Paleo Diet: Raw Paleo Diet and Lifestyle Forum
Raw Paleo Diet to Suit You => Instincto / Anopsology => Topic started by: Hanna on July 11, 2010, 03:19:17 am
-
Since my questions tend to be forgotten, I open up a new thread.
Gcb said that our instinct has to be trained, because "we are no longer placed in an environment close to the one where our genome evolved, thus a series of precautions must be taken". My question: When and where did the instincto species eating durian, cempedak, jackfruit, banana, dates, safu, avocado... live? Where was this tropical paradise and when did it exist? Were the instinctos living there apelike or already human?
-
-X
This is a very intresting question indeed, Hanna.
Thanks for asking (I do not have the answer though.. hoping some Instinctos will reply).
Inger
-
This is my current leading theory behind it.
There was truly a golden age in human memory. And this is regurgitated in many world religions.
It is connected to the very recent ancient recorded cataclysms, catastrophes.
You know, we used to be in a binary system.
Saturn was our fixed sun.
There was a plasma haze that covered the earth.
There were no stars recorded and no planets until late in recent history.
Our 365 day calendar is so new, so much has changed.
See www.thunderbolts.info for details.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I-46CJ5Pt7U
------------------
See http://www.grazian-archive.com/quantavolution/QUANTAVOL/Q_intro/intro.pdf
ALFRED DE GRAZIA
QUANTAVOLUTION AND CATASTROPHE
Introduction to the series
Charles Darwin said in 1869 in the "Origin of Species" that "anyone whose disposition leads him to attach more weight to unexplained difficulties than to the explanation of a certain number of facts will certainly reject my theory." For a long time it seemed unwise to weigh too heavily the anomalies. Now the time has arrived when "unexplained difficulties" have become indeed too many for the Darwinian model of gradual incre-mental Evolution by natural selection to support. It should be replaced by a theory of Quantavolution. Or, at least, it should be placed up against a contrasting model.
Quantavolution theory maintains that the world from its beginnings, including the world of life and humanity, has changed largely by quantum leaps, rather than by tiny incre-ments over great stretches of time. The over two million words of this collection of works by the author and collaborators present the full range of ideas and phenomena that pertain to this theory. It may be well to warn promptly against claiming any relationship to quantum field theory in physics, although dire consequences to gravitation concepts may inhere, because of the seeming all-sufficiency of new electromagnetic theory. Such a global change of perspective requires a search for new evidence, a reformulation of old evidence, a reconsideration of anomalies, changes in meanings of words and phrases, explora-tions of etymologies of words and concepts, and a reexamination of assumptions, often when they are so accepted as to be trite and so trite as to be ignored -- removed, indeed, from our very cognitive structures.
For example, there is an immense idea that persists in the litera-ture to the effect that the Moon was torn from the Earth; this story is told not only by scientists such as George Darwin and George Fisher but also by myths of various cultures. Invariably, if a discussion of the matter is allowed at all, the posited event is positioned in time billions of years ago in the conventionally agreed upon youth of the Earth. Such an event, if it were to be treated seriously in an encyclopedia, would invade hundreds of articles with its causes and effects, changing practically every discipline in ways great and small. This set of works does not treat this idea alone as the true theory; but it considers it properly so serious as to warrant consideration under many headings.
Such theories of "quantavolution" play a part in all discussions as to the origin of the other bodies of the solar system; one needs to explain the considerations that have led serious scholars to ask whether and how the planets originated from the Sun or, if not, then from one or another of themselves (such as Jupiter). Furthermore, the universal belief of ancient cultures and legends, that the gods were born, and were members of the same family, would begin to stir our interest.
In many cultures, there is said to have been an original chaos or world vapor and a catastrophic event from which the father of the gods was born and from him (or her) was born the suc-cession of gods. Why "born" instead of having always been in existence? It is not enough to say that these phrases are only analogies with the birth of animals in nature, or only fairy tales based on the analogies. Why should this be? Many analogies cover realities: might this be such a case? When one says, "Babies are born like puppies," one certainly is not denying that babies are born. And why were all of these gods identified, if of any importance, with the planets and other sky bodies?. Most, if not all, cultures, have insisted that the planets and other sky bodies are divinities. Does this not lend support to the hypothesis of a true succession of birth throes in the heavens? Would this be evidence of a marvellous early philosophical synthesis connecting the birth of the cosmos to that of the members of an earthly family? No matter if the alarming thought should arise: the members of the solar system arose somehow from one another in a series of catastrophes that somehow early humankind had some knowledge or theory about.
This is the kind of reasoning that unsettles many scientists and ordinary people who are content to rest with their ordinary per-spectives on the universe; it is a "whistle-blower" on the prevailing paradigm of the sciences and the humanities, calling back the play to the line of scrimmage.
The catastrophes responsible for the development of the theory of quantavolution were immensely greater than these, to be sure, but the elemental forces at work, the chemistry, the electricity, the psychic reactions are typical and homologous. As with a host of experiences of the past and present, the individual person must learn about catastrophes of the world -- past, present, and future -- from the testimony of the rocks, the skies, the fossils, the carvings, the ruins, and then from recorded history and logical thought.
The theory of Quantavolution deals with the behavior of substances of the real world so far as one can sense them. It proposes that change in nature and life occur largely as the result of catastrophic events; the events originate in the skies, which contain forces that are immeasurably greater than any in man or Earth and that are especially electrical. There are numerous "catastrophists" who have contributed to Q.. It is vital to appreciate that in Quantavolution, the word "catastrophe" loses its completely bad connotation; for what the world is today is an effect of catastrophe or, better, of Quantavolution, whose goodness and badness are intertwined and to be judged by the philosophy of good and bad consequences.
The underlying philosophy of Quantavolution inclines toward a phenomenological instrumentalism. It regards a "truth" as a fitting and useful part of a system of such truths that constitute. as a whole a possible tolerable outlook upon existence. The terms pragmatism, logical positivism, and operationism come to mind when reaching out for related perspectives. As with catastrophists, many philosophers might be cited. Among them would be Plato, Ockham, Bruno, Locke, Berkeley, Vico, Husserl, Freud, Dewey, Mead, Wittgenstein, and Bridgman.
The day may not be far off when a new philosopher will draw upon the applicable contributions of such thinkers and the fast-growing body of quantavolutionary literature to produce a new philosophy of science.
See http://www.grazian-archive.com/quantavolution/QUANTAVOL/Q_intro/intro.pdf
-
Liebe Hanna,
zu Beginn liebe Grüße auf deutsch. :) Deine Frage werde ich allerdings so gut es geht auf englisch beantworten:
You asked when and where did the instincto species eating durian, cempedak, jackfruit, banana, dates, safu, avocado... live and where was this tropical paradise and when did it exist.
This species never existed. This is a new species and maybe it will be the species who create a new paradise, "the golden age" goodsamaritan mentioned.
My experience is that one can create this golden age independent from external circumstances in the middle of the own heart. Instinktive eating is one way leading to this centre. If you ever felt a "Himmlische Phase" (sorry, I don't know how to call it in english) you know what I mean.
Susan
-
Since my questions tend to be forgotten, I open up a new thread.
Gcb said that our instinct has to be trained, because "we are no longer placed in an environment close to the one where our genome evolved, thus a series of precautions must be taken". My question: When and where did the instincto species eating durian, cempedak, jackfruit, banana, dates, safu, avocado... live? Where was this tropical paradise and when did it exist? Were the instinctos living there apelike or already human?
You'll soon find my answer on the thread Explain...
-
GCB's answer is here: (http://www.rawpaleoforum.com/instinctoanopsology/explain-instincto-diet-fully-2/msg40005/#msg40005)
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).
-
Worth mentioning are also Alpha´s remarks, that have been moved into an separate Alpha-thread and hence completely taken out of context by the moderator:
Quote
Ces observations avaient évidemment quelque chose de rassurant : le milieu originel, dont l'instinctothérapie postule l'existence puisqu'il faut bien que notre génétique se soit adaptée à quelque chose de réel, existait heureusement quelque part.
in English
Quote
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.
Burger himself in 1991 here:
http://www.reocities.com/HotSprings/7627/IM43-fruitssauvages.html
BTW our original biotope was in this same article indeed described by Burger as something like the chimps one with plenty of fruit as the basic food.
-
Ok, thanks Hanna, sorry about that. I remembered GCB answered more in details to this point but my former search was unsuccessful. Now I have taken the time to search more carefully and found it. Here it is:
Quote from Alphagruis on July 19, 2010, 05:02:01 AM (http://www.rawpaleoforum.com/hot-topics/anti-instincto-thread/msg40725/#msg40725)[/url]
Burger’s specific « theoretical » considerations such as the existence of « an original biotope our genetics had supposedly adapted to »
I specified that this presupposition is not necessary to build the theory. Alphagruis seemingly fails to understand or don’t want to understand that our genome is the heir of an incalculable number of situations where our ancestors were confronted with such or such stuff, and that it can consequently program the alliesthesic mechanisms as to ensure nutritional balance with a food range ways more extended than that of a single and specific “original paradise”.
