw paleo people reading and not some fantasy debate. You never answered even though you now pitch high meat as a therapy for people not even on a RPD diet (who might find raw meat repulsive) who have IBD over other therapies that you've never even tried or needed to. how can you not see the contradiction? Either high meat is valuable as a paleo diet therapy, just like 'low carb' or 'ZC 'is a valuable therapy within RPD or they are not PURELY because they are artificial by the same logic that nature and desire knows best. And not dependent at all on any measurable success over 'not following' them for these reasons. This is all there is to it and I know for certain that you don't disagree and do believe that such guided versions within paleo are necessary over just eating any 'paleo' food in any combination in all cases, even with mastery over instinct.
-
My statement is that even though one can cite issues with therapies (even 100% paleo ones), that people should be open to choosing them without issue of them being dismissed as 'artificial' to begin with. They can be dismissed on their own merits/detriments, but not for this reason. These things are not intrinsically worse than instinct in all cases without discussion of the actual results and then results need to be acknowledged without a 'well you just got better anyway' or 'would have been better all paleo/raw' kind of mindset because that is obviously not true in ALL cases.
People need these 'artificial' strategies not just because we are removed form nature, but because all of the internal variables have shifted. Even if we can get a hold of all our instincts and live 100% in nature, it doesn't mean this diet will shift those internal variables, and plenty of people have illustrated running into problems this way as well. If we want to take diet and lifestyle out of just existing without disease and into the mastery of all other goals (physical, spiritual) then you really have to tip your hat to the technologies that have been invented since the paleolithic in being far superior to instincts, particularly when we are divorced from the activities and requirements form sourcing food and mere survival. The simple fact is there is people who use these technologies can have good results not even eating raw or paleo, and people eating raw and paleo might not achieve good results at the same level or even have the same health. I know countless 100% raw people that now found other tactics that have made them healthier. Even if I eat 100%, this doesn't mean that I have all the answers to their particular problems. I clearly do not.
But please, do not dwell on that. Lets say the solutions might be 100% paleo in origin and not dairy or any of these other things, but the simple point is that people can't just 'eat well' or naturally necessarily to eliminate all problems or get the absolute best results within 'paleo' 'raw' etc...
if they could then why are we here talking about all this stuff? seems like alot of people lately have gone against this 'tide' of thinking regardless and actually achieved alot better health than such simplistic thinking had gotten them. so perhaps I am wasting my breath here.
---
To me this is a decent synopsis. most the rest was just a thorough discussion on why this shouldn't even be debatable.
-
Post of the year KD, congrats...just in time.
Even if God gave me the perfect diet(which I'm sure would include non-paleo tactics) and I did nothing else I am sure I would still feel pretty terrible as my mind has been much more polluted by stress and traumas over the years than diet ever has made me.
-
The trouble is that ultimately, the ancient rawpalaeo practices will always win out. Wodgina gave a perfect example thereof in another thread, whereby really desperate people with IBS etc. might try foecal transplants despite the fact that "high-meat" would have worked far better for them.
I didn't give an example of high meat being better than transplants. You made that up by yourself.
-
is isn't pointless in regards to the other discussion as I'm not talking about how distant high meat is due to refrigeration which effects all meats. fresh refrigerated meats were not being criticized, high-meats were.
I asked you there point blank if you thought people that are ill should eat high meat even if it does not smell or taste good to them in their state of illness. This is a concrete issue which can affect a number of 100% raw paleo people reading and not some fantasy debate. You never answered even though you now pitch high meat as a therapy for people not even on a RPD diet (who might find raw meat repulsive) who have IBD over other therapies that you've never even tried or needed to. how can you not see the contradiction? Either high meat is valuable as a paleo diet therapy, just like 'low carb' or 'ZC 'is a valuable therapy within RPD or they are not PURELY because they are artificial by the same logic that nature and desire knows best. And not dependent at all on any measurable success over 'not following' them for these reasons. This is all there is to it and I know for certain that you don't disagree and do believe that such guided versions within paleo are necessary over just eating any 'paleo' food in any combination in all cases, even with mastery over instinct.
The point is that people who have been eating rawpalaeodiets throughout their whole lives (and for generations given diets of parents etc. having an influence on future generations in a number of ways) will naturally have instincts for "high-meat" when needed. They would also like the taste of " high-meat" as they would already be used to the taste of raw aged meats. Obviously, our own instincts are somewhat distorted, but I and others have a good reason to trust in our instincts/tastes at times.I'll give an example:-
A decade ago, I had by that point developed severe chronic stomach-aches after eating any cooked animal foods whatsoever, and suddenly I started finding that all such cooked animal foods began tasting extremely bland- this, fortunately made it easier to switch to raw meats. Also during my raw fruitarian phase, I would get constant massive hunger-pangs which were never sated even when I consumed vast amounts of fruits like oranges,which then made me turn too raw meat diets as a last resort, since I couldn't tolerate cooked animal foods either.
-
I didn't give an example of high meat being better than transplants. You made that up by yourself.
I didn't suggest you did. I merely stated that the faecal transplant as an option was not as likely to be as successful as "high-meat".
-
Post of the year KD, congrats...just in time.
Even if God gave me the perfect diet(which I'm sure would include non-paleo tactics) and I did nothing else I am sure I would still feel pretty terrible as my mind has been much more polluted by stress and traumas over the years than diet ever has made me.