In other words, I always regarded the idea of an original environment as an heuristic , hence a postulate without other interest than leading us to ask questions about our actual culinary and industrial biotope. The fact that it either existed or never existed doesn’t changes anything here: the alliesthesic mechanisms and those of assimilation apparently work with all the natural unprocessed stuff one can find on the planet – some rare exceptions aside. And if we find someday a natural environment as that where the orang-outangs still live today, that simply let’s think that this heuristics is not too far from reality. But, once again, it changes nothing to this point.
-
Gcb, but you postulated elsewhere that a balanced (Instincto) diet is usually a high carb diet with much fruit. Doesn´t this imply that we must have adapted to an environment in which edible fruit was abundant or at least not scarce?
-
It is useless to discuss, what our ancestor have eaten, high carb diet or low carb diet or what else. This is past and evolution has continued. Our enviremont and our needs are totally different from that of our ancestors. Still we can use senses like smell and taste to select our food, but furthermore we have devolped other senses which help us to find food that is suitable to our personal evolution.
So everyone has to look for his personal needs and these can differ totally from needs of another person. When do we know that our personal needs are fulfilled? I think when live in perfect harmony with our enviremont, calm, satisfied and able to solve problems not only to discuss them. :)
-
I doubt we have evolved to any extent away from our forebears in the palaeolithic.
-
Do you believe that evolution has spared man? Hasn't man changed his physical attributes (or do we look like apes anymore?) and developed a higher consciousness (though maybe not all of us :) )?
-
I think we made an evolutionary jump to conscious humanity.
Something like Quantavolution.
On the health level, my basis for believing in raw paleo diet is it heals people, raw paleo diet and variants within is the basis of getting well, getting healthy.
As for the Quantavolution jump to consciousness, I like the evidence that the earth used to be in a plasma soup, that there were no visible stars, that the garden of eden was everywhere, that calendars have changed, year measurements had changed, the earths position in the solar system was different, once there was a binary star system: sun-saturn, sun-jupiter, sun-uranus.
That's why it is important to experiment with the here and now as to what works.
-
Do you believe that evolution has spared man? Hasn't man changed his physical attributes (or do we look like apes anymore?) and developed a higher consciousness (though maybe not all of us :) )?
No, I mean we evolved away from apes in the palaeolithic and then degenerated/devolved.
-
However, groups of people who do better on modern foods may be more likely to reproduce with each other, leaving those who don't for each other, which could be a sort of evolution, a branching off. Although these people who do less well may not die, people still prefer healthier partners for breeding, as well as rape being illegal.
-
Reading TylerDurden's words that I belong to a degenerated species has made me feel sad and hopeless. :(
Searching what kind of food could help me to overcome my sadness I found some special beings:
(http://www.allesrohkost.de/paleoforum/Grashuepfer.JPG)
Eating three of them made me happy again and I'm contaminated with their vitality. :)
TylerDurden, I don't believe that I'm degenerated, I believe that I evolve myself. My observation is that intuitive raw eating gives me the energy for the evolution of my consciousness and helps me to cure defects of body and mind caused by unsuitable cooked food.
-
However, groups of people who do better on modern foods may be more likely to reproduce with each other, leaving those who don't for each other, which could be a sort of evolution, a branching off. Although these people who do less well may not die, people still prefer healthier partners for breeding, as well as rape being illegal.
Well, I dispute the notion of getting adapted to cooked/processed foods, as foods are becoming ever so more processed as time goes by that no possible viable genetic adaptation would keep up.
-
Wow, raw grasshopper?
Do you kill them first?
Reading TylerDurden's words that I belong to a degenerated species has made me feel sad and hopeless. :(
Searching what kind of food could help me to overcome my sadness I found some special beings:
(http://www.allesrohkost.de/paleoforum/Grashuepfer.JPG)
Eating three of them made me happy again and I'm contaminated with their vitality. :)
TylerDurden, I don't believe that I'm degenerated, I believe that I evolve myself. My observation is that intuitive raw eating gives me the energy for the evolution of my consciousness and helps me to cure defects of body and mind caused by unsuitable cooked food.
-
No, I mean we evolved away from apes in the palaeolithic and then degenerated/devolved.
I think we devolved temporarily. In other words once generations of people start eating raw paleo again our better traits will return. Larger brain mass, more muscle and more. The reason we devolved is not genetic (in my opinion) but our generation ate inferior diets and our bodies could fully develope to its true potential.
-
I think we devolved temporarily. In other words once generations of people start eating raw paleo again our better traits will return. Larger brain mass, more muscle and more. The reason we devolved is not genetic (in my opinion) but our generation ate inferior diets and our bodies could fully develope to its true potential.
The reason we devolved is indeed partially genetic. After all, natural selection in the Palaeolithic meant that deleterious genes were weeded out, whereas nowadays by saving ever more lives of those with faulty genes like haemophilia etc., we are ensuring that more and more people are born with such defects.
-
Wow, raw grasshopper?
Do you kill them first?
First I bite off the head, otherwise they try to jump within the mouth. :)
I think we devolved temporarily. In other words once generations of people start eating raw paleo again our better traits will return. Larger brain mass, more muscle and more. The reason we devolved is not genetic (in my opinion) but our generation ate inferior diets and our bodies could fully develope to its true potential.
You are right we dont't differ genetically but epigenetically. Though genes are constant over a long period and can't be influenced by food, our epigentic heritage can be influenced. So nobody shall lament his "bad" heritage when he becomes ill but change his nutrition and his way of live.
-
Gcb, but you postulated elsewhere that a balanced (Instincto) diet is usually a high carb diet with much fruit. Doesn´t this imply that we must have adapted to an environment in which edible fruit was abundant or at least not scarce?
Once again, I do not need an original paradise hypothesis to build the instincto theory: just watch on one hand the instinctive attractions and on the other hand the results on nutritional balance. Taking into account the olfactory and gustatory attraction/repulsion, repletion and other alliesthesic perceptions as well as interpretations under the rules of instincto helps to ensure an extremely accurate nutritional balance, verifiable in terms of the inflammatory tendency – as I have already explained (such accuracy could only be obtained with fasting). Experience shows that the proportions of fruit, vegetables, oilseeds and animal products correspond closely to what is observed in apes. We can therefore say that it works, and that’s the principal.
Now, what can we deduce about the existence of an "original paradise" where all the fruits of our dreams would have been found? Not much, because the programming of our genes took place over very long eras during which our ancestors have known all sorts of different vanished environments leading each to other various genetic properties that have thus been able to accumulate in our genome. To get an idea of these primitive surroundings, the best indication is given by the few locations where the hand of man has yet set foot, for examples in such biotopes of bonobos’ in Africa and orangutans’ in Borneo or Sumatra.
What I know, for example through a small survival expedition without fire or culinary arts in Borneo attended by my younger son, is that the orangutans find (and maintain in spreading the seeds) in their habitat a broad range of wonderful fruits perfectly suitable to humans, provided that they have not their taste distorded nor their body saturated by the effect of culinary arts. It is likely that forests inhabited by our distant and exctinct hominids ancestor resembled those environments and counted tree species better adapted to their organisms through the spreading of seeds, so even more appealing to the senses and more favorable to their metabolism. We understand that this environment would have significantly changed ever since mankind cooks its food and is no longer interested in the same fruits as in the original context. Hence the current state of the natural environment, terribly poor in fruits edible to humans.
-
Maybe I'm missing something here, but you don't seem to be directly answering Hanna's question, GCB, because whereas you write this:
Once again, I do not need an original paradise hypothesis to build the instincto theory: ...
You also wrote this in which you suggest that even Europeans' bodies are better adapted to tropical climates and in which you recommend tropical fruits, with an apparent emphasis on South Asian ones, are better than temperate fruits:
This deficiency in the local array would also be a reason to think that our bodies are better adapted to tropical climates, where lacks neither cassia nor the fruit best suited to the human palate such as coconut, durian, jackfruit, cempedak, safu, papaya, mango, custard apple, longan, rambutan... the list is long and far more pleasant than the colder climate fruits range.
Why the seeming contradiction and why so much emphasis on tropical (particularly South Asian) fruits?
-
Gcb,
According to your Instincto rules the first meal of the day, i. e. lunch, should consist of fruit/sugar. At lunch time and without breakfast people of course have a large appetite and will tend to eat much fruit. Therefore your rules appear to be based on the assumption that we are adapted to an environment where abundant fruit is available everyday. If according to your rules the first meal of the day would consist of foods rich in fat (e. g. bone marrow or sunflower seeds or coconut etc.), or if fruits would be considered as a small snack instead of a main meal, instinctos perhaps would eat less sugar and more fat.
-
Today I had wild boar liver for my lunch ;)
Sometimes I have oysters, or eggs...
Cheers
Francois
-
.... In my case, I have always given priority to the empirical long-term observations, rather than to grand theories. Actually the experience suggests that we are particularly adapted to tropical fruits (including c. fistula). But the fruits of moderate climates are also quite suited: the regulation of nutritional balance is fine with at the menu, according to the affinities of each one loquats : blackberries, mulberries, blueberries, cherries, apricots, peaches, apples, pears, plums, grapes etc. The point is how to take account of variations in flavor, consistency, and sensation of fullness. ....
There you go Iguana, straight from the horse's mouth. GCB has put particular emphasis on tropical fruits, most of which originate from South and Southeast Asia. As he wrote, that doesn't mean he thinks temperate fruits are bad, just that he has particularly praised the tropical ones. So my question stands and GCB's answer doesn't fully address it.
GCB wrote: "Actually the experience suggests that we are particularly adapted to tropical fruits (including c. fistula)."
Whose experience is "the experience"? It's not mine. I do rather poorly on Asian tropical fruits and in evolutionarily speaking, human experience with them is very short as compared to African and Eurasian fruits (you did mention one African fruit that I noticed), which is why I'm puzzled that you're talking about them like they were ideal for humanity in general. Why would Northwest Europeans like myself who have no indications of any ancestors in South/Southeast Asia at all ever in human history be particularly adapted to fruits from that region? Are you suggesting that they are most similar in some way to the tropical fruits of Africa? Do you know what the main fruits humans ate in Africa during the last 2+ million years were?
-
I also do badly on tropical fruits, whereas fruits from more northerly climes(berries, apples, pears and the like) I do fine on.
-
And fruits like banana do not only originate in Southeast Asia, but also look a little bit different if they are wild:
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_dqofpoSo8rg/STkdlFRa-uI/AAAAAAAAAC8/QLOvRYO6nXk/s400/wild+banana.jpg)
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_dqofpoSo8rg/STkdOg54VwI/AAAAAAAAAC0/7OZQT51TpS4/s400/Inside_a_wild-type_banana.jpg)
The wild banana reportedly tastes bad and bitter.
And Iguana, ask Orkos why they don´t sell, for example, wild dates! They know wild dates!
I cannot believe that an instincto in whatever wild environment would manage to eat as much sugar as he does in the civilised world.
-
I prefer wild fruits independent from their origin. All types of cultivated fruits regardless of whether they come from Asia, Europe, Africa or from the rest of the world cause chaos in my body and in my mind and I don't feel really satisfied after eating them. Overlaoding my body with cultivated fruits lead to toothaches, sometimes to muscle cramps and to nervousness.
The difference between wild and cultivated fruits I noticed very clear eating cherrys this year. I have a wonderful big cultivated cherry-tree in my garden and I always ate a lot of them with great pleasure but never finding a clear stop and never fully satisfied after eating them. This year I found a wild cherry-tree and I tasted wild cherrys. It was not possible to eat more than a dozen of this little fruits. The stop was very clear. But though the quantaty was small I was fully satisfied and I have had an illuminous phase. Knowing the real taste of cherrys I don't eat the cultivated ones any more.
Till now I can't get wild bananas, or wild dates, from some tropical fruits I don't know if they are cultivated or not (like Rambutan or Litschies). But I observe my reactions after a meal very accurate and in the case of bananas I decided to cancel them from my diet till I get wild ones.
-
And Iguana, ask Orkos why they don´t sell, for example, wild dates! They know wild dates!
Why do you ask me to ask them? Can't you ask'em yourself?
Cheers
Francois
-
Wild dates reportedly have practically no fruit pulp.
-
The wild banana reportedly tastes bad and bitter.
Such considerations do not take into account the alliesthesic mechanisms: wild fruits often appear inedible when tested next to the ordinary cooked food. Why? Because food preparation can violate the "instinctive judgments" and lead to a constant overload in all kinds of components, including calories. The wild fruits, however, corresponds exactly to the genetic programming of the senses and seem therefore inedible, simply because the alliesthesic mechanisms work correctly with primitive varieties. Failing to realize this leads to think that the wild stuff is definitely inedible while it suffices to wait until the culinary overload fades to discover the real flavor of wild products. I would bet that the wild bananas you provided these excellent photos shall be excellent to my taste. This is already the case for "cooking" bananas, which seem rather inedible beside cooked food, but become better than current usual bananas after a certain time of instincto.
And Iguana, ask Orkos why they don´t sell, for example, wild dates! They know wild dates!
Doesn’t it look simple? But wild dates are not grown and it is very difficult to find people willing to harvest them. Moreover, they have a less pleasant taste to standard dieters than improved varieties, so it is difficult to sell them to others consumers than long term instinctos and therefore difficult to recoup costs. Orkos does at least seek varieties as little selected as possible to integrate into their sales program which includes about twenty varieties (not only hardliners instincto clients must be satisfied, but also the much more numerous others who prefer the selected strains). But for other fruit, especially tropical fruits, Orkos’ search for wild varieties is constant: for example cempedaks are during part of the season harvested in the primeval forest. And they are much better to the instinctos’ taste than cultivated more selected varieties for example from Vietnam. This is also a point that must be considered: the wild fruits of the temperate land (apples, pears, corms) are often much more inedible than tropical fruits in the wild (cempedak, jackfruit, coconut, durian, avocado, etc.). This would be a reason to think that we are better adapted to tropics than to temperate regions
I cannot believe that an instincto in whatever wild environment would manage to eat as much sugar as he does in the civilised world.
It depends which instinctos we talk about. Your overall impression is probably distorted by different bias.
1. A long term instincto does not eat so much foods high in sugar.
2. The high consumption of sweet foods observed in the early days have obviously a therapeutic function.
3. Defective supplies (moreover from temperate regions) may push to over-consumption.
4. Selected modern fruits actually induce over-consumption.
5. The natural environment as one think of it does not correspond to what could be a natural environment inhabited by homo “preculinaris”, because man has abandoned all kinds of fruit that became less palatable as a result of overloads induced by artificial food processing, and these fruits being no longer consumed, their seeds no longer had the same chance of reproduction.
6. To get an idea of what could be the natural environment inhabited by homo “preculinaris”, we can go see the primeval forest where primates fairly close to us live, except that the fruit multiplied by spontaneous spreading of their seeds are not the same that suits the human palate.
We must remain very cautious in this kind of considerations. Personally, I prefer to look at what the instinct leads to eat (avoiding the culinary art and agriculture as much as possible, which is already a good approximation) and health outcomes. If a person consumes three kilos of jackfruit per day and gains weight while all previous treatments had not allowed her to do so, I tend to conclude that this apparently excessive ration is her real needs, even if the nutritional science is unable to give an explanation. If someone eats 500 grams of comb honey per day (natural and from unfed bees to avoid any deterioration in taste) and then this consumption is interrupted because the same honey taste has changed, as well as that during this period of apparent overload nutritional balance criteria were met (eg the absence of inflammatory tendency), I deduce that this massive supply of sugar had a reason for being, rather than going into all sorts of arguments about adaptation to a primitive environment – which do not stand on any concrete basis.
-
I prefer wild fruits independent from their origin. All types of cultivated fruits regardless of whether they come from Asia, Europe, Africa or from the rest of the world cause chaos in my body and in my mind and I don't feel really satisfied after eating them. Overlaoding my body with cultivated fruits lead to toothaches, sometimes to muscle cramps and to nervousness.
The difference between wild and cultivated fruits I noticed very clear eating cherrys this year. I have a wonderful big cultivated cherry-tree in my garden and I always ate a lot of them with great pleasure but never finding a clear stop and never fully satisfied after eating them. This year I found a wild cherry-tree and I tasted wild cherrys. It was not possible to eat more than a dozen of this little fruits. The stop was very clear. But though the quantaty was small I was fully satisfied and I have had an illuminous phase. Knowing the real taste of cherrys I don't eat the cultivated ones any more.
I couldn't agree more. How long have you practiced instinctive nutrition?
Wild dates reportedly have practically no fruit pulp.
Don’t be too hasty in your conclusions. True, there are wild dates with very little pulp, hardly enough to scratch with our teeth and therefore being very energy inefficient. But there are others not as meager. And if men are interested in these dates, it is obviously the best and pulpy ones they’ll eat and spread the seeds, so they finally find it currently in their habitat.
-
Maybe I'm missing something here, but you don't seem to be directly answering Hanna's question, GCB, because whereas you write this:
You also wrote this in which you suggest that even Europeans' bodies are better adapted to tropical climates and in which you recommend tropical fruits, with an apparent emphasis on South Asian ones, are better than temperate fruits:
Why the seeming contradiction and why so much emphasis on tropical (particularly South Asian) fruits?
Well, we don’t understand each other: I did not need the hypothesis of an original paradise to build the instincto, because it is built from empirical observations on the functioning of alliesthesic and metabolic mechanisms, regardless of such hypothesis. But that does not prevent the observed results to be interpreted in a second step in terms of evolution and genetic adaptation.
The concept of genetic adaptation has been especially useful to me for explaining the shortcomings of alliesthesic mechanisms with food processed by the culinary arts. But how this genetic adaptation to different varieties of fruits was carried out is quite indifferent to me. As already stated many times, our genome has been able to collect data in many very different circumstances, as it dates back to immemorial time, long before primates appeared (we still have the same genes as the bacterias for a variety of proteins structures of our cells, for example).
On the contrary, your argument is based on assumptions about the ENVIRONMENT in which man would have set up its genome, which makes it very risky. We know almost nothing about the exact conditions under which our ancestors were able to spend the tens of millions of years whose memory was added to previous data of our genome: there were all kinds of migrations, environmental changes, climatic hazards about which lack of knowledge prohibits any safe deduction. I prefer to proceed by empirical observation as a first step, even resorting to hypotheses in a second time to explain these observations because this approach is much less random than the opposite course.