Thanks, i'm trying to keep my new year clear of mentioning this unbelievable and inaccurate bias pretense in other threads that have nothing to do with instinctive nutrition. Particularly the ones which were denied as ever occurring and have happened multiple times all over the site since this thread was re-activated. Think I'm going to have to transfer my bank account into pennies and throw in the wishing well at midnight. Wish me luck?
The point is that people who have been eating rawpalaeodiets throughout their whole lives (and for generations given diets of parents etc. having an influence on future generations in a number of ways) will naturally have instincts for "high-meat" when needed. They would also like the taste of " high-meat" as they would already be used to the taste of raw aged meats. Obviously, our own instincts are somewhat distorted, but I and others have a good reason to trust in our instincts/tastes at times.I'll give an example:-
so then you are saying that since we are not multi-generational paleo offspring, we should indeed take on processes and other ways of thinking, even when it goes against instinct as long as it can be shown anecdotally AND have science behind it (like high meat, restrictive diets etc...) to be effective in doing things at times pure daily eating can not.
If that is the case. then all process must be equally weighed on their results, and not how closely we can link them to paleo habits because they are not us. Because rotten meats though consumed in those times were for food/benefits and not in the function of resetting modern problems.
saying instincts CAN be trusted sometimes has never been under attack I don't think. Just that there will always be situations where man-made interperations can be superior.
-
This business re instinct/nature and artificial methods is not so clear-cut. Sure, one can get an advantage by say inventing cars, but that invention has led to people becoming more unfit, and so on. Same with electricity, as some people have found they are acutely sensitive to electricity to the point of ill-health.
Also, again and again, it has been found that people do better if they adopt more natural habits re sleep-patterns, diet or whatever.
As for a rawpalaeodiet not curing everything, no diet can cure hypochondria or severe ailments which require immediate surgery or the like. That's obvious and I never suggested otherwise.
-
Thanks, i'm trying to keep my new year clear of mentioning this unbelievable and inaccurate bias pretense in other threads that have nothing to do with instinctive nutrition. Particularly the ones which were denied as ever occurring and have happened multiple times all over the site since this thread was re-activated. Think I'm going to have to transfer my bank account into pennies and throw in the wishing well at midnight. Wish me luck?
so then you are saying that since we are not multi-generational paleo offspring, we should indeed take on processes and other ways of thinking, even when it goes against instinct as long as it can be shown anecdotally AND have science behind it (like high meat, restrictive diets etc...) to be effective in doing things at times pure daily eating can not.
If that is the case. then all process must be equally weighed on their results, and not how closely we can link them to paleo habits because they are not us. Because rotten meats though consumed in those times were for food/benefits and not in the function of resetting modern problems.
saying instincts CAN be trusted sometimes has never been under attack I don't think. Just that there will always be situations where man-made interperations can be superior.
Wrong, precisely because we are flawed and warped by our modern civilisation, we should therefore adopt more natural processes which occurred well before those flaws entered our society. Emulating palaeo man makes perfect sense since we have not changed much genetically from palaeo peoples, so that via epigenetics we can influence the health of our children in a positive manner etc.. It's only in freakish, highly unusual circumstances, such as if peoples' health is in such a state that they require surgery or the like, that a rawpalaeodiet would not work.
-
its not just people with extreme problems, its people following 100% raw paleo diets right now in the forum that arn't invalids. READ the forum instead of categorizing it based on ideals you already have in your head man. The solution might still be all raw and all paleo, but you can't generalize. Emulation is the absolute worst strategy for health. Everyone has different needs, even healthy-ish people or people following 100% raw and can be improved or necessary to apply a variety of tactics not having anything to do with just eating pure food or instinct.
like I said before, please actually engage with the the most anecdotal evidence we have at hand - the actual results on this forum - before making such absolute statements with dismissive caveats regarding some extreme cases.
-
Wrong, precisely because we are flawed and warped by our modern civilisation, we should therefore adopt more natural processes which occurred well before those flaws entered our society. Emulating palaeo man makes perfect sense since we have not changed much genetically from palaeo peoples, so that via epigenetics we can influence the health of our children in a positive manner etc.. It's only in freakish, highly unusual circumstances, such as if peoples' health is in such a state that they require surgery or the like, that a rawpalaeodiet would not work.
you are also leaving out how specific problems of society, modern/neolithic food, and degeneration require specific foods and habits to actually be removed from the body, and therefore again we couldn't follow an exact daily diet of our ancestors even if we were 100% certain. You are basically just uttering the typical and most naive of natural hygiene stance at this point -that health occurs in healthy circumstances removing all causes of illness - so I'll just point that out instead of responding further. HNY
-
you are also leaving out how specific problems of society, modern/neolithic food, and degeneration require specific foods and habits to actually be removed from the body, and therefore again we couldn't follow an exact daily diet of our ancestors even if we were 100% certain. You are basically just uttering the typical and most naive of natural hygiene stance at this point -that health occurs in healthy circumstances removing all causes of illness - so I'll just point that out instead of responding further. HNY
Rubbish, of course. The whole point is that going rawpalaeo means we avoid modern/neolithic food and then start to heal and recover. And, sure we live in artificial circumstances, but that still means we can improve our health more by emulating more natural habits than using artificial means. There may be unusual exceptions requiring surgery( car-accidents can hardly be cured exclusively by a rawpalaeodiet) but they are merely the exceptions that prove the rule.