-
Gcb,
According to your Instincto rules the first meal of the day, i. e. lunch, should consist of fruit/sugar. At lunch time and without breakfast people of course have a large appetite and will tend to eat much fruit. Therefore your rules appear to be based on the assumption that we are adapted to an environment where abundant fruit is available everyday.
"To be based": No! The rule stems from the observation. It turned out that most people usually feel better when starting the day with fruit. When we begin with animal food, for example, we don’t get all the same criteria of well-being. These criteria are very specific and allow assessing the quality of digestion and metabolism functions. In addition, this rule is not absolute, it’s rather an advice for beginners (as is also the case for all the "rules" constituting the instincto). As experience has shown that doing so was preferable in most cases I recommend to start there, but if a person sees through her own experience that another way suits her best, she should of course ignore this “rule”.
I am constantly astonished by the image of inflexibility that underlies most of the objections on the different threads (eg those of Alphagruis). The instincto is not a diet with fixed rules. It is rather a basis of personal experience gained from the observation of a large number of cases (I had the opportunity to observe and share experiences with hundreds of people during more than 40 years), and explained afterwards under the laws of evolution and biochemistry.
If according to your rules the first meal of the day would consist of foods rich in fat (e. g. bone marrow or sunflower seeds or coconut etc.), or if fruits would be considered as a small snack instead of a main meal, instinctos perhaps would eat less sugar and more fat.
Exactly, everyone can adjust as one sees fit. And that changes over time. When the attraction of fruit falls, it happens to me, of course, to have a meal of meat, or nuts, or avocados at noon. But it is seldom.
-
Well, we don’t understand each other: I did not need the hypothesis of an original paradise to build the instincto,
Right, we got that part. ... because it is built from empirical observations on the functioning of alliesthesic and metabolic mechanisms, regardless of such hypothesis. But that does not prevent the observed results to be interpreted in a second step in terms of evolution and genetic adaptation.
So are you saying that during some "second step" of evolution that humans became adapted to eating tropical fruits with a South Asian emphasis?
The concept of genetic adaptation has been especially useful to me for explaining the shortcomings of alliesthesic mechanisms with food processed by the culinary arts.
OK, so you do see some value in an evolutionary biology explanation for how humans became adapted to certain foods, yes?
On the contrary, your argument is based on...
I'm not making any argument right now, just trying to understand your views.
I prefer to proceed by empirical observation as a first step, even resorting to hypotheses in a second time to explain these observations because this approach is much less random than the opposite course.
Ah, would you call yourself an empiricist?
-
Hanna, by origin I mean the fruits that GCB advocated here[/ulrl] are reportedly believed to most likely have these origins:
coconut - South and Southeast Asia (ex: Bangladesh, India, New Zealand)
durian - Southeast Asia (Brunei, Indonesia and Malaysia)
jackfruit - southern and Southeast Asia (ex: Bangladesh)
cempedak - Southeast Asia (from Malaya Peninsula to the island of New Guinea/Papua)
safu (safou, African plum, African pear, Dacryodes edulis): shady, humid tropical forests of Africa
papaya: tropics of the Americas
mango: Indian subcontinent
custard apple: tropical New World
longan: South and Southeast Asia
rambutan: Southeast Asia (ex: Malaysia, Indonesia, The Philippines, Sri Lanka)
Notice a trend there?
(http://www.rawpaleoforum.com/instinctoanopsology/cassia-fistula-why-when-how-much/msg46178/#msg46178)I would bet that the wild bananas you provided these excellent photos shall be excellent to my taste.
That would be an interesting experiment. Are you able to acquire any?
This is also a point that must be considered: the wild fruits of the temperate land (apples, pears, corms) are often much more inedible than tropical fruits in the wild (cempedak, jackfruit, coconut, durian, avocado, etc.). This would be a reason to think that we are better adapted to tropics than to temperate regions
How do you think we became adapted to these tropical fruits? Do they resemble the fruits of Africa that archaic Homo sapiens consumed? Do you have any info to share on the fruits eaten by humans of more than 100,000 years ago?
-
So are you saying that during some "second step" of evolution that humans became adapted to eating tropical fruits with a South Asian emphasis?
No! I'm talking about the second step in the instincto approach: the first is the empirical step (notice that the foodstuff taste changes when they are unprocessed) while the second step is the theoretical interpretation (this could be explained by the fact that the human genome is not adapted to the organoleptic properties modified by different culinary arts or agriculture).
OK, so you do see some value in an evolutionary biology explanation for how humans became adapted to certain foods, yes?
The theory is of course interesting. The issue here is to distinguish an approach based on a theory from which we define a diet versus an approach based on observations from which we draw a diet and a theory.
In fact, observation and theoretical interpretation are rather inseparable. But it's another thing to declare that men is not adapted to fruit because the fruit did not exist in nature and thus implement a zero carb scheme, or start by observing for years the alliesthesic phenomena and physiological responses on a variety of foods to extract invariants from (eg: the denatured products are no longer properly controlled by alliesthesic and metabolic mechanisms) and define a diet (in which these alliesthesic and metabolic mechanisms function correctly) while trying to explain things by a genetic theory. The second way avoids relying on errors of archaeological or evolutionary type.
-- Ah, would you call yourself an empiricist?
I’m trained in both experimental physics and theoretical physics, but I have always been very careful about the reliability of theories. Physicists are particularly well placed to know that a model of explanation is noting more than a MODEL of explanation, and that one should never take theories for absolute foundations of reasoning. Everything we think we know about the origin of food plants and origin of our genes is highly doubtful. It can be used afterwards to try to explain the empirical results. It can also be used as heuristics to feed the experiments, but never as a basis of reasoning – especially when it comes to stick to a diet that can have all sorts of health implications.
-
Hanna, by origin I mean the fruits that GCB advocated here[/ulrl] are reportedly believed to most likely have these origins:
coconut - South and Southeast Asia (ex: Bangladesh, India, New Zealand)
durian - Southeast Asia (Brunei, Indonesia and Malaysia)
jackfruit - southern and Southeast Asia (ex: Bangladesh)
cempedak - Southeast Asia (from Malaya Peninsula to the island of New Guinea/Papua)
safu (safou, African plum, African pear, Dacryodes edulis): shady, humid tropical forests of Africa
papaya: tropics of the Americas
mango: Indian subcontinent
custard apple: tropical New World
longan: South and Southeast Asia
rambutan: Southeast Asia (ex: Malaysia, Indonesia, The Philippines, Sri Lanka)
Notice a trend there?
(http://www.rawpaleoforum.com/instinctoanopsology/cassia-fistula-why-when-how-much/msg46178/#msg46178)
The origin of a plant, archaeologically or paleontologically speaking is by force of circumstances where we have found the oldest traces. We must remain very cautious with any reasoning based on current data, subject to change.
from: GCB on Yesterday at 02:16:58 PM
I would bet that the wild bananas you provided these excellent photos shall be excellent to my taste.
-- That would be an interesting experiment. Are you able to acquire any?
I’ve had this experience with dried wild bananas. They were delicious, but we should also do it with the same fresh bananas. As I said elsewhere, cooking bananas which are usually found rough and inedible in raw state for cooked dieters, become delicious once an overload in calories or in carbs is over. They return to their unpleasant taste once the need for calories is filled.
This is also a point that must be considered: the wild fruits of the temperate land (apples, pears, corms) are often much more inedible than tropical fruits in the wild (cempedak, jackfruit, coconut, durian, avocado, etc.). This would be a reason to think that we are better adapted to tropics than to temperate regions.
-- How do you think we became adapted to these tropical fruits? Do they resemble the fruits of Africa that archaic Homo sapiens consumed? Do you have any info to share on the fruits eaten by humans of more than 100,000 years ago?
It’s indeed possible there is resemblances between different plant such as the physiological data adapted to some species also apply to other species. But I rather think that our genes carry in them a very wide range of characteristics adapted to the different forms an environment may take. One thing is anyway very clear: the natural world obeys a set of rules governing its molecular organization, while cooking induces molecular disorder with all the consequences that a disorder introduced into an organized system may have – that is to say, multiple and unpredictable effects...
But once again, what counts is to empirically ensure that the sensory mechanisms (alliesthesic, metabolic, immunological and other) work with certain foods and do not work with others. This limit empirically traced leaves on one side all the denatured products – cooked, prepared, mixed, ground, dairy, hot dried, too much artificially selected (grain, especially wheat and corn), etc. – and the other side all the fruits, vegetables, oilseeds and nuts, meat, eggs, seafood, etc. whether it comes from the equator, California, Switzerland or the Far North.
-
The origin of a plant, archaeologically or paleontologically speaking is by force of circumstances where we have found the oldest traces. We must remain very cautious with any reasoning based on current data, subject to change.
Sure, but it's not as though you listed only one or two fruits from southern Asia. If new data corrects the origin of a couple of them it won't make a huge difference in the tendency in your recommendation, and the origin would likely only change to a different tropical location rather than a temperate, subarctic or Arctic zone.
But I rather think that our genes carry in them a very wide range of characteristics adapted to the different forms an environment may take.
If our genetics are that adaptable, then please explain why we are best suited to tropical fruits? Given genetic adaptability, couldn't we just as easily adapt to other foods?
One thing is anyway very clear: the natural world obeys a set of rules governing its molecular organization, while cooking induces molecular disorder with all the consequences that a disorder introduced into an organized system may have – that is to say, multiple and unpredictable effects...
Yes, increased unknown risks--aka increased chance of "black swans". I think that most or all of us members of this forum can agree on that.
But once again, what counts is to empirically ensure that the sensory mechanisms (alliesthesic, metabolic, immunological and other) work with certain foods and do not work with others.
Yes, I can see that the senses are the key factor for you, as you have emphasized them quite a bit--especially the alliesthesic one and particularly taste.
whether it comes from the equator, California, Switzerland or the Far North.
So do different people thrive best on foods from different regions? For example, it sounds like you fare best on a tropical-oriented diet, whereas I seem to handle temperate and subarctic foods better than tropical.
-
OK, I think I'm getting a good idea of your views from your answers. So to summarize, evolutionary biology can give some broad clues, a model of explanation and perhaps some rough guidance, and it is the source of our natural senses like taste and smell, but we should of course avoid reductionist errors and spend more time using practical empiricism (aka tinkering) to find an approach customized to our individual needs than we spend theorizing in ivory towers. We should understand that while non-reductionist science is useful it is also fallible, like humankind, and never achieves perfect knowledge. So one should take the best from each--both science and experience, with emphasis on experience. Have I understood you correctly?
-
It depends which instinctos we talk about. Your overall impression is probably distorted by different bias.
1. A long term instincto does not eat so much foods high in sugar.
But you told us that an instincto diet is typically a high carb diet. You even presented a statistic to prove that. It´s impossible to eat a high carb diet when you only eat 12 wild cherries (as Susan did) per meal and you would have to eat huge amounts of wild banana or wild durian (described by Inger here: http://www.rawpaleoforum.com/instinctoanopsology/explain-instincto-diet-fully/msg38010/?topicseen#msg38010) to get sufficient sugar for a high carb diet.
4. Selected modern fruits actually induce over-consumption.
But you wrote before:
Fruits too “easy” (artificially selected to fascinate the mouth), produce a temporary overload, but this overload dopes the alliesthesic reactions so that balance is restored rather spontaneously. This under condition of taking account of all the instinctive signals (...) The danger of dependence to fruits does not exist under these conditions.
http://www.rawpaleoforum.com/instinctoanopsology/explain-instincto-diet-fully/msg38025/#msg38025
is already the case for "cooking" bananas, which seem rather inedible beside cooked food,
That´s not right. Even in the German Wikipedia you can read that they can be eaten raw (by everyone) when they are fully ripe: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kochbanane
This is also a point that must be considered: the wild fruits of the temperate land (apples, pears, corms) are often much more inedible than tropical fruits in the wild (cempedak, jackfruit, coconut, durian, avocado, etc.). This would be a reason to think that we are better adapted to tropics than to temperate regions
Or the tropics are better adapted to us, and not only to us, but to mammals and plants, to life in general! You find much more animal species and plant species, much more life in the tropes than in Europe, in the arctis or in the deserts. Therefore, the probability is of course much higher to find wild edible fruit species in the rainforests as compared to other places. Fact is that no ape species is even remotely as picky re fruit and greens as we are. Our pickiness in this respect would have reduced our chances of survival drastically and would probably have rendered survival impossible in the long run, provided that raw wild fruit (and/or raw wild greens/plants) were our primary food and fuel source, as you suppose.
-
Post suppressed, duplicate here: http://www.rawpaleoforum.com/instinctoanopsology/explain-instincto-diet-fully-2/msg46743/#msg46743"
Iguana
-
I’ve had this experience with dried wild bananas. They were delicious
Doesn´t chewing dried wild banana damage the teeth? I read not only that wild bananas are inedible by humans, but also that their large seeds are rock-hard... Ouch.
-
But you told us that an instincto diet is typically a high carb diet. You even presented a statistic to prove that. It´s impossible to eat a high carb diet when you only eat 12 wild cherries (as Susan did) per meal and you would have to eat huge amounts of wild banana or wild durian (described by Inger here: http://www.rawpaleoforum.com/instinctoanopsology/explain-instincto-diet-fully/msg38010/?topicseen#msg38010) to get sufficient sugar for a high carb diet.
If Susan could eat 12 wild cherries only that day, it’s likely that she was definitely in overload of sugar. So, she has offset the earlier overload, which was probably induced by too much selected fruit and a lack of vigilance on her part. It is precisely this type of experiences that helps to show imbalances developing under the influence of various factors, and to correct our behavior: that’s what I call the learning or rehabilitation of our alimentary instinct in the environment we have.
As for affirmation that instincto “is typically a high carb diet ", on what base do you define a standard rate? You apply an assumption of normality whose value isn’t based, AFAIK, on any figures or serious arguments. I rather think that carbs, lipids and proteins ratios that the body signals drive to and are corroborated by very strict balance criteria (including the absence of inflammatory tendency), allow defining of this normality. And coincidentally, the numbers we get are very close to the recommendations given by nutritionists and food repartition of primates in nature. I’m more wonder about low carb diets: on what base the proponents of these schemes justify such practices; has there been enough time to assess what long-term effects there might be; what are the theoretical arguments, etc.?
That´s not right. Even in the German Wikipedia you can read that they can be eaten raw (by everyone) when they are fully ripe: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kochbanane
Don’t play with words. Once cooking bananas are ripe and overripe, they actually lose the rough taste making it seemingly inedible. What interests us here is that this unpleasant rough taste of incompletely ripened bananas may disappear completely according to cravings. I saw people eating green bananas, absolutely inedible for me and other guests, while they feasted and swallowed massive amounts for several days. Then it happened that I found myself delicious a small amount of green bananas. That finally convinced me that a foodstuff inedible for some may be edible for others. The same experience happened with raw potato, tasting almost always hateful besides cooked food, but occasionally delectable in the instincto context. This happens with many wild stuff: rough and bitter as long as there is any nutritional overload, they completely change their taste and texture when the body really needs it.
Fact is that no ape species is even remotely as picky re fruit and greens as we are. Our pickiness in this respect would have reduced our chances of survival drastically and would probably have rendered survival impossible in the long run, provided that raw wild fruit (and/or raw wild greens/plants) were our primary food and fuel source, as you suppose.
Again, I think your representation of the problem is incorrect. Our gluttony comes precisely from the fact that we denature food (processing and artificial selection): then we can eat excessive amounts, which actually affects our health and our lifespan. The phenomenon does not exist with products consumed in natural form. The practical difficulty comes from the fact that we have only artificially selected varieties.
Example: since recent decades, growers produce selected blueberries, larger and therefore easier to harvest, but also easier to eat (otherwise, consumers would buy less). The result is that we tend to eat much more of it than woods blueberries. But the drift can be compensated if one is aware of the bias; we just got to be more sensitive to changes in taste and sensations of fullness. I would say that monkeys are more exposed than we are to this kind of excess: if they are offered selected products, they will also be misled by unusually appealing flavors not varying sufficiently clearly to unpleasant, and they don't have the intelligence to control the slippage.
The instincto is precisely to use what’s left still of our instinct to recognize appropriate foods and amounts, compensating drifts induced by artificial selection with some rules. Experience repeatedly shows that this approach achieves a balance far superior to that provided by any nutritional science, knowing that the needs vary constantly from one individual to another and from one moment to other. Everything else is just speculation.
-
... As for affirmation that instincto “is typically a high carb diet ", on what base do you define a standard rate? You apply an assumption of normality whose value isn’t based, AFAIK, on any figures or serious arguments. I rather think that carbs, lipids and proteins ratios that the body signals drive to and are corroborated by very strict balance criteria (including the absence of inflammatory tendency), allow defining of this normality. And coincidentally, the numbers we get are very close to the recommendations given by nutritionists and food repartition of primates in nature. I’m more wonder about low carb diets: ...
If you recognize that "low carb diets" exist, why do you balk at Hanna using the term "high carb diet." If there is low then there must as a consequence also be high.
Don’t play with words.