-
Yes, we have some Russian friends that look very Asian...my parents friends are both very caucasian-european looking but their son I could swear is Chinese, really, he looks Chinese. If I examine my facial structure closely I can see many Asian features, and the yellowish pale skin which I have is a definite common trait. I don't even tan easily, but I don't get burned by the sun either (unless I purposely fry myself in it). I think many caucasians and asians are very close relatives.
Yes, I was aware that the ancestors of many Europeans may have come to Europe via parts of Asia--though I've never seen SE Asia mentioned as one of the Asian origin locations by scientists. Usually central, western and northern Asia are cited. For example, I have read about a hypothesis that many of my Irish ancestors came to Europe via the North-Central Asian ancestral homeland of the same people that the Asian Kets (aka Deng aka Jugung) descended from, in what is today Asian Russia. This is why I was careful not to suggest that Europeans were not related to any Asians and specified just the South/Southeast Asian areas where the tropical fruits that GCB touts originated (such as New Guinea and the Philippines). I even got chewed out once by a European American just for mentioning the hypothesis of an Irish-Kets connection :) (I suspect he was xenophobic, though I'm not sure--he may have just been thoroughly convinced of the more conventional hypothesis that most of the ancestors of the Irish came to Europe via the Caucasuses).
It's also interesting how similar the Asian steppe horse cultures over the ages (Mongol, Tatar, Hunnish, Tuvan, Turkic, etc.) were to Celtic, Scythian and North American Plains Indian horse cultures. I find the Asian-Celtic similarities and possible connections to be a fascinating area of inquiry.
To reconnect this to the thread topic, my point was that GCB and some other Instinctos have touted South/SE Asian fruits as especially beneficial and have even seemed to imply that they are healthful in part because they match the sort of foods that were eaten plentifully in an original human habitat (though GCB backtracked from that when I inquired further into it), yet I have seen no evidence that the ancient ancestors of most Europeans ever stepped foot during the Paleolithic in the parts of SE Asia like New Guinea where some of GCB's favorite fruits originated. Most maps (such as this one http://www.brilliantstudent.in/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/genographic-project.jpg) and writings I've seen have the ancestors of Europeans migrating over time to Europe via the area of the Caucasus mountains and/or Central/Northern/Western Asia rather than South/Southeast Asian areas like New Guinea, the Philippines, Vietnam, etc. If anyone has evidence to the contrary I'd be happy to consider it.
One of my questions to Francois that I think ties into what KD has been saying, is whether wild animals rely solely on instinct in selecting foods, or whether adult wild animals sometimes also teach infants what to eat and what not to eat as well as where/how to get it. Increasingly, scientists have been finding that many animals teach and pass down knowledge and even culture from one generation to the next and share and mimic new skills within the same generation. It has also been said that traditional cultures learned at times from animals what foods to eat and what not to eat. So I'm wondering if there may be more than instincts and senses involved. Maybe brainpower plays more of a role even in the wild than GCB seems to have written about?
GCB apparently says that we should rely on our senses of smell, taste and vision. Let's take an extreme case to see what it tells us. What about someone who has lost those senses? What should they do? Wouldn't they then have to rely on their brain and communications with others rather than their senses?
-
its not just people with extreme problems, its people following 100% raw paleo diets right now in the forum that arn't invalids. READ the forum instead of categorizing it based on ideals you already have in your head man. The solution might still be all raw and all paleo, but you can't generalize. Emulation is the absolute worst strategy for health. Everyone has different needs, even healthy-ish people or people following 100% raw and can be improved or necessary to apply a variety of tactics not having anything to do with just eating pure food or instinct.
like I said before, please actually engage with the the most anecdotal evidence we have at hand - the actual results on this forum - before making such absolute statements with dismissive caveats regarding some extreme cases.
The trouble is that YOU are over-generalising. Rawpalaeodiets appear to have done very well for people, judging from this forum's posts and others. Sure some people have found additional methods, such as the Bates Method etc., which also help, but these do not conflict with a rawpalaeodiet anyway. The few exceptions appear, almost universally, to have clear hypochondria-related reasons for their "symptoms" given the extremely unlikely and constant symptoms they regularly mention, and therefore cannot remotely be taken seriously.
What I find bizarre is that you have accepted, re 1 comment, that instincts can sometimes be useful. So there is no need to go on an all-out attack on Instincto. Instincto is a belief like any other one within rawpalaeo, and undoubtedly has many flaws and many strengths.
-
One of my questions to Francois that I think ties into what KD has been saying, is whether wild animals rely solely on instinct in selecting foods, or whether adult wild animals sometimes also teach infants what to eat and what not to eat as well as where/how to get it.
Of course, using our instinct doesn't exclude at all that we communicate between us about what we found good tasting and how to get it - as animals do between them and between generations. But no matter how loud you tell your kid about how onions are good smelling, tasty and necessary to his health, if that kid doesn't like onions, it'll be hard to force feed him onions.
GCB apparently says that we should rely on our senses of smell, taste and vision. Let's take an extreme case to see what it tells us. What about someone who has lost those senses? What should they do? Wouldn't they then have to rely on their brain and communications with others rather than their senses?