Why do you accuse her of that right after playing with "high carb" yourself? No matter how you dice it and regardless for the reasons behind how you arrive at them, your recommendations include much higher levels of carby foods like tropical fruits than what I eat and seem to be in the higher range of dietary recommendations. Tyler has also mentioned this about anopsology/instincto, as I recall. Here's a list of carb numbers I've accumulated over the years, to get a sense of where each "expert" stands, in case you doubt me:
Recommended AVG Percent of Calories as Carbs
---
Diet - AVG of Carbohydrate Range
Pritikin - 80
Ornish - 70
T_Colin_Campbell - 60
Boyd_Eaton_(1991) - 60 (Eaton has since become less anti-fat and thus presumably less pro-carb)
US_AMDR - 55
Mediterranean - 50
SAD - 49-50
Zone - 40
Cordain's claim of hunter-gatherer avg - 31
Rosedale - 20
Protein_Power - 16
Atkins-type - 15
Tyler's reported diet - 15, possibly lower (estimated avg within a range of 5 - 30, more frequently tending toward the lower end of the range)
K. G. Harris - 7.5
Wortman - 5
Phinney - 2
Stefansson - 0
Bear in mind that most of these people recommend ranges and I'm using the average of their ranges for simplicity's sake. The most common reference point that experts use is the Standard American Diet (SAD), which is conveniently at an even number near the middle of about 50% of calories as carbs. Zone, Cordain, Rosedale, Protein Power, Atkins, K. G. Harris, Phinney and Stefansson have all been called low carb at one time or other, though some regard anything above 25% calories as carbs as not low carb. Do you have any idea what levels of calories as carbs your fruit-heavy recommendations would roughly average out to so I could add you to my list?
So it would explain your position better and improve your credibility, and thus serve your own interests, if you could answer Hanna's question directly instead of dancing around it. I'm not against all carby foods for everyone or anything like that (I recognize that some people seem to handle them rather well--such as the famous Kitavans), but when an author such as yourself recommends to the whole world a diet that contains high amounts of carby foods, and keeps on doing so even after people like myself report that we don't handle high amounts of even raw carby foods well, I think it behooves you to explain why you are promoting this position.
-
Doesn´t chewing dried wild banana damage the teeth? I read not only that wild bananas are inedible by humans, but also that their large seeds are rock-hard... Ouch.
Hanna, the cassia fistula and carob seeds are also very hard, even those of cherimoya or soursop. We don’t have to crush them between our teeth! Just put them away with the tongue to reach the pulp surrounding it.
The most common reference point that experts use is the Standard American Diet (SAD), which is conveniently at an even number near the middle of about 50% of calories as carbs.
So it would explain your position better and improve your credibility, and thus serve your own interests, if you could answer Hanna's question directly instead of dancing around it. I'm not against all carby foods for everyone or anything like that (I recognize that some people seem to handle them rather well--such as the famous Kitavans), but when an author such as yourself recommends to the whole world a diet that contains high amounts of carby foods, and keeps on doing so even after people like myself report that we don't handle high amounts of even raw carby foods well, I think it behooves you to explain why you are promoting this position.
Phil, my position is clear : I don't recommend any percentage of carbs, proteins and fat, each individual needs being different and varying with time.
With accumulated experience, we at last trust the instinct more than any figure, moreover because the needs vary in proportions far greater than the nutritionist’s teaching. I don't recommend any percentage of carbs, proteins and fat, each individual needs being different and varying with time. With accumulated experience, we at last trust the instinct more than any figure, moreover because the needs vary in proportions far greater than the nutritionist’s teaching.
-
Phil, my position is clear : I don't recommend any percentage of carbs, proteins and fat, each individual needs being different and varying with time.
With accumulated experience, we at last trust the instinct more than any figure, moreover because the needs vary in proportions far greater than the nutritionist’s teaching.I don't recommend any percentage of carbs, proteins and fat, each individual needs being different and varying with time. With accumulated experience, we at last trust the instinct more than any figure, moreover because the needs vary in proportions far greater than the nutritionist’s teaching.
I'm almost 3 years into raw paleo diet and the more I'm seeing it in the instincto definition. When Yon and I met up, we found each other asking one another what seems to appeal to us at that time to eat. Sometimes it's fruit, sometimes meat. When Yon was sick green vegetable juice appealed to him.
I'm spoiled. My office is beside the big wet market.
-
Phil, my position is clear : I don't recommend any percentage of carbs, proteins and fat, each individual needs being different and varying with time.
OK, that's fine, and can you then explain why your posts are dominated by advocacy of tropical fruits without any note made of people who don't fare well on them? Are posts about cautions re: fruits for some, and about meats and fats and other foods to come soon?
-
OK, that's fine, and can you then explain why your posts are dominated by advocacy of tropical fruits with little note made of people who don't fare well on them? Are posts about cautions re: fruits for some, and about meats and fats and other foods to come soon?
A key point should be understood: those practicing an unbalanced or intoxicating diet can no longer bear fruits, especially the fruit best suited to the organism. The paradox stems from the fact that the better a food meets the needs of the body, the most reactions of detoxination it triggers. There is thus a constant misunderstanding in the reactions’ interpretation. Only long-term observation allows to distinguish between a direct nuisance and a useful reaction (eliminated toxins produce symptoms of intoxination when they are released into the blood).
-
So does that mean that if I eat a balanced, nonintoxicating diet, that I will be able to handle tropical fruits well at some point in the future? That would be good news indeed. What change in my body will enable this?
How long should the detoxination reactions last and what are the symptoms of detoxination?
-
OK, that's fine, and can you then explain why your posts are dominated by advocacy of tropical fruits without any note made of people who don't fare well on them? Are posts about cautions re: fruits for some, and about meats and fats and other foods to come soon?
It would be more interesting if you list down the actual fruits.
Each species has different qualities.
-
So does that mean that if I eat a balanced, nonintoxicating diet, that I will be able to handle tropical fruits well at some point in the future? That would be good news indeed. What change in my body will enable this?
How long should the detoxination reactions last and what are the symptoms of detoxination?
The inability to eat raw food that is normally edible for man is a sign of illness or imbalance of your system. If you cure yourself with instinctive raw eating this inability will vanish.
The duration of detoxination depends on your actual state of health and your skill to find raw food that enables your system to heal. It means to be open-minded and to offer a big range of food to your body so that your instinct (smell and taste) can select suitable food. If you select really by instinct and pay attention to the barrier there will be nearly no symptoms of detoxination. You only realize a steadily increase of vitality, physical and psychical.
Practically everyone who starts with instinctive raw eating made mistakes, sometimes because he is not willing to accept the instinctive barrier or select improper food (for example when toothfillings disturb the instinct) and other reasons. Various symptoms can arise, headaches, diarrhea, vomiting, inflammations, psychical symptoms and others. In this case it is important to wait till the symptoms vanish and not to suppress them either with products of the mainstream medicine nor so called natural therapies.
When you are really satisfied and calm after a meal (you will be in a sort of temporary heaven :) ), you can be sure that you have selected suitable food. If not, wait till the digestion is completed and try it agian. :)
-
Guy-Claude,
you suggest that I'm overloaded with sugar because I ate only twelve wild cherries. This thesis is very risky because you don't know anything about my state of health nor how long I'm eating instinctive raw. For me it seemed to be more likely that twelve wild cherries fulfilled all my needs from the species "cherry".
I myself can't answer the question how long I'm eating instinctive raw. Till now I'm not sure if the wish to eat instinctive raw is 100% reality or still wishful thinking. Till now I don't have gotten to know anybody who has executed this transition.
-
...When you are really satisfied and calm after a meal (you will be in a sort of temporary heaven :) ), ...
Yes, I can attest to that. That happens after I eat raw grassfed beef or liver plus grassfed suet.
-
What do you want to say with the fact that you have eaten a hundreds of wild cherries?
That´s an interesting fact for me (I have never eaten wild cherries); thanks Iguana.
-
As for affirmation that instincto “is typically a high carb diet ", on what base do you define a standard rate? You apply an assumption of normality whose value isn’t based, AFAIK, on any figures or serious arguments. I rather think that carbs, lipids and proteins ratios that the body signals drive to and are corroborated by very strict balance criteria (including the absence of inflammatory tendency), allow defining of this normality. And coincidentally, the numbers we get are very close to the recommendations given by nutritionists and food repartition of primates in nature. I’m more wonder about low carb diets: on what base the proponents of these schemes justify such practices
My reference point was the average proportion of carbs of the hunters' and gatherers' diets (= paleo diets). Different primates have different diets (Gorillas eat mainly leaves; Tarsiers are even obligate carnivores). AFAIK the species "hunters and gatherers" is more closely related to us than other primates.
On which figures or serious arguments are the recommendations of the nutritionists re carbs based on?
This happens with many wild stuff: rough and bitter as long as there is any nutritional overload, they completely change their taste and texture when the body really needs it.
Yes, but AFAIK all fruits that instinctos usually like are known as edible by cooked people too.
-
By the way, should I split this topic and open a thread about mercury ?
Yes! Please.
-
Here you are:
Dental fillings, mercury, composite resin, ceramic, etc. (http://www.rawpaleoforum.com/instinctoanopsology/re-instinctos-tropical-paradise/)
Francois
-
As for affirmation that instincto “is typically a high carb diet ", on what base do you define a standard rate? ... And coincidentally, the numbers we get are very close to the recommendations given by nutritionists and food repartition of primates in nature.
In another thread this interesting article is linked:
http://www.second-opinions.co.uk/should-all-animals-eat-a-high-fat-low-carb-diet.html
In 1997 the Journal of Nutrition published a study of the dietary intake of Western Lowland Gorillas, as the authors considered that the diet of one of our nearest 'cousins' could have implications for our (human) health.
(...) You will note in the picture on the right that there is a marked difference in shape between a human and a gorilla. But the gorilla's gut is not only much larger than a human's, it also has an entirely different design.