Why not. If a guy has both legs and both arms amputated, we can carry him and feed him. >D
Just answered because the first quote is specifically addressed to me. I feel the rest of the arguments aimed against the instincto theory in this whole discussion are beating a dead horse. May I suggest once again that the contributors read GCB’s book (http://www.reocities.com/HotSprings/7627/ggindex.html) to know what he says before arguing? So, the arguments could be properly targeted instead of falling endlessly way of the mark, filling pages after pages on this poor thread!
Instincto is a belief like any other one within rawpalaeo,
No, I don't think the word "belief" is suitable. It's rather a questioning of the current dogmas and way of thinking in nutrition - and an experiment.
-
Of course, using our instinct doesn't exclude at all that we communicate between us about what we found good tasting and how to get it - as animals do between them and between generations. But no matter how loud you tell your kid about how onions are good smelling, tasty and necessary to his health, if that kid doesn't like onions, it'll be hard to force feed him onions.
Yes, I've often found that forcing myself to eat something "because it's good for me" is often not necessary. On the other hand, I do think that KD is right that sometimes a food that doesn't taste good to us at first may be good for us nonetheless, because our systems and/or taste buds have become disordered on processed foods and it can take time to re-acclimate our bodies to healthy foods. Thus, just because raw liver and high meat didn't taste good to me at first doesn't mean it was necessarily bad for me at the time, and eating some now and then has enabled me to gradually develop some taste for it, though I'm still not thrilled by it.
Why not. If a guy has both legs and both arms amputated, we can carry him and feed him. >D
Right, :D but someone is using their brain rather than his senses in choosing the food for him, whether he himself or we who feed him. Just as when a mother cat chooses a mouse to feed a kitten or nudges a kitten away from a porcupine. The kitten's senses weren't used, instead it was the mother's brain teaching the kitten and the kitten's brain learning. So I think wild animals use their minds as well as their senses in determining what to eat. So GCB is right about not ignoring the senses, but KD is also right about using one's brain. I think that you and GCB and other Instinctos do use your brains as well as your senses, it just doesn't get much play in the Instincto writings.
-
Yes, I've often found that forcing myself to eat something "because it's good for me" is often not necessary. On the other hand, I do think that KD is right that sometimes a food that doesn't taste good to us at first may be good for us nonetheless, because our systems and/or taste buds have become disordered on processed foods and it can take time to re-acclimate our bodies to healthy foods. Thus, just because raw liver and high meat didn't taste good to me at first doesn't mean it was necessarily bad for me at the time, and eating some now and then has enabled me to gradually develop some taste for it, though I'm still not thrilled by it.
We have to re-learn with the help of others. GCB, his family and friends made mistakes during years and if they finally succeeded it's because he's a meticulous and stubborn researcher and observer. Starting alone is most probably bound to be a failure. Training is necessary, I think it's been said several times here.
Just as when a mother cat chooses a mouse to feed a kitten or nudges a kitten away from a porcupine. The kitten's senses weren't used, instead it was the mother's brain teaching the kitten and the kitten's brain learning. So I think wild animals use their minds as well as their senses in determining what to eat. So GCB is right about not ignoring the senses, but KD is also right about using one's brain. I think that you and GCB and other Instinctos do use your brains as well as your senses, it just doesn't get much play in the Instincto writings.
Animals don’t know and don’t care about nutrients, anti-nutrients, enzymes, fat/proteins ratios, insulin, complex carbs sources and all that fucking stuff people here hopelessly use their damned minds to try know what and how much to eat.
My cat was separated very young and thus there was no time for his mother to teach him, moreover as she was fed commercial pet food. Nevertheless, he started to hunt and eat mice without me having to teach him. By the way, Yuli pointed out once that the smell and taste signals are processed by the brain anyway, so we better use the words "mental" or "intellect" instead of "brain". Of course, we use our intellect to find food, I think it's already been said as well. Using our instinct does not imply idiocy.
Did you read GCB’s book?
Happy New Year 2011… using both our intelligence and instinct! It's just midnight in Western Europe.
-
We have to re-learn with the help of others. GCB, his family and friends made mistakes during years and if they finally succeeded it's because he's a meticulous and stubborn researcher and observer. Starting alone is most probably bound to be a failure. Training is necessary, I think it's been said several times here.
Yes, and I have acknowledged that, I just added the element that using the brain can be useful in selecting which foods to eat, even in the wild and by wild animals, not just in learning how or where to get foods or in choosing more wild-like foods over more domesticated ones. I've read some of GCB's writings and your posts and I haven't come across anything about this yet.
Animals don’t know and don’t care about nutrients, anti-nutrients, enzymes, fat/proteins ratios, insulin, complex carbs sources and all that fucking stuff people here hopelessly use their damned minds to try know what and how much to eat.
Correct, but they also don't rely entirely on what tastes, smells or looks good to eat. They also learn by experience and observation and pass on what they learn to others or mimic what others do. This has been observed repeatedly by scientists in recent years.
My cat was separated very young and thus there was no time for his mother to teach him, moreover as she was fed commercial pet food. Nevertheless, he started to hunt and eat mice without me having to teach him.
I'm not saying that instincts and senses don't play a highly important role, just that they are not the sole tool used in nature.
By the way, Yuli pointed out once that the smell and taste signals are processed by the brain anyway, so we better use the words "mental" or "intellect" instead of "brain".