Human
Small intestine is major organ used to extract nutrients.
Small intestine ~ 50% of the total volume.
Caecum and colon ~ 20% volume
Gorilla
Ratios exactly the opposite
Small intestine ~ 25% volume
Caecum and colon ~ 53% volume.
This difference is highly significant. In a herbivore such as the gorilla, the caecum and colon harbour huge colonies of bacteria which ferment carbohydrates, particularly fibre, and use it to produce short chain fatty acids (SCFA) — principally acetic, proprionic and butyric acids. These are then absorbed into the body to be used as a source of energy. (...)
These SCFAs must be added to the fats already present in the gorilla's diet, which gives us the following proportions:
Overall energy
(kcal) per 100g %age
Protein 47.1 24.3%
Available carbs 30.6 15.8%
Fat 4.9 2.5%
SCFA from fibre 111.0 57.7%
This gives totals of:
protein = 24.3%
carbs = 15.8%
fats = 59.8%
Since the chimp´s fruits are fibrous and scarcely sweet and since, of course, chimps eat leaves etc., I would guess that they eat less sugar than instinctos usually eat. BTW, chimps spent 6 to 8 hours eating!
-
BTW, chimps spent 6 to 8 hours eating!
My source was http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Chimpanzee:
"Chimpanzees will typically spend six to eight hours a day eating."
-
Meanwhile I learned that there are (or were) indeed hunters and gatheres who eat (or ate) substantial amounts of fruit:
http://www.rawpaleodietforum.com/general-discussion/non-mutant-fruits-and-vegetables/msg60767/#msg60767 (http://www.rawpaleodietforum.com/general-discussion/non-mutant-fruits-and-vegetables/msg60767/#msg60767)
http://www.rawpaleodietforum.com/general-discussion/non-mutant-fruits-and-vegetables/msg60801/#msg60801 (http://www.rawpaleodietforum.com/general-discussion/non-mutant-fruits-and-vegetables/msg60801/#msg60801)
http://www.rawpaleodietforum.com/general-discussion/non-mutant-fruits-and-vegetables/msg61242/#msg61242 (http://www.rawpaleodietforum.com/general-discussion/non-mutant-fruits-and-vegetables/msg61242/#msg61242)
Table 4 in this article (http://www.epjournal.net/filestore/EP07601616.pdf (http://www.epjournal.net/filestore/EP07601616.pdf)) and figure 2 and figure 3 in this article (http://www.anthro.fsu.edu/people/faculty/marlowe_pubs/Tubers%20as%20Fallback%20Foods%20and%20Impact%20on%20Hadza%20AJPA.pdf (http://www.anthro.fsu.edu/people/faculty/marlowe_pubs/Tubers%20as%20Fallback%20Foods%20and%20Impact%20on%20Hadza%20AJPA.pdf)) are particularly interesting.
-
A few weeks ago I talked on the phone with one of the three “instincto” guys who went in exploration without taking any food supplies into the primary rain forest where the orangutans live. I’m not sure if it was in Sumatra or in Borneo, I should ask him again but he lives in Jakarta and he was only shortly in France.
Anyway… I asked him what they found to eat in this jungle. He said they ate almost only fruits, various species of unknown wild fruits and he said it was not a problem because their trip lasted only 10 days. The fruits were high in the trees, so they had to climb after having thrown a rope.
And last week a met the father of an instincto family who lived half a year in French Guyana. I also asked him what food they found in the Amazonian primary forest. He said there is about 150 different species of wild fruits, also all high in the trees.
-
Thus, I think I can register the difference between what the body is using to cleanse and substitute for intact or preferred molecules, and what is a sugar experiment in my body.
Thanks for your input and congrats for having stuck to raw food for so long, Van.
It’s fine if you can differentiate but for me, even after 26 years of 100% instinctive raw paleo, I’m never sure at all. For example 2 days ago I ate 1.6 kg of fresh scallops (of course in shells). I woke up in the middle of the night and had to go urgently to the WC, having some diarrhea. It occured only once and then it was completely over. What happened? Did I eat too many scallops, perhaps forcing a bit to eat all the ones I had bought? Or did it trigger the elimination of some old toxins which had remained in my body? I don’t know: at least I can tell it was not the scallops which came out…
About entirely replacing fruits with animal fat, I think it would be much more difficult in Europe than in USA. It seems you just have to order some grass fed beef or buffalo fat and bones with marrow. Here we very seldom have such opportunities, the wild animals we get generally have little fat and their bones are small. Moreover, outside of the hunting season, regularly finding clean meat is quite difficult. We often have to rely on New Zealand lamb. When I was in Switzerland, I could also buy Australian horse meat (supposedly only grass fed) in a specific supermarket, but it was very lean chunks. Meat is also very expensive in some countries.
And when we have enough fat, which is seldom, we can’t eat all of it before it gets rancid. I have a very clear stop with animal fat, I can’t eat too much at once and if I overtake a bit this stop, digestion is difficult.
Also, what astonishes me is that all this knowledge about what different foodstuffs contain is modern. Our pre-fire ancestors didn’t know about ketosis, carbs, fat, proteins. They certainly ate whatever they found which smelled and tasted appetizing without caring at all of being “low carb”.
When you travel, and I traveled 3 times all around the world while eating completely raw and unprocessed, you scarcely find suitable animal fat. You can eat fish and shellfish but are they “fat” food? I don’t even know, it must depend on the kind. The most easy to find and cheap raw paleo food is fruits, and fish if you are not far from the sea.
GCB has always emphasized the need to eat a minimum of modern highly selected fruits. Of course, we should avoid them as much as possible and prefer the most wild ones. AFAIK, people who have always eaten instinctively raw paleo ever since birth have no problem at all with fruits. You wrote that in Montramé people gorged on tropical fruits. That’s true, because we payed a fixed price for the meals and we could eat unlimited amounts of whatever we wanted. So, when there for a few days, people tended to choose the most expensive stuff, the food they liked but could not often afford at home.
More to say, but my post is already too long…
Cheers
François
-
The 4 following posts have been moved here from there:
http://www.rawpaleodietforum.com/journals/life-with-a-doctor/msg114042/#msg114042 (http://www.rawpaleodietforum.com/journals/life-with-a-doctor/msg114042/#msg114042)
Iguana
the debate continues,, of course they didn't have to think or worry about carbs, for there weren't many to consume, and if so, only a few months a year. Of course you could point specifically to the jungles, or you could look at most of europe and north america as your examples. They may not have known about the word carb, But I doubt very much that when paleo man came across a bee hive and there was more than ample honey to go around (or a hunting party simply didn't bother to bring the hive or honey back to 'camp' to share), that they didn't notice the effect on ingesting huge amounts of sugar (who's to say they would have respected their bodies stop). Most other fruits, aside from the jungle had very little sugar as compared to the fruits as selectively cultivated today for high sweetness content. For instance I can eat large amounts of wild berries and get a small insulin rise as compared to eating similar quantities of any fruit organically grown found in any store. And again, those wild berries are only around for a month or two, not year around imported from different geographic locations around the globe making them available year around. When you enjoy your figs, or persimmons, or Durian, or mangos, or watermelons, or apples, oranges, grapes, strawberries, bananas, cherries, peaches, plums,,,,, ask yourself how many of them would be hanging around in the wild hadn't someone cultivated them, hyberdized them to their extreme sugary sweetness, and protected them against birds if it weren't for somebody ahead of you.
Dr. D reports that his experiments with low carb are bringing him results he appreciates. Why criticize or subject him with doubt? My understanding is that you have not experimented with low carb or zero carb. And if so, for how long, and how skillful were your attempts carried out. I believe your previous comments as to eating low carb were dismissal of even the idea? Most failures with living low carb have Mostly to do with one's body not having the time to learn how to switch from burning sugar to fat as fuel. For some the process takes months. Few are ready or able to go that distance. And of course some believe it's silly to do in the first place, hence their beliefs prevent any real experience from happening. (not to mention the possible sugar addictions)
-
Van, I spoke of "zero carb" (I understood that's what our friend is currently doing) while you speak of "low carb". "Low" can mean anything: I may be on "low carb" sometimes. I'm now fed up of sweet fruits and would like to find some fatty meat, but I haven't found any suitable meat here yet.
Of course you could point specifically to the jungles, or you could look at most of europe and north america as your examples.
Our far ancestors came from the jungle whereas some settled in Europe recently, after they controlled the fire — and to America even much latter. GS already emphasized that the Spaniards reported that when they discovered the Philippines, fruits were “extremely abundant” — as well as other foods.
My understanding is that you have not experimented with low carb or zero carb.
Exactly, I haven’t because I see no reason to launch myself into a risky adventure which 1.) is without any sound logical theoretical basis, 2.) is impossible to be done properly in Europe and even more so when traveling around the planet, 3.) has been in the long run a failure for all the ones I know who tried it — our former posters “Carnivore” and “Löwenherz”, not to mention the severe health problems of Lex Rooker.
Mostly to do with one's body not having the time to learn how to switch from burning sugar to fat as fuel. For some the process takes months.
The ones I cited just above did it for years. BTW, have you read my posts below in answer to your previous? You haven’t answered.
A few weeks ago I talked on the phone with one of the three “instincto” guys who went in exploration without taking any food supplies into the primary rain forest where the orangutans live. I’m not sure if it was in Sumatra or in Borneo, I should ask him again but he lives in Jakarta and he was only shortly in France.
Anyway… I asked him what they found to eat in this jungle. He said they ate almost only fruits, various species of unknown wild fruits and he said it was not a problem because their trip lasted only 10 days. The fruits were high in the trees, so they had to climb after having thrown a rope.
And last week a met the father of an instincto family who lived half a year in French Guyana. I also asked him what food they found in the Amazonian primary forest. He said there is about 150 different species of wild fruits, also all high in the trees.
…
When you travel, and I traveled 3 times all around the world while eating completely raw and unprocessed, you scarcely find suitable animal fat. You can eat fish and shellfish but are they “fat” food? I don’t even know, it must depend on the kind. The most easy to find and cheap raw paleo food is fruits, and fish if you are not far from the sea.
GCB has always emphasized the need to eat a minimum of modern highly selected fruits. Of course, we should avoid them as much as possible and prefer the most wild ones. AFAIK, people who have always eaten instinctively raw paleo ever since birth have no problem at all with fruits. You wrote that in Montramé people gorged on tropical fruits. That’s true, because we payed a fixed price for the meals and we could eat unlimited amounts of whatever we wanted. So, when there for a few days, people tended to choose the most expensive stuff, the food they liked but could not often afford at home.
If you want to continue to argue on that matter, it can be done on the specific thread from where those above quotes are extracted. Not sure if I'll go on, though.
Cheers
François
-
I did forget to mention I remembered you saying how difficult it is for you to find animal fat. I understand that, but here it's not. As far as your friends living in the 'jungle',, that's fine. I survived quite well for years eating high sugar content fruits. The toll to one's body with constant insulin spikes etc. doesn't happen over night or even over a few years,, just look at Durianrider, when he's not being a jerk on his tube insults and actually presenting himself as a guest, he's actually quite bright. But his health will fail as with all who have tried extreme high fruit diets. I'm not saying you're or GC is advocating eating just fruits. Just that your friends testimony about having to climb high trees to get at.... is also just a short experiment and most anecdotal. I don't know why you would want to discount or dismiss centuries or generations of very healthy peoples living here in north america who did catch and eat anything that moved as their primary staple (very low carb content due to seasonal fruits) and thrived. In europe before it was hunted to almost extinction, before the agrarian boom, what do you think they (probably your ancestors) ate? You can dig deeper, if you care to, and find all sorts of peoples who do quite well using fat as fuel. But if you choose to be selective and site lex and lowen..
as your primary examples, then it will be hard to come to some sort of common discussion ground.
I am not trying to convince or persuade you to change your diet. That would be counterproductive.
All I am asking is that without first hand experience, please don't use suggestive language to discourage Dr. D and anyone else who at least is appreciating results from his first hand experience in choosing to use fat as fuel as opposed to sugar.
-
is also just a short experiment and most anecdotal.
It shows that there are plenty fruits in jungles where apes are still there spreading the seeds of fruits trees.
I don't know why you would want to discount or dismiss centuries or generations of very healthy peoples living here in north america who did catch and eat anything that moved as their primary staple (very low carb content due to seasonal fruits) and thrived. In europe before it was hunted to almost extinction, before the agrarian boom, what do you think they (probably your ancestors) ate?
1.) All these populations routinely cooked their food, therefore we cannot compare their case to ours. They were not free of diseases: for example a study published about 20 years ago in a French medical magazine established that 6 previously unknown diseases appeared simultaneously to the first uses of fire for cooking food.
2.) Amerindians were decimated by infectious diseases brought by Europeans, as already pointed out by Tyler.
3.) Obviously, they didn’t have a “zero carb” or “low carb” ideology.
You can dig deeper, if you care to, and find all sorts of peoples who do quite well using fat as fuel. But if you choose to be selective and site lex and lowen..
I’m not selective at all: Löwenherz and Carnivore are the only persons I know who have tried “zero carb” in Europe. Both dramatically failed following promising initial results. On the contrary, I know very well, in person, face-to-face, several people who are fine after several decades of “instincto”, some ever since birth.
I am not trying to convince or persuade you to change your diet. That would be counterproductive.
All I am asking is that without first hand experience, please don't use suggestive language to discourage Dr. D and anyone else who at least is appreciating results from his first hand experience in choosing to use fat as fuel as opposed to sugar.
I don’t want to discourage anyone, I just warn once again that short term and long term effects can be very different. This doesn’t mean that it can never be favorable to shift from a mostly cooked standard diet to a raw “zero carb” one. It can even be temporarily a great thing health-wise. But it shouldn’t be taken as an ideology which would always beneficial, in every case and for ever. We change and our nutritional needs constantly shift.
-
I think the only thing we may have different view points on is whether or not one should primarily uses fat or sugar for fuel. I think we do agree on the notion of variety in food stuffs to satisfy what our body needs. I remember reading old accounts of the foods the Indians who lived somewhere near the gulf of mexico or texas used. The list went on for a mile,, every insect, lizard, snake, dear, wild edible plant,,, you name it, if it moved, it was on the list. And they ate the entire living thing. So yes, variety is king. we also agree on mixing foods, respecting the natural stop, not freezing food stuff, or heating, or blending... It's too bad GC didn't experiment with using fat as fuel. And again, it takes months for some, year or more for others. But almost all claim that it only gets easier with each day, and the energy does come. And then I wonder,, Orkos might not have had a chance without all the importing of fruits. But then maybe it would have if they imported fatty products from all over the world. Who knows.
Also I don't think you should discount Lex's attempts. For remember we do both agree on the notion that he shouldn't be freezing and mixing all his food, nor is his variety optimal. And as for Lowenherz, who knows what he really doing? Cheers
-
I think the only thing we may have different view points on is whether or not one should primarily uses fat or sugar for fuel.
So we don’t disagree at all ;) because there’s nothing neither in my mind nor in the instincto theory specifying what should be our primary fuel: it depends on personal momentary needs and food current availability. :)
-
Ok, if you want to go there,, then,, I don't necessarily agree that Nature had intended for us to live as long and as 'healthily' as possible. That Nature's primary intention was to keep up healthy enough to procreate and pass along survival skills. Or, in other words, keeping blood sugars low and thus insulin and leptin resistance at low levels prolongs life; something that nature didn't care about. Insulin and leptin resistance and their associated relationship to the hormonal body doesn't happen overnight, but is a gradual onset that we pay for as we age. That onset is difficult to notice day by day. As I have written before, either one is interested in this newer body of emerging science, or one isn't and will stick their noses up to the idea. I happen to believe life is not all black and white, that one can marry science with nature and come out ahead. And again, I doubt your and my pre-agrarian ancestors came immediately out of the jungle eating large amounts of fruit. I tend to agree that there was a substantial amount of time that we adapted to living by using the fat off the land, the fat from animals as fuel, primarily because that was what was available. And if there were Wild Seasonal fruits, so be it. All the better. But that seasonal fruit binge would have very little effect on ones overall hormonal health. It's what we do in the long run that counts. Diabetics don't become diabetics over night.
So I think we each understand each other's ideas, at least to the level we are willing to understand for any reasons. Why don't we drop it, and see what else we can learn here. And, I would like to sincerely add that I would someday hope to meet up with you and soak up your developed sense of instinctualness. Truly. Van
-
So is there any more info about people trying to eat wild edibles from the African Rainforest and other locations from his or her past?? I will always be wondering about how many different adaptations and various needs we have from different locations in our evolutionary past. How do I truly know that there are not various forms of vegetation in the African Rain forest that my body would truly benefit from.... Being a Caucasian person of European descent (Finnish, German, Welsch, French Canadian... Im a mutt!) I could need various wild European Edibles .. Or maybe I would benefit even greater from eating foods from a place even further back in my/our evolutionary history (Africa most likely).... maybe I would benefit from combining all of it together.... But Im living in North America and we can only be in one place at one time. I wonder how GCB and other long term instinctive eaters would respond to random vegetation, seeds, nuts and fruit that most have no access to and if there are already instinctive eaters who have tried doing this. I need to live with bonobos for a week !
Think of being able to find the true most beneficial foods for you from around the world and growing them in a chemical free organic garden with clean soil and clean water. That is my dream
-
@AnopsStudier: I was looking something up in the Jaminets' book The Perfect Human Diet, and it suddenly struck me that your question leading back to a rainforest-based early human diet does not coincide with what I have read about early paleolithic man's environment. The savanna, not the rainforest, is considered the home of our species. The foods found there are animals and starchy tubers, etc.
With your question in mind, I looked for quotes that might explain the conclusions that the Jaminets used in their book, but then I realized that it would probably be very valuable to you to read the whole book. The Jaminets really get into well-supported details about why one species can get all it's nutrients from fibrous plant foods, another species can get all it's nutrients from meats alone, and how mankind differs in food digestion from the other models.
I think you'll appreciate this book.
-
Thanks EveHeart! I really do appreciate it! I am going to check my local library tomorrow
-
I have similar questions but Im gonna ask them in a new thread!