Yeah, I wondered if you would bring that up, as the mind is not limited to the brain, but surely you knew what I meant. I was using brain as a shorthand for more complex realities, and didn't I also use the term "mind" at least once?
Of course, we use our intellect to find food, I think it's already been said as well.
I extended that to include using intellect to choose which foods to eat when it's not perfectly clear. This would mainly happen with infants and people encountering new foods they are not familiar with, such as when nomads moved to a new and quite different environment. It also occurs with bodies disordered by modern diets and lifestyles, such as my choosing to eat liver and heart despite not caring much for them because of my past modern diet.
Using our instinct does not imply idiocy.
I wasn't trying to imply that. Of course I don't think that you or GCB were advocating idiocy. I had hoped you wold give me more credit than that.
Did you read GCB’s book?
Yes, though I admittedly skimmed through it and skipped some portions where I was getting bored and it was some time ago. I refer back to it now and then and read snippets when I have a specific question.
Happy New Year 2011… using both our intelligence and instinct! It's just midnight in Western Europe.
Same to you, and many happy returns!
-
There's also different levels of instinct, like short/medium/long-term. It was by instinct that I originally started trying to stop eating fruits, and then plants in general, and then by instinct that I felt I should then try having raw meat. It's not only the short-term of thinking what you want at that moment from what you have available which is instinct.
All our senses can influence our instinct, not just taste/smell, but also how we feel.
-
Same to you, and many happy returns!
Thank you!
Well, I still have your former post (http://www.rawpaleoforum.com/instinctoanopsology/explain-instincto-diet-fully-2/msg58574/#msg58574) (which is now 3 pages back :o) to answer… but let’s talk about your last one first.
I don’t know how animals would use their intellect to choose their food and I wonder if they do it at all. When you carefully observe mammals, you see that they very much rely on their smell sense. Sure, “they also learn by experience and observation and pass on what they learn to others or mimic what others do.” My cat observes me when I eat, he’s curious and apparently he likes to know what I’m eating. Sometimes I put it front of his nose and then he turns away, seemingly to say: “ah, that’s not for me!”
Unless I happen to be extremely hungry, I would never have instinctively found out that liver, a crab, shellfish or even pine nuts are palatable. So, by observing what others eat, I learned. I agree that knowledge of what can be edible is, at least in part, transmitted from generation to generation. But it must have originated from a first, probably some individual who was extremely hungry, tasted something never eaten before by its specie and found it pleasant. Such passed on knowledge shouldn’t usually be in conflict with our instinct since we are of the same specie and should have the same needs and same senses of taste.
But, if I’m repealed by the smell and taste of some stuff someone else is eating, then I won’t eat it. Since we, modern humans, had an extremely different environmental, nutritional, health and even genetic history, our needs may wildly diverge and that’s where conventional dietary way of thinking becomes ineffective.
But it’s remarkable that instinctive findings and raw paleo dietary principles converge on the basic points. That we should eat raw animal food was discovered instinctively, for fish by the eldest son of GCB who was 4 or 5 years old at the time and for meat a bit latter by GCB himself: at the market and passing by the fishmonger stall, the son told his father: “dad, I wanna eat a fish, buy me a fish!”
The whole family had been eating raw for sometimes, but it had not come to their mind that we can and must eat raw fish and raw meat. So the father was rather surprised. Anyway, he bought a fish, gave it to his son who instantly gobbled it raw in front of the flabbergasted fishmonger! Sometime latter, the father passed by a butcher stall and was bewildered to be attracted by the smell of raw meat. He then introduced it raw on the family table and everyone found it appetizing.
I don’t feel we ever pretended that instincts and senses are the sole tool used in nature. Of course, there are others. But our instinct is far superior to any diet expert or ideology in precisely choosing the right food in the right amount for each specific individual at each given moment.
No problem, I understood that we used the word “brain” instead of a more appropriate word such as “mind”. My sentence about using instinct not implying idiocy was a caricature, sorry about that.
I’m glad that you did read at least some parts of GCB’s book, so that we can have a better targeted and more constructive dialogue.
There's also different levels of instinct, like short/medium/long-term. It was by instinct that I originally started trying to stop eating fruits, and then plants in general, and then by instinct that I felt I should then try having raw meat. It's not only the short-term of thinking what you want at that moment from what you have available which is instinct.
All our senses can influence our instinct, not just taste/smell, but also how we feel.
Yes, I agree.
Best wishes for 2011
François
-
Francois,
Love that story about that 5 year old grandson and the fish!
Hope to read more of the decades old instincto stories!
I was just re-reading Aajonus' book last night and he says he did some 6 years of instinctive eating...
-
Thanks! Actually it was his eldest son who is about 50 now, not grandson. So, Aajonus knows about instinctive nutrition, practiced it for 6 years (when?) and he found something better - or rather more sale-able?
-
Thanks! Actually it was his eldest son who is about 50 now, not grandson. So, Aajonus knows about instinctive nutrition, practiced it for 6 years (when?) and he found something better - or rather more sale-able?
He said he wound up eating too much fruit.
Said he had teeth problems and over emotions.
So he cut down to one serving of fruit a day.
He said he knows less fruit is less enjoyable, but says his health improved.
I think some people are fruit sensitive.
And some people just overdo it.
(like my wife who overdoses on rambutan)
-
Yes, and Aajonus foolishly chose raw veggie juice as an alternative to raw fruit.
-
Francois, I think we are in basic agreement on my main overall point which is not that the senses are never used, just that they are not the sole determiners of what to eat in any human society. I choose to also use my brain to learn, observe, communicate, etc. in selecting my foods.
The whole family had been eating raw for sometimes, but it had not come to their mind that we can and must eat raw fish and raw meat.
You mean they started out as raw vegans?
I don’t feel we ever pretended that instincts and senses are the sole tool used in nature. Of course, there are others.
It's good to see that you acknowledge their role.
Thanks, for your time, Francois.
-
You mean they started out as raw vegans?
As raw vegetarians. The first question was “No animal cook food, why are we cooking ?” And they started to eat all raw, instinctively, unmixed, unseasoned. They were still eating raw dairy (and perhaps raw eggs, but that I’m not sure), but for some periods GCB didn’t eat any dairy. When he started to have dairy again, he noticed that he got inflammations (for example around small wounds) and even that spontaneous infections appeared. He then thought that the milk they got from an organic farmer wasn't ok. So they bought a goat to have their own milk and to be sure of its quality. Still it caused inflammations and infections.
Then another question came: what’s wrong with the milk? It took him some time, some more experiments and some more thinking until he realized that no animal drinks the milk of another animal species and that that no animal drinks milk in adulthood. So, the next step was to suppress all dairy.
Having suppressed all or almost all sources of animal food, there’s no wonder it didn’t take long for raw fish and raw meat to become attractive!
All that was around 1964 – 1965. At the time, eating raw fish and raw meat was absolutely out of question for everyone in Switzerland. The fact that on the other side of the planet Pacific Islanders and Japaneses had always eaten raw fish without any problems was completely overlooked in Europe and W. A. Price work was almost unknown.
Cheers
François
-
Carnivores that eat a significant amount of fruits or other plant foods are called facultative carnivores, whereas big cats are obligate carnivores.
Ok, thanks for the clarification.
I was not trying to make a point that humans shouldn't eat fruits, rather just making an observation that GCB is doing more than just sharing his success story. His writings suggest that he is trying to persuade others. That doesn't mean that doing so is wrong, it's just an observation. I think that "promoting a diet" is accurate wording for this, but perhaps there is a better wording you might come up with?
I feel that he tells what his experiments, experience and reasoning have led him to infer. There would be no point in writing a book in which the author tries to persuade his readers that what he writes is false. ;)
That’s for the book. In the seminars he gave and which I attended, he always explained the how and why of his stand, emphasizing that we should never believe anything but rather relentlessly question everything (including what he told us) and never take something for true without understanding why. Moreover he stressed that every theory, of course his being included, is always a temporary approximation that shall be completed or even superseded in the future.
Do you think there is any extra nutrition in the tasty tropical fruits beyond more sugars and if so, do you know what it might be?
Who knows? There are millions or perhaps billions of different molecular structures in living organisms. We, “civilized” humans always tend to think we have knowledge and power! But we should rather realize that our knowledge is extremely limited against the complexity of the Universe and Life. It’s this way of thinking (“we know and we can”) that has brought the catastrophic state of things on this planet - and the catastrophic health state of so many people.
I was specifically referring to adult wild animals and HGs teaching their children to eat certain things and not to eat certain other things, not how to just save time or energy. In other words, wild animals and HGs do not appear to rely on senses alone in determining what to eat, so why should we? Are you saying that the instinctive regulation of these wild animals and HGs is distorted by not relying on their senses alone, even though they don't appear to suffer any serious negative effects from their choices in nature?
I don’t think there is any conflict between transmitted knowledge and instinct: they rather work together as long as no Neolithic, processed and cooked food is used. Even now, between us raw-paleo-dieters, we exchange information about what we found good tasting, therefore edible raw, and how and where to get it.
Yes, different from the wild fruits of today, and perhaps more different from the cultivated fruits of today and perhaps the fruits available to early hominids in Stone Age Africa, Europe and Northern, Western and Central Asia were also different from the fruits of South Asia, both wild and cultivated?
Yes. Apparently, extensive settlement of Europe and other temperate regions happened in the middle Paleolithic era, after the fire was mastered. So, our ancestors lived in the tropic during millions of years before coming to northern areas. No wonder that we like tropical fruits, which by the way are often more wild than cultivated fruits from temperate areas. Some argue that fruits are not available in winter without modern transportation means, forgetting that the bulk of our ancestors came out of the tropics relatively recently, having already mastered the fire.
I was referring specifically to your and my ancestors. I'll use mine as an example. Odds are that none of my ancestors going back to the first hominin set foot in SE Asia, as the evidence indicates that the Stone Agers who populated that area branched off from others and didn't then go to Europe as did some other Asians. So there's no reason to believe that any of my direct ancestors ever ate a SE Asian fruit until the 20th century when tropical Asian fruits became commonly available around the globe, whereas they may have eaten some fruits of Europe and Northern/Western/Central Asia for tens of thousands of years.
You acknowledged that "Plants and animals are in constant evolution," so it's possible that my ancestors may have evolved some while living in Eurasia and eating the fruits of temperate, subarctic and/or Arctic regions. They certainly didn't perish for lack of SE Asian or South Asian fruits. Why should I be more adapted to fruits from a region that my direct ancestors never stepped foot in than an area that they lived in for at least tens of thousands of years? The only possible explanation I can think of is that the SE/South Asian fruits are more similar to African fruits that our ancestors ate, but I haven't seen any research or analysis of this yet. Shouldn't we investigate that before we make assumptions?
I don’t think anybody will perish for lack of SE Asian fruits! But some of these fruits, just like any paleo foodstuff; can be useful for someone having a particular health problem, and most of us former consumers of Neolithic and modern cooked food have had a particular health problem. There’s no reason to exclude those fruits. Otherwise the reciprocate would apply to someone like GS living in SE Asia and he shouldn’t be allowed to eat apples and blackberries because none of his direct ancestors ever ate an European fruit.
The more relevant tropical fruits for my ancestral history would appear to be African tropical fruits, yet they strangely rarely get discussed by Instinctos or Paleos, much less eaten. Why? If plants and animals are in constant evolution and evolution has some sort of role in dietary adaptation this would seem to be an interesting question, not one to be ignored or dismissed.
There’s not so many fruits actually considered from African origin. Most tropical fruits I know are considered from either South American or South Asian origin. I don’t think this question has been dismissed by GCB. It’s just that those tropical fruits did not induce any troubles in the experiments as did cooked food, dairy and wheat. On the contrary, these fruits appeared to be not only very tasty, but also beneficial.
So much time is spent on fruits from an area that my ancestors and those of most Europeans likely never set foot in and so little on the fruits that they actually ate and the descendents of those fruits. The emphasis seems imbalanced. I think part of the reason is that African fruits are not widely sold outside of Africa, but since some Instinctos order durian fruits via phone or Internet, this doesn't appear to be a complete obstacle.
I happened to get friend with an importer of organic African fruits in Lausanne. Every week he sold me for very cheap his unsold, too ripe or a bit damaged fruits. Those fruits from Cameroon were bananas, plantains, pineapples, papayas, mangoes, passion fruits, avocados, coconuts, safus… only the last is considered from African origin, I think.
The common elements among the most favored fruits selected by the senses appear to be sweetness (ex: durian, banana, mango, grapes, persimmons, dried dates) and fattyness (ex: durian, avocado, coconut). Are there any other common elements that you've noticed?
No, I don’t see any other, except perhaps that some are juicy.
It seems like you're avoiding answering my question directly. We don't have the answers to this one but it's curious that both Instinctos and Paleos have put so little effort into finding out. It's as if we're afraid we'll learn that our beloved sweet fruits are not as ancestral as we assume, so we don't investigate. I'm not trying to say that just because our ancestors didn't eat something makes it poison or anything ridiculous like that--just that it would be interesting to know how well the actual facts line up with many people's assumptions. A matter to possibly consider, not a final proof of anything.
We can and should investigate and I had done a little research on this subject years ago. Yes, most fruits have been much artificially selected, but most of the time it’s rather difficult to know exactly what were the wild ancestors and where they originated. The most reliable way to know is to experiment, and that’s what has been done by GCB, his family and friends in the 60’s. It is these long term experiment which have shown the harmful effect of dairy and cereals, but on the contrary fruits have been beneficial as long as we are careful not to overeat it, which is too easy with the intensively selected ones.
I detoxination is a possible cause of negative symptoms from fruits, but I don't see a way to prove or disprove it scientifically. It would be more believable if it were at least falsifiable. Not sppearing to be so, it does smack of magic to me. Like Tyler reported with raw dairy and I have experienced with multiple foods, continuing to eat a food we are sensitive to doesn't always resolve the negative symptoms, and even if the apparent symptoms are resolved, we don't know what damage is occurring at the cellular level. So there don't appear to be any guarantees one way or another.
Our body constantly eliminate toxins. There are usual ways (in urine en feces) and other ways. What do you think comes out of our nose when we have caught a cold? What do you think comes out from pimples and other skin eruptions? It seems logical to infer that if something is expelled from the organism, it’s because it’s not welcome inside. Sometimes even the smell of a particular cooked food is present in the excretion.
This is the cornerstone of Burger’s new theoretical model of the viral phenomena – and also of his theoretical model of bacterial diseases. For the first time I found a logical explanation about that since I never found neither Pasteur’s model nor the hygienists’ model satisfying. The first needs a lot of complications to be able to explain the observed facts while the second deny contagion, which is aberrant. We perhaps could still use Pasteur’s model, but Ockham’s razor should be applied in favor of the much simpler and better facts fitting model of GCB.
I do still eat some fruits, so I am hoping that I'll tolerate them better over time and if your theory is correct, then I should eventually thrive on them. What is the longest period this "detoxination" should take to finish?
It should gradually decrease, but with highs and lows. For me, I was alternately very fine and sometimes tired and not so well for some days during approximately a year. If I remember, those bad days were when I ate too much, probably too much fruits.
Thanks, do you know what source Kirt was quoting from?
No, sorry, I don’t see.
Vegetarians? Do you know how they explain what's instinctive about a Neolithic invention of human beings like vegetarianism?
No, but they are free to call themselves instinctos even if they maintain an ideological stance in total opposition with the instincto theory as defined by GCB! On the opposite I know some others who don’t want to be called instinctos even if they practice just like me! Crazy world…
Thanks to have raised those pertinent points.
François
-
About GCB’s distinction between detoxination processes (“orthopathy”) and true diseases (from Instinctotherapy: Part Three (http://www.reocities.com/HotSprings/7627/ggraw_eat4.html)) :
A : Let’s go back to more serious matters: that everlasting confusion between cleansing process and morbid process. For the moment, medicine is systematically confusing orthopathy with true disease. As doctors don’t take the presence of abnormal molecules in the body into account, they obviously aren’t even aware of the problem. With the few notions of physics I have, I suggest the following distinction: True diseases are those that lead to disorder and orthopathic ones those that tend to restore order.
Q: That sounds logical to me. But, can’t it happen that a cleansing process goes awry?
A: Certainly, when certain factors make the body lose control, for instance, if an overly high intake of abnormal molecules from food occurs or any imbalance. In such cases, the condition will lead to disorder, and will necessarily spell illness. That also explains why the strict adherence to instinctotherapy plays such a decisive role in the outcome of common diseases.
Q: You’re going against very many preconceptions, there.
A: Under traditional dietary conditions, orthopathy frequently leads to things getting out of hand and disorder. What results is that medicine mistakes them for true diseases.
That’s probably the biggest medical blunder of all times: by “curing” orthopathy, that is, by beheading the detoxification process with the help of antibiotics or any therapy, medicine nudges the body towards ever increasing intoxication, hence the upsurge of true diseases that are, under the circumstances, terminal. Some schools of alternative medicine claim, conversely, that all diseases are useful, including cancer. That too is a serious misreading: There’s some risk there that things will be left to their own devices, whereas, in fact, natural reactions are heading one for disaster. In my view, I rather think that one can speak of pathology as soon as a process results in an increase of disorders: molecular abnormalities, irreversible lesions, degeneracy, tumors, etc...
-
What with all the previous hijacking of this thread, it might be a better idea to start another, short thread in which you give a more concise explanation of Instincto theory and practice.
On a side-note, is PP going on about how so many modern fruits are so artificially cultivated for millenia that they do not resemble their palaeo counterparts? The same argument can be applied to meats, of course, since cattle have become seriously inbred since the start of domestication in the Neolithic era(or Mesolithic?), with extra-large udders and the like, and then there's the issue of further inbreeding caused by artificial insemination. Of course, there are alternatives, anyway, such as wild game/wild fruit, and I have even heard of farmers/companies constantly trying to improve the stock re reintroducing different, healthier breeds (for example, there was that case of a Dutch(?) company trying to breed back the wild aurochs of the Palaeolithic era, the ancestor of all modern cattle).
-
What with all the previous hijacking of this thread, it might be a better idea to start another, short thread in which you give a more concise explanation of Instincto theory and practice.
Yes, perhaps. I wanted to split this one, but it’s difficult to do so without spoiling the discussion, as I mentioned:
I just had a look at the previous pages in view to do that, but as there are answers it would kind of spoil the whole discussion. I feel that the thread is readable as is, everyone being free to read only what is relevant, avoiding the task of reading the overflowing, lengthy and futile diatribes.
On a side-note, is PP going on about how so many modern fruits are so artificially cultivated for millenia that they do not resemble their palaeo counterparts? The same argument can be applied to meats, of course, since cattle have become seriously inbred since the start of domestication in the Neolithic era(or Mesolithic?), with extra-large udders and the like, and then there's the issue of further inbreeding caused by artificial insemination.
Yes, that’s a fact you and me have already mentioned several times.
-
On a side-note, is PP going on about how so many modern fruits are so artificially cultivated for millenia that they do not resemble their palaeo counterparts? The same argument can be applied to meats, of course, since cattle have become seriously inbred since the start of domestication in the Neolithic era(or Mesolithic?), with extra-large udders and the like, and then there's the issue of further inbreeding caused by artificial insemination.
Yes, that’s a fact you and me have already mentioned several times.
I don't know what Tyler is "going on about," because I eat domesticated fruits myself (as well as some grainfinished meats--I'm no purist) and have reported this multiple times, so Tyler's comment makes no sense to me in that context. I was already well aware of the changes in animals since domestication and I don't know what "argument" he's implying that I'm making. I'm certainly not arguing that no one should eat fruits (including tropical fruits and domesticated fruits), if that's what he was trying to imply. If anyone thinks I was, please see the discussion aids in my signature.
Tyler, it would have been helpful and shown more of the courage of your namesake if you had at least cited which of my posts you were referring to and directed your comment to me (preferably in the form of a question instead of a snide remark), but since you asked Francois whether I was doing whatever it was I was supposed to be doing, I don't get the sense that you even bothered to read all my posts in this thread before making that remark. Since you've given this thread a negative twist after what I thought was a constructive discussion with Francois, I'll put it aside for now. I'd like to learn more about Instincto some day, but you have given the subject a bad taste for the moment.
Thanks again for your time, Francois. I look further to future discussions re: Instincto/Anopsology, if you don't mind more questions. If you ever tire of my questions, do let me know. I have a high level of curiosity and a fast typing speed that I know can tire some respondents out. ;D
-
Thanks again for your time, Francois. I look further to future discussions re: Instincto/Anopsology, if you don't mind more questions. If you ever tire of my questions, do let me know. I have a high level of curiosity and a fast typing speed that I know can tire some respondents out. ;D
You're welcome, it's fine to be curious and by asking questions there's no risk to be wrong!
Cheers
Francois